archBoston Presidential Poll 2012

For whom will you be voting on Tuesday?

  • Total voters
    44
JFK said:
...What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal."

But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."
Click to expand...

-JFK
 
Yeah, I read the Cole/Ohanian when it came out. The ripping apart it got was a bigger story than the paper itself. The WSJ Op-Ed page loved it of course.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
-JFK
Click to expand...

JFK's fiscal and, now the more I think about it, social policy was drastically more conservative than any republican candidate who ran in 2012. Even this statement has undertones of a confrontational foreign policy.

Do you elect to pay the higher state tax?
 
The only thing JFK has in common with modern Republicans is a cold war military mentality. At least he had the excuse of being president during the actual Cold War.
 
Last edited:
bosdevelopment said:
JFK's fiscal and, now the more I think about it, social policy was drastically more conservative than any republican candidate who ran in 2012. Even this statement has undertones of a confrontational foreign policy.

Do you elect to pay the higher state tax?
Click to expand...

If and when I am financially sound, I will certainly elect to pay a higher tax rate. I firmly believe in taxes to help the common good.
 
Not that it matters if people elect to or not. It's a beyond idiotic right-wing trope. Like not doing so is some sort of hypocrisy? On what fucking planet? I guess all the libertarians are hypocrites for using dollar bills then.
 
Last edited:
underground said:
The only thing JFK has in common with modern Republicans is a cold war military mentality. At least he had the excuse of being president during the actual Cold War.
Click to expand...


Really?


MYTH: JFK’s tax cuts were more responsible than Reagan’s or Bush’s. They were aimed at the middle class and didn’t help the rich.

FACT: JFK cut taxes more than Reagan did. JFK’s tax cut was larger than the Reagan tax cuts and any single Bush tax cut compared with national income, and it was larger than all three Bush tax cuts combined in relation to the federal budget. In addition, JFK gave a huge tax cut to the rich.

The Tax Foundation:

Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.

Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that the Kennedy’s tax cuts represented 8.8 percent of the budget. In 1981, Reagan’s tax cuts represented 5.3 percent of the budget. Each of Bush’s tax cuts are smaller than Reagan’s—EGTRRA (3.8 percent), JCWA (2.5 percent) and the 2003 Tax Cut (1.8 percent). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1 percent), they would be larger than Reagan’s tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedy’s tax cut. ("Fiscal Facts," Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html)

Jeff Jacoby:

By any rational yardstick, the Kennedy tax cut was enormous, and it was a boon to the rich. It cut the top marginal rate a whopping 21 percentage points, from 91 to 70. Bush's plan lowers rates at the top by only 6.6 percentage points. For those in the lowest bracket, JFK cut the tax rate to 14 percent. . . . (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby031601.asp)

MYTH: Lower tax rates don’t cause economic growth.

FACT: Even JFK understood that lower tax rates produce economic growth and even higher tax revenue. According to President Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus. (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm
 
underground said:
Not that it matters if people elect to or not. It's a beyond idiotic right-wing trope. Like not doing so is some sort of hypocrisy? On what fucking planet? I guess all the libertarians are hypocrites for using dollar bills then.
Click to expand...

are you actually serious? You've brought this position up before and after reading it 2 or 3 times it was just a string of meaningless words. You wrote: "Like not doing so is some sort of hypocrisy?' WTF? What are laws to you.. a game? Are we just supposed to say things just because they sound nice but then not do what we say?

Let me do the heavy lifting for you; what you're suggesting (even though you may not realize it) is that that elected officials need not comply with the laws that they promulgate.

You also categorize the labeling of politicians as hypocrites as "right wing trope." That's good use of the word "trope," as if to suggest only republicans would ever call a politician a hypocrite. I can only suggest, respectfully, that your inability or unwillingness to think critically has left you beholden to anybody running as a democrat.
 
It's a fascinating theory that the percentage of cut is what makes a rate more or less conservative than the final rate. Does that mean current Republicans would be willing to accept JFK's rates? I mean, sure, they're higher than Reagan's, and they're currently calling Reagan's rates Communist, but Jeff Jacoby says they were conservative, so that means it's true! Then again, we've got to keep trying to make that Laffer Curve into a line.

I'm still not following you on electing to pay income taxes at a higher rate than required. It's not actually law. No one's breaking a law for not doing it. You're allowed to call for the creation of new laws without already doing what the new law would do. In fact, that's how the vast majority of laws get made. Even Ron Paul still uses dollar bills. I'd guess you do to. But I guess I can call you both hypocrites using your own criteria.

I've also never said "labeling politicians hypocrites is a right-wing trope".
 
Last edited:
Oh sure he does! He doesn't even have to pay his taxes in cash. Just trade some of his magic libertarian beans for money orders and he's away from the EVIL FIAT MONEY!!!!

God, I bet he even keeps his money in an FDIC insured bank. HYPOCRITE!!!!!
 
underground said:
Oh sure he does! He doesn't even have to pay his taxes in cash. Just trade some of his magic libertarian beans for money orders and he's away from the EVIL FIAT MONEY!!!!

God, I bet he even keeps his money in an FDIC insured bank. HYPOCRITE!!!!!
Click to expand...

hahahahaha-i-dont-get-it.jpg
 
Golden Dawn might win it next. Wonder what the Greek gun control laws look like? ;)
 
Saw this and instantly thought of this thread.

Next time you find yourself embroiled in a Twitter controversy or a message board hell-zone, call up this useful graphic, which tells you everything you need to know.
Click to expand...

tumblr_mgrs6gOaQ01qgj04oo1_250.gif
 
Just thought I'd drop this here, NBC/WSJ poll: 61% favoribility rating for Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top