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.
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.
Poll
