18-07-2016, 07:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 18-07-2016, 08:15 PM by Jim DiEugenio.)
When you have a left as marginalized and as self indulgent and lemming like as what we have in America, it paves the way for the right to do what they have been doing for decades: trying to depict Kennedy as essentially a Cold Warrior who was something like Austrian School on the economy.
When, in fact, nothing could be more distorted about what JFK was doing on both fronts.
For instance, the man Kennedy most respected on economics, his advisor Walter Heller, used to make fun of Milton Friedman and the Austrian School, to him they were a joke. The circumstances of JFK's tax cut, plus the details of who the benefits went to were not at all the same as what the GOP did under Reagan and Bush 2. We didn't have massive deficits back then; the top tax rate was 90 per cent; and we still had a sizable corporate income tax and capital gains tax and estate tax.
As per his foreign policy, I mean, it was so complex and so overarching that until this day, scholars are still excavating how radical it was. As with Poulgrain. I mean isn't it startling how JFK stood by Sukarno until the end, and then how fast Johnson discarded him? And the slaughter that occurred after Johnson isolated him? And how the NY Times, and the rest of the MSM, actually celebrated it? As upside down as a funhouse mirror.
Its pretty clear that the rightwing coalition of publishers, periodicals and broadcast MSM have cooperated to stop this from getting to the public. Their last errand boy was that slut Dallek. Who, over two books and about 1300 pages of mostly pablum, somehow could not find the space to mention the name of Edmund Gullion. Which would be like an historian writing a biography of FDR during the New Deal and leaving out the name of John Maynard Keynes.
I have become convinced that this cover up--about who JFK was and what he was trying to do--has been more pervasive, and successful, than the one about his murder.
When, in fact, nothing could be more distorted about what JFK was doing on both fronts.
For instance, the man Kennedy most respected on economics, his advisor Walter Heller, used to make fun of Milton Friedman and the Austrian School, to him they were a joke. The circumstances of JFK's tax cut, plus the details of who the benefits went to were not at all the same as what the GOP did under Reagan and Bush 2. We didn't have massive deficits back then; the top tax rate was 90 per cent; and we still had a sizable corporate income tax and capital gains tax and estate tax.
As per his foreign policy, I mean, it was so complex and so overarching that until this day, scholars are still excavating how radical it was. As with Poulgrain. I mean isn't it startling how JFK stood by Sukarno until the end, and then how fast Johnson discarded him? And the slaughter that occurred after Johnson isolated him? And how the NY Times, and the rest of the MSM, actually celebrated it? As upside down as a funhouse mirror.
Its pretty clear that the rightwing coalition of publishers, periodicals and broadcast MSM have cooperated to stop this from getting to the public. Their last errand boy was that slut Dallek. Who, over two books and about 1300 pages of mostly pablum, somehow could not find the space to mention the name of Edmund Gullion. Which would be like an historian writing a biography of FDR during the New Deal and leaving out the name of John Maynard Keynes.
I have become convinced that this cover up--about who JFK was and what he was trying to do--has been more pervasive, and successful, than the one about his murder.