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.
A little incident on November 22, 1963 prevented Kennedy from doing anything more during his presidency. Ever heard of said incident?
Couldn't care less. That's not my problem nor is it the issue. He never got the tax cut past the proposal stage. That means that calling him a tax cutter is inaccurate.
He's getting credit for a tax cut that he never got passed and had no ability to get through Congress. Only LBJ was skilled enough through some very serious power brokering in the Senate to get that bill passed.
It's all been detailed in Caro's "Passage Of Power."
Couldn't care less. That's not my problem nor is it the issue. He never got the tax cut past the proposal stage. That means that calling him a tax cutter is inaccurate.
He's getting credit for a tax cut that he never got passed and had no ability to get through Congress. Only LBJ was skilled enough through some very serious power brokering in the Senate to get that bill passed.
It's all been detailed in Caro's "Passage Of Power."
He's on record as being for lower taxes. Using the fact he was assassinated, and therefore unable to complete said cuts, as some kind of proof he wasn't for lower taxes is extremely specious at best.
He's on record as being for lower taxes. Using the fact he was assassinated, and therefore unable to complete said cuts, as some kind of proof he wasn't for lower taxes is extremely specious at best.
Straw man. Stick to the script.
I never said that he wasn't for lower taxes. I said that he never got a tax cut beyond the proposal stage. And since he never got a single tax cut codified into law that i know of, i can't accurately call him a tax cutter.
I'm in favor of lots of things that i've never participated in....like bullfighting. That doesn't make me a matador.
I never said that he wasn't for lower taxes. I said that he never got a tax cut beyond the proposal stage. And since he never got a single tax cut codified into law that i know of, i can't accurately call him a tax cutter.
I'm in favor of lots of things that i've never participated in....like bullfighting. That doesn't make me a matador.
Stick to what "script"? The one you decree?
Talk about strawmen. A matador? Really??
No wonder people dismiss you on here. All you do is pick nits and argue for the sake of argument.
JFK's assassination provides a nice little cover for your argument, yet it remains specious (as I said).
At least he got a chance to attempt it, prior to being slaughtered in Dallas.
From wikipedia:
President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.
Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965.
He never cut a tax that i know of. Johnson passed the tax cut in a deal that Kennedy NEVER would have been able to pull off himself.
And so what...he wanted to cut taxes. Big deal. You guys act as if a guy should be nominated for sainthood if he cuts taxes or as if that's the complete measure of a politician.
Are you really this thick, or are you just being coy and argumentative?
The point was simple ... it is irrelevant whether he did, or was able to cut taxes ... his policy position was that it not only should be done, but that doing so would ultimately increase federal tax revenues because such cuts boost economic growth, leading to more taxes collected.
This position has historically been a republican position which the democrats have fought tooth and nail, calling such ideas as vooddoo economics, to cuting taxes for the rich.
The other fellow tried to insist that this proved his point about JFK being a liberal, as if we've all entered the Twilight Zone, where democrats are the tax cut party.
I swear, attempting to have an honest, sane, adult debate with you people is a fools errand. One might ought to drop three hits of LSD, admit themselves into a mental institution, and try to accomplish that task with their new friends.
Nope. Just want it understood that Kennedy didn't cut taxes. That's all.
And without that tax cut (that he didn't sign), all of the Conservative fawning over him would be non-existent.
That's just your misperception. There are a number of things conservatives appreciated about Kennedy ...executive order 11110 is a much bigger point. Of course those who constantly rewrite history, inanely claim that EO 11110 was the opposite of what it was ... nevertheless, the truth is, it authorized the Treasury to issue United States Notes redeemable in silver coin, issued directly by the US Treasury, bypassing the Federal Reserve, which effectively meant that the Federal Reserve's days were numbered. This US Note was debt free money, backed by silver bullion and silver coins held at the treasury.
just 4 months after JFK's murder, the Treasury ceased the redemption of these notes for silver, the notes we subsequently removed from circulation, and the FED no longet had to worry about such competition with it's monopoly on money creation.
Those silly conspiracy theorists suggest that this may have been the reason for his murder, but what a silly idea ... I mean, it was only the power to create as much money as these international bankers want to make .... no teal big deal, right?
Stick to what "script"? The one you decree?
Talk about strawmen. A matador? Really??
No wonder people dismiss you on here. All you do is pick nits and argue for the sake of argument.
JFK's assassination provides a nice little cover for your argument, yet it remains specious (as I said).
At least he got a chance to attempt it, prior to being slaughtered in Dallas.
Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965.
What is this...high school? I didn't know we were here to make friends and be popular. I don't give a damn about being dismissed by people i don't even know.
Besides, the only way you'd know anything like that is if you were talking to other posters about who they like, dismiss, tolerate, etc. as if this were some sort of popularity contest. I'm assuming you're a man, and i didn't know that men sat in on gossiping sewing circles.
To the topic...he NEVER CUT TAXES. He simply proposed a tax cut and ANYONE can say they're for tax cuts without actually cutting taxes. You don't even know if Kennedy could've gotten the damn bill passed and from the actual account of the palm greasing and ego stroking that needed to get done to do it, it's highly likely that he COULDN'T do it.
Quoting Wikipedia isn't telling me (or anyone else) anything that isn't already known. The books provide the "inside baseball" nature of getting the tax cut passed, and Kennedy didn't have the juice to get it done. His successor did. Point blank. And as such, Johnson cut taxes, not Kennedy.
That JFK was assassinated is his bad fortune, but that changes nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Are you really this thick, or are you just being coy and argumentative?
The point was simple ... it is irrelevant whether he did, or was able to cut taxes ... his policy position was that it not only should be done, but that doing so would ultimately increase federal tax revenues because such cuts boost economic growth, leading to more taxes collected.
This position has historically been a republican position which the democrats have fought tooth and nail, calling such ideas as vooddoo economics, to cuting taxes for the rich.
The other fellow tried to insist that this proved his point about JFK being a liberal, as if we've all entered the Twilight Zone, where democrats are the tax cut party.
I swear, attempting to have an honest, sane, adult debate with you people is a fools errand. One might ought to drop three hits of LSD, admit themselves into a mental institution, and try to accomplish that task with their new friends.
Yeah...i'm really this thick.
JFK was a classic liberal. He was considered a liberal then, and he'd be considered a liberal now. Just because you guys are so enamored of the guy doesn't make him one of you. He isn't. He's one of us. And successive elected Kennedys have proved it.
Trying to postulate otherwise is indicative of who's really in the Twilight Zone. You.
You guys take one policy position; cutting taxes; an idea that he never even brought to fruition...and try to make him a raging right winger.
I think many voters are finally realizing that we would have been far better off with Romney.
Romney wasn't the ideal choice for the Republican nominee, but certainly better than the current (and becoming more and more unpopular and untrustworthy) president.
Fleet, I want you to take my following comments in the friendly spirit in which they are intended, ok?
Romney may have appeared to be a better choice, and had he been elected, things couldn't have proceded at the alarming rate we've seen under Obama, but only because he would have had t pander to the conservative base, in order to maintain some illusion of difference. But even speculating in this way lends credibility to the process, when none is due. It's a fraud, and until those on the right get a clue, they won't be much smarter than the loons on the left.
Truth is, Romney wasn't supposed to win ... there was never a chance he was going to win ... Obama was selected to fulfill this mission, and that's just the hard cold reality. Romney was just a place holder, to give the illusion of choice. Nothing more.
Aside from guys like Cruz and Paul (both of whom are marginalized and even attacked by their fellow republicans), the mainstream republicans are establishment polititians, with the only difference between them and the democrats is that letter after their name.
By failing to recognize this truth, those on the right who believe that the republican party is going to step in and save the day are apparently forgeting how Bush wiped his azz with the constitution.
The only way we can save ourselves is to understand this false left-right fraud for what it is w.. a good cop-bad cop routine.
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.
