What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[Bfgrn]

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.

Because this is a CDZ thread, I can't tell you what I want to say.

If you hated Ted Kennedy, you'd hate Jack and Bobby. Because Ted dedicated his whole public life to carry on THEIR agenda. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about JFK, RFK or the Kennedys. You posts are not even to an adult level.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

 

[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

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.

I have identified your problems. Besides not knowing anything about John F. Kennedy, you don't know anything about Keynesian economics either.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.

On defense...
Kennedy believed a strong defense was the best deterrent to war and the best way to ensure PEACE. Kennedy was not like any modern republican. At every occasion where the military brass and his advisers called for military intervention, Kennedy flatly REFUSED. The Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis.

If you need to be schooled on those events let me know.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

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.

Because this is a CDZ thread, I can't tell you what I want to say.

If you hated Ted Kennedy, you'd hate Jack and Bobby. Because Ted dedicated his whole public life to carry on THEIR agenda. You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about JFK, RFK or the Kennedys. You posts are not even to an adult level.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

Ted Kennedy dedicated his whole public life carrying on Jack and Bobbies agenda? Really? How many secretaries did Jack and Bobby kill and then try to have somebody else take the blame? Ted Kennedy's primary agenda focused on happy hour. Beyond that, Ted Kennedy was just a liberal blowhard who's whole success was based on the fact that he was JFK's brother.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

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.

I have identified your problems. Besides not knowing anything about John F. Kennedy, you don't know anything about Keynesian economics either.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.

On defense...
Kennedy believed a strong defense was the best deterrent to war and the best way to ensure PEACE. Kennedy was not like any modern republican. At every occasion where the military brass and his advisers called for military intervention, Kennedy flatly REFUSED. The Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis.

If you need to be schooled on those events let me know.

Are you under the impression that the more you repeat yourself, the stronger your point becomes?

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

I have identified your problems. Besides not knowing anything about John F. Kennedy, you don't know anything about Keynesian economics either.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.

On defense...
Kennedy believed a strong defense was the best deterrent to war and the best way to ensure PEACE. Kennedy was not like any modern republican. At every occasion where the military brass and his advisers called for military intervention, Kennedy flatly REFUSED. The Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis.

If you need to be schooled on those events let me know.

Are you under the impression that the more you repeat yourself, the stronger your point becomes?

Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.

You are so far off base it is hilarious.

I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.

Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.

 

[Trakar]

Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.

You are so far off base it is hilarious.

I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.

Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.

The Republicans used to the haven of the most progressive politicians in the United States. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, are three of the most clear cut examples of presidents that reflected these values.

 

[Steelplate]

Want to know what would really happen? The economy would.go South and in the short term, we'd suffer....but, the ridiculous.notions that only Conservatives produce, only Conservatives innovate and only Conservatives pay taxes would quickly dispelled and America would, in the long term be better off without them.

It would be a boon to Small business without the oppressive weight of big corporations squashing any and.all competition. We could enact legislation to keep the banking sector honest and.our corporations monopoly free like their SUPPOSED to be.

 

[beagle9]

What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.

How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.

I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.

THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.

So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.

So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.

That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.

"You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
Leviticus 19:32

IMO, the problems of today stem from the discovery, by Rush I suppose, of the amount of money to be made by keeping conservatives angry. Of course the model that he followed was pretty ancient and had been the basis for Hitler and Mousillini's quest for power. Rush didn't want power but money.

Rupert followed suit, plus a pretty significant bunch of wannabes, plus the NRA, plus TV evangelists, and an industry was born.

Their product came at a time when the GOP was struggling, and they took full advantage of it.

That product, of course, isn't conservatism but extremism. Anger. One size fits all. Simple black and white solutions to complex problems. The evil government, and Democrats, and liberals, and unions, and environmentalists and other races and religions, and intellectuals, and foreigners, and taxes and regulations. Government too big. That's what to hate and hate and hate. Exactly the same shtic as the Taliban. Everything delivered to maintain the brand is an inseparable mix of news and opinion. Delivered by Hollywood class actresses and angry men.

Fortunately, like all entertainment, it's a fad with a predictable life span. The fad is on the way out, but the GOP has no alternatives. No platform or candidates or solutions.

Will they recover? Stay tuned.

Man how did we ever get along in this nation so peacefully and free then, I mean before the rise of all that you have sited in which has grown so big in contrast to such a work that had been in progress for our peacefulness and freedom over the years, and in which had made us free, also healthy and peaceful for a long good while for many years ?

What is all this new now, in which hates that which is old, even if it was a progress in peace when coming along, yet here they are whom are new, and they hate everything it seems ? Do we have a people operating with a vengeful heart among us, intsead of a people who are more of a constitutionalist progressive with a peaceful heart instead ?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I have identified your problems. Besides not knowing anything about John F. Kennedy, you don't know anything about Keynesian economics either.

"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.

On defense...
Kennedy believed a strong defense was the best deterrent to war and the best way to ensure PEACE. Kennedy was not like any modern republican. At every occasion where the military brass and his advisers called for military intervention, Kennedy flatly REFUSED. The Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis.

If you need to be schooled on those events let me know.

Are you under the impression that the more you repeat yourself, the stronger your point becomes?

Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.

You are so far off base it is hilarious.

I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.

Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.

Let me drop a knowledge bomb an ya. JFK did not practice Keynesianism. I don't care if he was in the middle of a Keynes circle jerk with Keynes himself.
So one of your arguments is that Kennedy was a Keynesian because he surrounded himself by Keynesians. That's sort of like saying Jane Goodall was an ape because she was surrounded by apes. Kennedy may have started out as a Keynesian before he became president but once in office (no matter how you massage quotes from liberal sources) Kennedy did not practice Keynesianism.
If I wanted liberal revisionism badly disguised as fact I would have watched a Michael Moore movie. Now have a cookie and enjoy your medication.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.

How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.

I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.

THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.

So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.

So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.

That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.

"You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
Leviticus 19:32

IMO, the problems of today stem from the discovery, by Rush I suppose, of the amount of money to be made by keeping conservatives angry. Of course the model that he followed was pretty ancient and had been the basis for Hitler and Mousillini's quest for power. Rush didn't want power but money.

Rupert followed suit, plus a pretty significant bunch of wannabes, plus the NRA, plus TV evangelists, and an industry was born.

Their product came at a time when the GOP was struggling, and they took full advantage of it.

That product, of course, isn't conservatism but extremism. Anger. One size fits all. Simple black and white solutions to complex problems. The evil government, and Democrats, and liberals, and unions, and environmentalists and other races and religions, and intellectuals, and foreigners, and taxes and regulations. Government too big. That's what to hate and hate and hate. Exactly the same shtic as the Taliban. Everything delivered to maintain the brand is an inseparable mix of news and opinion. Delivered by Hollywood class actresses and angry men.

Fortunately, like all entertainment, it's a fad with a predictable life span. The fad is on the way out, but the GOP has no alternatives. No platform or candidates or solutions.

Will they recover? Stay tuned.

Man how did we ever get along in this nation so peacefully and free then, I mean before the rise of all that you have sited in which has grown so big in contrast to such a work that had been in progress for our peacefulness and freedom over the years, and in which had made us free, also healthy and peaceful for a long good while for many years ?

What is all this new now, in which hates that which is old, even if it was a progress in peace when coming along, yet here they are whom are new, and they hate everything it seems ? Do we have a people operating with a vengeful heart among us, intsead of a people who are more of a constitutionalist progressive with a peaceful heart instead ?

I am a conservative and I have a very peaceful heart. I keep it in a box under the bed with my nazi paraphernalia and thigh master.

 

[Friends]

The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history.

The New Deal succeeded. The Great Society failed.

Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. There was nearly as much economic growth during Roosevelt's first administration as during the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. After 1933 there was a steady decline in unemployment except for a year after 1937 when Roosevelt cut government spending.

The reforms of the New Deal included Social Security, minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, and laws to protect labor unions. These helped ordinary Americans in tangible ways.

The signature reforms of the Great Society were the War on Poverty, begun in 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in black social pathology. The crime rate doubled from 1960 to 1970. It tripled from 1960 to 1980. Since then the crime rate has declined by one third. This is not because of liberal reform, but because of a tripling of the prison population.

Republicans have used the failures of social liberalism in order to promote economically reactionary policies that have made the rich richer at the expense of most Americans, but the failure of social liberalism came first.

The high water mark of political liberalism was the election of 1964. Lyndon Johnson won over 60 percent of the popular vote against Barry Goldwater. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. In 1964 if you had asked an average white blue collar worker how the Democrats had helped him he would explain how the reforms of the New Deal had helped him and those he knew and cared about.

In 1980 the United States took a sharp turn to the right with the election of Ronald Reagan. In 1980 if you had asked a white blue collar worker how the Democrats had helped him, he may have thought you were joking. He would have begun to complain about how he had been denied jobs because of affirmative action. He could have complained about how his children were bused miles away to dangerous and predominantly black schools in the ghetto, or how dangerous blacks were bused to the neighborhood schools where his children went to school. He would have complained about crime, and particularly black crime. Then he would have told you that he intended to vote for Ronald Reagan and every single Republican on the ticket.

 

[Steelplate]

The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history.

The New Deal succeeded. The Great Society failed.

Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. There was nearly as much economic growth during Roosevelt's first administration as during the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. After 1933 there was a steady decline in unemployment except for a year after 1937 when Roosevelt cut government spending.

The reforms of the New Deal included Social Security, minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, and laws to protect labor unions. These helped ordinary Americans in tangible ways.

The signature reforms of the Great Society were the War on Poverty, begun in 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in black social pathology. The crime rate doubled from 1960 to 1970. It tripled from 1960 to 1980. Since then the crime rate has declined by one third. This is not because of liberal reform, but because of a tripling of the prison population.

Republicans have used the failures of social liberalism in order to promote economically reactionary policies that have made the rich richer at the expense of most Americans, but the failure of social liberalism came first.

The high water mark of political liberalism was the election of 1964. Lyndon Johnson won over 60 percent of the popular vote against Barry Goldwater. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. In 1964 if you had asked an average white blue collar worker how the Democrats had helped him he would explain how the reforms of the New Deal had helped him and those he knew and cared about.

In 1980 the United States took a sharp turn to the right with the election of Ronald Reagan. In 1980 if you had asked a white blue collar worker how the Democrats had helped him, he may have thought you were joking. He would have begun to complain about how he had been denied jobs because of affirmative action. He could have complained about how his children were bused miles away to dangerous and predominantly black schools in the ghetto, or how dangerous blacks were bused to the neighborhood schools where his children went to school. He would have complained about crime, and particularly black crime. Then he would have told you that he intended to vote for Ronald Reagan and every single Republican on the ticket.

Spot on. Now we have a shitload of unemployed/underemployed because of that hard right turn 30 years ago....the chickens have come home to roost.

 

[PMZ]

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.

"However, when the progressives took over the democratic party".

Who are the progressives? How are they different from liberals and mainstream, centrist Democrats?

 

[PMZ]

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!!!!

This is your logic in favor of shrinking government to the size that Grover Norquist can take home and drown in the bathtub?

Somehow, I expected more. Or should I say, some.

 

[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.

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

I was pretty sure that you'd be incapable of refuting simple logic.

 

[PMZ]

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.

What would ever convince a strong women, or strong man for that matter, to become a Republican leader? Republicans don't believe in leadership. Their model of it is Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Bfgrn]

Are you under the impression that the more you repeat yourself, the stronger your point becomes?

Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.

You are so far off base it is hilarious.

I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.

Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.

Let me drop a knowledge bomb an ya. JFK did not practice Keynesianism. I don't care if he was in the middle of a Keynes circle jerk with Keynes himself.
So one of your arguments is that Kennedy was a Keynesian because he surrounded himself by Keynesians. That's sort of like saying Jane Goodall was an ape because she was surrounded by apes. Kennedy may have started out as a Keynesian before he became president but once in office (no matter how you massage quotes from liberal sources) Kennedy did not practice Keynesianism.
If I wanted liberal revisionism badly disguised as fact I would have watched a Michael Moore movie. Now have a cookie and enjoy your medication.

WOW, you are really doubling down on falsehood. Those 'liberal sources' were people IN his administration. But of course what would they know, they were just THERE and authored the policies...

The New Frontier WAS Keynesian Economic policies.

“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”

Keynesian Economics

JFK’s administration adopted fiscal and monetary policies to close the recessionary gap. Economist John Maynard Keynes was a believer in Monetarism which is the theory that in order to stabilize the economy the government must lower or raise interest rates accordingly. Keynes also introduced the concept of aggregate demand which showed that full employment could be maintained only with government spending. JFK fully embraced this idea, he fueled the economy by investing in domestic, military, and space programs. This is also known as Kennedy's New Frontier. He proposed to give federal aid to education, medical care to the elderly, mass transit, as well as regional development in Appalachia which, in turn, would help the impoverished community for decades. President Kennedy signed the Housing Act of June 30th 1961 to aid middle income families as well as mass transportation users while also increasing urban renewal. Unfortunately, congressional support was limited therefore, his plans were downgraded by congress. JFK was a supporter of organized labor, he helped strengthen their rights with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The President also looked to increase minimum wages and signed a bill in 1961 which expanded the minimum wage to $1.25.

Congress and Kennedy

Regrettably many of President Kennedy’s proposals were shot down by a conservative congress run by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. It is important to keep in mind that JFK won the electoral vote by 83 votes. Congress was more than reluctant to fund Kennedy’s liberal plans such as the funding of education and Medicare. President Kennedy was, however, able to sign legislation to raise the minimum wage and increase social security benefits – this was possible in part because of his Vice President L.B. Johnson’s extensive relationship with congress . On June 30th 1961 JFK signed a bill that would extend Social Security to over five million people.

"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

Taxes

Kennedy's tax cut did not go into effect until after his assassination. The theory behind JFK's tax cuts was that when disposable income increases spending increases. This will directly affect aggregate demand. Fiscal expansion raises the demand for products. Increases in demand will lead to more output without changing the prices. Kennedy also introduced an investment tax credit meaning businesses can reduce their income taxes by 10% of their investment in a year. With increased spending and tax cuts, investments grew boosting aggregate demand. According to Andrew L. Yarrow author of Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the late 20th Century "...more evidence that Keynesian ideas, translated into policy, would further increase American growth and prosperity". The government also purchased bonds to increase the supply of money while reducing interest rates.

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

The real death blow to your argument and the ultimate irony is that Republicans OPPOSED Kennedy's tax cuts.

The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks

Several readers wrote in, asking whether Republicans were ever really pro-tax, or if they merely put up with higher taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.

The answer is that once upon a time, Republicans did indeed advocate leaving taxes alone, opposing tax cuts.

In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country “cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.”

And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.

The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedy’s assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Here’s the House vote, and here’s the Senate vote.


The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldn’t afford such a tax break — the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but it’s been a half-century — but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.

Also at the time, the country had very little debt — Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s — almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.

Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.

Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you won’t bother to learn the truth.

 

[Friends]

Spot on. Now we have a shitload of unemployed/underemployed because of that hard right turn 30 years ago....the chickens have come home to roost.

By 1968 the Democrats had lost credibility on social issues. White racial moderates thought that by supporting the civil rights legislation they were contributing to improvements in black behavior. What they got instead were five years of black ghetto riots. They noticed that the riots ended abruptly with the inauguration of Richard Nixon.

Nevertheless, the Democrats retained credibility on economic issues. The inflationary recession of 1974 was blamed on the Republicans, and probably contributed to Richard Nixon being forced out of office. If the economy had been flourishing like it had been during most of the 1960's I doubt many Americans would have cared about Watergate.

The inflation and gasoline lines of 1979 and 1980 broke the confidence most Americans had for the Democrats on economic issues. President Carter was not responsible for that. President Eisenhower was. When he directed the CIA to overthrow the democratic government of Iran in 1953 and install the Shah as dictator he guaranteed that when the Shah was finally overthrown the people and government of Iran would hate us.

Nevertheless, during the Iranian Hostage Crises most Americans knew nothing of the CIA coup of 1953. They only knew that the economy was bad, the United States was being humiliated every night on the six o'clock news, and Jimmy Carter was not able to do anything about it.

The Great Recession has been prolonged by Republican obstruction. In addition, the United States faces problems we did not face during the Great Recession.

National debt as a percentage of gross domestic product had been reduced during the 1920's during two Republican administrations. Since 1980 the Republican delusion that tax cuts pay for themselves has exploded the national debt.

Back then the United States was the world's leading creditor country. Now we are the world's leading debtor. Back then the United States was an oil exporting country. Now we import 70 percent of the oil we consume. Back then American factories produced nearly half of the world's manufactured goods. Now we import much of what we consume.

Finally, the Immigration Act of 1924 excluded non white immigration. Most blacks lived in the South where they were denied equal rights by Jim Crow legislation. This meant that white blue collar workers could vote Democrat without voting for economic and social equality with non whites. During his presidential election victories of 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944 Franklin Roosevelt carried each of the eleven former Confederate states.

Most whites who hated blacks loved Roosevelt. Most whites who hate blacks hate Obama.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Here is how it works in the adult world...JFK was not an economist. I don't know of any president who was. They hire people who reflect their agenda and policy plans. JFK hired Keynesian(s), (more than one). That would make Kennedy a Keynesian.

You are so far off base it is hilarious.

I will even go so far to say that Eisenhower's GOP was to the left of today's Democratic Party on a lot of issues.

Here some advice...educate yourself, and come back when you can compete, because you are not in my league.

Let me drop a knowledge bomb an ya. JFK did not practice Keynesianism. I don't care if he was in the middle of a Keynes circle jerk with Keynes himself.
So one of your arguments is that Kennedy was a Keynesian because he surrounded himself by Keynesians. That's sort of like saying Jane Goodall was an ape because she was surrounded by apes. Kennedy may have started out as a Keynesian before he became president but once in office (no matter how you massage quotes from liberal sources) Kennedy did not practice Keynesianism.
If I wanted liberal revisionism badly disguised as fact I would have watched a Michael Moore movie. Now have a cookie and enjoy your medication.

WOW, you are really doubling down on falsehood. Those 'liberal sources' were people IN his administration. But of course what would they know, they were just THERE and authored the policies...

The New Frontier WAS Keynesian Economic policies.

“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”

Keynesian Economics

JFK’s administration adopted fiscal and monetary policies to close the recessionary gap. Economist John Maynard Keynes was a believer in Monetarism which is the theory that in order to stabilize the economy the government must lower or raise interest rates accordingly. Keynes also introduced the concept of aggregate demand which showed that full employment could be maintained only with government spending. JFK fully embraced this idea, he fueled the economy by investing in domestic, military, and space programs. This is also known as Kennedy's New Frontier. He proposed to give federal aid to education, medical care to the elderly, mass transit, as well as regional development in Appalachia which, in turn, would help the impoverished community for decades. President Kennedy signed the Housing Act of June 30th 1961 to aid middle income families as well as mass transportation users while also increasing urban renewal. Unfortunately, congressional support was limited therefore, his plans were downgraded by congress. JFK was a supporter of organized labor, he helped strengthen their rights with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The President also looked to increase minimum wages and signed a bill in 1961 which expanded the minimum wage to $1.25.

Congress and Kennedy

Regrettably many of President Kennedy’s proposals were shot down by a conservative congress run by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. It is important to keep in mind that JFK won the electoral vote by 83 votes. Congress was more than reluctant to fund Kennedy’s liberal plans such as the funding of education and Medicare. President Kennedy was, however, able to sign legislation to raise the minimum wage and increase social security benefits – this was possible in part because of his Vice President L.B. Johnson’s extensive relationship with congress . On June 30th 1961 JFK signed a bill that would extend Social Security to over five million people.

"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

Taxes

Kennedy's tax cut did not go into effect until after his assassination. The theory behind JFK's tax cuts was that when disposable income increases spending increases. This will directly affect aggregate demand. Fiscal expansion raises the demand for products. Increases in demand will lead to more output without changing the prices. Kennedy also introduced an investment tax credit meaning businesses can reduce their income taxes by 10% of their investment in a year. With increased spending and tax cuts, investments grew boosting aggregate demand. According to Andrew L. Yarrow author of Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the late 20th Century "...more evidence that Keynesian ideas, translated into policy, would further increase American growth and prosperity". The government also purchased bonds to increase the supply of money while reducing interest rates.

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

The real death blow to your argument and the ultimate irony is that Republicans OPPOSED Kennedy's tax cuts.

The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks

Several readers wrote in, asking whether Republicans were ever really pro-tax, or if they merely put up with higher taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.

The answer is that once upon a time, Republicans did indeed advocate leaving taxes alone, opposing tax cuts.

In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country “cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.”

And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.

The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedy’s assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Here’s the House vote, and here’s the Senate vote.


The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldn’t afford such a tax break — the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but it’s been a half-century — but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.

Also at the time, the country had very little debt — Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s — almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.

Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.

Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you won’t bother to learn the truth.

So what if republicans opposed Kennedy's tax cuts? I already made the point that the democratic party THEN is not the same democratic party NOW. The same is true with the republican party. Society changes, politics change, priorities change, technology changes. The only thing that remains constant is the fact that JFK never practiced Keynesian economics. I hope this clears up your confusion.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let me drop a knowledge bomb an ya. JFK did not practice Keynesianism. I don't care if he was in the middle of a Keynes circle jerk with Keynes himself.
So one of your arguments is that Kennedy was a Keynesian because he surrounded himself by Keynesians. That's sort of like saying Jane Goodall was an ape because she was surrounded by apes. Kennedy may have started out as a Keynesian before he became president but once in office (no matter how you massage quotes from liberal sources) Kennedy did not practice Keynesianism.
If I wanted liberal revisionism badly disguised as fact I would have watched a Michael Moore movie. Now have a cookie and enjoy your medication.

WOW, you are really doubling down on falsehood. Those 'liberal sources' were people IN his administration. But of course what would they know, they were just THERE and authored the policies...

The New Frontier WAS Keynesian Economic policies.

“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”

Keynesian Economics

JFK’s administration adopted fiscal and monetary policies to close the recessionary gap. Economist John Maynard Keynes was a believer in Monetarism which is the theory that in order to stabilize the economy the government must lower or raise interest rates accordingly. Keynes also introduced the concept of aggregate demand which showed that full employment could be maintained only with government spending. JFK fully embraced this idea, he fueled the economy by investing in domestic, military, and space programs. This is also known as Kennedy's New Frontier. He proposed to give federal aid to education, medical care to the elderly, mass transit, as well as regional development in Appalachia which, in turn, would help the impoverished community for decades. President Kennedy signed the Housing Act of June 30th 1961 to aid middle income families as well as mass transportation users while also increasing urban renewal. Unfortunately, congressional support was limited therefore, his plans were downgraded by congress. JFK was a supporter of organized labor, he helped strengthen their rights with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The President also looked to increase minimum wages and signed a bill in 1961 which expanded the minimum wage to $1.25.

Congress and Kennedy

Regrettably many of President Kennedy’s proposals were shot down by a conservative congress run by Republicans and Conservative Democrats. It is important to keep in mind that JFK won the electoral vote by 83 votes. Congress was more than reluctant to fund Kennedy’s liberal plans such as the funding of education and Medicare. President Kennedy was, however, able to sign legislation to raise the minimum wage and increase social security benefits – this was possible in part because of his Vice President L.B. Johnson’s extensive relationship with congress . On June 30th 1961 JFK signed a bill that would extend Social Security to over five million people.

"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

Taxes

Kennedy's tax cut did not go into effect until after his assassination. The theory behind JFK's tax cuts was that when disposable income increases spending increases. This will directly affect aggregate demand. Fiscal expansion raises the demand for products. Increases in demand will lead to more output without changing the prices. Kennedy also introduced an investment tax credit meaning businesses can reduce their income taxes by 10% of their investment in a year. With increased spending and tax cuts, investments grew boosting aggregate demand. According to Andrew L. Yarrow author of Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the late 20th Century "...more evidence that Keynesian ideas, translated into policy, would further increase American growth and prosperity". The government also purchased bonds to increase the supply of money while reducing interest rates.

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

The real death blow to your argument and the ultimate irony is that Republicans OPPOSED Kennedy's tax cuts.

The Golden Age of Republican Deficit Hawks

Several readers wrote in, asking whether Republicans were ever really pro-tax, or if they merely put up with higher taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.

The answer is that once upon a time, Republicans did indeed advocate leaving taxes alone, opposing tax cuts.

In the 1950s and 1960s, federal deficits were relatively small compared to the size of the economy, but even during those flush years, Republican leadership was reluctant to advocate tax cuts. In 1953, for example, Dwight Eisenhower said the country “cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced.”

And when his successor, John F. Kennedy, proposed sharp tax cuts in 1963, the more conservative Republicans in Congress initially opposed them because the cuts would expand the deficit.

The legislation eventually passed (after Kennedy’s assassination), but over the objections of about a third of the Republicans voting. Here’s the House vote, and here’s the Senate vote.


The right’s misplaced love of JFK tax cuts

When Kennedy cut taxes, he lowered the top marginal tax from 91% to 65%. Many congressional Republicans opposed his plan at the time, citing concerns that the treasury couldn’t afford such a tax break — the Republican Party used to be quite serious about fiscal responsibility, but it’s been a half-century — but Kennedy proceeded anyway because the higher rates, instituted during World War II, were no longer necessary.

Also at the time, the country had very little debt — Eisenhower, thankfully, kept taxes high throughout the 1950s — almost no deficit. Fiscal conditions, obviously, are far different now.

Keep in mind, unlike contemporary GOP policy, Kennedy’s plan distributed “peace dividends” broadly across the wage spectrum. As the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation explained at the time, the bottom 85% of the population received 59% of the benefits of JFK’s tax cut. The top 2.4% received 17.4% of the tax cut, and the top 0.4% received just 6% of it.

Those on the right who see themselves as descendents of the Kennedy policy are either deeply confused or they assume you won’t bother to learn the truth.

So what if republicans opposed Kennedy's tax cuts? I already made the point that the democratic party THEN is not the same democratic party NOW. The same is true with the republican party. Society changes, politics change, priorities change, technology changes. The only thing that remains constant is the fact that JFK never practiced Keynesian economics. I hope this clears up your confusion.

The BEST definition OF the New Frontier IS practiced Keynesian economics.

Why don't you take Burke's advice.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke