JFK was a pervert

""Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." - JFK

Bolded and underlined. He brought the top marginal rate down from 91% to 65%. He also lowered corporate rates. While it is true that his core argument was to allow people to keep more of their own money instead of handing it over to the Government (standard conservative standpoint - the opposite of what liberals advocate for today), to say he was not helping out the supply side is simply incorrect.

 

#1) This thread really belongs on the Opinions.
#2) Your link is not specific to your OP.
#3) Who really cares, US politics is in a different world, with the 24/7 media coverage.

Your raging hypothetical scenario is a dead issue. The man is dead, let him rest in peace.

 

That's hilarious. Like liberals let conservatives "rest in peace" after they die? How much anti-Reagan sentiment was thrown out during Reagan's funeral, again? Talk about raging hypocrisy....

 

...double standards...



Kabuki Joe

 

Juxtapose the count of RW threads demonstracizing Democrats and vice versa and compare.

Even better, why don't you search this forums archives on threads for Reagan's funeral, and then as you have done with JFK, how many after Reagan's funeral.

 

Considering we outnumber you 2 to 1 I'd say you are bound for another Epic Fail.

 

...if it was rape why wasn't he prosecuted?...



Kabuki Joe

 

If a story involving Reagan deflowering a 19 year old virgin in Nancy's bed came to light, you really think liberals, with their phantom sense of moral superiority, wouldn't be spamming the board with thread after thread about it? Yet, when the story involves JFK - a beloved Democrat, suddenly the attitude is "he's dead, let him rest in peace". Truly hypocritical.

 

I suppose you have no problem with Gingrich's affairs, then?

Oh wait, Gingrich isn't a Democrat... that changes everything.

 

Much like you had no problem with Sen Craig's affairs, let alone his arrest from them. Talk about perversion.

 

Any supply-side effects in Kennedy's tax cuts were secondary. The idea was to stimulate the economy by boosting up aggregate demand via consumption and investment. For instance, Kennedy also believed in deficit spending to boost aggregate in the short run. When his plan passed in 1964, Republicans were in opposition.

When did supply-siders ever advocate for deficit spending to boost the economy?

At a top rate of 91%, it was obvious that it discouraged growth via investment and consumption demand. However, lowering the top marginal tax rate to 65% is hardly a victory for supply-siders. In addition, the 1964 plan led to a diminished output-per-person-employed which is antithetical to supply side economics.

Nor was Kennedy's economic policies solely focused on the idea that keep cutting the marginal tax rate is a panacea to our economic problems and will lead to economic prosperity. A simple look at Kennedy's New Frontier would demonstrate that he is not a supply-sider.

However, if you are keen on historical revisionism and insist that Kennedy was a supply-side guru, then you should have no problem endorsing the tax rates of the Kennedy era.

 

Link Please ...

 

Lowering both the top marginal rate and corporate rates are both elements of supply side "trickle down" economics, and were used during Reagan's Presidency. Whether or not these were secondary results of Kennedy's plan is debatable. Libs like you who view supply side anything as anathema will choose to see it as purely a move to strengthen the demand side, because as already mentioned, the reverence that the left has for Kennedy is largely unfounded, and based more on his pop icon status than anything else.

At the end of the day, the video I posted of JFK contains thoughts that would never be accepted by liberals today. The reasoning he gave for the tax cuts is based on modern day conservative, not liberal, beliefs. That is not debatable unless someone is an extremely dishonest partisan hack.

And no, I don't support the tax rates that existed under Kennedy's era. No amount of taxation will be able to pay for our bloated system today. Not even 100% of all earnings and wealth from the richest individuals and corporations, as the video below demonstrates. The only thing we can do at this point is to drastically cut spending and the size and scope of Government, two things that dependent nanny-state liberals refuse to do.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ"]EAT THE RICH! - YouTube[/ame]

 

No disparaging remarks about good ol' St. John Kennedy. You don't want to upset anyone. So let's just remember Bill Clinton too to take our mind off Kennedy. After all, it wasn't sex, it was only a bj.

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter

 

JFK never tried to pander to the family values crowd like today's crop of right-wing pols who prattle on about morality while cheating on their wives or husbands.

 

LOL, this thread is a joke. Do you think Pres. Kennedy was the only president that had women on the side.

Please tell me you are not really that naive.

Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Warren Harding, Thomas Jefferson, James Garfield, and Franklin Roosevelt all had "proven" extramarital affairs! That is 7!
There were "several" other Presidents that had proven affairs that was before they became Presidents. Also there are "several" sitting Presidents that were never proven to have had affairs, like George Bush Sr, and FDR. But while watching a History Channel report on Presidents that have had affairs, it seems that the 'majority' of Presidents to the US have had an affair before, during, or even after their Presidency!! For now, it seems the number is 7.

If there is something I missed please correct me!

 

So clearly you're of the mindset that it's better to have no principles at all than it is to have them and fall short. Typical lib attitude.

 

Who's bones obie be jumpin'?

 

You lost me at Who's.

 

who's (hz)
1. Contraction of who is.

Liberal educations, so sad.

 

Reading that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you attempted to post, I am wondering where in the hell you were educated.

 

The multi-faceted School of Reality.

 

Whose reality, thats the question.