So we hit the debt limit...

[DGuller]

Norquist is just a very successful bully.  No one ever called his bluff, unless you count elder Bush (I wouldn't), so everyone is scared of Republicans zagradotryads during the primaries.

Actually, the perception is that Bush Sr. did call his bluff, and went from a 90%+ approval rating to not getting re-elected. And they are perfectly willing to take credit for that.

That's just that, the perception.  I suspect that Norquist gained his real power somewhat later, and is using elder Bush's example retroactively.  I didn't say that it doesn't work out for him.

Reminds me of the Game of Thrones riddle about who has actual power. The answer: whoever people think has the power, has the power. People think Nordquist can destroy them, so he can.

Yep.  Of course, times like these is when Norquist actually has the least power, if you think about it.  What's he going to do if all Republicans decide to cave in on some kind of a non-lopsided deal?  He's going to try to primary all 200+ of them?  He probably knows that, which is why he put out the feelers that letting Bush tax cuts expire wouldn't violate his pledge.

[DGuller]

What is a zagradotryads?

NKVD detachments which were stationed with machine guns behind Soviet front lines, and shot everyone who wasn't as close to the front line as was desired.

[Josephus]

Didn't he write the no tax increase pledge that the GOP members were all forced to sign?

Forced to sign?  Most signed it, but why?  They certainly weren't being "forced" to sign it.

Coerced might be a better word.

[MadImmortalMan]

I have a lot of faith in you guys' ability to handle a little hyperbole. 

[sbr]

Of course, the Dems have been saying that there is no need to raise taxes on anyone but the rich, and no need to cut anything as long as we raise the taxes on those damn rich people. There is plenty of money, as long as the rich pay their share!

There is not enough revenue in that. I don't know any mainstream Dems claiming it.

You don't read to many Dem blogs then. Plenty have been arguing that for some time, although now that actual numbers are coming they seem to be backing off the "there is plenty of money if only the rich paid their share!" bullshit. I imagine it depends on how you define "mainstream Dem" I suppose. Certainly there were plenty of the talking heads claiming that.

And yes, of course there isn't enough revenue there.

I'm 7 hours and 5 pages late but how many "mainstream Dems" write these blogs of which you speak?  I'm sure someone else has already mentioned this so:

Go Ducks!!

[Razgovory]

Who knows?  I went over to Pdox, because frankly there aren't enough people defending the Republican actions on Languish.  And mocking paradox Conservatives is easier.

[HisMajestyBOB]

[Berkut]

Go Ducks!!

[sbr]

Go Ducks!!

[Razgovory]

What can I say, I like easy targets.  Yi and Berkut are probably smarter then I am.  I'm at a real disadvantage arguing with either of them.

[CountDeMoney]

But that is true in other countries and yet I think the US is the only place where this sort of visceral reaction against ending tax cuts for the rich (thanks for the clarification JR) would occur.

I don't think it is that visceral; what is "special" about America is the degree to which tax increases in general are perceived to be politically unacceptable.

Oh, it's quite visceral.

I wonder if there's ever been a case where taxes--and taxes alone--have actually resulted in someone in those upper brackets dropping below the poverty level.
Now, I'm not talking about taxes not paid piled up and prosecuted for, as that would be tax evasion.  And tax evaders deserve getting it up the ass.

But I'd really like to know of any cases where couples who make $250K and singles who make $200K a year were ever forced into into becoming indigent during the Clinton years under the previous tax bracket, and how the expiration of the 01 and 03 tax cuts along with the AMT would put those same income brackets into mortal, impoverished, negro-living-standards peril.

Then, maybe I can accept the Republican argument against tax hikes.

Why so many penniless Dumbfuckistani rubes who don't make that sort of money keep defending those that do by voting in Republicans...well, as Oprah would say, that's for another show.

[Berkut]

Seedy, Dems like you would be a lot easier to stomach of you just liked high taxes in general.

But sadly, it isn't that you are in favor of higher taxes to support greater spending for (and on) everyone, you are in favor of high taxes mainly for the purpose of engaging in class warfare.

It is interesting that your standard for what would clearly be something worthy of concern when it comes to excessive taxes necessitates driving people into poverty. Short of that, any tax increase is a good tax increase, amirite?

[DGuller]

First of all, it's not only Democrats that are engaged in "class warfare".  The fact that the very rich pay much less in taxes as percentage of income than upper middle class can be viewed as class warfare as well.  Well, not really warfare, rather the spoils of a war already won by one of the classes.

And there is also a practical consideration, even if it may sound a little Socialist.  Ever-increasing wealth concentration is a very bad thing for democracy.  It's an unstable situation.  Yes, you may view that argument as an all out class warfare statement, and that would be fair, but at the same time the concern for democracy is behind it.  Wealth gives you power in practice, and lopsided wealth distribution disenfranchises those on the wrong side of it.

[Berkut]

First of all, it's not only Democrats that are engaged in "class warfare".  The fact that the very rich pay much less in taxes as percentage of income than upper middle class can be viewed as class warfare as well.  Well, not really warfare, rather the spoils of a war already won by one of the classes.

Ahhh, so now simply the act of making money absent ANY political action of any kind, is defined as "class warfare". Nice.

And there is also a practical consideration, even if it may sound a little Socialist.  Ever-increasing wealth concentration is a very bad thing for democracy.  It's an unstable situation.  Yes, you may view that argument as an all out class warfare statement, and that would be fair, but at the same time the concern for democracy is behind it.  Wealth gives you power in practice, and lopsided wealth distribution disenfranchises those on the wrong side of it.

I don't consider that argument class warfare at all, actually. There are perfectly legitimate and valid reasons to be concerned about wealth distribution.

But the idea that simply showing up for work in the morning is such a heinous act that it justifies the level of animosity shown by Seedy and the like, to include using the power of the state to harm you irrespective of its utility is rather disturbing. It's funny, because the radical right runs around bleating about how the Dems really want to make all the not poor into the poor, that they are truly Socialists bent on dragging everyone down to "equality" via making everyone equally poor.

Then Seedy makes the argument that as long as we can show that no tax increase has actually done that yet, why, then we haven't really raised taxes enough, and the damned Republicans should quit their bitching! Are the radical right bleaters actually correct about the motivations of the Dems?

[Martinus]

What do you mean "absent any political action"? Maintaining the status quo is one hell of a political action.

And what do you mean showing up for work? I think one of the most outlandish, amazing thing the America's rich have done (which proves more successful that Goebbel's propaganda) is convincing the America's middle class that they have similar lifestyles and ethics.