Inyourface Loc: East Coast

One of the more amusing and pathetic things occurring during this 50th anniversity of the assasination of John F. Kennedy is how rightwing cretins are trying to identify with him.

Every one of these rightwing scumbags,from George Will to those freaks at Fox News is a Republican,today because of JFK's stance on integration.

R****m is at the heart of the Conservative/Teaparty movement,and everyone knows it.

All of you rightwingers on this site know I speak the t***h...

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

Not the heart of the GOP or Teaparty but perhaps a circumstantial part. Politics made it convenient for the GOP to pay the race card (subtly but a GOP national chairman acknowledged it and apologized for it) to change the South from solid Dem to solid GOP...and that solid South remains a lesser but existent reality and a key element in the Tea Party movement and the GOP.

Rightwingers on OPP will deny the reality of this part, and can justifiably claim that they personally are not r****t. I believe them because my immediate relatives live in the South and are sincere and not r****t (they are also, so far as I know, all GOP). Nevertheless, circumstantially there is an element of r****m involved in the South's conservatism. I consider it wrong to make much of that...it is going away. I wish the extremists on OPP would simply acknowledge the circumstance and then leave it alone, and I wish you, Inyourface, would not be so extreme in raising the issue. It's not helpful regarding correcting r****m (on the contrary) and it distracts from the real problem of rightwing extremism as a whole, it's outright craziness, it's being wacko.

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

I agree. I think most Tea Partiers (cut me slack for not referring to them as "Teabaggers") are honest people who have simply been misled. I think the core anti-Obama leaders couldn't stand being led by a black man in the White House; they then twisted everything they could about his policies to create bogus, legitimate-sounding arguments, and the poor lemmings who became the Tea Party fell for it.

73STNGLKABEE

YYYYYYAAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNNN..............LMAO

73STNGLKABEE

YYYYYYAAAAAWWWWNNNNNNN.............

cold iron Loc: White House

:thumbdown:
To bad you can't read or have never read a American history book. Is cutting income tax a democrat thing? NO. Well JFK cut the income tax from 76% to 30%. If only Obama would do that, but never, he will add to the cost of our lives. And he has fools like you to support him...You are not a American. Get out of my country s**t bird.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

How did you become so stupid, you take pills for that? Simple go back and look at Kennedy's record, about 160 out from Obama.

bahmer

Sorry it has nothing to do about race and never will. Herman Cain was a heavy favorite in the primaries so if race was it he never would have been that close to winning the nomination.

bahmer

The only thing being brought out was the fact that JFK slashed income taxes in this country something unheard of in the democrat community. As most democrats can say they have never met a tax that they don't love.

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

How do you figure that? I just checked the historical federal income tax rates for that period, and here is what I found:

1967 top rate: 70% on >$100,000 ($687,407 today's $)
1966 top rate: 70% on >$100,000 ($708,623 today's $)
1965 top rate: 70% on >$100,000 ($728,870 today's $)
1964 top rate: 77% on >$200,000 ($1.481M today's $)
1963 top rate: 91% on >$200,000 ($1.5M today's $)
1962 top rate: 91% on >$200,000 ($1.52M today's $)
1961 top rate: 91% on >$200,000 ($1.54M today's $)
1960 top rate: 91% on >$200,000 ($1.55M today's $)
1959 top rate: 91% on >$200,000 ($1.57M today's $)

You must be thinking of someone else...or some other planet.

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

It's you who are unAmerican, Coldie. Look up Eric Hoffer The True Believer on the internet and see what kind of bird you are.

bahmer

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]
Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]
The stated goal of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut.[4] Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5] Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.[4][6]

RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC

Good background. Then you agree that bmac's claim that "JFK cut the income tax from 76% to 30%" was in error?

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

I'm one rightwinger waiting for the first time you tell the t***h

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

I must tell you those aren't smart pills he took there are a lot of rabbits there