[ppaul]

Decade of greed? Well, the '90's deserves that. That's when so many made millions of paper profits in the dot.coms and gas-guzzling SUVs were the rage.

Remember, it was the Reagan policies, highlighted by his speech in Berlin, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" that brought down the Berlin Wall and communism, bringing the fresh air of freedom to millions who were oppressed behind the Iron Curtain for most of the 20th Century.

How's that for starters?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I'd ask her why she feels the need for politicizing an English Comp class. Oh, because she's a leftist...

[dead]

Try these two excellent threads:

Reagan Changed the World

"Courage" - Margaret Thatcher's thoughts on Ronald Reagan

They have all the info you need.

[caddie]

To fight the 'decade of greed' crap is easy -- the Clinton 1990s were years of even greater wealth, excess, licentiousness, than anything that happened in the 1980s.

Anything that they accuse Reagan of (vis a vis allowing Americans to become wealthy) Clinton's watch was WORSE. People were even 'greedier' and wealthier.

'Reaganomics' was vindicated. Tax cuts led to REAL investment in start-ups that led to some of the most phenomenally fast-growing and innovative companies in the past century: e.g., Cisco Systems, Office Depot, etc.,

Buy an Investors Business Daily for more data and arguments in this vein.

Plus, charitable giving increased massively during the 'Decade of Greed'.

[Non-Sequitur]

I advise you to sit back, shut up, and crank out whatever crap will make her happy and get you a decent grade. It's an English Comp course, for crying out loud, and not worth the effort. You take those because you have to take them - unless you're an English major - and then you forget about them.

I had a Management class in college many years ago taught by a professor who started every class with a harangue on whatever pissed him off that particular day. One such diatribe ended with him pointing out that he was of an age where he could retire and with social security and his university pension, and without the various withholdings associated with them, he could make more take-home by retiring than he was by teaching. Therefore, he proudly stated, he was teaching for free. I muttered to the girl sitting next to me, "Well, you get what you pay for" and unfortunately he overheard me. Cost me an A in the class and dinged my GPA for the quarter. So, just sit back, bite your lip, and let her howl.

[virtualreb]

Actually Decade of Greed is a good book and resource. Truth is hard to stomach but it will make you stronger. As one who is 1 decade older then you and who lived through the 80's (went to college, and grad school got married etc.) I can assure you that your teacher is probably right and you are probably wrong if you are repeating the words of those who have tried to repaint the 80's with rose colors. The greed is good, anything for a buck mentality of that time that put us in bed with the Shahs, Noriegas, Husseins and bin Ladens of the world. I don't blame Reagan because this mentality came from the people to the gov't and not the other way around).

[ResistorSister]

These types are always ready for an argument...they live for it...

So, instead...ask her personal questions.
Ask your her:
1. How did the "Decade of Greed" negatively impact your life?
Follow Up questions:
2. What did you do to turn that negativity into a positive - for yourself and your community?
(you know, if she is going to complain about a whole entire decade, at least tell me that you did something to make a positive change in the decade.)
3. Would your life and the life of those around you have been better - if not for the "Decade of Greed"? If so, how?

[comitatus]

Major points re leftist myths: (1) the Reagan tax cuts did not benefit only the rich-they had precisely the effect they were suppposed to, and top bracket taxpayer's paid MORE taxes, both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of the total. (2) Reagan tax cuts did not cause huge deficits-tax revenue increased faster than inflation (3) the "massive" defense build-up did not cause deficits, non-defense spending rose far faster (4) and, as a result social programs were NOT gutted, in fact all the components of the so called safety-net increased in constant dollars thru-out the 8 years. If non-defense spending had stayed at the rate of inflation, deficits would have fallen much faster. Then there is the little matter of winning the cold war. The whole left view of the Reagan years is dead wrong on every point.

[scalia_#1]

Go the library and check out "The Seven Fat Years" by Robert Bartley. He gives a thorough analysis of the economy in the 1980s, including increases in the middle-class income (in real dollars) and increases in charitable giving. Lots of graphs, too, which are good for quick-referencing.

[Southack]

In the 80's, all of the Leftist journalists were writing and saying that the Japanese would overtake America's economy. They said that the Japanese would be responsible for most of the new technological developments in the world, too.

It's safe to say that your English professor won't want her favorite liberal writers quoted on their pro-Japanese writings from back in the 1980's.

For instance, the Japanese didn't develop the Internet, e-mail, browsers, operating systems, CPU chips, et al, and they certainly didn't overtake our economy.

Perhaps we were doing a few things right under Reagan, after all!

But if you REALLY want to torque her, start quoting Tipper Gore's comments on banning rock lyrics during the 80's. Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., and even Al Haig didn't go that far!

[100%FEDUP]

All this politically correct BS can be traced back to George Lukacs, a socialist philosopher with huge fascist leanings who helped Marx in the social engineering of Eastern Europe. I believe the name of one of his book was "The Process of Democritization."

[Moleman]

Politics aside the 80's were cool.
Music was cool, clothing styles cool (well except for those parachute pants I wore) and most importantly Liberalism was on the fringe.
Liberalism and PC is now the mainstream group think. Any objections or counterpoints to this group think and you are considered a bigot or worse.
Certainly, like another poster put it the 90's were the decade of greed more than any other. And what is wrong with making money?
I enjoyed quadrupling my families standard of living in the 90's.
One problem that did haunt the 80's was too much zeal of the fringe religious right. Now I am not looking to be flamed but think back...
Did Ozzy really cause kids to kill themselves?

-Moleman

[bleudevil]

This teacher is obviously trying to politicize the writing curriculum. Boo.

P.J. O'Rourke's "Parliment of Whores" is a good example of writing on social policy and economics. He is good at explaining complicated subjects in a clear, humorous way and is sure to tick off your teacher. :->

[patriciaruth]

Smartest thing you can do is drop the class and encourage others to drop it so the "Professor" doesn't get full classes on his record. And tell him after the paperwork is done that he is a commie traitor and you don't want your grade point sabotaged by his vitriolic bias.
Scum like this ruined by GPA in my first year of college to the point where I had to totally abandoned my major. Luckily I found an alternative that I loved.

[Bommer]

Ask your teacher that if greed is sooo bad, why doesn't she insist on a pay cut with the cut to be given to the poor.

As far as the 80's vs the 90's in comparison. if 80's are greed, then the 90's is the decade of Greed and corruption. Bill Clinton was bought and sold by money.

Give them all a test to see which decade was worse, just Greed or Greed and Corruption: Give them a choice between Reagan and Clinton.

What President sold the Lincoln bedroom for campain contributions?
What President spent more days fundraising then actually in the White house?
What President pardoned American Traitor Marc Rich for money before he left office?
What President was involved in fundraising scandals?
What President took illegal campain money from the Communist Chinese?
What Vice-President illegally accepted money from Buddist monks who swore an oath to poverty?
What Vice President headed up Airline safety, rejected a $4 increase tax for anti-terrorist measures and was rewarded with DNC contributions for his Presidential bid from TWA, United and American Airlines in 1998?
Which President murdered 4 people in a bogus cruise missle attack in order from keeping his girlfriends testimony off the front page?
What Administration is considered the most corrupt in American History? (if they say Reagan, demand list of all of his scandels vs. Clinton.
Which Law Professor President was impeached for lying under oath and later fined $80 grand and disbarred from practicing law?
If Iran-Contra was soooo terrible, why wasn't Reagen Impeached for it like Bill Clinton?

Then go for the throat

If Greed is soooooo bad, why are you all going to collage in order to get a degree to get a higher paying job? Why not all be noble and work for minimum wage for McDonalds? After all, more money just means more greed does it not?

REMEMBER: Thoses that can do! Those who can't Teach!

[upchuck]

IMHO, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You'll probably be encountering this leftist crap for the rest of the time you're in this school.

I have gotten advice to just take it and get out of there and be done with it, but I just can't do it. This needs to be combatted.

Well, if you enjoy banging your head against the wall, carry on. Understand, your professor, rightly or wrongly, considers you to be inferior to her. Nothing's going to change her mind on this point. And, following the logic, nothing you say is going to change her leftist views.

Ever heard of Hillsdale College?

[Alberta's Child]

I would strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty and take a couple of days to read it from cover to cover. When you are done, wait a week and read it from cover to cover a second time. Anything you need to know about the fundamentals of supply-side economics will be etched in your memory at this point.

I would also suggest you do some research on the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gassett, particularly his works from the 1930s regarding the people he called the "modern barbarians." His outlook is basically as follows (I paraphrase, making changes to apply it in a modern context):

The modern barbarian is a person who looks just like anyone else -- he gets up and goes to work every day, lives an affluent suburban life, and drives a nice car or two. He is a dangerous man in spite of his professional skills, though, because he is thoroughly ignorant about the complexities of economics, supply chains, and the effort it takes to deliver a finished product to him. He is dangerous because his ignorance leads him to believe that evrything he sees on the supermarket shelf is a part of nature instead of the result of a productive process. He is dangerous because his response to a bread shortage is to burn the bakery down.

One word of warning, though -- as you go through life you are going to be amazed (and disappointed) at just how few "intelligent" people can even comprehend these things and discuss them rationally. My guess is that your current class is geared toward a 12 year-old mind.

[TexanToTheCore]

I too abandoned a major (History) because of the Marxist crap being taught. I have always regreted having to do so, but I wouldn't have lasted a year, then (1960s) or now. May I suggest a double major in History and Economics? This is the viewpoint of the future and you might find some fellow travelers in the Economics department. The thought just occurred to me that if I went back for a double masters as above, I would have about 3 or so years to torment those wacky Marxists in the history department. You might look at Hudson.org, a libertarian foundation. Hell, give Allen Sanders a call at the above foundation and he can point you in the right direction. There is a substantial amount of data available (due to the PC revolution). Another good source is the IMF, look for the gdp growth rates and related information. Good hunting.

[That Poppins Woman]

From -- http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/pages/sciam.html -- a Scientific American article, by Hal. R. Varian - the Dean of the School of Information Management and Systems at the University of California at Berkeley, also a Professor in the Haas School of Business, a Professor in the Department of Economics, and he holds the Class of 1944 Professorship.

During the 1980s, 28,000 for-profit information libraries sprang up in the U.S. alone. Every week more than 50 million people visit these facilities, where they can rent 100 gigabytes of information for only two or three dollars a day.

Although these video rental stores faced many of the same problems of standards, intellectual-property protection, and pricing that the Internet faces today, the industry grew from nothing to $10 billion a year in only a decade.

Ask the bozo what their annual video store rental fees were for any of the years of the 1980s. If the bozo rented any videos, they contributed to the "decade of excess" or whatever they are calling the '80s.

From http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_40/b3649004.htm -- The Internet Economy: the World's Next Growth Engine -- "... Japanese cars took a large share of the U.S. market in the early 1980s..." Did the bozo know anyone working the auto industry -- they didn't have it so good in the beginning of the 1980s. Who made the bozo's car? Betcha its foreign-made.

From http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/2000/spwek019.html --

In the 1980s, government broke up AT&T and opened up competition in long distance services. Investment flowed into long distance, laying the foundation for the Internet backbone.

And when technologists began to use the telephone network for "enhanced services" in the 1980s, we declined to regulate those services, paving the way for the unregulated Internet. Like our equipment decisions in the 1970s, we said that old laws should not automatically be applied to new technologies.

Ask the bozo if they use any other phone service provider other than MaBell, and if they use the Internet, and if they use any Microsoft products. If the answer is yes to any of these questions, the bozo helped contribute to the "decade of excess".

Tell the bozo that they are obviously part of the problem, being as they contributed so much to the "decade of excess". And maybe they should make a reservation on Mr. Peabody's WayBack Machine, and stop themselves from renting "Reds" every weekend in the 1980s.

[patriciaruth]

8/15/00 (After Clinton's self-serving speech at the DNC convention)

Not the Clinton-Gore Economy
Now we remember why we call him Slick Willie.

By Stephen Moore, NR contributing editor

After listening to Bill Clinton's speech last night I was reminded of a famous quip by Mark Twain: first get your facts straight, then you can distort them all you like. Now we remember why they call him Slick Willie.

Last night Bill Clinton took credit for a long wave of economic prosperity that began ten years before he was elected and for a balanced budget that he fought tooth and nail to prevent after Republicans took Congress. To borrow a phrase from Joe Lieberman: that's chutzpah. Well here are the undistorted facts:

1) The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that we are now in the 18th year of one long wave of prosperity. It began in 1982 with the supply-side policies of Reagan - tax-rate cuts, sound money, deregulation, free trade, and victory in the cold war. Michael Cox of the Dallas Federal Reserve Board has found that over the past 200 months, since the Reagan prosperity began, the economy has been in recession just eight months, or just four percent of the time.

2) The bullish stock market began in 1982, not in 1992. Then, the Dow Jones was at 800. Today it is at 11,000.

3) It is also instructive to examine the stock market during the Clinton presidency. From 1993-95 the Dow rose from 3,200 to 3,800. But from 1995 to 2000 the Dow rose from 3,8000 to 11,000. About 90 percent of the gain in asset values happened after the Republicans took control of Congress and the markets were assured that Clintonomics would be curtailed.

4) Interest rates and inflation began their long-term tumble in the early 1980s. In 1980 mortgage interest rates hit 20 percent and the inflation rate hit eleven percent. Since the early 1980s inflation has fallen by roughly a half a percent per year. There were three people responsible for the lowering of inflation and interest rates: Reagan, Paul Volker, and Alan Greenspan.

5) Clinton boasts that his world record tax increase in 1993 caused interest rates to fall. Actually, from 1993 through November of 1994 (when Republicans won control of Congress), interest rates rose by 50 basis points.

6) When Bill Clinton entered office the economy was growing at a four percent rate (4th quarter of 1992). After Clinton's tax hike, the economy stalled to a 2.6 percent rate.

7) After two years of Clintonomics, the budget deficit was still well over $200 billion. In early 1995 the budget deficit was projected by the Congressional Budget Office to remain over $200 billion for as far as the eye could see. So much for the idea that Clinton's $500 billion tax hike balanced the budget. What changed this gloomy outlook on the budget? The GOP balanced budget plan in 1995. Who can forget 1995? In that year Bill Clinton closed down the government twice to avoid the Republican's balanced budget and the White House was forced to submit five budgets until he finally proposed one without a deficit.

To be sure, Bill Clinton does deserve some of the credit for this astonishingly resilient expansion. Where his policies have been most productive - for example, in promoting free-trade agreements, signing the Republican welfare reforms, cutting the capital-gains tax, and allowing Alan Greenspan to smother the last remnants of inflation in the financial system - he has sensibly followed the economically liberating path laid out by Reagan.

It's the Reagan economy, stupid. And the American voters know it.