What exactly does the "Left" want?

[Bfgrn]

21% Of Americans is a tiny Minority Bub. No matter how you cut it. That is how many Americans say they are Liberal 21%, And were not even talking about Liberals here. Were talking about the extreme far left that has taken over the Dem Party. They reflect an even smaller Minority of Americans. They seem to want us all to shut the hell up and let them do what ever they hell they want.

The rest of your post is just you assuming you know anything at all about me and my voting past. I was always a Democrat, until the party started shifting so far to the left. It left me and millions of more fiscally and constitutionally conservative people behind. So please don't try and pretend you know me.

Peace

You're full of shit Charles. I am JFK liberal who has been around since Harry S. Truman was in the White House. The Democratic Party has moved to the RIGHT, not the left. What is considered the center today is FAR to the right of the center in the 60's.

Obama is no far leftist. America needed a second FDR and instead we got Hoover.

Please tell me ONE thing the Progressive caucus got in the health care bill? Single payer? Public option?

WHAT we got was a carbon copy of the 1993/4 Republican proposals from the Clinton health care debate.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by far right theocrats and war mongering Trotskyist neoconservatives.

Says WHO? Goldwater Republicans like Victor Gold and John Dean and even Reagan Republicans like Paul Craig Roberts and Bruce Bartlett.

Sorry Charles, go sell your fairy tale to someone that just fell off the back of a turnip truck. I know a right wing lifer when I smell one.

JFK democrats were far right of todays democrats. I don't know where your head was back then, but....
No matter how much you say that Obama isn't a leftist.....your not fooling the vast majority of Americans. But please continue with your yarn. I'm sure rdean, zona and jake will eat up what your saying.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

All you Fox Snoooze propaganda fed pea brains can stamp your feet and emote socialism and far leftist all you want. It doesn't change the FACTS. I grew up in New York State. Look up Liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits.

There is no one on this board that knows more about JFK and the Kennedys than I do. Jack Kennedy was was a liberal Democrat. The rhetoric he used to win the election didn't match his policies and decisions, but he wasn't going fall on his sword and be buried by Republicans like Adlai Stevenson did in '52 and '56.

Are you aware JFK had decided to pull our troops out of Vietnam, had secret negotiations with Khrushchev to end the cold war and with Castro to normalize relations with Cuba?

John F. Kennedy Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination

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 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 I'm a "Liberal."

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 view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the 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, in 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, the 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 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.

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 superstate. I see no magic in 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 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 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 only hope in the world today. 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 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.

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 not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can't speak for "the left" as a whole.

But I really want a slice of pizza.

 

[Jarhead]

I can't speak for "the left" as a whole.

But I really want a slice of pizza.

Figures. Sure..... you want a slice of pizza when the flavor of the day is chocolate. Always looking for change. Never happy wiht the status quo. that is the problem with all of you progressives.
Jeez. Pizza.
Pathetic.

 

[Meister]

You're full of shit Charles. I am JFK liberal who has been around since Harry S. Truman was in the White House. The Democratic Party has moved to the RIGHT, not the left. What is considered the center today is FAR to the right of the center in the 60's.

Obama is no far leftist. America needed a second FDR and instead we got Hoover.

Please tell me ONE thing the Progressive caucus got in the health care bill? Single payer? Public option?

WHAT we got was a carbon copy of the 1993/4 Republican proposals from the Clinton health care debate.

The Republican Party has been hijacked by far right theocrats and war mongering Trotskyist neoconservatives.

Says WHO? Goldwater Republicans like Victor Gold and John Dean and even Reagan Republicans like Paul Craig Roberts and Bruce Bartlett.

Sorry Charles, go sell your fairy tale to someone that just fell off the back of a turnip truck. I know a right wing lifer when I smell one.

JFK democrats were far right of todays democrats. I don't know where your head was back then, but....
No matter how much you say that Obama isn't a leftist.....your not fooling the vast majority of Americans. But please continue with your yarn. I'm sure rdean, zona and jake will eat up what your saying.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

All you Fox Snoooze propaganda fed pea brains can stamp your feet and emote socialism and far leftist all you want. It doesn't change the FACTS. I grew up in New York State. Look up Liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits.

There is no one on this board that knows more about JFK and the Kennedys than I do. Jack Kennedy was was a liberal Democrat. The rhetoric he used to win the election didn't match his policies and decisions, but he wasn't going fall on his sword and be buried by Republicans like Adlai Stevenson did in '52 and '56.

Are you aware JFK had decided to pull our troops out of Vietnam, had secret negotiations with Khrushchev to end the cold war and with Castro to normalize relations with Cuba?

John F. Kennedy Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination

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 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 I'm a "Liberal."

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 view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the 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, in 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, the 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 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.

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 superstate. I see no magic in 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 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 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 only hope in the world today. 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 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.

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 not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Here you go with all of your canned rhetoric shit. If JFK was soooo liberal why the fucking tax cuts? Like I stated earlier, you have your yarn you can tell your choir, but the vast majority of Americans know it's bogus, just like you are.
Why did Zell Miller state that he got out of politics because his party left him behind as they went left? Who are you trying to bullshit?

 

[Bfgrn]

JFK democrats were far right of todays democrats. I don't know where your head was back then, but....
No matter how much you say that Obama isn't a leftist.....your not fooling the vast majority of Americans. But please continue with your yarn. I'm sure rdean, zona and jake will eat up what your saying.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

All you Fox Snoooze propaganda fed pea brains can stamp your feet and emote socialism and far leftist all you want. It doesn't change the FACTS. I grew up in New York State. Look up Liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits.

There is no one on this board that knows more about JFK and the Kennedys than I do. Jack Kennedy was was a liberal Democrat. The rhetoric he used to win the election didn't match his policies and decisions, but he wasn't going fall on his sword and be buried by Republicans like Adlai Stevenson did in '52 and '56.

Are you aware JFK had decided to pull our troops out of Vietnam, had secret negotiations with Khrushchev to end the cold war and with Castro to normalize relations with Cuba?

John F. Kennedy Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination

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 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 I'm a "Liberal."

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 view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the 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, in 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, the 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 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.

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 superstate. I see no magic in 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 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 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 only hope in the world today. 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 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.

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 not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Here you go with all of your canned rhetoric shit. If JFK was soooo liberal why the fucking tax cuts? Like I stated earlier, you have your yarn you can tell your choir, but the vast majority of Americans know it's bogus, just like you are.
Why did Zell Miller state that he got out of politics because his party left him behind as they went left? Who are you trying to bullshit?

Zell Miller? Are you fucking kidding me. The guy is a reincarnated Dixiecrat.

I will let Ted Kennedy Jr. address your tax falacies.

"In 1963, there was virtually no deficit and the top tax rate was 91 percent for income over $400,000." "Today, the annual U.S. deficit is nearly $1.5 trillion and the top tax rate is 35 percent for income over $372,500."

The Kennedy tax cuts were demand side, not supply side.

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.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment." The immediate boost to the economy was the main goal. In fact, Nixon's economic adviser Herb Stein noted that the 1964 plan led to a diminished output-per-person-employed—a fact that could argue against the supply-side tenet that lower marginal rates would unleash the productivity of workers deterred from working harder because of overtaxation.

 

[Meister]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

All you Fox Snoooze propaganda fed pea brains can stamp your feet and emote socialism and far leftist all you want. It doesn't change the FACTS. I grew up in New York State. Look up Liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits.

There is no one on this board that knows more about JFK and the Kennedys than I do. Jack Kennedy was was a liberal Democrat. The rhetoric he used to win the election didn't match his policies and decisions, but he wasn't going fall on his sword and be buried by Republicans like Adlai Stevenson did in '52 and '56.

Are you aware JFK had decided to pull our troops out of Vietnam, had secret negotiations with Khrushchev to end the cold war and with Castro to normalize relations with Cuba?

John F. Kennedy Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination

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 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 I'm a "Liberal."

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 view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the 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, in 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, the 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 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.

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 superstate. I see no magic in 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 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 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 only hope in the world today. 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 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.

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 not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Here you go with all of your canned rhetoric shit. If JFK was soooo liberal why the fucking tax cuts? Like I stated earlier, you have your yarn you can tell your choir, but the vast majority of Americans know it's bogus, just like you are.
Why did Zell Miller state that he got out of politics because his party left him behind as they went left? Who are you trying to bullshit?

Zell Miller? Are you fucking kidding me. The guy is a reincarnated Dixiecrat.

I will let Ted Kennedy Jr. address your tax falacies.

"In 1963, there was virtually no deficit and the top tax rate was 91 percent for income over $400,000." "Today, the annual U.S. deficit is nearly $1.5 trillion and the top tax rate is 35 percent for income over $372,500."

The Kennedy tax cuts were demand side, not supply side.

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.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment." The immediate boost to the economy was the main goal. In fact, Nixon's economic adviser Herb Stein noted that the 1964 plan led to a diminished output-per-person-employed—a fact that could argue against the supply-side tenet that lower marginal rates would unleash the productivity of workers deterred from working harder because of overtaxation.

You still don't get it, do you? Zell Miller WAS a JFK democrat. Talk to your choir....nobody else is listening to you, sonny.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here you go with all of your canned rhetoric shit. If JFK was soooo liberal why the fucking tax cuts? Like I stated earlier, you have your yarn you can tell your choir, but the vast majority of Americans know it's bogus, just like you are.
Why did Zell Miller state that he got out of politics because his party left him behind as they went left? Who are you trying to bullshit?

Zell Miller? Are you fucking kidding me. The guy is a reincarnated Dixiecrat.

I will let Ted Kennedy Jr. address your tax falacies.

"In 1963, there was virtually no deficit and the top tax rate was 91 percent for income over $400,000." "Today, the annual U.S. deficit is nearly $1.5 trillion and the top tax rate is 35 percent for income over $372,500."

The Kennedy tax cuts were demand side, not supply side.

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.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment." The immediate boost to the economy was the main goal. In fact, Nixon's economic adviser Herb Stein noted that the 1964 plan led to a diminished output-per-person-employed—a fact that could argue against the supply-side tenet that lower marginal rates would unleash the productivity of workers deterred from working harder because of overtaxation.

You still don't get it, do you? Zell Miller WAS a JFK democrat. Talk to your choir....nobody else is listening to you, sonny.

You're a real fucking idiot. Zell Miller's move of convenience in red neck Georgia to try to save his political ass does NOT define John F. Kennedy.

The guy was and IS a segregationist. He was chief of staff for Lester fucking Maddox you moron! If 'Zello' were a Senator in 1964, he would have joined the Dixiecrats in filibustering JOHN F. KENNEDY'S Civil Right Bill.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'd like a Ketel One Martini.. fer sher.

 

[Meister]

Zell Miller? Are you fucking kidding me. The guy is a reincarnated Dixiecrat.

I will let Ted Kennedy Jr. address your tax falacies.

"In 1963, there was virtually no deficit and the top tax rate was 91 percent for income over $400,000." "Today, the annual U.S. deficit is nearly $1.5 trillion and the top tax rate is 35 percent for income over $372,500."

The Kennedy tax cuts were demand side, not supply side.

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.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment." The immediate boost to the economy was the main goal. In fact, Nixon's economic adviser Herb Stein noted that the 1964 plan led to a diminished output-per-person-employed—a fact that could argue against the supply-side tenet that lower marginal rates would unleash the productivity of workers deterred from working harder because of overtaxation.

You still don't get it, do you? Zell Miller WAS a JFK democrat. Talk to your choir....nobody else is listening to you, sonny.

You're a real fucking idiot. Zell Miller's move of convenience in red neck Georgia to try to save his political ass does NOT define John F. Kennedy.

The guy was and IS a segregationist. He was chief of staff for Lester fucking Maddox you moron! If 'Zello' were a Senator in 1964, he would have joined the Dixiecrats in filibustering JOHN F. KENNEDY'S Civil Right Bill.

You can spin it all you want. Zell was a JFK era politician, he got out of politics when the democrats moved to his left. You can besmirch the man all you want....I could care less, but facts are facts no matter how much you spin it.

 

[Bfgrn]

You still don't get it, do you? Zell Miller WAS a JFK democrat. Talk to your choir....nobody else is listening to you, sonny.

You're a real fucking idiot. Zell Miller's move of convenience in red neck Georgia to try to save his political ass does NOT define John F. Kennedy.

The guy was and IS a segregationist. He was chief of staff for Lester fucking Maddox you moron! If 'Zello' were a Senator in 1964, he would have joined the Dixiecrats in filibustering JOHN F. KENNEDY'S Civil Right Bill.

You can spin it all you want. Zell was a JFK era politician, he got out of politics when the democrats moved to his left. You can besmirch the man all you want....I could care less, but facts are facts no matter how much you spin it.

The only one 'spinning' is you pea brain. Why don't you try something novel...educate yourself.

Conservative Democrats that were called Dixiecrats became Republicans after JOHN F KENNEDY'S Civil Rights Bill was passed and Nixon's Southern Strategy reversed the party affiliation below the Mason-Dixon line. I don't care WHAT Zell Miller calls himself. He made a switch SOLELY for HIM, and a dead President that could not publicly say he is full of shit and the Democratic Party were just cannon fodder for his bullshit rhetorical EXCUSE to cover his racist ass.

 

[Meister]

You're a real fucking idiot. Zell Miller's move of convenience in red neck Georgia to try to save his political ass does NOT define John F. Kennedy.

The guy was and IS a segregationist. He was chief of staff for Lester fucking Maddox you moron! If 'Zello' were a Senator in 1964, he would have joined the Dixiecrats in filibustering JOHN F. KENNEDY'S Civil Right Bill.

You can spin it all you want. Zell was a JFK era politician, he got out of politics when the democrats moved to his left. You can besmirch the man all you want....I could care less, but facts are facts no matter how much you spin it.

The only one 'spinning' is you pea brain. Why don't you try something novel...educate yourself.

Conservative Democrats that were called Dixiecrats became Republicans after JOHN F KENNEDY'S Civil Rights Bill was passed and Nixon's Southern Strategy reversed the party affiliation below the Mason-Dixon line. I don't care WHAT Zell Miller calls himself. He made a switch SOLELY for HIM, and a dead President that could not publicly say he is full of shit and the Democratic Party were just cannon fodder for his bullshit rhetorical EXCUSE to cover his racist ass.

Still on Zell, huh? Fact is that the democrats were more conservative back then than they are now. Fact is that Obama is very liberal. Wanna do your spin now, moron?

 

[8537]

You still don't get it, do you? Zell Miller WAS a JFK democrat. Talk to your choir....nobody else is listening to you, sonny.

WTF are you talking about? Zell Miller was a traditional Southern Democrat, the very democrats who actively opposed the liberal movements of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The ones that LBJ was speaking of when he said "we just lost the south for decades".

Zell Miller would never have supported sending young people into foreign lands to foster peaceful relations between people. He would never have signed onto the Great Society, the host of Anti-poverty programs circa 1967, The national office of economic opportunity etc...

 

[Meister]

You still don't get it, do you? Zell Miller WAS a JFK democrat. Talk to your choir....nobody else is listening to you, sonny.

WTF are you talking about? Zell Miller was a traditional Southern Democrat, the very democrats who actively opposed the liberal movements of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The ones that LBJ was speaking of when he said "we just lost the south for decades".

Zell Miller would never have supported sending young people into foreign lands to foster peaceful relations between people. He would never have signed onto the Great Society, the host of Anti-poverty programs circa 1967, The national office of economic opportunity etc...

I'm just saying that democrats back then were more conservative than the democrats of today.

 

[8537]

You still don't get it, do you? Zell Miller WAS a JFK democrat. Talk to your choir....nobody else is listening to you, sonny.

WTF are you talking about? Zell Miller was a traditional Southern Democrat, the very democrats who actively opposed the liberal movements of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The ones that LBJ was speaking of when he said "we just lost the south for decades".

Zell Miller would never have supported sending young people into foreign lands to foster peaceful relations between people. He would never have signed onto the Great Society, the host of Anti-poverty programs circa 1967, The national office of economic opportunity etc...

I'm just saying that democrats back then were more conservative than the democrats of today.

The Democrats who instituted the Peace Corps,
The Democrats that invented VISTA
The Democrats that staffed their economic offices with pure NeoKeynesians,
The Democrats that created Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP.
The Democrats that created Freddie Mac.
The Democrats that passed the Fair Housing Act.
The Democrats that advocated public housing and AFDC / TANF
The Democrats that ran on a host of Great Society programs and dramatically expanded the federal government....

Are somehow MORE conservative than modern Democrats?

Lol.

 

[Bfgrn]

You can spin it all you want. Zell was a JFK era politician, he got out of politics when the democrats moved to his left. You can besmirch the man all you want....I could care less, but facts are facts no matter how much you spin it.

The only one 'spinning' is you pea brain. Why don't you try something novel...educate yourself.

Conservative Democrats that were called Dixiecrats became Republicans after JOHN F KENNEDY'S Civil Rights Bill was passed and Nixon's Southern Strategy reversed the party affiliation below the Mason-Dixon line. I don't care WHAT Zell Miller calls himself. He made a switch SOLELY for HIM, and a dead President that could not publicly say he is full of shit and the Democratic Party were just cannon fodder for his bullshit rhetorical EXCUSE to cover his racist ass.

Still on Zell, huh? Fact is that the democrats were more conservative back then than they are now. Fact is that Obama is very liberal. Wanna do your spin now, moron?

Hey, you can spew and cry all the under the bed fearful right wing emotions you want. Obama is no liberal. There was a segment of the Democratic Party in the 60's that was more conservative than the party is today, but the were more conservative than the rest of the party was back then....they were southern racist that now call themselves Republican. Zell Miller was NEVER a JFK liberal Democrat.

He was a Democrat because that was the only way to get elected in the south back then.

 

[Meister]

WTF are you talking about? Zell Miller was a traditional Southern Democrat, the very democrats who actively opposed the liberal movements of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The ones that LBJ was speaking of when he said "we just lost the south for decades".

Zell Miller would never have supported sending young people into foreign lands to foster peaceful relations between people. He would never have signed onto the Great Society, the host of Anti-poverty programs circa 1967, The national office of economic opportunity etc...

I'm just saying that democrats back then were more conservative than the democrats of today.

The Democrats who instituted the Peace Corps,
The Democrats that invented VISTA
The Democrats that staffed their economic offices with pure NeoKeynesians,
The Democrats that created Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP.
The Democrats that created Freddie Mac.
The Democrats that passed the Fair Housing Act.
The Democrats that advocated public housing and AFDC / TANF
The Democrats that ran on a host of Great Society programs and dramatically expanded the federal government....

Are somehow MORE conservative than modern Democrats?

Lol.

Yes, yes they were.
How many shares of stock did the government own back then?
Can you show me where they had Cash for Clunkers back then?
Please direct me to the area where they gave money for buying a home back then?
Please show me where they were mandating every American to have health insurance, or be penalized for it.
Please show us where they were running up trillion dollar deficits?
Oh yeah....here's a good one, the JFK tax cuts....like to see that today.

 

[8537]

I'm just saying that democrats back then were more conservative than the democrats of today.

The Democrats who instituted the Peace Corps,
The Democrats that invented VISTA
The Democrats that staffed their economic offices with pure NeoKeynesians,
The Democrats that created Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP.
The Democrats that created Freddie Mac.
The Democrats that passed the Fair Housing Act.
The Democrats that advocated public housing and AFDC / TANF
The Democrats that ran on a host of Great Society programs and dramatically expanded the federal government....

Are somehow MORE conservative than modern Democrats?

Lol.

Yes, yes they were.
How many shares of stock did the government own back then?

Not many, but they dictated most of IBM and they controlled several of the largest government contractors...

Oh, and they intervened and took short-term control of the municipal bond market to protect money market banks.

Can you show me where they had Cash for Clunkers back then?

Cash for Clunkers? You mean like intervening to save banks? There was no reason to intervene to save most major manufacturers b/c those companies were already busy filling government contracts for infrastructure, defense and public goods.

Please direct me to the area where they gave money for buying a home back then?

They created the FHA which ushered in the 30 year, low interest federally backed mortgage for that very purpose! Oh, and they created the second housing-related GSE.

Please show me where they were mandating every American to have health insurance, or be penalized for it.

INstead, they created three distinct federal health insurance programs and mandated that all people over a certain age must enroll in one.

Please show us where they were running up trillion dollar deficits?

Running up deficits is not liberal.

Oh yeah....here's a good one, the JFK tax cuts....like to see that today.

The so-called conservatives in the JFK administration established a top marginal rate of 70%. If the current dems advocated for a 70% top marginal rate, would you call that "conservative"?