By today's standards would J.F.K. be considered a moderate Republican?

[Seattle]

Deficit is the difference between spending and income. If spending and income both increase at similar rates, then there's no increase in deficit.

That being said, Biden's spending plan is not sustainable under any of his taxation proposals. If the plan works to get us out of the pandemic, it has to be cut shortly afterwards.

Yes, I know what a deficit is and there being a difference between spending and taxes taken in has usually been a big issue for most administrations. When you add programs that cost trillions in addition to the programs that we already don't fully pay for it becomes an even bigger problem.

Additional spending was needed regarding the pandemic but I think we are mostly over that. Certainly an infrastructure plan (which is always needed but seldom affordable) is overkill at this stage of the recovery.

 

[Michael 345]

infrastructure plan

I I did hear that a lot of health issues were squeezed into the bill because they could be considered like infrastructure ?????

OR you didn't want to increase health spending direct where it could be seen

 

[Dennis Tate]

Would you consider J.F.K. to be a "moderate Republican" by today's standards? Eisenhower certainly would be considered that but I think that would apply to J.F.K. as well.

I think I would like to see one of the two major parties remake themselves into a "moderate" party and it wouldn't really make any practical difference if it was the current Democrats or Republicans.

There was a lot to like regarding the Democrats of that era.

What are your thoughts?

From what I have read if J. F. K. could be brought back to our time period he would have probably voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020........ but I admit that I am biased!

 

[billvon]

From what I have read if J. F. K. could be brought back to our time period he would have probably voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020.......

Unlikely. For all his faults, he was fairly intelligent. He would likely not support a president who celebrated ignorance and hatred.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, I know what a deficit is and there being a difference between spending and taxes taken in has usually been a big issue for most administrations.

Not the Republican ones since Reagan. Their only budgetary concern has been cutting taxes for the rich.

"Deficits don't matter" - - Richard Cheney, Vice President*
(*illegally. He was a resident of Texas - so was W.)

Ideologically, JFK would be a Marxist, Progressive, Leftwing extremist politician in this week's major media framing. (Compare Al Gore's media framing, as someone more rightwing and conservative than JFK). Eisenhower would be a center-left politician. Neither one would be a likely modern Democrat (Kennedy was a womanizing offspring of staunch Catholics and Nazi sympathizers who likely would have been Me-Tooed out of Democratic office long before getting near the Presidency, Eisenhower's political and financial base was well-off WASP - Protestant without the black vote and short of Dixiecrats despite military honors).

From what I have read if J. F. K. could be brought back to our time period he would have probably voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020...

Unlikely - the New York and East Coast elite despised the Trumps, and the Kennedy family in particular valued patriotic military service along with physical courage (try imagining Trump willing to campaign in a bullet proof vest after having his family members assassinated). They thought of themselves as American nobility, and noblesse oblige was part of their value system. Grifters like the Trumps - people who cheated tradesmen, betrayed their "friends", crashed weddings for status and routinely broke their word, people who made their money by fraud and bragged about using it to gold plate their toilets - did not get invited to associate with Kennedys.

Briefly: The better people knew Trump, the less likely they were to vote for him - and the Kennedy family knew Trump.

 

[Seattle]

JFK would be moderately fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Eisenhower would be much the same but a little less socially liberal.

In general most Presidents in that era would more responsible that most all of the current Republican Party and most of the Democratic Party as well.

No one gives any thought to economics and most seem to just be concerned about staying in power. All politicians worry about that of course but the current era is a new low in that regard.

 

[iceaura]

- When you add programs that cost trillions in addition to the programs that we already don't fully pay for it becomes an even bigger problem.

So don't do that.

Instead, do what the Libertarian Left recommends: add programs that return more than they cost (single payer universal health care, solar power infrastructure, trade and intellectual skill education paid via income tax surcharge, environmental protection, reduction in incarceration, basic income support, ) and whatever they don't cover pay for with the surplus from restoring the pre-Reagan tax structure (the basis of the greatest US prosperity) and compensation for using the products of taxpayer financed basic research.

What's left over can be used to retire public debt.

JFK would be moderately fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Eisenhower would be much the same but a little less socially liberal.

The question was about "today's standards", not some abstract or academic label from before the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, faced with the erosion of its political base, set out to destroy meaningful political discussion in this country.

 

[iceaura]

Additional spending was needed regarding the pandemic but I think we are mostly over that. Certainly an infrastructure plan (which is always needed but seldom affordable) is overkill at this stage of the recovery.

There will be no recovery without major increases in the public expenditures on infrastructure, including a conscious and deliberate emphasis on the neglect resulting from racism.

The decades of neglect and mismanagement of our public health infrastructure was the major factor in creating a disaster from this pandemic. We haven't begun to "get over" the degradation of our health care system this virus revealed - the loss of the formerly excellent medical care and public health capabilities available to white people will take years of heavy investment to recover, and that is on top of paying for the direct damage done by the pandemic itself and the racism underlying much of the general neglect.

We dug ourselves into a hole, and it collapsed on us. If we don't dig ourselves out, we'll remain stuck with the consequences of a second or third world health care system undermining an increasingly precarious First World economy - and that is no way to prepare for the incoming changes in the climate of this continent.

 

[billvon]

No one gives any thought to economics . . . .

Hmm. Given the proposals from the Biden administration for both spending AND revenue - not sure that's true. Also his proposals for increasing the minimum wage, expanding worker training, reducing income inequality and expanding access to healthcare may not work out - but they are certainly getting some thought.

 

[Seattle]

So don't do that.

Instead, do what the Libertarian Left recommends: add programs that return more than they cost (single payer universal health care, solar power infrastructure, trade and intellectual skill education paid via income tax surcharge, environmental protection, reduction in incarceration, basic income support, ) and whatever they don't cover pay for with the surplus from restoring the pre-Reagan tax structure (the basis of the greatest US prosperity) and compensation for using the products of taxpayer financed basic research.

What's left over can be used to retire public debt.
The question was about "today's standards", not some abstract or academic label from before the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, faced with the erosion of its political base, set out to destroy meaningful political discussion in this country.

I agree with about half of your first paragraph but not with your tax rates and some of your conclusions.

Regarding telling me what the question was about... I know what the question was about, I started the thread. It wasn't a softball pitched to you to regurgitate your 50's rant and your Reagan rant.

It was about the politicians of that era and how some would be considered moderate by today's standards and how politicians and thoughtful discussion (as you put it) just doesn't exist as it did in that era.

The answer isn't 50's era tax rates by the way.

 

[Seattle]

Hmm. Given the proposals from the Biden administration for both spending AND revenue - not sure that's true. Also his proposals for increasing the minimum wage, expanding worker training, reducing income inequality and expanding access to healthcare may not work out - but they are certainly getting some thought.

Just spending isn't giving thought. Spending a trillion to get out of the pandemic is one thing. Doubling down and continuing to do it is anything but thoughtful.

The economy is recovering to the point where inflation is becoming an issue. The answer to that isn't to continue to spend.

 

[billvon]

Just spending isn't giving thought.

Correct. Spending AND increasing revenue is giving thought.

The economy is recovering to the point where inflation is becoming an issue. The answer to that isn't to continue to spend.

I agree. While he has given a lot of thought to the issue, I think he's wrong.

 

[Seattle]

Correct. Spending AND increasing revenue is giving thought.

I agree. While he has given a lot of thought to the issue, I think he's wrong.

Haha...yes, I think we can agree. I don't think his plans for increasing revenue or going to pass or even work if they were passed. Therefore it's effectively just spending.

You're right, he did think about it. He just isn't knowledgeable regarding economics so it's pretty much the same as if he didn't think about it.

 

[billvon]

You're right, he did think about it. He just isn't knowledgeable regarding economics so it's pretty much the same as if he didn't think about it.

Well, no one who is into economics thinks anyone else knows anything about economics. It's sort of a given.

Biden's proposals call for a spike in spending (to boost the economy after COVID) then dropping to about 25% of GDP. Revenue is planned to increase to 20% of GDP. If he had swapped those two, I would have agreed with him.

 

[Seattle]

Well, no one who is into economics thinks anyone else knows anything about economics. It's sort of a given.

Biden's proposals call for a spike in spending (to boost the economy after COVID) then dropping to about 25% of GDP. Revenue is planned to increase to 20% of GDP. If he had swapped those two, I would have agreed with him.

Congress usually reacts to a problem after the recovery has already started and thus compounds the problem.

I don't believe anyone will get a bill through Congress (even a Democratic Congress) that doubles the capital gains tax.

Creating inflation while doubling taxes isn't a good look.

I don't think the mid-terms are going to be helpful to his plans so it's possible nothing gets done. The economy certainly doesn't need any help other than just dealing with Covid.

No one really asked for most of this stuff he is promising and few will want it when they actually have to pay the bill, IMO. Of course those who don't have to pay the bill are all for it.

 

[billvon]

Congress usually reacts to a problem after the recovery has already started and thus compounds the problem.

Yes, that's also inherent in the system, and is something of both a feature and a bug. The "feature" part is that Congress is not swayed so easily by transient public passions. The "bug" part is that things are late. The classic example is the annual "dog days of summer" funding that Congress would traditionally start working on in the spring in the 1970's - funding that provided for kid's activities, water access and parks to alleviate the unrest that often happened in the summer in big cities in the US. It was generally signed into law in late Fall.

I don't believe anyone will get a bill through Congress (even a Democratic Congress) that doubles the capital gains tax.

I agree. Billionaires have far too much power to ever allow such a commonsense measure to pass. They will purchase a few more Congresspeople and kill it.

No one really asked for most of this stuff he is promising and few will want it when they actually have to pay the bill, IMO.

I've personally been asking for a lot of it. Climate change mitigation, better EV charging networks, better infrastructure (broadband, power grid upgrades, bridge repairs, rail expansion) a more robust social safety net, affordable child care, wider implementation of pre-K, paid parental leave and a reduction in the stratification of society are all things I support. As I mentioned, he's just spending too much on them.

 

[Seattle]

Yes, that's also inherent in the system, and is something of both a feature and a bug. The "feature" part is that Congress is not swayed so easily by transient public passions. The "bug" part is that things are late. The classic example is the annual "dog days of summer" funding that Congress would traditionally start working on in the spring in the 1970's - funding that provided for kid's activities, water access and parks to alleviate the unrest that often happened in the summer in big cities in the US. It was generally signed into law in late Fall.

I agree. Billionaires have far too much power to ever allow such a commonsense measure to pass. They will purchase a few more Congresspeople and kill it.

I've personally been asking for a lot of it. Climate change mitigation, better EV charging networks, better infrastructure (broadband, power grid upgrades, bridge repairs, rail expansion) a more robust social safety net, affordable child care, wider implementation of pre-K, paid parental leave and a reduction in the stratification of society are all things I support. As I mentioned, he's just spending too much on them.

I doesn't take billionaires to kills a doubling of the capital gains tax. It doesn't just affect billionaires. The wording hasn't been finalized but since Biden seems to work around the $400k family it could apply to any transaction that an average family might have on a once in a lifetime basis.

Sell a business, farmland, house in a large city and your tax could be doubled. There are a lot of people who aren't going to sit still for that.

 

[billvon]

I doesn't take billionaires to kills a doubling of the capital gains tax.

Agreed. But they have the power to do that quickly.

It doesn't just affect billionaires.

It affects people who make more than $1 million a year in income, many of whom are billionaires.

The wording hasn't been finalized but since Biden seems to work around the $400k family it could apply to any transaction that an average family might have on a once in a lifetime basis.

If they make more than $1 million a year, yes. The vast majorities of families do not.

Sell a business, farmland, house in a large city and your tax could be doubled. There are a lot of people who aren't going to sit still for that.

Agreed, the richest 1% of Americans that this will effect (per the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy) will not like it one bit. And as I mentioned before, those people have a lot of power.

https://itep.org/income-tax-increases-in-the-presidents-american-families-plan/

 

[Seattle]

Agreed. But they have the power to do that quickly.

It affects people who make more than $1 million a year in income, many of whom are billionaires.

If they make more than $1 million a year, yes. The vast majorities of families do not.

Agreed, the richest 1% of Americans that this will effect (per the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy) will not like it one bit. And as I mentioned before, those people have a lot of power.

https://itep.org/income-tax-increases-in-the-presidents-american-families-plan/

When you talk about people who make more than one million a year that sounds like a wage. What about people who make $50k/year and at retirement sell stocks/land that add up to one million. Now there tax doubles?

We know it isn't going to stop at one million so it will be many ordinary people who have one transaction in their life that is high and now the cost of selling just doubled.

Even the $400k threshold that Biden talked about now seems to be $400k for the family which could lower the threshold to $200k for an individual.

 

[billvon]

When you talk about people who make more than one million a year that sounds like a wage. What about people who make 50k/year and at retirement sell stocks/land that add up to one million. Now there tax doubles?

Yes. If you make more than $1 million a year from ANY source (income, sale of stocks etc) then you would see your capital gains taxes almost double. As I mentioned, that will affect roughly 1% of the US population.

We know it isn't going to stop at one million so it will be many ordinary people who have one transaction in their life that is high and now the cost of selling just doubled.

Yep. For people who own million dollar homes outright, and who want to sell them, they would see their taxes double. Most people in the US do not own their homes outright, and most people in the US do not own million+ dollar homes - which is why it will only affect 1% of Americans.

For people who want to sell stocks the answer there is pretty obvious - don't sell $1 million in stocks all at once. Can't see that being a huge burden on 99% of Americans.