PDA

View Full Version : Today's Democrats are nothing like those of the recent past



Little-Acorn
10-12-2012, 01:40 PM
Nowadays you hear nothing from the Democratrs except "The rich are evil, take everything you can from them, spread the wealth around, expand government programs".

This isn't your father's Democrat party. Your father's Democrat party advocated the following, and it produced unprecedented increases in prosperity:

----------------------------------------

(Fair use, from a broadcast Presidential speech)

....the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation — and you can understand that under the comity which exists in the United States Constitution whereby the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives have the responsibility of initiating this legislation, that the details of any proposal should wait on the meeting of the Congress in January. But you can understand that, under these circumstances, in general, that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:

First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.

Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.

The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.

For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth.

For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service.

These various exclusions and concessions have been justified as a means of overcoming oppressively high rates in the upper brackets, and a sharp reduction in those rates — accompanied by base-broadening, loophole-closing measures — would properly make the new rates not only lower, but also more widely applicable. Surely this is more equitable on both counts.

Those are the three tests which the right kind of bill must meet — and I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut. Profit margins will be improved, and both the incentive to invest and the supply of internal funds for investment will be increased. There will be new interest in taking risks, in increasing productivity, in creating new jobs and new products for long-term economic growth.
[i]-President John F. Kennedy, speech before the Economic Club of New York, Dec. 14, 1962

Gaffer
10-12-2012, 03:52 PM
I agree, it's not the same old democrat party it use to be. It's gotten so bad that if someone has a D after their name they won't get my vote no matter how reasonable they sound. My choices are between republicans and independents.

The communist party of America has not run anyone for the office of president since 1968, because the democrats took their platform and have been running on it since 1972. Why compete when you can be absorbed.

gabosaurus
10-12-2012, 04:10 PM
Today's overall quality of music is nowhere near what it was in the 60s. Same with television and movies.

Little-Acorn
10-12-2012, 04:30 PM
When Kennedy took office, the highest income tax rate was 92% (yes, 92%). He cut it to 75%, along with all the other income tax rates, and so much economic activity resulted that income tax revenue to the government increased every year thereafter. Later Ronald Reagan cut it to 50%, and then to 28%, and after the first year the same thing happened, for many years that followed, except for a brief time when George H.W. "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush signed some new taxes into law and a recession hit the following year.

You'd think the Democrats (new ones, not the Kennedy ones) would take the hint. But Nnnoooooo....:poke:

Voted4Reagan
10-12-2012, 06:03 PM
Today's overall quality of music is nowhere near what it was in the 60s. Same with television and movies.

Same can be said for Presidents who are from the Democratic Party...


http://youtu.be/v4S5nM8BjwM

JFK wouldn't want to be associated with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And the Modern Day Liberals wouldn't want anything to do with JFK...INCLUDING YOU GABBY.

Everything he says in this speech from dec 14th, 1962 is against what the current administration plans.

The Speech more closely resembles Reagans and other Conservative economic policies...

You'd boot JFK right out of the Party... He was far too conservative for you...

Listen to the speech.... and learn from it...

aboutime
10-12-2012, 06:26 PM
Same can be said for Presidents who are from the Democratic Party...


http://youtu.be/v4S5nM8BjwM

JFK wouldn't want to be associated with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And the Modern Day Liberals wouldn't want anything to do with JFK...INCLUDING YOU GABBY.

Everything he says in this speech from dec 14th, 1962 is against what the current administration plans.

The Speech more closely resembles Reagans and other Conservative economic policies...

You'd boot JFK right out of the Party... He was far too conservative for you...

Listen to the speech.... and learn from it...


V4R. We also must remember. Using the name John F. Kennedy as we do, and you did above. Is looked upon by Democrats as blasphemy and close to treasonous. Much like the Martin L. King Family has decided to CHARGE anyone who dares to use his "I'VE GOT A DREAM" Speech.
In fact. Mentioning the Economic principles used by JFK in comparison to OBAMA makes Liberal, Democrats FOAM at the mouth, and causes them to experience Extreme TWISTING of their Undershorts. So much, that it makes them SMILE like Joe Biden.

Voted4Reagan
10-12-2012, 09:27 PM
V4R. We also must remember. Using the name John F. Kennedy as we do, and you did above. Is looked upon by Democrats as blasphemy and close to treasonous. Much like the Martin L. King Family has decided to CHARGE anyone who dares to use his "I'VE GOT A DREAM" Speech.
In fact. Mentioning the Economic principles used by JFK in comparison to OBAMA makes Liberal, Democrats FOAM at the mouth, and causes them to experience Extreme TWISTING of their Undershorts. So much, that it makes them SMILE like Joe Biden.

Old Friend....Liberals just cant accept that THEY were the Party that gave us great men like Kennedy and Reagan... That such conservatives had a place in their party really chews em up!

Face it Liberals.... Kennedy was the original proponent of TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS in that speech to the NY ECONOMIC CLUB.

Address the Issue... Why do you ignore the words of Kennedy?

You Liberals are a DISGRACE to the Democrat Party... I consider JFK to be the standard by which all Democrats are measured...in this day and age almost none of you even come close to him..

Youre all just a bunch of Whiners and Socialists... with very rare exceptions

aboutime
10-12-2012, 09:53 PM
Old Friend....Liberals just cant accept that THEY were the Party that gave us great men like Kennedy and Reagan... That such conservatives had a place in their party really chews em up!

Face it Liberals.... Kennedy was the original proponent of TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS in that speech to the NY ECONOMIC CLUB.

Address the Issue... Why do you ignore the words of Kennedy?

You Liberals are a DISGRACE to the Democrat Party... I consider JFK to be the standard by which all Democrats are measured...in this day and age almost none of you even come close to him..

Youre all just a bunch of Whiners and Socialists... with very rare exceptions



Gotta love that line of Reagan, when he spoke of ONCE BEING A DEMOCRAT.
That line alone would make a THINKING person wonder WHY He became a Republican.
Problem is. When you have been brainwashed into being a life-long, never questioning anyone Democrat.
What you get is A Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and the ever dumb OBAMA.

If Americans who call themselves Democrats can convince themselves that the people I just named are Honest in any way.

We can thank the Democrat party for using CIA tactics to WATERBOARD liberal voters into believing almost ANYTHING.

tailfins
10-12-2012, 10:19 PM
Gotta love that line of Reagan, when he spoke of ONCE BEING A DEMOCRAT.
That line alone would make a THINKING person wonder WHY He became a Republican.
Problem is. When you have been brainwashed into being a life-long, never questioning anyone Democrat.
What you get is A Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and the ever dumb OBAMA.

If Americans who call themselves Democrats can convince themselves that the people I just named are Honest in any way.

We can thank the Democrat party for using CIA tactics to WATERBOARD liberal voters into believing almost ANYTHING.

The problem is that power corrupts and incumbents have to be fired from time to time. That forces us to live with what Democrats offer from time to time. As unsavory a job as it might be, someone needs to get hold of the Democrat party at the primary level and drive the Communists back into the CPUSA.

red states rule
10-13-2012, 09:34 AM
Here are the main stream media libs showing their loyalty to the Dem party and sreweing their talking points AND calling it news



http://youtu.be/PldhlijK4rw

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-13-2012, 11:33 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mHhUtCyFkpE/UBz-e66DLBI/AAAAAAAAJYg/C3DgKPsfgbA/s1600/528517_420783107957601_994731477_n.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ocjKXU9CUS0/UCDv82vWmYI/AAAAAAAAJcQ/Zu0HRLc-OUA/s640/daddy81.jpg

http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Empty-Promises.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ebF4Hg8eeU8/UCzGNESPWYI/AAAAAAAAJps/Y12aWp_QWjc/s640/sleazy.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TYAdEKIZYEc/UCj0ntl26yI/AAAAAAAAJjk/tnYcEYN-Rog/s640/540417_423486837687228_712432425_n.jpg

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-13-2012, 11:43 AM
http://deathandtaxesmag.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/anti_obama_billboard_3_adp.jpg



http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/arizona-anti-obama-billboard-e1275998557159.jpg

red states rule
10-13-2012, 01:52 PM
http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Funny_Democrat_Jackass-334x500.jpg

aboutime
10-13-2012, 06:00 PM
3983

red states rule
10-14-2012, 06:27 AM
Here are a few examples of the tolerance of the modern day left. From Sgt Schultz at DNCTV....

(as you listen just think how the left would react if Limbaugh or Hannity said these things about Obama and other libs)



http://youtu.be/CueCXx4AAkk