Jack Kennedy vs Obama on Tax Cuts. Amazing

I would think, by now, everyone is aware of the fact that President John Kennedy was very much in favor of cutting taxes during the recession of 1962. He understood what so many now have seen (see Reagan) that tax cuts stimulate an economy and add to government revenue, not subtract. It is truly amazing to hear his words again during these trying times.

This video was brought to my attention by Steve McGough and asembled by the Winston Group. It comes to us via Americans for Tax Reform.


This is a proven way to boost an economy. A proven way to make it grow. When you continue to tax the means of production, you suck money from the market, reduce economic activity, from spending to innovation. You rob people of their freedom to create and business from its ability to expand. It becomes and economy where the government, not you or your business, remains in control. I detailed this in the post “Finally Cash for Clunkers for Business”.

Senator John Kerry does a good job of explaining it all here. Hard to believe Kennedy represented the same party as this fool.


17 replies
  1. Anne-EH
    Anne-EH says:

    Jim, as I had said over at Twitter, by the standards of today, John F. Kennedy would be regarded as a "conservative" or at least a "fiscal conservative" in regards to the need for TAX CUTS to truly stimulate the struggling economy. Today's politicos could LEARN a thing or two from this video.

  2. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    Don't forget what happened after the 2001/2003 tax cuts. Not only did federal tax revenue increase 36 percent between 2003 and 2007, the tax burden between individuals and corporations shifted dramatically. In 2001, 13 percent of federal tax revenue came from corporations, in 2007, it was almost 25 percent.

    Of course, in 2008 Congress and the White House got back to their continued spending spree which mucked everything up. That said, even though tax cuts will stimulate the economy and have been proven to increase federal revenue, the congress-critters and Executive Branch will continue to spend every dime – and much more – that we hand to them.

    Cut off the flow to the tap to a trickle. Cut the size and scope of the federal government. It keeps coming back to that one answer, which I admit, will be a damn difficult culture change that must happen.

  3. IamTheMapGuy
    IamTheMapGuy says:

    Here lies the problem.  It is the fact of what we are arguing.  It would be funny if it were not so sad.  The tax payers (I am talking about federal and state) are surrenduring their monies to the state to use in anyway they see fit whether the contributor likes it or not.  Instead of taking into account that without us evil people, they would have nothing to spend, they continue to ask for more.  A tax break only brings relief to those of us who pay taxes which at last check was about 50% of the nation.  This is my newest favorite quote.

    "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

  4. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    This really brings home the fact that there are so few fiscal conservatives in Washington. The modern Democratic Party is socialist. Period. The only way to run a socialist economy is central direction through a stranglehold on production fed by high taxation. They already have the poor in their grasp – now they want the "rich". You can see the joy on their faces as the "rich" struggle.    

  5. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I knew John Kennedy, Mr. Øbama, and you, sir, are no John Kennedy.


    Kennedy makes a nice Democrat figurehead, so long as you don't look too closely at what he did or said.

  6. rickyrock
    rickyrock says:

    The most important question to ask is why businesses who are hoarding cash are not hiring.The corporations have the money to hire but won't.Being patriotic they will out source to further cut costs.Businesses are using this unemployment to bully workers into working harder and taking on more responsibility for less money…you don't like it they say "leave".There is no "trickle down" working here just pure greed ,I have two jobs to make ends meet and that has been my experience.The workers are screwed.Bringing back Reaganomics ,supply side ,trickle down………won't change a thing.

  7. IamTheMapGuy
    IamTheMapGuy says:

    Why do you think businesses are doing what they do? 

    For the fun of it?

    Because they like to sit behind their desks and count money?  

    Because they are uncertain about the future?

    You may not believe it, but uncertainty affects all people across the financial spectrum from the ultra wealthy to the ultra poor.  Reckless spending is what got this country into this mess.  You should appreciate the people that did not do this…like your employer!

  8. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I simply find it hard to believe that if tax cuts were such a sure fire way to get economies humming, that there would be any doubt about implementing tax cuts. What happens in the absurd case of no taxes at all?

  9. NH-Jim
    NH-Jim says:

    {The most important question to ask is why businesses who are hoarding cash are not hiring.}


    Allow me to field this one guys…………Because it is their damn money!  Not yours, not the governments, not even Gods!  Do you think that this recession only affects the liberals and not conservative minded people?  Well, I have run out of fingers to count the number of conservative friends & family out of work & out of business right now.

    Corporations are hoarding money, as you say, because they, like the rest, do not have a crystal ball.  They too are anxious about what lies ahead in 2011.  I know because I am one of them!

  10. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Sounds like we're out of risk-takers or maybe people w/ ideas. Certainty is needed to get the ball rolling? Life is a series of events w/ uncertainties. At best 2011 will see Washington in gridlock, then what?

  11. TomL
    TomL says:

    Sammy according to Milton Friedman, someone you praised in a blog earlier in the week, Gridlock is good it keeps govenment out of the way.

  12. rickyrock
    rickyrock says:

    I would like to hear from those of you who are more informed than myself about several points of which I recently became aware of:Ronald Reagan signed into law major tax increases every year (except for the first) he was in office …yet the economy remained strong.True or false.Ronald Reagan was adamantly against and even recorded an advertisement against Medicare…….would we be better off without it??Did Reagan implement taxes on unemployment compensation  ??? I think that's despicable..I am the last person that wants higher taxes but much of what Reagan did was exaggerated as God like ..the reality is far different.Am I right or wrong??.

  13. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Now try to imagine a second term of Carter…


    Despicable is putting a tax on your Social Security returns, or decreasing them because you had to get a job because your SS payment is too low (vicious cycle here).


    Reagan's actions may have been exaggerated after his terms in office, but Øbama's were exaggerated BEFORE he got into office.  I mean, how do you get a Nobel Peace Prize when you have done exactly 0 (zero) – pun definitely intended.

Comments are closed.