tv 1960 Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN September 25, 2016 6:30pm-7:31pm EDT
and i think one of the most abundant issues and this years election is education. fostering it from a young age is something that is important and there are some discrepancies between the two candidates we need to expound upon. >> voices from the road on c-span. each week until the 2016 election, or to the white house rewind brings archival coverage of presidential races. campaign, john f. kennedy and incumbent vice president richard nixon square off in the first-ever televised presidential debate. after opening statements, the candidates took questions on their leadership experience, communism at home and abroad, medical care for seniors and the economy. defeated richard nixon in a close election with less than 1% of the popular vote separating the two. the hour-long debate, the first
of four, took place in chicago. television and radio stations of the united states and their affiliated stations are proud to provide facilities or discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the two major candidates for the presidency. the canada's me no introduction. the republican candidate, vice and and the democratic candidate, senator john f. kennedy. according to rules set by the candidates themselves, each man shall make an opening statement of approximately eight minute duration and clothing statement of partially three minutes. questions will answer picked by a panel of correspondence. the first discussion of the series of four joint experiences . for the first opening statement by senator
john f. kennedy.
>> the question of whether this nation could exist have slave or half free, and the election of 1960 with the world around us, the question is whether the world will exist half slave or half sleeve -- free, but it will move in the direction of freedom and the
direction we are taking her mother will move in the direction of slavery. i think it will depend upon what we do here in the united states and the kind of society that we build, the kind of strength we maintain. we discussed tonight domestic issues. i would not want that to be an implication to be given if this is not involve directly our struggle with mr. kirchoff. he is in new york and he maintains the communist offensive throughout the world
because of the productive power of the soviet union itself. the chinese communist have always had a large population. they are important and dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their country. the kind of country we have here , the kind of society we have, the kind of strength we build be the defense of freedom. if we do well here, if we meet our obligations, if we are moving ahead, then i think freedom will be secure around the world. if we fail, then freedom fails. i think the question before the american people is, are we doing as much as we can? are we as strong as we should be? are we as strong as we must be if we're going to maintain our ?ndependence and if we will hold up the hand of friendship to those who look to us for assistance and survival. i should make clear that i do not think we are doing enough. i'm not satisfied as an american with the progress we are making. this is a great country but i
think it could be a greater country. this is a powerful country but i think it could be more powerful. 50% of satisfied to have our steel mill capacity unused. i'm not satisfied with the united states had last year the most rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society. economic growth means strength and vitality. it means we are able to sustain our defenses, it means we are able to meet our commitments abroad. haveot satisfied when we over $9 billion worth of food and some of it is rotting even though there is a hungry world and 4 million americans wake every month for a food packet from the government which averages five cents a day per individual. i saw cases in west virginia where children to come part of their school lunch in order to feed their families because i don't think we are making our
obligations towards these americans. i'm not satisfied when the soviet union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are. i'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid when our children go to school part-time. i think we should have a system second to none. i'm not satisfied when i see men like to me hopper in charge of the largest union of the united states still free. i'm not satisfied when we are going to develop the natural resources of united states to the fullest. here the united states, which developed the tennessee valley, we have built the other dams, the present rate of hydropower production, that is the homework of an industrialized society. soviet union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are. these are all the things that i think in this country can make our society strong.
not satisfied until every american enjoys his full constitutional rights. and puertoaby born ricans, some of our cities, he has about one half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. he is one third as much chance to get through college as a white baby. third ofhas about a the chance to be professional man and half a chance to be a house owner. four times as much chance will be out of work in his life. i think we can do better. i don't want the towns of any americans to go to waste. i know that there are those who say that we want to turn everything over to the government. i don't settle. -- at all. i want the state to meet the responsibly. i think there also a national responsibly. the argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last 25
years. the people of united states haveidually cannot developed the tennessee valley. collectively, they could have. a cotton farmer in georgia or peanut farmer or dairy farmer, he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand. working together, and effective government the program can do so. 79 americans who live overseas to five on an average social security check of $70 and must, they are not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the social security business. i do not believe in big government, but i believe ineffective governmental action -- in effective governmental action. it is how we will move ahead and maintain freedom. i think we can do a better job. we going to have to do a better job if we are going to meet the responsible to -- response
abilities -- responsiblities. if united states fails, the whole cost of freedom fails. i think it depends on what we do here in this country. frequent roosevelt was a good neighbor in latin america was because he was a good neighbor in the united states. because they felt they american society was moving again. i want us to recapture the image. i want people in latin america and africa and asia to start to look to america to see how we are doing things. kirchoff like at the chinese communist. that is the obligation upon our generation. 1933, frequent roosevelt said that this generation of americans has a rendezvous with destiny. art generation of markets has the same rendezvous. the question now is, can freedom be maintained under the most
severe attack in as ever known?i think it can be. in the final analysis, it depends on what we do here. i think it is time we started moving again. >> now the opening statement by vice president richard m nixon. the things that senator kennedy has said, many of us can agree with. that we no question cannot discuss our internal affairs thewithout recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on her international position. that thiso question nation cannot stand still because we are in a deadly competition, a competition but only with the men in the kremlin, but the men in peking. we are ahead in this competition. when you are in a risk, the only way to stay ahead is to move
ahead. i subscribed completely to the spirit that senator kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit of the united states that we should move ahead. where do we disagree? the implication of his remarks and the statement that he has made on many occasions during his campaign. to the effect that the united states has been standing still. we heard tonight the statement made that our growth and product wasgress -- the lowest in any industrial nation in the world. last year, 1958. that happened to be a recession year. when we look at the growth of gnp this year, a year of recovery, we found it was one of the highest in the world today. more about that later. howing to this problem of the united states should move ahead and where the united
states is moving ahead, i think it is well that we take the advice of the very famous campaigner, let's look at the record. if united states standing still? is it true that this administration has been an administration of said nation? -- retreat and stagnation? is it true that in the field of electric power and all the fields he is mentioned that we have not been moving ahead? we have a comparison we can make. we have the record of the truman the 7.5 years and of the eisenhower administration. when we compare these records, and areas that senator kennedy has discussed tonight, i think we find that america has been moving ahead. let's take school. we have built more schools in these last 7.5 years and we both in the previous 7.5.
, we havetric power developed more hydroelectric power in the 7.5 years been developed in any previous administration in history. let us take hospitals. we find that more have been built in this demonstration in the previous administrations. the same is true of highways. in terms that we can all understand, we often hear gnp discussed and when we compare the growth of this administration with that of the previous administration, then there was a total growth of 11% over seven years and in this administration, a growth of 19%. that shows there has been more growth in this administration been credited. let's not put it there. in terms of the average family. what has happened to you? fivewages have gone up
times as much in the eisenhower administration and the truman administration. what about the prices you pay? up -- pageyou went went up five times with the truman administers and then eisenhower. this means that the average family income went up 15% and eisenhower years against 2% in the truman years. this is not standing still. as good as this record is, may i emphasize it is not enough. numberord is nothing -- something to stand on, it is something to build on. in building on this record, i believe that we have the secret. the secret for progress. we know the way to progress. i think, first of all, our own record proves that we know the way. senator kennedy has suggested that he knows the way. i respect the sincerity with which he makes that statement. on the other hand, let me look
at the various programs that he offers, they do not seem to be new. the programs of the truman administration. during the course of the evening, he might indicate those areas in which his programs are not in -- our new. what kind of programs have been brought? programs that will expand educational opportunities. give to all americans their equal chance for education for all of the things which are necessary and due to the hearts of our people. which will -- improve medicare and is better handled. i are notnnedy and disagreement, we both want to help the old people. we want to see they have medical care. of higherat the means
education will reach that goal. whatever it is, whether it is the field of housing, health, medical care, schools or development of electric power, we have programs which we believe will move america forward and build on the wonderful record that we have made over these past 7.5 years. when they look at these programs, might i suggest that in evaluating them come we often have a tendency to say, the test of a program is how much you are spending. i will concede that in all the areas to which i have referred, senator kennedy would have the federal government spent more than i will. the cost of the democratic platform runs $13 billion a year more than we are present spending to maximum of 18
million -- billion dollars a year for a refund content from will cost a minimum of $4 billion a year more in maximum of $5 billion. does this mean his program is better than our stucco not at all. it is not a question of how much the federal government spends, it is not a question of which government is the most, it is a question of which administration does the right thing. in our case, i do believe that 80 programs will stimulate million free americans. i believe the program that senator kennedy has will have a tendency to stifle those creative energies. his program would lead to the stagnation of the powers that we had a -- need in this country. the final point, senator kennedy has suggested that we lack compassion for the poor, old and
others unfortunate. let us understand that his motive and mine are sincere. poor, what it means to be i know what it means to see people unemployed. i know senator kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as i do. our disagreement is not about the goals are americans, only about the means to reach those goals. >> thank you. a complete the opening statements. now the candidates will answer questions or comment upon one another's answers to question. the correspondents. nbc news. >> charles warren, which will news. stewart, cbs. >> abc news. >> the first question for senator kennedy. the vice president and his
campaign has said that you are naive and at times immature. he has raised the question of leadership, why do you think people should look for you rather than the vice president? >> we came to the car is together in a converted six. we both served in the later committee. for 14 years we have served. our experience in government is comparable. i think the question, the programs we advocate. what is the party record that we leave? i come out of the democratic party which has produced woodrow and frequent don't know roosevelt and -- produced roosevelt. mr. mexico that of the republican party. nominated by it. throughout most of these last 25 years, there republican leadership has opposed federal ,id for education, medical care development of the tennessee valley and natural resources he
is an effective leader of his party. i hope he would grant me the same. the question before us, which part of the and which party do we want to leave the united states? >> mr. common -- nexen? >> no comment. >> your cap and the value of your eight year experience. whether that experience was as an observer or just spent or participant or initiator. what proposals have you made that have been adopted by the administration? >> is would be difficult to cover them in 2.5 minutes. i would suggest that these proposals could be mentioned come after each of my foreign trips, i have made recommendations that have been adopted. after my first trip abroad, i strongly recommended that we increase our exchange program as ofy relate to exchange
leaders in the labor field and information field. after my trip to south america, i made recommendations that a agency be setng up with the south american nations would like much better. treat all the countries of the world the same. i have made other recommendations after each of the other trips. after my trip abroad to hungry, i made some recommendations with regard to the hunkering refugee situation which was adopted. within the administration, as chairman of the president's committee on high stability and economic growth, i've had the opportunity to make which have been adopted within the administration and which i think have been affected. -- effective. kennedy suggested that that committee had not been effective i would suggest that while we do not take the credit for it, i
would not presume to come since the committee has been born, the priceline has been held within the nazis. united states. >> somewhat satisfactory -- unsatisfactory, he talked about the treatment administration, mr. chairman keep the office in 1944 at the end of the war. the difficulties facing us during the time of transition, price controls were lifted in 1946. it is difficult to use the overall figure of those hard years and compared them to the last eight years. i prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last 20 years of the democrats and eight years of republicans to show overall growth. , i'm notrd to price aware that the committee based recommendations with regard to controlling prices. the exchange of students and
labor unions, i'm chairman of the subcommittee and i think it's one of the most unfortunate faces of our policy is the very minute number of exchanges we have had. we did come forward with a program of students for the congo of over 300 which is more than the federal government had for all of africa the previous year. i don't think that we have moved with sufficient vigor. >> senator kennedy. >> during your brief speech a few minutes ago, he mentioned farm surpluses, i would like to ask this, presidential candidates make promises to farmers, lots of people don't understand why the government pays farmers to not produce certain crops or pay pharmasset they overproduced. why can't the farmer operate like the businessman?
overproduced cars, uncle sam does not by surplus, why does -- >> if the government moved out of the program and -- through it -- with your support, you would have economic chaos. support him he would have economic chaos. economiculd have chaos. many of them bring their crops in and livestock the same time, only if you purchase or his by or bylk -- purchasers note. they are not in a position to bargain effectively. i think the experience of the 20's has shown what a free market can do to agriculture. if the agricultural kolodny -- economy classes, the rest of united states will collapse. the farmers are the number one market for the automobile industry. it is the number one market for steel. the farmers economy, if they continue to decline, and i think
you would have a recession. the case for the government intervention is a good one. my objection to present farm policy is that there are no effective controls to bring supply and demand and to better balance. to dropping of the support limit production has not worked. we now have the highest surpluses, $9 billion worth come higher tax load from the treasury for farmers. hasink that is farm policy failed. my policy will work and will be for effective supply and demand. that can only be done through governmental action. i suggest that in those days a commodities, the federal government after endorsement by the farmers attempt to bring supply and demand into the balance. goals. i think the program has failed.
i must say after reading the vice president speech, i don't believe it is very much from -- i don't think it provides effective governmental controls. it is tied to the average market price of the last three years. i do not believe that this is a sharp enough reached from the past to give a success for the future. with senator kennedy insofar as his suggestion to what he has done on the farm program. he has made this objection that what we need is to move in the direction of more government control, and suggesting that would also mean raising prices that the consumers pay for products and imposing upon the farmers controls on acreage far more than the have today. i think this is the wrong direction. i do not think this has worked in the past. do not think it will in the
future. the program i have advocated is one which departs from the present program that we have. it recognizes that the government has irresponsibly to get the farmer out of the trouble he presently is in because the government got them into it. that is the fundamental reason why we can't with the farmer by himself. the farmers produce surpluses because the government has asked him to. now that we have the surpluses, it is our response ability to indemnify the farmers during that time. until we get the surpluses off the farmers back, we should have a program such as i announced which will see that part in income -- farm income comes up. the program kennedy has suggested, but one that would pay the farmer in time. >> the next question to vice
president nixon. president, the question of executive leadership is an important issue, i would like to follow the question, republican campaign slogans on signs around the country, it is experienced that counts. imply that you had more governmental decision-making experience than your opponent. asked to give one major idea appears that he adopted and his reply was, if you give me a week, i might get one. i government or. -- remember. i'm wondering if you can clarify which version is correct, the one put out by republican campaign leaders or the one put out by president eisenhower? that if youuggest know the president, that was probably a facetious remark.
statement is concerned, i think would be improper for the president of theto disclose the instances in which members of his official family had made recommendations and i have made them through the years to him which he has accepted or rejected. the president has always maintained that he is entitled to get what advice he wants for his cabinet and other advisors without disclosing that to anybody. i can only say this, through the years, as set on the national security council and been in the cabinet, met with the dislike of leaders, met with the president when he made a great decision with regard to lebanon and other matters. the president has asked for my advice and i've given it. sometimes my advice has been taken, sometimes it is not. i do not say that i have made the decision and i would say that no president should ever allow anybody else to make the major decisions.
the president only makes the decisions. all of his advisers give counsel when asked. as far as what experience counts and whether that is experienced that counts, that is not for me to say. i can only say that my spirits is there for the people to consider in senator kennedy's is there for the people to consider. we came to congress the singer and his experience has been different from mine. mine has been in the executive branch, his has been legislative. i would say that the people now have the opportunity to evaluate his against mine and i think we will abide by whatever the .eople decide >> what our goals are for the united states and what ability we have to implement those goals. abraham lincoln came to the theidency in 1860 after
house of representatives and been defeated in the senate. there is no certain road to the presidency. no guarantees. if you take one road or the other you will be successful. i have been in the caucus for 14 years. i have voted the last eight years while the vice president was presiding over the senate. i've made decisions over 800 times. the question is, which candidate will meet the problems that the united states will face. senator kennedy, in connection with the problems of , you called for expanding some welfare programs, schools, teacher salaries, medical care, you also call for reducing the federal debt.
i'm wondering how you would go about paying the bill for all of this. i did not advocate reducing the federal debt because i do not believe he will be able to reduce the federal debt very much. i think you have a heavy obligations to protect our security which we have to meet. therefore i never suggested we should he able to reduce the debt. never. >> you suggested reducing interest rate but hell. -- would help. policy hasney contributed to the slowdown of our economy which helped bring the recession of 54 which made the recession and has put our economic ability. about ourms i talk fiscally sound. medical care i would put under social security. the vice president and i disagree on this.
it would have cost $609 by the million by-- $600 the government. the program i advocate would have put medicare through social security and would have been paid for by the social security system. federal aidsupport to education and teacher salaries. that is a good investment. i think we have to do it. tax,urden on the property it will provide and ensure that many of our children will not be adequately educated in many of our teachers not compensated. there is no greater return to an economy or society and an educational system second to none. natural resources, i would pay as you go. they would be balanced and the power of revenue would bring back sufficient money to finance
the project in the same a of the tennessee valley. i believe in a balanced budget. the only conditions under which i would unbalance the budget isn't there was a great national emergency or recession. with steady economic growth, a 5% economic growth would bring by 1962, $10 billion extra. whatever is brought in, i think we can finance essential programs within a balanced what it. -- budget. >> he is referring to the democratic platform which mentioned cutting the national debt. it should be pointed out that it is not possible particularly with the proposal senator kennedy has advocated. as a matter fact, it would be necessary to raise taxes. senator kennedy points out that as far as one proposal concerned, one for medical care, that would be financed out of social security. that is raising taxes for those
who pay social security. he points out that he would make a as you go the basis for national resources. itional resources which support. whenever you procrit money for this money, you have to pay now an appropriate the money while they pay out, does not mean the government does not have to put out money. in all of his proposals, senator kennedy, they will result in one of two things. taxes or heterisk has to unbalance the budget. if you balances the budget, that means inflation and that will be a cruel blow for the very people, older people we have talked about. pay for school construction, i favor that. than paying rather teacher salaries. i favor that because i leave that is the best way to aid our schools without running any risk
of federal government telling our teachers what to do. mr. vice president, you mentioned schools, yesterday you asked for a program to raise education standards. this evening, he talked about education. 1957,id it back in salaries paid to school teachers are nothing short of a national disgrace. higher salaries for teachers is important and the situation if it is not practically to national disaster. you refuse to vote in the senate in order to break a tie vote when the single vote would have granted salary increases to teachers. i wonder if you could expect thn that?plained >> the reason i voted against having the federal government paid teacher salaries was
probably the very reason that concerned senator kennedy when interior of this year he said -- in january said that he would not aid's teacher salary. why should there be any question about the federal government aiding teacher salaries? i take took it then and it now for this reason, we want higher teacher salaries. we need higher teacher salaries. we also want her education to be free of federal control. when the federal government has , and myr to teachers opinion, it will acquire the power to set standards and tell the teachers what to teach. i think this would be bad for the country. i think it would be bad for the teaching profession. there is another point that should be made. i favor higher calories procedures -- salaries for
teachers. the way that you get hired salaries is to support school construction which means that all the local school districts have money which is free to raise the standards for teacher salaries. i should also point out, once you put the response ability on the federal government for paying a portion of peter sellers, your local communities and states are not going to meet the responsibly as much as they should. we have seen the local communities assume more of that responsible to. teacher salaries have gone up .0% in the last eight years this is not enough. it should be more. i do not believe that the way to get more salaries to teachers is to have the federal government get in with a massive program. my objection here is not the cost. my objection is the potential
cost in controls and eventual freedom for the american people. but given the federal government power over education. that is the greatest power a government can have. when the vice president quotes me, i did not believe the government should pay teacher sellers. that was not the issue before the senate. the issue before the senate was the money given to the state, the state that could determine whether the money would be spent for school construction or teacher salaries. on the question, we disagree. i voted in favor of that. providedhat that assistance to our teachers for the salaries without any chance of federal control. it is on that boat that we disagree. he defeated the proposal. i do not want the federal
government paying teacher sellers directly. if the money goes to the state, the state can determine whether goes to school construction or teacher sellers. you protect the local authorities over the school board. that was a sound proposal and that is why i supported it and i regret that it did not pass. there have been statements made by the democratic platform with money and i'm in favor of don balancing the budget. that is wrong. -- an balancing the budget. that is wrong. the democratic caucus has reduced spending by $10 billion. that is not my view. andcan do these programs they should be carefully drawn within a balanced budget. senator, human promising the budget that if you are elected you will push through congress bills on medical aid,
minimum wage bill, federal aid to education. in the postconvention session of the congress, when you held the possibility that you could be president and when you had overwhelming majority, you cannot get action on these bills. how do you feel you will be able to get them in january? >> we did pass in the senate a bill with a dollar $.25 minimum wage. it failed because the house did not pass it. two thirds of the republican's in the house where did against it -- voted against it. two thirds of the democrat sustained. were threatened by a veto. it is difficult to pass any bill when the president is opposed. is one president needs third plus one in either the house or senate. we passed a federal aid to education bill in the senate.
it failed to come to the floor of the house of representatives. it was killed in rules committee. the members of the rules committee for republicans 20 with two democrats voted against the education bill to the floor. fort -- voted for it. republicans did not. care, this is the same fight that has been going on for 25 years. we want to tie to social security. we offered an amendment to do so. 44 democrats voted for it. one republican voted for it. we were informed at the time that if it was adopted, the president would be telling. -- veto it. support for the programs. if you send a republican president and democratic majority and threat of a veto
hangs over the congress, you will continue what happened in the august session which is a clash of parties. >> comment? >> my views are different. i don't see how does possible such one third of a body as the republicans have in the house and senate to stop two thirds if the two thirds are adequately led. i would say that when senator kennedy refers to the action on the house rose committee, there a democrat and four republican. democrats and four republicans. further, the veto power of the president of the senator and colleagues to get action misses the mark. when the president exercises the veto power, he has to have the people behind him. not just a third of the congress.
if the majority of the members of congress felt that these particular puzzles were good issues, the majority votes of democrats, why did they not pass them and get a veto? bills werewhy these not passed was not because the president was against them, it was because the people were. it is because they were too extreme. i'm convinced that the proposals i have, field of health and education and welfare, because they are not extreme, because they will come push -- accomplish the end without too many dollars, they could be approved next time. >> vice president nixon. youer: you take it -- >> take it you can work better with democratic majorities.
we expect to pick up some votes in the house and senate. we would hope to control the house in this election. we cannot control the senate. leadsident will be able to and get his program through to the effect the us the support of the country and people. opinions we get the that and getting programs through the house and senate is really a question of legislative and i going. it is not that. whenever a majority of the people are for a program, the house and the senate respond and whether the house and senate is democrat or republican, if the country will have voters for the candidates of the presidency and proposals he has made, i believe that you will find that the
president would be able to get his programs approved through congress. i also think as far as senator kennedy has said, again, the question is not simple he won of veto, heential be to -- must always wrote about a president can't stop anything unless he has the people behind him. the reason president eisenhower because have been sustained in the reason the bill has not sent to him, they will be vetoed because the people and the congress know the country is behind the president. let's look at the bills he suggests that were too extreme. $1.25 perbill for hour. i do not think that is extreme. thirds, reports of the rebel
concern the house of representatives voted against that. with the federal aid to feettion, because of the of teacher salaries, it was not a bill that met the needs. that was less than recommended. it was not an extreme bill. we could not get one republican to join. four of the eight democrats voted to send it to the floor of the house. i don't think the democrats are united in their support of the program. i do say majority are. i would say a majority of republicans are opposed. if it is medical care for the ages -- aging. is tied to social security. it does not put a deficit on the treasury. the proposal advanced by you would have cost hundreds of ninth of dollars in mr. rockefeller objected it he said it ought to be in social security. -- itjuster programs
shows the difference between our party. one party is ready to move. kennedy, on another subject, coming as them is often described as an ideology or belief that exists somewhere other than in the united states. just how serious a threat to our theseal security are communist subversive activities? >> they are serious and something we should continue. give great care and attention to. support the laws that the united states has passed to protect us from those who would destroy us from within. we should sustain the department of justice and efforts of the fbi. to continually be alert. united is maintaining a strong society here. i think we can meet any internal threads. major threat is external. with senator kennedy.
the question of communism within the united states has been one that has worried us in the past. this one that will continue to be a problem for years to come. we have to remember that the cold war that mr. kirchoff's aging is waged all over the world. it is waged right here in the united states. that is far we have to continue to be alert. it is also essential in being alert that we be fair. by being fair, the uphold the very freedoms that the communists will destroy. we uphold the standards of conduct which they would never follow. in this connection, i think that we must look to the future having in mind that we fight communist at home -- communism , but wewith our laws
also fight communism at home by those injustices which exist in our society which the communists feed upon. says yourtor kennedy for the status quo, i believe he would agree that i am just as concerned in believing that my care are for health just as sincerely held as his. the question is not one of those -- goals, it is one of means. >> mr. vice president, and one of your earlier statements, you said that we have moved ahead and build more schools and hospitals, isn't it true that the building of our schools is a local matter for financing? are you claiming that the eisenhower administration is responsible for the building of the schools over the local
school districts? >> not at all. your question presented point i'm glad to make. too often in a prison whether we are moving ahead or not, we think only of what the federal government is doing. that is not the test of whether america moves, the test of whether america moves is whether the federal government plus the state government and local government and biggest segment of all, individual enterprise, moves. we have a gross national product that is $500 billion. billion of that is a result of government activity. 400 billion is a result of what individuals do. the reason the masterson has toed, the reason we had -- build the schools and hospitals to make the progress that we thisis because
administration has encouraged adividual enterprise and as result of the greatest expansion of the private sector of the economy that has ever been witnessed. that is growth. that is the growth we are looking for. the growth of this administration that we have a supported and policy defended. that the roads have been -- schools have been constructed is because they have want to increase property taxes. almost to the point of diminishing returns in order to sustain this is goals. -- schools. i think we have a rich and powerful country. what we have to do is have the president and leadership said before our country exactly what we must do in the next decade if we are going to maintain our security. education, economic growth, national resource development. the soviet union is making great games. it is not enough to compare what might have been done it years ago or 20 years ago.
i want to compare what we are doing with what our adversaries are doing so that by the 1970's, the united states is ahead in education and health and building an economic strength. that is the big function of the federal government. we've completed our questions and comments. summation times. three minutes and 20 seconds. vice president nixon. isfirst of all, i think it well to put into perspective what we do spend with your return -- regard to the soviet union. the soviet union has been moving faster than we have. the reason for that is obvious. they start from a lower base. although they have in moving faster growth than we have, we
find that the total growth -- gross national product is 44% of hours. that is the same percentage that it was 20 years ago. as far as the absolute gap is concerned, we find that the united states is further ahead than it was 20 years ago. is this any reason for complacency, these are determined men. their fanatical men. we had to get the out of our economy. i agree with senator kennedy completely. meanswe disagree is the that we would use to get the most out of our economy. respectfully submit that senator kennedy too often would rely too much on the federal government on what it would do to solve our problems. to stimulate growth. when we examine the democratic platform, when examined the proposals he discussed tonight, when we compare them with proposals i've made, these proposals that he makes would not result in greater growth for
this country and would be the case if we followed the program that i've advocated. there are many points he has made that i would like to comment upon. the one in the field of health is worth mentioning. our health program, the one that other republican senators supported is one that provides for all people over 65 who want health insurance and opportunity to have it. of havings a choice either government insurance or private insurance. it compels nobody to have insurance does not want it. this program under social security would require everybody with social security to take government health concerns whether you wanted or not. it would not cover several million people who are not covered by social security at all. here is one place where i think .ur program does a better job
the other point, downgrading of how much things cost, i think many of our people will understand better when they look at what happens during the truman administration and the government was spending more than a token. we found savings over a lifetime. we found that people who can least afford it, people on retirement incomes or fixed incomes, we found them unable to meet their ills at the end. that a man who is president of this country certain to stand for everyone program. i stand for programs that stand for growth. it is also essential that he not allow a dollar spent that could be better spent by the people themselves. >> senator kennedy. >> the point was made that the summer production is 44% than ours. that 44% and 70 countries cousin
is a regular trouble tonight. i want to make sure it stays in that relationship. i do not to see the day when it is 60% or 90% of ours. all the force and party could bring to bear. -- power it could bring to bear. our program was an amendment to the assistance that could be provided to those not on social security. 1935, when the social security act was written, 94 out of any five republicans voted against it. in august of 1960, we try to get it again. this time for medical care. received the support of one republican. thirdly, i think the question before the american people is, as a look at this country and look at the world around, the goals are the same for all americans. the means are question. the means are in issue. if you feel that everything satisfactory, is
the power of prestige and strength of the nazis is increasing in relation to that of the communists, we are getting more security, we are everything as a nation that we should achieve. achieving a better life for our citizens and greater strength, i agree. i think you should vote for mr. x and. if you feel that we have to move , the function of the president is to set before the people the unfinished business of our society, as frequent roosevelt did in the 30's, the agenda for our people, what we must do as a society to meet our needs of this country and protect security and help the cause of freedom, as i said at the beginning, the question before us faces all republicans and all democrats is that freedom in the next generation for us or with a communist be successful? if we meet our responsibility,
freedom will conquer. if we fill to move ahead, if we fail to develop efficient military and economic and social strength in this country, then i think the tide could begin to run against us. i don't want historians 10 years from now to say, these were the years when the tide ran out for the united states. i want them to say, these were the is when the tides ran in. when the united states started to move again. the is the question before market people. only you can decide what you want this country to be. what you want to do with the future. i think we are ready to move and it is to that task that if we are successful. thank you. this hour has gone by all too quickly. fork you very much presenting the next president of the united states. i've been asked by the candidates to think the american people and networks for providing time for this joint appearance.
this is howard k smith, good night from chicago. >> you're watching "american history tv," 48 hours of american history programming on c-span 3. follow us on twitter for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. mondayo www.c-span.org evening for the presidential debates on your desktop, phone, or tablet.
watch live streams and video-on-demand of every question to the candidates and their answers. create video clips of your favorite moments to share on social media. listen to the debate live on the c-span radio app free to download from the app store or google play. live coverage of the presidential debates monday evening on c-span.org and the c-span radio app. tv week, "american history 's" "reel america" brings you archival films that help provide context to today's public affairs issues. up next, an episode of "the big picture," a u.s. army documentary series. this 1956 film focuses on the first 50 years of aviation, beginning in 1907 when the u.s. army purchased the first military plane. this is about 30 minutes. ♪