General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsimmoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Dpm12
(512 posts)JFK's tax cuts were demand-side, not supply-side.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Do you think they will ever understand that Reagan shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle class? (No they won't.)
--imm
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...is based on what Kennedy said in his debate with Nixon. What they conveniently leave out is what he said immediately afterwards, that the rich had so many loopholes they were not paying anything even at the 90% rate. So he said lowering the rate a bit and CLOSING THE LOOPHOLES would increase revenues.
So you are absolutely correct.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Here is the data, in a chart
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/the-long-run-history-of-taxes-on-the-rich/?_r=0
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Oh, wait....the agenda thingy, I get it...
Anyhow, see for yourself. Ctrl + F is your friend
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-13-1960-debate-transcript
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Which once again we see means nothing. JFK massively reduced taxes on the wealthy, not just marginal rates but EFFECTIVE rates. Denying it doesn't change history. It simply reflects on who you are.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Do you have a 'Debate statement chart' too? Your chart is meaningless as to what was said during the debate.
But you already know that.
Dpm12
(512 posts)...it's wrong!
The source is Nobel Prize winning economist and a Democrat. The problem with erecting human beings as heroes is they don't live up to expectations. People from a certain generation have made JFK a God. He wasn't. He was a centrist Democrat and Cold Warrior from a very rich family. People seem to want to make political figures out to be all good or all evil, when in reality they are neither.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)lol
Reading is your friend: http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-13-1960-debate-transcript
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)but he certainly wasn't a leftist for the time. People need to get over this hero worship. You do yourself no favors by clinging to fantasy versions of the past. History and politics aren't comprised of heroes and villains. The truth is far messier. As long as people insist on seeing the world in black and white, they understand nothing.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That any decrease in taxes on the top rate would be made up by closing loopholes. So you counter it with a chart? Read the debate text which I have linked to multiple times here.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Kudos, sir!
Bookmarked for future reference.
Dpm12
(512 posts)And she thinks I'm trying to make him out to be some flawless Superman, but I'm not, I'm just stating facts. No he wasn't perfect, but neither were Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Teddy, doesn't change the fact that they all accomplished more good than bad. Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Washington, and Teddy I consider to be the top five greatest presidents.
Dpm12
(512 posts)...yes, he cut taxes on the rich, but from 91% to 70%. Do you think ANY Repub today would want to go back to rich people paying 70% in taxes. I don't think so. Kennedy's tax cut were MARGINAL. He was a demand-side tax cutter, not supply-side. His tax cuts benefitted the middle class and poor more than the wealthy.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)They were also effective. And of course no Republican would want to go back to 70 percent taxes. But denying history doesn't change it. It only reflects on your understanding of it.
What's the big deal anyway? Why do people need to make JFK into a saint? He was a politician. Yes, it's very sad he was killed, but people seriously get carried away with their hero worship of him. I'm guessing cause you folks were at a certain age and it effected you greatly, and when you saw a lot of shit unfold afterward you thought, the world would be better if he had lived. Who knows. Maybe in terms of Vietnam, but LBJ was more progressive domestically. Regardless, there are no what ifs in history. He was killed. The country went on the path it did. Making him into some fantasy version of the perfect president doesn't change any of that.
Dpm12
(512 posts)He was FAR from perfect (Bay of Pigs, anyone?), I'm just stating that he closed the loopholes, so rich people weren't exactly given a break in paying taxes. Yes he was a moderate, but who gives a fuck, he did a good job. Clinton did a great job, and he was a moderate.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Trust me on that one...
She posted the 'chart' to prove Kennedy didn't say he would make up revenue closing loopholes while debating Nixon....absolute nonsense lol
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Here's a chart that shows historic tax rates. Source is Krugman, NYTimes.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/the-long-run-history-of-taxes-on-the-rich/?_r=0
Dpm12
(512 posts)JFK cut the rich tax from 91% to 70%, he cut them on the middle class and the poor by larger margins. He was a demand-side tax cutter, not a supply-side tax cutter. Read this: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)You can find many similar charts elsewhere. Whatever. You don't want to know, so that's your problem.
Dpm12
(512 posts)Are you gonna say that Abe Lincoln didn't actually win the Civil War? AgingAmerican and I are stating facts, and have backed up these facts with evidence. You have one out-of-context chart from the New York Times, and nothing else.