Kennedy was anti-tax and anti-deficit. His simultaneously cutting income taxes for both corporations and individuals is largely credited with spurring a sluggish economy which was at risk of recession. There's lots of info available, but this was the best and first example I found: [youtube]aEdXrfIMdiU[/youtube]
I mean did he cut taxes for the rich because he believed it causes economic growth or because the top marginal rate was over 90 percent and he just thought it was unfair? After he cut them it helped the economy, but I was under the impression that Kennedy was a Keynesian, (heck everyone was a Keynesian pre Friedman) and that growth was just a side effect. But Kennedy had about a170 Iq. It wouldn't shock me if he was a visionary on that. I'm just legitimately asking. I've never heard Kennedy called a supply spider before.
Jesus, JFK, and Trump all in one thread. Sometimes, all trails, however dissimilar, converge in an unexpectedly happy moment. Now we just need Churchill, CS Lewis, Spurgeon and Brennan Manning.
Pure coincidence I'm sure since we know it doesn't work and now we've found out that Reagan didn't lower taxes and higher taxes is what led to the economic turnaround of the 80s. Amazing the new things I learn
It's hard for me to classify him as being in any one camp, but such may be the result of my generally limited understanding of economics. Maybe this helps, a bit: “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." – President John F. Kennedy (November 20, 1962)
Agreed; very interesting. I also like the grainy black and white footage; shows how much technology has changed in a short period of time.
When you you find your qualifications under fire in a Presidential debate, and you cite passage of a bill that you didn't even show up to vote on, mention something about another bill involving Girl Scouts and end by touting your time in the Florida Legislature, you're in trouble. His were, he did and now is in deep trouble. Maybe he gets a miracle in Nevada and/or the influx of Iowa cash helps him hang in there. But my money is on his being done.
I think he'd be done if the people voting in the primaries followed things that closely, but they don't
I'm going to mirror and reciprocate the sincere objectivity which you guys held in the aftermath of Trump's defeat in Iowa, and not poke anyone in the eye now. So, I say this as an unbiased observer: Kasich's strong showing in New Hampshire isn't so foreboding for the rest of the GOP field who's trying to catch Trump, in and of itself. But their own lackluster showing, certainly is. Rubio had a possible candidacy-killing gaffe, and his drop is understandable. But Cruz's poor showing, especially fresh off a huge Iowa win, is an ominous omen for his candidacy. Likely, it's partly to blame that he literally threw everything into Iowa, alone, and simply didn't have the ground troops and/or infrastructure in NH, but I'm not sure that it's his only, or even biggest problem. I think Cruz has a plain electability problem. Maybe he flexes his muscles in SC and NV, because now, he absolutely has to do very well in both. And, laugh all you want, but ol' Jeb is still hanging in, and sitting on piles and piles of cash and infrastructure.