Ike vs. JFK

[© tweed]

Ike was obviously terrible but he at least didn't try to start a nuclear war to prove he was tough on communism

Yeah, this.

Ike threatened nuclear action in Korea.

http://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/essays/biography/5

[TDAS04]

Eisenhower was more of a coward on civil rights than Kennedy was.  JFK eventually reacted swiftly and passionately after the violence in Birmingham.  While Ike was forced intervene in Little Rock, his heart didn't seem to be into civil rights, and he even refused to meet with the mother of Emmett Till.

[Mechaman]

it's not like Ike didn't do the same things that would anger a left-winger about JFK... inaction on Southern US apartheid, escalated US intervention in Vietnam, backed the Iranian coup...

and, in retrospect, the interstate highway system should not be celebrated.

Yes, the forum revisionism is quite amazing.  Though not surprising.

nb4 90% TAXES. . . oh wait.

[Mechaman]

it's not like Ike didn't do the same things that would anger a left-winger about JFK... inaction on Southern US apartheid, escalated US intervention in Vietnam, backed the Iranian coup...

and, in retrospect, the interstate highway system should not be celebrated.

Yes, the forum revisionism is quite amazing.  Though not surprising.

nb4 90% TAXES. . . oh wait.

GR8 B8 M8.

I'm not going to engage on this.

One thing I'll say though, is that in life you'll find people may... this is going to come as a shock... have different opinions than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they're different than you.

You'll understand when you leave AP History.

I was going to let this one slide, but I am a full time Accountant in his late twenties.  I am not some punk high school kid who picked up an AP History book and thought he was the fount of enlightenment.  And when it comes to "tax rates" I actually know something about them that goes beyond mere political rhetoric or hack observations.

Relevant source: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=665814

They are called "marginal rates" for a reason.  Ike's administration was not taxing "the very rich" anywhere near 90%.  In fact, his administration helped make the tax code on the books a lot more friendlier towards businessmen than the either FDR or Truman's presidencies.  So yeah sure, 91% sounds higher than 90% until you consider that under the 90% taxation there were a lot less items for the rich to itemize or claim as "capital gains".  Here's the thing, Ike's tax plan was largely crafted around trying to get lots of money involved in "investments", pretty much encourage private industry to throw money into the economy (instead of the government largesse of the FDR and Truman presidencies) instead of lose it to taxes.  That would definitely not fall under modern day conservative ideas of taxation, but it certainly didn't fall into the "liberal" camp of the day (which largely advocated for something close to the European welfare states of the time based on a heavy emphasis of class based taxation).

As for Kennedy, I don't think very many people will argue that the infamous tax cut was "liberal" but it certainly is a stretch to think that it was some sort of right wing Reagan cut that some make it out to be.  After a certain point excessive taxation becomes more damage than what it's worth (really to the point you have to practically confiscate it), something Kennedy and many others realized.  And as it is, the Effective Tax Rate during the late sixties (see here: http://www.baldingsworld.com/2012/11/30/the-obsession-with-nominal-tax-rates-or-the-twinkie-romanticism/) was actually relatively around the same amount as it was in the 1950s with supposedly much higher top rates.  I should note though that the Kennedy plan was more pro-consumption and geared towards increasing personal incomes across the board while also encouraging investment spending.  That doesn't necessarily make it more conservative (or more liberal for that matter) than the Ike plan, just a different approach to what was attempted during the 1950s.

I can respect that you like Ike.  He is not my favorite president by a long shot, lol.  I can respect that you have opinions.  However, for a guy who is getting onto me for not realizing that "other people have opinions different than yours" you certainly are no angel yourself.  I have very strong opinions, but on my end the vast majority of them are very well researched.  I apologize for my previous tone, but I don't think that my observations on the flaw in thinking on a number of you isn't without merit.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

it's not like Ike didn't do the same things that would anger a left-winger about JFK... inaction on Southern US apartheid, escalated US intervention in Vietnam, backed the Iranian coup...

and, in retrospect, the interstate highway system should not be celebrated.

Yes, the forum revisionism is quite amazing.  Though not surprising.

nb4 90% TAXES. . . oh wait.

GR8 B8 M8.

I'm not going to engage on this.

One thing I'll say though, is that in life you'll find people may... this is going to come as a shock... have different opinions than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they're different than you.

You'll understand when you leave AP History.

I was going to let this one slide, but I am a full time Accountant in his late twenties.  I am not some punk high school kid who picked up an AP History book and thought he was the fount of enlightenment.  And when it comes to "tax rates" I actually know something about them that goes beyond mere political rhetoric or hack observations.

Relevant source: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=665814

They are called "marginal rates" for a reason.  Ike's administration was not taxing "the very rich" anywhere near 90%.  In fact, his administration helped make the tax code on the books a lot more friendlier towards businessmen than the either FDR or Truman's presidencies.  So yeah sure, 91% sounds higher than 90% until you consider that under the 90% taxation there were a lot less items for the rich to itemize or claim as "capital gains".  Here's the thing, Ike's tax plan was largely crafted around trying to get lots of money involved in "investments", pretty much encourage private industry to throw money into the economy (instead of the government largesse of the FDR and Truman presidencies) instead of lose it to taxes.  That would definitely not fall under modern day conservative ideas of taxation, but it certainly didn't fall into the "liberal" camp of the day (which largely advocated for something close to the European welfare states of the time based on a heavy emphasis of class based taxation).

As for Kennedy, I don't think very many people will argue that the infamous tax cut was "liberal" but it certainly is a stretch to think that it was some sort of right wing Reagan cut that some make it out to be.  After a certain point excessive taxation becomes more damage than what it's worth (really to the point you have to practically confiscate it), something Kennedy and many others realized.  And as it is, the Effective Tax Rate during the late sixties (see here: http://www.baldingsworld.com/2012/11/30/the-obsession-with-nominal-tax-rates-or-the-twinkie-romanticism/) was actually relatively around the same amount as it was in the 1950s with supposedly much higher top rates.  I should note though that the Kennedy plan was more pro-consumption and geared towards increasing personal incomes across the board while also encouraging investment spending.  That doesn't necessarily make it more conservative (or more liberal for that matter) than the Ike plan, just a different approach to what was attempted during the 1950s.

I can respect that you like Ike.  He is not my favorite president by a long shot, lol.  I can respect that you have opinions.  However, for a guy who is getting onto me for not realizing that "other people have opinions different than yours" you certainly are no angel yourself.  I have very strong opinions, but on my end the vast majority of them are very well researched.  I apologize for my previous tone, but I don't think that my observations on the flaw in thinking on a number of you isn't without merit.

Thoughtful comments regarding tax policy.  Personally I always had a level of liking for Eisenhower considering how future Republicans were so more right-wing - he basically governed as a moderate progressive.

[Sumner 1868]

Eisenhower was more of a coward on civil rights than Kennedy was.  JFK eventually reacted swiftly and passionately after the violence in Birmingham.  While Ike was forced intervene in Little Rock, his heart didn't seem to be into civil rights, and he even refused to meet with the mother of Emmett Till.

He waited until the last possible moment, though. Really, if were factoring civil rights, every president after Hayes and before LBJ was totally ineffective.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Kennedy, if only because the two insane warmongering brothers that Eisenhower had heading up the State Department and the CIA.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obviously I was just kidding about the AP History thing, you had said a similar thing about me and other posters at one point ("crack open a history book").

Also about taxation, I'm pretty sure nearly everyone who has paid income taxes knows the marginal aspect of it.

Ike is, in my opinion, one of the top 10 Presidents overall. If you call him an imperialist, then I can't see how JFK wasn't a bigger one, TBH. Every leader of the United States since at least WW1 has been imperialist in some way.

I'm not talking about you specifically, but I've noticed on this forum a tendency to belittle everyone you don't agree with, as if every human being must believe exactly the same thing about everything.

Also, there was another instance where someone was attacked for claiming that Eisenhower wouldn't be a Republican today, as if said poster was making some extraordinary claim. I'm sure you realize that the tax rates during Eisenhower's time for the very rich WELL OUTSTRIPPED what they are now. And his support for New Deal policies is basically as good as you could expect.

On segregation, I would say there's nothing that I find appalling about the change in the 50s, it's what you would expect, gradual change.

     Maintaining existing progressive policies doesn't make one a progressive, or else the same can be said about every President since FDR. After all, Reagan permitted Social Security to continue existing.

     You would have a point with the tax rates if Eisenhower instituted them. However, as Mechaman argued above, Eisenhower worked to undercut them and reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans. Claiming that he supported confiscatory tax rates does not really agree with the reality of what he did as President. Rather, I daresay that his tax policy was archetypically conservative.

[Mechaman]

Obviously I was just kidding about the AP History thing, you had said a similar thing about me and other posters at one point ("crack open a history book").

Also about taxation, I'm pretty sure nearly everyone who has paid income taxes knows the marginal aspect of it.

Ike is, in my opinion, one of the top 10 Presidents overall. If you call him an imperialist, then I can't see how JFK wasn't a bigger one, TBH. Every leader of the United States since at least WW1 has been imperialist in some way.

I'm not talking about you specifically, but I've noticed on this forum a tendency to belittle everyone you don't agree with, as if every human being must believe exactly the same thing about everything.

Also, there was another instance where someone was attacked for claiming that Eisenhower wouldn't be a Republican today, as if said poster was making some extraordinary claim. I'm sure you realize that the tax rates during Eisenhower's time for the very rich WELL OUTSTRIPPED what they are now. And his support for New Deal policies is basically as good as you could expect.

On segregation, I would say there's nothing that I find appalling about the change in the 50s, it's what you would expect, gradual change.

     Maintaining existing progressive policies doesn't make one a progressive, or else the same can be said about every President since FDR. After all, Reagan permitted Social Security to continue existing.

     You would have a point with the tax rates if Eisenhower instituted them. However, as Mechaman argued above, Eisenhower worked to undercut them and reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans. Claiming that he supported confiscatory tax rates does not really agree with the reality of what he did as President. Rather, I daresay that his tax policy was archetypically conservative.

Yes this was largely my point.  Unfortunately I can't say it as simply as you can sometimes.

Shockingly I don't disagree with the notion that Ike might not be a Republican.  Hell, he wasn't one when he was in the army for crying out loud.  I really don't disagree with that notion, especially seeing as how guys like Lincoln Chafee (who imo is not that different ideologically than Ike) are now becoming Democrats largely due to the extremism of the party in general.  I do have bias, but I do recognize that facet.  Arguably, his political independence just a few years before being elected president probably explains how he was so close to Kennedy despite having different party labels.

I never denied Kennedy's imperialism.  As it is, outside the forum I am actually a huge critic of the man.  Hell, even on the forum I've hinted that the Kennedys are not my favorite group of people (far from it actually).  However, my contention is largely with the idea that Ike was less of a hawk than Kennedy.  Really, Kennedy seems to be continuing his foreign policy if anything.

ANd I will try to not belittle people in the future.  I do admit that the "crack open a history book remark" (yes I remember that one) was a bit well rude as hell.  I have a hectic work schedule and not nearly enough time to unwind.  And, well I am kind of a rude ass anyways.  But yeah there ya have it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Reagan had a Democrat congress,

And Eisenhower didn't?

Also, you might want to look into why Eisenhower didn't want the high marginal tax rates to be lowered as much as JFK did. Hint: It has to do with the federal budget.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I should note though that the Kennedy plan was more pro-consumption and geared towards increasing personal incomes across the board while also encouraging investment spending.  That doesn't necessarily make it more conservative (or more liberal for that matter) than the Ike plan, just a different approach to what was attempted during the 1950s.

Back then, at least, encouraging consumption was what liberal (more precisely-Keynesian, or at least Keynes-influenced) policymakers did, especially during recessions, which is when Keynesians would call for fiscal policies that increased the federal budget deficit - for the purposes of stimulating economic activity.

[RINO Tom]

On the issue of Ike's party identification, I remember Cathcon quoting a book called The President's Club along the lines of "Truman was good personal friends with Eisenhower and lobbied him to be the Democratic nominee, to which Ike responded, 'But I'm a Republican.'"

I thought this was very interesting, so I started reading the book while in Barnes and Noble the other weekend, and I will vouch for Ike being a lifelong Republican.  One memorable line during the section on when Truman's and Ike's friendship started to fall apart was Eisenhower writing to a friend, "He (Truman) had never even considered the possibility that I didn't share his political view, and let me tell you I didn't; I have been a Republican my whole life."

[Mechaman]

On the issue of Ike's party identification, I remember Cathcon quoting a book called The President's Club along the lines of "Truman was good personal friends with Eisenhower and lobbied him to be the Democratic nominee, to which Ike responded, 'But I'm a Republican.'"

I thought this was very interesting, so I started reading the book while in Barnes and Noble the other weekend, and I will vouch for Ike being a lifelong Republican.  One memorable line during the section on when Truman's and Ike's friendship started to fall apart was Eisenhower writing to a friend, "He (Truman) had never even considered the possibility that I didn't share his political view, and let me tell you I didn't; I have been a Republican my whole life."

Well I will be damned!  For some reason I assumed that when he was in the army he was an Independent and that was part of the reason that both sides were recruiting him in addition to his war hero status.  I mean the man always came across as a "dynamic conservative" but I assumed that was more his personality as well as trying to mesh his more moderate views with the conservative Republican Congress.

/Mechalearns

[Mechaman]

JFK (Democrat)

Please name one reason why JFK should be admired more than Eisenhower by Democrats. You realize JFK cut taxes, while Eisenhower had top tax rates above 90%, right?

As for your original observation, let me just leave this here:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VXUJErr_vfo


Social Security can pay for good medical care for elderly

The proposal advanced by you and by Sen. Javits would have cost $600 million -- Gov. Rockefeller rejected it in New York, said he didn't agree with the financing at all, said it ought to be on Social Security. Let's look at bills that Vice President Nixon suggests were too extreme. One is medical care for the aged which is tied to Social Security, which is financed out of Social Security funds. It does not put a deficit on the Treasury.
Source: The First Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate , Sep 26, 1960

Versus

Private plans instead of socialization of medicine

I am flatly opposed to the socialization of medicine. The great need for hospital and medical services can best be met by the initiative of private plans. But it is unfortunately a fact that medical costs are rising and already impose severe hardships on many families. The Federal Government can do many helpful things and still carefully avoid the socialization of medicine.
The Federal Government should encourage medical research in its battle with such mortal diseases as cancer and heart ailments, and should continue to help the states in their health and rehabilitation programs.
A limited Government reinsurance service would permit the private and non-profit insurance companies to offer broader protection to more of the many families which want and should have it. On January 18 I shall forward to the Congress a special message presenting this Administration's health program in its detail.
Source: Pres. Eisenhower's 1954 State of the Union message , Jan 7, 1954

Seriously, when you make statements like that why are you so amazed when people join together to point out your deficiency on this matter?  You did not start out by stating "well Ike was more liberal on taxes" you started out by implying there was no real good reason for Democrats to view JFK more positively.  Which given how many issues are out there there are plenty they can choose from and income taxes are not the be all end all of them.

And I'm the one being intolerant of other peoples' opinions?

[Oakvale]

"Why would a Democrat like someone who cut taxes"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Lol @ invading Cuba. Because Bay of Pigs clearly wouldn't have happened with Ike in charge...

[Oakvale]

Lol @ invading Cuba. Because Bay of Pigs clearly wouldn't have happened with Ike in charge...

Indoctrinated people like you may believe that the Bay of Pigs was a carry-over from the Eisenhower government but I for one have vivid memories of the time Kennedy gave in to the generals and virtually all his advisors by ordering the invasion of Cuba, sparking World War III (1962-1965).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Lol @ invading Cuba. Because Bay of Pigs clearly wouldn't have happened with Ike in charge...

Hmm, but if you actually read what I posted, I wasn't comparing JFK to Eisenhower, I was comparing him to liberal expectations.

Reading Comp 101

Well sorry, my bad. It's still a silly thing to say as he, y'know genuinely learnt from his experience and avoided trusting the nuts in the administration (unlike both his predecessor and his successor) too much.

[RINO Tom]

I don't think anyone is arguing Ike was a "huge conservative," let alone as conservative as Barry Goldwater (I mean, literally, in 1964 who was?).  The main argument I've seen is, in essence, that Eisenhower was more ideologically conservative than Kennedy, which I most certainly agree with.  He governed as a moderate, and I guess you could say Kennedy did, too; however, how someone governs doesn't necessarily describe his ideology.  You could make a rather coherent argument that Clinton governed to the right of George W. Bush if you simply use wedge phrases like "running up the debt," but I don't think anyone in his right mind would say that Clinton's personal positions/philosophy is more conservative than Bush 43's.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obviously I was just kidding about the AP History thing, you had said a similar thing about me and other posters at one point ("crack open a history book").

Also about taxation, I'm pretty sure nearly everyone who has paid income taxes knows the marginal aspect of it.

Ike is, in my opinion, one of the top 10 Presidents overall. If you call him an imperialist, then I can't see how JFK wasn't a bigger one, TBH. Every leader of the United States since at least WW1 has been imperialist in some way.

I'm not talking about you specifically, but I've noticed on this forum a tendency to belittle everyone you don't agree with, as if every human being must believe exactly the same thing about everything.

Also, there was another instance where someone was attacked for claiming that Eisenhower wouldn't be a Republican today, as if said poster was making some extraordinary claim. I'm sure you realize that the tax rates during Eisenhower's time for the very rich WELL OUTSTRIPPED what they are now. And his support for New Deal policies is basically as good as you could expect.

On segregation, I would say there's nothing that I find appalling about the change in the 50s, it's what you would expect, gradual change.

     Maintaining existing progressive policies doesn't make one a progressive, or else the same can be said about every President since FDR. After all, Reagan permitted Social Security to continue existing.

     You would have a point with the tax rates if Eisenhower instituted them. However, as Mechaman argued above, Eisenhower worked to undercut them and reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans. Claiming that he supported confiscatory tax rates does not really agree with the reality of what he did as President. Rather, I daresay that his tax policy was archetypically conservative.

Reagan had a Democrat congress, that while malleable to his tax plan, would not allow Social Secuirty to be cut. Obvious he would support cutting it.

Again, you miss nuance in favor of broad strokes. I did not hail Eisenhower as some form of legend, I was just stating that he was more of a liberal than JFK on the tax issue.

Reread what you just said:

"Eisenhower didn't create this system- he worked against it.

Well, JFK did as well, but, um..."

What you said has nothing to do with the point of my post. The point is NOT that Eisenhower was a liberal. It is that he was more of a liberal in a modern sense than JFK on the single issue of taxes.

     Let me get to the point and quit this silly dance. The tax rates during the Eisenhower Administration are unrelated to which party he would belong to if he were around today. I don't care about comparing Presidents or making a top 10 list (crazy, I know), but I wanted to address that brilliant little non sequitor.

[Хahar 🤔]

On the issue of Ike's party identification, I remember Cathcon quoting a book called The President's Club along the lines of "Truman was good personal friends with Eisenhower and lobbied him to be the Democratic nominee, to which Ike responded, 'But I'm a Republican.'"

I thought this was very interesting, so I started reading the book while in Barnes and Noble the other weekend, and I will vouch for Ike being a lifelong Republican.  One memorable line during the section on when Truman's and Ike's friendship started to fall apart was Eisenhower writing to a friend, "He (Truman) had never even considered the possibility that I didn't share his political view, and let me tell you I didn't; I have been a Republican my whole life."

It should be noted that this has nothing in particular to do with ideology.

[Rockefeller GOP]

On the issue of Ike's party identification, I remember Cathcon quoting a book called The President's Club along the lines of "Truman was good personal friends with Eisenhower and lobbied him to be the Democratic nominee, to which Ike responded, 'But I'm a Republican.'"

I thought this was very interesting, so I started reading the book while in Barnes and Noble the other weekend, and I will vouch for Ike being a lifelong Republican.  One memorable line during the section on when Truman's and Ike's friendship started to fall apart was Eisenhower writing to a friend, "He (Truman) had never even considered the possibility that I didn't share his political view, and let me tell you I didn't; I have been a Republican my whole life."

It should be noted that this has nothing in particular to do with ideology.

"Liberal" Republicans in the 1950s were not anywhere near as liberal as liberal Democrats.  Ike was a moderate Republican then, and I don't see any reason he wouldn't be one today.  Would a man of his ideology who WASN'T a war hero win today's GOP nomination?  Now, probably not.

[ChainsawJedis]

Both were good president's in my opinion. Eisenhower is in my top ten though. It's hard to judge Ike's 8 years versus JFK's two and a half. I do admire JFK for the space program, the peace corps, and maintaining a level head with the Bay of Pigs.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Both were good president's in my opinion. Eisenhower is in my top ten though. It's hard to judge Ike's 8 years versus JFK's two and a half. I do admire JFK for the space program, the peace corps, and maintaining a level head with the Bay of Pigs.

I think most could agree with you there.  Cheers.

[All Along The Watchtower]

FWIW, Ike's Secretary of Agriculture was a member of the John Birch Society.