John F. Kennedy - radical wing-nut teabagger

If Kennedy was alive and running for president he would never be elected or at least he would not be a democrat
He was very pro second amendment.

How did that work out for him?

That would depend on who was responsible and who supplied the weaponry and ammunition. I think it's safe to say that the NRA had No involvement with the Kennedy Assassination. His death had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. ;) :cuckoo:

Thanks for the funny. ;)

FIREARMS AND FEDERAL LAW: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968

In 1958 Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a gun-producing state, proposed a bill to prohibit "the importation of firearms originally manufactured for military purposes

JFK was assasinated with an imported Italian military 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 rifle that Oswald ordered through a mail order catalogue
 
Last edited:
If the Kennedy tax rates were so great, why aren't conservatives like you arguing to put them back?

As usual, you're not making any sense. When did I say I like Kennedy's taxes? I simply pointed out how Kennedy is on record stating that cutting taxes is one of the best ways to turn around a bad economy - and that people who say that today are attacked relentlessly as being "radical", "wing-nut", and a "teabagger" by dumbocrats.

It's just concrete evidence that the entire dumbocrat party has been hijacked by the most radical socialists, marxists, communists, etc. The actual liberal (ie the rational liberal) is the extreme minority in this fucked up party.

The top tax rate was 91%. Of course it was too high and cutting it was going to spur the economy. The problem is you guys think this works regardless of the starting point, and it does not. If it did, we could legitimately cut taxes to a rate of zero percent, and it would grow the economy. The problem is the government would then collect zero percent of a massive economy, which would equate to zero dollars.

We can't just keep cutting taxes and expect it to lead to greater tax revenues. We've seen how this has not worked out well at all.

Actually, it has worked flawlessly. You fail to realize that the more money in the hands of the people, the more employment. And the more employment, the more people there to collect taxes from. This is not rocket science chief.

Where the problem comes in is the radical, uncontrolled spending by liberal government. Revenues to the government under the Bush tax rate were as high as they had ever been. But Obama steps in and spends $7 trillion in 4 years (it had taken us 235 years to reach $9 trillion) and all you people can do is cry "the rich don't pay their fair share".
 
Did Kennedy cut taxes after starting two unfunded wars off-budget?

Bush didn't start two wars - Al Qaeda did when they attacked us on 9/11. How dumb are you?

Bush also didn't even try to pay for them. That's the larger more important point. If the wars were worth fighting (and they were) than they should have been worth a financial sacrifice at the very least by the citizens. Instead, the only sacrifices were born by the soldiers and their families...and the US Credit.
 
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $9+ trillion. 4 years later, it stands at $16+ trillion. If you could do math, you would realize:

$9 trillion in 235 years under all presidents in history
$7 trillion in 4 years under Obama
 
As usual, you're not making any sense. When did I say I like Kennedy's taxes? I simply pointed out how Kennedy is on record stating that cutting taxes is one of the best ways to turn around a bad economy - and that people who say that today are attacked relentlessly as being "radical", "wing-nut", and a "teabagger" by dumbocrats.

It's just concrete evidence that the entire dumbocrat party has been hijacked by the most radical socialists, marxists, communists, etc. The actual liberal (ie the rational liberal) is the extreme minority in this fucked up party.

The top tax rate was 91%. Of course it was too high and cutting it was going to spur the economy. The problem is you guys think this works regardless of the starting point, and it does not. If it did, we could legitimately cut taxes to a rate of zero percent, and it would grow the economy. The problem is the government would then collect zero percent of a massive economy, which would equate to zero dollars.

We can't just keep cutting taxes and expect it to lead to greater tax revenues. We've seen how this has not worked out well at all.

Actually, it has worked flawlessly. You fail to realize that the more money in the hands of the people, the more employment. And the more employment, the more people there to collect taxes from. This is not rocket science chief.

Where the problem comes in is the radical, uncontrolled spending by liberal government. Revenues to the government under the Bush tax rate were as high as they had ever been. But Obama steps in and spends $7 trillion in 4 years (it had taken us 235 years to reach $9 trillion) and all you people can do is cry "the rich don't pay their fair share".

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Stockman: Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he assisted the approval of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget) ... The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”
 
Actually, it has worked flawlessly. You fail to realize that the more money in the hands of the people, the more employment. And the more employment, the more people there to collect taxes from. This is not rocket science chief.

This unfortunately is not a linear model, i.e. tax cuts only work up to a point. Once you go too far, they do as more harm than good.

For a real and current example of this, look at Louisiana. Jindal has cut every tax he can get his hands on and pushed for every corporate tax break he can dream of. Now, the State infrastructure, health care, and education systems are falling apart beyond the state of repair because the state is perpetually hovering on bankruptcy. Employers are noticing the third world conditions that are starting to develop and are either refusing to relocate to the State or leaving.

The government has to bring in enough to cover the necessary and required expenses. That means you either have to raise taxes, or cut services. The current mess will likely require both.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying you don't actually care what the tax rates are. You just care if they are lower today than they were yesterday. Correct?
 
Did Kennedy cut taxes after starting two unfunded wars off-budget?

Bush didn't start two wars - Al Qaeda did when they attacked us on 9/11. How dumb are you?

Bush also didn't even try to pay for them. That's the larger more important point. If the wars were worth fighting (and they were) than they should have been worth a financial sacrifice at the very least by the citizens. Instead, the only sacrifices were born by the soldiers and their families...and the US Credit.

You're right - the citizens who are sucking this nation for all it is worth should have sacrifices for ONCE in their miserable lives. All funds for Medicaid should have immediately been rerouted to defense. All funds for food stamps should have immediately been rerouted to defense. All funds for subsidized housing should have immediately been rerouted to defense.

The wars would have been paid for in FULL and we would have had significant reserves left to start paying down the debt. And lets not forget the reason they were able to attack us in the first place was because idiot dumbocrat completed gutted defense spending half a trillion dollars over 8 years and refused to address the Al Qaeda problem for 8 years.
 
Actually, it has worked flawlessly. You fail to realize that the more money in the hands of the people, the more employment. And the more employment, the more people there to collect taxes from. This is not rocket science chief.

This unfortunately is not a linear model, i.e. tax cuts only work up to a point. Once you go too far, they do as more harm than good.

For a real and current example of this, look at Louisiana. Jindal has cut every tax he can get his hands on and pushed for every corporate tax break he can dream of. Now, the State infrastructure, health care, and education systems are falling apart beyond the state of repair because the state is perpetually hovering on bankruptcy. Employers are noticing the third world conditions that are starting to develop and are either refusing to relocate to the State or leaving.

The government has to bring in enough to cover the necessary and required expenses. That means you either have to raise taxes, or cut services. The current mess will likely require both.

That's funny - New York City taxes are sky high and businesses are leaving NY at an alarming pace because of that.
 
As usual, you're not making any sense. When did I say I like Kennedy's taxes? I simply pointed out how Kennedy is on record stating that cutting taxes is one of the best ways to turn around a bad economy - and that people who say that today are attacked relentlessly as being "radical", "wing-nut", and a "teabagger" by dumbocrats.

It's just concrete evidence that the entire dumbocrat party has been hijacked by the most radical socialists, marxists, communists, etc. The actual liberal (ie the rational liberal) is the extreme minority in this fucked up party.

The top tax rate was 91%. Of course it was too high and cutting it was going to spur the economy. The problem is you guys think this works regardless of the starting point, and it does not. If it did, we could legitimately cut taxes to a rate of zero percent, and it would grow the economy. The problem is the government would then collect zero percent of a massive economy, which would equate to zero dollars.

We can't just keep cutting taxes and expect it to lead to greater tax revenues. We've seen how this has not worked out well at all.

Actually, it has worked flawlessly. You fail to realize that the more money in the hands of the people, the more employment. And the more employment, the more people there to collect taxes from. This is not rocket science chief.

Where the problem comes in is the radical, uncontrolled spending by liberal government. Revenues to the government under the Bush tax rate were as high as they had ever been. But Obama steps in and spends $7 trillion in 4 years (it had taken us 235 years to reach $9 trillion) and all you people can do is cry "the rich don't pay their fair share".

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
 
Actually, it has worked flawlessly. You fail to realize that the more money in the hands of the people, the more employment. And the more employment, the more people there to collect taxes from. This is not rocket science chief.

This unfortunately is not a linear model, i.e. tax cuts only work up to a point. Once you go too far, they do as more harm than good.

For a real and current example of this, look at Louisiana. Jindal has cut every tax he can get his hands on and pushed for every corporate tax break he can dream of. Now, the State infrastructure, health care, and education systems are falling apart beyond the state of repair because the state is perpetually hovering on bankruptcy. Employers are noticing the third world conditions that are starting to develop and are either refusing to relocate to the State or leaving.

The government has to bring in enough to cover the necessary and required expenses. That means you either have to raise taxes, or cut services. The current mess will likely require both.

That's funny - New York City taxes are sky high and businesses are leaving NY at an alarming pace because of that.

sure, NYC is doing terribly. okay.

next
 
Can you imagine today's "Liberals" mumbling this...

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Why not?

It was a call for public service and was used to justify the establishment of the Peace Corps

Because all you unhinged radical dumbocrats can scream today is, "this country owes me - what can this country do for me".

Kennedy was a liberal. The party today has been hijacked by socialists, marxists, and communists. Here is proof: The zombietime Hall of Shame
 
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Where the problem comes in is the radical, uncontrolled spending by liberal government. Revenues to the government under the Bush tax rate were as high as they had ever been. But Obama steps in and spends $7 trillion in 4 years (it had taken us 235 years to reach $9 trillion) and all you people can do is cry "the rich don't pay their fair share".
 
Can you imagine today's "Liberals" mumbling this...

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Why not?

It was a call for public service and was used to justify the establishment of the Peace Corps

Because all you unhinged radical dumbocrats can scream today is, "this country owes me - what can this country do for me".

Kennedy was a liberal. The party today has been hijacked by socialists, marxists, and communists. Here is proof: The zombietime Hall of Shame

I thought "Leave ME alone, I don't want to help anyone" was the right wing motto these days. Nice spin though.
 
Actually, it has worked flawlessly. You fail to realize that the more money in the hands of the people, the more employment. And the more employment, the more people there to collect taxes from. This is not rocket science chief.

This unfortunately is not a linear model, i.e. tax cuts only work up to a point. Once you go too far, they do as more harm than good.

For a real and current example of this, look at Louisiana. Jindal has cut every tax he can get his hands on and pushed for every corporate tax break he can dream of. Now, the State infrastructure, health care, and education systems are falling apart beyond the state of repair because the state is perpetually hovering on bankruptcy. Employers are noticing the third world conditions that are starting to develop and are either refusing to relocate to the State or leaving.

The government has to bring in enough to cover the necessary and required expenses. That means you either have to raise taxes, or cut services. The current mess will likely require both.

That's funny - New York City taxes are sky high and businesses are leaving NY at an alarming pace because of that.

That doesn't contradict what I said. In fact, it reaffirms it. The relation between taxes and the economy isn't linear. Taxes that are too high are as poisonous as taxes that are too low.
 

Forum List

Back
Top