Ayn Rand is right. There is no higher state than

[bripat9643]

Now American citizens are "tics".

Yes, many of them are. To be polite, we call these people "Democrats."

You do know a good deal of homeless were veterans of one war or another, right?

"Tics".

Being a veteran doesn't entitle you to a free ride for the rest of your life.

 

[Truthmatters]

You're enunciating the ethics of a criminal gang.

Of course, that's all the Democrat party is.

Do you understand how democracy works?

Yes I do. Think of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

So you hate our form of government?

 

[Full-Auto]

I see that Jillian negged me without her even debating me.

Libs love to hide behind smoke screens. Libs just love to neg and run.

she is a whiny bitch.

Often doing so without debate of any kind.

 

[The T]

Now American citizens are "tics".

Yes, many of them are. To be polite, we call these people "Democrats."

You do know a good deal of homeless were veterans of one war or another, right?

"Tics".

Being a veteran doesn't entitle you to a free ride for the rest of your life.

Neither does serving the Government in any capacity.

 

[washamericom]

Ayn Rand was so right she ended up on SS

i find that to be delightfully ironic, sort of a last laugh, in your face type of thing... LOL

hope and change...

 

[grunt11b]

People who call themselves conservatives today are not looking for common sense or common decency solutions for this nation. Solutions that would benefit their families and their community. They are ideologues who want to dismantle any shred of COMMunity and replace it with SELF interest?

That is not 'conservatism', that is narcissism.


A TRUE liberal...

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

President John F. Kennedy
Remarks at Amherst College
October 26, 1963

But that's just it, if JFK where on the Democrat ballot today he would not be electable. The Democrat party has shifted so far left these days Kennedy would be too conservative to be electable today.
Ask yourself this, would you vote JFK today? I know I would.

That is a complete fallacy. The 'center' has been pulled to the right by 40 years of a conservative era. The Democratic Party has shifted to the right. The Republican is SO FAR right that they can only nominate a candidate who appeals to the far right base, the Teapublicans.

Jack Kennedy was a liberal. If you believe different, I offer up his brother Ted. Ted worshiped Jack and Bobby; he dedicated his public life to carry on THEIR agendas. If Jack and Bobby were 'conservative', then so was Ted...

I was alive when JFK was President. One of my Senators in Washington was Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican...

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

John F. Kennedy Library

Would you elect this man today? I dont think you would. He is talking tax cuts while your party wants tax increases right now. JFK, like Reagan, understood how to boost the economy, Obama doesn't. The real fallacy here is that you honestly think he could be elected as a Democrat today.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]



Could John Kennedy be Elected President Today? No Way! | Illinois Conservative Examiner

 

[OODA_Loop]

So you hate our form of government?

I hate forms of govenrment without individual freedom as its purpose.

 

[grunt11b]

That does not mean we have to settle for one here.

That's because conservatives know who creates jobs in this country, and it's not the welfare recipients.

Sounds like Obama yes?

The Democrat party makes it harder and herder each year to do so. Democrats only know how to confiscate wealth, you dont see many of them going out and creating jobs now do you?

Read the fucking Constitution once in a while..

And no government is the only government that isn't collectivism.

I ain't a fan of Anarchy..chief.

No matter how much you want it here..I will fight against that.

The only countries I see falling into anarchy are the ones that are led by those with left leaning ideologies.

 

[washamericom]

Do you understand how democracy works?

Yes I do. Think of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

So you hate our form of government?

i hate the form it's in now, but the corrupt obama can be easily exchanged. nice try, but "our form of government" is what will deliver us home.

 

[grunt11b]

You're enunciating the ethics of a criminal gang.

Of course, that's all the Democrat party is.

Do you understand how democracy works?

Yes I do. Think of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Exactly.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you understand how democracy works?

Yes I do. Think of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

So you hate our form of government?

There's nothing about Democracy to admire.

A lynch mob is the purest essence of Democracy. What's admirable about that?

 

[washamericom]

No, it’s extreme to presume that the above can occur in a vacuum. Indeed, no man is an island – all success is predicated on the contributions of others, such as the public education one receives to become a successful individual. Or the clean water, roads, and other components of public infrastructure that contribute to one’s success, to contribute back to the things which facilitated one’s success is appropriate in the context of the social contract.

Your parents payed the taxes that paid for public schools, roads and other "public infrastructure." Furthermore, the actual cost of these items is a small fraction of what we pay in taxes. We all know the bulk of taxes go to tics sucking on the government tit. Building a few roads does not entitle government to financially rape people who work harder than the tics who vote in the politicians.

Now American citizens are "tics".

You do know a good deal of homeless were veterans of one war or another, right?

"Tics".

tick tock... the obama clock... time is running out..

 

[Sallow]

But that's just it, if JFK where on the Democrat ballot today he would not be electable. The Democrat party has shifted so far left these days Kennedy would be too conservative to be electable today.
Ask yourself this, would you vote JFK today? I know I would.

That is a complete fallacy. The 'center' has been pulled to the right by 40 years of a conservative era. The Democratic Party has shifted to the right. The Republican is SO FAR right that they can only nominate a candidate who appeals to the far right base, the Teapublicans.

Jack Kennedy was a liberal. If you believe different, I offer up his brother Ted. Ted worshiped Jack and Bobby; he dedicated his public life to carry on THEIR agendas. If Jack and Bobby were 'conservative', then so was Ted...

I was alive when JFK was President. One of my Senators in Washington was Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican...

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

John F. Kennedy Library

Would you elect this man today? I dont think you would. He is talking tax cuts while your party wants tax increases right now. JFK, like Reagan, understood how to boost the economy, Obama doesn't. The real fallacy here is that you honestly think he could be elected as a Democrat today.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]



Could John Kennedy be Elected President Today? No Way! | Illinois Conservative Examiner

What taxes has Obama raised?

He's cut taxes.

 

[Sallow]

The only countries I see falling into anarchy are the ones that are led by those with left leaning ideologies.

Oh bullshit.

Somalia has hard right religious rebels fighting to keep that country a shithole.

 

[Sallow]

Yes I do. Think of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

So you hate our form of government?

There's nothing about Democracy to admire.

A lynch mob is the purest essence of Democracy. What's admirable about that?

Ah. Got it. A government by the people and for the people ain't one you admire.

Well lets try your take.

We currently have the people elect representatives to send to form the body of government. That's the democratic component of the way we do things.

Your proposing we get rid of that.

So how would representatives be chosen?

The floor is yours..my good fellow.

 

[grunt11b]

That is a complete fallacy. The 'center' has been pulled to the right by 40 years of a conservative era. The Democratic Party has shifted to the right. The Republican is SO FAR right that they can only nominate a candidate who appeals to the far right base, the Teapublicans.

Jack Kennedy was a liberal. If you believe different, I offer up his brother Ted. Ted worshiped Jack and Bobby; he dedicated his public life to carry on THEIR agendas. If Jack and Bobby were 'conservative', then so was Ted...

I was alive when JFK was President. One of my Senators in Washington was Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican...

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

John F. Kennedy Library

Would you elect this man today? I dont think you would. He is talking tax cuts while your party wants tax increases right now. JFK, like Reagan, understood how to boost the economy, Obama doesn't. The real fallacy here is that you honestly think he could be elected as a Democrat today.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]



Could John Kennedy be Elected President Today? No Way! | Illinois Conservative Examiner

What taxes has Obama raised?

He's cut taxes.

He extended taxcuts, theres a difference in extending tax cuts and actually cutting taxes. By extending the tax cuts he has not cut taxes, I am just being taxed at the same rate as I was before he was elected. And if you consider the price of everything going up at the store due to increase in fuel price you could kind of say he increased our taxes through his drilling moratorium.
I understand you wanted to divert my original post here, but lets stay on the topic, would you vote for JFK today?

 

[Neotrotsky]

The only countries I see falling into anarchy are the ones that are led by those with left leaning ideologies.

Oh bullshit.

Somalia has hard right religious rebels fighting to keep that country a shithole.

You mean Islamic
the same ones that the Left fights so hard for in the US



As a side note, a theocracy is really just another form of statism

 

[Sallow]

Washington knows best. Afterall, he fucked whiskey disterlleries.

Perhaps

but an ad hominem argument does not make the words any less true

It does.

Washington was no more arguing against government then he was arguing against the use of fire.

He was expressing that it must be used with care..

 

[Bfgrn]

But that's just it, if JFK where on the Democrat ballot today he would not be electable. The Democrat party has shifted so far left these days Kennedy would be too conservative to be electable today.
Ask yourself this, would you vote JFK today? I know I would.

That is a complete fallacy. The 'center' has been pulled to the right by 40 years of a conservative era. The Democratic Party has shifted to the right. The Republican is SO FAR right that they can only nominate a candidate who appeals to the far right base, the Teapublicans.

Jack Kennedy was a liberal. If you believe different, I offer up his brother Ted. Ted worshiped Jack and Bobby; he dedicated his public life to carry on THEIR agendas. If Jack and Bobby were 'conservative', then so was Ted...

I was alive when JFK was President. One of my Senators in Washington was Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican...

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

John F. Kennedy Library

Would you elect this man today? I dont think you would. He is talking tax cuts while your party wants tax increases right now. JFK, like Reagan, understood how to boost the economy, Obama doesn't. The real fallacy here is that you honestly think he could be elected as a Democrat today.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]



Could John Kennedy be Elected President Today? No Way! | Illinois Conservative Examiner

When President Kennedy proposed lowering the nominal tax rate, it was 91% to pay for WWII. He lowered it to 70%.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

More

 

[Neotrotsky]

Perhaps

but an ad hominem argument does not make the words any less true

It does.

Washington was no more arguing against government then he was arguing against the use of fire.

He was expressing that it must be used with care..

Yes very true
and that gov't is inherently bad but necessary, which is why it should be limited

an idea that seems to have been lost over the last 70 years