Pre-existing conditions coverage

[dnsmith35]

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die"
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

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

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

Civil Rights Bill
Medicare
War on Poverty

And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter

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

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

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

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

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

It's laughable to think that tax cuts on the average person are somehow a cornderstone of the left.

Try again, doofus.

What is laughable too is the way he tries to claim the democrat party has moved to the right. Back in the day of JFK Reagan was a democrat. Reagan didn't change, the democrat party changed to far to the left.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. How could you possibly say the Democratic Party has moved to the left?

Because it has. If you weren't so ate up with the left wing dumbass stick you would know that. You are so full of baloney its got you bloated. Since JFK Reagan has been our best president. The first one since JFK who really cared about national defense. Rattling off a bunch platform ideas does not qualify you to understand what they mean nor what they meant to the candidates.

BTW, I was around for Truman too, and Roosevelt.

You story doesn't pass the sniff test...it is clear that you are big on national defense...BUT, you claim you voted for ultra liberal Adlai Stevenson over a 5 Star General, and George McGovern.

Here is some insight into who Jack Kennedy was and wasn't...

Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

 

[Bfgrn]

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die"
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

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

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

Civil Rights Bill
Medicare
War on Poverty

And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter

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

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

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

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

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

It's laughable to think that tax cuts on the average person are somehow a cornderstone of the left.

Try again, doofus.

"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.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

The New Frontier WAS Keynesian Economic policies.

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

Keynesian Economics

JFK’s administration adopted fiscal and monetary policies to close the recessionary gap. Economist John Maynard Keynes was a believer in Monetarism which is the theory that in order to stabilize the economy the government must lower or raise interest rates accordingly. Keynes also introduced the concept of aggregate demand which showed that full employment could be maintained only with government spending. JFK fully embraced this idea, he fueled the economy by investing in domestic, military, and space programs. This is also known as Kennedy's New Frontier. He proposed to give federal aid to education, medical care to the elderly, mass transit, as well as regional development in Appalachia which, in turn, would help the impoverished community for decades. President Kennedy signed the Housing Act of June 30th 1961 to aid middle income families as well as mass transportation users while also increasing urban renewal. Unfortunately, congressional support was limited therefore, his plans were downgraded by congress. JFK was a supporter of organized labor, he helped strengthen their rights with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The President also looked to increase minimum wages and signed a bill in 1961 which expanded the minimum wage to $1.25.

Congress and Kennedy

Regrettably many of President Kennedy’s proposals were shot down by a conservative congress run by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. It is important to keep in mind that JFK won the electoral vote by 83 votes. Congress was more than reluctant to fund Kennedy’s liberal plans such as the funding of education and Medicare. President Kennedy was, however, able to sign legislation to raise the minimum wage and increase social security benefits – this was possible in part because of his Vice President L.B. Johnson’s extensive relationship with congress . On June 30th 1961 JFK signed a bill that would extend Social Security to over five million people.

"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

Taxes

Kennedy's tax cut did not go into effect until after his assassination. The theory behind JFK's tax cuts was that when disposable income increases spending increases. This will directly affect aggregate demand. Fiscal expansion raises the demand for products. Increases in demand will lead to more output without changing the prices. Kennedy also introduced an investment tax credit meaning businesses can reduce their income taxes by 10% of their investment in a year. With increased spending and tax cuts, investments grew boosting aggregate demand. According to Andrew L. Yarrow author of Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the late 20th Century "...more evidence that Keynesian ideas, translated into policy, would further increase American growth and prosperity". The government also purchased bonds to increase the supply of money while reducing interest rates.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The real death blow to your argument and the ultimate irony is that Republicans OPPOSED Kennedy's tax cuts.

The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks

Several readers wrote in, asking whether Republicans were ever really pro-tax, or if they merely put up with higher taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.

The answer is that once upon a time, Republicans did indeed advocate leaving taxes alone, opposing tax cuts.

In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country “cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.”

And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.

The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedy’s assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Here’s the House vote, and here’s the Senate vote.

 

[dnsmith35]

"The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman.

He was by no means a viable economist.

Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.

 

[Listening]

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die"
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

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

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

Civil Rights Bill
Medicare
War on Poverty

And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter

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

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

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

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

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

It's laughable to think that tax cuts on the average person are somehow a cornderstone of the left.

Try again, doofus.

"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.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

The New Frontier WAS Keynesian Economic policies.

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

Keynesian Economics

JFK’s administration adopted fiscal and monetary policies to close the recessionary gap. Economist John Maynard Keynes was a believer in Monetarism which is the theory that in order to stabilize the economy the government must lower or raise interest rates accordingly. Keynes also introduced the concept of aggregate demand which showed that full employment could be maintained only with government spending. JFK fully embraced this idea, he fueled the economy by investing in domestic, military, and space programs. This is also known as Kennedy's New Frontier. He proposed to give federal aid to education, medical care to the elderly, mass transit, as well as regional development in Appalachia which, in turn, would help the impoverished community for decades. President Kennedy signed the Housing Act of June 30th 1961 to aid middle income families as well as mass transportation users while also increasing urban renewal. Unfortunately, congressional support was limited therefore, his plans were downgraded by congress. JFK was a supporter of organized labor, he helped strengthen their rights with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The President also looked to increase minimum wages and signed a bill in 1961 which expanded the minimum wage to $1.25.

Congress and Kennedy

Regrettably many of President Kennedy’s proposals were shot down by a conservative congress run by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. It is important to keep in mind that JFK won the electoral vote by 83 votes. Congress was more than reluctant to fund Kennedy’s liberal plans such as the funding of education and Medicare. President Kennedy was, however, able to sign legislation to raise the minimum wage and increase social security benefits – this was possible in part because of his Vice President L.B. Johnson’s extensive relationship with congress . On June 30th 1961 JFK signed a bill that would extend Social Security to over five million people.

"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

Taxes

Kennedy's tax cut did not go into effect until after his assassination. The theory behind JFK's tax cuts was that when disposable income increases spending increases. This will directly affect aggregate demand. Fiscal expansion raises the demand for products. Increases in demand will lead to more output without changing the prices. Kennedy also introduced an investment tax credit meaning businesses can reduce their income taxes by 10% of their investment in a year. With increased spending and tax cuts, investments grew boosting aggregate demand. According to Andrew L. Yarrow author of Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the late 20th Century "...more evidence that Keynesian ideas, translated into policy, would further increase American growth and prosperity". The government also purchased bonds to increase the supply of money while reducing interest rates.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The real death blow to your argument and the ultimate irony is that Republicans OPPOSED Kennedy's tax cuts.

The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks

Several readers wrote in, asking whether Republicans were ever really pro-tax, or if they merely put up with higher taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.

The answer is that once upon a time, Republicans did indeed advocate leaving taxes alone, opposing tax cuts.

In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country “cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.”

And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.

The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedy’s assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Here’s the House vote, and here’s the Senate vote.

What is this supposed to prove. You provide no explanation as to what it is you are trying to say here.

The statement was made that Republicans are fans of tax cuts. Your argument....from a half a century ago is to the contrary.

Seriously ?

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/200-economists-urge-tax-cuts-instead-stimulus-spending

http://ezinearticles.com/?Bush-Tax-Cuts-Vs-Obama-Stimulus---The-24-Month-Results-of-Each&id=6145914

 

[Bfgrn]

"The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman.

He was by no means a viable economist.

Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.

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

You are avoiding answering my questions. You claim to be a JFK Democrat. Yet nothing you say or extol supports that claim.

John F. Kennedy's CLOSEST adviser was John Kenneth Galbraith. And John Kenneth Galbraith's fingerprints and influence are all over the New Frontier's agenda.

Galbraith advocated three large proposals: the elimination of poverty, government investment in public schools, and the growth of the "New Class". The "New Class" consists of schoolteachers, professors, surgeons, and electrical engineers.

The War on Poverty was a New Frontier agenda. Large investment in public education was a New Frontier agenda and 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.

So PLEASE tell me what New Frontier ideas you support?

 

[Political Junky]

"The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman.

He was by no means a viable economist.

Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.

Reagan would be pushed out of the Republican Party today, along with so many others.

 

[dnsmith35]

......

The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman.

He was by no means a viable economist.

Compared to Galbraith he was a genius.
Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.

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

I agree with Moynihan on this one issue, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how warped it may be.

You are avoiding answering my questions. You claim to be a JFK Democrat. Yet nothing you say or extol supports that claim.

You have been too busy to listen to anyone else.

John F. Kennedy's CLOSEST adviser was John Kenneth Galbraith. And John Kenneth Galbraith's fingerprints and influence are all over the New Frontier's agenda.

Yet that was but one small part of Kennedy's administration.

Galbraith advocated three large proposals: the elimination of poverty, government investment in public schools, and the growth of the "New Class". The "New Class" consists of schoolteachers, professors, surgeons, and electrical engineers.

Up to the new "class" I agree. That is where Galbraith led Kennedy astray. The new class was Galbraith's push toward a Marxist society.

The War on Poverty was a New Frontier agenda. Large investment in public education was a New Frontier agenda and 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.

So PLEASE tell me what New Frontier ideas you support?

I support all of the support for education and assistance to the poor. What I don't agree with is the "new class" which would have destroyed the prosperity of our country. Fortunately JFK listened to those who believed in doing what it takes to help the economy.

Now specifically I support:

Helping the poor
Good public education for all, to include a good trade training program
Universal Medical care
Universal civil rights​

But just as important, I believe in a strong economy which will not happen if we move to the left, taxing the economy and making an entire segment of our citizenry dependent on the government. We need that strong economy to fund all of the desired social programs, not socialism which will destroy that economy.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, is not a good way to create universal medical care. Too many people get left out by the details and those with insurance will pay higher premiums.

 

[RKMBrown]

......

The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman.

He was by no means a viable economist.

Compared to Galbraith he was a genius.
Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.I agree with Moynihan on this one issue, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how warped it may be.You have been too busy to listen to anyone else.Yet that was but one small part of Kennedy's administration.

Galbraith advocated three large proposals: the elimination of poverty, government investment in public schools, and the growth of the "New Class". The "New Class" consists of schoolteachers, professors, surgeons, and electrical engineers.

Up to the new "class" I agree. That is where Galbraith led Kennedy astray. The new class was Galbraith's push toward a Marxist society.

The War on Poverty was a New Frontier agenda. Large investment in public education was a New Frontier agenda and 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.

So PLEASE tell me what New Frontier ideas you support?

I support all of the support for education and assistance to the poor. What I don't agree with is the "new class" which would have destroyed the prosperity of our country. Fortunately JFK listened to those who believed in doing what it takes to help the economy.

Now specifically I support:

Helping the poor
Good public education for all, to include a good trade training program
Universal Medical care
Universal civil rights​

But just as important, I believe in a strong economy which will not happen if we move to the left, taxing the economy and making an entire segment of our citizenry dependent on the government. We need that strong economy to fund all of the desired social programs, not socialism which will destroy that economy.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, is not a good way to create universal medical care. Too many people get left out by the details and those with insurance will pay higher premiums.

Why stop with free welfare & disability checks, free health care, and free education? Why not just make it so no one has to lift a finger to get everything one might want?

Why should I work hard when working less means I get all this free stuff? Why study for a skill when my government imports skilled workers to take my job? What's the point?

 

[dnsmith35]

......

The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman. Compared to Galbraith he was a genius.
Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.I agree with Moynihan on this one issue, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how warped it may be.You have been too busy to listen to anyone else.Yet that was but one small part of Kennedy's administration.Up to the new "class" I agree. That is where Galbraith led Kennedy astray. The new class was Galbraith's push toward a Marxist society.

The War on Poverty was a New Frontier agenda. Large investment in public education was a New Frontier agenda and 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.

So PLEASE tell me what New Frontier ideas you support?

I support all of the support for education and assistance to the poor. What I don't agree with is the "new class" which would have destroyed the prosperity of our country. Fortunately JFK listened to those who believed in doing what it takes to help the economy.

Now specifically I support:

Helping the poor
Good public education for all, to include a good trade training program
Universal Medical care
Universal civil rights​

But just as important, I believe in a strong economy which will not happen if we move to the left, taxing the economy and making an entire segment of our citizenry dependent on the government. We need that strong economy to fund all of the desired social programs, not socialism which will destroy that economy.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, is not a good way to create universal medical care. Too many people get left out by the details and those with insurance will pay higher premiums.

Why stop with free welfare & disability checks, free health care, and free education? Why not just make it so no one has to lift a finger to get everything one might want?

Why should I work hard when working less means I get all this free stuff? Why study for a skill when my government imports skilled workers to take my job? What's the point?

My sentiments exactly. We educate our people such that they can better contribute to the economy. We care for the sick such that they can become productive citizens. We recognize that there are some people who for many reasons to include disability (mental or physical) who will never be able to support themselves.

All of us then work for our own benefit so long as the government does not transfer our wealth beyond the absolute minimum.

There is a middle ground at which optimum revenues are collected to finance government programs without curtailing the economy. There is an optimum amount of assistance people who cannot care for themselves should be given. That "optimum" point is a gray area below which or above which prosperity or the individuals will suffer.

JFK understood this and the left wing extremists refuse to accept even JFK's judgment on the subject and want to move so far to the left they will fritter away the very wealth which supports the programs in which they CLAIM to support. I have never met either a moderate democrat or republican who does not support those same issues.

 

[dnsmith35]

"The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman.

He was by no means a viable economist.

Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.

Reagan would be pushed out of the Republican Party today, along with so many others.

I suspect that the extreme RW of the Republican Party may very well want to expel Reagan. And the moderates of both parties would like to expel all of the extremists on both ends of the spectrum. As we are I view our political system as having 3 parties. RW, Moderate, LW.

 

[Bfgrn]

......

The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman.

He was by no means a viable economist.

Compared to Galbraith he was a genius.
Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.I agree with Moynihan on this one issue, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how warped it may be.You have been too busy to listen to anyone else.Yet that was but one small part of Kennedy's administration.

Galbraith advocated three large proposals: the elimination of poverty, government investment in public schools, and the growth of the "New Class". The "New Class" consists of schoolteachers, professors, surgeons, and electrical engineers.

Up to the new "class" I agree. That is where Galbraith led Kennedy astray. The new class was Galbraith's push toward a Marxist society.

The War on Poverty was a New Frontier agenda. Large investment in public education was a New Frontier agenda and 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.

So PLEASE tell me what New Frontier ideas you support?

I support all of the support for education and assistance to the poor. What I don't agree with is the "new class" which would have destroyed the prosperity of our country. Fortunately JFK listened to those who believed in doing what it takes to help the economy.

Now specifically I support:

Helping the poor
Good public education for all, to include a good trade training program
Universal Medical care
Universal civil rights​

But just as important, I believe in a strong economy which will not happen if we move to the left, taxing the economy and making an entire segment of our citizenry dependent on the government. We need that strong economy to fund all of the desired social programs, not socialism which will destroy that economy.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, is not a good way to create universal medical care. Too many people get left out by the details and those with insurance will pay higher premiums.

Let's recap...

So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993???

Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.


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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962

 

[dnsmith35]

......

The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman. Compared to Galbraith he was a genius.
Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.I agree with Moynihan on this one issue, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how warped it may be.You have been too busy to listen to anyone else.Yet that was but one small part of Kennedy's administration.Up to the new "class" I agree. That is where Galbraith led Kennedy astray. The new class was Galbraith's push toward a Marxist society.

The War on Poverty was a New Frontier agenda. Large investment in public education was a New Frontier agenda and 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.

So PLEASE tell me what New Frontier ideas you support?

I support all of the support for education and assistance to the poor. What I don't agree with is the "new class" which would have destroyed the prosperity of our country. Fortunately JFK listened to those who believed in doing what it takes to help the economy.

Now specifically I support:

Helping the poor
Good public education for all, to include a good trade training program
Universal Medical care
Universal civil rights​

But just as important, I believe in a strong economy which will not happen if we move to the left, taxing the economy and making an entire segment of our citizenry dependent on the government. We need that strong economy to fund all of the desired social programs, not socialism which will destroy that economy.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, is not a good way to create universal medical care. Too many people get left out by the details and those with insurance will pay higher premiums.

Let's recap...

Why? We both know were you stand.

So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Yep, without a sliver of doubt.

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are.

Only to left wing nuts like yourself.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993???

Nope! Not strange at all. It was all they could get, and they butchered it terribly.

BTW, many conservative organizations do believe in the same goals as liberals. The devil is in the detail, the how to achieve those goals.

Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.

Wow, the left wing nuts didn't get their way. Why not stamp their little feet in anger?

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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962

Sure, like the myth that the democratic party has not moved to the far left. Gotcha!

 

[Bfgrn]

The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman. Compared to Galbraith he was a genius.
Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.I agree with Moynihan on this one issue, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how warped it may be.You have been too busy to listen to anyone else.Yet that was but one small part of Kennedy's administration.Up to the new "class" I agree. That is where Galbraith led Kennedy astray. The new class was Galbraith's push toward a Marxist society.I support all of the support for education and assistance to the poor. What I don't agree with is the "new class" which would have destroyed the prosperity of our country. Fortunately JFK listened to those who believed in doing what it takes to help the economy.

Now specifically I support:

Helping the poor
Good public education for all, to include a good trade training program
Universal Medical care
Universal civil rights​

But just as important, I believe in a strong economy which will not happen if we move to the left, taxing the economy and making an entire segment of our citizenry dependent on the government. We need that strong economy to fund all of the desired social programs, not socialism which will destroy that economy.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, is not a good way to create universal medical care. Too many people get left out by the details and those with insurance will pay higher premiums.

Let's recap...

So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993???

Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.

Wow, the left wing nuts didn't get their way. Why not stamp their little feet in anger?

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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962

Sure, like the myth that the democratic party has not moved to the far left. Gotcha!

I see you possess the compartmentalized mind of a right wing parrot. Your chopping of posts is a dead giveaway.

Your attempt at deflection is duly noted. No one stamped their feet, but the FACT remains that the ACA is NOT a bill written by some far left party. It is far to the right of what a liberal party would author.

John F. Kennedy ran on passing Medicare; government run healthcare. LBJ passed Medicare. The first enrollee was Harry S. Truman. THAT is the model a liberal party would propose for a major overhaul of our healthcare system. It was never even part of the debate.

You are a fraud...the last JFK liberal in Washington was Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. A man whose public life was dedicated to continuing the beliefs and legacy of his hero...John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

You are making the right wing parrots sound sane...

 

[Listening]

......

The thesis of The Affluent Society," by John Kenneth Galbraith, "is a variant of the Marxian dialectic." George Reisman. Compared to Galbraith he was a genius.
Since JFK, the democrat party moved so far to the left, people like Reagan were pushed out of the party. Many, like myself, cling to the democrat party in the hopes of throwing off the evil blanket of left wing fanaticism.

There is a difference between prognosticators like Galbraith and economists. He dreams of an ideal world in which everyone is well taken care of. Such a world does not exist. In the socialist utopia he pined for, because of human nature and behavior, it can only occur if there is a totalitarian government and only then if the government is benevolent. Even then, as the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers, the entire economy loses prosperity. Economists, especially great ones like Reisman and Mises, concern themselves with the best way to achieve prosperity, which in turn achieves sufficient funding to pay for social programs which help the needy. That is by far the most sensible approach to a real benevolent society.I agree with Moynihan on this one issue, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how warped it may be.You have been too busy to listen to anyone else.Yet that was but one small part of Kennedy's administration.Up to the new "class" I agree. That is where Galbraith led Kennedy astray. The new class was Galbraith's push toward a Marxist society.

The War on Poverty was a New Frontier agenda. Large investment in public education was a New Frontier agenda and 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.

So PLEASE tell me what New Frontier ideas you support?

I support all of the support for education and assistance to the poor. What I don't agree with is the "new class" which would have destroyed the prosperity of our country. Fortunately JFK listened to those who believed in doing what it takes to help the economy.

Now specifically I support:

Helping the poor
Good public education for all, to include a good trade training program
Universal Medical care
Universal civil rights​

But just as important, I believe in a strong economy which will not happen if we move to the left, taxing the economy and making an entire segment of our citizenry dependent on the government. We need that strong economy to fund all of the desired social programs, not socialism which will destroy that economy.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, is not a good way to create universal medical care. Too many people get left out by the details and those with insurance will pay higher premiums.

Let's recap...

So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993???

Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.


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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962

Please stop with the crap.

This means nothing because.....

First; you saw many on the left like Barney Frank and Paul Krugman who felt that if they could get this through it would put them on the path to a single payer system. They can be patient and wait.

Second; you had a pretty raucous right wing crowd in the congress who made a great deal of noise.

Third; you had an economy that was tanking around this thing. If the economy had not been so bad, you could make an argument that the single payer crowd might have been more bold. Obama was using a lot of his capital to push through the stimulus bill. He knew he could not get it all.

You post a lot of words, but it has become evident that they really are pretty meaningless. You pick what you think is data and ignore it in it's context.

Stop wasting our time.

 

[Listening]

Let's recap...

So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are.

BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993???

Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.


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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962

Sure, like the myth that the democratic party has not moved to the far left. Gotcha!

I see you possess the compartmentalized mind of a right wing parrot. Your chopping of posts is a dead giveaway.

Your attempt at deflection is duly noted. No one stamped their feet, but the FACT remains that the ACA is NOT a bill written by some far left party. It is far to the right of what a liberal party would author.

John F. Kennedy ran on passing Medicare; government run healthcare. LBJ passed Medicare. The first enrollee was Harry S. Truman. THAT is the model a liberal party would propose for a major overhaul of our healthcare system. It was never even part of the debate.

You are a fraud...the last JFK liberal in Washington was Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. A man whose public life was dedicated to continuing the beliefs and legacy of his hero...John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

You are making the right wing parrots sound sane...

In almost all cases, I don't let politics spill over into the personal. In Ted's case, I have to make an exception. I can't say I was sad to see him go.

He was a liar and an enemy to the constitution.

His smear of Robert Bork was an indication of just how subhuman he was.

If Bork wasn't the right man for the job, let the process play out. Kennedy lied his ass off about Bork and smeared him before he ever got a word out.

It has to be an example of one of the more disgusting performances seen by a public figure in all of history.

So long Ted...glad you're dead.

 

[dnsmith35]

Let's recap...So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are. BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993??? Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.

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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962​

Sure, like the myth that the democratic party has not moved to the far left. Gotcha! [/B]

I see you possess the compartmentalized mind of a right wing parrot. Your chopping of posts is a dead giveaway.

You are out of your mind. I chop, as you call it, to insure each of your mistaken ideas are addressed separately. Your run on long explanations smell like left wing elitism to me. So there

Your attempt at deflection is duly noted. No one stamped their feet, but the FACT remains that the ACA is NOT a bill written by some far left party. It is far to the right of what a liberal party would author.

Which, as I explained, is completely irrelevantly. In fact, I can feel the vibrations of your foot stamping right now.

John F. Kennedy ran on passing Medicare; government run healthcare. LBJ passed Medicare. The first enrollee was Harry S. Truman. THAT is the model a liberal party would propose for a major overhaul of our healthcare system. It was never even part of the debate.

I like Medicare, Medicaid so you can pull back your fangs. Read my sig block, you are to be pitied for your blindness.

You are a fraud...the last JFK liberal in Washington was Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. A man whose public life was dedicated to continuing the beliefs and legacy of his hero...John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

You are making the right wing parrots sound sane...

The only fraud around here at the moment is you. As a moderate democrat I am sure I come off as conservative to you, but then JFK was not a left wing nut you make him out to be. He was a visionary liberal, not a left wing extremist like you come off.

 

[Listening]

Let's recap...So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are. BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993??? Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.

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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962​

Sure, like the myth that the democratic party has not moved to the far left. Gotcha! [/B]

I see you possess the compartmentalized mind of a right wing parrot. Your chopping of posts is a dead giveaway.

You are out of your mind. I chop, as you call it, to insure each of your mistaken ideas are addressed separately. Your run on long explanations smell like left wing elitism to me. So thereWhich, as I explained, is completely irrelevantly. In fact, I can feel the vibrations of your foot stamping right now.

John F. Kennedy ran on passing Medicare; government run healthcare. LBJ passed Medicare. The first enrollee was Harry S. Truman. THAT is the model a liberal party would propose for a major overhaul of our healthcare system. It was never even part of the debate.

I like Medicare, Medicaid so you can pull back your fangs. Read my sig block, you are to be pitied for your blindness.

You are a fraud...the last JFK liberal in Washington was Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. A man whose public life was dedicated to continuing the beliefs and legacy of his hero...John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

You are making the right wing parrots sound sane...

The only fraud around here at the moment is you. As a moderate democrat I am sure I come off as conservative to you, but then JFK was not a left wing nut you make him out to be. He was a visionary liberal, not a left wing extremist like you come off.

If Obama is so non-left wing and tax cuts are so Keynsian.....why didn't Obama just cut a ton of taxes and leave the stimulus out altogether ?

Answer: so he could put a bunch of people in his pocket. States couldn't find the money to pay for extra teachers ? What does that tell you. So why does Obama think he knows more ?

 

[dnsmith35]

Let's recap...So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are. BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993??? Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.

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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962​

Sure, like the myth that the democratic party has not moved to the far left. Gotcha! [/B]You are out of your mind. I chop, as you call it, to insure each of your mistaken ideas are addressed separately. Your run on long explanations smell like left wing elitism to me. So thereWhich, as I explained, is completely irrelevantly. In fact, I can feel the vibrations of your foot stamping right now.I like Medicare, Medicaid so you can pull back your fangs. Read my sig block, you are to be pitied for your blindness.

You are a fraud...the last JFK liberal in Washington was Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. A man whose public life was dedicated to continuing the beliefs and legacy of his hero...John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

You are making the right wing parrots sound sane...

The only fraud around here at the moment is you. As a moderate democrat I am sure I come off as conservative to you, but then JFK was not a left wing nut you make him out to be. He was a visionary liberal, not a left wing extremist like you come off.

If Obama is so non-left wing and tax cuts are so Keynsian.....why didn't Obama just cut a ton of taxes and leave the stimulus out altogether ?

Answer: so he could put a bunch of people in his pocket. States couldn't find the money to pay for extra teachers ? What does that tell you. So why does Obama think he knows more ?

Obama is not trying to impress us with his knowledge with those practices. He is building a more dependent block of people who will vote for left wing policies down the line. Just like the Daily Kos crap about gun control. It is not what he can get today so much as what his power base can do tomorrow. My whole party has moved to the left leaving me in the middle. I tend to be liberal on almost all social issues, moderate on economics and somewhere near the middle on gun control. I believe we should have back ground checks, but I don't believe in infringement.

Obama's entire approach to the "stimulus" was completely a waste of over half a trillion $$$. He effectively spent $500 billion targeting the same people targeted by our normal assistance/safety net programs instead of putting money (or tax cuts) into building employment buying things the government/military will need anyway. That would have really stimulated the economy.

He, like all the other typical left wing nuts, seems to believe throwing money at a problem is the answer, and that is why we are so far in debt without the proper results.

Education is a good example of that last thought. Our whole public school system is a failure because we are trying to do the wrong thing. In Europe, where I lived for some 16 years, there are two tiers of secondary education. 1 tier is University oriented, and the other tier is trade oriented with government support for apprentice programs and OJT. Not everyone is college oriented and it is a waste of money and space to get so many kids into college of whom will never get any value.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's recap...So....you are claiming the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society...

Keep chanting that to hear how absurd your beliefs really are. BTW, Obama Care, the subject of the OP, was passed by this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine. Isn't just a little ironic that the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party wanted single payer? And isn't it ironic that this so called far left Democratic Party you imagine didn't even PROPOSE single payer and didn't even get the public option compromise?? Instead we got the health care bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation and proposed by Republican in 1993??? Now the FACTS: the small faction of liberals and progressives that are still left in the Democratic Party were shut out in the health care debate. They got NOTHING.

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 – Commencement Address at Yale University, Old Campus, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962​

Sure, like the myth that the democratic party has not moved to the far left. Gotcha! [/B]You are out of your mind. I chop, as you call it, to insure each of your mistaken ideas are addressed separately. Your run on long explanations smell like left wing elitism to me. So thereWhich, as I explained, is completely irrelevantly. In fact, I can feel the vibrations of your foot stamping right now.I like Medicare, Medicaid so you can pull back your fangs. Read my sig block, you are to be pitied for your blindness.

You are a fraud...the last JFK liberal in Washington was Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. A man whose public life was dedicated to continuing the beliefs and legacy of his hero...John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

You are making the right wing parrots sound sane...

The only fraud around here at the moment is you. As a moderate democrat I am sure I come off as conservative to you, but then JFK was not a left wing nut you make him out to be. He was a visionary liberal, not a left wing extremist like you come off.

If Obama is so non-left wing and tax cuts are so Keynsian.....why didn't Obama just cut a ton of taxes and leave the stimulus out altogether ?

Answer: so he could put a bunch of people in his pocket. States couldn't find the money to pay for extra teachers ? What does that tell you. So why does Obama think he knows more ?

Just under 40% of the Obama stimulus package was devoted to tax cuts. The bill had $237 billion in tax cuts.

NOW what???