10 Planks That Romney Won't Put in His Platform, But Ike Did

null

Remember that old TV ad that showed a Native American crying at the sight of environmental pollution?   From whichever room in our Heavenly Father's House  President Eisenhower is looking  down   upon the present Republican Party, he must have tears rolling down his cheeks too.  The presumptive Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney, might  have a hard time inscribing in his platform the following planks Ike had in his in 1956.

1. "That men are created equal needs no affirmation, but they must have equality of opportunity and protection of their civil rights under the law."

2. "America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper."

3." Government must have a heart as well as a head."

4. "Courage in principle, cooperation in practice make freedom positive."

5. "Labor is the United States. The men and women who with their minds, their hearts, and their hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country---they are America."

6. "In all things which deal with people be liberal, be human. In all things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."

7. "The purpose of the Republican Party is to establish and maintain a peaceful world and build at home a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares."

8. "We believe that basic to governmental integrity are unimpeachable ethical standards and irreproachable personal conduct by all people in government."

9."The protection of the rights of workers to organized into unions and to bargain collectively is the fundamental and permenant policy of the Eisenhower Administration."

10. "We will continue to protect by law the assets of employee welfare and  benefit plans so that workers who are their beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits."

Filed under: politics

Comments

Leave a comment
  • It has been the popular thing for Democrats and their media transcribers to reach back to Eisenhower's platform.

    Why not reach back not quite as far and look at Jack Kennedy's platform and actions?

    JFK would not be able to be elected by today's Democrats. He is much too conservative; he even cut taxes, the great "NO" of today's Democrats.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    It was still 77% for the top bracket [$400,000+) in 1964.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Is taking 77% of somebody's earnings fair?

    Why not 100%, seriously?

    The government can take all earnings and then dispense it as needed.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Romney paid about 13%, right? That was fair when you and I are paying more than twice that rate?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    The question was, is it fair to take 77% of a person's earnings?

    Most of Romney's taxes were dividend taxes. If you lived off of dividends, your taxes (now) would be 15%. Romney did not create the tax code. Under Obama's new proposals, your taxes on dividends will be about 43%.

    I don't know about you, but I have stock that pays a dividend, and I am not a 250,000 thousandaire, a millionaire or a billionaire. There are many people who have same little bits of dividend paying stock, and they will see a HUGE increase in the tax rate on those dividends -- for what end?

    Feeding the government beast has gone well beyond a safety net for the less fortunate, and well beyond providing necessary services.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Maybe then dividend income should be progrressively taxed just like ordinary income. That would address your concern.

    Keep it mind the 15% tax on dividends is an all-time low. This has also contributed to the biggest gap between the rich and the rest of us since before the Great Depression.

  • On the other hand, even Nixon was liberal by today's standards. He instituted price controls, something no politician would do today.

    Reagan might have been elected by today's Republicans, but probably would have been the only one. However, the Tea Party doesn't believe in tax reform. Romney apparently does, but only for himself and his kind.

    The problem today is that there is no middle, and some folks on Chicago Now contribute to that.

    The real question is why Romney isn't campaigning on his platform of Romneycare, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional on a federal basis? Heck, even the House committees have moved on from repeal to "can the IRS administer this effectively?"

  • In reply to jack:

    I hear you, Jack. Thanks for the insight.

  • In reply to jack:

    No sane politician would institute price controls, because they do not work. However, that will not stop politicians from trying "back door" price controls. Lessons never learned, I'm afraid.

    The Tea Party does not believe in tax reform? I think they are called the "Tea Party" for an historical reason. "Romeny and his kind"? Why the class envy? Is getting a few more dollars of Romney's money going to do YOU any good? Take all the rich and tax them so they are rich no more, and it is a drop if the debt bucket. That's math.

    Isn't is a great thing to look forward to: the IRS enforcing anything that has to do with health coverage?

    It is amazing to me how we have changed from a country that had a healthy distrust of government to one that needs to have mindless bureaucrats dictating and enforcing every aspect of life. It is what more and more people want, because more and more people are receiving transfer payments from the government, so we will get what we deserve and become chattel on the federal plantation.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    OK. What is the Tea Party plan for Tax reform? Does it favor phasing out the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    No, it does not. The Tea Party favors retaining the Bush tax rates for everybody. Under Obama's plan everybody, not just the so-called 1%, , will be seeing a tax increase.

    Let me put it this way, Aquinas, you were a teacher and are now retired. Hopefully you are comfortable, income-wise. It is all relative. Suppose it was mandated that you are, well, not quite i the 1% but in the "Comfortable Class", and that your tax rate, be it 28% or 33% or whatever, was just not enough. Suppose the new law insisted on 77%. (and 90%) on hundredthousandaires, millionaire and billionaires?

    You worked all your life to get where you are, you give to charities, you volunteer, and now it is not enough. You must give it up, by law. Would you honestly think it fair? Honestly? I can happen you know, with a vote and a stroke of the pen. Just wondering.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Asking the top 1% or 5% to pay a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% instead of 35% does not seem onerous to me. When it was 39.6% under Clinton, we had a booming economy and a budget surplus.

    Moreover, the Bush tax cuts failed to create jobs and produce dramatic growth.

    We could use the new revenue that would come from ending the Bush tax cuts and closing tax loopholes and shelters to reduce the deficit.

  • No worries. Romney won't get elected anyway.

Leave a comment