Jeff Sachs, an academic with a spine

[Robert Morrow]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As noted above, Jeff Sachs has admitted that he used to get invites to be on the MSM.  As he should have since he is a prominent academic from the Ivy League who was involved in international politics.

Now he does not get so many invites.  And so I had to take my article from his columns at Common Dreams, and his appearances on Napolitano, and Carlson.

I came to the deduction that the two reasons he has been sidelined are 1.) His opposition to certain stances in the Democratic Party which has become sort of Neoconnish and 2.) His outspoken stance today on the JFK case.  I mean he is really kind of coming out kinds of guns blazing. He calls it a rogue CIA operation, and lends credence to Landis. Says the country has not been the same and that a cover up ensued instantly to conceal a high level plot.

No wonder Rachel Maddow does not want him on anymore.

I mean whew.  Yippee!

Speaking of NYT reporter Judy Miller, who btw is Jewish. A credible reporter once told me she in the run up to the Iraq War WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR with Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, who btw is Jewish.

I don't know if this "rumor" is true, I just know a credible reporter told this to me years ago.

Dick Cheney would leak to Judy Miller at the NYT, then he would cite anonymous sources have told the NYT that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

And, also, Zionist Jews in 2003 were pushing the Iraq War very, very hard. And the biggest example of that is Benjamin Netanyahu who addressed both houses of Congress and told them to go to with with Iraq.

Like Pat Buchanan once said, Congress is an Israeli occupied territory.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, the only other prominent academic I know who is this candid about the JFK case is Jamie Galbraith.

And with him, that is due to his father.

I think Sachs probably owes this to his relationship with Sorenson before Ted passed.

But whatever the reason, its salutary.  I mean compare this to the fruity Chomsky.

[Robert Morrow]

James Galbraith is a big fan of the works of John Newman.

“On the consequences of the Kennedy coverup by” James Galbraith, 11/23/2063

On the consequences of the Kennedy coverup | By James K. Galbraith | Defend Democracy Press

In the fourth volume of his biography of Lyndon Johnson, The Passage of Power, Robert Caro remarks that the Warren Commission was suited to its own time, but not to ours.  He does not say precisely what he means by this; herewith my own interpretation.

We know for fact that Chief Justice Earl Warren acted under Johnson’s instructions to squelch suspicions directed at Castro’s Cuba or the Soviet Union – who were in fact uninvolved – and so to defuse pressures for “retaliation” leading to nuclear war.  We know that in such a war, at that moment, the US would have held an overwhelming advantage, and we know that US war planners back in 1961 had already plotted such an attack for late 1963, to Kennedy’s disgust. We therefore know that when, on the flight back from Dallas, Johnson remarked to Bill Moyers, “I wonder if the missiles are flying,” he meant American missiles.  In the opening pages of his own memoir, The Vantage Point, LBJ comments on the nuclear danger at that moment. It is not naive to believe him.

The plot was theatrical. By the strongest accounts, it was led at the highest levels by military officers and intelligence officials, with Cuban exiles, mafiosi, Texas oligarchs and the City of Dallas in supporting roles. The evident purpose, when one considers that Kennedy could have been killed with impunity at any time with a poisoned syringe, was to traumatize the country and to intimidate LBJ. The first goal was accomplished; the second, only in part. Johnson kept the nukes locked up and the Marines out of Cuba. The price was the full-scale war in Vietnam. This, Kennedy had decided in October, 1963 to foreclose, by ordering that all US troops (and other units, meaning advisers and the CIA) be withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1965. In February 1965, after the attack on Pleiku – about which Senator Mike Mansfield expressed severe suspicions – Johnson yielded and stayed alive, moving to end the war only when the elite consensus behind it crumbled in 1968.

To exonerate the innocent and protect the guilty, the Warren Commission launched a phenomenal exercise in mass deception. Though crucial documents remain secret, the basic technique was not secrecy.  It was confusion, incoherence, misdirection, and irrelevance at epic scale. This was combined with a culture of exclusion. To survive in American public life, ever since, requires adhesion to the Commission’s story until retirement or, at best, discreet silence. Anything else, and one is relegated to a side stage. For practical purposes this has proved sufficient; the physical elimination of witnesses, investigators and dangerous political dissidents – including Robert F. Kennedy – appears to have ceased some time ago.

The Big Lie of Kennedy’s murder continues to haunt us. It is not the first Big Lie in US history. But it was the first in present living memory and of the mass media and nuclear age.  It therefore stands in unique contradiction to the US national self-image of functioning democracy governed by rational self-interest. At some level, on every side of disputes over this matter, everyone knows this. The basic divide remains: between those who admit the conspiracy, and those who deny it.

The country has thus dredged an unbridgeable division between its leadership and the larger population, to the extent that the latter consists of ordinary thoughtful people with common sense, curiosity and some understanding of basic physics, such as can be grasped by firing a rifle.  As a condition of entry to the elite, one must commit to propositions that no careful person can believe. National leadership must, and does, exclude anyone unwilling to keep quiet on such matters. And it is also, therefore, in elite interest to reduce traits of common sense, curiosity and physical reality in the active population.

Can a country be run – successfully, that is – by an elite for whom moral and intellectual corruption is the ticket of entry? The answer would appear to be yes – for a certain amount of time. The US is not alone in having or in having had this problem. But there are at least three limiting factors.

The first is that the habit of Big Lies is addictive.  While truth is, in some sense, an indivisible and unique commodity, lies can be multiplied. They are infinitely diverse, malleable, and competitive.  Over time, their quality will degrade and with them, the quality of those who make it to positions of power. This phenomenon has often been observed elsewhere and is now far advanced in the US.

Second, the success of a Big Lie strategy depends on the scale of the required elites in relation to the larger population.  If a country can be governed by a handful of oligarchs in (say) finance, technology, real estate, energy and their political minions, the rest of the population may be left to apolitical pursuits. But should there ever arise a need for mobilization, for mass action, for military volunteers or capable conscripts, for an industrial workforce, for a scientific surge – problems will arise. You cannot suddenly bring uncorrupted and perhaps incorruptible people to positions of responsibility and expect them to play by rotten rules.

Third, reality may at some point become the limiting factor.  For the United States, at the moment, reality may be breaking through on four fronts. There is disillusion with claims that the economy is in fine shape. There is the realization that China is now the world’s leading industrial and economic power, having overtaken the United States within the past twenty years.  There is a dawning realization that Russia is once again a superpower, not to be defeated militarily or by sanctions.  And there is the horror of crimes against humanity in the Gaza strip.  If these factors and their consequences cannot produce a revolt against elites for whom Big Lies, over 60 years, have become a way of life and a method of government, it’s hard to imagine that anything could.

* James K. Galbraith teaches at The University of Texas at Austin.  For those interested in reading in detail on the Kennedy case, he recommends the works of John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, Oswald and the CIA,  and the four volumes so far specifically on the assassination: Where Angels Tread Lightly, Countdown to Darkness, Into the Storm, and Uncovering Popov’s Mole. 

 

[Robert Morrow]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, the only other prominent academic I know who is this candid about the JFK case is Jamie Galbraith.

And with him, that is due to his father.

I think Sachs probably owes this to his relationship with Sorenson before Ted passed.

But whatever the reason, its salutary.  I mean compare this to the fruity Chomsky.

Ted Sorensen? He was such a pathetic slug on the JFK assassination. Did he ever speak out about it? Maybe at the very end of his life.

On the night of Saturday, 11/23/1963 Lyndon Johnson tried hard to convince Ted Sorensen, a close aide to JFK, that the JFK assassination was a foreign conspiracy and he (LBJ) was worried about his own safety and security

 QUOTE

           On that Saturday evening, in Johnson’s vice presidential office in the Old Executive Office Building across the street from the White House, with his aide Bill Moyers sitting in, LBJ and I talked, as he had requested during his phone call the night before. We had scheduled the meeting earlier, but I bumped into LBJ that afternoon in the West Wing basement and he was running late.

          Almost immediately, LBJ asked, “What would you think of the possibility that a foreign government was involved in this?” “Do you have any evidence?” I asked. He handed me a government memorandum, not identifying any specific source, saying in effect that a foreign government had hoped to assassinate President Kennedy. “Meaningless,” I said. He persisted. Concerned that there was an international conspiracy, he raised the issue of his own safety and security.

 UNQUOTE

 [Ted Sorensen, Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History, p.380]

 

[James DiEugenio]

Know how good Jeff Sachs is?

He is going to have a segment on his book review show with Monika Wiesak, who wrote America's Last President.

In case you are unaware of how good this book is, just read this:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/last-president

Edited June 15 by James DiEugenio

[Matthew Koch]

On 6/13/2024 at 6:05 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Sachs has his points, but too often he seems an apologist for Putin, Hamas and Xi. Even Houthis. 

Sachs' 'Shock Economics' is responsible for the Russian Oligarchs because the country had to sell off it's industries on the cheap. Everything that happened under Yeltsin is what created the space that Putin filled by restoring national pride. So, IMO I think Sachs plays both sides and I don't respect people who do that. 

Kennedy is America first and Sachs uses JFK's death to further his lame American Empire thesis 

 

 

22 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Ted Sorensen? He was such a pathetic slug on the JFK assassination. Did he ever speak out about it? Maybe at the very end of his life.

Not to my knowledge and he had a stroke at the end of his life which prevented him from working with Jeffery Sachs on his book.

Sorenson was one of the finalists to run the CIA under Carter. 

 

[Matt Cloud]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Sachs' 'Shock Economics' is responsible for the Russian Oligarchs because the country had to sell off it's industries on the cheap. Everything that happened under Yeltsin is what created the space that Putin filled by restoring national pride. So, IMO I think Sachs plays both sides and I don't respect people who do that. 

Kennedy is America first and Sachs uses JFK's death to further his lame American Empire thesis 

 

 

Not to my knowledge and he had a stroke at the end of his life which prevented him from working with Jeffery Sachs on his book.

Sorenson was one of the finalists to run the CIA under Carter. 

 

2,000 × 1,330

 

 

How Biden Tanked Ted Sorensen's Nomination for CIA Director

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Sachs' 'Shock Economics' is responsible for the Russian Oligarchs because the country had to sell off it's industries on the cheap. Everything that happened under Yeltsin is what created the space that Putin filled by restoring national pride. So, IMO I think Sachs plays both sides and I don't respect people who do that. 

Kennedy is America first and Sachs uses JFK's death to further his lame American Empire thesis 

 

 

Not to my knowledge and he had a stroke at the end of his life which prevented him from working with Jeffery Sachs on his book.

Sorenson was one of the finalists to run the CIA under Carter. 

 

MK-

Oh, I probably agree the sudden disposal of state-owned Russian assets created a kleptocracy. 

But lately I have been re-considering the view that everything that happens globally is America's/allies fault, or that there are virtuous people being suppressed.

The Russians have a stellar track record of decades upon decades of terrible governments. 

Nearly all Islamic nations are regressing, from Tunisia, to Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, down the line. Oppression and terror are so common as to be banal in Islamia. 

Xi is taking China down the road ever-increasing repression.

Are Western liberal democracies responsible for all of this?

And would you rather live in a Western liberal democracy than any of the aforementioned nations? 

Maybe Russia is a crap-hole due to the Russian people, Haiti due to Haitians. Lebanon due to Lebanese. 

The best large nation to live in the world is probably Japan. Does America get credit for that? Well, a little bit, but it was the Japanese that did that. 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Ben, why even talk to this guy?

He has an agenda a mile wide and about an inch deep.

Kennedy, America First?  What baloney.  Here is the first paragraph from Wiki about America First:

America First refers to a populist political theory in the United States that emphasizes the fundamental notion of "putting America first", which generally involves disregarding global affairs and focusing solely on domestic policy in the United States. This generally denotes policies of isolationism, American nationalism, and protectionist trade policy.^[1]

^{The last person I know to run on this was Pat Buchanan.}

And Naomi Klein was very unfair to Sachs.  She never got his side of what really happened.

But how does this relate to what Jeff says about Kennedy in his book?

Or interviewing Monika about her excellent book?

Anyone who considers Ira Stoll a serious commentator on Kennedy has no credibility.

I will soon be doing a two part essay at Substack about Kennedy and his opposition to the Neocons and Ira Stoll types.

I am still trying to figure out why Koch is here.  What interest has he shown in the actual murder of JFK?  None that I can see.

 

Edited June 16 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben, why even talk to this guy?

He has an agenda a mile wide and about an inch deep.

Kennedy, America First?  What baloney.  Here is the first paragraph from Wiki about America First:

America First refers to a populist political theory in the United States that emphasizes the fundamental notion of "putting America first", which generally involves disregarding global affairs and focusing solely on domestic policy in the United States. This generally denotes policies of isolationism, American nationalism, and protectionist trade policy.^[1]

^{The last person I know to run on this was Pat Buchanan.}

And Naomi Klein was very unfair to Sachs.  She never got his side of what really happened.

But how does this relate to what Jeff says about Kennedy in his book?

Or interviewing Monika about her excellent book?

Anyone who considers Ira Stoll a serious commentator on Kennedy has no credibility.

I will soon be doing a two part essay at Substack about Kennedy and his opposition to the Neocons and Ira Stoll types.

I am still trying to figure out why Koch is here.  What interest has he shown in the actual murder of JFK?  None that I can see.

 

JD-

Well, I try to be cordial or collegial to every earnest EF-JFKA participant. I block one or two, but only after sustained unreasonable personal animosity is expressed.

MK has been cordial to me, so I respond in kind. 

OK, MK is something of an America Firster.

BTW, I support higher import tariffs, and limited US interventionism, so I suppose there is a bit of "America First" in me too. I also support a secure border. (BTW, the presidential candidate, whose name cannot be mentioned, is largely on board with these ideas too). 

I confess I am not up to speed on Naomi Klein or Ira Stoll. 

I do think we should concentrate more, inside the EF-JFKA, on the JFKA and the RFK1A. 

I always enjoy your contributions to the EF-JFKA. I read each one twice or more. 

I deeply respect your studies on JFK's foreign policies. I largely concur, especially on the horrendous results of the wars in SE Asia (six million dead, and infinite human suffering---for what?) 

But, when we get into legacies, and how the JFKA and RFK1A changed the course of history and so so, we are bound to get into "political" debates. 

MK is entitled to his views. They are not always my views. 

As I said, I am re-evaluating what has been America's influence in the world, and what are just seemingly immutable attributes of many nations. 

Haiti is Haiti, Russia is Russia, Japan is Japan. Islamia is Islamia. 

I live offshore now. America is seen as important...but not more than that. Domestic forces are much more important within a nation. 

You are a top JFK and JFKA scholar. You are large enough to be gracious to others who may be struggling a bit. Some things just have to be shrugged off. 

 

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

MK-

Oh, I probably agree the sudden disposal of state-owned Russian assets created a kleptocracy. 

But lately I have been re-considering the view that everything that happens globally is America's/allies fault, or that there are virtuous people being suppressed.

The Russians have a stellar track record of decades upon decades of terrible governments. 

Nearly all Islamic nations are regressing, from Tunisia, to Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, down the line. Oppression and terror are so common as to be banal in Islamia. 

Xi is taking China down the road ever-increasing repression.

Are Western liberal democracies responsible for all of this?

And would you rather live in a Western liberal democracy than any of the aforementioned nations? 

Maybe Russia is a crap-hole due to the Russian people, Haiti due to Haitians. Lebanon due to Lebanese. 

The best large nation to live in the world is probably Japan. Does America get credit for that? Well, a little bit, but it was the Japanese that did that. 

 

Ben give this a watch when you got nothing to do it's some Kennedy egg heads talking with the fortune 500 how the common man should run his life.

 

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben, why even talk to this guy?

That how long the list of source cited material I have cited which you have avoided like a video where JFK says he is America first 

 

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But how does this relate to what Jeff says about Kennedy in his book?

Or interviewing Monika about her excellent book?

Anyone who considers Ira Stoll a serious commentator on Kennedy has no credibility.

I will soon be doing a two part essay at Substack about Kennedy and his opposition to the Neocons and Ira Stoll types.

I am still trying to figure out why Koch is here.  What interest has he shown in the actual murder of JFK?  None that I can see.

 

 

Monika's book isn't that good (It's a book for beginners) and doesn't say anything of value on the JFK assassination. 

IRA Stoll thesis, which James is using out of context since I said his 'book was lacking but the Thesis is correct' is JFK is Conservative by today's standard. I am comparing Jeffery Sachs to JFK which is proving Ira's thesis 

 Avoidance and asking people what someone said isn't very adult behavior.  IMHO

Edited June 16 by Matthew Koch

[James DiEugenio]

When we start relying on writers who work for the likes of Newsmax, and the New York Sun to render us their picture of who Kennedy was and where he was on the political spectrum, we might as well pick up our chips and go home. Comparing Kennedy to the likes of Gerald K. Smith, Lindbergh, and Pat Buchanan?

In studying Kennedy's career for years, going on decades,  I can safely say that Kennedy was the most liberal president since FDR.  And I base this of the study of about 55 books about Kennedy's foreign policy, his ciivl rights program and his economics.

The idea that Kennedy was an America First isolationist is so fruity that it is simply preposterous. Kennedy had a wide, sweeping, and visionary view of what America's role should be with Europe, in the Third World, and with the communist world at that time.  He was activist in foreign policy and, like Roosevelt, would be willing to butt heads with our allies to be fair to the struggling nations of the Third World e.g. the French/Algeria conflict, advocating for Indonesia vs the Dutch at the New York Agreement.  

But he saw Berlin as the trip line in Europe, therefore the Berlin Crisis.  He was going to preserve the Atlantic Alliance. Which is the likely reason he was willing to go to the brink during the Cuban Missile Crisis, since he though Nikita wanted to trade for West Berlin.

I also think that Pat Buchanan would have had problems with the rapprochement policy JFK had with Cuba and the USSR. 

JFK was an internationalist, one who was willing to work through the UN and his colleague the admirable Dag Hammarskjold. Who Kennedy called the greatest statesman of the 20th century.  Because Dag thought the UN could be a forum for the have not nations against the haves.  And he used it that way.

Do we have to go into civil rights?   Kennedy did more for civil rights in three years than FDR, Truman and Ike did in three decades. I mean is anyone here going to say that Ike was an advocate for civil rights? Please, Ike advised Warren to vote against Brown v Board.  Bobby Kennedy, at his U of Georgia Law Day speech, spent 25 minutes explaining how the Kennedy administration would support Brown v Board. And President Kennedy signed the first affirmative action order in US history.

Kennedy was a Keynesian in economics.  His chief economic advisor Walter Heller, used to make fun of Friedman and his ideas. And it was Kennedy who first began to design the War on Poverty, not Johnson.  Ever hear of a guy named David Hackett?  And JFK hated running deficits.  HIs tax cut was done to stave off a coming recession, and its benefits were more aimed toward the middle and working class.  (Battling Wall Street, by Donald Gibson, p. 23)And the reason he decided to go with it was because Heller told him it would take longer to counter a recession with capital expenditures.

The right has done many things to adulterate history.  Like saying we should and could have won in Vietnam. Claiming JFK as one of their own is probably the worst thing of all. But its the way a hack like Ira Stoll gets his ticket punched. That is the way the game is played over there. Those should not be the rules of the game here.

Edited June 16 by James DiEugenio

[Matt Cloud]

33 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

When we start relying on writers who work for the likes of Newsmax, and the New York Sun to render us their picture of who Kennedy was and where he was on the political spectrum, we might as well pick up our chips and go home. Comparing Kennedy to the likes of Gerald K. Smith, Lindbergh, and Pat Buchanan?

In studying Kennedy's career for years, going on decades,  I can safely say that Kennedy was the most liberal president since FDR.  And I base this of the study of about 55 books about Kennedy's foreign policy, his ciivl rights program and his economics.

The idea that Kennedy was an America First isolationist is so fruity that it is simply preposterous. Kennedy had a wide, sweeping, and visionary view of what America's roll should be with Europe, in the Third World, and with the communist world at that time.  He was activist in foreign policy and, like Roosevelt, would be willing to butt heads with our allies to be fair to the struggling nations of the Third World e.g. the French/Algeria conflict, advocating for Indonesia vs the Dutch at the New York Agreement. 

But he saw Berlin as the trip line in Europe, therefore the Berlin Crisis.  He was going to preserve the Atlantic Alliance. Which is the likely reason he was willing to go to the brink during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he though Nikita wanted to trade for West Berlin.

I also think that Pat Buchanan would have had problems with the rapprochement policy JFK had with Cuba and the USSR. 

JFK was an internationalist, one who was willing to work through the UN and his colleague the admirable Dag Hammarskjold. Who he called the greatest statesman of the 20th century.  Because Dag thought the UN could be a forum for the have not nations against the haves.  And he used it that way.

Do we have to go into civil rights?   Kennedy did more for civil rights in three years than FDR, Truman and Ike did in three decades. I mean is anyone here going to say that Ike was an advocate for civil rights? Please, Ike advised Warren to vote against Brown v Board.  Bobby Kennedy, at his U of Georgia Law Day speech, spent 25 minutes explaining how the Kennedy administration would support Brown v Board. And Kennedy signed the first affirmative action order in US history.

 

Kennedy was a Keynesian in economics.  His chief economic advisor Walter Heller, used to make fun of Friedman and his ideas. And it was Kennedy who first began to design the War on Poverty, not Johnson.  Ever hear of a guy named David Hackett?  And JFK hated running deficits.  HIs tax cut was done to stave off a coming recession, and its benefits were more aimed toward the middle and working class.  (Battling Wall Street, by Donald Gibson, p. 23)And the reason he decided to go with it was because Heller told him it would take longer to counter a recession with capital expenditures.

The right has done many things to adulterate history.  Like saying we should and could have won in Vietnam. Claiming JFK as one of them is probably the worst thing of all.

 

 

Nonsense. 

"President Kennedy has made no final decision on whether to send Congress a deficit spending package to meet the problem of continuing unemployment. A number of proposals, including youth conservation camps, are still under study and the final decision will depend in part upon the size of the additional amounts that the President decides to recommend for defense and space. The President is being urged by some to make a national speech detailing the sacrifices that Citizens can make in response to the Soviet challenge.”  

--- Charles Bartlett, Albany Times Union, May 19, 1961.

 

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp70-00058r000200140100-3

 

 

The recession was already present in 1961, with unemployment at almost 7 percent.   The problem was Fiscal Drag -- high unemployment and a high federal budget surplus.  This is the economics behind the War on Poverty.  The Federal Government had to find ways to spend money.

 

"The more immediate impact of this econometric revolution in the United States is that the Federal government will be endowed, more often than not, with a substantial, and within limits predictable, rise in revenues available for social purposes. Significantly, the war on poverty began in the same year of the great tax cut. The President was not forced to choose between the measures; he was able to proceed with both. In that sense, the war on poverty began not because it was necessary (which it was), but because it was possible.

The singular nature of the new situation in which the Federal government finds itself is that the immediate supply of resources available for social purposes might actually outrun the immediate demand of established programs. Federal expenditures under existing programs rise at a fairly predictable rate. But, under conditions of economic growth, revenues rise faster. This has given birth to the phenomenon of the "fiscal drag" - the idea that unless the Federal government disposes of this annual increment, either by cutting taxes or adding programs, the money taken out of circulation by taxes will slow down economic growth, and could, of course, at a certain point stop it altogether.

Thus, assuming the continued progress of the economy in something like the pattern of recent years, there is likely to be $4-5 billion in additional, unobligated revenue coming in each year. But this increment will only continue to come on condition that it is disposed of. Therefore one of the important tasks to which an administration must address itself is that of devising new and responsible programs for expending public funds in the public interest.

This is precisely the type of decision-making that is suited to the techniques of modern organizations, and which ends up in the hands of persons who make a profession of it. They are less and less political decisions, more and more administrative ones. They are decisions that can be reached by consensus rather than conflict."

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/uploads/public/58e/1a4/9e9/58e1a49e939a5835456873.pdf; 

See also:

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/uploads/public/58e/1a4/e79/58e1a4e799207144651746.pdf

 

____

 

"in opposition to h.j. res. 1: the balanced budget amendment"

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this will be the third and last of the 
papers I have presented to the Senate in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 1, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States to require a balanced budget.
  In the first paper I described the development of fiscal policy in 
postwar America, following the huge swings of the Great Depression and 
the Second World War. I described an economic profession growing in 
understanding and reach. I made the point that I saw this happen. In 
1961, I joined the Kennedy administration. I became Assistant Secretary 
of Labor for policy planning and research. Unemployment that year 
reached 6.7 percent, the second highest it had been since annual rates 
were first recorded in 1948. There was a sense of emergency. But also a 
confidence that we knew what to do. The Federal Government was running 
a surplus. The result was fiscal drag. We would contrive to spend more 
and tax less, so as to stimulate the economy toward full employment.
  We did and it worked. By 1966, unemployment dropped to 3.8 percent 
and by 1969, it reached 3.5 percent. A level, incidentally, never 
reached since.
  Those were heady days. In 1965, in an article in ``The Public 
Interest'' entitled, ``The Professionalization of Reform,'' I noted 
that the Council of Economic Advisers forecast for GNP for 1964 was off 
by only $400 million in a total of $623 billion, while the unemployment 
forecast was on the nose. Recalling events that followed World War II, 
I noted that in 1964 the unemployment rate in West Germany was 0.4 
percent, and not much higher in the rest of Western Europe. Indeed, 
unprecedented low levels for peacetime.
  There had been some social learning. In the first year of the Nixon 
administration, contractionary fiscal policies were put in place 
designed to cool off an overheated economy following the buildup for 
the Vietnam war. Then in 1972 expansionary policies put in place by 
then-Director of OMB George P. Shultz stimulated the economy following 
the 1970-71 recession--the first 
[[Page S2481]] since that which Kennedy inherited from Eisenhower.
  In truth, the record is extraordinary. The great issue of the 19th 
century--the economic swings accompanied by vast unemployment--the 
issue which gave rise to the radical totalitarian movements that were 
to prove the agony of the 20th century--that issue has been resolved. A 
chart prepared by the Joint Economic Committee illustrates this with 
great clarity. Between 1890 and 1945, real growth in the economy 
dropped by 5 percent on three occasions, dropped by 10 percent on two 
occasions, and on two other occasions dropped almost 15 percent. Since 
1945, there have been four tiny declines, and only one serious one, 
that of the recession of 1982, say 2 to 3 percent. Hardly worth noting 
in the pre-war economy.
  We had ``fine tuned,'' as the phrase went. The contractionary 
policies of 1969 were, in retrospect, a little too large; while the 
expansionary policy of 1972 came a little too late. But the theories 
seemed sound and the timing likely to improve.
  Both theory and practice centered on the problem of underconsumption 
and the avoidance of what was seen as the problem of persistent 
cyclical surpluses in the Federal budget.
  Then came the Reagan Revolution. Earlier doctrines were succeeded by 
supply side economics. To say again, I saw this happen. Huge deficits 
appeared which were not cyclical, and which were of no possible use. "

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1995-02-10/html/CREC-1995-02-10-pt1-PgS2457.htm

 

[Robert Morrow]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

When we start relying on writers who work for the likes of Newsmax, and the New York Sun to render us their picture of who Kennedy was and where he was on the political spectrum, we might as well pick up our chips and go home. Comparing Kennedy to the likes of Gerald K. Smith, Lindbergh, and Pat Buchanan?

In studying Kennedy's career for years, going on decades,  I can safely say that Kennedy was the most liberal president since FDR.  And I base this of the study of about 55 books about Kennedy's foreign policy, his ciivl rights program and his economics.

The idea that Kennedy was an America First isolationist is so fruity that it is simply preposterous. Kennedy had a wide, sweeping, and visionary view of what America's role should be with Europe, in the Third World, and with the communist world at that time.  He was activist in foreign policy and, like Roosevelt, would be willing to butt heads with our allies to be fair to the struggling nations of the Third World e.g. the French/Algeria conflict, advocating for Indonesia vs the Dutch at the New York Agreement.  

But he saw Berlin as the trip line in Europe, therefore the Berlin Crisis.  He was going to preserve the Atlantic Alliance. Which is the likely reason he was willing to go to the brink during the Cuban Missile Crisis, since he though Nikita wanted to trade for West Berlin.

I also think that Pat Buchanan would have had problems with the rapprochement policy JFK had with Cuba and the USSR. 

JFK was an internationalist, one who was willing to work through the UN and his colleague the admirable Dag Hammarskjold. Who Kennedy called the greatest statesman of the 20th century.  Because Dag thought the UN could be a forum for the have not nations against the haves.  And he used it that way.

Do we have to go into civil rights?   Kennedy did more for civil rights in three years than FDR, Truman and Ike did in three decades. I mean is anyone here going to say that Ike was an advocate for civil rights? Please, Ike advised Warren to vote against Brown v Board.  Bobby Kennedy, at his U of Georgia Law Day speech, spent 25 minutes explaining how the Kennedy administration would support Brown v Board. And President Kennedy signed the first affirmative action order in US history.

Kennedy was a Keynesian in economics.  His chief economic advisor Walter Heller, used to make fun of Friedman and his ideas. And it was Kennedy who first began to design the War on Poverty, not Johnson.  Ever hear of a guy named David Hackett?  And JFK hated running deficits.  HIs tax cut was done to stave off a coming recession, and its benefits were more aimed toward the middle and working class.  (Battling Wall Street, by Donald Gibson, p. 23)And the reason he decided to go with it was because Heller told him it would take longer to counter a recession with capital expenditures.

The right has done many things to adulterate history.  Like saying we should and could have won in Vietnam. Claiming JFK as one of their own is probably the worst thing of all. But its the way a hack like Ira Stoll gets his ticket punched. That is the way the game is played over there. Those should not be the rules of the game here.

I happen to agree with a lot of that. I wonder how Lyndon Johnson's Texas Oil power brokers (such as D.H. Byrd, who was also a military contractor who feasted off of the Vietnam War) would respond to JFK's and Walter Heller's plan to rip away special tax breaks for the oil industry?

Meaning: would they murder JFK because of that or murder him for trying to get rid of Lyndon Johnson as VP for a second term?

John Kennedy to Walter Heller about the oil industry: “Those robbing bastards, I’m going to murder them.”

Russ Baker:

Kennedy was locked in grim battle with oil and steel and banking interests, hated by mining giants and soda pop companies, resisting pressures from the burgeoning defense industry, and on and on. The list of the offending and the aggrieved was endless. Executives were taking out ads to excoriate him, and even showing up at the White House to practically spit in his face. “Those robbing bastards,” JFK told Walter Heller, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, when Heller mentioned the oil and gas industry. “I’m going to murder them.”—as cited in Family of Secrets, from audiotape held by John F. Kennedy Library and Museum - See more at:

http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/06/29/carlyle-groups-latest-acquisition-the-jfk-library/

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

When we start relying on writers who work for the likes of Newsmax, and the New York Sun to render us their picture of who Kennedy was and where he was on the political spectrum, we might as well pick up our chips and go home. Comparing Kennedy to the likes of Gerald K. Smith, Lindbergh, and Pat Buchanan?

Image saying this and not understanding who JFK's father was or what he is Famous for? James who is JFK's Father and what is he famous for being fired for? 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

When we start relying on writers who work for the likes of Newsmax, and the New York Sun to render us their picture of who Kennedy was and where he was on the political spectrum, we might as well pick up our chips and go home. Comparing Kennedy to the likes of Gerald K. Smith, Lindbergh, and Pat Buchanan?

In studying Kennedy's career for years, going on decades,  I can safely say that Kennedy was the most liberal president since FDR.  And I base this of the study of about 55 books about Kennedy's foreign policy, his ciivl rights program and his economics.

 

Ira Stoll book JFK conservative is based on JFK doing these three things: Being Religious (anti abortion), his Tax Cut, and his Nationalism. 

JFK's policy of keeping American Troops out of conflict qualifies as "America First" James seems to think it's still the 90's where he can act like Donald Trump never came along and did populist things that include Keysian Economics. 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

The right has done many things to adulterate history.  Like saying we should and could have won in Vietnam. Claiming JFK as one of their own is probably the worst thing of all. But its the way a hack like Ira Stoll gets his ticket punched. That is the way the game is played over there. Those should not be the rules of the game here.

JFK revisited more like JFK revisioned, James is choosing revisionist history and can't answer my questions or defend the points I have brought up about his JFK is like Jeffery Sachs revision which is further shown to be revision by the fact that Naomi Klien's book "Shock Doctrine" is about Jeffery's Sachs Iraq Shock policies. 

 

James DiEugenio is in support of the Bush Policies in Iraq that are based off of Jeffrey Sachs' 'Shock Economics' Whew! 

 

 

Edited June 16 by Matthew Koch