President Obama schools House Republicans at length

It would be the first real job he's ever had in his life! I wish him luck!

You are so funny! Won't it be great to have him for another 7 years? You bet!

Elvis would have LOVED him, too.

You are so funny! Won't it be great to have him for another 7 years?

Unless he moves more to the center, it will never happen.

Some have suggested if Ike tried to gain traction in today's Republican party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

Some have suggested if JFK tried to gain traction in today's Democrat party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

and call him a socialist.

And call him a right wing - tax cuts for the rich - nut.



RKS

Some have suggested if Ike tried to gain traction in today's Republican party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

Some have suggested if JFK tried to gain traction in today's Democrat party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

These people are fanatics and propagandists. JFK's record is clear:
1) started massive gov't spending that led to moon launch- and all the resulting technology we got from it.
2) Developed modern Medicare
3) Argues consistently for universal health care
4) Struggled to avoid war.
5) Advocated public financing of elections, to rid lobbyist influence
6) Submitted to congress the Civil Rights Act.

That's a record any modern Democrat would do well to live up to.

Some have suggested if JFK tried to gain traction in today's Democrat party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

These people are fanatics and propagandists.

Thank goodness these people are not pals of RKS...

JFK's record is clear:
1) started massive gov't spending that led to moon launch- and all the resulting technology we got from it.
2) Developed modern Medicare
3) Argues consistently for universal health care
4) Struggled to avoid war.
5) Advocated public financing of elections, to rid lobbyist influence
6) Submitted to congress the Civil Rights Act.

That's a record any modern Democrat would do well to live up to.

Spot-on. Thank you.

p.s. - Hey guys, please don't insult Ike by dragging his honorable name into a filthy, tarnished, criminal-minded, ungodly thread like this.

Stop it, you're killing us!

JFK's record is clear:
1) started massive gov't spending that led to moon launch- and all the resulting technology we got from it.
2) Developed modern Medicare
3) Argues consistently for universal health care
4) Struggled to avoid war.
5) Advocated public financing of elections, to rid lobbyist influence
6) Submitted to congress the Civil Rights Act.

That's a record any modern Democrat would do well to live up to.

Spot-on. Thank you.

Nobody slanders the good name of JFK around me.

The idea that a John Kennedy etc. would not recognize the party today etc. is based upon a faulty premise that ignores the general enlightenment of the society in the intervening decades. Of course socially, a JFK would not recognize his party today which has a female speaker of the House, a black president, and a gay Jewish congressman amongst the House's most vocal members. When JFK ran for president, the nation was actually torn as to whether it was right to allow one part of the nation to deny members of a certain race full citizenship and whether a Catholic president could be trusted to run the nation. That's the inevitable progression of society in both parties. Hopefully, JFK would be shocked in a positive way to see that much of the full implications of the best of rhetoric have blossomed into life.

In terms of economic policy and government intervention though Kennedy and his rival in the 1960 election, Richard Nixon, were far more liberal than their contemporary counterparts. It was taken for granted that the corporations and higher income individuals should shoulder the lion's share of the tax burden and that government had a role to play in making sure things ran right. The Goldwater/Reagan government is the problem wing of the party were on the far fringes of the country. When Goldwater managed to secure the Republican nomination in 1964 he was on the business end of one of the worst losses in the history of the country. When Nixon finally won office in 1968, his administration did things like price controls, and the creation of the environmental protection agency that would terrify today's Republicans.

Great list! One amendment:

Some have suggested if Ike tried to gain traction in today's Republican party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

Some have suggested if JFK tried to gain traction in today's Democrat party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

These people are fanatics and propagandists. JFK's record is clear:
1) started massive gov't spending that led to moon launch- and all the resulting technology we got from it.
2) Developed modern Medicare
3) Argues consistently for universal health care
4) Struggled to avoid war. (And averted nuclear catastrophe = The Cuban Missile Crisis)
5) Advocated public financing of elections, to rid lobbyist influence
6) Submitted to congress the Civil Rights Act.

That's a record any modern Democrat would do well to live up to.

P.S. LTB: You continue to excel in many discussions on this site, including political threads. Only a reactionary dogmatist could accuse you of being blinded by biases -- a common refrain he uses in discussions of EIC, in fact.

Great list! One amendment:

Some have suggested if Ike tried to gain traction in today's Republican party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

Some have suggested if JFK tried to gain traction in today's Democrat party, they'd run him out of town on a rail.

These people are fanatics and propagandists. JFK's record is clear:
1) started massive gov't spending that led to moon launch- and all the resulting technology we got from it.
2) Developed modern Medicare
3) Argues consistently for universal health care
4) Struggled to avoid war. (And averted nuclear catastrophe = The Cuban Missile Crisis)
5) Advocated public financing of elections, to rid lobbyist influence
6) Submitted to congress the Civil Rights Act.

That's a record any modern Democrat would do well to live up to.

Right on, Cryo!

These people are fanatics and propagandists. JFK's record is clear:
1) started massive gov't spending that led to moon launch- and all the resulting technology we got from it.
2) Developed modern Medicare
3) Argues consistently for universal health care
4) Struggled to avoid war. (And averted nuclear catastrophe = The Cuban Missile Crisis)
5) Advocated public financing of elections, to rid lobbyist influence
6) Submitted to congress the Civil Rights Act.

That's a record any modern Democrat would do well to live up to.

Oh, he was a big government social liberal no doubt - but I don't think JFK would undermine the troops and their mission by calling the Commander - In - Cheif a liar and hope for defeat and even publicly announce that our troops have already lost while they we're still in the field of battle as many of today's liberal Democrat politicians did.


Don't forget the tax cuts for the "wealthy".


RKS

To be fair, Kennedy was never presented in his lifetime of a president who had lied to congress and the American people to get them into a war. The US's involvement in WWII started when the US was attacked by the Empire of Japan and Germany in alliance with that government declared war against the US. The Korean conflict was a United Nations action designed to stop North Korean aggression into South Korea. There was no deception.

However, Kennedy felt no compunction about slamming the foreign policy decisions made by Ike and tacitly endorsed by Nixon, during the course of the 1960 election.

As for calling a war before it's over, this is a publicity concoction that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Nearly every country that has survived has made a decision in wartime as to whether the continuation of that war was worth the continued expense in blood and treasure. There is nothing unpatriotic or weak about such a declaration. It also does nothing to belittle the effort of troops. If you're letting troops die and be maimed in a dubious or hopeless cause, it is far more insulting to them to champion the continuance of the war.

The Kennedy tax cut, which did not occur until after his death in the Johnson administration, was aimed at middle class taxpayers in an effort to provide cash to stimulate the economy. It was not a wealthy tax cut. Kennedy was a Keynesian. He said as much to friends and associates. I believe he said "We're all Keynesians today."

Opening late January, 2013 - Barry's Used Car Lot

Hey, that has a nice ring to it! He's gonna' make a great used car saleman (he's so "well spoken" and his neckties are so pretty).

Methinks you need to work on some fresh material.

Oh, and President Obama will complete his second term in January 2017.

Hopefully, our wonderful, vibrant leader will have managed to undo all the terrible things the scoundrels in the Bush administration did to America by then.

I'm praying for his success -- hope you do too!

Memphisfan, I think that you must have the mentality of a whooly-booger.

As for calling a war before it's over, this is a publicity concoction that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDOAmJY ... re=related


Not concocted.

It also does nothing to belittle the effort of troops. If you're letting troops die and be maimed in a dubious or hopeless cause, it is far more insulting to them to champion the continuance of the war.

The U.S. military is all volunteer and many volunteered after Sept. 11, 2001 and after going to war in Iraq.

The soldiers loved the previous Commander-In-Cheif - not so much the current one. Just ask them - I have.

The Kennedy tax cut, which did not occur until after his death in the Johnson administration, was aimed at middle class taxpayers in an effort to provide cash to stimulate the economy. It was not a wealthy tax cut.

Not true.

JFK on taxes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

"From top to bottom" he said.

In 1963 the top marginal tax rate was 91% (the wealthy) for income over $400,000.00

In 1964, the Kennedy tax cut went into effect and the top rate (the wealthy) was 77% for income over $400,000.00


The bottom bracket went from 20% to 16%.

Tax cuts from top to bottom. Tax cuts for every tax payer.


The same thing that happened under Reagan in the 80's and G.W. Bush.


I am in the lowest bracket. In fact under Bush I went from paying 15% to 10%.

I am by no means wealthy, but I got a Bush tax cut.


JFK may have been an admitted Keynesian, but his tax policy was a supply-side conservative and something the Democrats today would not and have not endorsed, which is to my point in an earlier post.

The Democrats today are for tax increases - not tax cuts accross the board.


Obama and the Dems in Congress are proposing tax increases in Obama's recently released 2011 budget. This is bad in an already overtaxed slow economy.

I know you libs will say "it's a tax increase on the wealthy" but it's the "wealthy" that produce jobs and hire people and if Obama wants small businesses to start hiring people again, increasing their taxes is not going to help.


The Democrats continue to play the class envy game pitting the poor against the wealthy.




RKS

Oh dear, sweet William Manchester...

He is nothing but an entertainer that uses fear to scare the more unintelligent of Americans. So, no, not a fan.

... he has never scared me.

Yes!

From 2000 to 2009, In the most hospitable environment towards the wealthy since the 1920s, there were no net job gains in the United States according to an article published last month by the Washington Post based upon figures from the federal government.

As for Kennedy/Johnson and taxes, where was there for the wealthy's taxes to go? They were already at 90 percent, the percentage they received was a bone, just as what Bush gave to the poor in the US was a bone. No one can honestly compare a situation where the top rate in the United States was 91 percent to one where it's 35 percent. If you're making such a one to one comparison, your argument is obviously not serious. Even within the current system there are enough loopholes where a guy like Warren Buffett can pay 17.7 percent on $46 million earnings in 2006 without any special effort at avoiding taxes. Anyone who thinks the wealthy are paying more than their share in comparison with the wealthy in the Kennedy era is delusional. The tax increase Obama has proposed would get us to about 39 percent, about halfway to pre-Reagan era. Only back to the Clinton era.

There is not class envy in the United States but a rightful class anger. Those soaring corporate profits often come at the expense of workers who've lost their jobs or had their jobs taken overseas.

When the wealthy do not pay their fair share in taxes it results in less money for social programs, and also infrastructure and governmental entities like the army that protect and benefit everyone. It also means spiraling debt. It also means that the poor and middle class wind up paying beyond their means and actually subsidize the wealthy. Buffett pointed out that his $60,000 per year secretary pays a tax rate of about 30 percent.

Beyond taxes, there's a lot to be angry about. There's the stolen pension funds. The stagnant wages. The fraudulent stock reports. And of course, the collapse of the world economy which was almost entirely due to greedy CEOs playing tricks on the market, deceiving investors and the government and squandering the assets of their companies on fool's games. When Obama speaks about the banks, he's channeling justifiable class anger. When he's talking about raising the highest income tax rate, he's talking common sense. To cut further the taxes of the wealthiest Americans would be almost suicidal for the good of the country. No one is asking the wealthy to contribute more than their fair share. They make the lion's share of the money, they benefit the most from this construct, it is only fair they pay the lion's share of supporting it.

In the 1950s there was that ridiculous 90 percent tax bracket, yet there was still innovation, people still became millionaires, the economy boomed. Higher taxes for the wealthy don't necessarily mean doom for an economy.

As for Harry Reid, his comments are irrelevant to my point. He could have and should have said the same thing on the first day of the invasion. It has nothing to do with belittling the troops to say "enough is enough." By your estimate, any time the US has taken on any sort of military endeavor, it must stay involved in said endeavor until basically everyone is dead or the country is broke. That's why it's a concoction, not a real criticism. It's a muffling device.

It has nothing to do with support for troops. Troops can perform excellently in a bad mission as well as good one. Whether its Bush or Obama they are subservient to the wishes of the Commander in Chief.

The comments about Obama as a fear monger are ironic considering we've just spent eight years with a president who jiggled terror levels for political gain, who condemned anyone who differed from him as an Al Queda appeaser, who constantly invoked the spectre of new and more terrible terror attacks, who painted anyone who disagreed with him as unpatriotic.

The U.S. military is all volunteer and many volunteered after Sept. 11, 2001 and after going to war in Iraq.

The soldiers loved the previous Commander-In-Cheif - not so much the current one. Just ask them - I have.


RKS

Well, that tells us a lot about the U.S. military's mental ability.

Well, that tells us a lot about the U.S. military's mental ability.

You say that until your country needs the U.S. military (the greatest in the world) to save your ass again and again and again!


RKS

The U.S. army never saved my country and probably will never save it. Because if someone (and I cannot really think of someone) attacks my country, it will be run-over before one American soldier touches its soil.
And talking about the greatest military in the world, that really made me laugh... The GröFaZ has spoken ... let's hope there's now heavy snow in winter 1941, ah no, excuse me in winter 2011.

The U.S. army never saved my country and probably will never save it. Because if someone (and I cannot really think of someone) attacks my country, it will be run-over before one American soldier touches its soil.

We already are on your soil as we speak. What do you think we're still doing there some 60 years plus after liberating much of your country? Defending you and keeping peace through the strenght of the U.S. military.

In fact, munichelvisfan, Elvis served 2 years on your soil.

You are a small person who knows nothing about history.


RKS

Yep, I graduated in history but know nothing about it ....
The U.S. never liberated Germany, it was conquered because Hitler declared war on the U.S. Those people who should have been liberated at first place, thousands on incarcerated Jews, were left alone ... The was no bombing of the railroad tracks leading to the KZ but instead the killing of thousands of civilians in Dresden...
Perhaps we also have different understandings of defending:
e.g. watching the Wall being built in Berlin, really great job ...
and, yes it was the great work of Reagan and Kohl who brought down the wall

munichelvisfan, Now, now. Let's not give Reagan credit for anything on this forum.... you might upset some of the worthless liberals on here.
Hey, I'm just sayin'!

Love - THEMEMPHISFAN

Oh I could also start on Kennedy and Obama if you like to Like somebody really wrote that JFK tried everything to stop the war in Vietnam
Obama: It's still too soon to judge on him but until now he is a mere disappointment

I have no interest in getting embroiled in this faux Mclaughlin group debate, but I would like to post some tax-related links from the non-partisan, non-profit Tax Foundation for information purposes. The first link discusses the U.S. tax burden: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250html

The second link discusses the amount of non-payers: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/topic/144.html

The third link discusses the Bush tax cuts: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/topic/172.html

The fourth link deals with the potential impact of the proposed health care surtax: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/25468.html

Lastly, since the subject of Kennedy's tax cuts and Keynes came up here's a link to an article discussing those subjects, including comments from an economist who served under Kennedy and who is a Keynes scholar: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2010/0 ... 22903.html