Ask not what your country can do for you
 

Amazing that this was said by JFK, a democrat.

I wish more emphasis was put on this concept- you work to make the country better, not the other way around.

My hostorical knowledge is limited- did the democrats used to be as Socialist as they are today? From what I've read, JFK actually cut taxes.

Yep, JFK actually cut taxes and gov't revenue went way up. The dem's could not believe it, but I guess they just saw more money to spend on other things, like welfare.

Sorry to say, but they eat themselves. I guess he had the wrong message for the yellow dog dems.

Please continue to do your own research. Your sense of surprise is not coming from the facts. It is coming from the propaganda. Like for example, the myth that democrats are bigger spenders than republicans. And then there is the myth that democrats are all about gubmit handouts, while republicans oppose the use of public funds for private and commercial purposes. That's a real knee-slapper, that one.

There is the mythology, and then there are the facts. Quite a gap between those.

Right now, all I go off of is the speeches given by the candidates. From what I can tell, BOTH sides are talking a lot about how they can use the government to solve our problems. I think it would be refreshing to hear somebody talking from a perspective more like the JFK speech.

Like, if a candidate said that if he/she was elected, we'd be in for a rough 4 years because he'd be using our money to pay down the national debt, it would blow my mind. I'm just sick of being pandered to- we're in a bit of a rough spot nationally, and I certainly don't need cotton candy blown up my a$$.

we live in the age of entitlement...so now it would be more like "ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country HAS to do for you"
USA was not anywhere near the welfare state we are now. Democrats of JFK's era are alot like republicans now

You could say that the popular wisdom is that both parties are for handouts. One believes in handouts for the poor, the other for corporations and the rich.

I am not saying this is the case, just that there are millions of Americans who think that way.

I don't see how any impartial, objective individual could possibly say that the republicans from 1994 to 2006 were conservative when it comes to spending.

There seems to be little party difference in the desire to bring home the pork to the home folk. Study after study has shown that, to the average voter, all congresspeople are crooks except for their own.

hostorical?

SmileWavy

George W. exploded the myth of Republicans being fiscally prudent. Hard to imagine a more fiscally reckless spender.

Republicans suck at the treasury teat just as hard as Democrats. They just pick different benefactors.

Moses...I think I alluded to that as well!!

Good to see another poster who thinks!!

JFK tax cut - read this for some perspective

http://www.msjc.edu/econ/jfk022502.htm

When JFK cut taxes (1) top marginal rate was 91% (wow), (2) the federal deficit was very small (0.6% of rev), and (3) JFK's advisers thought their stimulus would result in a balanced budget.

Today, the top marginal rate is 1/2 as high, the federal deficit is 3X higher relative to GDP (1.5% of GDP), and no-one pretends tax cuts will balance the budget.

The argument for a tax cut looks different now than 45 years ago.

Interestingly, the tax cut was JFK's third choice for economic stimulus:

6. Cutting taxes was not Kennedy's first choice for getting rid of those troublesome surpluses. He had plans for many expenditure increases - for defense, education, urban renewal, regional economic development, worker training and medical care for the aged. Congress did not approve any of that, except for an increase in defense spending after the Soviets put up the Berlin Wall.

7. The Kennedy administration would have liked to "get the economy moving again" by easing monetary policy. But the administration did not control monetary policy, which in any case was inhibited by the balance-of-payments deficit combined with the commitment to support the dollar exchange rate.

8. In the summer of 1962, the stock market fell sharply. That was commonly attributed to anxieties in the financial and business communities caused by the administration's heavy-handed pressure on the steel companies to roll back a price increase. The administration feared that the economy was entering another recession, which would be its recession. It felt the need to stimulate the economy but was blocked by Congress on the expenditure-increasing front. Moreover, if felt the need to restore confidence in the business community. So it came to the proposal of a big tax cut.

As for which party produces larger budget deficits, the evidence is pretty clear.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1200090243.gif

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1200090257.gif

Since the 1960s, budget deficits and the national debt have grown under Republican administrations, and shrunk under Democratic administrations.

I don't necessarily think that the Democratic party is inherently more fiscally responsible than the Republican party. Perhaps the Republicans have been successful at convincing people they are fiscally disciplined and Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, so that it is easier for the Republicans to get away with spending like drunken sailors and harder for the Democrats. Or maybe there is some other reason. Anyway, if you think the Republican party stands for budget discipline, you are ignoring 50 years of evidence.

It is the big lie philosophy. Simple and effective. Say it over and over and over and people believe it. Like the newspapers running an arrest on page 1 and later when the individual is found not involved, placing that on page 6.

Both major parties, in my opinion, are manipulative and deceitful. However, the Republicans are much more skilled at the craft. The Democrats have a long way to go in overcoming this deficit. But, I am sure they are working on it.

Isn't Congress really more in charge of spending? Without a line item veto, it seems like a president is at least somewhat limited.

I wonder what that chart would look like using the party with the majority in Congress over those years.

Party in power in various congresses:

Congress: Senate House

81st 1949/51 D D
82nd D D
83rd R R
84th D (by 1) D
85th 1957/49 D (by 2) D
86th D (64/34) D
87th D D (262/175)
88th 1963/65 D D
89th D D (295/140)
90th D D
91st 1969/71 D D
92nd D D
93rd D D
94th D D
95th D D
96th 1979/81 D D
97th R D
98th R D
99th 1985/87 R D
100th D D
101st 1989/91 D D
102nd D D
103rd D D
104th 1995/97 R R
105th R R
106th R R

Interesting lineup.

I agree, both parties are corrupt in spending OUR money, they all think it's THEIR money.