JFK wouldn't be a Democrap today

[NYcarbineer]

(watch this duck of a very simple and fair question)

Would you say that supply-side economics is generally associated with neo-conservatism? In fact, is it not a defining characteristic?

Would you agree that JFK was a strong believer in supply-side economics, as directly and thouroughly evidenced from the televised link I provided upstream of JFK giving a speech on the subject?

You're attempting to use one isolated policy item and multiply it into an overall description of JFK's politics.

Bill Clinton's first major act was the passage of NAFTA, with more Republican votes than Democrats,

I hardly think that makes the case that Clinton is really a Republican.

We can talk about his other policy items. Right now, I am just asking if JFK a strong supply-sider, or not?

Is the question too difficult?

If you acknowledge the truth of what I just said, I might answer your question.

You think that 1 policy proves a person's appropriate party affiliation, and therefore if you get concession on your one policy point, you think you've won the argument.

No.

 

[SniperFire]

You're attempting to use one isolated policy item and multiply it into an overall description of JFK's politics.

Bill Clinton's first major act was the passage of NAFTA, with more Republican votes than Democrats,

I hardly think that makes the case that Clinton is really a Republican.

We can talk about his other policy items. Right now, I am just asking if JFK a strong supply-sider, or not?

Is the question too difficult?

If you acknowledge the truth of what I just said, I might answer you're question.

You think that 1 policy proves a person's appropriate party affiliation, and therefore if you get concession on your one policy point, you think you've won the argument.

No.

LOL

Who could possibly give a fuck if you actually give the obvious answer?

I am just making fun of you and Fakey and your inability to handle the truth.

dance monkey dance

 

[NYcarbineer]

We can talk about his other policy items. Right now, I am just asking if JFK a strong supply-sider, or not?

Is the question too difficult?

If you acknowledge the truth of what I just said, I might answer you're question.

You think that 1 policy proves a person's appropriate party affiliation, and therefore if you get concession on your one policy point, you think you've won the argument.

No.

LOL

Who could possibly give a fuck if you actually give the obvious answer?

I am just making fun of you and Fakey and your inability to handle the truth.

dance monkey dance

Of course. You demand an answer over and over again, but then when you're faced with admitting you've lost this argument, you run for the tall grass.

Lyndon Johnson supported the Kennedy tax cut. I suppose that makes him a modern day Republican too.

And btw, Barack Obama's combination of tax cuts and tax cut extensions were bigger than Kennedy's.

I guess that puts Obama to the right of Kennedy on taxes, and makes him even more of a Republican than you think Kennedy would be.

You are out of your league, sonny.

 

[gwennie]

sorry you dont get to claim our guys.

You are stuck with your own.

Bush, Nixon, Reagan and the like

Sorry....he's not "your" guy, either. If JFK were running today, he would be considered an Independent...or someone from the Reform Party. If you really wanted to stretch it, he coule have possibly ran as a Reagan dem, but in no way would he be able to run as a liberal dem of today.

 

[gwennie]

JFK was strong on national defense and for cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth, foreign ideas to liberals ruining the Democraps today.

This fiscal cliff debate is over raising taxes on working people and slashing the DoD budget in the middle of a war against worldwide terrorism that killed more Americans on US soil than previous all modern era wars combined.

So no liberal on this board should ever try to use JFK in your arguments here, he wouldn't be with you today.

By that same standard, Eisenhower, Nixon and even Reagan wouldn't be welcome in the batshit crazy insane asylum that is the TeaBagging party.

To some extent, you are right....but I seriously doubt JFK would consider fiscal conservativeness to be "batshit crazy".

 

[gwennie]

there is a time to raise taxes and a time to cut taxes.


they are already at historic lows

"Historic lows" compared to what? Anyone making $40k/year is taxed at 25% of their income......please tell me how fair that is. Granted, not ALL of their income is taxed at that rate, but close enough. It makes far more sense to have them pay 5-8% of their total income...not 25%. Most people making that amount of money cannot afford to pay 25% of their income to the govt, who typically squanders it on useless shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JFK would consider most of today's GOP to be "batshit crazy". SniperFire had his arguments pulled inside out. He is like the pitcher who had his best pitch knocked over the center field fence, then danced around screaming, "I struck him out!" Silly, silly doosh.

 

[gwennie]

JFK would consider most of today's GOP to be "batshit crazy". SniperFire had his arguments pulled inside out. He is like the pitcher who had his best pitch knocked over the center field fence, then danced around screaming, "I struck him out!" Silly, silly doosh.

You expect people to take you seriously when you can't even spell "doosh" correctly????? Complete idiot......

 

[JakeStarkey]

gwenniedoosh, you don't deserve it spelled correctly.

That's the point.

Neither does SniperFire.

Those who are trolling here are dooshes.

JFK would consider most of today's GOP to be "batshit crazy". SniperFire had his arguments pulled inside out. He is like the pitcher who had his best pitch knocked over the center field fence, then danced around screaming, "I struck him out!" Silly, silly doosh.

You expect people to take you seriously when you can't even spell "doosh" correctly????? Complete idiot......

 

[gwennie]

gwenniedoosh, you don't deserve it spelled correctly.

That's the point.

Neither does SniperFire.

Those who are trolling here are dooshes.

JFK would consider most of today's GOP to be "batshit crazy". SniperFire had his arguments pulled inside out. He is like the pitcher who had his best pitch knocked over the center field fence, then danced around screaming, "I struck him out!" Silly, silly doosh.

You expect people to take you seriously when you can't even spell "doosh" correctly????? Complete idiot......

If anyone here is trolling, it is you. Liberal idiocy knows no bounds.....

 

[Billo_Really]

Things are so bad in the republican party, they're actually trying to steal dead democrats from the past to boost their reputation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says ol' dooshgirl, gwennie!

gwenniedoosh, you don't deserve it spelled correctly.

That's the point.

Neither does SniperFire.

Those who are trolling here are dooshes.

You expect people to take you seriously when you can't even spell "doosh" correctly????? Complete idiot......

If anyone here is trolling, it is you. Liberal idiocy knows no bounds.....

 

[gwennie]

Says ol' dooshgirl, gwennie!

gwenniedoosh, you don't deserve it spelled correctly.

That's the point.

Neither does SniperFire.

Those who are trolling here are dooshes.

If anyone here is trolling, it is you. Liberal idiocy knows no bounds.....

I must be right, seeing as how you can't handle anything except nonsensicle come-backs

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because no one has offered anything to support the OP, gwennie.

No one to the ultra right can even define "neo-conservatism" than apply it in context to JFK.

 

[gwennie]

Because no one has offered anything to support the OP, gwennie.

No one to the ultra right can even define "neo-conservatism" than apply it in context to JFK.

You change the subject to suit your own purposes. No one said JFK was a neo-con; they said he wouldn't be labeled a liberal in today's dem party. Stop putting your head up your ass....

 

[hazlnut]

JFK was strong on national defense and for cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth, foreign ideas to liberals ruining the Democraps today.

Hey, Sparky...


What were the tax rates in 1964???


Personal for highest incomes?

Corporate?


And it was Johnson who signed the tax bill. So, you FAIL on that too.


Okay... now you may eat shit.

 

[Bfgrn]

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
President John F. Kennedy


JFK was a liberal. If you hated Teddy's politics, you would have hated Jack and Bobby's too. Ted dedicated his public life to carrying out his two brother's unfinished agenda.

The Great Society was based on our slain President's New Frontier. The following were President Kennedy's agenda and proposals:

Civil Rights Bill
Medicare
War on Poverty

And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter

"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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Between 1963 and 1968, our deficit quadrupled.

Is that the OP's point? That Kennedy was a Reagan/Bush style Republican, because he supported budget busting tax cuts?

lol

 

[JoeB131]

JFK was strong on national defense and for cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth, foreign ideas to liberals ruining the Democraps today.

This fiscal cliff debate is over raising taxes on working people and slashing the DoD budget in the middle of a war against worldwide terrorism that killed more Americans on US soil than previous all modern era wars combined.

So no liberal on this board should ever try to use JFK in your arguments here, he wouldn't be with you today.

By that same standard, Eisenhower, Nixon and even Reagan wouldn't be welcome in the batshit crazy insane asylum that is the TeaBagging party.

To some extent, you are right....but I seriously doubt JFK would consider fiscal conservativeness to be "batshit crazy".

Fiscal conservativeness, (is that even a word?), no.

Batshit crazy "no government, no taxes, Ayn Rand nuttiess", yeah, that is batshit crazy and no real leader would support it.

We do have an issue that Medicare and Social Security eat up a larger part of the budget, do to a combination of people living longer and having less kids, complicated by the fact that the wealthy have gotten rid of the good paying factory jobs and replaced them with McJobs that pay for shit.

Fact is, we do have a spending and revenue problem, and we need to have a grown up discussion about it.

The Teabaggers are not grownups.

 

[FJO]

"JFK wouldn't be a Democrap today"

But he would still be a cheating, philandering son-of-a-bootlegger tomcat piece of crap, who, if not for the event in Dallas, would have by a bullet from a jealous husband or from some venereal disease.