Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just as JFK would not be welcome in the Democrat Party.
Nonsense. The current president is just as hawkish as Kennedy was...maybe even MORE hawkish. Kennedy was a Catholic, so he'd likely be anti-abortion, but he'd have the good sense to let women decide on their own. Taxes are lower now under Obama than under Kennedy.
Other than that, Kennedy didn't leave a track record long enough to say that he couldn't be elected as a Democrat. Besides, why is every member of that family STILL a Democrat nearly 50 years after his death if he he wouldn't be a Dem today?
....and that was on income OVER 300k...a relative fortune at the time. Didn't discourage investment and didn't cripple the economy either.
Quite possibly it didn't 'cripple the economy' because few if any paid the 91% rate. The effective rate for the top tier of taxpayers were barely higher then than they are now.
Quite possibly it didn't 'cripple the economy' because few if any paid the 91% rate. The effective rate for the top tier of taxpayers were barely higher then than they are now.
Fine. If that's true (and i'm not sure), then no harm, no foul.
Fine. If that's true (and i'm not sure), then no harm, no foul.
Another point he always liked to make was the one against the military industry, an industry that takes up a huge amount of the budget today. I don't see our president drastically cutting down our involvement in war much, and I don't see the current crop of republicans cutting down the war money either, except maybe Ron Paul.
Another point he always liked to make was the one against the military industry, an industry that takes up a huge amount of the budget today. I don't see our president drastically cutting down our involvement in war much, and I don't see the current crop of republicans cutting down the war money either, except maybe Ron Paul.
I'm well aware of Republican disgust with Ike...trust me. That's why not too many of them participate in threads like these. They realize that their party has gone horribly awry.
A quick summary:
The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than it did during the years before or after him. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during Pres. Reagan's two terms after experiencing no growth at all in the Carter years. Interest rates, inflation and unemployment fell faster under Pres. Reagan then they did immediately before or after his presidency. Interest rates fell from 20+% in 1980 to about 12%. Inflation was at 13% and dropped dramatically under Reagan. From 1981 through 1989, the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or about 2 million new jobs each year. (By comparison, the Clinton administration averaged 1.3 million new jobs per year and there was no Internet boom helping Reagan.)
Under Pres. Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5% annual rate, much higher than the recent pre-Reagan years. (It grew at an annual rate of 0.3% under Clinton.)
The top tax rate decreased from a ridiculous 90% to 70% and eventually 28%. Government revenue during the Reagan years nearly doubled.
Reagan caused the Soviet Union to spend itself into bankruptcy, ending the Cold War (even though leftists try to rewrite history and claim that Reagan "did not have much to do with it").
....and that was on income OVER 300k...a relative fortune at the time. Didn't discourage investment and didn't cripple the economy either.
Yeah, Europe and Asia were still in smoldering ruins.
Where else could you invest but the US?
Big flippin' mystery!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.