Pre-existing conditions coverage

[Bfgrn]

The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

Bill O’Reilly repeated a familiar refrain to go after President Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy in 2013, relying on President Kennedy’s tax cuts in 1962 to make a misleading historical point.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is urging President Obama to follow President John F. Kennedy’s footsteps and propose lowering taxes for the rich to spur economic growth. […]

“n 1962, President Kennedy proposed a big tax cut for the rich in order to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. And the rates have been moderating ever since.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/22/11]

This comes up from time to time. It’s a little game the right plays to make it seem as if tax cuts are, or at least were, a bipartisan approach to economic growth. Given the spectacular failures of the Bush-era tax breaks, it’s tempting to think even the most stubborn Republican hack would give up and move on, but apparently that’s not the case.

So, let’s set the record straight. 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 won’t bother to learn the truth.

I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

 

[dnsmith35]

Bartlett is an idiot if he believes the Democrat party moved to the right. Your believing him puts you into the same idiocy. In so far as the reduction of unionization, that came about because the government picked up where they had left off with regulation and enforcement of labor and safety laws. You worship the Unions but there usefulness has been reduced as the government under Democrats moved so far to the left. When you gauge left-right-center by the % of unionists instead of seeing that government protections have made unions passé for the most part. The 12% of our labor force which is union are the elite workers of America and you would rather have them making excess money than see an Indian worker support his family. Your left wing fanaticism is showing, in spades. One of your problems, as I have said before, is looking at a moderate/liberal and pegging them as RW. Your brain is clouded by all that left wing clap trap.

BTW, the man who really did something about reducing the taxes on the rich was JFK.

OK, I challenge you to go through the Salon article and show me where it is not factual. Stop all the dogmatic whining and produce FACTS...

Of all the dogmatic whining, you take the cake.

I'll be waiting....

The left wing spin is not factual, even if some of the basis for that spin is somewhat factual. That's the problem, you accept spin as truth.

And BTW, John F. Kennedy never passed any tax cuts...WHY?

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.

They were still Kennedy's tax cuts. I guess in your mind it proves he was a RW slug?

The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks

"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.

“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

Krauthammer is another left wing extremist stooge. The democrat party shifted left, Reagan, Nixon, Bush and Bush moved THE COUNTRY back to the right, but in no part because the democrat party shifted right. That is bullshit!

The Salon.com's first non factual comment was the headline. "Stop calling JFK conservative: The right’s favorite new lie is filled with historical flaws" Though JFK was not a conservative in the sense of right wing extremists, he was far more conservative than today's democrat leadership. The next piece of bullshit was calling Kennedy's tax cut (whether it passed before he died or not) simply Keynesian economics, it was really what Salon denies it to be, supply side economics, which not only put money into the hands of the rich because of lower marginal rates as he also upped assistance to the unemployed and needy. The fact of the matter is, cutting marginal rates at the top is the keystone of supply side economics or trickle down economics as many call it.

To summarize, JFK was no conservative as per RW politics, but he was no LW fanatic like the current leaders of the democrat party. Now, those are the facts without the spin. If you get your "facts" from Salon, Kos, or Mother Jones, no wonder you are a left wing nut.

Hey, do you sit up all night to think of all this left wing bullshit? Or do you just cut and paste it from left wing sites? I believe the latter. I don't think you are smart enough to come up with that much trash.

 

[Listening]

The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

Bill O’Reilly repeated a familiar refrain to go after President Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy in 2013, relying on President Kennedy’s tax cuts in 1962 to make a misleading historical point.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is urging President Obama to follow President John F. Kennedy’s footsteps and propose lowering taxes for the rich to spur economic growth. […]

“n 1962, President Kennedy proposed a big tax cut for the rich in order to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. And the rates have been moderating ever since.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/22/11]

This comes up from time to time. It’s a little game the right plays to make it seem as if tax cuts are, or at least were, a bipartisan approach to economic growth. Given the spectacular failures of the Bush-era tax breaks, it’s tempting to think even the most stubborn Republican hack would give up and move on, but apparently that’s not the case.

So, let’s set the record straight. 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 won’t bother to learn the truth.

I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

In the 1950's Japan and others were rebuilding. We had all markets cornered. We were an industrial powerhouse.

By the 1970's it was becoming a global economy and the war in Vietnam that Kennedy helped start was draining us. Johnson was fighting it on a credit card and that carried over.

You have not context to any of your claims....in any economic textbook they constantly use the phrase when evaluating a variable "all else being constant".

Well, here you go rocketman....there were a lot of things that were not constant during that period. Reagan didn't realize what was changing...but neither did Kennedy or Nixon or Carter.

So keep pissing all over yourself. It's fun to watch.

 

[Bfgrn]

OK, I challenge you to go through the Salon article and show me where it is not factual. Stop all the dogmatic whining and produce FACTS...

I'll be waiting....Krauthammer is another left wing extremist stooge. The democrat party shifted left, Reagan, Nixon, Bush and Bush moved THE COUNTRY back to the right, but in no part because the democrat party shifted right. That is bullshit!

The Salon.com's first non factual comment was the headline. "Stop calling JFK conservative: The right’s favorite new lie is filled with historical flaws" Though JFK was not a conservative in the sense of right wing extremists, he was far more conservative than today's democrat leadership. The next piece of bullshit was calling Kennedy's tax cut (whether it passed before he died or not) simply Keynesian economics, it was really what Salon denies it to be, supply side economics, which not only put money into the hands of the rich because of lower marginal rates as he also upped assistance to the unemployed and needy. The fact of the matter is, cutting marginal rates at the top is the keystone of supply side economics or trickle down economics as many call it.

To summarize, JFK was no conservative as per RW politics, but he was no LW fanatic like the current leaders of the democrat party. Now, those are the facts without the spin.

Hey, do you sit up all night to think of all this left wing bullshit? Or do you just cut and paste it from left wing sites? I believe the latter. I don't think you are smart enough to come up with that much trash.

YOU are the only one doing the spinning...as you parrot the far right wing lies of people like Ira Stoll, who the Salon article dismantles.

I keep providing FACTS. You continue to EMOTE...

You swallow as gospel anything that comes from the far right, WHY is that if you really are a 'liberal'?

Even conservatives have lambasted Ira Stoll's idiotic book: JFK, Conservative

Kennedy Was No Conservative | The American Conservative

Why don't we ask the very people who were part of JFK's administration and were the very authors of the DEMAND side tax cuts?

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter

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.

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

Here is another article that dismantles Ira Stoll's idiotic book...

John F. Kennedy: This week in up-is-downism | The Economist

So I will confine my response to Ira Stoll's ridiculous argument in Time, "JFK Was a Political Conservative", to simply noting that John F. Kennedy, the Democratic president who inspired a generation of liberal idealists, championed liberal labor and civil-rights legislation, and, in accepting the 1960 presidential nomination of New York State's Liberal Party, announced "I'm proud to say I'm a liberal", was in fact a liberal.

Here, for example, is then-Senator John F. Kennedy explaining why he voted against a Republican attempt to strip government funding for public housing, education and medical services and a minimum-wage hike from a civil-rights bill in August 1960.

These bills—housing, education, medical help, and minimum wage—are vitally important to millions of American Negroes and whites because they affect all those Americans who are on the lower level of our economic ladder.

Here is the senator the following day, explaining his support for amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act which raised the minimum wage by 25% and extended the act's protections to millions of previously uncovered workers, mainly in the retail and service industries.

Conscience and good business sense join in demanding the enactment of this measure. The bill will extend to the lowest paid workers—to 3½ million men and women and their families—a fairer opportunity to share our high standard of living. To pass them by—to water down the help they need, or merely assume that prosperity at the top will someday reach them—shocks the conscience of those who care.

The increases in purchasing power resulting from a higher minimum wage will help to restore consumer demand required to put our idle industrial capacity back to work. The elimination of unfair competition based upon substandard wages will protect fair minded employers anxious to maintain fair labor standards.

I've bolded parts of the above statements because the economic sentiments expressed would put Senator Kennedy somewhere on the far left of today's congressional ideological spectrum.

Mr Stoll's second point is that Kennedy cut taxes on the rich. This is true. Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%. He did so in order to run a larger budget deficit, because his economic advisers, including Arthur Okun and Walter Heller, believed this would provide a Keynesian stimulus to demand. Neither Kennedy nor his advisers believed in the subsequent supply-side theory that gained credence in the 1970s, which held that low marginal rates on the very rich were crucial to stimulate investment. One of his advisers, James Tobin, explicitly said the income-tax cut would provide a short-run economic stimulus but would do nothing to promote investment "except in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."

Another way to look at this issue is to look at Kennedy's justification for the tax reforms in 1961, when he originally proposed them. The initial list of reforms does not even mention a cut in the top marginal rate. It does, however, spend a lot of time arguing for taxing dividends as ordinary income, since lower rates unfairly privilege the rich who are the overwhelming beneficiaries of dividends. Of course, this proposal might reflect legislative strategy; perhaps we would do better to look at what Kennedy said about cutting taxes when addressing the general public, for instance during his campaign. Here's what Kennedy told the press about his priorities for the presidential campaign in July, 1960:

I think the question is which party by its record in the Congress, by the record of its administrations in the past, really has evidenced a true commitment to the program of economic growth, to the needs of our older citizens, to assistance to education, to do something about American agriculture, to improve American security, to strengthen our Armed Forces, to assist the underdeveloped world.

John F. Kennedy considered foreign aid a major part of his agenda. He didn't even mention tax cuts. He didn't talk about tax cuts in his speeches on the campaign trail. Tax cuts didn't make his agenda until his advisors began pushing for them as a way to boost short-term consumer demand and get to full employment. Indeed, at the same time Kennedy was pushing tax cuts in 1962, he was also making an all-out effort to pass that well-known darling of fiscal conservatives, Medicare. Yet for Ira Stoll, the fact that Kennedy cut taxes on the rich is the most important thing about his economic agenda, justifying the claim that a president who called himself a liberal was in fact a conservative. This tells us nothing about Kennedy's priorities, or about politics in the 1960s. But it tells us a lot about the 2010s, and how conservatives have come to see cutting rich people's taxes as the sole overriding economic issue in politics today.

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

To pass them by—to water down the help they need, or merely assume that prosperity at the top will someday reach them—shocks the conscience of those who care.
Senator John F. Kennedy

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith

You have been thoroughly schooled...now go ask mommy to change your diaper.

 

[Bfgrn]

The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

Bill O’Reilly repeated a familiar refrain to go after President Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy in 2013, relying on President Kennedy’s tax cuts in 1962 to make a misleading historical point.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is urging President Obama to follow President John F. Kennedy’s footsteps and propose lowering taxes for the rich to spur economic growth. […]

“n 1962, President Kennedy proposed a big tax cut for the rich in order to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. And the rates have been moderating ever since.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/22/11]

This comes up from time to time. It’s a little game the right plays to make it seem as if tax cuts are, or at least were, a bipartisan approach to economic growth. Given the spectacular failures of the Bush-era tax breaks, it’s tempting to think even the most stubborn Republican hack would give up and move on, but apparently that’s not the case.

So, let’s set the record straight. 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 won’t bother to learn the truth.

I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

In the 1950's Japan and others were rebuilding. We had all markets cornered. We were an industrial powerhouse.

By the 1970's it was becoming a global economy and the war in Vietnam that Kennedy helped start was draining us. Johnson was fighting it on a credit card and that carried over.

You have not context to any of your claims....in any economic textbook they constantly use the phrase when evaluating a variable "all else being constant".

Well, here you go rocketman....there were a lot of things that were not constant during that period. Reagan didn't realize what was changing...but neither did Kennedy or Nixon or Carter.

So keep pissing all over yourself. It's fun to watch.

Kennedy and one of his closest advisors, John Kenneth Galbraith knew how devastating Americanizing the Vietnam would mean. That is why Kennedy had ordered 1000 military advisors withdrawn by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

Galbraith and Vietnam

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics.

 

[dnsmith35]

YOU are the only one doing the spinning...as you parrot the far right wing lies of people like Ira Stoll, who the Salon article dismantles.

Salon dismantles alright, but not articles of the right, they dismantle reality.

I keep providing FACTS. You continue to EMOTE...

You provide leftwing propaganda, I shoot it down, just like I shoot down right wing propaganda in threads where the RWrs are making asses of themselves like you are now.

You swallow as gospel anything that comes from the far right, WHY is that if you really are a 'liberal'?

I am a liberal because I care about the welfare of people. Not a left wing power structure you parrot.

Even conservatives have lambasted Ira Stoll's idiotic book: JFK, Conservative

Kennedy Was No Conservative | The American Conservative

I haven't read that book so I may lambast it as well.

Why don't we ask the very people who were part of JFK's administration and were the very authors of the DEMAND side tax cuts?

I don't have to ask anyone, tax cuts on the wealthy is supply side economics, as per Laffer.

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter

My but you sure do take books and articles as gospel. Have you ever had a personal thought?

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.

Golly, a left winger claiming Kennedy was a left winger instead of a supply sider. Who woulda thunk it.

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.

If you cut taxes on the less wealthy tax payers, yes it is. When you cut taxes on the rich it is supply side. High school economics!

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.

Yep, by cutting taxes on the rich. You really do need to learn something about economics.

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.

It was a liberal JFK calling for the cuts to the rich, a supply side move, he got from listening to Author Laffer. But it doesn't really matter, JFK was a true liberal, not a left wing nut like you and Okun.

Here, for example, is then-Senator John F. Kennedy explaining why he voted against a Republican attempt to strip government funding for public housing, education and medical services and a minimum-wage hike from a civil-rights bill in August 1960.

Thank goodness JFK was a liberal, I agree with all those programs. But thank goodness he was not a radical left wing nut like you.

Here is the senator the following day, explaining his support for amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act which raised the minimum wage by 25% and extended the act's protections to millions of previously uncovered workers, mainly in the retail and service industries.

Good for him. I agree with increases in the minimum wage. In fact, I would like it pegged to inflation after it is raised sufficiently to start. Like I have said many times, I agree with Kennedy, I just don't agree with left wing nuts like you

Mr Stoll's second point is that Kennedy cut taxes on the rich. This is true. Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%. He did so in order to run a larger budget deficit, because his economic advisers, including Arthur Okun and Walter Heller, believed this would provide a Keynesian stimulus to demand.

Yep, a key point in supply side economics.

Neither Kennedy nor his advisers believed in the subsequent supply-side theory that gained credence in the 1970s, which held that low marginal rates on the very rich were crucial to stimulate investment.

You could have fooled the economists, because they knew what it was, and like Laffer, approved of giving investors money to create jobs. All of them knew that if you want to stimulate demand, you do so on the lower end of the income spectrum.

One of his advisers, James Tobin, explicitly said the income-tax cut would provide a short-run economic stimulus but would do nothing to promote investment "except in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."

Of course it is, but we didn't need Tobin to tell us who understand economics what the facts are. You, an economics challenged parrot, need people to tell you what to say BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

Another way to look at this issue is to look at Kennedy's justification for the tax reforms in 1961, when he originally proposed them. The initial list of reforms does not even mention a cut in the top marginal rate. It does, however, spend a lot of time arguing for taxing dividends as ordinary income, since lower rates unfairly privilege the rich who are the overwhelming beneficiaries of dividends. Of course, this proposal might reflect legislative strategy; perhaps we would do better to look at what Kennedy said about cutting taxes when addressing the general public, for instance during his campaign. Here's what Kennedy told the press about his priorities for the presidential campaign in July, 1960:

You are preaching again. Kennedy said lots of things for the sake of politics to get them done, that was good psychology.

I think the question is which party by its record in the Congress, by the record of its administrations in the past, really has evidenced a true commitment to the program of economic growth, to the needs of our older citizens, to assistance to education, to do something about American agriculture, to improve American security, to strengthen our Armed Forces, to assist the underdeveloped world.

Again, I agree with all those programs to include assisting the underdeveloped part of the world; because I am a true liberal, without borders, and want to improve the lot of all the downtrodden and exploited people of the world.

John F. Kennedy considered foreign aid a major part of his agenda. He didn't even mention tax cuts. He didn't talk about tax cuts in his speeches on the campaign trail. Tax cuts didn't make his agenda until his advisors began pushing for them as a way to boost short-term consumer demand and get to full employment. Indeed, at the same time Kennedy was pushing tax cuts in 1962, he was also making an all-out effort to pass that well-known darling of fiscal conservatives, Medicare. Yet for Ira Stoll, the fact that Kennedy cut taxes on the rich is the most important thing about his economic agenda, justifying the claim that a president who called himself a liberal was in fact a conservative. This tells us nothing about Kennedy's priorities, or about politics in the 1960s. But it tells us a lot about the 2010s, and how conservatives have come to see cutting rich people's taxes as the sole overriding economic issue in politics today.

You sure seem to like that guy Stoll, you sure spout his propaganda a lot.

To pass them by—to water down the help they need, or merely assume that prosperity at the top will someday reach them—shocks the conscience of those who care.
Senator John F. Kennedy

I agree!

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith

Another tidbit from a real idiot.

You have been thoroughly schooled...now go ask mommy to change your diaper.

You aren't smart enough to school anyone, not even yourself. All you do is memorize propaganda and liberally spit it out. You sound like my younger great grand children.I voted for Kennedy, did you? Are were you crapping yourself then as now?

Speaking of economics, when I got my MBA I studied Economics as a major part, then I went on to get an EdS in Psychology to understand human behavior, a major component of Economics. Once you finally get out of high school, maybe you can carry on a conversation using your own brain instead of plagiarizing the opinions of others.

 

[dnsmith35]

Galbraith and Vietnam

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics.

Interesting that you should discuss Galbraith in India, yet you personally know nothing about period except for the memorized words of your heroes. I lived in India. I graduated High School in India. It was the understanding of Indian Sociology which led me to being a true liberal, a person interested in the welfare of all the common people rather than a "liberal" supporting the elitist labor movement in the US. I was educated in a school including students from 30 or 31 nations, mostly in Asia, but many from Europe, the US and Australia. Association with a multi-cultural student body helped me to understand life and tolerance, and death, as it was all around us even 5 years after the partition. We were a boarding school thus living together was in and of itself an education in multi-culturism by itself. I was immersed in this experience at a young and impressionable age. Our home was across from the rear wall of the British Residency, the location of the British and loyal soldiers in Lucknow during the Mutiny of 1857.

JFK may have been planning to withdraw our soldiers from VN, but once committed it became obvious they would not come home when he SAID he wanted them to come home. LBJ was privy to JFK's concern of the spread of communism, and he was even more a hawk than JFK, if not as much a "converted" liberal. (Meaning he knew where his power base was and he exploited it heavily.) The Vietnamese were a proud people who did not want communism, but neither JFK or LBJ was willing to commit to an all out victory thus they wasted the over 50,000 dead American soldiers. Maybe had JFK lived he would have, but history does not really tells us his thoughts, only what he said aloud.

It is unfortunate your only window into the world of a "liberal" is through left wing propaganda instead of truly understanding what real liberalism is. The difference between you and I....I lived it and experienced it, you read about it. You, Bfgrn, are a fraud, a pseudo liberal.

 

[Bfgrn]

YOU are the only one doing the spinning...as you parrot the far right wing lies of people like Ira Stoll, who the Salon article dismantles.

Salon dismantles alright, but not articles of the right, they dismantle reality.

I keep providing FACTS. You continue to EMOTE...

You provide leftwing propaganda, I shoot it down, just like I shoot down right wing propaganda in threads where the RWrs are making asses of themselves like you are now.I am a liberal because I care about the welfare of people. Not a left wing power structure you parrot.I haven't read that book so I may lambast it as well.I don't have to ask anyone, tax cuts on the wealthy is supply side economics, as per Laffer.My but you sure do take books and articles as gospel. Have you ever had a personal thought?Golly, a left winger claiming Kennedy was a left winger instead of a supply sider. Who woulda thunk it.If you cut taxes on the less wealthy tax payers, yes it is. When you cut taxes on the rich it is supply side. High school economics!Yep, by cutting taxes on the rich. You really do need to learn something about economics. It was a liberal JFK calling for the cuts to the rich, a supply side move, he got from listening to Author Laffer. But it doesn't really matter, JFK was a true liberal, not a left wing nut like you and Okun.Thank goodness JFK was a liberal, I agree with all those programs. But thank goodness he was not a radical left wing nut like you.Good for him. I agree with increases in the minimum wage. In fact, I would like it pegged to inflation after it is raised sufficiently to start. Like I have said many times, I agree with Kennedy, I just don't agree with left wing nuts like youYep, a key point in supply side economics.You could have fooled the economists, because they knew what it was, and like Laffer, approved of giving investors money to create jobs. All of them knew that if you want to stimulate demand, you do so on the lower end of the income spectrum. Of course it is, but we didn't need Tobin to tell us who understand economics what the facts are. You, an economics challenged parrot, need people to tell you what to say BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.You are preaching again. Kennedy said lots of things for the sake of politics to get them done, that was good psychology.Again, I agree with all those programs to include assisting the underdeveloped part of the world; because I am a true liberal, without borders, and want to improve the lot of all the downtrodden and exploited people of the world.You sure seem to like that guy Stoll, you sure spout his propaganda a lot.I agree!

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith

Another tidbit from a real idiot.

You have been thoroughly schooled...now go ask mommy to change your diaper.

You aren't smart enough to school anyone, not even yourself. All you do is memorize propaganda and liberally spit it out. You sound like my younger great grand children.I voted for Kennedy, did you? Are were you crapping yourself then as now?

Speaking of economics, when I got my MBA I studied Economics as a major part, then I went on to get an EdS in Psychology to understand human behavior, a major component of Economics. Once you finally get out of high school, maybe you can carry on a conversation using your own brain instead of plagiarizing the opinions of others.

AGAIN, you only have one problem...FACTS...

Have mommy find you a calendar after she changes your diaper.

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[3] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."

Historical origins

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy
35th President of the United States
In office
January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963

You are truly an IDIOT...

 

[dnsmith35]

YOU are the only one doing the spinning...as you parrot the far right wing lies of people like Ira Stoll, who the Salon article dismantles.

Salon dismantles alright, but not articles of the right, they dismantle reality.You provide leftwing propaganda, I shoot it down, just like I shoot down right wing propaganda in threads where the RWrs are making asses of themselves like you are now.I am a liberal because I care about the welfare of people. Not a left wing power structure you parrot.I haven't read that book so I may lambast it as well.I don't have to ask anyone, tax cuts on the wealthy is supply side economics, as per Laffer.My but you sure do take books and articles as gospel. Have you ever had a personal thought?Golly, a left winger claiming Kennedy was a left winger instead of a supply sider. Who woulda thunk it.If you cut taxes on the less wealthy tax payers, yes it is. When you cut taxes on the rich it is supply side. High school economics!Yep, by cutting taxes on the rich. You really do need to learn something about economics. It was a liberal JFK calling for the cuts to the rich, a supply side move, he got from listening to Author Laffer. But it doesn't really matter, JFK was a true liberal, not a left wing nut like you and Okun.Thank goodness JFK was a liberal, I agree with all those programs. But thank goodness he was not a radical left wing nut like you.Good for him. I agree with increases in the minimum wage. In fact, I would like it pegged to inflation after it is raised sufficiently to start. Like I have said many times, I agree with Kennedy, I just don't agree with left wing nuts like youYep, a key point in supply side economics.You could have fooled the economists, because they knew what it was, and like Laffer, approved of giving investors money to create jobs. All of them knew that if you want to stimulate demand, you do so on the lower end of the income spectrum. Of course it is, but we didn't need Tobin to tell us who understand economics what the facts are. You, an economics challenged parrot, need people to tell you what to say BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.You are preaching again. Kennedy said lots of things for the sake of politics to get them done, that was good psychology.Again, I agree with all those programs to include assisting the underdeveloped part of the world; because I am a true liberal, without borders, and want to improve the lot of all the downtrodden and exploited people of the world.You sure seem to like that guy Stoll, you sure spout his propaganda a lot.I agree!Another tidbit from a real idiot.

You have been thoroughly schooled...now go ask mommy to change your diaper.

You aren't smart enough to school anyone, not even yourself. All you do is memorize propaganda and liberally spit it out. You sound like my younger great grand children.I voted for Kennedy, did you? Are were you crapping yourself then as now?

Speaking of economics, when I got my MBA I studied Economics as a major part, then I went on to get an EdS in Psychology to understand human behavior, a major component of Economics. Once you finally get out of high school, maybe you can carry on a conversation using your own brain instead of plagiarizing the opinions of others.

AGAIN, you only have one problem...FACTS...

Have mommy find you a calendar after she changes your diaper.

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[3] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."

Historical origins

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy
35th President of the United States
In office
January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963

You are truly an IDIOT...

Wow, you really can't think for yourself. Who really cares when the terms "supply side" or "trickle down" economics were coined? The concepts had been used for years to describe various monetary and fiscal policies and how they affected our prosperity. It is obvious you can't originate any discussion on your own because you are so ate up with the dumbass stick.

BTW, I was in the Army stationed at Ft Bliss, TX with my wife and our first 4 children on NOV 22, 1963. Where were you? A glint in your Papa's eyes?

 

[Bfgrn]

Galbraith and Vietnam

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics.

Interesting that you should discuss Galbraith in India, yet you personally know nothing about period except for the memorized words of your heroes. I lived in India. I graduated High School in India. It was the understanding of Indian Sociology which led me to being a true liberal, a person interested in the welfare of all the common people rather than a "liberal" supporting the elitist labor movement in the US. I was educated in a school including students from 30 or 31 nations, mostly in Asia, but many from Europe, the US and Australia. Association with a multi-cultural student body helped me to understand life and tolerance, and death, as it was all around us even 5 years after the partition. We were a boarding school thus living together was in and of itself an education in multi-culturism by itself. I was immersed in this experience at a young and impressionable age. Our home was across from the rear wall of the British Residency, the location of the British and loyal soldiers in Lucknow during the Mutiny of 1857.

JFK may have been planning to withdraw our soldiers from VN, but once committed it became obvious they would not come home when he SAID he wanted them to come home. LBJ was privy to JFK's concern of the spread of communism, and he was even more a hawk than JFK, if not as much a "converted" liberal. (Meaning he knew where his power base was and he exploited it heavily.) The Vietnamese were a proud people who did not want communism, but neither JFK or LBJ was willing to commit to an all out victory thus they wasted the over 50,000 dead American soldiers. Maybe had JFK lived he would have, but history does not really tells us his thoughts, only what he said aloud.

It is unfortunate your only window into the world of a "liberal" is through left wing propaganda instead of truly understanding what real liberalism is. The difference between you and I....I lived it and experienced it, you read about it. You, Bfgrn, are a fraud, a pseudo liberal.

Really Einstein? Did you know John Kenneth Galbraith, the man you loathe arranged a meeting with Kennedy and Prime Minister Nehru to explore ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam?

Didn't think so...

Kennedy had already committed to exiting Vietnam, with or without victory. Kennedy confided his plans to his closest advisors...LBJ was NOT one of them.

But LBJ still knew Kennedy's plans, because they were the official policy the day Kennedy died, and LBJ CHANGED them 2 days after Kennedy was assassinated.

Walkthrough - Vietnam in Late 1963

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

 

[Bfgrn]

Salon dismantles alright, but not articles of the right, they dismantle reality.You provide leftwing propaganda, I shoot it down, just like I shoot down right wing propaganda in threads where the RWrs are making asses of themselves like you are now.I am a liberal because I care about the welfare of people. Not a left wing power structure you parrot.I haven't read that book so I may lambast it as well.I don't have to ask anyone, tax cuts on the wealthy is supply side economics, as per Laffer.My but you sure do take books and articles as gospel. Have you ever had a personal thought?Golly, a left winger claiming Kennedy was a left winger instead of a supply sider. Who woulda thunk it.If you cut taxes on the less wealthy tax payers, yes it is. When you cut taxes on the rich it is supply side. High school economics!Yep, by cutting taxes on the rich. You really do need to learn something about economics. It was a liberal JFK calling for the cuts to the rich, a supply side move, he got from listening to Author Laffer. But it doesn't really matter, JFK was a true liberal, not a left wing nut like you and Okun.Thank goodness JFK was a liberal, I agree with all those programs. But thank goodness he was not a radical left wing nut like you.Good for him. I agree with increases in the minimum wage. In fact, I would like it pegged to inflation after it is raised sufficiently to start. Like I have said many times, I agree with Kennedy, I just don't agree with left wing nuts like youYep, a key point in supply side economics.You could have fooled the economists, because they knew what it was, and like Laffer, approved of giving investors money to create jobs. All of them knew that if you want to stimulate demand, you do so on the lower end of the income spectrum. Of course it is, but we didn't need Tobin to tell us who understand economics what the facts are. You, an economics challenged parrot, need people to tell you what to say BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.You are preaching again. Kennedy said lots of things for the sake of politics to get them done, that was good psychology.Again, I agree with all those programs to include assisting the underdeveloped part of the world; because I am a true liberal, without borders, and want to improve the lot of all the downtrodden and exploited people of the world.You sure seem to like that guy Stoll, you sure spout his propaganda a lot.I agree!Another tidbit from a real idiot.You aren't smart enough to school anyone, not even yourself. All you do is memorize propaganda and liberally spit it out. You sound like my younger great grand children.I voted for Kennedy, did you? Are were you crapping yourself then as now?

Speaking of economics, when I got my MBA I studied Economics as a major part, then I went on to get an EdS in Psychology to understand human behavior, a major component of Economics. Once you finally get out of high school, maybe you can carry on a conversation using your own brain instead of plagiarizing the opinions of others.

AGAIN, you only have one problem...FACTS...

Have mommy find you a calendar after she changes your diaper.

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[3] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."

Historical origins

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy
35th President of the United States
In office
January 20, 1961 – November 22, 1963

You are truly an IDIOT...

Wow, you really can't think for yourself. Who really cares when the terms "supply side" or "trickle down" economics were coined? The concepts had been used for years to describe various monetary and fiscal policies and how they affected our prosperity. It is obvious you can't originate any discussion on your own because you are so ate up with the dumbass stick.

BTW, I was in the Army stationed at Ft Bliss, TX with my wife and our first 4 children on NOV 22, 1963. Where were you? A glint in your Papa's eyes?

Did you vote for FDR and Truman?

 

[dnsmith35]

.......

Interesting that you should discuss Galbraith in India, yet you personally know nothing about period except for the memorized words of your heroes. I lived in India. I graduated High School in India. It was the understanding of Indian Sociology which led me to being a true liberal, a person interested in the welfare of all the common people rather than a "liberal" supporting the elitist labor movement in the US. I was educated in a school including students from 30 or 31 nations, mostly in Asia, but many from Europe, the US and Australia. Association with a multi-cultural student body helped me to understand life and tolerance, and death, as it was all around us even 5 years after the partition. We were a boarding school thus living together was in and of itself an education in multi-culturism by itself. I was immersed in this experience at a young and impressionable age. Our home was across from the rear wall of the British Residency, the location of the British and loyal soldiers in Lucknow during the Mutiny of 1857

JFK may have been planning to withdraw our soldiers from VN, but once committed it became obvious they would not come home when he SAID he wanted them to come home. LBJ was privy to JFK's concern of the spread of communism, and he was even more a hawk than JFK, if not as much a "converted" liberal. (Meaning he knew where his power base was and he exploited it heavily.) The Vietnamese were a proud people who did not want communism, but neither JFK or LBJ was willing to commit to an all out victory thus they wasted the over 50,000 dead American soldiers. Maybe had JFK lived he would have, but history does not really tells us his thoughts, only what he said aloud.

It is unfortunate your only window into the world of a "liberal" is through left wing propaganda instead of truly understanding what real liberalism is. The difference between you and I....I lived it and experienced it, you read about it. You are nothing but a pseudo liberal.

Really Einstein? Did you know John Kenneth Galbraith, the man you loathe arranged a meeting with Kennedy and Prime Minister Nehru to explore ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam?[/quote]Way past the critical stage. Johnny come lately left wing idiot he was.

Didn't think so...

Actually, you don't think at all. You copy, you cut and paste. Can you formulate a sentence on your own?

Kennedy had already committed to exiting Vietnam, with or without victory. Kennedy confided his plans to his closest advisors...LBJ was NOT one of them.

But LBJ still knew Kennedy's plans, because they were the official policy the day Kennedy died, and LBJ CHANGED them 2 days after Kennedy was assassinated.

Wow, like that wasn't common knowledge? I was in the military, subject to deploying. We were all aware of his intentions, even if they had not been made public, as we were POMing (preparation for overseas movement to the ignorant like you)

Walkthrough - Vietnam in Late 1963

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

Maybe you don't realize it, but when I see you quoting books or alleged "records" I skim past it. I don't need your "canned" lectures. I lived it.

 

[Bfgrn]

AGAIN, your only problem is FACTS...do you want a cracker Poly?

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter
Kennedy was a Keynesian, not a a Reagan forerunner.

Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.

The notion of Kennedy as tax-cutting hero dates at least to the 1970s, when then Rep. Jack Kemp was writing the tax-cut legislation that Reagan would sign in 1981. Since then, political ads contrasting clips of JFK advocating tax cuts with the target Democrat of the moment have appeared regularly. See, for example, Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Linda McMahon in Connecticut last year.

The argument that JFK's economic policies are more closely aligned with the modern GOP than Democrats is doubly attractive for conservatives. They can paint their tax cut-centric policies as having a rich bipartisan past abandoned by the modern left—and tweak liberals by absconding with one of their icons.

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's a notion that the new House GOP majority has taken to bizarre and irresponsible extremes, eliminating "pay-go" rules mandating that new tax cuts or new spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. Instead the House now has "cut-go" rules, which require only that new spending be offset with spending cuts—tax cuts need not be offset and tax increases don't count as offsets. This from the party that oversaw deficit explosions in the Reagan and George W. Bush years, then claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility in last year's elections. At least JFK and his partisan descendants are intellectually honest about deficits.

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

 

[Bfgrn]

.......

Really Einstein? Did you know John Kenneth Galbraith, the man you loathe arranged a meeting with Kennedy and Prime Minister Nehru to explore ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam?

Way past the critical stage. Johnny come lately left wing idiot he was.

Didn't think so...

Actually, you don't think at all. You copy, you cut and paste. Can you formulate a sentence on your own?

Kennedy had already committed to exiting Vietnam, with or without victory. Kennedy confided his plans to his closest advisors...LBJ was NOT one of them.

But LBJ still knew Kennedy's plans, because they were the official policy the day Kennedy died, and LBJ CHANGED them 2 days after Kennedy was assassinated.

Wow, like that wasn't common knowledge? I was in the military, subject to deploying. We were all aware of his intentions, even if they had not been made public, as we were POMing (preparation for overseas movement to the ignorant like you)

Walkthrough - Vietnam in Late 1963

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

Maybe you don't realize it, but when I see you quoting books or alleged "records" I skim past it. I don't need your "canned" lectures. I lived it.

You lived it...you were at the Honolulu Meeting Briefing on November 20, 1963 and the Meeting at the Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m?

WOW...

 

[Listening]

The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

Bill O’Reilly repeated a familiar refrain to go after President Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy in 2013, relying on President Kennedy’s tax cuts in 1962 to make a misleading historical point.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is urging President Obama to follow President John F. Kennedy’s footsteps and propose lowering taxes for the rich to spur economic growth. […]

“n 1962, President Kennedy proposed a big tax cut for the rich in order to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. And the rates have been moderating ever since.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 9/22/11]

This comes up from time to time. It’s a little game the right plays to make it seem as if tax cuts are, or at least were, a bipartisan approach to economic growth. Given the spectacular failures of the Bush-era tax breaks, it’s tempting to think even the most stubborn Republican hack would give up and move on, but apparently that’s not the case.

So, let’s set the record straight. 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 won’t bother to learn the truth.

I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

In the 1950's Japan and others were rebuilding. We had all markets cornered. We were an industrial powerhouse.

By the 1970's it was becoming a global economy and the war in Vietnam that Kennedy helped start was draining us. Johnson was fighting it on a credit card and that carried over.

You have not context to any of your claims....in any economic textbook they constantly use the phrase when evaluating a variable "all else being constant".

Well, here you go rocketman....there were a lot of things that were not constant during that period. Reagan didn't realize what was changing...but neither did Kennedy or Nixon or Carter.

So keep pissing all over yourself. It's fun to watch.

Kennedy and one of his closest advisors, John Kenneth Galbraith knew how devastating Americanizing the Vietnam would mean. That is why Kennedy had ordered 1000 military advisors withdrawn by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

Galbraith and Vietnam

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics.

To bad it didn't happen.

He escalated it......then tried to get out.

He still gets the credit for helping to get it going.

Galbraith was an asshole.

 

[dnsmith35]

AGAIN, your only problem is FACTS...do you want a cracker Poly?

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter
Kennedy was a Keynesian, not a a Reagan forerunner.

Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.

The notion of Kennedy as tax-cutting hero dates at least to the 1970s, when then Rep. Jack Kemp was writing the tax-cut legislation that Reagan would sign in 1981. Since then, political ads contrasting clips of JFK advocating tax cuts with the target Democrat of the moment have appeared regularly. See, for example, Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Linda McMahon in Connecticut last year.

The argument that JFK's economic policies are more closely aligned with the modern GOP than Democrats is doubly attractive for conservatives. They can paint their tax cut-centric policies as having a rich bipartisan past abandoned by the modern left—and tweak liberals by absconding with one of their icons.

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's a notion that the new House GOP majority has taken to bizarre and irresponsible extremes, eliminating "pay-go" rules mandating that new tax cuts or new spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. Instead the House now has "cut-go" rules, which require only that new spending be offset with spending cuts—tax cuts need not be offset and tax increases don't count as offsets. This from the party that oversaw deficit explosions in the Reagan and George W. Bush years, then claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility in last year's elections. At least JFK and his partisan descendants are intellectually honest about deficits.

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

Canned lecture from left wing authors. Not interested, no information, only opinions. You lose again.

 

[Bfgrn]

AGAIN, your only problem is FACTS...do you want a cracker Poly?

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter
Kennedy was a Keynesian, not a a Reagan forerunner.

Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.

The notion of Kennedy as tax-cutting hero dates at least to the 1970s, when then Rep. Jack Kemp was writing the tax-cut legislation that Reagan would sign in 1981. Since then, political ads contrasting clips of JFK advocating tax cuts with the target Democrat of the moment have appeared regularly. See, for example, Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Linda McMahon in Connecticut last year.

The argument that JFK's economic policies are more closely aligned with the modern GOP than Democrats is doubly attractive for conservatives. They can paint their tax cut-centric policies as having a rich bipartisan past abandoned by the modern left—and tweak liberals by absconding with one of their icons.

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's a notion that the new House GOP majority has taken to bizarre and irresponsible extremes, eliminating "pay-go" rules mandating that new tax cuts or new spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. Instead the House now has "cut-go" rules, which require only that new spending be offset with spending cuts—tax cuts need not be offset and tax increases don't count as offsets. This from the party that oversaw deficit explosions in the Reagan and George W. Bush years, then claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility in last year's elections. At least JFK and his partisan descendants are intellectually honest about deficits.

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

Canned lecture from left wing authors. Not interested, no information, only opinions. You lose again.

I apologize. I guess all the FACTS I provide are pretty overwhelming. They are cramping your emotes , dogma and "I lived it' chest beating...

But facts have ALWAYS been what real liberals believe. And the truth has always had a very strong liberal bias.

 

[dnsmith35]

AGAIN, your only problem is FACTS...do you want a cracker Poly?

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter
Kennedy was a Keynesian, not a a Reagan forerunner.

Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.

The notion of Kennedy as tax-cutting hero dates at least to the 1970s, when then Rep. Jack Kemp was writing the tax-cut legislation that Reagan would sign in 1981. Since then, political ads contrasting clips of JFK advocating tax cuts with the target Democrat of the moment have appeared regularly. See, for example, Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Linda McMahon in Connecticut last year.

The argument that JFK's economic policies are more closely aligned with the modern GOP than Democrats is doubly attractive for conservatives. They can paint their tax cut-centric policies as having a rich bipartisan past abandoned by the modern left—and tweak liberals by absconding with one of their icons.

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's a notion that the new House GOP majority has taken to bizarre and irresponsible extremes, eliminating "pay-go" rules mandating that new tax cuts or new spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. Instead the House now has "cut-go" rules, which require only that new spending be offset with spending cuts—tax cuts need not be offset and tax increases don't count as offsets. This from the party that oversaw deficit explosions in the Reagan and George W. Bush years, then claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility in last year's elections. At least JFK and his partisan descendants are intellectually honest about deficits.

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

Canned lecture from left wing authors. Not interested, no information, only opinions. You lose again.

I apologize. I guess all the FACTS I provide are pretty overwhelming. They are cramping your emotes , dogma and "I lived it' chest beating...

But facts have ALWAYS been what real liberals believe. And the truth has always had a very strong liberal bias.

Not a problem, no need to apologize for those comic relieve comments you call facts. You read, I live, maybe you should take up being a stand up comic like I suggested before.

BTW, truth has neither a left wing or right wing bias, it is simply the truth. You should try that some times too.

 

[dnsmith35]

Good, I was hoping you would cool it today Bfgrn. Listening to one sermon from a preacher is enough for one day, and my priest's sermons are more interesting, and accurate than yours.

 

[Bfgrn]

Good, I was hoping you would cool it today. Listening to one sermon from a preacher is enough for one day, and my priest's sermons are more interesting, and accurate than yours.

Accuracy is not your forte.

You claim to be a JFK liberal, yet you either loathe, dismiss or deride his parents, his siblings and every one of his hand chosen advisors.

You claim the Democratic Party has moved to the left, even though all the FACTS prove that today's Democratic Party is not only to the right of the New Deal, New Frontier and Great society, it is to the right of the 1956 Republican Party.

You claim to be a liberal, yet you either loathe, dismiss or deride any liberal source, and accept as gospel anything from far right wing sources. Even Townhall.com.

You claim to be a JFK liberal, yet you cite George Reisman, an Ayn Rand disciple that is as FAR from John F. Kennedy as one can get. Rand's social Darwinism is the antithesis of the Kennedy family's dedication to the public good and serving the great republic.

Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

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.

You claim Ronald Reagan was a JFK Democrat, yet he endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, 1956 and Richard Nixon in 1960. And Reagan was a paid spokesman for the AMA, an organization that actively tries to limit the amount of doctors to protect their ELITE status, using the red scare against Kennedy's most important legacy...Medicare.

You claim Ronald Reagan was an FDR Democrat. The very man who dismantled much of the New Deal.

You claim the Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan. A nice rhetorical soundbite. But the FACT is Reagan left the party, not the other way around.

And that leads us to the same fact about you...the Democratic Party has not moved to the left, YOU have moved to the right.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams