Pre-existing conditions coverage

[crisismangement]

I was going to reply to your comments about Laffer, but your chopping ELIMINATED your own words...

Wrong! You didn't respond because you have no reasonable answer. BTW, my words always remain while you are writing your response and "chopping" is the standard manner of responding to posts.

There's an old axiom, Robins and Blues Jays don't nest together...dnsmith thanked you for your ignorant post. He is no liberal. ALL he does is attack liberals, liberal sources, and side with right wingers like you.

Not from where I sit, he only attacks left wing fanatics, like you. He is damn sure more liberal than I am and I am a moderate independent. Everyone to the right of you is not a liberal as far as you are concerned. You are so far out in left field you don't even get oxygen.

It is strange you would quote Murray Rothbard, a RW economist whose only measure of success is reduction in debt. As your own piece proves, the conservatives didn't like Reagan because he was guilty of practicing his old democratic roots and deficit spending. Your post and citation prove the point that Reagan was not a RW as you supposed.

 

[dnsmith35]

I was going to reply to your comments about Laffer, but your chopping ELIMINATED your own words...

Wrong! You didn't respond because you have no reasonable answer. BTW, my words always remain while you are writing your response and "chopping" is the standard manner of responding to posts.

There's an old axiom, Robins and Blues Jays don't nest together...dnsmith thanked you for your ignorant post. He is no liberal. ALL he does is attack liberals, liberal sources, and side with right wingers like you.

Not from where I sit, he only attacks left wing fanatics, like you. He is damn sure more liberal than I am and I am a moderate independent. Everyone to the right of you is not a liberal as far as you are concerned. You are so far out in left field you don't even get oxygen.

It is strange you would quote Murray Rothbard, a RW economist whose only measure of success is reduction in debt. As your own piece proves, the conservatives didn't like Reagan because he was guilty of practicing his old democratic roots and deficit spending. Your post and citation prove the point that Reagan was not a RW as you supposed.

You are mistaken. I also attack RW extremists when and if one posts RW Propaganda

 

[dnsmith35]

I was going to reply to your comments about Laffer, but your chopping ELIMINATED your own words...

Your ignorance begets more ignorance from you.

You think you know everything, which is annoying to those who do.

 

[Bfgrn]

I was going to reply to your comments about Laffer, but your chopping ELIMINATED your own words...

Wrong! You didn't respond because you have no reasonable answer. BTW, my words always remain while you are writing your response and "chopping" is the standard manner of responding to posts.

There's an old axiom, Robins and Blues Jays don't nest together...dnsmith thanked you for your ignorant post. He is no liberal. ALL he does is attack liberals, liberal sources, and side with right wingers like you.

Not from where I sit, he only attacks left wing fanatics, like you. He is damn sure more liberal than I am and I am a moderate independent. Everyone to the right of you is not a liberal as far as you are concerned. You are so far out in left field you don't even get oxygen.

It is strange you would quote Murray Rothbard, a RW economist whose only measure of success is reduction in debt. As your own piece proves, the conservatives didn't like Reagan because he was guilty of practicing his old democratic roots and deficit spending. Your post and citation prove the point that Reagan was not a RW as you supposed.

Do you make this shit up as you go?

Let's recap...

crisismangement said:
"In my opinion Reagan was a JFK democrat up until JFK allowed his handlers to push him into left wing fanaticism. Had he stuck with Authur Laffer's advice Reagan would have probably be a democrat to his death."

WRONG...

JFK never mentioned tax reductions at anytime during the 1960 campaign. Tax cuts were never a Kennedy idea. They were the idea of his economic advisers, or as you would ignorantly grunt: "his handlers to push him into" tax cuts. And he never sought or received Authur Laffer's advice.


JFK, the demand-side tax cutter

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."

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

crisismangement said:
"conservatives didn't like Reagan because he was guilty of practicing his old democratic roots and deficit spending."

WRONG

Conservatives didn't like having to raise the debt limit 18 times under Reagan. Ronald Reagan DID take Authur Laffer's advice, and his theory FAILED.

Reagan and Reality

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

What we get with Reagan are a series of disconnects and contradictions that have led us to a situation in which a president widely hailed as a hero of the working class set in motion policies that have been mind-bogglingly beneficial to the wealthy and devastating to working people and the poor.

 

[crisismangement]

Do you make this shit up as you go?

No, I have been aware of all of this for at least 30 years.

crisismangement said:
"In my opinion Reagan was a JFK democrat up until JFK allowed his handlers to push him into left wing fanaticism. Had he stuck with Authur Laffer's advice Reagan would have probably be a democrat to his death."

WRONG...

LMAO

JFK never mentioned tax reductions at anytime during the 1960 campaign. Tax cuts were never a Kennedy idea. They were the idea of his economic advisers, or as you would ignorantly grunt: "his handlers to push him into" tax cuts. And he never sought or received Authur Laffer's advice.

Are you trying to say he did not cut the higher bracket marginal tax rates? That was what he did, and that is not demand side cuts, it is supply side cuts designed to draw more investment into the economy.

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.

Cutting the high bracket taxes is not Keynesian and does not target consumers, it targets putting more money in the hands of the rich to invest. If that is what your link told you, you are wasting your time with people who don't know what they were talking about.

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

crisismangement said:
"conservatives didn't like Reagan because he was guilty of practicing his old democratic roots and deficit spending."

WRONG

Yet that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BELOW.

Conservatives didn't like having to raise the debt limit 18 times under Reagan. Ronald Reagan DID take Authur Laffer's advice, and his theory FAILED.

When? How? Reagan ran deficits because he had to rebuild a military decimated by his predecessor. Conservatives don't like deficits, and Authur Laffer's advice which amounts to "be careful how how you raise top marginal rates because there is a point when investment AND government revenues will go down." That is as factual today was when it was uttered to JFK, and JFK reduce top marginal rates. It is obvious you don't know history and the sites you read are just as stupid as you are. That is what happens when you trust left wing fanatic propaganda.

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”[,QUOTE]Sticking to left wing propaganda I see. But again, you read and do not understand what is being said. Laffer did not say simply reducing taxes would increase revenues, he said going beyond a certain point in top bracket taxation will reduce revenues. You really need to get your head out of the asses of the left wing propagandists and learn how to understand what is written.

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

What we get with Reagan are a series of disconnects and contradictions that have led us to a situation in which a president widely hailed as a hero of the working class set in motion policies that have been mind-bogglingly beneficial to the wealthy and devastating to working people and the poor.

What Reagan did during his Presidency is irrelevant to his earlier days as a democrat. The fact is, though some stated he followed laffer's advice is shortsighted because he went way beyond what laffer taught. By then Reagan had realized the failures of the typical left wing thinking and had become a conservative. All of us know that, and none of of the moderate to conservatives believe it would have been in the best interest of the country. To borrow from an earlier post, before his becoming a conservative, Reagan was a JFK liberal, but not a left wing fanatic like you. Thus everything Reagan said or did would appear RW extreme to LW extremists like you.

Now look, chopping up my responses to your post does not cause any of the post I quoted to disappear. Obviously you are not only LF, you are stupid.

 

[dnsmith35]

I was going to reply to your comments about Laffer, but your chopping ELIMINATED your own words...

Wrong! You didn't respond because you have no reasonable answer. BTW, my words always remain while you are writing your response and "chopping" is the standard manner of responding to posts.

There's an old axiom, Robins and Blues Jays don't nest together...dnsmith thanked you for your ignorant post. He is no liberal. ALL he does is attack liberals, liberal sources, and side with right wingers like you.

Not from where I sit, he only attacks left wing fanatics, like you. He is damn sure more liberal than I am and I am a moderate independent. Everyone to the right of you is not a liberal as far as you are concerned. You are so far out in left field you don't even get oxygen.

It is strange you would quote Murray Rothbard, a RW economist whose only measure of success is reduction in debt. As your own piece proves, the conservatives didn't like Reagan because he was guilty of practicing his old democratic roots and deficit spending. Your post and citation prove the point that Reagan was not a RW as you supposed.

Do you make this shit up as you go?

Let's recap...

crisismangement said:
"In my opinion Reagan was a JFK democrat up until JFK allowed his handlers to push him into left wing fanaticism. Had he stuck with Authur Laffer's advice Reagan would have probably be a democrat to his death."

WRONG...

JFK never mentioned tax reductions at anytime during the 1960 campaign. Tax cuts were never a Kennedy idea. They were the idea of his economic advisers, or as you would ignorantly grunt: "his handlers to push him into" tax cuts. And he never sought or received Authur Laffer's advice.


JFK, the demand-side tax cutter

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."

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

crisismangement said:
"conservatives didn't like Reagan because he was guilty of practicing his old democratic roots and deficit spending."

WRONG

ROTFLMAO!

Conservatives didn't like having to raise the debt limit 18 times under Reagan. Ronald Reagan DID take Authur Laffer's advice, and his theory FAILED.

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

What we get with Reagan are a series of disconnects and contradictions that have led us to a situation in which a president widely hailed as a hero of the working class set in motion policies that have been mind-bogglingly beneficial to the wealthy and devastating to working people and the poor.

You know, you really don't understand economics or history, or politics or humanity or human behavior, and you care so little about most of the people in our world, all you can call yourself is a left wing power broker....a paid shill for the left wing extremism machine.

 

[dnsmith35]

Do you make this shit up as you go?

No, I have been aware of all of this for at least 30 years.

crisismangement said:
"In my opinion Reagan was a JFK democrat up until JFK allowed his handlers to push him into left wing fanaticism. Had he stuck with Authur Laffer's advice Reagan would have probably be a democrat to his death."

WRONG...

LMAO Are you trying to say he did not cut the higher bracket marginal tax rates? That was what he did, and that is not demand side cuts, it is supply side cuts designed to draw more investment into the economy.Cutting the high bracket taxes is not Keynesian and does not target consumers, it targets putting more money in the hands of the rich to invest. If that is what your link told you, you are wasting your time with people who don't know what they were talking about.Yet that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BELOW.

Conservatives didn't like having to raise the debt limit 18 times under Reagan. Ronald Reagan DID take Authur Laffer's advice, and his theory FAILED.

When? How? Reagan ran deficits because he had to rebuild a military decimated by his predecessor. Conservatives don't like deficits, and Authur Laffer's advice which amounts to "be careful how how you raise top marginal rates because there is a point when investment AND government revenues will go down." That is as factual today was when it was uttered to JFK, and JFK reduce top marginal rates. It is obvious you don't know history and the sites you read are just as stupid as you are. That is what happens when you trust left wing fanatic propaganda.

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”[,QUOTE]Sticking to left wing propaganda I see. But again, you read and do not understand what is being said. Laffer did not say simply reducing taxes would increase revenues, he said going beyond a certain point in top bracket taxation will reduce revenues. You really need to get your head out of the asses of the left wing propagandists and learn how to understand what is written.

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

What we get with Reagan are a series of disconnects and contradictions that have led us to a situation in which a president widely hailed as a hero of the working class set in motion policies that have been mind-bogglingly beneficial to the wealthy and devastating to working people and the poor.

What Reagan did during his Presidency is irrelevant to his earlier days as a democrat. The fact is, though some stated he followed laffer's advice is shortsighted because he went way beyond what laffer taught. By then Reagan had realized the failures of the typical left wing thinking and had become a conservative. All of us know that, and none of of the moderate to conservatives believe it would have been in the best interest of the country. To borrow from an earlier post, before his becoming a conservative, Reagan was a JFK liberal, but not a left wing fanatic like you. Thus everything Reagan said or did would appear RW extreme to LW extremists like you.

Now look, chopping up my responses to your post does not cause any of the post I quoted to disappear. Obviously you are not only LF, you are stupid.

You do know that, though I did not see Ronald Reagan as my kind of President, when I said Regan was a JFK democrat based on his speeches and the publicity surrounding him, BF, what ever he is, lost it. It doesn't matter that I support the liberal goals on JFKs platform, liking that one man, according to BF I must be a RWr. It is amazing how small minds like BF has works. He has the mind of an extremist.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you make this shit up as you go?

No, I have been aware of all of this for at least 30 years.LMAO Are you trying to say he did not cut the higher bracket marginal tax rates? That was what he did, and that is not demand side cuts, it is supply side cuts designed to draw more investment into the economy.Cutting the high bracket taxes is not Keynesian and does not target consumers, it targets putting more money in the hands of the rich to invest. If that is what your link told you, you are wasting your time with people who don't know what they were talking about.Yet that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BELOW.When? How? Reagan ran deficits because he had to rebuild a military decimated by his predecessor. Conservatives don't like deficits, and Authur Laffer's advice which amounts to "be careful how how you raise top marginal rates because there is a point when investment AND government revenues will go down." That is as factual today was when it was uttered to JFK, and JFK reduce top marginal rates. It is obvious you don't know history and the sites you read are just as stupid as you are. That is what happens when you trust left wing fanatic propaganda.

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”[,QUOTE]Sticking to left wing propaganda I see. But again, you read and do not understand what is being said. Laffer did not say simply reducing taxes would increase revenues, he said going beyond a certain point in top bracket taxation will reduce revenues. You really need to get your head out of the asses of the left wing propagandists and learn how to understand what is written.

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

What we get with Reagan are a series of disconnects and contradictions that have led us to a situation in which a president widely hailed as a hero of the working class set in motion policies that have been mind-bogglingly beneficial to the wealthy and devastating to working people and the poor.

What Reagan did during his Presidency is irrelevant to his earlier days as a democrat. The fact is, though some stated he followed laffer's advice is shortsighted because he went way beyond what laffer taught. By then Reagan had realized the failures of the typical left wing thinking and had become a conservative. All of us know that, and none of of the moderate to conservatives believe it would have been in the best interest of the country. To borrow from an earlier post, before his becoming a conservative, Reagan was a JFK liberal, but not a left wing fanatic like you. Thus everything Reagan said or did would appear RW extreme to LW extremists like you.

Now look, chopping up my responses to your post does not cause any of the post I quoted to disappear. Obviously you are not only LF, you are stupid.

You do know that, though I did not see Ronald Reagan as my kind of President, when I said Regan was a JFK democrat based on his speeches and the publicity surrounding him, BF, what ever he is, lost it. It doesn't matter that I support the liberal goals on JFKs platform, liking that one man, according to BF I must be a RWr. It is amazing how small minds like BF has works. He has the mind of an extremist.

You have every right to your own beliefs. But the mind of an extremist would try to sell us on the absolute absurd; i.e. that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he voted for Nixon, that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he was a paid mouthpiece for the elitist American Medical Association's Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Medicare and used fear-mongering, the red scare and lies to try to defeat JFK's Medicare proposal, and that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he opposed every major New Frontier initiative.

He may have liked JFK, but Reagan was no JFK Democrat. I have no respect for Reagan. He was a empty suit and his divisive rhetoric divided this nation.

A man I DO respect from the right is Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was an honest man who was open-minded and a compassionate conservative. He and JFK were good friends and even discussed campaigning together in the 1964 Presidential campaign, they would take turns at each stop going first, and offer the American people a true choice of philosophy and approach.

But NO ONE would ever try to sell the absurd idea that Goldy was a JFK Democrat.

Goldwater, JFK Election Campaign In '64 Might Have Offered Public A Great Debate

A few years ago I interviewed many people about that 1964 campaign and stumbled across an interesting tidbit: It was the election that could have changed American politics.

In 1963, Goldwater and his friend, John F. Kennedy, shared a radical plan: The two men would campaign as a team. The Republican and the Democratic president would barnstorm the country and speak on the same platform. The ideas - conservative vs. liberal - would be debated and the election would be a referendum on public policy.

"I knew him as a close friend and I had really looked forward to running against him in the election that was to be held," Goldwater wrote after Kennedy's death in 1963. The two candidates planned to stump the country "like politicians should do. Standing up to state our points, our issues, and then debating each other."

Imagine that. These two politicians could have built a stage for a politics of discourse, a test of ideas. Goldwater was fond of JFK. It was a friendship that did not require affirmation; they could agree to disagree.

Kennedy's assassination ended the notion of a joint campaign stage.

Goldwater even withdrew from the Republican field, saying he no longer had the stomach for a campaign. However, in January of 1964, after much pressure from his colleagues, he took up the fight against Johnson. Goldwater promised a Scottsdale crowd: "I will not change my beliefs to win votes. I will offer a choice, not an echo."

That choice did not include side-by-side comparisons with the Democratic nominee. Goldwater had no use for Johnson.


"Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
Barry Goldwater

"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."
Barry Goldwater

 

[Trinnity]

It's making ins. unaffordable.

Insurance has been unaffordable for over a decade.
It's simply become MORE unaffordable.
On the other hand, I'm sure that these Health Insurance companies can simply adjust to another industry the same way they expect all the Americans they laid off to do so.

Never forget what Rush says, "A job loss is an OPPORTUNITY!".

Oh shut up with the equivocations; it's so lame. A lot of people could afford insurance and now they can't. FACT. People are paying higher premiums, with huge deductibles. How is that helping us? When is the administration gonna stop fucking us in the ass? I'm damn sick and tired of it. People like you make it possible. Do me a personal favor and don't ever vote again.

How's your hope and change? Mine sucks.

 

[dnsmith35]

.....

No, I have been aware of all of this for at least 30 years.LMAO Are you trying to say he did not cut the higher bracket marginal tax rates? That was what he did, and that is not demand side cuts, it is supply side cuts designed to draw more investment into the economy.Cutting the high bracket taxes is not Keynesian and does not target consumers, it targets putting more money in the hands of the rich to invest. If that is what your link told you, you are wasting your time with people who don't know what they were talking about.Yet that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BELOW. Reagan ran deficits because he had to rebuild a military decimated by his predecessor. Conservatives don't like deficits, and Authur Laffer's advice which amounts to "be careful how how you raise top marginal rates because there is a point when investment AND government revenues will go down." That is as factual today was when it was uttered to JFK, and JFK reduce top marginal rates. It is obvious you don't know history and the sites you read are just as stupid as you are. That is what happens when you trust left wing fanatic propaganda.

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.

Sticking to left wing propaganda I see. But again, you read and do not understand what is being said. Laffer did not say simply reducing taxes would increase revenues, he said going beyond a certain point in top bracket taxation will reduce revenues. You really need to get your head out of the asses of the left wing propagandists and learn how to understand what is written.What Reagan did during his Presidency is irrelevant to his earlier days as a democrat. The fact is, though some stated he followed laffer's advice is shortsighted because he went way beyond what laffer taught. By then Reagan had realized the failures of the typical left wing thinking and had become a conservative. All of us know that, and none of of the moderate to conservatives believe it would have been in the best interest of the country. To borrow from an earlier post, before his becoming a conservative, Reagan was a JFK liberal, but not a left wing fanatic like you. Thus everything Reagan said or did would appear RW extreme to LW extremists like you.

Now look, chopping up my responses to your post does not cause any of the post I quoted to disappear. Obviously you are not only LW, you are stupid. You do know that, though I did not see Ronald Reagan as my kind of President, when I said Regan was a JFK democrat based on his speeches and the publicity surrounding him, BF, what ever he is, lost it. It doesn't matter that I support the liberal goals on JFKs platform, liking that one man, according to BF I must be a RWr. It is amazing how small minds like BF has works. He has the mind of an extremist.

You have every right to your own beliefs. But the mind of an extremist would try to sell us on the absolute absurd.

I agree! Why do you so consistently try to sell an absolute absurdity?

that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he voted for Nixon, that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he was a paid mouthpiece for the elitist American Medical Association's Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Medicare and used fear-mongering, the red scare and lies to try to defeat JFK's Medicare proposal, and that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he opposed every major New Frontier initiative.

No matter how you absurdly express your left wing extremist beliefs, history tells us he was a democrat and he eventually changed parties to GOP. He was a JFK democrat, not a left wing democrat like JFK's handlers. There is no way you can get away with revising history; and all of the intelligent people on this thread know that for fact.

I still don't read your canned quotes from the internet. If you persist in posting them, I will persist in not reading them and omitting them from my response.

Everything you post shows you to be a left wing extremist who considers moderate democrats right wing. That is where you make many of your mistakes, and you can't change the facts, all you do is lie about them.

 

[Bfgrn]

.....

No, I have been aware of all of this for at least 30 years.LMAO Are you trying to say he did not cut the higher bracket marginal tax rates? That was what he did, and that is not demand side cuts, it is supply side cuts designed to draw more investment into the economy.Cutting the high bracket taxes is not Keynesian and does not target consumers, it targets putting more money in the hands of the rich to invest. If that is what your link told you, you are wasting your time with people who don't know what they were talking about.Yet that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BELOW. Reagan ran deficits because he had to rebuild a military decimated by his predecessor. Conservatives don't like deficits, and Authur Laffer's advice which amounts to "be careful how how you raise top marginal rates because there is a point when investment AND government revenues will go down." That is as factual today was when it was uttered to JFK, and JFK reduce top marginal rates. It is obvious you don't know history and the sites you read are just as stupid as you are. That is what happens when you trust left wing fanatic propaganda.

Sticking to left wing propaganda I see. But again, you read and do not understand what is being said. Laffer did not say simply reducing taxes would increase revenues, he said going beyond a certain point in top bracket taxation will reduce revenues. You really need to get your head out of the asses of the left wing propagandists and learn how to understand what is written.What Reagan did during his Presidency is irrelevant to his earlier days as a democrat. The fact is, though some stated he followed laffer's advice is shortsighted because he went way beyond what laffer taught. By then Reagan had realized the failures of the typical left wing thinking and had become a conservative. All of us know that, and none of of the moderate to conservatives believe it would have been in the best interest of the country. To borrow from an earlier post, before his becoming a conservative, Reagan was a JFK liberal, but not a left wing fanatic like you. Thus everything Reagan said or did would appear RW extreme to LW extremists like you.

Now look, chopping up my responses to your post does not cause any of the post I quoted to disappear. Obviously you are not only LW, you are stupid. You do know that, though I did not see Ronald Reagan as my kind of President, when I said Regan was a JFK democrat based on his speeches and the publicity surrounding him, BF, what ever he is, lost it. It doesn't matter that I support the liberal goals on JFKs platform, liking that one man, according to BF I must be a RWr. It is amazing how small minds like BF has works. He has the mind of an extremist.

You have every right to your own beliefs. But the mind of an extremist would try to sell us on the absolute absurd.

I agree! Why do you so consistently try to sell an absolute absurdity?

that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he voted for Nixon, that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he was a paid mouthpiece for the elitist American Medical Association's Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Medicare and used fear-mongering, the red scare and lies to try to defeat JFK's Medicare proposal, and that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he opposed every major New Frontier initiative.

No matter how you absurdly express your left wing extremist beliefs, history tells us he was a democrat and he eventually changed parties to GOP. He was a JFK democrat, not a left wing democrat like JFK's handlers. There is no way you can get away with revising history; and all of the intelligent people on this thread know that for fact.

I still don't read your canned quotes from the internet. If you persist in posting them, I will persist in not reading them and omitting them from my response.

Everything you post shows you to be a left wing extremist who considers moderate democrats right wing. That is where you make many of your mistakes, and you can't change the facts, all you do is lie about them.

Nothing I post is extreme, it is sound in logic and backed up with FACTS.

You are no liberal. You have a closed dogmatic mind. And you are highly dishonest. Your approach is to simply IGNORE anything I post that doesn't fit your dogma and then you try to makes excuses instead of addressing the facts. Anyone with half a brain could see your modus operandi, but the only ones backing you are right wingers with the intellectual capacity of a gnat.

The facts are Reagan was not a JFK liberal. He voted for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Nixon in 1960. He changed parties for good after Truman and definitely after 1954 when he received a very good salary as a corporate "ambassador of goodwill" for the General Electric company. Only a RETARD would call that being a JFK Democrat. He opposed everything Kennedy proposed, but somehow in your tiny little twisted mind that makes him a JFK Democrat.

Reagan said he was a New Deal Democrat, and even though the Reagan family only survived the Great Depression because Jack Reagan, young Ronnie's unemployed father, was able to find a job in one of the New Deal's work-relief programs. Reagan trashed FDR and the New Deal saying:

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal."
Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976

 

[percysunshine]

Every 2nd term administration is a pre-existing condition that gets coverage.

Some times good, some times not....

.

 

[Bfgrn]

President John F. Kennedy...DEMAND side tax cuts

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


John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

The Responsible Citizen and Tax Reduction

So until we restore full prosperity and the budget-balancing revenues it generates, our practical choice is not between deficit and surplus but between two kinds of deficits: between deficits born of waste and weakness and deficits incurred as we build our future strength. If an individual spends frivolously beyond his means today and borrows beyond his prospects for earning tomorrow, this is a sign of weakness. But if he borrows prudently to invest in a machine that boosts his business profits, or to pay for education and training that boosts his earning power, this can be a source of strength, a deficit through which he builds a better future for himself and his family, a deficit justified by his increased potential.

As long as we have large numbers of workers without jobs, and producers without markets, we will as a Nation fall into repeated deficits of inertia and weakness. But, by comparison, if we enlarge the deficit temporarily as the by-product of our positive tax policy to expand our economy this will serve as a source of strength, not a sign of weakness. It will yield rich private dividends in higher output, faster growth, more jobs, higher profits and incomes; and, by the same token, a large public gain in expanded budget revenues. As the economy returns to full employment, the budget will return to constructive balance.

Taxes and Consumer Demand

In order to enlarge markets for consumer goods and services and translate these into new jobs, fuller work schedules, higher profits, and rising farm incomes, I am proposing a major reduction in individual income tax rates. Rates should be cut in three stages, from their present range of 20 to 91 percent to the more reasonable range of 14 to 65 percent. In the first stage, beginning July 1, these rate reductions will cut individual liabilities at an annual rate of $6 billion. Most of this would translate immediately into greater take-home pay through a reduction in the basic withholding rate. Further rate reductions would apply to 1964 and 1965 incomes, with resulting revenue losses to be partially offset by tax reforms, thus applying a substantial additional boost to consumer markets.

These revisions would directly increase the annual rate of disposable after-tax incomes of American households by about $6 billion in the second half of 1963, and some $8 billion when the program is in full effect, with account taken of both tax reductions and tax reform. Taxpayers in all brackets would benefit, with those in the lower brackets getting the largest proportional reductions.

American households as a whole regularly spend between 92 and 94 percent of the total after-tax (disposable) incomes they receive. And they generally hold to this range even when income rises and falls; so it follows that they generally spend about the same percentage of dollars of income added or subtracted. If we cut about $8 billion from the consumer tax load, we can reasonably expect a direct addition to consumer goods markets of well over $7 billion.

A reduction of corporate taxes would provide a further increment to the flow of household incomes as dividends are enlarged; and this, too, would directly swell the consumer spending stream.

The direct effects, large as they are, would be only the beginning. Rising output and employment to meet the new demands for consumer goods will generate new income-wages, salaries, and profits. Spending from this extra income flow would create more jobs, more production, and more incomes. The ultimate increases in the continuing flow of incomes, production, and consumption will greatly exceed the initial amount of tax reduction.

Even if the tax program had no influence on investment spending--either directly or indirectly--the $8-9 billion added directly to the flow of consumer income would call forth a flow of at least $16 billion of added consumer goods and services.

But the program will also generate direct and indirect increases in investment spending. The production of new machines, and the building of new factories, stores, offices, and apartments add to incomes in the same way as does production of consumer goods. This too sets off a derived chain reaction of consumer spending, adding at least another $1 billion of output of consumer goods for every $1 billion of added investment.

 

[dnsmith35]

President John F. Kennedy...Supply side tax cuts

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


John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

The Responsible Citizen and Tax Reduction

So until we restore full prosperity and the budget-balancing revenues it generates, our practical choice is not between deficit and surplus but between two kinds of deficits: between deficits born of waste and weakness and deficits incurred as we build our future strength. If an individual spends frivolously beyond his means today and borrows beyond his prospects for earning tomorrow, this is a sign of weakness. But if he borrows prudently to invest in a machine that boosts his business profits, or to pay for education and training that boosts his earning power, this can be a source of strength, a deficit through which he builds a better future for himself and his family, a deficit justified by his increased potential.

As long as we have large numbers of workers without jobs, and producers without markets, we will as a Nation fall into repeated deficits of inertia and weakness. But, by comparison, if we enlarge the deficit temporarily as the by-product of our positive tax policy to expand our economy this will serve as a source of strength, not a sign of weakness. It will yield rich private dividends in higher output, faster growth, more jobs, higher profits and incomes; and, by the same token, a large public gain in expanded budget revenues. As the economy returns to full employment, the budget will return to constructive balance.

Taxes and Consumer Demand

In order to enlarge markets for consumer goods and services and translate these into new jobs, fuller work schedules, higher profits, and rising farm incomes, I am proposing a major reduction in individual income tax rates. Rates should be cut in three stages, from their present range of 20 to 91 percent to the more reasonable range of 14 to 65 percent. In the first stage, beginning July 1, these rate reductions will cut individual liabilities at an annual rate of $6 billion. Most of this would translate immediately into greater take-home pay through a reduction in the basic withholding rate. Further rate reductions would apply to 1964 and 1965 incomes, with resulting revenue losses to be partially offset by tax reforms, thus applying a substantial additional boost to consumer markets.

These revisions would directly increase the annual rate of disposable after-tax incomes of American households by about $6 billion in the second half of 1963, and some $8 billion when the program is in full effect, with account taken of both tax reductions and tax reform. Taxpayers in all brackets would benefit, with those in the lower brackets getting the largest proportional reductions.

American households as a whole regularly spend between 92 and 94 percent of the total after-tax (disposable) incomes they receive. And they generally hold to this range even when income rises and falls; so it follows that they generally spend about the same percentage of dollars of income added or subtracted. If we cut about $8 billion from the consumer tax load, we can reasonably expect a direct addition to consumer goods markets of well over $7 billion.

A reduction of corporate taxes would provide a further increment to the flow of household incomes as dividends are enlarged; and this, too, would directly swell the consumer spending stream.

The direct effects, large as they are, would be only the beginning. Rising output and employment to meet the new demands for consumer goods will generate new income-wages, salaries, and profits. Spending from this extra income flow would create more jobs, more production, and more incomes. The ultimate increases in the continuing flow of incomes, production, and consumption will greatly exceed the initial amount of tax reduction.

Even if the tax program had no influence on investment spending--either directly or indirectly--the $8-9 billion added directly to the flow of consumer income would call forth a flow of at least $16 billion of added consumer goods and services.

But the program will also generate direct and indirect increases in investment spending. The production of new machines, and the building of new factories, stores, offices, and apartments add to incomes in the same way as does production of consumer goods. This too sets off a derived chain reaction of consumer spending, adding at least another $1 billion of output of consumer goods for every $1 billion of added investment.

Yet here is what really happened. The largest marginal tax rates were cut the most, and corporate tax rates were also cut: RIGHT OUT OF THE LAFFER HAND BOOK and were SUPPLY SIDE CUTS"President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]" If you call those DEMAND TAX CUTS, it proves your absolute ignorance of economics. Your source CALL THEM DEMAND and you are too stupid to know the difference. Authur Laffer was proud of those cuts when he advised and was taken up on.

As Laffer opined, cutting the top rates would help the economy more than cutting bottom rates.

 

[crisismangement]

.....

.....

Sticking to left wing propaganda I see. But again, you read and do not understand what is being said. Laffer did not say simply reducing taxes would increase revenues, he said going beyond a certain point in top bracket taxation will reduce revenues. You really need to get your head out of the asses of the left wing propagandists and learn how to understand what is written.What Reagan did during his Presidency is irrelevant to his earlier days as a democrat. The fact is, though some stated he followed laffer's advice is shortsighted because he went way beyond what laffer taught. By then Reagan had realized the failures of the typical left wing thinking and had become a conservative. All of us know that, and none of of the moderate to conservatives believe it would have been in the best interest of the country. To borrow from an earlier post, before his becoming a conservative, Reagan was a JFK liberal, but not a left wing fanatic like you. Thus everything Reagan said or did would appear RW extreme to LW extremists like you.

Now look, chopping up my responses to your post does not cause any of the post I quoted to disappear. Obviously you are not only LW, you are stupid. You do know that, though I did not see Ronald Reagan as my kind of President, when I said Regan was a JFK democrat based on his speeches and the publicity surrounding him, BF, what ever he is, lost it. It doesn't matter that I support the liberal goals on JFKs platform, liking that one man, according to BF I must be a RWr. It is amazing how small minds like BF has works. He has the mind of an extremist.

I agree! Why do you so consistently try to sell an absolute absurdity?

that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he voted for Nixon, that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he was a paid mouthpiece for the elitist American Medical Association's Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Medicare and used fear-mongering, the red scare and lies to try to defeat JFK's Medicare proposal, and that Reagan was a JFK Democrat when he opposed every major New Frontier initiative.

No matter how you absurdly express your left wing extremist beliefs, history tells us he was a democrat and he eventually changed parties to GOP. He was a JFK democrat, not a left wing democrat like JFK's handlers. There is no way you can get away with revising history; and all of the intelligent people on this thread know that for fact.

I still don't read your canned quotes from the internet. If you persist in posting them, I will persist in not reading them and omitting them from my response.

Everything you post shows you to be a left wing extremist who considers moderate democrats right wing. That is where you make many of your mistakes, and you can't change the facts, all you do is lie about them.

Nothing I post is extreme, it is sound in logic and backed up with FACTS.

No, what you say is not logical or backed up with facts. It is backed up by some other left wing extremist who spouts the same left wing fanatic propaganda.

You are no liberal. You have a closed dogmatic mind. And you are highly dishonest. Your approach is to simply IGNORE anything I post that doesn't fit your dogma and then you try to makes excuses instead of addressing the facts. Anyone with half a brain could see your modus operandi, but the only ones backing you are right wingers with the intellectual capacity of a gnat.

What people ignore is not factual, it is propaganda. That is your only forte.

The facts are Reagan was not a JFK liberal. He voted for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Nixon in 1960. He changed parties for good after Truman and definitely after 1954 when he received a very good salary as a corporate "ambassador of goodwill" for the General Electric company. Only a RETARD would call that being a JFK Democrat. He opposed everything Kennedy proposed, but somehow in your tiny little twisted mind that makes him a JFK Democrat.

Reagan said he was a New Deal Democrat, and even though the Reagan family only survived the Great Depression because Jack Reagan, young Ronnie's unemployed father, was able to find a job in one of the New Deal's work-relief programs. Reagan trashed FDR and the New Deal saying:

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal."
Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976

That is true, he did say that, after he came to his senses and became a republican. No matter how much you don't like it, Reagan was a democrat who refused to accept the left wing extremist handlers of the democratic party.

 

[Bfgrn]

President John F. Kennedy...Supply side tax cuts

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


John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

The Responsible Citizen and Tax Reduction

So until we restore full prosperity and the budget-balancing revenues it generates, our practical choice is not between deficit and surplus but between two kinds of deficits: between deficits born of waste and weakness and deficits incurred as we build our future strength. If an individual spends frivolously beyond his means today and borrows beyond his prospects for earning tomorrow, this is a sign of weakness. But if he borrows prudently to invest in a machine that boosts his business profits, or to pay for education and training that boosts his earning power, this can be a source of strength, a deficit through which he builds a better future for himself and his family, a deficit justified by his increased potential.

As long as we have large numbers of workers without jobs, and producers without markets, we will as a Nation fall into repeated deficits of inertia and weakness. But, by comparison, if we enlarge the deficit temporarily as the by-product of our positive tax policy to expand our economy this will serve as a source of strength, not a sign of weakness. It will yield rich private dividends in higher output, faster growth, more jobs, higher profits and incomes; and, by the same token, a large public gain in expanded budget revenues. As the economy returns to full employment, the budget will return to constructive balance.

Taxes and Consumer Demand

In order to enlarge markets for consumer goods and services and translate these into new jobs, fuller work schedules, higher profits, and rising farm incomes, I am proposing a major reduction in individual income tax rates. Rates should be cut in three stages, from their present range of 20 to 91 percent to the more reasonable range of 14 to 65 percent. In the first stage, beginning July 1, these rate reductions will cut individual liabilities at an annual rate of $6 billion. Most of this would translate immediately into greater take-home pay through a reduction in the basic withholding rate. Further rate reductions would apply to 1964 and 1965 incomes, with resulting revenue losses to be partially offset by tax reforms, thus applying a substantial additional boost to consumer markets.

These revisions would directly increase the annual rate of disposable after-tax incomes of American households by about $6 billion in the second half of 1963, and some $8 billion when the program is in full effect, with account taken of both tax reductions and tax reform. Taxpayers in all brackets would benefit, with those in the lower brackets getting the largest proportional reductions.

American households as a whole regularly spend between 92 and 94 percent of the total after-tax (disposable) incomes they receive. And they generally hold to this range even when income rises and falls; so it follows that they generally spend about the same percentage of dollars of income added or subtracted. If we cut about $8 billion from the consumer tax load, we can reasonably expect a direct addition to consumer goods markets of well over $7 billion.

A reduction of corporate taxes would provide a further increment to the flow of household incomes as dividends are enlarged; and this, too, would directly swell the consumer spending stream.

The direct effects, large as they are, would be only the beginning. Rising output and employment to meet the new demands for consumer goods will generate new income-wages, salaries, and profits. Spending from this extra income flow would create more jobs, more production, and more incomes. The ultimate increases in the continuing flow of incomes, production, and consumption will greatly exceed the initial amount of tax reduction.

Even if the tax program had no influence on investment spending--either directly or indirectly--the $8-9 billion added directly to the flow of consumer income would call forth a flow of at least $16 billion of added consumer goods and services.

But the program will also generate direct and indirect increases in investment spending. The production of new machines, and the building of new factories, stores, offices, and apartments add to incomes in the same way as does production of consumer goods. This too sets off a derived chain reaction of consumer spending, adding at least another $1 billion of output of consumer goods for every $1 billion of added investment.

Yet here is what really happened. The largest marginal tax rates were cut the most, and corporate tax rates were also cut: RIGHT OUT OF THE LAFFER HAND BOOK and were SUPPLY SIDE CUTS"President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]" If you call those DEMAND TAX CUTS, it proves your absolute ignorance of economics. Your source CALL THEM DEMAND and you are too stupid to know the difference. Authur Laffer was proud of those cuts when he advised and was taken up on.

As Laffer opined, cutting the top rates would help the economy more than cutting bottom rates.

My source CALL THEM DEMAND...my source is President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Where is your link?

Laffer was never consulted. He was still in COLLEGE. His theory was a decade later.

Laffer earned a B.A. in Economics from Yale University (1962) and an M.B.A. (1965) and a Ph.D. in Economics (1971) from Stanford University.

You are now officially a dishonest lying piece of shit. You just got pwned.

 

[Bfgrn]

.....

Sticking to left wing propaganda I see. But again, you read and do not understand what is being said. Laffer did not say simply reducing taxes would increase revenues, he said going beyond a certain point in top bracket taxation will reduce revenues. You really need to get your head out of the asses of the left wing propagandists and learn how to understand what is written.What Reagan did during his Presidency is irrelevant to his earlier days as a democrat. The fact is, though some stated he followed laffer's advice is shortsighted because he went way beyond what laffer taught. By then Reagan had realized the failures of the typical left wing thinking and had become a conservative. All of us know that, and none of of the moderate to conservatives believe it would have been in the best interest of the country. To borrow from an earlier post, before his becoming a conservative, Reagan was a JFK liberal, but not a left wing fanatic like you. Thus everything Reagan said or did would appear RW extreme to LW extremists like you.

Now look, chopping up my responses to your post does not cause any of the post I quoted to disappear. Obviously you are not only LW, you are stupid. You do know that, though I did not see Ronald Reagan as my kind of President, when I said Regan was a JFK democrat based on his speeches and the publicity surrounding him, BF, what ever he is, lost it. It doesn't matter that I support the liberal goals on JFKs platform, liking that one man, according to BF I must be a RWr. It is amazing how small minds like BF has works. He has the mind of an extremist.

I agree! Why do you so consistently try to sell an absolute absurdity?No matter how you absurdly express your left wing extremist beliefs, history tells us he was a democrat and he eventually changed parties to GOP. He was a JFK democrat, not a left wing democrat like JFK's handlers. There is no way you can get away with revising history; and all of the intelligent people on this thread know that for fact.

I still don't read your canned quotes from the internet. If you persist in posting them, I will persist in not reading them and omitting them from my response.

Everything you post shows you to be a left wing extremist who considers moderate democrats right wing. That is where you make many of your mistakes, and you can't change the facts, all you do is lie about them.

Nothing I post is extreme, it is sound in logic and backed up with FACTS.

You are no liberal. You have a closed dogmatic mind. And you are highly dishonest. Your approach is to simply IGNORE anything I post that doesn't fit your dogma and then you try to makes excuses instead of addressing the facts. Anyone with half a brain could see your modus operandi, but the only ones backing you are right wingers with the intellectual capacity of a gnat.

What people ignore is not factual, it is propaganda. That is your only forte.

The facts are Reagan was not a JFK liberal. He voted for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Nixon in 1960. He changed parties for good after Truman and definitely after 1954 when he received a very good salary as a corporate "ambassador of goodwill" for the General Electric company. Only a RETARD would call that being a JFK Democrat. He opposed everything Kennedy proposed, but somehow in your tiny little twisted mind that makes him a JFK Democrat.

Reagan said he was a New Deal Democrat, and even though the Reagan family only survived the Great Depression because Jack Reagan, young Ronnie's unemployed father, was able to find a job in one of the New Deal's work-relief programs. Reagan trashed FDR and the New Deal saying:

"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal."
Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976

That is true, he did say that, after he came to his senses and became a republican. No matter how much you don't like it, Reagan was a democrat who refused to accept the left wing extremist handlers of the democratic party.

Reagan was an authoritarian conservative who presided over the most corrupt administration in the 20th century. He is by FAR the biggest disaster that ever hit this country. Liberals don't want him. You right wingers can have him.

It took EVERY American presidents in the first 200 years of this nation to accumulate one trillion dollars of debt. That first 200 years includes numerous wars, 2 World Wars, a Great Depression, numerous recessions, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, it includes Democratic administrations like Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson...

It took Ronald Reagan ONLY 5 YEARS to accumulate the second trillion dollars of debt.

Ronald Reagan is the WELFARE QUEEN of presidents.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.

Ronald Reagan opened the doors of the party of Lincoln to EXTREMISTS.

Says who? A Goldwater Republican...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

The only party that has been hijacked was the Republican party by the far right.

Invasion of the Party Snatchers

By Victor Gold

After four decades as a Republican insider, Victor Gold reveals how the holy-rollers and the Neo-Cons have destroyed the GOP. Now he's fighting to get his party back.

As a man who served as press aide to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter and senior advisor to George H. W. Bush (in addition to co-authoring his autobiography), Victor Gold is absolutely furious that the Neo-Cons and their strange bedfellows, the Evangelical Right, have stolen his party from him. Now he is bringing the fight to them.

Invasion of the Party Snatchers is a blistering critique not only of the Bush-Cheney administration but also of the Republican Congress. Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the soul of the GOP, including the elder Bush's opinion of his sons work domestically and abroad, the significance of the newly elected Congress, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all. Gold reveals, among other explosive disclosures, how George W. has been manipulated by his vice president and secretary of defense to become, in Lenin's famous phrase, a "useful idiot" for Neo-Conservative warmongers and Theo-Conservative religious fanatics.

Although there have been other books by dissident Republicans attacking the Bush-Cheney administrations betrayal of conservative principles, none have been by an insider whose political credentials include inner-circle status with Barry Goldwater and George H. W. Bush.

Review:
"Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is 'a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay.' Gold looks to Goldwater, 'a straight-talking, freethinking maverick,' as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.

He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of 'a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.' The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, 'two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth.' In efficient prose, Gold scrutinizes a significant swath of recent GOP history, in particular Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress and the Bush II White House, without losing momentum.

He also has choice words for 'the Coulterization of Republican rhetoric,' the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, and 'sideshow' legislation like the Flag Protection Amendment. Gold sees a promising future for the Republican Party, but not until they lose some major elections and are able to keep down a slice of humble pie; for those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort." Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)

Synopsis:
The last real Goldwater conservative in America attacks the current state of his movement and his party.
Powell's Books - Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP by Victor Gold

Victor Gold grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana, where he attended the public schools, and Tulane University. After working as a reporter-correspondent for the BIRMINGHAM (Alabama) NEWS, he earned his law degree (J.D.) from the University of Alabama. He served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, 1950-52.


In 1958 he moved to Washington, D.C., and joined the public relations firm of Selvage & Lee. Six years later he became Deputy Press Secretary to Senator Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign.


In 1965 Gold opened his own political public relations firm in Washington, listing among his clients then-Republican House leader Gerald Ford and Senator Bob Dole. At the Republican conventions of 1968 and 1976 he worked with press secretary Lyn Nofziger on behalf of the presidential candidacy of then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. During the Nixon administration he served as press secretary to Vice President Spiro T. Agnew until January, 1973.


In 1980 Gold joined the staff of Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush as a speechwriter and senior advisor, a position he held during the Reagan-Bush campaigns of '80 and '84. He served on the Bush vice-presidential staff in 1981, and as a Bush advisor in the campaigns of 1988 and 1992. In 1992 he received the Distinguished Achievement Award for Political Communication from his alma mater, the University of Alabama.


In 1989 Gold served as a member of President Bush's election-oversight delegation to the first free Romanian elections.


A frequent speaker on the national political and campus circuits, Gold has also appeared on numerous network television shows. His articles, covering politics and sports, have appeared in NEWSWEEK, HARPER'S, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, PLAYBOY, CONNOISSEUR, READERS' DIGEST, NATIONAL REVIEW, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, and THE WASHINGTON POST.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reagan ran deficits because he had to rebuild a military decimated by his predecessor.

FALSE...



Historical Tables

Table 15.4—TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE: 1948–2013
(in billions of dollars)

Fiscal Year - Defense and International

1977 103.6 - Ford
1978 112.0 - Carter
1979 123.8 - Carter
1980 146.7 - Carter
1981 170.6 - Carter
1982 197.6 - Reagan

 

[percysunshine]

Of course, the legislative branch of government authorizes spending.

Did y'all skip civics class?

.

 

[dnsmith35]

My source CALL THEM DEMAND...my source is President John Fitzgerald KennedyPresident

Of course he called then demand. After all, he was a liberal.

Where is your link?

A link? You mean you are too stupid to know that tax cuts to the rich are supply side/trickle down economics.

Laffer was never consulted. He was still in COLLEGE. His theory was a decade later.

Laffer earned a B.A. in Economics from Yale University (1962) and an M.B.A. (1965) and a Ph.D. in Economics (1971) from Stanford University.

You are now officially a dishonest lying piece of shit. You just got pwned.

Laffer had understood tax theory before his MBA. Now it is obvious you are a stupid piece of shit.

Although the Laffer Curve bears his name, the ideas behind it were not new or his alone. In fact, Dr. Laffer likes to point out that the ideas are so straightforward that people knew about it hundreds of years before. For example, the Muslim philosopher, Ibn Khaldun, wrote in his 14th century work, The Muqaddimah: It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments. The Laffer Curve | Laffer Center​

So what ever you call it, he was right and his influence on JFK's tax cuts came from that theory.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values. Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."

If you can read a graph you will see that peak spending, other than during war time mobilization spending peaks show revenue valleys. Not a good show for Keynesian policies.

It sure is fun to prove you don't know what you are talking about.