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

[Seattle]

I agree! Just the important ones for the welfare of society. (That Constitutional imperative applies here.)

Well, not quite. MOTHERS have bonded with their newborns for centuries. The phenomenon of women working is fairly new, and thus changes things a bit. Also, society in general is starting to realize that fathers are important, too.

That's true. Go to kids soccer games are important and birthday parties. There are a lot of things that are nice to have and that can be had with a little sacrifice. Everything doesn't have to be provided as a matter of fact. You can choose to take a little vacation time or unpaid leave if it really matters to you.

There is a finite well from which any such benefits come from. Infrastructure is important as well as families however if it only devalues the dollar it isn't sustainable. That's why Bitcoin is so popular. It's a potential bypass of irresponsible political policies.

 

[billvon]

That's true. Go to kids soccer games are important and birthday parties. There are a lot of things that are nice to have and that can be had with a little sacrifice. Everything doesn't have to be provided as a matter of fact.

I agree. But soccer games and birthday parties are things you can attend while you are working. Bonding with a new infant requires pretty constant physical presence for flora transfer and nursing. Harder to do that while you are working.

There is a finite well from which any such benefits come from. Infrastructure is important as well as families however if it only devalues the dollar it isn't sustainable.

It is sustainable, but may not be wise. Yes, we have limited resources, and should therefore spend those resources wisely.

 

[iceaura]

There is a finite well from which any such benefits come from.

It's not limited in any relevant sense - it depends on diversity, productivity, demand, and other factors which normally grow in a mixed socialist/capitalist market economy.

This is where financial literacy becomes important - a capitalist market economy is not a zero sum economy. Couple that with the fact that most "benefits" are properly classified as investments and productivity enhancers, and the foolishness of denying them becomes less a theoretical nuance and more of a crass perversity - one looks to psychology, rather than economics, to explain such blatant economic self-injury.
Besides, even if it were that would be no reason to refuse important benefits easily obtained and paid for.

That's why Bitcoin is so popular. It's a potential bypass of irresponsible political policies.

It doesn't work for that yet. Meanwhile, it's mostly a way to hide from the police and adult responsibilities in general.
Backtrack:

It was about the politicians of that era and how some would be considered moderate by today's standards

And so was my reply - as I noted, they would not be considered "moderate" by the standards of anyone who finds Al Gore, either Clinton, or Barack Obama an extreme lefty - much less Joe Biden.

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

Necessary but not sufficient, was the claim. A proven step in the right direction. Not "the answer".

The economy is recovering to the point where inflation is becoming an issue.

Inflation becomes a wingnut (Republican propaganda) "issue" whenever a Democrat is President. The actual economy has little or nothing to do with such "issues".

The economy is not recovering very rapidly at all - far less rapidly than the economy set up after the previous major crash, which recovered enough to pay off WWII in a decade on top of all the new benefits for white people, and handed the US fifty years of solid economic progress until it was replaced with the modern economic setup.
Return:

It's nice if parents can attend all sporting events involving their kids. Should the government pay for it?

One of the problems with having the government pay for the suburbs is that the people who live in them lose track of the outside world.

 

[Seattle]

It's not limited in any relevant sense - it depends on diversity, productivity, demand, and other factors which normally grow in a mixed socialist/capitalist market economy.

This is where financial literacy becomes important - a capitalist market economy is not a zero sum economy. Couple that with the fact that most "benefits" are properly classified as investments and productivity enhancers, and the foolishness of denying them becomes less a theoretical nuance and more of a crass perversity - one looks to psychology, rather than economics, to explain such blatant economic self-injury.
Besides, even if it were that would be no reason to refuse important benefits easily obtained and paid for.

It doesn't work for that yet. Meanwhile, it's mostly a way to hide from the police and adult responsibilities in general.
Backtrack:

And so was my reply - as I noted, they would not be considered "moderate" by the standards of anyone who finds Al Gore, either Clinton, or Barack Obama an extreme lefty - much less Joe Biden.

Necessary but not sufficient, was the claim. A proven step in the right direction. Not "the answer".

Inflation becomes a wingnut (Republican propaganda) "issue" whenever a Democrat is President. The actual economy has little or nothing to do with such "issues".

The economy is not recovering very rapidly at all - far less rapidly than the economy set up after the previous major crash, which recovered enough to pay off WWII in a decade on top of all the new benefits for white people, and handed the US fifty years of solid economic progress until it was replaced with the modern economic setup.
Return:

One of the problems with having the government pay for the suburbs is that the people who live in them lose track of the outside world.

Yes, there is a meaningful limit (Modern Economic Theory notwithstanding). Inflation is a issue regardless of what party is in power.

No one (here) is calling Clinton, Obama, Biden far left.

The benefits you speak of aren't "easily obtained and paid for". Just like military expenditures aren't "easily obtained and paid for". Only in the political world is that the case, it's not reality ... out here in the suburbs.

It's odd that no one seems to like corporations but the government is the largest corporation and many here seem to feel that they can do no wrong.

 

[iceaura]

Inflation is a issue regardless of what party is in power.

Not in the US corporate media. See the "Two Santa Claus" Republican strategy.

For example:
Under Reagan the deficit was not much mentioned as an inflation threat (especially after he boosted it so dramatically by cutting rich people's taxes).
Under Bush likewise. The threat of inflation was coming from the Dem candidates making liberal promises during campaign season, not Bush and his huge Reaganomic deficits.

Under Clinton deficits were suddenly a terrible threat of inflation in all major (corporate) media - pundits worried about Clinton's profligacy and careless spending, Clinton himself emphasized his desire to reduce the deficit (and succeeded - at great expense to the country), thereby getting around the chattering economists who were all hot and bothered about the possibility that Clinton might restore the welfare state they had invented as an inflation threat, etc.

Under W the country spent eight years starting and prosecuting a land war in Asia - the most expensive war in modern American history, and by common expert assessment the most corrupt military contracting in all American history - without even putting it on the budget or raising taxes; he fought the entire seven years of foreign invasion and failed occupancy/nation building on credit, eventually (after the crash) running the first trillion dollar deficits the US had ever seen. The Republican response (same as the corporate media frame, as always since Reagan)? "Deficits don't matter".

Under Obama, inflation was again a big worry - any attempt at restoring the New Deal services trashed by Reaganomics was attacked as irresponsible risking of inflation. Even Obama's restoration of honesty to the budget, putting the war expenditures on it in plain numbers that anyone could read, including the actual cost of dealing with the Second Republican Crash that met him coming in the door, was greeted with near panic over hyperinflation as the size of the US debt became clear (amnesia spoiler: it didn't happen).

Under Trump and his massive borrowing to cover tax cuts for the rich, inflation was once again set aside as a daily concern - trotted out during campaigns as a problem with the liberal agenda, not the Trump reality.

The only factor correlated with corporate media emphasis on inflation, since Reagan, has been the Party affiliation of the President.

No one (here) is calling Clinton, Obama, Biden far left.

They are all, including the Al Gore you omitted, rightwing authoritarian.

The benefits you speak of aren't "easily obtained and paid for".

Yeah they are. We know that because we remember they were easily obtained and paid for in the US, and in other places they still are. Also: being college educated we can do basic arithmetic, and being lefties we don't sucker for household budget metaphors and similar scam pitches.
That's the thing about sound investments - they pay for themselves, and often show a profit we can use to pay for other stuff.

It's odd that no one seems to like corporations but the government is the largest corporation and many here seem to feel that they can do no wrong.

The government of the US is not a corporation (the States govern corporations, including defining what is and is not a corporation, in the US).
Nobody here - not one single poster on this forum - seems to think governments can do no wrong. Governments can, for example, invade and occupy Iraq on borrowed money.

 

[Seattle]

Not in the US corporate media. See the "Two Santa Claus" Republican strategy.

For example:
Under Reagan the deficit was not much mentioned as an inflation threat (especially after he boosted it so dramatically by cutting rich people's taxes).
Under Bush likewise. The threat of inflation was coming from the Dem candidates making liberal promises during campaign season, not Bush and his huge Reaganomic deficits.

Under Clinton deficits were suddenly a terrible threat of inflation in all major (corporate) media - pundits worried about Clinton's profligacy and careless spending, Clinton himself emphasized his desire to reduce the deficit (and succeeded - at great expense to the country), thereby getting around the chattering economists who were all hot and bothered about the possibility that Clinton might restore the welfare state they had invented as an inflation threat, etc.

Under W the country spent eight years starting and prosecuting a land war in Asia - the most expensive war in modern American history, and by common expert assessment the most corrupt military contracting in all American history - without even putting it on the budget or raising taxes; he fought the entire seven years of foreign invasion and failed occupancy/nation building on credit, eventually (after the crash) running the first trillion dollar deficits the US had ever seen. The Republican response (same as the corporate media frame, as always since Reagan)? "Deficits don't matter".

Under Obama, inflation was again a big worry - any attempt at restoring the New Deal services trashed by Reaganomics was attacked as irresponsible risking of inflation. Even Obama's restoration of honesty to the budget, putting the war expenditures on it in plain numbers that anyone could read, including the actual cost of dealing with the Second Republican Crash that met him coming in the door, was greeted with near panic over hyperinflation as the size of the US debt became clear (amnesia spoiler: it didn't happen).

Under Trump and his massive borrowing to cover tax cuts for the rich, inflation was once again set aside as a daily concern - trotted out during campaigns as a problem with the liberal agenda, not the Trump reality.

The only factor correlated with corporate media emphasis on inflation, since Reagan, has been the Party affiliation of the President.

They are all, including the Al Gore you omitted, rightwing authoritarian.

Yeah they are. We know that because we remember they were easily obtained and paid for in the US, and in other places they still are. Also: being college educated we can do basic arithmetic, and being lefties we don't sucker for household budget metaphors and similar scam pitches.
That's the thing about sound investments - they pay for themselves, and often show a profit we can use to pay for other stuff.

The government of the US is not a corporation (the States govern corporations, including defining what is and is not a corporation, in the US).
Nobody here - not one single poster on this forum - seems to think governments can do no wrong. Governments can, for example, invade and occupy Iraq on borrowed money.

Who cares what the "U.S. corporate media" thinks. This argument is known as "yeah, but they did it too". Inflation is inflation. Forget politics. That seems to be all you are interested in. That and a free lunch.

 

[iceaura]

Who cares what the "U.S. corporate media" thinks.

You, apparently - it's the only significant identifiable source of "information" in your posts here, the only remaining source of the dumbass "free lunch" rhetoric in adults, etc.
Granted no one can read your mind and determine how much you "care", but you do seem to have memorized the Republican media schtick and every meme in it.

Inflation is inflation. Forget politics.

. The only direct responses to your posting here - on almost any topic once disentangled from the wingnut media operation memes, but certainly in the obvious case of inflation in a campaign season with a Democratic Party affiliated President - are political.

For example, the public discussion of "inflation" as you frame it is almost entirely political in the US generally - from its definition and measurement to the assessments of the threat, political considerations dominate not only your posts here but the large majority of the US public discussion and governmental response.

This argument is known as "yeah, but they did it too".

That would be the opposite of my argument. "Both sides don't", or possibly "they didn't do that", would be the matching bumper sticker formulation of my argument. Recall:

See the "Two Santa Claus" Republican strategy.