VA Tech editotial

[AlecBGreen]

This was in our college paper, the Collegiate Times: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=2065

Heres a little tidbit: "I’ll be the first to admit our economy is sub-par at the moment. As President Bush inherited the economic miscues of the latter part of the Clinton administration, Bush’s economic policies will also need time to take effect. So far, the best — and only — idea has been the President’s tax cuts. The trickle-down theory is the most efficient way for money to be circulated: the best fix for any bear economy."

I cant let this go unopposed so im writing a response. Any ideas? I was thinking of mentioning George's "we will restore honor and dignity" in the first paragraph. That oughtta shut em up!

-alec

[eileen_d]

1. These graphs are a good starting point

http://www.buzzflash.com/areyoubetteroff/

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. I would suggest that the young editorial swain...

Refrain from writing about such subjects until his testicles fully descend and his brain completely finishes its transformation from the usual childhod snot generator, into something one uses for cerebration.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. You can edit the titles of your posts

Hit edit in the lower right hand section of your post.

[AP]

4. I heard a Clinton official say...

...that the economy is CONSTANTLY in a precarious position and you have to work every day to keep it from sinking. Clinton worked every day to keep things going. Bush doens't work every day to keep things from sinking.

I'd also site the articles that say that the richest Americans got 10% wealthier this year, and that the poor are getting poorer.

I'd say that Republicans are serving this demographic and this demographic, the wealthiest, don't care about increasing absolute wealth (it's so astronomical now, what could another 1 million possibly buy tha the 60 trillion they already have couldn't buy?). What they need is political power to ensure that they can preserve their wealth, and therefore their political power. So what they need is greater DISPARITY in income, which is what Bush is giving them. When the middle and working class is going into debt, and all the product of their labour is moving up the wealth scale, the already wealthy don't ever have to worry about falling into the middle class.

And that's why Bush isn't working hard to create an economy which spreads wealth among the lower quintiles -- and he's been very successful in that respect.

[Terwilliger]

5. I'd say, as a college man/woman themselves, they should STOP

listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Liddy

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Brucey]

6. Be sure to read Paul Krugman, economist from Princeton.

Particularly the last New York Times piece. All about trickle down.

[Boom_cha]

7. this statment is truly imbecilic

The trickle-down theory is the most efficient way for money to be circulated: the best fix for any bear economy.

The writer is obviously a shameless apologist or utterly clueless about economics. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of economics knows the most efficient way to stimulate the economy through tax cuts is to put the money into the hands of the taxpayers with the highest marginal propensity to consume (i.e., those that spend all or nearly all of each additional dollar of disposable income they receive). This means low- and middle-income taxpayers. Upper-income taxpayers, by contrast, have a low marginal propensity to consume. That is, they spend only a relatively small fraction of each incremental dollar in income. It is preposterous to say that it is more efficient to give tax cuts to the rich and wait for it to trickle down rather than giving them directly to taxpayers that will promptly spend 90-100% of the incremental income.

[AlecBGreen]

8. i need some help

i cant find enough info on how Bush has "left no child behind." Im seem to remember $300 billion in underfunding, but that may be my imagination. ANybody have any good stats/websites i should look at?

[AlecBGreen]

9. heres what i have so far

Keep in mind this is directed at a college audience (a conservative one at that). PLEASE, i need suggestions. I want this to be a good as possible, but im stuck. Where should I go with this? I

I have read a ton of editorials during my college years. Some wrote about underage drinking, some dealt with sexual assault, and a few were about politics. Some were good and some were bad. And some were really bad, as in “wow-can-this-really-be-coming-from-a-college-student?” kind of bad. That’s the reaction I had when I read Jim Kennedy’s editorial, “To defeat Bush, Democrats need something new in 2004.” In case you missed this little gem, allow me to summarize. It accused the Democratic presidential candidates of being finger-pointing mudslingers with zero substance to their speeches. All they do is “take cheap shots at President Bush’s policies and character.” Furthermore, “Not only are these attacks groundless, they are childish as well.” I think I see where Jim is going with this, so if I may, please allow me to take some cheap shots of my own. Please keep in mind that these are completely groundless.

America has lost 3.3 million jobs since Bush took office. Over 40 million Americans have no health insurance. We have a budget deficit of $475 billion dollars. This does not count the nearly $4 billion per month the Dept. of Defense spends on Iraq or the $100 billion needed to reconstruct their country. He has increased our dependence on foreign oil while slashing programs designed to raise fuel efficiency. He has called for drilling in national parks, increased logging on federal lands (it prevents forest fires!), and rejected the Kyoto Treaty. He wants to develop new nuclear weapons to use in the war on terror.

Speaking of terrorism, does this sound familiar? "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George Bush 9/13/01. "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."- George Bush, 3/13/02. What a difference a year makes, eh George?

I could write a whole book on Georges failures, and indeed there been several NY Times bestsellers which did just that. My point however is not to kick the man when he’s down, but to show that an alternative is possible. Jim says in his article that the democrats have not raised enough solutions, only problems. While I disagree, let me offer some on one’s behalf. His name is Dennis Kucinich and he’s running for President.

Dennis has been an unwavering voice for working families since day one. Born and raised in Cleveland, he lived in over twenty places (including a few cars) before he was 18. He graduated college, was elected to the Cleveland City Council at age 23 and became mayor at 31, the youngest person to ever lead a major city. He has a proven record of standing up for what he believes. When he refused to sell the city’s electric system to Cleveland’s banks, they defaulted on the loans and plunged the city into debt. Kucinich was booted out of office for taking his stand. He was vindicated twenty years later when it was shown he saved the city $195 million by not selling. He was quickly re-elected. Today he is Co-chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives.