Trump Is The New JFK

[Gameface]

So I actually went and looked at the legendary Quayle blunder.

Did you know the context? Quayle was young as Kennedy was, and did have the equivalent experience. Perhaps unlike Kennedy, Quayle was a "Company Man" for his party. Kennedy was more charismatic. Quayle actually was an effective Senator, and competent, and didn't do meth or bang the women.

It was hard for Benson's campaign people to find a weakness, which they needed. Benson was an old fart, not charismatic or even really sharp-witted. More of a dunce than Quayle for sure.

So during the campaign Quayle was drawing the comparison of age and experience with Kennedy, had used it multiple times in the lead-up. Benson's campaign manager decided to exploit it. JFK's brother Ted declined to blow off on it as a bad campaign tactic or untimely, but Benson's man decided to use it.

Benson didn't want to use the remark, but was persuaded, and was rehearsed repetitively and coached on delivery and camera angles. The moderate tried repeatedly to sucker Quayle into the trap, three times Quayle didn't bite. The fourth time he just got annoyed,and walked into the trap.

The moderator, the so-called objective and fair "moderator" on the Main Stream Media, was in the tank to destroy Quayle.

All this admitted, or bragged about by the LA Times, folks.

"Finally, the moment came. Quayle probably sensed the trap.
During the debate, he answered questions about his qualifications several times without mentioning Kennedy. Finally, when the question was repeated again by moderator Tom Brokaw, Quayle looked annoyed.
Bentsen’s staff was huddled in the bowels of the convention center, watching nervously on television.
After explaining what steps he would take if forced into the presidency —*and all the gravity that moment would entail —*Quayle*invoked Kennedy."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-debate-quayle-bentsen-20161004-snap-story.html

What a beautiful piece to prove my point about the worthless lying Media being all on board with Rockefeller's dream.

Dude, I wasn't making an analogy comparing anything to Quayle. You said Trump is the new JFK, I said Trump is no JFK. That's it. That's as deep as that joke goes. Benson got a sweet burn on Quayle and I thought it would be funny to play on that.

You're wasting you're time in me. I am not interested in your ideas about British elites pulling our puppet strings. I'm a peasant. That **** has nothing to do with me.

 

[fishonjazz]

Damn, sounded like a tough company to please/work for. Doesn't seem very understand at all. They want you to work long hours but then strike you hard when you make a mistake.


Are you getting good raises/promotion out of this job? Is there any reason why you still stick around all these years? With your level of dedication that you have shown it seems to me that you could do much better in another company that appreciate that kind of dedication & genuine-ness.

Eh, it pays good for my skill level/education level and has really good benefits. Never had any issues in the past so while I feel upset about things currently, in a year the write ups will be gone and I will be happy at work again like I was before.
I feel a little bit scorned currently. I feel like I consistently go above and beyond my job duties and felt that both write ups were not necessary but I will get over it.
Just have to slow down and be extra careful for the time being.

 

[fishonjazz]

It's overall a good job, and the people there are pretty decent. Fish is a good bro ordinarily, gets along well with folks. He's got a future there, but hey it's in rural Utah where Fish likes to be.

I really rubbed him all the wrong way today, and he's sore. I oughtta apologize. My point was only that he's pretty dismissive and not really contributing to a discussion with an unthought gratuitous lol in post number 2.

I appreciate this post and ya I was upset by what I felt was some kind of accusation at me and responded a bit harshly maybe.
Good day sir, carry on.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[The Midnight]

Eh, it pays good for my skill level/education level and has really good benefits. Never had any issues in the past so while I feel upset about things currently, in a year the write ups will be gone and I will be happy at work again like I was before.
I feel a little bit scorned currently. I feel like I consistently go above and beyond my job duties and felt that both write ups were not necessary but I will get over it.
Just have to slow down and be extra careful for the time being.

Ah ok, so the write up disappears after a year, that's good news.

 

[Jonah]

Equating Dan Quayle and Reagan with JFK on tax policy and economic stimulus lacks historical context. Quayle and Reagan were supply-siders while Kennedy was a committed Keynesian.

Quayle wanted a top marginal tax rate of 28% in the post Reagan 1980s. Kennedy wanted the top marginal tax rate to be no less than 65%; a massive difference in both tax rate and economic philosophy. Quayle was for near flat tax rates while JFK wanted high and very progressive tax rates for the top tiers of income.

The reason JFK gets lumped with supply-siders like Reagan and Quayle is because JFK cut the top tax rate from 91% imposed under FDR to his preferred 65%. Admittedly, a substantial cut. However, the 91% rate was always intended to be temporary to help restrain growth during the post WWII boom. By the 1960s it was seen by most Keynesian economists as too steep. Since the post-war boom was over, Kennedy saw it as a good opportunity to cut the rate, boost the economy, and most importantly, make 65% the permanent top rate.

 

[babe]

Equating Dan Quayle and Reagan with JFK on tax policy and economic stimulus lacks historical context. Quayle and Reagan were supply-siders while Kennedy was a committed Keynesian.

Quayle wanted a top marginal tax rate of 28% in the post Reagan 1980s. Kennedy wanted the top marginal tax rate to be no less than 65%; a massive difference in both tax rate and economic philosophy. Quayle was for near flat tax rates while JFK wanted high and very progressive tax rates for the top tiers of income.

The reason JFK gets lumped with supply-siders like Reagan and Quayle is because JFK cut the top tax rate from 91% imposed under FDR to his preferred 65%. Admittedly, a substantial cut. However, the 91% rate was always intended to be temporary to help restrain growth during the post WWII boom. By the 1960s it was seen by most Keynesian economists as too steep. Since the post-war boom was over, Kennedy saw it as a good opportunity to cut the rate, boost the economy, and most importantly, make 65% the permanent top rate.

I don't know enough about it all to evaluate this explanation. It sounds like you do. Sure we all can google and learn more about it, but could you give up a little help on the sources for this knowledge? I like this kind of discussion.

 

[Jonah]

I don't know enough about it all to evaluate this explanation. It sounds like you do. Sure we all can google and learn more about it, but could you give up a little help on the sources for this knowledge? I like this kind of discussion.

A good place to start would be reading articles about or books by the advisors and economists who shaped Reagan and JFK's tax policies and influenced their economic philosophy. David Stockman and Arthur Laffer specifically and Milton Friedman more generally for Reagan. In sharp contrast would be John Kenneth Galbraith and Walter Heller for Kennedy. Galbraith was a friend and mentor to JFK, a life-long Keynesian, as well as an influential advisor to both FDR and LBJ. The vast difference in philosophy between Friedman and Galbraith is a good mirror for the different economic policy outlooks of Reagan and JFK.

As to the specific point of JFK being misinterpreted as a supply-sider, here is a good summarizing article:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter

 

[babe]

A good place to start would be reading articles about or books by the advisors and economists who shaped Reagan and JFK's tax policies and influenced their economic philosophy. David Stockman and Arthur Laffer specifically and Milton Friedman more generally for Reagan. In sharp contrast would be John Kenneth Galbraith and Walter Heller for Kennedy. Galbraith was a friend and mentor to JFK, a life-long Keynesian, as well as an influential advisor to both FDR and LBJ. The vast difference in philosophy between Friedman and Galbraith is a good mirror for the different economic policy outlooks of Reagan and JFK.

As to the specific point of JFK being misinterpreted as a supply-sider, here is a good summarizing article:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter

I am doing the whole pos rep, like, and thanks for this post, because it is relevant and contributes to the discussion I'm attempting to lead.

I read it, all through. I read John Kenneth Galbraith way back when, in the sixties, along with Milton Friedman. My wife is a huge Milton Friedman fan, having been literally raised on that by her father. Hence, is a solid Republican. I have brought a link to this thread from a very socialist group, the LaRouche Political Action Committee. People I talk to sometimes, largely because I believe a responsible nation or intelligent citizenry should undertake programs like Science drivers and infrastructure projects that will benefit mankind and make life more efficient.

Can you conceive of doing business without an Intestate System, with Eisenhower's great program for a system of highways that would bring people functionally closer by days of travel time, as well as make an efficient system for self-defense that would greatly speed up our response capacity to any invasion anywhere on our borders?

The reason the LPAC is following Trump around on his post-election campaign trail with their signage is because Trump is not a conservative in this regard. He probably isn't intellectually committed to supply side theory, he just has the gut instinct that we need to do stuff that will make life better, as a nation.

 

[b_line]

look at your fist, one finger pointing at me, three pointing at you. I'd say three against one you're the pretentious moron lording it over the whole world with political judgments. But hey, you've got a little cell of allies in this little corner of the webz, you're good, right.

Right.

The difference between you and I is I know I am a moron. You think you are the smartest person on earth because you have driven through Nevada a million times and listened to the AM radio. Good for you.

 

[b_line]

Here's some more on Dan Quayle. The article shows he was a pretty effective Vice President and a big help the George HW Bush. Significantly, he tried to talk George HW outta his biggest political blunder, one that cost him the 1992 election.

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2017/01/17/reassessment-dan-quayle-vice-president/96670656/

So, no thanks to our yellow lying media, Quayle and Bush won the election anyway, and Quayle did a good job for the conservatives in the Republican Party.

Here is a joke for you: Why wouldn't they let dogs in the white house back then?

 

[b_line]

I actually really like GHW Bush. I think he was a great president. It's unfortunate that we didn't get him for 8 years, but I blame that more on Perot than I do his policies. Of course, I was young then so I was not aware of a lot of things politically speaking. I did like Ross Perot, and I ended up really liking Clinton. There have been two people in my lifetime that have been president or VP that I have not liked, and they are Trump and Cheney. Pence is borderline, but I at least see where he is coming from. I think Trump and Cheney do not or did not have our best interests at heart as a country.

 

[b_line]

Here is a joke for you: Why wouldn't they let dogs in the white house back then?

the dogs would pee on bush and chase away the quail.