God, how I hate that man! I don't get how he has nearly as much power as he seems to have, and I'm absolutely fucking thrilled to see it diminished.
Source (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/11/26/republican-signatories-norquist-pledge-indicate-they-would-break-avoid-plunge-over-fiscal-cliff/0VoufPZpTZeNGpP1cq8eXM/story.html)
QuoteAnyone interested in avoiding a tumble over the fiscal cliff at the end of the year - and that includes everyone from Wall Street stock traders to Main Street businessmen concerned about a double-dip recession - may want to take note of the news out of Washington the past few days.
Grover NorquistIt didn't come from negotiation principals like President Obama or House Speaker John Boehner, but rather rank-and-file members of Congress.
Members of both the House and Senate said simply that the Emperor has no clothes on.
And that emperor is Grover Norquist, a Weston native and Harvard University graduate who is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Democrats including Governor Deval Patrick, a Norquist college classmate, have long excoriated the conservative for pushing an ironclad no-new-taxes pledge on Republicans that they argue has prevented any of the revenue increases that liberals say must accompany any program cuts in a budgetary "grand bargain."
Norquist has promised to campaign against or support primary challengers to anyone breaking the pledge, but that individual threat has been diminished after Republicans lost both the presidency and seats in Congress during this month's general election.
That has prompted partisan soul-searching about how to best stave off future election losses. And now, as the lame-duck Congress resumes work today on a possible deal to avoid the program cuts and tax increases otherwise set to take effect Jan. 1, a number of Republicans - and past pledge signatories - are saying they won't be beholden to Norquist.
"If I were in Congress in 1941, I would have signed a declaration of war against Japan," Representative Peter King said Sunday during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I'm not going to attack Japan today."
The New York congressman, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, explained that "the world has changed and the economic situation is different."
Senator Lindsey Graham, appearing on the ABC News program, "This Week," said he would violate the pledge "for the good of the country - only if Democrats will do entitlement reform."
Asked how he would explain the change to Norquist, the South Carolina Republican pointed to the impending automatic military spending cuts and said, "What I would say to Grover Norquist is that the sequester would destroy the United States military."
Senator Saxby Chambliss, another Republican from Georgia, told WMAZ-TV last week that: "I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge."
He added: "If we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that. But I don't worry about that, because I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist."
Norquist responded on CNN that he found Chambliss's comments "confusing" because the pledge was not to him, but the Georgian's constituents.
Today, he added during another appearance on the cable network that his group would target members who break the pledge when they seek reelection, although voters tend to issue any punishment without prodding.
King, as a member of the House, runs every two years, while both Graham and Chambliss are expected to run for new six-year Senate terms in 2014.
"Historically, the people who lose do so because the people in their state have figured that out," Norquist said on CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien."
I'd wait until we see what actually happens. Talk is cheap.
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2012, 11:26:09 AM
I'd wait until we see what actually happens. Talk is cheap.
:mad:
Let me be happy for a minute, will you?
I'm just saying it would make more sense to pause the festivities till it happens.
The fact that some of these guys are even openly saying, "Yeah, don't care about Norquist's pledge anymore," is a big step, to me. Four years ago, that pledge was iron-clad so far as these same folks were concerned.
Eric Cantor is half-assed rejecting Norquist, too, though his abdication seems luke-warm at best.
Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/eric-cantor-grover-norquist-pledge_n_2191375.html)
QuoteHouse Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) appeared to take a step back from anti-tax champion Grover Norquist on Monday, suggesting that a "no new taxes" pledge coordinated by Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform group wouldn't determine his legislative duties regarding ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations.
"When I go to the constituents that have reelected me, it is not about that pledge," Cantor said on MSNBC. "It really is about trying to solve problems."
Asked if he could foresee a situation in which he would be willing to directly renounce the anti-tax pledge, Cantor dodged specifics, saying that he didn't know because he hadn't talked to Norquist.
Cantor's apparent disinterest in Norquist and his pledge comes as a number of congressional Republicans have received attention for rejecting it outright. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), as well as some House Republicans, have spoken out against the pledge and argued that it squelches valid discussion on finding new revenue.
Cantor seemed to agree with his colleagues at least on the revenue issue, saying that he stood with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who recently told the White House that House GOP leadership was willing to consider new revenues, provided they came from the correct sources.
"I don't care if you raised taxes 100 percent on the wealthy, you're not going going to fix the deficit problem," he said. "We've got to have the president step up and say here's my position on how we reform the entitlements and start managing down this debt and deficit."
In a later interview with Fox News, Cantor also challenged President Barack Obama, saying that he'd put Obamacare on the bargaining table if he really wanted to "get serious" about coming to an agreement on averting the fiscal cliff. Boehner made a similar suggestion and was quickly rejected by the White House.
Now if only Obama would do the same with his pledge not to raise taxes on the Schumer class. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2012, 11:41:01 AM
Now if only Obama would do the same with his pledge not to raise taxes on the Schumer class. :)
Are you talking about the hedge fund taxes that Schumer is pushing for?
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 11:44:45 AM
Are you talking about the hedge fund taxes that Schumer is pushing for?
I'm talking about the Bush tax rates on people making less than 200K that Obama promised not to raise.
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 11:24:16 AM
God, how I hate that man! I don't get how he has nearly as much power as he seems to have, and I'm absolutely fucking thrilled to see it diminished.
He gets his power the same way autocrats get their power: through sheer terror. As long as only a few politicians are willing to defy him at any one time, they will pay dearly. His power will end the same way most dictators' power ends: either by death, or by massive revolt by the subjects who all at once understand that the only thing they have to fear is fear itself.
And I will second what others are saying. It's nice that politicians are speaking publicly about defying him, since that's already an act of defiance. However, the proof will come by them telling Grover to fuck off by actually voting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2012, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 11:44:45 AM
Are you talking about the hedge fund taxes that Schumer is pushing for?
I'm talking about the Bush tax rates on people making less than 200K that Obama promised not to raise.
Why doesn't the GOP breach the issue? Certainly they could make that part of a deal.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 12:35:34 PM
Why doesn't the GOP breach the issue? Certainly they could make that part of a deal.
I give up. Why don't they?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2012, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 12:35:34 PM
Why doesn't the GOP breach the issue? Certainly they could make that part of a deal.
I give up. Why don't they?
I was asking you. I don't know why you people do anything. Why don't you write your Congressmen or Senator to put it on the table?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 02:59:34 PM
I was asking you.
I don't believe you. Based on the position in the thread and your posting history I figure it was either an attempt to defend Obama's position or an attempt to indict me for inconsistency.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar Yi!
Quote from: katmai on November 26, 2012, 04:14:12 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar Yi!
That still leaves all the times it's not.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2012, 04:12:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 02:59:34 PM
I was asking you.
I don't believe you. Based on the position in the thread and your posting history I figure it was either an attempt to defend Obama's position or an attempt to indict me for inconsistency.
You don't believe that I was in fact asking you? The previous post seems to indicate I was. I was asking a question and in response to your post. I don't know how much clearer I could be. Do you think I was not asking it in good faith? Why would you think that? Were
you asking questions not in good faith? I have no problem with raising taxes on everyone, especially Cal. I never heard of a Schumer class of people. As I really don't understand it, I would have a hard time defending it.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2012, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 11:44:45 AM
Are you talking about the hedge fund taxes that Schumer is pushing for?
I'm talking about the Bush tax rates on people making less than 200K that Obama promised not to raise.
Why would you want that?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 05:00:14 PM
Do you think I was not asking it in good faith?
I just said as much.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 05:17:04 PM
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! :contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 05:00:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2012, 05:23:57 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2012, 05:19:06 PM
Why would you want that?
Deficit reduction. :mellow:
How low do you want to go? To people making a $150k, a $100k? Lower?
How much do you think can be done without damaging the economy?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2012, 06:34:14 PM
How low do you want to go? To people making a $150k, a $100k? Lower?
Everyone. Restore the Clinton tax ratyes.
QuoteHow 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?
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 05:00:14 PM
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?
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 05:17:04 PM
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.
I guess that means, Yi finally paid you off.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 11:24:16 AM
God, how I hate that man! I don't get how he has nearly as much power as he seems to have, and I'm absolutely fucking thrilled to see it diminished.
He gets his power the same way autocrats get their power: through sheer terror. As long as only a few politicians are willing to defy him at any one time, they will pay dearly. His power will end the same way most dictators' power ends: either by death, or by massive revolt by the subjects who all at once understand that the only thing they have to fear is fear itself.
And I will second what others are saying. It's nice that politicians are speaking publicly about defying him, since that's already an act of defiance. However, the proof will come by them telling Grover to fuck off by actually voting.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2012, 08:57:03 PM
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.
I remember when Fathead Moore was promising to primary all the Democrats who voted against the public option. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 07:01:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 05:00:14 PM
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 :P
Quote from: merithyn on November 26, 2012, 05:24:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 05:17:04 PM
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! :contract:
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?
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 09:01:43 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2012, 09:34:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2012, 09:01:43 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2012, 06:34:14 PM
How low do you want to go? To people making a $150k, a $100k? Lower?
Everyone. Restore the Clinton tax ratyes.
QuoteHow 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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 11:25:52 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 11:25:52 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 12:21:12 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 12:46:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 12:21:12 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 09:24:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 07:01:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 26, 2012, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 26, 2012, 05:00:14 PM
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 :P
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 27, 2012, 08:40:22 AM
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.
I don't think the middle class has a problem with that; Johnny Six Pack doesn't have an issue with pulling his weight and taking his lumps, as long as there's the perception that everybody else is as well. The fact that a certain percentage of Romnyis haven't has been the problem that exacerbates the situation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2012, 08:48:23 AM
I don't think the middle class has a problem with that; Johnny Six Pack doesn't have an issue with pulling his weight and taking his lumps, as long as there's the perception that everybody else is as well. The fact that a certain percentage of Romnyis haven't has been the problem that exacerbates the situation.
Umm, pretty sure they do take issue with the notion that they should pay more in taxes.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 08:51:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2012, 08:48:23 AM
I don't think the middle class has a problem with that; Johnny Six Pack doesn't have an issue with pulling his weight and taking his lumps, as long as there's the perception that everybody else is as well. The fact that a certain percentage of Romnyis haven't has been the problem that exacerbates the situation.
Umm, pretty sure they do take issue with the notion that they should pay more in taxes.
And I think it'll be more politically digestible for them if they knew the 1% ponied up their share. So there. Nyah.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 02:35:09 AM
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.
That's probably a fair assessment. FWIW, I would be just as quick to turn on the Democrats on this issue as I did on the Republicans. The only option available to us, economically speaking, is for both cuts and tax hikes. It may have to go slow (for both) until the economy isn't limping so much anymore, but ultimately, there have to be significant cuts/changes in government spending alongside the increase in taxes for the majority of the higher wage earners. (By that I mean those not skimming along just this side of poverty. Personally, I would gladly pay more in taxes if it meant universal health care, but I know I'm in the minority on this in the US.)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2012, 08:53:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 08:51:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2012, 08:48:23 AM
I don't think the middle class has a problem with that; Johnny Six Pack doesn't have an issue with pulling his weight and taking his lumps, as long as there's the perception that everybody else is as well. The fact that a certain percentage of Romnyis haven't has been the problem that exacerbates the situation.
Umm, pretty sure they do take issue with the notion that they should pay more in taxes.
And I think it'll be more politically digestible for them if they knew the 1% ponied up their share. So there. Nyah.
Except that your man is starting his tour telling them that they don't have to pay more taxes.
Also, I'd cite that California example. California just passed the prop to raise taxes on rich (pretty close yes and no). However the prop to raise taxes on all failed miserably (like 71 to 29).
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:26:10 AM
Except that your man is starting his tour telling them that they don't have to pay more taxes.
Also, I'd cite that California example. California just passed the prop to raise taxes on rich (pretty close yes and no). However the prop to raise taxes on all failed miserably (like 71 to 29).
I have a feeling that those kinds of votes will continue until it's shown that people like Romney have paid more than 10% on all of their income, instead of barely 10% on a tiny portion of their income.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:26:10 AM
Except that your man is starting his tour telling them that they don't have to pay more taxes.
Also, I'd cite that California example. California just passed the prop to raise taxes on rich (pretty close yes and no). However the prop to raise taxes on all failed miserably (like 71 to 29).
Yeah, that's what he's ran on, and he's simply keeping the pipples engaged and informed. Kudos to the POTUS with the mostest.
I'm sure he will make every effort to ensure the middle class dodges the bullet.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:28:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:26:10 AM
Except that your man is starting his tour telling them that they don't have to pay more taxes.
Also, I'd cite that California example. California just passed the prop to raise taxes on rich (pretty close yes and no). However the prop to raise taxes on all failed miserably (like 71 to 29).
I have a feeling that those kinds of votes will continue until it's shown that people like Romney have paid more than 10% on all of their income, instead of barely 10% on a tiny portion of their income.
I have a feeling it is going to be that way for well like forever considering that only a minority of people go "gee, I think I'm not paying enough taxes right now, let me fork over some more."
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:28:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:26:10 AM
Except that your man is starting his tour telling them that they don't have to pay more taxes.
Also, I'd cite that California example. California just passed the prop to raise taxes on rich (pretty close yes and no). However the prop to raise taxes on all failed miserably (like 71 to 29).
I have a feeling that those kinds of votes will continue until it's shown that people like Romney have paid more than 10% on all of their income, instead of barely 10% on a tiny portion of their income.
Also if that were the case, I'm not sure why the cutoff in discussions of the wealthy starts at those making over $250k a year. If you're making that as a salary, you're paying a lot of money in taxes.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:38:21 AM
Also if that were the case, I'm not sure why the cutoff in discussions of the wealthy starts at those making over $250k a year. If you're making that as a salary, you're paying a lot of money in taxes.
Not everyone is. Loopholes are a rich man's best friend.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:38:21 AM
Also if that were the case, I'm not sure why the cutoff in discussions of the wealthy starts at those making over $250k a year. If you're making that as a salary, you're paying a lot of money in taxes.
Not everyone is. Loopholes are a rich man's best friend.
Sure if those are things like capital gains/dividends and not salary.
Quote from: merithyn on November 27, 2012, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 09:38:21 AM
Also if that were the case, I'm not sure why the cutoff in discussions of the wealthy starts at those making over $250k a year. If you're making that as a salary, you're paying a lot of money in taxes.
Not everyone is. Loopholes are a rich man's best friend.
Which is why if I had my way, we'd close all the loopholes. But that isn't happening.
Norquist never had all this power. I don't understand this hype surrounding him. For whatever reason, he's being made out to be some godlike figure, but it's mostly BS.
Plus, his name is Grover. WTF :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on November 27, 2012, 02:15:29 PM
Plus, his name is Grover. WTF :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredclayreport.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F02%2Fgrover.jpg&hash=6a626499f38b8be8a6a2fba2bff59d42b1e476cb)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 27, 2012, 02:14:53 PM
Norquist never had all this power. I don't understand this hype surrounding him. For whatever reason, he's being made out to be some godlike figure, but it's mostly BS.
He fit the role of Republican villain. They needed to find someone after Rove effectively retired.
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 04:47:27 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 27, 2012, 02:14:53 PM
Norquist never had all this power. I don't understand this hype surrounding him. For whatever reason, he's being made out to be some godlike figure, but it's mostly BS.
He fit the role of Republican villain. They needed to find someone after Rove effectively retired.
He did get a bunch of Republicans to act like idiots. I think it's unlikely that the Republicans will get as good a budget deal this time as the one they rejected 1 1/2 years ago.
Quote from: frunk on November 27, 2012, 04:55:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 04:47:27 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 27, 2012, 02:14:53 PM
Norquist never had all this power. I don't understand this hype surrounding him. For whatever reason, he's being made out to be some godlike figure, but it's mostly BS.
He fit the role of Republican villain. They needed to find someone after Rove effectively retired.
He did get a bunch of Republicans to act like idiots. I think it's unlikely that the Republicans will get as good a budget deal this time as the one they rejected 1 1/2 years ago.
Does it really matter what the deal is though? Substantial spending cuts can't happen.
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 04:47:27 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 27, 2012, 02:14:53 PM
Norquist never had all this power. I don't understand this hype surrounding him. For whatever reason, he's being made out to be some godlike figure, but it's mostly BS.
He fit the role of Republican villain. They needed to find someone after Rove effectively retired.
He's lucky he's not in jail.