Ted supported raising taxes, JFK wanted to lower taxes. Ted voted not to support South Vietnam, JFK did everything possible to support Vietnam against Communism.
Different eras/different facts
JFK supported dropping taxes that had been raised to pay for WWII
Ted supported raising tax rates that had been slashed by Reagan
Ted voted against Vietnam after it became obvious it was a lost cause
JFK supported military involvement in Vietnam before it got out of hand
Both JFK and RFK were more liberal than Teddy in the 1960s, they would have remained so
Sure, and I kind of think its dumb to speculate how history could be different if different events happened.
Either way, regarding Taxes, its not Liberal to propose taxing less as well as spending less so I am not sure how you can say JFK was more Liberal than his younger brother.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 KennedyÂ’s assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. HereÂ’s the House vote, and hereÂ’s the Senate vote.
The rightÂ’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts
When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldn’t afford such a tax break — the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but it’s been a half-century — but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.
Also at the time, the country had very little debt — Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s — almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.
Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.
Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you wonÂ’t bother to learn the truth