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.
91% to 75% would have been fairly controversial and a huge tax cut at the time. Keep in mind this was before the "Laffer Curve" became a talking point in American politics. Can you imagine getting a 16% tax cut today?
It wasn't controversial. It was politically beneficial to JFK. 60% of the country supported it and he was up for re-election in a year. The top tax rate was 91% because of World War II. World War II had been over for over 15 years.
JFK was no conservative. He tried to control the price of steel, or rather, influence steel companies to set a price that the government wanted. That would be unheard of today.
JFK, LBJ, and even Nixon were more economically liberal than Barack Obama. Obama is our most socially liberal President. But economically he is no where near as liberal as 20th century Democratic Presidents not named Clinton.
JFK, LBJ, and even Nixon were more economically liberal than Barack Obama. Obama is our most socially liberal President. But economically he is no where near as liberal as 20th century Democratic Presidents not named Clinton.
I might actually agree with this, except for the creation of Obamacare by Pres. Obama. Plus some other actions, like the 'green jobs' programs. Nixon imposed wage and price controls, which I don't think Obama would dream of doing. Truman nationalized the steel industry. I'm not sure any subsequent prez would have dreamed of doing that.
However Obama did quasi-nationalize 1/5th of the economy. If that is not 'economically liberal' I don't know what is.
I do think that the debate shifted sometime around 1980, and there were many more free-market true believers after that time. Part of it was Ronald Reagan, part was people like Milton Friedman, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and libertarian ideology. The Cato Institute, for example, was founded in 1974.
JFK was an NRA life member who proposed tax cuts on the rich. Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan often quoted JFK on tax policy. JFK was a staunch anti-communist and ally of Joe McCarthy during his Senate days. Brother Bobby followed along. Is it possible that a liberal prince was really a RWNJ?
You forgot to add the fcat that he manufactured a war in Vietnam.
However Obama did quasi-nationalize 1/5th of the economy. If that is not 'economically liberal' I don't know what is.
I'll respond to your original question, but I'm not going to let this fabrication go by.
There is nothing even resembling nationalization, or "quasi nationalization" (whatever that is) in the Affordable Care Act. It is a package of regulation and a system of required insurance coverage and purchasing. No nationalization involved, which is a good part of the problem.
As to your original question: No. Some conservatives like to parrot the idea that Kennedy was a conservative based on their desire to have someone attractive to associate with their positions. It depends in part on a misrepresentation of liberal ideas and in part on a misapplication of conservative ideas.
One example of the misrepresentation of liberal ideas is that because some conservatives claim that liberals are opposed to a strong military, or what they might call being "soft on defense", they argue that anyone who favors a strong military and a strong defense is, ipso facto, a conservative. In fact, liberalism is not characterized by hostility to national defense, although many liberals are skeptical about excessive military spending or expansionist military activities. We have arrived at these positions in large part because of the disastrous effects of America's imperialist activities in Vietnam, Iran, and many other parts of the world.
Second, because some conservatives believe that tax cuts are the solution to every situation they conclude that Kennedy's support for a cut in the top marginal tax rate means that he must have been a conservative because only conservatives support tax cuts. The case can be made that the tax cut was actually a Keynesian measure, not what would later become known as supply side economics.
Was he on the left wing of the Democratic Party? No. Although he introduced civil rights legislation, his support for such legislation, and his willingness to commit political capital to get it passed fell far short of what was needed. It is impossible to know what he would have done if he had survived to serve two full terms, but the contrast between what he was willing to do and what Johnson was willing to do to get civil rights legislation passed is striking.
The particulars will change over time, but at the heart of Kennedy's policy views was the recognition that government can be a force to reduce inequality and support civil rights, improve the lot of ordinary Americans, address the causes and effects of poverty, provide essential services to people who would not otherwise be able to obtain them, strengthen the economy, and help to spread justice, democracy, and peace around the world.
These ideas are inimical to today's Republican Part and conservative movement.
The Democrats used to be more to the center back then. They have moved much further left over the years.
I would say today's Democrats are more like Progressives.
It was a different time for sure - I don't really think "Democrats" exist anymore. I think they have all been purged from what is now known as the Democratic Party. The main 'issue' with JFK was really his Catholicism - I remember people sitting around on front porches and around kitchen tables discussing whether the Pope would now be running the US Government if Kennedy was elected. His youth and charisma overcame their fears. Kennedy was the first "media" President - TV replaced Radio.
Right Wing Nut Job terminology evolved years after both Kennedy and Johnson were gone - I think it all began in the Clinton Era when Hillary coined the phrase - "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
Back in the Kennedy days - "ask what you can do for your country" was a general feeling (those are actually words from a Lebanese Poet). I tend to agree that he was not personally going to go to the wall for Civil Rights, but LBJ used the Kennedy assassination to push it through. LBJ didn't just 'talk the talk' - he was serious about Civil Rights and his 'Great Society' and he sure knew how to work the CongressCritters to get what he wanted. Like him or not - LBJ was one of our more interesting a influential Presidents.
I lean right but LBJ is my choice of the best president that came out of the {D} party. If you look at the volume of legislation he was able to pass it is impressive. LBJ was a leader and knew how to twist the arms of congress and get er done. If he is looking down from heaven and seeing Obama he is most likely laughing his a$$ off or crying. LBJ had more leadership in his little pinky then Obama has in his whole body.
The Democrats used to be more to the center back then. They have moved much further left over the years.
I would say today's Democrats are more like Progressives.
Agreed both parties are moving in the opposite directions from the middle, is it any wonder there is gridlock.
You people need to read better historians, JFK was not a RWNJ. He was a National Security Democrat.
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.
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.
