You really should read the whole of my post, and not simply the part that agrees with you. I try to be even-handed because I believe the truth doesn't fit into narrow boxes on the left or the right, though I'm much more inclined to see things from the liberal left or further. There's nothing wrong with listening to Limbaugh or Fox if that not where you stop listening. If you were on a jury and doing your duty correctly, you would be obligated to listen to both sides with reasonable objectivity before making a decision.
I've heard sound bite compilations as well. Any number can play. I've never heard one for the word "pro-active" which I first ran across in a book on psychotherapy about 25 years ago. The authors apologized for using it, acknowledged it was jargon, and said that it was better that the customary usage "active" because it meant more active than active. It sounded like E-Z-Grow to me then and it sounds like E-Z-Grow to me now, but the word has grown like a weed. You could do one heck of a video montage of stuffed shirts using that word too. If you wanted, you could edit them down by name, or weight, or hair color or, yes, even political party and make any group look spectacularly like foolish stuffed shirts. If Limbaugh picked the word "gravitas," which is straight Latin, you can imagine how many times through history somebody must have done the same thing, tagging another group as stupid for the use of that word. Greeks versus Romans. Romans versus Goths. Eastern Empire Versus Western Empire. We have thousand of years of history to choose from. It must have been done thousands of times.
A tax cut to inject money into the economy is an economic maneuver, like a left turn or a right turn in a car. Any two given drivers can make one and state the need for one. Their words may even be similar in saying why the maneuver is needed.
What makes one useful and makes the other dangerous is the context. One may lead to a broad highway, the other to a brick wall. The context of the Kennedy tax cut was a tax structure where the top tax bracket was about 90%, and where the United States itself was the place where it made the most sense for capital to be in the world. If capital were to be freed up, the United states is where it would most likely come, right?
Today the top tax rates have been in the mid thirties, well below the place where Kennedy cut it to. Further cuts do not pay for themselves, they cost the government and the economy money and they make the government and the economy and the country weaker. The capital that is freed up by the tax cut does not tend to stay in the country because this country is no longer the best place in the world to put down your economic bets. In this economy, in this country, tax cuts are a full speed left turn into a brick wall. To use Kennedy's comments to sell them is, at a minimum, deceptive and misleading.
The maneuver is the same, but we're not at the same place on the highway.
The maneuver allows the multinationals to become less entangled legally with this country and those companies who have previously had to comply with U.S. law and to do business in a way that is compatible with U.S. interests, are now able to sever their interests from those of the U.S. without any apparent consequences. Bechtel and Halliburton are examples. While the current tax cuts may in fact be good for those companies and their investors, they do not appear to have anything to recommend them for the U.S. public at large. I wish they did.
If indeed The Republicans National Committee or whomever paid for the ads in question used Kennedy's words while understanding that this was the actual situation, then "sleazy" seems to be at least a gesture in an appropriate direction. I would have difficulty imagining The Party as a whole being unaware of the differences the past thirty years have brought.
No orange socks in my drawer, Mike. I still look at them longingly in the Liberal Shoppe, every time I go in to get my spark plugs changed at the Barbara Streisand tune-up Center. But my wife is afraid all my Liberal friends will think I'm a hunter. I tell her it's unlikely, with the amount of time I spend looking for a good boat, one large enough to allow me to do comfortable flip-flopping on all the important issues. ELaine says, though, that Flip-flopping is not just for Democrats any more. I can't tell you how sad that makes me.
I shall probably have to look into the Kennedy tax cuts.
I never knew very much about them, and I do have to thank you for bringing them to my attention. Your assertion that they were much more favorable for the rich
seems in particular curious to me, so I'd like to start out there.
As always, very interesting, especially when we get as concrete as we can. Both of us. It tends to strip away party rhetoric on both sides, and gets us down to what people need and how are we getting it for them or preventing them from having it. Returning vets, the poor, the displaced, the crazy, the retarded, the elderly, the corporations, the services such as fire police and other public safety services, roads, all these things are often beyond the ability of any single citizen to support, and we must count on each other in some way. We have a lot to talk about, and it all seems fascinating discussion. What about individual responsibility? I thought I'd toss that in as well. Hope all is going beautifully in Sunny Florida, YrS, BobK.
Why did we return to Nixon?
I think it was because the country was split about the Vietnam war. Johnson who had served as a lightning rod for opposition to the war made the decision to withdraw from the race because he was so unpopular. He had a 35% approval rating. He was smart enough to know he was in disgrace.
The two emerging candidates on the Democratic side were Eugene MacCarthy and Hubert Humphrey, and they were campaigning on issues around the Vietnam war. Humphrey, as sitting Vice President was stuck defending the unpopular war; though he was personally against it, to say so would have made him seem like a wimp without personal integrity. When Martin Luther King was assassinated, the entire country exploded around issues of race and violence. George Wallace, former Governor of Alabama, entered the race as a third party player and took the State of Alabama, normally a Democratic State at that time. When Robert Kennedy entered the race and breathed new life into the Democrats, it seemed that they would win anyway. The riots declined, the country grew quieter, and Nixon, who was running on a Law And Order ticket, began to slide back in the poles. When Kennedy was assassinated the whole thing blew up again, and the race went to Nixon because of the divisions with the Democratic Party, and the violence inside the country at the time, largely due to the feeling of helplessness among minorities and the feelings of rage among the working class toward them.
In addition, the Republicans promised a speedy end to the war, but in fact expanded it and kept it going until 1975.
In other words, Nixon offered an easy solution to the chaos that people saw around them in 1968. I believe we are still paying for that decision, whether it was the correct or incorrect one. I believe, of course, incorrect.
My best to you, BobK.