President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.

[Bfgrn]

Kennedy's view on tax cuts are the same as Reagan,

John F. Kennedy on taxes

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

Since the drive to pass Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s, Republicans have often invoked John F. Kennedy as the patron saint of supply-side economics. For several years now, conservative groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the Club for Growth—the supply-side group whose name sounds like a hair-replacement outfit—have used JFK's name and words to depict Republican tax cuts skewed toward the rich as part of a grand bipartisan tradition. (In 1997 in Slate, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum dissected one of these ads.) Now the Club for Growth's Stephen Moore is enlisting JFK to take a swipe at Howard Dean's economic vision in the Wall Street Journal, declaring it anti-growth, burdensome to the middle-class, and in an oh-so-painful concluding slap, final proof that the Democrats "no longer believe a word of John F. Kennedy's message of 40 years ago."

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "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.

Whole article

 

[editec]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

The day I let LIMO LIBERALS define what liberalism is is the day I'll give up any interest in politics.

There is NO GROUP of political partisans who need some sense knocked into them more than that arrogant bunch.

They KILLED the Democratic Party as far as I'm concerned.

And while many of them are terribly nice people, they're enabled the Republican LITE party (read the DNC) to become not part of the solution, but co-conspirators of the desctruction of the American middle class.

A pox on their Chablis and Brie politics.

 

[mdn2000]

If Kennedy is 'like the Republicans', then tell me how much you support his statements in this speech given a month before his assassination, or show me one Republican that talks this way:

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

Reagan, Reagan fulfilled the dreams of Kennedy

Ronald Reagan... Farewell Address to the Nation

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. They way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created - and filled - 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

WTF did you cut out President Kennedy's words? There are NO Republicans that talk about 'inherited wealth and inherited poverty in this country', 'a responsibility of the privileged to give back and put forth service to the Great Republic'.

You are being disingenuous and deceitful.

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.

"There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

Kennedy said a lot of things, think this is the only example that Kennedy sounds like Reagan.

 

[mdn2000]

Kennedy's view on tax cuts are the same as Reagan,

John F. Kennedy on taxes

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

Since the drive to pass Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s, Republicans have often invoked John F. Kennedy as the patron saint of supply-side economics. For several years now, conservative groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the Club for Growth—the supply-side group whose name sounds like a hair-replacement outfit—have used JFK's name and words to depict Republican tax cuts skewed toward the rich as part of a grand bipartisan tradition. (In 1997 in Slate, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum dissected one of these ads.) Now the Club for Growth's Stephen Moore is enlisting JFK to take a swipe at Howard Dean's economic vision in the Wall Street Journal, declaring it anti-growth, burdensome to the middle-class, and in an oh-so-painful concluding slap, final proof that the Democrats "no longer believe a word of John F. Kennedy's message of 40 years ago."

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "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.

Whole article

I am not saying he is a patron saint, I just posted what Kennedy said and what Reagan said, pretty conservative. Maybe we should not stereotype politicians just because they are Democrat or Republican

 

[code1211]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

With respect, you have chosen two quotes from addresses to first the parisan hacks at the convention and second to the union boss at a fund raiser.

If this is all he had ever said, he would be swept aside as summarily as the Big 0 is about to be. Ad men are forgotten long before their products leave the shelves.

When he challenged the American people to do great things like land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth and to "Ask NOT what your county can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country", these captured the imagination and reflected the spirit of the times and the public consciousness.

That you find the two quotes you present to be reflective of his memory says far more about your inability to recognize greatness than it does about the actual greatness of this man and his vision for America.

As a follow up question to yours, what Liberal politician today proposes a cut in taxes saying that a rising tide lifts all boats? The trouble with taking things out of context, in this case the context of his life of service, sacrifice and dutiful responsibility, is that the context remains and only mind numbed fools bereft of any inteligence are fooled by this kind of deciet.

President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.

Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.

That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units. Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for all private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are? They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.

 

[Trajan]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

if you read what Kennedy said in detail on this matter you would discover his mantra was;" a hand UP, not a hand OUT".

and cons do care about these issues, the difference is they don't see what we have done as efficient or helpful in many of those areas in the long term.

You and others like you, equate that with;' they want to eat the babies of mothers who live in housing projects ' or they ' wants da little chillen to goes hungrys'.....give me a break, please.

and schools? who are the proponents of charter schools and vouchers? Who is owned by the AFT and NEA?......yea, thought so.

 

[Bfgrn]

With respect, you have chosen two quotes from addresses to first the parisan hacks at the convention and second to the union boss at a fund raiser.

If this is all he had ever said, he would be swept aside as summarily as the Big 0 is about to be. Ad men are forgotten long before their products leave the shelves.

When he challenged the American people to do great things like land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth and to "Ask NOT what your county can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country", these captured the imagination and reflected the spirit of the times and the public consciousness.

That you find the two quotes you present to be reflective of his memory says far more about your inability to recognize greatness than it does about the actual greatness of this man and his vision for America.

As a follow up question to yours, what Liberal politician today proposes a cut in taxes saying that a rising tide lifts all boats? The trouble with taking things out of context, in this case the context of his life of service, sacrifice and dutiful responsibility, is that the context remains and only mind numbed fools bereft of any inteligence are fooled by this kind of deciet.

President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.

Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.

That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units. Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for all private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are? They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.

It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.

Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Liberty]

President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.

Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.

That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units. Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for all private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are? They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.

It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment.

Yep, definitely a troll.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units. Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for all private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are? They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.

It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment.

Yep, definitely a troll.

A 'troll' blurts out little sentences...and hacks up people's posts

 

[Trajan]

President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.

Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.

That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units. Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for all private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are? They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.

It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.

Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

sounds like a screed to me. you want your post taken seriously, sure, however, you need to post reasonably.

This post ww2 growth occurred in spite of the new deal not so much because of it.

what you are seeing now is the new deal state collapsing of its own weight, technology isn't invented by gov. fiat or subsidies, never has never will be.

IF big bad corps didn't exist you would not have had all that largess to buy votes and keep the dependency machine going which has resulted in this collapse.

As gov. added more regs the harder it became to do bus. which drives the money machine , which the left feels obliged to purloin oops, help themselves to, to build the dependent class, creating a nation where in 40% of the populace contributes no net taxes to the fed gov....who makes that difference up? hummmm, let me think.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units. Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for all private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are? They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.

It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.

Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

sounds like a screed to me. you want your post taken seriously, sure, however, you need to post reasonably.

This post ww2 growth occurred in spite of the new deal not so much because of it.

what you are seeing now is the new deal state collapsing of its own weight, technology isn't invented by gov. fiat or subsidies, never has never will be.

IF big bad corps didn't exist you would not have had all that largess to buy votes and keep the dependency machine going which has resulted in this collapse.

As gov. added more regs the harder it became to do bus. which drives the money machine , which the left feels obliged to purloin oops, help themselves to, to build the dependent class, creating a nation where in 40% of the populace contributes no net taxes to the fed gov....who makes that difference up? hummmm, let me think.

I don't look to people like you for approval of my posts or to concede my knowledge. I lived through much of the liberal era. I witnessed what Nixon started and the Reagan revolution destroyed. So I have a foundation and benchmark to compare our direction and progress to. The New Deal created much more than economic stability. But conservatives never calculate human capital in their equations. It was an era where the rights and liberties of the common man were greatly enhanced. The conservative era that followed built nothing. It has been busy tearing down what our ancestors from both sides of the aisle crafted as ONE nation. Conservatives have replaced words like 'service of the Great Republic' with their 3 priorities; me, myself and I.

It is ludicrous for conservatives to try to claim Jack Kennedy as their own. He was the antithesis of Ronald Reagan. At the time of his death, Ted Kennedy was already a Senator. His brother Jack was his idol. So everything Ted did as a Senator was centered around Jack and Bobby's aspirations for America. Ted dedicated his public life to continue what his brother's started.

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


But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.

Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:

Take human nature altogether since time began . . .
And it must be a little more in favor of man,
Say a fraction of one percent at the very least . . .
Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so increased.


Because of Mr. Frost's life and work, because of the life and work of this college, our hold on this planet has increased.

Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

 

[mdn2000]

President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.

Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.

That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units. Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for all private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are? They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.

It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.

Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

Which "sovereign nation", can't be Iraq we surrounded Saddam literally with the Army and gave him a real Texas warning to get out of town. Not a sneak attack.

Iraq ceased being "sovereign" the minute Abd al-Karim Qasim took over.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units. Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for all private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are? They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.

It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.

Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

Which "sovereign nation", can't be Iraq we surrounded Saddam literally with the Army and gave him a real Texas warning to get out of town. Not a sneak attack.

Iraq ceased being "sovereign" the minute Abd al-Karim Qasim took over.

REALLY!!! Abd al-Karim Qasim, why, because he wanted to nationalize Iraqi's natural resources and have the people of Iraq benefit from the country's riches? Or because he crafted a constitution that proclaimed the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting them freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion? Or because he freed political prisoners and granted amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the 1943 to 1945 Kurdish uprisings and the exiled Kurds returned home and were welcomed by the republican regime? Or, is it because he greatly increased the size of the middle class? Or was it because Qasim oversaw the building of 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes. The most notable was the new suburb of Baghdad named Madinat al-Thawra (revolution city), renamed Saddam City under the Baath regime and now widely referred to as Sadr City. Or was it because Qasim rewrote the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society?

OR...WAS IT BECAUSE: Qasim passed law No. 80 which seized 99% of Iraqi land from the British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company???

 

[Dante]

Kennedy's view on tax cuts are the same as Reagan,

John F. Kennedy on taxes

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

Kennedy's tax cuts had to do with tax loop holes. Kennedy said the wealthy were NOT paying their fair share of taxes. JFK closed the loopholes and lowered the rate teh wealthy paid. Kennedy's tax policies increased tax revenue coming in from the wealthy.

If you're going to start regurgitating Right Wing World Echo Chamber bullshit without understanding context, you will fail every time.

http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/ JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

Demand side vs supply side.

 

[Dante]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

if you read what Kennedy said in detail on this matter you would discover his mantra was;" a hand UP, not a hand OUT".

and cons do care about these issues, the difference is they don't see what we have done as efficient or helpful in many of those areas in the long term.

You and others like you, equate that with;' they want to eat the babies of mothers who live in housing projects ' or they ' wants da little chillen to goes hungrys'.....give me a break, please.

and schools? who are the proponents of charter schools and vouchers? Who is owned by the AFT and NEA?......yea, thought so.

JFK was not disparaging the poor or needy. He was not name calling and calling people lazy like your heroes often do.[/B

JFK was talking about a spoiled and greedy attitude. The gimmie girls and boys of the adults, the baby boomers, responded with volunteerism across the world. This volunteerism, community action (Obama? ) took the form of helping the poor, the needy, the less fortunate. The volunteerism was not a mask for greed and accumulation of wealthy.Those with the most toys win .. was not the mantra of the Kennedy days. The volunteerism was a call for liberal action.

 

[Dante]

The day I let LIMO LIBERALS define what liberalism is is the day I'll give up any interest in politics.

consistency is not always a trait to be proud of.


thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the argument

 

[Liability]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."

And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.

LOTS of people can be concerned with and concerned about "the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."

That's never been the actual question. The question, the thing that has separated libs from conservatives, historically, is the one involving HOW to address those concerns and problems.

An amorphous term like the "welfare" of the people is too ill-defined a concept to have much meaning of use in the discussion.

Concern for the health of the "people," as we see when we look at that hideous monstrosity we laughingly call "Obamacare" is expressed in a ridiculous and irrational fashion by the liberals who support that absurdity. If THAT'S your daffynition of "liberal," then you can be a liberal. I'm not interested. I am concerned with the public health and access to health-care, too. But my expression of that concern would NEVER be found in creating a Federal Government bureaucracy like the depraved joke called "Obamacare."

Caring for the housing of the people, likewise, can be expressed by libs in having the Fed government act like everyone's nanny at the expense of all wealth earners and producers. Or it can be expressed in less cumbersome and less socialist ways. Mandating that everyone who applies for a mortgage is required to by God GET one from a bank on pain of Federal prosecution of the bank or on pain of the denial to the Bank of certain needed bank access to Federal monetary management tools -- as we have seen -- is destined not only to fail, but to cause massive disruptions that could have and should have been utterly avoidable.

The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people. This is now and always was bullshit. The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.

That's point one.

Point two is simpler. JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody. For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.

 

[Dante]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."

And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.

...

The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people. This is now and always was bullshit. The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.

That's point one.

Point two is simpler. JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody. For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.

JFK's principles are Democratic principles. JFK was a liberal.

JFK would not be accepted as easily by the left. The left rarely loves liberals. The far left like the far right (your homeland) are fringe lunatics,

 

[Liability]

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -70 reputation points from Dante.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
ha! dope. disingenuos dope.

Regards,
Dante

He has no actual argument to make.

Dainty, you poor suffering retard, everyone knows that President Kennedy was a liberal Democrat. I mean, seriously, no shit Sherlock, you imbecile.

But the libs of today have a code that mandates how dedicated they are. Dissent is not tolerated. This is why, despite his 95% voting record in support of the liberal Democrat agenda, Sen. Lieberman got hounded by the liberal Democrat establishment. His failure to totally adhere (mindlessly) to the liberal orthodoxy (in matters of military concerns, especially, such as the Iraq war) got him rebuffed by the idiotic liberals of our day. JFK was a tough hombre in terms of confronting our enemies. In today's world, he would get marginalized by you moron uber libs.

You can deny it all you want, in your typically retarded fashion, but that doesn't change the fact that it's plainly true. Lieberman stands as silent proof. You got totally exposed and hosed, dufus. You are self-pwning, Dainty

 

[Liability]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."

And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.

LOTS of people can be concerned with and concerned about "the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."

That's never been the actual question. The question, the thing that has separated libs from conservatives, historically, is the one involving HOW to address those concerns and problems.

An amorphous term like the "welfare" of the people is too ill-defined a concept to have much meaning of use in the discussion.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare..."

We are familiar with the PREAMBLE, you mental midget. The fact that it's part of the PREAMBLE might suggest to even one as simple-minded as you, Dainty, that the term is amorphous.

But, no. You are too busy pwning yourself.