[Wingman3]

Many of the things this fellow talks about are exactly what many on here want to happen, and what others scream against. This guy was "it" for this party.

Just a few quotes

On our strength and growth depends the strength of others, the spread of free world trade and unity, and continued confidence in our leadership and our currency.

If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

This guy today would likely be considered a right-wing extremist only looking out for the wealthy... I mean for crying out loud he talks about reducing taxes so profits will be maximized to reinvest in a business, or reducing taxes to increase spendable income and demand for products.

Who would give such a speech like this one in 1962 to the Economic Club of New York? None other then everyone's favorite Democrat....

John F. Kennedy!
Here's the link to the transcript, and it also has audio of him giving the speech. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...ubaddress.html

If he were around today, the media, other liberals and some others on this board would likely have discounted what he said, and cast him aside as supporting the rich. If the policy was called for then, and then worked under Reagan, why would there be any different result today?

[bethere]

Originally Posted by Wingman3

Many of the things this fellow talks about are exactly what many on here want to happen, and what others scream against. This guy was "it" for this party.

Just a few quotes











This guy today would likely be considered a right-wing extremist only looking out for the wealthy... I mean for crying out loud he talks about reducing taxes so profits will be maximized to reinvest in a business, or reducing taxes to increase spendable income and demand for products.

Who would give such a speech like this one in 1962 to the Economic Club of New York? None other then everyone's favorite Democrat....

John F. Kennedy!
Here's the link to the transcript, and it also has audio of him giving the speech. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...ubaddress.html

If he were around today, the media, other liberals and some others on this board would likely have discounted what he said, and cast him aside as supporting the rich. If the policy was called for then, and then worked under Reagan, why would there be any different result today?

when kennedy said this the top marginal rate was 91%. it is now 55% lower than that. the federal funds rate is, like, zero. capital gains is down to 15%. we have virtually no inheritance tax.

at this moment we have the lowest taxation in this country since the 1950's.


1. we passed the point of diminishing marginal utility with tax cuts decades ago;
2. kennedy is dead. please don't make zombie kennedy repeat your fascist nonsense;
3. please don't take advantage of my less educated huddle friends. i will point out your folly every step, of the way.


your pal,

Bethere

[arizonawildcat]

You're wrong about the inheritance tax as the exemption amount has been decreasing over the last several years, and it gets even worse next year as it reverts backs to what it was about seven years ago.

[BoatShoes]

Originally Posted by Wingman3

Many of the things this fellow talks about are exactly what many on here want to happen, and what others scream against. This guy was "it" for this party.

Just a few quotes











This guy today would likely be considered a right-wing extremist only looking out for the wealthy... I mean for crying out loud he talks about reducing taxes so profits will be maximized to reinvest in a business, or reducing taxes to increase spendable income and demand for products.

Who would give such a speech like this one in 1962 to the Economic Club of New York? None other then everyone's favorite Democrat....

John F. Kennedy!
Here's the link to the transcript, and it also has audio of him giving the speech. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...ubaddress.html

If he were around today, the media, other liberals and some others on this board would likely have discounted what he said, and cast him aside as supporting the rich. If the policy was called for then, and then worked under Reagan, why would there be any different result today?

My God...he cut the top marginal tax rate from 90 something percent to 75%...we were then on the opposite side of the "Laffer Curve" which is not the case now.

Make no mistake about it...John F. Kennedy was more liberal than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

******** is nauseating.

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by BoatShoes

Make no mistake about it...John F. Kennedy was more liberal than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

One outta three ain't bad...I guess.

Kennedy was a tad left of the moderate Clinton. I won't quibble on Kennedy/Carter but I do see more social proggressive in Carter. Perhaps it's his rhetoric after leaving office that jades me. The three of them pale in comparison to our first 'gay' president as measured per the liberal smell test.

We all make mistakes. Keep yer chin up.

[o.a.b.]

You may be SURPRISED by the spelling of some.Kennedy had the full support of the middle-class.There were " fair " taxes upon the rich , there was an ample supply of young,cheap,smart labor and jobs were plentiful.Trying to compare the scenarios is impossible.America is different,older.Business operates completely different.The only way you could compare the two is through simulation which would require billions of data input--from the unemployment rate to the welfare rate to affirmative action to median household income to individual state taxation policy to .....the list could go on forever.

[bethere]

Originally Posted by Homer Falcon

One outta three ain't bad...I guess.

Kennedy was a tad left of the moderate Clinton. I won't quibble on Kennedy/Carter but I do see more social proggressive in Carter. Perhaps it's his rhetoric after leaving office that jades me. The three of them pale in comparison to our first 'gay' president as measured per the liberal smell test.

We all make mistakes. Keep yer chin up.

actually you are wrong. the new deal was kennedy's idea--and i mean ALL of it..

you guys are trying to remake the inventor of medicare, medicaid, SSI, the voting rights act, and the fair housing act into a republican.

lol.

a total fail on your part. even you are usually better than this.

meanwhile we are supposed to pretend that y'all didn't cast clinton as an evil left wing communist.

IN FACT HE RAISED TAXES; Y'ALL CALLED IT THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE OF ALL TIME; Y'ALL PREDICTED IT WOULD LEAD TO WORLD WIDE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE; BUT INSTEAD IT ENDED UP IN A BALANCED BUDGET AND THE LARGEST PEACETIME EXPANSION EVER OF THE US ECONOMY.

[buckeyedan]

by definition the parties march on... Kennedy's ideas would be much more in line with the current republican party
that's not surprising... by definition Conservatives like the status and liberals move to the left
so since the government is farther left than it was in Kennedy's day... conservatives are where liberals were then

you could take the basic context of what Kennedy or Bus 43 said at any given time and have a hard time deciding which it was... both were idiots who's presidencies led to the other party taking control

[o.a.b.]

Corporations are people.47 % of America is dependent on tax income [ yes,that would include your multi-national corp...er... "people" ] We need less government but we fully support the geometric growth of soft money [ much of that soft money has been ill-gotten by fleecing workers and labor rights] How many more b.s. lnes from the Repukes until they realize that there are NO MORE corners in the room to paint themselvesinto ? Free-market philosophy ? Hah ! The top dogs have bought or eaten their competition in lieu of actually competing.First stimulus--to the banks--via a Republican is the only reason this country is in a bad spot.Buckeyedan----how do you surmise that today's Democrat would not be happy with JFK ? I highly doubt it ! The difference being that Republicans,in an effort to be different,bank on inferences.

[Homer Falcon]

Originally Posted by bethere

actually you are wrong. the new deal was kennedy's idea--and i mean ALL of it..

you guys are trying to remake the inventor of medicare, medicaid, SSI, the voting rights act, and the fair housing act into a republican.

lol.

a total fail on your part. even you are usually better than this.

meanwhile we are supposed to pretend that y'all didn't cast clinton as an evil left wing communist.

IN FACT HE RAISED TAXES; Y'ALL CALLED IT THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE OF ALL TIME; Y'ALL PREDICTED IT WOULD LEAD TO WORLD WIDE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE; BUT INSTEAD IT ENDED UP IN A BALANCED BUDGET AND THE LARGEST PEACETIME EXPANSION EVER OF THE US ECONOMY.

FDR just threw up in his mouth a little bit. lol

Seriously? Zombie Kennedy bit the man who hated him most and controlled him through a halloween mind melt? Seriously?

Btw-- I wasn't tying to make him a republican. I said he was left of Clinton the moderate. Yes, we pulled out all the stops on slick willy. We do get mean if you shake your finger in our face and lie like a rug. In hind sight he did do a fair job of steering the Reagan constructed ship. Thankfully at the end he screwed it up bad enough that we weren't forced to endure one term of his woefully lax #2. ;)