I got into a conversation with a Republican and with one question left him speachless

We were talking about America today and all that has gone wrong over the years. In his mind it is Liberalism that ruined our great country. I asked him when it began and he said the sixties. He said the fifties were an ideal time and he wished we could somehow go back to those days. I then said You mean the days when Democrats Controlled Congress? His mouth kind of dropped open and he could not come up with a reply. I just sort of smiled and we about our business.

Is that everyone expected the world to blow up any minute.

There was a whole generation of us who grew up cringing at the sound of a low flying airplane.

The fear of the 50's and 60's is what produced the attitudes of the 70's.

In 1962, during the October Missile Crisis, I think young people (I was 12) had confidence that JFK would set things right.
As he did.
And after that, I don't recall real fear of the USSR.
But after 1968, we wondered about our OWN government. And we've never gone back from that point.

- if Ms Plame were just an insignificant desk jockey why the need to out her?
- if there were no underlying crime why did libby have to lie?
- why did bush let the 9-11 terrorist attack occur?
- because he wanted to be a war president?
- why have those with microphones who support constant war never served in the military?
- why have limbaugh and hannity done absolutey NOTHING for their country?
- why are you ignorant motherfuckers such worthless trash?
- if you got a blowjob and lied about it should you be in jail?

They provide so much material.

notice the yellow lines, these are periods of low tax rates, and recession or worse.




As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

My Parents got thru the Depression with a progressive income tax, we won WW2 with a progressive income tax. The 12 million men & woman that served in the military in WW2 came home, the GI Bill sent vets to college, and they started families. This created the largest, most vigorous and the best educated middle class, in the history of the planet. Labor unions were at the zenith of their power, our eductaional institutions were the envy of the world, corporations made money, the wealthiest made money. The American Dream was born.


From:

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2006/11/tax-rates-middle-class.html

Funny how one of the chief proponents of a flat tax has been Steve Forbes, one of the richest people in the U.S. Looks like he knows very well that

Flat Tax = good for the rich
Progressive tax = good for the average person

has been mostly controlled by republicans. See why it is such a crummy mess.

and the country is not better off, their short sighted greed has done major damage
to this country like Reagan's deregulation of the S&L's, oh well that was a good
idea, or the whole Army Corps of Engineers debacle in New Orleans, tell me that was
not done to benefit the oil drilling off shore, the emphasis was in dredging for oil
tankers not protecting the people of New Orleans.

and let's remember that it was Ike who warned us about the military industrial complex--interesting to ask them why they think today's repukes are going against Ike's advice.

The Democratic party in the South, had a segregationist racist agenda.

It wasn't until the sixties when Johnson became president that real change started to take place.

Of course that was when the South shifted from Democratic to republican, because of the landmark civil rights legislation that Johnson was able to pass

that it would have been any better for black people. Your message is not clear..

became MORE advocates of Civil Rights and personal freedoms, while the republicans went in the opposite direction since that time

I just wanted to point out, that the fifties were not the wonderful time that is being expressed

There was also Joe McCarthey, which has similar echos to what we are going through today.

all Johnson did was finalize civil rights legislation that JFK initiated. If JFK had lived, it would have been JFK's name associated with that legislation.

Johnson was able to use the death of JFK to help drive the 64 act through congress. I think it is an open question if JFK could have achieved the same results.

but he pushed BIG TIME for the Civil Rights ACT, knowing that the Democrats would probably lose the South because of it

That does NOT take away anything from Kennedy when he stood up to wallace, and his position on civil rights, but to try and not give Johnson credit is not right. Johnson could have just as easily not pursued it.

Kennedy also made some major blunders, which could have caused a nuclear war, because of his policy of putting nukes in Turkey, which was why the Soviets were putting nukes in Cuba

that the civil rights legislation Johnson pushed through Congress after JFK's death was the same legislation JFK was working on when he was assassinated.

I do credit Johnson with continuing JFK's push on civil rights, rather than reverse it. But Johnson neither conceived of nor created that legislation. That was JFK's work. Johnson simply continued JFK's work on civil rights. And for that I have always applauded him.

Johnson indeed used JFK's death to push the civil rights legislation: the message was this is what JFK wanted and what he would have done had he lived.

One of you also is mixed up about the missiles in Turkey. Eisenhower put the missiles there. By the time JFK arrived they were already old and outdated. Rather than replace them with newer missiles, he planned to dismantle them completely. It was *not* the reason why Kruschev started building missiles in Cuba - the only reason for that was that Castro had come to power in Cuba just before Kennedy was elected and, knowing of the CIA's plots to kill him, plots hatched at the end of Eisenhower's administration, such as the Bay of Pigs, which the CIA deceived JFK about, Castro aligned himself with the Soviet Union, inviting them to install their missiles on Cuban soil. JFK gave up nothing when he dismantled the missiles in Turkey in exchange for Kruschev's removal of the Cuban missiles because they were obsolete and about to be dismantled anyway.

I lived through those times and followed those events intensely. I was 18 and a freshman in college when JFK was murdered.

Your original post minimized what Johnson did:

"all Johnson did was finalize civil rights legislation that JFK initiated"

THAT WAS A MAJOR acheivement from a Southern Democrat then, and it was more than just finalize it, HE PUSHED HARD through Congress

I never said that Kennedy did not initiate the civil rights legislation, however, I do have doubts that he could have pushed it through Congress as Johnson did

You are correct, it was Eisenhower who put the missles there, but they would have NEVER been removed if Russia had NOT started building the missiles in Cuba. Part of the agreement was NOT to make public the dismantling of the missles in Turkey

The Russians I work with who lived in the Soviet Union at the time, paint an entirely different picture than the story you gave about why Kruschev put the missles in Cuba, and it wasn't just "pravada" propaganda, it WAS about the missles in Turkey

We are also BOTH simplifying the history. There was a major arms race going on at that time between both countries

Incidently, I was in in 8th grade when the Cuban missles crises occurred, and there was real fear if we would even see tomorrow

I had friends die in that fiasco that Kennedy got us involved in called Viet Nam. It doesn't matter if people speculate that Kennedy would not have escalated that war, he recklessly took it over from the French, and setup up subsequent administrations to escalate it.

Kennedy absolutely did *not* "get us involved in Vietnam". We were in Vietnam well before Kennedy was elected (7-8 years prior). You keep thinking that things that happened in the Eisenhower administration were initiated by JFK.

Vietnam had been a French colony prior to 1954. The incident you're referring to when you say JFK "recklessly took it over from the French, and set up subsequent administrations to escalate" was the battle of Dien Bien Phu, in which the Viet Minh, fighting a war against French colonialism, decisively defeated the French in *May, 1954*. JFK didn't take office until January, 1961. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Eisenhower had previously sent U.S. troops to assist the French, and when the French withdrew within the newly created DMZ (a "demiliatrized zone" artificially created to allow their safe withdrawal) after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu, Eisenhower not only refused to withdraw U.S. troops, he began treating the DMZ line as if it were a national boundary between two new Vietnams, one north of the DMZ and one south of the DMZ. Eisenhower was the one who set up puppet governments in Saigon, asserting control of the land south of the DMZ which the U.S. began calling "South Vietnam". Specifically, Eisenhower installed Bao Dai as a Japanese military dictator in Saigon in 1954.

All JFK did was (1) continue to send advisers rather than combat troops there, despite enormous pressure from the Pentagon to send more troops, and (2) set up a plan to withdraw all troops and advisers from Vietnam before the 1964 election. That has always been one of the reasons for his assassination suggested by those wondering about the conspiracy to kill him. It was Johnson who escalated the Vietnam war in January, 1965 with massive troop deployments of new American troops after promising in his 1964 election campaign not to do so.

As for your Russian friends, perhaps their memory has been rendered faulty by Soviet revisionism (Kruschev probably saved face at home by issuing propaganda in Pravda that he went into Cuba with his missiles as a way of forcing the U.S. to dismantle their missiles in Turkey, and that his effort was victorious - when in fact that was never a formal issue until JFK and his brother RFK offered the dismantling of those missiles to a Soviet agent as a means for Kruschev to save face at home at the time of our blockade of Soviet ships), much as yours apparently has by American revisionism, blaming JFK for things that happened during the Eisenhower administration (you've offered up several such misconceptions). Sure, Kruschev never liked our missiles in Turkey, but he would never have installed missiles in Cuba without a specific invitation from Castro. Castro was not some Soviet agent. He was his own man, and decided by himself to align himself with Russia.

Cuban Americans in Miami, Fla. still believe the CIA lie that JFK broke some promise to them when he didn't send U.S. military planes to assist them in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, another blunder set up during the Eisenhower administration. All due to American revisionism. JFK never made that promise to anyone - he specifically insisted to the CIA that he would never do so. The CIA lied to the Cuban Americans pretending Kennedy had promised military support.

And JFK *was* determined to dismantle the outmoded missiles in Turkey well before the Cuban Missile Crisis. They simply weren't needed any more, given the modern buildup of missiles in the NATO countries during those years.

As for your continued complaint about Johnson/JFK/civil rights, it appears to me that you're merely quibbling over the wording I chose in my posts, which I continue to stand by. I have given Johnson his due credit where it was due. You have already acknowldged my point that JFK initiated the legislation Johnson got credit for. Had he lived, JFK certainly would have utilized Johnson's influence in the south to get the legislation passed.

I was, BTW, a senior in high school in October, 2002 during the cuban missile crisis, and you're right about the level of fear it inspired. Our 4 year age difference, while insignificant now, was apparently very significant back then when these events were unfolding. While my point about age may have seemed patronizing to you, it was absolutely correct: you were *not* "of age" (at least 18) when JFK died. You were a freshman in high school.

small farmers were going broke all over the place. They also had a very flimsy safety net which encouraged more poverty instead of ending it. I was never so happy as when the 60s came along.

and the forties too, and it didn't really matter which party had the power...things were hell for me and mine.

And, let me add, I lived in Cleveland , Ohio and Meridian , Miss.. There were some pretty big differences, but the bottom line was the same...if you were Black : get back !

Some people want to make it appear as though the 50's were such a wonderful time ( and in many ways it was ) but those feelings were mostly driven by the euphoria of winning WWll , the emergence of a real middle class ( helped greatly through the Democratic GI Bill ) as well as women raising their hem lines and driving cars. ( they got real independent during the war ). New things like TV ,and the mass marketing it produced combined to make the world seem pretty bright. But there was always that element of our country that wanted to keep things ( mostly social ) the way they always had been. ( mostly poor white men )

With the Election of JFK, it seemed to be a natural progression of the New Frontier, but there would be a tremendous backlash, and from 1968 up to today, those regressive forces have struck back with a vengeance. The Republican party and it's corporate agenda found themselves a good ally in the social dwarfs of our times ( dixiecrats, racist, homophobes, male chauvinist etc. )So we are told, " this is where we should stay." Yearning to go backward...conserving the past.:evilfrown:

I'm always astounded when I hear a Black person referred to as a conservative. "What in the world would a Black person want to conserve from that era ? " But that's a topic for another thread....

but equal luncheonette. In 1962 my Mom & I , (white) walked in to get lunch, we walked into the black section... in Georgia. Opps.

Just a couple of stupid North east liberals. Looking back I know that whites killed other whites for straying.

jaysunb, you bring up a great point, one that bears remembering, by all.

In my view it was the sixties that brought real change

based on religion or gender or skin color, and inferior educational opportunities to minorities, and (too many other social ills to name).

It seems people have convient memories

However, It was the Democratic party that evolved from that time, while the republican party regressed

era and somehow "better" than now. No era is without problems and I find it intellectually lazy when people try to gloss over a lot.

"those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it,"

The OP caused a zen moment, where the the little mice running the wheels in his brain slammed to a stop. In that moment enlightenment might come. Probably won't, but you have to at least try and give it a chance. It's your duty. ;)

Rational arguments with all the facts tend not to cause zen moments.

And then your only path is extinction. :scared:

It seems that a bunch of pot smoking hippies who didn't have any real power or run anything changed everything and caused 40 years of decline despite a rightwing renaissance that is now in its 27th year, if we count it as starting in 1980, or its 39th year if we figure it started with the election of Nixon. That was some heavy shit we were smoking.

We might even rival The Clenis in our ability to affect all events past present and future.

bush would have never been president

The Viet Nam war and the draft also helped move people

Mario Savio started it all IMO with his very first "sit in" at Berkeley for wearing what type clothing they wanted. With that famous "sit in" the Power was revealed. After that other injustices were addressed. Womens rights (burning bras), racism, Vietnam, then along came Timothy Leary and Owsley. Wow.... Purple Owsley...I'm still here.. which is one of the most amazing things....

the 60's shows what primal energies were afoot in those days! From Savio to the Beatles--or whatever--those were incredible times, and I think the wingers are absolutely right to fear the forces that were unleashed in that era. Nixon, Reagan, even the pro-NAFTA, rightward-of-Nixon, non-inhaling Clinton, and certainly the current crowd--rode to power on the crest of fearful reaction to what happened in the 60's. To put it in Hegelian terms, the 40's to 60's were the thesis, the Nixon-to-Bush period were the antithesis, and it is only now, at last, that maybe the synthesis can arise.

....on the outside, it looked like an ideal period. They just didn't talk about things that didn't fit into that ideal image.

The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap
by Stephanie Coontz (Author)

The 50's were no picnic. Those that dream for the 50's either never lived through them, were lucky, or are assholes who want a warped world back.

It's a great book. Worth reading. Really shows how quickly a country''s perception of itself can become completely full of shit, and how that perception can shape future decisions.

This person was obviously not old enough to actually remember them, and not smart enough to have read about them. The fifties were a decade of war and recession, segregation and rural poverty, fear of nuclear annihilation, anti-communist witch hunts, suppression of jews and intellectuals and women, suppression of homosexuals, and the rise of the military-industrial complex. Yes, the 50s were a reasonably good economic period for the middle class, but that was largely the result of progressive government policies such as the GI bill, and, as others here have pointed out, a truly progressive federal income tax. Usually when ignorant people pine for some abstract, idealized notion of the 50s, it's either racist wistfulness for the good ol' days of segregation, or it's some dumbass yearning for "a simpler time." As if there's ever been a simpler time. Slower, maybe, but not simpler.

My father got out of the Army Air Corps (from Azores) got his college education and first mortgage through the GI bill. This meant that I no longer had extended family around me but, shared a bedroom with two brothers (six children in a ranch)

My father worked at Pratt and Whitney as he told us it was on the list of initial targets for the Atomic Bomb.

We didn't lock our house or car. Children were taught that police were friendly helpers (one actually brought my brother home when he rode is donkey into town). On the other hand the neighbors were beating their children and it was not reported (injuries requiring treatment at hospital).

As children we had to go into the basement of the school for air raid drills to "protect" ourselves from the Atomic Bomb by covering our heads with our arms! They had already told us if we see a flash we were probably going to be vaporized. Every time the siren went off find a ditch and dive into it.

It was very similar to what we are going through today without the perks.

Fear, fear, fear, terra, terra, poverty

And point out that Ike was no neocon either.

Luckily you were talking to a dumb freeper - who that was able to work on.

rush, is he?

NT!