You really have no concept of how Kennedy's assassination changed America, do you. You would have had to be old enough to have experienced the impact Jack Kennedy had on the country to appreciate how his murder affected the nation. Obviously, you are not. I saw him give one of his most remembered and important speeches at Rice Stadium. I wish you could have experienced that. You might have a bit of understanding about where I'm coming from. I considered saying the date and the hour of Robert Kennedy's triumph in California, when he was murdered after he had left the podium. I think he would have made a much better President than his brother, but it is the cascade effect that came after that I'm talking about. Kennedy would have won the '68 election, Nixon wouldn't have been President, and Reagan, in my opinion, would never had been President as well. The course of America's future was dramatically altered, and for the worse. That is my opinion as well. Instead of having Robert Kennedy as President until 1978, we get Nixon, then Ford, then Carter, Reagan, and Bush Senior, before 8 years of prosperity under Bill Clinton... which segues into our current nightmare, George W. Bush. America was never again what it was before JFK's murder, and just when his brother had the way open to restore much of what was lost, he was murdered as well. There are profound moments in our history that leave it fundamentally altered from what it was, and what it could have been. We are affected by those moments today, and will be affected by them in the future. Keep D&D Civil.
And how old were you? 5? Regardless, JFK's assassination was obviously a horrible thing. But to say it started the downfall of America is still absurd. JFK's presidency has been widely documented as a poor one. More than likely, he would have finished his presidency at par, or worse, which certainly wouldn't have helped Bobby's chances much. You certainly like to fantasize though.
I'll just echo those sentiments a little more. I think that Kennedy varies by generation. Those who grew up with him are virtually awestruck by his legacy. He was charismatic and charming for the time. He gave the famous speech at Rice on space exploration at a time in which Americans were looking for any encouragement or words of confidence in an era of fear and uncertainty. Modern historians today however give Kennedy an average grade. The Cuban Missile Crisis, while working out in the end, put us literally on the brink of a nuclear war. The Bay of Pigs was a disaster. Relations with the Soviet Union got worse and some still wonder whether the space race was worth it. As for America's downfall starting then, that's silly. The end of the Cold War brought America to its highest point in history. Never has America literally controlled the fate of international relations they way we did during the first Clinton years until now. (although it seems like we lost a lot of that influence with Bush's moves but that's another debate for another day) Not to mention the level of economic growth both during the Clinton years and even today (although it has become somewhat uneven and unequal now). If you're going to argue that America is set for a collapse then today would be your starting point, not the Kennedy assassination.
I think we may need further definition does the highpoint represent ECONOMICS? Power in the international Field or something a little more subtle. . such as Social Highs? Moral highs? Or . .. was it [or will it] be a point where all of these are at a high level When was America Socially, Economically and Politically at its high point. While the highs for each are different perhaps we are looking at when they all were at an high together. Some seem to see us now as the Lone SuperPower as our high point near supremacy worldwide other may see Roe V Wade as the start of moral Decay other still see the JFK or even Nixon as the 1st steps to the political landscape going south into mire it is now. Rocket River
Feeling No Pain by Paul Krugman The New York Times March 6, 2006 President Bush's main purpose in visiting India seems to have been to promote nuclear proliferation. But he also had some kind words for outsourcing. And those words help explain something that I know deeply puzzles the administration's political gurus: Mr. Bush's dismal polling on economic issues. Now the American economy isn't doing as well as Bush partisans think it is. In fact, since the end of the 2001 recession, the recovery in jobs, output and especially wages has been unusually weak by historical standards. Still, the economy is expanding, so it's impressive just how large a majority of Americans disapproves of Mr. Bush's economic management. Why doesn't Mr. Bush get any economic respect? I think it's because most Americans sense, correctly, that he doesn't care about people like them. We're living in a time when many Americans are feeling economically insecure, but a tiny elite has been growing incredibly rich. And Mr. Bush's problem is that he identifies so totally with the lucky, wealthy few that in unscripted settings he can't manage even a few sentences of empathy with ordinary Americans. He doesn't feel your pain, and it shows. Here's what Mr. Bush said in India, when someone raised the question of the political backlash against outsourcing: "Losing jobs is painful, so let's make sure people are educated so they can find -- fill the jobs of the 21st century. And let's make sure that there's pro-growth economic policies in place. What does that mean? That means low taxes; it means less regulation; it means fewer lawsuits; it means wise energy policy." O.K., so you're a 50-year-old worker whose job has just been outsourced, and Mr. Bush tells you that you should go get a 21st-century education and rejoice in the joys of a lawsuit-free economy. Uh-huh. Actually, Mr. Bush's remarks were even more off-key than they seem, coming during a visit to India. India's surge into world markets hasn't followed the pattern set by other developing nations, which started their export drive in low-tech industries like clothing. Instead, India has moved directly into industries that advanced countries like the United States thought were their exclusive turf. When Business Week put together a list of areas "where India has made an impact ... and where it's going next," that list consisted almost entirely of high-technology activities like software and chip design. What this means is that American workers whose jobs are threatened by Indian competition are, in many cases, people who thought they already had acquired the skills to "fill the jobs of the 21st century" -- but have just discovered that Indians, who are paid about a tenth as much, also have those skills. Am I saying that we should try to stop outsourcing? No. But if you don't feel conflicted about the effects of globalization, if you don't worry about the many losers from the process, you aren't paying attention. And American workers deserve a better answer to their concerns than yet another assertion that a rising tide raises all boats, because that's manifestly untrue. The fact is that we're living in a time when most Americans are seeing little if any benefit from overall income growth, because their share of the economic pie is falling. Between 1979 and 2003, according to a recent research paper published by the I.R.S., the share of overall income received by the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers fell from 50 percent to barely over 40 percent. The main winners from this upward redistribution of income were a tiny, wealthy elite: more than half the income share lost by the bottom 80 percent was gained by just one-fourth of 1 percent of the population, people with incomes of at least $750,000 in 2003. And those fortunate few are the only people Mr. Bush seems to care about. Look at what he had to offer after asserting, in effect, that workers get outsourced because they don't have the right education: lower taxes, deregulation and fewer lawsuits. Funny, that doesn't sound like "pro-growth" policy to me. Instead, it sounds like a wish list for wealthy individuals and big corporations. Mr. Bush once joked that his base consisted of the "haves and the have-mores." But it wasn't much of a joke. His remarks in India show that he really can't imagine what it's like not to be a member of a privileged economic elite. Topplebush.com Posted: March 7, 2006
#1 - you obviously did not watch, or fell asleep, during "Farenheit 9-11". It said a little more than that, and the ironic fact is, in 2006, two years after the film was made, Michael Moore's "stretching of the truth" in that movie (and there was quite a bit of it, especially in regard to the Iraqi insurgency) has now all become the truth. #2 - I think you are putting a little too much faith into Trey Parker and Matt Stone by attaching so much meaning to Team America. Do you think the claymation sex scene had anything to say about fighting terrorists? LOL! But, believe what you want to. America is a free country, and that is what makes it great. However, I suggest you go rent "Bowling for Columbine" and pay particular attention to Michael Moore's interview with Matt Stone in the movie. You'll then see why the second paragraph of your post has completely "jumped the shark" on this thread.
The 50's was the result of the industrial progress made in the latter half of the 40's and it was all due to WWII. That''s why I said every "high" point also involved "low" points. I would like to think our highest point was the time we were attaining the prosperity we are known of, rather than the time when we were living off of it.
Your immaturity doesn't surprise me, Fatty. Sad, but unsurprising. I'm closer to 60 than to 50. Does that help? As for the poorly named poll, I haven't voted in it, nor have I even said that what I was talking about, "started the downfall of America." That is your fevered contribution. I think a fundamental shift in America occured with the deaths of the Kennedy brothers and Dr. King... a shift away from a more progressive democracy that had begun evolving from the post-WWII/McCarthy era of political oppression, a more progressive America moving beyond the striving of those men and women (including my parents), scarred by the Great Depression, who had experienced an unprecendented shared event with World War II, and came out of it determined to never allow another Great Depression to happen again, to never be poor again, to spare their children and grandchildren from such an experience, who's hard work allowed progressive ideas to finally florish. Ideas like civil rights, women's rights, Kennedy's Peace Corps and a host of other programs enacted by LBJ after Kennedy was murdered. The country instead has turned towards a democracy completely obsessed with the cult of the selfishness of the individual within the corporate milieu, at the expense of society. The promotion of that creed of individual greed at the expense of those less fortunate, and the worship of the quarterly profit report above all else. George W. Bush's Administration to the ultimate expression of that bankrupt philosophy. Greed has trumped common sense. Greed, as shouted from the White House, trumps paying for an unnecessary war, paying for needed social services, paying for cleaning up the environment we have wrecked, and continue to wreck. Greed using the cloak of religion to pray at the altar of fiscal madness, obscene budget and trade deficits, and endless tax cuts that benefit the rich and Corporate America far more than the average American. Greed causing the White House to shamelessly lie to America... greed and hubris. America is waking up, just as white Southerners would have awoken to the madness of slavery, given time, and understood that the wealthy were the ones who profited from the practice, not the average Southerner. Certainly, if I were religious, I would pray that America wakes up and throws the cabal out that is hellbent on bankrupting America for my children, and grandchildren. I think America is waking up, finally, and there is no reason we can't return to the hopeful days of the 1960's, when we recognized where we had gone wrong as a country and were taking steps, finally, to do something about it. I don't think America's best days have to be behind it, but the country is running out of time to turn things around. I think we still can. Keep D&D Civil.
Exactly where are you seeing immaturity? I was pretty straight-forward. #1: I know plenty of people who WERE alive when he was shot. Nobody but you has ever said it started the downfall of America. That is in your mind only. #2: You stated dating your wife in the late 70's as a college student. That puts you well closer to 50 than 60. You're the one who chooses to leave their birthdate off their registry. I guess for convenient times like these. Look, face the fact that you are in the infinitessimily small portion of America that believes what you wrote.
Bizarre. You having a bad day? I was married in the late '70's, and met my wife in '74. What does that have to do with anything? Do you think I was 17 when I met my wife? I've never said Jack Kennedy being murdered was "the downfall of America." You did. Some of us went to college for more than four years. How about you? You want to know my age? If you can't figure it out, sedate yourself or something. I wouldn't want you to get upset. Sadly, I look older than I am. Yes, I'm closer to 60 than to 50. Trust me... I'd rather be closer to 50 or, better yet, closer to 40. I'm sorry you weren't a hippie in the '60's, Fatty. Get over it. Bitterness doesn't become you. Keep D&D Civil.
You are romanticising the Kennedy administration because you were young and idealistic at the time. Kennedy was not special. Progressive and socialist ideals go back a long time. At least since Woodrow Wilson who passed two planks of the communist manifesto - A progressive income tax and a central bank. Bad policy from the central bank then helped send the US into the great depression. Which then was an excuse to introduce more socialist policy under FDR. Its also interesting to note that Joe Kennedy was pro fascist as were a lot of people before and during WWII.
The Fed only partly contributed to the Depression. Mainly it was caused by the creation of massive non-performing loans by banks as well as a lack of regulation on certain corporate practices. Not to mention we had the dust bowl at a time when agriculture was still a significant part of the economy. Furthermore, there were other significant structural problems. The Fed screwed up by contracting the money supply in a deflationary environment but by that time the wheels were in motion for a collapse of the economy. Its also interesting to note that Joe Kennedy was pro fascist as were a lot of people before and during WWII.[/QUOTE] I've heard this before but no major historian has ever really substantiated this claim. At least none that I have read. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree the depression was not caused by the Fed. But its policies deepened and extended the depression. I found this article about Joe Kennedy. http://hnn.us/articles/697.html
Good post. Frankly I'm shocked that Deckard is even trying to tell us what happened in the 60s, because from what he has said before he spent the entire decade stoned on the hippie lettuce.
