Romney or Super Grover

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Wow. I thought Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party. Now its Norquiist? I'm so confused.

Anyone who, on their own, can exact a pledge from elected Republican politicians which runs counter to the wishes of the people they were elected to serve, whether they be a "leader" or not, exerts far too much influence on the Party.

Question 1: with all the money that flows through Washington, and you've all stated that politicians in DC are bought and paid for (particularly those dastardly Republicans), what does Norquist use as leverage to maintain politician's fidelity to "The Pledge"?

Norquist is a lobbyist. Whom is he lobbing for?

Oh, and just so we have our facts straight, here's the language from "The Pledge":

"ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

So, its not necessarily an opposition to all taxes. It is a pledge not to increase the tax burden on individuals or businesses."

Nobody is saying the pledge is to eliminate taxes, though the Republicans certainly seem to be working in that direction - at least for the top 1%. After all, isn't it Norquist who vowed to shrink government to a size where it could be "drown in the bathtub"? How do you "shrink" government? Why, by denying it the operating capital it needs, of course!

Question 2: is this to say that the Republicans have been corrupted not by money, nor by a person, but by an idea (no new taxes unless paid for)?

How do you "pay for" a tax? Taxes are the principle mechanism for governments raising the money to pay for things.

Oh, I see! You pay for them by cutting the programs that the tax revenues were designed to fund! Brilliant!

John

[merrylander]

Here is a direct quote from Super Grover;

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Now if that is not anarchy what is it?

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Now if that is not anarchy what is it?

Not to pick nits, but its not anarchy. I've never been sure that that quote was ever sourced in context either. It is referenced incorrectly to a 2003 "Nation" article. Its actually from a 2001 Nation article. The quote was used Roberty Dryfuss, not exactly at fan of conservatism.

I do believe that the words are intended as blunt "fighting words", not unlike Obama's statements about "getting in the face" of your political opponents. I guess if you sincerely believe that Obama wants you to bodily confront folks about their politics, you believe that Norquist has a bathtub big enough to "drown" every agency of the Federal government.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Anyone who, on their own, can exact a pledge from elected Republican politicians which runs counter to the wishes of the people they were elected to serve, whether they be a "leader" or not, exerts far too much influence on the Party.



Norquist is a lobbyist. Whom is he lobbing for?



Nobody is saying the pledge is to eliminate taxes, though the Republicans certainly seem to be working in that direction - at least for the top 1%. After all, isn't it Norquist who vowed to shrink government to a size where it could be "drown in the bathtub"? How do you "shrink" government? Why, by denying it the operating capital it needs, of course!



How do you "pay for" a tax? Taxes are the principle mechanism for governments raising the money to pay for things.

Oh, I see! You pay for them by cutting the programs that the tax revenues were designed to fund! Brilliant!

John

1. What info do you have that suggests that capping the tax burden ISN'T something that the Republican constituency is in favor of?

2. Norquist may be a lobbyist, but per my question, what's his leverage if it isn't campaign money or influence peddling?

3. The government's budget and tax revenues are both on a upward growth curve. There's no evidence that the government is being denied anything? and how is it that tax revenues have continued to increase over the years, particularly as a % of GDP which should be the yardstick used during the recession years, if we've enacted all these tax cuts?

4. "Oh, I see! You pay for them by cutting the programs that the tax revenues were designed to fund!" Yup, unless you're suggesting that there's absolutely no room for spending reductions anywhere in the federal system.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

1. What info do you have that suggests that capping the tax burden ISN'T something that the Republican constituency is in favor of?

"Capping" isn't the issue. Whether or not to increase at all is.

Poll results show a plurality of both Democrats and independents as well as a majority of both Republicans favor taxing thr wealthy at a higher rate than they currently are.

That and other interesting findings here.

2. Norquist may be a lobbyist, but per my question, what's his leverage if it isn't campaign money or influence peddling?

It is money and influence peddling.

3. The government's budget and tax revenues are both on a upward growth curve.

Sources, please.

There's no evidence that the government is being denied anything?

As long as we continue to borrow money to compensate for the lost revenue.

and how is it that tax revenues have continued to increase over the years, particularly as a % of GDP which should be the yardstick used during the recession years, if we've enacted all these tax cuts?

Again, sources?

4. "Oh, I see! You pay for them by cutting the programs that the tax revenues were designed to fund!" Yup, unless you're suggesting that there's absolutely no room for spending reductions anywhere in the federal system.

Of course there is. There always will be so, in that light, to hold hostage certain programs - and people (unemployment extensions and tornado relief as examples) - until cuts are made in other programs the Right doesn't like is disgusting and immoral.

John

[merrylander]

Leslie Graham according to Millbank's article indicated he might be amenable to a tax increase. Norquist 'visited' him and he fell back in line. How does he do this? No idea unless he has some dirt on all of them. Given the behaviour of several repubs to date that would not surprise me.

Tax burden? What tax burden? We are the lightest taxed industrial country in the world Most especially the top 1%. The gross inequality in incomes is destoying this country and y'all seem to think that is just fine. The top 5% spend relatively little of their income, the bottom 95% spend nearly all of it because it is not enough to go around. he result is little if any 'consumerism' and the economy suffers because of it.

Repubs moan about SS and we old folks being a burden, tell me how many years did SS go without a COLA/ My pension from Bell Canada has had a COLA every year since I have retired. They did not give me any BS about no inflation. Adjusted for inflation average salaries here are at 1968 levels.

For a little while spurred on by Greenspan's et. al. BS people borrowed and spent, then the bubble burst. Well stupid if your economy is 70% based on consumer spending and you beggar the consumer, guess what, you get a nice big fat recession, a nice long, long recession.

So you repubs want austerity, take a good look at Europe, suicide rates are climbing exponentially in Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland, I hope Angela can get the blood off her hands sometime soon. Funny she did not mind at all when things looked rosy and everyone was buying imports from Germany. Well now that they are all broke, and likely to stay that way for a long time I guess Germany will not be exporting so much. Especially as they now equate us with the Chinese labour market and are building their cars here.

Ther are none so blind as those who will not see.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Childish much?

Also not apropos.

Grover, the Muppet that is, doesn't actually have ears. I do't know whether the same is true of Norquist.

John

He only hears the sound of his own voice.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

"Capping" isn't the issue. Whether or not to increase at all is.

The pledge is about keeping the total tax burden at its current level. Tax increases in one area are OK as long as they're offset by reductions in another.

Poll results show a plurality of both Democrats and independents as well as a majority of both Republicans favor taxing thr wealthy at a higher rate than they currently are.

That and other interesting findings here.

A majority of Americans thought the first and second Gulf Wars were a good thing when we first went over there. I could really care less about polling data on taxes. I'd prefer to address the economics.

It is money and influence peddling.

Not when neither the Tax Center nor Nyquist make any significant campaign contribution it isn't.

Sources, please.

Everywhere, including posts in this forum. Again, don't ask me to do your homework for you.


As long as we continue to borrow money to compensate for the lost revenue.

WHAT lost revenue??

Again, sources?

Same as above

Of course there is. There always will be so, in that light, to hold hostage certain programs - and people (unemployment extensions and tornado relief as examples) - until cuts are made in other programs the Right doesn't like is disgusting and immoral.

John

So what cuts in government spending would be considered Immoral?

[finnbow]

Norquist is an unelected person with unreasonable, if not total, sway over the GOP. Doesn't the GOP constantly bitch about unelected folks (judges, czars, bureaucrats, Soros .....) having too much influence over government?

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Leslie Graham according to Millbank's article indicated he might be amenable to a tax increase. Norquist 'visited' him and he fell back in line. How does he do this? No idea unless he has some dirt on all of them. Given the behaviour of several repubs to date that would not surprise me.

So, you don't have an answer to the question.

Tax burden? What tax burden? We are the lightest taxed industrial country in the world Most especially the top 1%. The gross inequality in incomes is destoying this country and y'all seem to think that is just fine. The top 5% spend relatively little of their income, the bottom 95% spend nearly all of it because it is not enough to go around. he result is little if any 'consumerism' and the economy suffers because of it.

Depends on what tax you're looking at. Personal income taxes, yes, the burden is relatively low, thankfully, but we're not the lowest. Business income, we're on our way to being the highest, number one, the big kahuna.



Repubs moan about SS and we old folks being a burden, tell me how many years did SS go without a COLA/ My pension from Bell Canada has had a COLA every year since I have retired. They did not give me any BS about no inflation. Adjusted for inflation average salaries here are at 1968 levels.

So, you're suggesting that a pension run by a private, for profit company is managed better than Social Security? Yup, we can agree on that. "course the private pension fund is not restricted on what it can invest in, unlike your Soc Sec dollars. And, your private pension isn't funded by IOU's like Social Security is.

For a little while spurred on by Greenspan's et. al. BS people borrowed and spent, then the bubble burst. Well stupid if your economy is 70% based on consumer spending and you beggar the consumer, guess what, you get a nice big fat recession, a nice long, long recession.

You can also get the same scenario if you tax the hell out of business, dis-incent grown by penalizing investment, and have an economic and energy policy that looks like a shell game.

So you repubs want austerity, take a good look at Europe, suicide rates are climbing exponentially in Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland, I hope Angela can get the blood off her hands sometime soon. Funny she did not mind at all when things looked rosy and everyone was buying imports from Germany. Well now that they are all broke, and likely to stay that way for a long time I guess Germany will not be exporting so much. Especially as they now equate us with the Chinese labour market and are building their cars here.

Ther are none so blind as those who will not see.

So which came first in Europe: the mentality of dependence and fear of government or the suicide rates? Yes, this is a nasty heartless comment/question, and I really do feel for the poor folks in Europe who are facing some pretty desperate circumstances, but this didn't happen overnight.