bush_cheney2004 Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Did you vote for him? No...he was Democrat at the time....Nixon rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 No...he was Democrat at the time....Nixon rules! Now that was a Republican today's liberals could embrace...even his Supreme Court appointees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Today JFK would be viciously attacked by Democrats for cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires, and of putting corporations ahead of poor people. I would hope so. As far as I'm concerned people who do these things should be thrown in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Interesting Graph Indeed, very interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 This is not the case at all...moderates reside in both parties if one takes time to find them over the noise. Then give me the names of 30 moderate Republcians in congress today. I decided to use that number since it would be about 10% of the Republicans serving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Then give me the names of 30 moderate Republcians in congress today. I decided to use that number since it would be about 10% of the Republicans serving. But you said "no" moderate Republicans....and of course that is a very extreme position to take. I am sure you are aware of the term "RINO" that is reserved for such moderates....like Rep. Charlie Bass and many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 There are no moderate Republicans today, Shady. If there were, I would probably still be a Republican. When Reagan allowed politics to be co-opted by the religious right, the moderate Republican soon became a dinasour. Complete nonsense. There is, and have been plenty of moderate Republicans. But it depends on the state and district. Anytime one party has a big majority in the house or senate, there has to be a large presence of moderates. Because far-left and far-right candidates aren't elected in certain areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 IF he had been a Republican he probably wouldn't have been shot. Think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 IF he had been a Republican he probably wouldn't have been shot. Think about it. Nah....PM Diefenbaker would have still had him killed....be he Democrat or Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 But you said "no" moderate Republicans....and of course that is a very extreme position to take. I am sure you are aware of the term "RINO" that is reserved for such moderates....like Rep. Charlie Bass and many others. Obviously, you think there are moderates within the Republican congress but the litmus test is in their voting record. Check out your example of Charles Bass. He may speak to being a moderate Republican, which usually means fiscally conservative, socially liberal, but his voting record belies his claim. http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Charlie_Bass.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Complete nonsense. There is, and have been plenty of moderate Republicans. But it depends on the state and district. Anytime one party has a big majority in the house or senate, there has to be a large presence of moderates. Because far-left and far-right candidates aren't elected in certain areas. What is complete nonsense is closing one’s eye and mind to the radicalization, ideologically and religiously, of the Republican Party. Rockefeller Republicans have disappeared from the political landscape and have been replaced by a group who call themselves moderates but they are moderates in mind only; they do not vote their conviction. When it comes to the Tuesday Group, members “may be stylistically more moderate” in terms of their language or presentation, Abramowitz adds, “but their voting records say otherwise.”And so, the group seems unlikely to serve as a foil to the new leadership in any meaningful way. Asked whether there were any policy areas where the Tuesday Group might moderate the GOP agenda, Dent maintained a safe distance from specifics. “We might be able to provide some balance and perspective,” he said. “Some of our members might be able to make some of our colleagues from much more secure districts more aware of the challenges facing those members who represent swing districts.” But when the House convened on January 19 to consider the first test of party purity—repeal of the Democrats’ health care bill—Republicans displayed breathtaking unanimity. Once, the Tuesday Group exercised its influence quietly. Now, it seems possible it won’t have any influence at all. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/82420/tuesday-group-gop?page=0,0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Nah....PM Diefenbaker would have still had him killed....be he Democrat or Republican. [/quote NO, I think there could possibly have been a Bush involved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 JFK, solid supply-sider! This outlines the fallacy of your position better than I can; however, one thing I shall add is that a big component of Reagonomics was deregulation, and JFK did not support deregulation. The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - John Kennedy was no Ronald Reagan on taxes, despite what some conservatives might claim yes, it truly is amazing how far they'll go in their attempts to co-opt Kennedy... a little ole, 'Economics 101': JFK, solid demand-sider! So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "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. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy. . . That Kennedy had to rebut charges of unfairness from his left flank seems to lend credence to the supply-siders' analogy with Bush. But that analogy omits the additional fact that Kennedy's toughest opposition came from business. Corporate America distrusted Kennedy, especially after he took on the steel industry in 1962 for raising prices. A June 1962 poll showed that 88 percent of businessmen viewed him as hostile to them. Motivated by a mixture of traditional balanced-budget conservatism and personal distrust, many of them voiced opposition to the cuts. Kennedy took pains to sell the package to the business world. Departing from the more representative rhetoric of his June 1962 Yale commencement speech, he deliberately dressed up his program in language he thought business would like when he addressed the New York Economic Club in December 1962. He noted that the then-current system "reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." As his speechwriter Ted Sorensen later explained, "It sounded like Hoover, but it was actually Heller." According to historian David Shreve of the Miller Center for Public Affairs—on whose excellent work I've drawn here—it is from this December 1962 speech that the supply-side appropriators of the Kennedy mystique usually cull their quotations. They skirt the ample documentary evidence showing that the pro-business rhetoric of the Economic Club speech was largely strategic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "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. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy. That describes Reagan's economic policies perfectly. Because much of his tax cuts went to individuals. I'm not sure what your link was suppose to illustrate, other than proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Reagan and Kennedy had very similar outlooks on taxes and the economy. Both believed that when you put more money in the hands of the private sector, you create an environment well-suited for stronger growth, and more jobs. Also, Kennedy specifically spoke of tax cuts that AREN'T JUST TEMPORARY, but PERMENANT. Which completely refutes much of what you linked to. Here, you can listen to President Kennedy himself. He talks about the permenant tax cuts he seeks. If you have any problems with what he says, take it up with him. He also talks about tax cuts creating more revenue. Once again, you may not like to be confronted with the truth of his own words and policies. But if you have a problem, take it up with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Jack Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 If not Lee Harvey Oswald, it would have been a jealous husband. If not a jealous husband, it would have been STD. Before the end of the first term. Republican? Democrat? Totally irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 That describes Reagan's economic policies perfectly. Because much of his tax cuts went to individuals. I'm not sure what your link was suppose to illustrate, other than proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Reagan and Kennedy had very similar outlooks on taxes and the economy. Both believed that when you put more money in the hands of the private sector, you create an environment well-suited for stronger growth, and more jobs. Also, Kennedy specifically spoke of tax cuts that AREN'T JUST TEMPORARY, but PERMENANT. Which completely refutes much of what you linked to. Here, you can listen to President Kennedy himself. He talks about the permenant tax cuts he seeks. If you have any problems with what he says, take it up with him. He also talks about tax cuts creating more revenue. Once again, you may not like to be confronted with the truth of his own words and policies. But if you have a problem, take it up with him. I'd say you have a significant problem with "The truth" along with a severe deficit in comprehension and understanding of both the writen and spoken word... No need to thank me for the analysis... You're welcome... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Would Lincoln be a Republican today? Not likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Would Lincoln be a Republican today? Not likely. Since the "strongest" Republican region in the U.S. are the "Southern (read Rebel) States" you could be right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Would Lincoln be a Republican today? Not likely. That could make for a good topic as well. But what do you base your premise on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 He also talks about tax cuts creating more revenue. Once again, you may not like to be confronted with the truth of his own words and policies. But if you have a problem, take it up with him. If the basis for being a Republican is to publicly praise tax cuts, then pretty much every Democrat since Kennedy would be a Republic too, no ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) If the basis for being a Republican is to publicly praise tax cuts, then pretty much every Democrat since Kennedy would be a Republic too, no ? Seems that the Republicans are more concerned with TAX CUTS than DEFICITS which of course eventually, has to result in heavy tax hikes, than they ever do about doing anything that would benefit "average" Americans... After all they don't need to... It's worked out fine so far, right? Just because the U.S. is on the road to being another India level country doesn't really matter much until it actually happens... That anyone making under $250,000.00 (net) In the U.S. would vote Republican only goes to show the low level of intelligence present in the USA... Go Sarah, Go Sarah, Go Sarah.. Edited February 16, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 ....That anyone making under $250,000.00 (net) In the U.S. would vote Republican only goes to show the low level of intelligence present in the USA... Go Sarah, Go Sarah, Go Sarah.. And anyone who makes that kind of comment must live in Canada. Many small business owners make "under $250,000" despite their "low level of intelligence". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 And anyone who makes that kind of comment must live in Canada. Many small business owners make "under $250,000" despite their "low level of intelligence". So you're agreeing with me! Nice... I DO live in Canada, but, I've also heard that same comment from several American friends of mine with above average intelligence... And NOW I've even heard it from you, which may also put you into that category... Nice day, think I'll take my dog for a walk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 So you're agreeing with me! Nice... I DO live in Canada, but, I've also heard that same comment from several American friends of mine with above average intelligence... And NOW I've even heard it from you, which may also put you into that category... No..I don't think so. You're just another "smart" American wannabe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 No..I don't think so. You're just another "smart" American wannabe! If I had wanted to be I would be... I had that option, several times in FACT and at various stages of my life... I didn't, don't and never will... But that doesn't mean that there aren't a whole lot of very nice Americans I call friend from having spent some considerable amount of TIME in your great country... Hey, who knows, maybe YOU could become one too... Or are you just another "smart" Canadian wannabe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.