Suck it, Norquist!

[DGuller]

I don't think Norquist necessarily has the power. It is just that a sizeable section of the Republican electorate doesn't care about anything other than tax rates, and Norquist speaks to their concerns. If a bunch of them defy Norquist and vote to raise taxes, a bunch of them will get primaried, and the campaign against them won't be about how they defied Norquist but that they voted to raise taxes.

In the Republican Party today, you can discuss ending social security and medicare as we know it all you want and be just fine. Raising taxes is the real third rail.

Of course he won't make it about himself while trying to primary the traitor.  But he'll concentrate the firepower to make sure that the traitor will be punished for raising taxes.  Making it about himself would happen afterwards, when terrorizing the surviving politicians.

[Admiral Yi]

I remember when Fathead Moore was promising to primary all the Democrats who voted against the public option. 

[derspiess]

Do you think I was not asking it in good faith?  Why would you think that? 

I'm not Yi, but I'm guessing it's your track history.

What about his?

The Yicratic Method is well-known, but we were talking about you

[Neil]

Seriously, these Lincoln-Douglas debates between Raz and Yi are getting tiresome.  These two individual shticks, tiresome enough on their own, are ten times as tiresome when combined together.

Agreed.

Get out of my thread with your shenanigans!

To be fair, it's my thread.  And American politics in general is pretty tiresome.  Watching you people twist yourselves up trying to portray your ridiculous political beliefs as virtuous is fun at first. but after a while you start to wonder why you people don't start thinking?

[alfred russel]

Of course he won't make it about himself while trying to primary the traitor.  But he'll concentrate the firepower to make sure that the traitor will be punished for raising taxes.  Making it about himself would happen afterwards, when terrorizing the surviving politicians.

The point I'm making is "who the hell is grover norquist?" He could drop dead tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference. A large portion of the republican party won't support someone who wants to raise taxes, and the deep pockets will be there to fund a primary challenge against anyone who does.

[DGuller]

Of course he won't make it about himself while trying to primary the traitor.  But he'll concentrate the firepower to make sure that the traitor will be punished for raising taxes.  Making it about himself would happen afterwards, when terrorizing the surviving politicians.

The point I'm making is "who the hell is grover norquist?" He could drop dead tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference. A large portion of the republican party won't support someone who wants to raise taxes, and the deep pockets will be there to fund a primary challenge against anyone who does.

Maybe, but Grover may be the difference between unanimous devotion to one's party, and one that allows for slight dissent.

[derspiess]

I think it's probably a good thing for the GOP for Norquist to have less influence in the party, but I have this horrible feeling that things are stacking up for the GOP to get royally screwed again in a deal with the Dems like they did in the 80s.  We'll get higher taxes now in exchange for some vague commitment to get serious about cutting spending maybe 5 years from now, with some insignificant cuts serving as window dressing.

[jimmy olsen]

How low do you want to go? To people making a $150k, a $100k? Lower?

Everyone.  Restore the Clinton tax ratyes.

How much do you think can be done without damaging the economy?

None.  Did you think there was such a thing as pain-free deficit reduction?

I'm just surprised you're willing to go that far. I am also in favor of this.

[merithyn]

I think it's probably a good thing for the GOP for Norquist to have less influence in the party, but I have this horrible feeling that things are stacking up for the GOP to get royally screwed again in a deal with the Dems like they did in the 80s.  We'll get higher taxes now in exchange for some vague commitment to get serious about cutting spending maybe 5 years from now, with some insignificant cuts serving as window dressing.

I have a feeling that if that happens, the Dems will be the ones fighting for their jobs shortly thereafter. I know that I would have a hard time voting for them if there are few spending cuts on the horizon.

[Valmy]

I think it's probably a good thing for the GOP for Norquist to have less influence in the party, but I have this horrible feeling that things are stacking up for the GOP to get royally screwed again in a deal with the Dems like they did in the 80s.  We'll get higher taxes now in exchange for some vague commitment to get serious about cutting spending maybe 5 years from now, with some insignificant cuts serving as window dressing.

Well be comforted if they do do that I will vote for them again.  I Valmy will help them carry Texas by one more entire vote.  But why not do a deal that includes tax hikes and spending cuts at the same time?

[derspiess]

Well be comforted if they do do that I will vote for them again.  I Valmy will help them carry Texas by one more entire vote.  But why not do a deal that includes tax hikes and spending cuts at the same time?

Because we have a political culture where the GOP will look like bad guys if it holds things up & doesn't give in to the Dems.  And though they still control the House, the GOP is a bit demoralized at the moment.

Both at the same time would be nice.  But I just have a feeling the tax hike will start immediately and the spending cuts will be backloaded so they can be canceled later on.

[dps]

Well be comforted if they do do that I will vote for them again.  I Valmy will help them carry Texas by one more entire vote.  But why not do a deal that includes tax hikes and spending cuts at the same time?

Because we have a political culture where the GOP will look like bad guys if it holds things up & doesn't give in to the Dems.  And though they still control the House, the GOP is a bit demoralized at the moment.

Both at the same time would be nice.  But I just have a feeling the tax hike will start immediately and the spending cuts will be backloaded so they can be canceled later on.

To a very great extent, this is the real basis for Republican opposition to any tax hikes.  Yes, of course, a lot of Republicans feel that taxes are a necessary evil in the first place, but there's also alway been a strong suspicion that if taxes are raised by X amount to reduce the deficit, instead of also cutting spending, the Democrats are instead just going to increase spending by 2X.  Or more.

[Razgovory]

Do you think I was not asking it in good faith?  Why would you think that? 

I'm not Yi, but I'm guessing it's your track history.

What about his?

The Yicratic Method is well-known, but we were talking about you

Actually, I thought we were talking about the GOP, Norquist and his pledge.  Which is why I found Yi's statement of "yeah, but is the president going to start breaking his promises?!?", kinda strange. 

[garbon]

So why is Obama going on a tour to get middle class families to agree with his plan not to raise taxes across the board? Almost no one ever wants taxes raised on themselves, so that's a no-brainer. Fun photo-ops?

[DGuller]

I agree with Yi.  Even if you do an honest tax hike on the rich, which will mean addressing capital gains and closing Cayman loopholes rather than raising the tax they don't pay from 35% to 39%, you still won't get that far.  Middle class will have to pony up, whether they like it or not.