What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[PMZ]

For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind. I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened. The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.

You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.

But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?

Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.

But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?

Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.

So true. Thats why I always parrot the phrase tickle up poor because thats what the liberals like Nancy and Harry want. They so want us to be servants instead of subjects and thats how Rome burned to the ground.

 

[Wyatt earp]

and we lost so much information when Alexander's the great's library burnt to the ground. It took these guys like 800 years to figure out the Earth was round and not flat. I blame Ceasar for that. I soooooo want to read those ancient texts, guess we all do.

ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/articleview.cfm?aid=9

The loss of the ancient world's single greatest archive of knowledge, the Library of Alexandria, has been lamented for ages. But how and why it was lost is still a mystery. The mystery exists not for lack of suspects but from an excess of them.

 

[Bfgrn]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.

You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.

One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.

Galbraith and Vietnam

By Richard Parker

Monday, March 14, 2005

In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.

But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.

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.

more

 

[Wyatt earp]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.

You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.

One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.

Galbraith and Vietnam

By Richard Parker

Monday, March 14, 2005

In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.

But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.

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.

more

all you did is make a non point. It is so easy to read in JFK most famous speaches. He was a conservative. no point even debating
JFK Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You - YouTube

 

[Wyatt earp]

^^^I so love that speach, hell I would have voted for him.

 

[Wyatt earp]

and you do know about JFK's In the 1963 "Ich bin ein Berliner" speach right? which Reagen parroted in the 80's JFK was a conservative.. thats a fact.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=hJNM0C-7lPk&desktop_uri=/watch?v=hJNM0C-7lPk
why did Lee have to kill him?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.

But sir what you did 50 years ago, like driving with out a seat belt or drinking a beer while you drive is Illegal today, back then? no problem it was legal. do you see how the goverment is trying to crush us and control us? for the better good?

Apparently there are those who believe that doing "A" because it's good to do is freedom. Doing "A" because it's law, is slavery. Of course the logical extension of that is zero law, and perfect people. As I've never known a perfect people, I'm suspicious that those who are selling zero law, and perfect people, are really selling unrestrained imperfect, read real, people.

The logical extension of fewer laws in no laws? An expert on logic are we? You're suspicious of people selling zero laws? So am I. The only time I called myself an anarchist was in high school because I was angry at my parents and my complexion was bad. Of course, these days, if you want to meet an anarchist you have to go to an OWS rally. Let's see if I can play the same game as you though. The logical extension of more laws is satanic worship requiring wife beating ceremonies for the dark one. So tell me. How long have you been a satanic wife beater? Oh, and don't you dare deny your own logic and say your innocent. I'm onto you! Nosferatu!!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritas for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

Yea no kidding, JFK is no way todays lefty party of the Democrats. The only way he could get nominated today is on as a Republican ticket.

So true. JFK might have been the most conservative President we have had among the last ten Presidents with the possible exception of Reagan, but even Reagan expanded the size and scope of government. George W. Bush would have been an absolute darling of the left and would have been rated pretty successful if he just didn't have that hideous "R" after his name.

The 'most conservative' President...LOL. Tell you what FF, read through JFK's agenda and bring back all the 'conservative' stuff...

A big part of LBJ's Great Society was started by President Kennedy and the New Frontier.

Who was John F. Kennedy? The President who proposed and or planned the following:

Medicare
Civil Rights
The War on Poverty

Economy

The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,

The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,

The redevelopment of distressed areas,

An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,

An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,

The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and

The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.

Labor

Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage

An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights.

The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of “maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprises."

A Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act was passed (1962) to reform Federal white-collar statutory salary systems, adjust postal rates, and establish a standard for adjusting annuities under the Civil Service Retirement Act.

The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (1962) established “standards for hours, overtime compensation, and safety for employees working on federal and federally funded contracts and subcontracts”.

A pilot program was launched to train and place youths in jobs.

Paid overtime was granted to workers on government financed construction jobs for work in excess of 40 hours.

Education

Scholarships and student loans were broadened under existing laws by Kennedy, and new means of specialized aid to education were invented or expanded by the president, including an increase in funds for libraries and school lunches, the provision of funds to teach the deaf, the handicapped, the retarded, and the exceptional child, the authorization of literacy training under Manpower Development, the allocation of President funds to stop dropouts, a quadrupling of vocational education, and working together with schools on delinquency. Altogether, these measures attacked serious educational problems and freed up local funds for use on general construction and salaries.

Various measures were introduced which aided educational television, college dormitories, medical education, and community libraries.

The Educational Television Facilities Act (1962) provided federal grants for new station construction, enabling in-class-room instructional television to operate in thousands of elementary schools, offering primarily religious instruction, music, and arts.

The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act (1963) provided $175 million over a three-year period for matching grants for the construction of facilities for teaching physicians, dentists, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, and other health professionals. The Act also created a loan program of up to $2000 per annum for students of optometry, dentistry, and medicine.

The Vocational Education Act (1963) significantly increased enrollment in vocational education.

A law was enacted (1961) to encourage and facilitate the training of teachers of the deaf.

The Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 enlarged the scope of the Fulbright program while extending it geographically.

An estimated one-third of all major New Frontier programs made some form of education a vital element, and the Office of Education called it “the most significant legislative period in its hundred-year history”.

Welfare

Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.

In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.

The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.

The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.

The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.

A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962 provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, “enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk”.

ADC was extended to whole families (1961).

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.

A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernization which emphasized rehabilitation instead of relief”.

A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.

Food distribution to needy Americans was increased. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs’ primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.

Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.

The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.

The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.

Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.

An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.

Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).

Civil rights

Various measures were carried out by the Kennedy Justice Department to enforce court orders and existing legislation. The Kennedy Administration promoted a Voter Education Project which led to 688,800 between the 1st of April 1962 and the 1st of November 1964, while the Civil Rights Division brought over forty-two suits in four states in order to secure voting rights for blacks. In addition, Kennedy supported the anti-poll tax amendment, which cleared Congress in September 1962 (although it was not ratified until 1964 as the Twenty-fourth Amendment). As noted by one student of black voting in the South, in relation to the attempts by the Kennedy Administration to promote civil rights, “Whereas the Eisenhower lawyers had moved deliberately, the Kennedy-Johnson attorneys pushed the judiciary far more earnestly.”

Executive Order 10925 (issued in 1961) combined the federal employment and government contractor agencies into a unified Committee on Equal Employment opportunity (CEEO). This new committee helped to put an end to segregation and discriminatory employment practices (such as only employing African-Americans for low-skilled jobs) in a number of workplaces across the United States.

Discrimination in public housing was prohibited.

The Interstate Commerce Commission made Jim Crow illegal in interstate transportation, having been put under pressure to do so by both the Freedom Riders and the Department of Justice.

Employment of African-Americans in federal jobs such as in the Post office, the Navy, and the Veterans Administration as a result of the Kennedy Administration’s affirmative action policies).

The Kennedy Administration forbade government contractors from discriminating against any applicant or employee for employment on the grounds of national origin, color, creed, or race.

The Plan for Progress was launched by the CEEO to persuade large employers to adopt equal opportunity practices. 268 firms with 8 million employees had signed on to this by 1964, while a nationwide study covering the period from May 1961 to June 1963 of 103 corporations “showed a Negro gain from 28,940 to 42,738 salaried and from 171,021 to 198,161 hourly paid jobs”.

Housing

The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing.

Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. The bill also promised to make the Federal Housing Administration a full partner in urban renewal program by authorizing mortgage loans to finance rehabilitation of homes and urban renewal Committee on housing combined programs for housing, mass transportation, and open space land bills into a single bill.

Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.

Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.

Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing ‘urban textures’.

Funds for housing for the elderly were increased.

Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500.

The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were “designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over”.

Unemployment

To help the unemployed, Kennedy broadened the distribution of surplus food, created a “pilot” Food Stamp program for poor Americans, directed that preference be given to distressed areas in defense contracts, and expanded the services of U.S. Employment Offices.

Social security benefits were extended to each child whose father was unemployed.

The first accelerated public works program for areas of unemployment since the New Deal was launched.

The first full-scale modernization and expansion of the vocational education laws since 1946 were carried out.

Federal grants were provided to the states enabling them to extend the period covered by unemployment benefit.

The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorized a three-year program aimed at retraining workers displaced by new technology. The bill did not exclude employed workers from benefiting and it authorized a training allowance for unemployed participants. Even though 200,000 people were recruited, there was minimal impact, comparatively. The Area Redevelopment Act, a $394 million spending package passed in 1961, followed a strategy of investing in the private sector to stimulate new job creation. It specifically targeted businesses in urban and rural depressed areas and authorized $4.5 million annually over four years for vocational training programs.

The 1963 amendments to the National Defense Education Act included $731 million in appropriations to states and localities maintaining vocational training programs.

Health

In 1963 Kennedy, who had a mentally ill sister named Rosemary, submitted the nation's first Presidential special message to Congress on mental health issues. Congress quickly passed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act (P.L. 88-164), beginning a new era in Federal support for mental health services. The National Institute of Mental Health assumed responsibility for monitoring community mental health centers programs. This measure was a great success as there was a sixfold increase in people using Mental Health facilities.

A Medical Health Bill for the Aged (later known as Medicare) was proposed, but Congress failed to enact it.

The Community Health Services and Facilities Act (1961) increased the amount of funds available for nursing home construction and extended the research and demonstration grant program to other medical facilities.

The Health Services for Agricultural Migratory Workers Act (1962) established “a program of federal grants for family clinics and other health services for migrant workers and their families”.

The first major amendments to the food and drug safety laws since 1938 were carried out. The Drug Amendments of 1962 amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) by strengthening the provisions related to the regulation of therapeutic drugs. The Act required evidence that new drugs proposed for marketing were both safe and effective, and required improved manufacturing processes and procedures.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration were significantly enlarged by the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments (1962).

The Vaccination Assistance Act (1962) provided for the vaccination of millions of children against a number of diseases.

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1963 improved medical services for crippled children and established a new project grant program to improve prenatal care for women from low income families with very high risks of mental retardation and other birth defects. Authorizations for grants to the states under the Maternal and Child Health and Crippled Children's programs were also increased and a research grant program was added.

The Mental Retardation Facilities Construction Act of 1963 authorized federal support for the construction of university-affiliated training facilities, mental retardation research centers, and community service facilities for adults and children with mental retardation.

Equal rights for women

The President’s Commission on the Status of Women was an advisory commission established on December 14, 1961, by Kennedy to investigate questions regarding women's equality in education, in the workplace, and under the law. The commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt until her death in 1962, was composed of 26 members including legislators and philanthropists who were active in women's rights issues. The main purpose of the committee was to document and examine employment policies in place for women. The commission's final report, American Woman (also known as the Peterson Report after the Commission's second chair, Esther Peterson), was issued in October 1963 and documented widespread discrimination against women in the workplace. Among the practices addressed by the group were labor laws pertaining to hours and wages, the quality of legal representation for women, the lack of education and counseling for working women, and federal insurance and tax laws that affected women's incomes. Recommendations included affordable child care for all income levels, hiring practices that promoted equal opportunity for women, and paid maternity leave.

In early 1960s, full-time working women were paid on average 59 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts. In order to eliminate some forms of sex-based pay discrimination, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law on June 10, 1963. During the law's first ten years, 171,000 employees received back pay totaling about 84 million dollars.

Environment

The Clean Air Act (1963) expanded the powers of the federal government in preventing and controlling air pollution.

The first major additions to the National Park System since 1946 were made, which included the preservation of wilderness areas and a fund for future acquisitions.

The water pollution prevention program was doubled.

More aid was provided to localities to combat water pollution.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 reiterated and expanded upon “previous authorizations for outdoor recreation.”

Crime

Under Kennedy, the first significant package of anti crime bills since 1934 were passed. Amongst the Kennedy Administration's anti crime measures included the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, which was signed into law on September 22, 1961. This program aimed to prevent youth from committing delinquent acts. In 1963, 288 mobsters were brought to trial by a team that was headed by Kennedy's brother, Robert.

wiki

 

[Wyatt earp]

I see you are getting so mad. Lmao...... your post are useless. we all know JFK was a con. because I dont have to post a novel. We know he wasnt the "Teddy" type of liberal or nancey..... your post FAIL try again please.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.

You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.

One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.

Galbraith and Vietnam

By Richard Parker

Monday, March 14, 2005

In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.

But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.

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.

more

You may very well know a lot about JFK. It's your grasp on reality I have a question with.
You keep insisting John F. Kennedy was a liberal (your argument in a nutshell) and your support for this conclusion is that he surrounded himself with liberals. My only point is, he was NOT a Keynesian. He could surround himself with a million Keynesians but he still cut taxes in the exact same way Reagan cut taxes later on. Also, in certain areas like defense, he acted like a modern republican. Now don't get me wrong. I know Kennedy (along with Truman) were in many ways typical democrats for there day and age. However, when the progressives took over the democratic party then people like Kennedy and Truman were dwindled down and eventually forced to join the republican party. Now before your head explodes I want you to count to 10. Thank you.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

This has been an interesting thread or topic. It shows that the real issue between the parties is whether we should salute democracy, the concept of government of, by, and for the people, or celebrate weak ineffective government.

For me, the concept of weak government is appalling. I want to be part of a strongly united nation that gives me, a citizen, the power to contribute to our destiny. I want to know that we have strong leaders actively engaged in solving problems and creating the future we, the people demand. I want to be assured that we elect strong, visionary leaders, and not weak synchophants. I want to replace those shown as weak with those that I am confident are strong, well informed and anxious to keep their jobs by satisfying their constituents.

I want the equal of our founders elected every year.

I don't fear a government beholden to us Americans. I choose a country like I would choose an employer. The best. The brightest. The most innovative. The most confident in the future.

That's why I'm a liberal. I don't believe in limitations. I believe in achievement. The more who share in that the better. The ultimate being success for everyone.

My strength is in democracy.

For me, the concept of an overreaching all intrusive government is appalling. I want to be an individual who is able to choose my own destiny without the chains of government limiting my abilities and freedoms. I also want to be assured that we elect strong visionary leaders. Yet, I know assurances are often broken and some leaders will fall short of expectations. I am a conservative because I know "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". I know that a large government becomes a large bureaucracy answerable to no one. I know large governments are not synonymous with moral integrity.
I believe our government should be beholden to us. Not the other way around. I want a government I can trust but I am not so naive that I will assume the government has my best interest in mind. I believe a rebellious spirit and skeptical attitude has done more to free men from poverty and slavery than any other human attribute known. A large government despises these very attributes for fear of being overthrown or weakened. The smaller the government, the more power the individual has. This by no means suggests that I am against government. I am simply against inefficient and corrupt government. The larger the government, the smaller the voices of its citizenry. With a weakened citizenry, corruption spreads. When corruption spreads, we pay more to get less and life becomes harder as aspirations and dreams are snubbed like a candle flame by bureaucratic red tape and fat politicians hoarding other people's money.

You know, I've gone through 70 years of life doing what I want, when and how I want, and rarely am confined by the law at all. Why? I think that satisfaction in life comes from living responsibly, and that is almost always consistent with the law, not counter to it. Now if I wanted to live irresponsibly, I would expect that to change, and I would find my self often at odds with the law, and paying the proscribed consequences. My experience is that outlaws live at the expense of others. If that's what you want to do, I'm personally glad that you find our laws confining.

Come to the dark side Luke. I am your father.

 

[Wyatt earp]

cuban missle crisis sounds like a con to me Cuban Missile Crisis - YouTube

 

[Wyatt earp]

The democratic party today has moved to the right of the party Kennedy led? Jesus Christ! How far left do you have to be to actually believe this?
you asked if the progressives had a majority in both houses why did liberals and progressives get in the affordable healthcare act... single payer. When I said progressives had taken over the democratic party I didn't mean to suggest every single democratic politician is a progressive. There are still a handful of John F. Kennedy style ANTI-KEYNESIAN politicians who decided (maybe so they would be re-elected) to answer to the will of the people. Most people are still against Obamacare after all. The fact that Obama is a progressive buttresses my point. Yes, I know, you probably think Obama is a far right wing conservative fascist for not dismantling our democratic process yet.
How and why is Robert F. Kennedy an idiot? All he does is parrot the liberal loony talking points while chasing after every manufactured outrage and politicized pseudoscience concoction to hide the fact that he's an empty vessel. I call it Anthony Weiner syndrome. Or Weineritis for short.
As for you schooling me. I didn't realize our education system was THAT bad.

You are clearly either very young, or very wet behind the ears. All you are proving is how really FAR right you are. The Democratic Party Kennedy led was filled with New Deal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party had liberal and New Deal Republicans.

You know nothing about JFK and you really don't want to take me on about John F. Kennedy. There is no political figure I know better. Or the Kennedy family.

One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.

Galbraith and Vietnam

By Richard Parker

Monday, March 14, 2005

In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.

But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.

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.

more

You may very well know a lot about JFK. It's your grasp on reality I have a question with.
You keep insisting John F. Kennedy was a liberal and your support for this conclusion is that he surrounded himself with liberals. My point is, he was not a Keynesian. He could surround himself with a million Keynesians but he still cut taxes and in certain areas like defense, he acted as a republican. The few times he acted like a liberal (the Bay of Pigs), all hell broke loose. Now don't get me wrong. I know Kennedy (along with Truman) were in many ways typical democrats. However, when the progressives took over the democratic party then people like Kennedy and Truman were dwindled down and eventually forced to join the republican part. Now before your head explodes I want you to count to 10. Thank you.

Yup it is so fun to play with these folk, a riot.....

 

[Foxfyre]

No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.

Yes, both good people. Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left. John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth. However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government. Most, not all, Republicans are.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.

Yes, both good people. Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left. John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth. However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government. Most, not all, Republicans are.

this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.

Yes, both good people. Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left. John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth. However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government. Most, not all, Republicans are.

this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.

Amen! Unfortunately, a liberal press would ostracize her and complain that she should stay at home and take care of her family. The liberal press would drag her through the coals with rumors, ad hominem and double standards. I know the liberal press hates white republican men but should you be a republican black male or woman then we see a hatred on a whole different level. The kind of hatred most people reserve for murderers and rapists.

 

[Foxfyre]

No I got mad in 2004 and didnt vote, I did vote for John and Sarah, a way better option than Obama and Joe. At least I knew what I voted for.

Yes, both good people. Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left. John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth. However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government. Most, not all, Republicans are.

this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.

It's gonna be tough though because the left won't allow it without putting up a mother of all fights. They see women and minorities as their own private property to be kept obedient on their plantation. They won't allow a conservative woman or minority gain any traction if they can help it. Such people will be ridiculed, marginalized, accused, belittled, and massively criticized over and over and over in the media and in advertising and from talking heads at microphones so that any real message is drowned out in the noise.

We've all seen them do it again and again and again. When you have a surrogate media, it is almost impossible to get a cohesive message out. Somehow, we conservatives have to find a way to do that.

Unless we all leave of course.

They have already mocked me for offering what I think America would look like without the liberals.

They haven't come up with even a feeble attempt to answer the question in the OP though.

 

[regent]

Because JFK raised taxes does not make it right for every president to push Congress to raise taxes. There may be a time to cut taxes, and a time to raise taxes, and good presidents and politicians that know the difference.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, both good people. Sarah wouldn't stay behind, however, if the conservatives left. John might as he and GWB seem to be cut pretty much from the same 'liberal light' cloth. However, I do believe John is a tad right of GWB when it comes to the role of the federal government. Most, not all, Republicans are.

this what so ticks me off, I so want to see a strong woman Repulican leader before I die. becuase I think she can do something.

Amen! Unfortunately, a liberal press would ostracize her and complain that she should stay at home and take care of her family. The liberal press would drag her through the coals with rumors, ad hominem and double standards. I know the liberal press hates white republican men but should you be a republican black male or woman then we see a hatred on a whole different level. The kind of hatred most people reserve for murderers and rapists.

Yep. As I said but not as succinctly as you did.