Question for those on the left

[Dirk the Daring]

When does it stop being all about hating the president? You people have put Obama's face on everything you find bad about the government and actually seem to think simply getting him out of office will solve all kinds of problems. There is only one problem that will be solved, your horror of a black man in the oval office. Wait, you say you are not racist like that? Then zero problems will be solved with his eventual departure.

It is not hating him as a person. It's about his policies.
Almost everyone in this nation thinks that he is good husband and father.
How many times have we said it's about socialist liberalism (in both parties) in this country?
You won't even recognize that Obama is far left.
When a Senator like Obama votes for partial birth abortion that person is far left.

I'm far left, to me Obama looks remarkably like a "free market" Neocon in his polices.

Then you are delusional. An affliction common to those on the 'far left.'

 

[Cecilie1200]

When does it stop being all about hating the president? You people have put Obama's face on everything you find bad about the government and actually seem to think simply getting him out of office will solve all kinds of problems. There is only one problem that will be solved, your horror of a black man in the oval office. Wait, you say you are not racist like that? Then zero problems will be solved with his eventual departure.

A little shrill there....And stuff your racist comments up your bunghole.
The guy is a disaster no matter what color he is. This country and the world are going to shit because of HIS policies. Look around you,or are you to blind from the shine off your messiah to see?

And if conservatives her stopped calling the president "boy", perhaps liberals wouldn't think it is racially motivated.

Just a thought.

And if leftists here stopped lying like fucking rugs and screeching, "He's black! Everything's about him being black!" regardless of the topic, perhaps conservatives wouldn't think they were ignorant, hypocritical racists engaging in delusional projection.

Nahhh, we'd still think that, because it'd still be true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A little shrill there....And stuff your racist comments up your bunghole.
The guy is a disaster no matter what color he is. This country and the world are going to shit because of HIS policies. Look around you,or are you to blind from the shine off your messiah to see?

And if conservatives her stopped calling the president "boy", perhaps liberals wouldn't think it is racially motivated.

Just a thought.

How about when the left called Bush Boy George?

Or Bush Jr., despite the fact that he and his father have different names?

 

[Camp]

That's high school history stuff, get a high school history text and have at it.
But your real problem is economics, and here you might have to get a lower division econ text book, preferably comparative econ, and discover the difference between socialism and communism. Might also discover that most economic systems in the world today are a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

translation = Regent cannot back up his claim and is trying to change the subject. Care to try again or will you now run from the thread?

It's not a claim, it's history, American history, and if you cannot do your own research I would be amiss to do it for you. But, maybe, just this once, where do you need the help with the history or the economics?

You are having way to much fun today.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

We got into the debt we're into mainly for two reasons:

1. We stopped paying for the wars we insisted on fighting, and,

2. We bought the myth that tax cuts could pay for themselves by producing higher revenues.

#2 is no myth. Obama himself *LITERALLY* signed his name to the document proving this was no myth. All the while preaching to his moronic supporters the exact opposite - which they of course lapped up.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Let's hear you sing the same tune come Jan 2015 when Republicans control both houses..

The GOP controlled both houses and the presidency when Bush was prez and all we got were 2 wars that weren't paid for, 2 budget busting tax cuts, and overall increased spending every year.

And the biggest increase in domestic surveillance and executive power we will ever see.

Remember when Democrats were the driving force of a Dept of Homeland Security? Nah, I'll bet you don't;

CNN.com - Bush launches Homeland Security Department - Mar. 3, 2003

Bush initially resisted the creation of a new Homeland Security Department, first proposed by Democrats. But he later embraced the idea and used the issue on the campaign trail last fall, criticizing Democrats who disagreed with him on how the new department should be managed.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

No but I bet you can, think for a moment at how much further outside established executive powers that would be compared to anything Obama is doing.

WRONG- Only in your liberal mindset because you support his tyranny being it aligns with your own set of beliefs. TYRANNY IS TYRANNY, period.. It doesn't fucking matter which law it is.. When you support trashing the Constitution and a sitting President who breaks the law, makes his own laws from the EB, YOU are the problem. Like I said, wait until republicans get in office and I don't want to hear not one of you fuckers complain.

The only thing about this mess I would support is for congress to do it's god-damned job. There would be no need for executive action on anything if congress had not created a power vacuum in our government by refusing to even do the routine housekeeping chores that are their sworn duties as congressmen.

Question to you, which current Obama administration member AND former US Senator said these words;

"Sometimes your accomplishments are not in what you get done but in what you stop other people from doing."

 

[Dirk the Daring]

WRONG- Only in your liberal mindset because you support his tyranny being it aligns with your own set of beliefs. TYRANNY IS TYRANNY, period.. It doesn't fucking matter which law it is.. When you support trashing the Constitution and a sitting President who breaks the law, makes his own laws from the EB, YOU are the problem. Like I said, wait until republicans get in office and I don't want to hear not one of you fuckers complain.

The only thing about this mess I would support is for congress to do it's god-damned job. There would be no need for executive action on anything if congress had not created a power vacuum in our government by refusing to even do the routine housekeeping chores that are their sworn duties as congressmen.

Who is the one who stopped it?
Sen. Harry Reid in 2011 because he did not like who the people elected as their Representatives.
Senator Reid Blocks Republican Jobs Bills

You see this one passed by a vast majority in the House but the Senate has done nothing.
H.Res. 72, a Resolution to direct committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and order from agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effect on jobs and economic growth


•Introduced by Rep. Pete Sessions (TX) on February 8, 2011
•Passed the House by a vote of 391 to 28 on February 11, 2011
•The Senate has not directed their committees to take such action


Reid and the Senate are the ones not doing anything.

Senate Democrats are now on the record with voicing their displeasure of Harry Reid's 'do-nothing' course of action.

Harry Reid?s new challenge: His fellow Democrats - Manu Raju and Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

Led by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, a small but vocal group of mostly younger Democratic senators are meeting secretly and privately lobbying Reid to help ease the gridlock. While they blame Republicans for the bottleneck, they are pressing Reid to be more willing to entertain a freewheeling process, including more votes on amendments.

That type of shift might make eager lawmakers feel more productive, but it could also present challenges for vulnerable Democrats facing voters in the midterm elections.

If Reid were to allow more amendments, many Democrats in tough races would be forced to cast uncomfortable votes on health care, energy and social issues. Those votes could become fodder on the campaign trail and ultimately amount to precious little since few bills are expected to become law before November. Some votes could even threaten the party’s tenuous grip on the Senate majority.

“Does it mean increased risks? Sure. That’s what voting is about,” said Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, a rare vulnerable Democrat facing reelection who is pressing Reid to open things up. “At the end of the day, you are not going to say you’re not going to vote for things because you’re afraid of how that vote will look. The vote will look bad if you don’t take the vote, so why not take the vote so people know where you stand?”

The push for more votes is being fueled by junior senators, many of whom worry they have little to show voters back home.

On the floor a few weeks ago, one of the group’s members, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, buttonholed West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin to express frustration that the Senate was casting yet another vote to confirm a presidential nominee — not on legislation. According to people familiar with the exchange, Booker asked: Is that all the Senate does?

Yeah Harry, why not let people know where you stand?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
- Lawrence O’Donnell Jr.

So much fail. Where to even begin...

 

[Dirk the Daring]

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
- Lawrence O’Donnell Jr.

another attempt to rewrite history. The GOP passed those measures, the democrats voted against every one of them.

Republicans used to be liberal.

That all changed in 1968. Nixon's so called Southern Strategy.

'Switching sides' was neither the stated goal or the result of Nixon's 'southern strategy.' Maybe do a little reading first b/c parroting someone else's talking points?

 

[itfitzme]

Who pays taxes?

and where does the rest come from----------taxes only provide 60% of government spending.

People and business pay them.

When is your point coming? Can we cut to the chase.

OK, here's the point------------ready?

governments have only 3 sources of money

1. tax collections
2. borrowing
3. printing

our government has been doing all three and the results are: 1. 17 trillion in debt 2. inflation in food and energy prices 3. a weak dollar internationally.

If this continues our nation is headed for bankruptcy and chaos. Liberalism by both parties got us in this mess, coupled with legalized bribery of congress by lobbyists.

The fixes are difficult but possible:
1. a balanced budget amendment with some real teeth
2. term limits for congress

What do you mean by "printing".

How do you propose to make inflation equal to zero?

How is money created? It's important to know.

Why do you think that the national debt is an issue? What effect do you think it has?

 

[Cecilie1200]

another attempt to rewrite history. The GOP passed those measures, the democrats voted against every one of them.

Republicans used to be liberal.

That all changed in 1968. Nixon's so called Southern Strategy.

'Switching sides' was neither the stated goal or the result of Nixon's 'southern strategy.' Maybe do a little reading first b/c parroting someone else's talking points?

In 1956, as vice president, Nixon went to Harlem to declare, “America can’t afford the cost of segregation.” The following year, Nixon got a personal letter from Dr. King thanking him for helping to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Nixon supported the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968.

Nixon called out segregationist candidates in ’66 and called on LBJ, Hubert Humphrey and Bobby Kennedy to join him in repudiating them. None did. Hubert, an arm around Lester Maddox, called him a “good Democrat.” And so were they all — good Democrats.

While Adlai [Stevenson] chose Sparkman, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew, the first governor south of the Mason Dixon Line to enact an open-housing law.

In Nixon’s presidency, the civil rights enforcement budget rose 800 percent. Record numbers of blacks were appointed to federal office. An Office of Minority Business Enterprise was created. SBA loans to minorities soared 1,000 percent. Aid to black colleges doubled.

Nixon won the South not because he agreed with them on civil rights — he never did — but because he shared the patriotic values of the South and its antipathy to liberal hypocrisy.

(Thanks to Pat Buchanan for the previous quotes.)

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

And if conservatives her stopped calling the president "boy", perhaps liberals wouldn't think it is racially motivated.

Just a thought.

How about when the left called Bush Boy George?

Or Bush Jr., despite the fact that he and his father have different names?

Chimp, Dumbya

 

[Peach]

How about when the left called Bush Boy George?

Or Bush Jr., despite the fact that he and his father have different names?

Chimp, Dumbya

Baby Bush, Campaigner*.

*The song by Neil Young makes Campaigner an insult.

 

[Redfish]

That's high school history stuff, get a high school history text and have at it.
But your real problem is economics, and here you might have to get a lower division econ text book, preferably comparative econ, and discover the difference between socialism and communism. Might also discover that most economic systems in the world today are a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

translation = Regent cannot back up his claim and is trying to change the subject. Care to try again or will you now run from the thread?

It's not a claim, it's history, American history, and if you cannot do your own research I would be amiss to do it for you. But, maybe, just this once, where do you need the help with the history or the economics?

A valid claim can be proven-------still waiting

 

[Bfgrn]

translation = Regent cannot back up his claim and is trying to change the subject. Care to try again or will you now run from the thread?

It's not a claim, it's history, American history, and if you cannot do your own research I would be amiss to do it for you. But, maybe, just this once, where do you need the help with the history or the economics?

A valid claim can be proven-------still waiting

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Redfish]

It's not a claim, it's history, American history, and if you cannot do your own research I would be amiss to do it for you. But, maybe, just this once, where do you need the help with the history or the economics?

A valid claim can be proven-------still waiting

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

when you post something written by someone else you are supposed to identify the source.

the Kennedy quote at the end of your plagerized post is very appropriate for todays liberals.

BTW, Kennedy was not a liberal and would not fit at all in the dem party of today.

 

[Redfish]

It's not a claim, it's history, American history, and if you cannot do your own research I would be amiss to do it for you. But, maybe, just this once, where do you need the help with the history or the economics?

A valid claim can be proven-------still waiting

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

Regent claimed that a liberal paid off the national debt, I asked him who and when and he ran like a scalded ass ape.

 

[Lakhota]

Where does the government get its money?

From taxpayers. What's your point? It comes from ALL taxpayers - not just far right loons. Red states are the welfare queens.

Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider

GOP States Are The Most Dependent On Government

 

[Bfgrn]

A valid claim can be proven-------still waiting

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

when you post something written by someone else you are supposed to identify the source.

the Kennedy quote at the end of your plagerized post is very appropriate for todays liberals.

BTW, Kennedy was not a liberal and would not fit at all in the dem party of today.

"We have all seen these circus elephants complete with tusks, ivory in their head and thick skins, who move around the circus ring and grab the tail of the elephant ahead of them."
President John F. Kennedy


There is a link...your plagiarism accusation is false.

Are you talking about John F. Kennedy, the President who proposed and or planned the following:

Medicare
Civil Rights
The War on Poverty

A big part of LBJ's Great Society was started by President Kennedy and the New Frontier.


Economy

The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,

The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,

The redevelopment of distressed areas,

An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,

An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,

The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and

The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.

Labor

Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage

An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.

The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of “maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprises."

A Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act was passed (1962) to reform Federal white-collar statutory salary systems, adjust postal rates, and establish a standard for adjusting annuities under the Civil Service Retirement Act.

The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (1962) established “standards for hours, overtime compensation, and safety for employees working on federal and federally funded contracts and subcontracts”.

A pilot program was launched to train and place youths in jobs.

Paid overtime was granted to workers on government financed construction jobs for work in excess of 40 hours.

Education

Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialized aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorization of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.

Various measures were introduced which aided educational television, college dormitories, medical education, and community libraries.

The Educational Television Facilities Act (1962) provided federal grants for new station construction, enabling in-class-room instructional television to operate in thousands of elementary schools, offering primarily religious instruction, music, and arts.

The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act (1963) provided $175 million over a three-year period for matching grants for the construction of facilities for teaching physicians, dentists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, and other health professionals. The Act also created a loan program of up to $2000 per annum for students of optometry, dentistry, and medicine.

The Vocational Education Act (1963) significantly increased enrollment in vocational education.

A law was enacted (1961) to encourage and facilitate the training of teachers of the deaf.

The Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 enlarged the scope of the Fulbright program while extending it geographically.

An estimated one-third of all major New Frontier programs made some form of education a vital element, and the Office of Education called it “the most significant legislative period in its hundred-year history”.

Welfare

Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.

In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.

The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.

The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.

The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.

A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962 provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, “enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk”.

ADC was extended to whole families (1961).

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.

A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernization which emphasized rehabilitation instead of relief”.

A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.

Food distribution to needy Americans was increased. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs’ primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.

Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.

Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.

An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.

Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).

Civil rights

Various measures were carried out by the Kennedy Justice Department to enforce court orders and existing legislation. The Kennedy Administration promoted a Voter Education Project which led to 688,800 between the 1st of April 1962 and the 1st of November 1964, while the Civil Rights Division brought over forty-two suits in four states in order to secure voting rights for blacks. In addition, Kennedy supported the anti-poll tax amendment, which cleared Congress in September 1962 (although it was not ratified until 1964 as the Twenty-fourth Amendment). As noted by one student of black voting in the South, in relation to the attempts by the Kennedy Administration to promote civil rights, “Whereas the Eisenhower lawyers had moved deliberately, the Kennedy-Johnson attorneys pushed the judiciary far more earnestly.”

Executive Order 10925 (issued in 1961) combined the federal employment and government contractor agencies into a unified Committee on Equal Employment opportunity (CEEO). This new committee helped to put an end to segregation and discriminatory employment practices (such as only employing African-Americans for low-skilled jobs) in a number of workplaces across the United States.

Discrimination in public housing was prohibited.

The Interstate Commerce Commission made Jim Crow illegal in interstate transportation, having been put under pressure to do so by both the Freedom Riders and the Department of Justice.

Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administration’s affirmative action policies).

The Kennedy Administration forbade government contractors from discriminating against any applicant or employee for employment on the grounds of national origin, color, creed, or race.

The Plan for Progress was launched by the CEEO to persuade large employers to adopt equal opportunity practices. 268 firms with 8 million employees had signed on to this by 1964, while a nationwide study covering the period from May 1961 to June 1963 of 103 corporations “showed a Negro gain from 28,940 to 42,738 salaried and from 171,021 to 198,161 hourly paid jobs”.

Housing

The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing.

Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. The bill also promised to make the Federal Housing Administration a full partner in urban renewal program by authorizing mortgage loans to finance rehabilitation of homes and urban renewal Committee on housing combined programs for housing, mass transportation, and open space land bills into a single bill.

Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.

Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.

Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing ‘urban textures’.

Funds for housing for the elderly were increased.

Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500.

The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were “designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over”.

Unemployment

To help the unemployed, Kennedy broadened the distribution of surplus food, created a “pilot” Food Stamp program for poor Americans, directed that preference be given to distressed areas in defense contracts, and expanded the services of U.S. Employment Offices.

Social security benefits were extended to each child whose father was unemployed.

The first accelerated public works program for areas of unemployment since the New Deal was launched.

The first full-scale modernization and expansion of the vocational education laws since 1946 were carried out.

Federal grants were provided to the states enabling them to extend the period covered by unemployment benefit.

The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorized a three-year program aimed at retraining workers displaced by new technology. The bill did not exclude employed workers from benefiting and it authorized a training allowance for unemployed participants. Even though 200,000 people were recruited, there was minimal impact, comparatively. The Area Redevelopment Act, a $394 million spending package passed in 1961, followed a strategy of investing in the private sector to stimulate new job creation. It specifically targeted businesses in urban and rural depressed areas and authorized $4.5 million annually over four years for vocational training programs.

The 1963 amendments to the National Defense Education Act included $731 million in appropriations to states and localities maintaining vocational training programs.

Health

In 1963 Kennedy, who had a mentally ill sister named Rosemary, submitted the nation's first Presidential special message to Congress on mental health issues. Congress quickly passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act (P.L. 88-164), beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. The National Institute of Mental Health assumed responsibility for monitoring community mental health centers programs. This measure was a great success as there was a sixfold increase in people using Mental Health facilities.

A Medical Health Bill for the Aged (later known as Medicare) was proposed, but Congress failed to enact it.

The Community Health Services and Facilities Act (1961) increased the amount of funds available for nursing home construction and extended the research and demonstration grant program to other medical facilities.

The Health Services for Agricultural Migratory Workers Act (1962) established “a program of federal grants for family clinics and other health services for migrant workers and their families”.

The first major amendments to the food and drug safety laws since 1938 were carried out. The Drug Amendments of 1962 amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) by strengthening the provisions related to the regulation of therapeutic drugs. The Act required evidence that new drugs proposed for marketing were both safe and effective, and required improved manufacturing processes and procedures.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration were significantly enlarged by the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments (1962).

The Vaccination Assistance Act (1962) provided for the vaccination of millions of children against a number of diseases.

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1963 improved medical services for crippled children and established a new project grant program to improve prenatal care for women from low income families with very high risks of mental retardation and other birth defects. Authorizations for grants to the states under the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's programs were also increased and a research grant program was added.

The Mental Retardation Facilities Construction Act of 1963 authorized federal support for the construction of university-affiliated training facilities, mental retardation research centers, and community service facilities for adults and children with mental retardation.

Equal rights for women

The President’s Commission on the Status of Women was an advisory commission established on December 14, 1961, by Kennedy to investigate questions regarding women's equality in education, in the workplace, and under the law. The commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt until her death in 1962, was composed of 26 members including legislators and philanthropists who were active in women's rights issues. The main purpose of the committee was to document and examine employment policies in place for women. The commission's final report, American Woman (also known as the Peterson Report after the Commission's second chair, Esther Peterson), was issued in October 1963 and documented widespread discrimination against women in the workplace. Among the practices addressed by the group were labor laws pertaining to hours and wages, the quality of legal representation for women, the lack of education and counseling for working women, and federal insurance and tax laws that affected women's incomes. Recommendations included affordable child care for all income levels, hiring practices that promoted equal opportunity for women, and paid maternity leave.

In early 1960s, full-time working women were paid on average 59 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In order to eliminate some forms of sex-based pay discrimination, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law on June 10, 1963. During the law's first ten years, 171,000 employees received back pay totaling about 84 million dollars.

Environment

The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.

The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.

The water pollution prevention program was doubled.

More aid was provided to localities to combat water pollution.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 reiterated and expanded upon “previous authorizations for outdoor recreation.”

Crime

Under Kennedy, the first significant package of anti crime bills since 1934 were passed. Amongst the Kennedy Administration's anti crime measures included the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, which was signed into law on September 22, 1961. This program aimed to prevent youth from committing delinquent acts. In 1963, 288 mobsters were brought to trial by a team that was headed by Kennedy's brother, Robert.

ref