Do you believe signing Grovers "No Tax Pledge" is appropriate or smart?

[California Girl]

It seems to me the best pledge they take is the " OATH OF OFFICE" the rest are meaningless. As to Grover as he does not live in Arizona and by suggesting that his group should decide who runs for office here based on some pledge or how they vote is a slap in the face to the citizens here as it should be for every other state as well.

^^^ This

You need to spread the damned rep again before.....

 

[Toro]

No.

For the same reason why it's foolish to take a "I'll never cut spending" pledge.

 

[bripat9643]

When you sign a tax pledge like this you are saying you will refuse to work with the majority.

You know the people elected by the majority of Americans.

You know Democracy?

I don't vote for a politician because he wants to "work with the majority." I vote for him because I want him to cut spending, cut regulation and most of all cut taxes. Any politician who votes to raise taxes will not get my vote. The majority can go to hell.

 

[bripat9643]

No.

For the same reason why it's foolish to take a "I'll never cut spending" pledge.

That's like saying that taking vitamins is foolish for the same reason that pointing a revolver at your head and pulling the trigger is foolish.

 

[bripat9643]

The majority ran the Democrats out in record numbers in 2010

22% is not a majority.

On that basis, the DimoRATs don't have a majority either, and neither does Obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Signing a pledge to a special interest simply confirms in writing that you are tool of that special interest. Of course, if that's what the voters want, then that's their choice.

 

[Toro]

No.

For the same reason why it's foolish to take a "I'll never cut spending" pledge.

That's like saying that taking vitamins is foolish for the same reason that pointing a revolver at your head and pulling the trigger is foolish.

If you're an extremist, sure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No.

For the same reason why it's foolish to take a "I'll never cut spending" pledge.

That's like saying that taking vitamins is foolish for the same reason that pointing a revolver at your head and pulling the trigger is foolish.

So in your view increasing military spending is comparable to blowing your brains out.

 

[paulitician]

Hey i'll take what i can get at this point. Go Cain!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I think taking any Constitutional options of the table is short sighted and stupid, so I'm not in favor of an anti-tax pledge any more than I'm in favor of an Anti-Entitlement cut or Anti-Defense Spending cut pledge.

When you're facing the debt we're facing, EVERYTHING has to be on the table, from new taxes to cuts to Defense and Entitlements. Limiting your options is a 100% stupid move and one that will guarantee failure.

 

[Sactowndog]

Most new congressmen are confronted with this pledge before they are even elected. I see the lefts complaint about this as partially valid. While I disagree with the premise of raising taxes in general I have a problem with this anyhow. A prospective congressman does not know what lies before him and to box himself into a corner and remove a set of chips from himself before he even sits down at the poker table is just stupid.

I would be okay with the pledge not to raise rates which is what I originally thought. But it is also a pledge not to touch deductions. Which means to me it is just a tool of corporate interests who fund Norquists non-profit organization.

Outdated benefits like subsidies to drill for oil, or ethanol subsidies or providing the carry exemption for Hedge fund managers are all protected via this pledge and Norquists threat of a primary challenge funded by corporate interests.

At this point the Republican party is completely owned by Corporate interests.

 

[Sactowndog]

I don't even know how this is legal. The only document that congress should be upholding and protecting is the United States Constitution.

For now I'd much rather see a reform to the tax code to remove the tax breaks and loopholes and cut the rates correspondingly. I'd also cut or remove the subsidies to big corps and I wouldn't allow tax credits to be applied in future years.

You do know that is part of the pledge also. Not only can't they raise taxes but they can't close loopholes either. That is why the super comittee failed because they were going to close loopholes and lower rates. Norquist stopped it dead in its tracks.

 

[jillian]

When you sign a tax pledge like this you are saying you will refuse to work with the majority.

You know the people elected by the majority of Americans.

You know Democracy?

The majority ran the Democrats out in record numbers in 2010

Poor delusional frank. You didn't get the senate, did you?

And then you lost NY 23
And then you lost two Wisconsin storehouse seats

And now congress, because of your fellow rightwingnut saboteurs, has an approval rating lower than the idea of the U.S. Going communist.

So perhaps you should try, for once, actually stating fact and not your own delusions and magical thinking

 

[Liability]

As a Conservative Id tell Grover to mind his own fucking aristocratic business.

I'm for dropping taxes and spending and regulation because I'm Conservative not because I signed some idiots stupid pledge

But if Grover can get some Congress-critter to SIGN a pledge to his constituents, then at least there's a powerful tool to bring to bear on the Congress-person if he or she dares to be a duplicitous scumbag.

If the guys running for Congress were actually motivated by integrity and political principle, the "pledge" tool would never have been considered necessary.

Personally, though, I agree with CF to this extent. No Congressional candidate should have to sign a pledge. The voters should be educated enough to insist on the candidates articulating their points of view and positions and then HOLDING them to those positions come the next election. And what we REALLY need is not some "no tax increase" pledge.

We need a commitment from these folks to STOP spending our fucking money like drunken sailors on shore leave. A commitment is need to SERIOUSLY cut spending, massively.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Most new congressmen are confronted with this pledge before they are even elected. I see the lefts complaint about this as partially valid. While I disagree with the premise of raising taxes in general I have a problem with this anyhow. A prospective congressman does not know what lies before him and to box himself into a corner and remove a set of chips from himself before he even sits down at the poker table is just stupid.

Then there is the fact that Grover uses this pledge signed or not to try to pressure individuals with the threat of big money either used against you or for you just seems wrong. This is where everyone should agree. The right doesn't like unions flooding money into elections to further their agenda right? Well this in a way is no different.

I saw one congressman mention that a pledge signed may have had merit when it was signed but years later circumstances change yet he is somehow still bound to a rigid ideology.

Bottom line their may come a time when the only way to save our country is through higher taxes and that is far better than ending up like Greece.

And I for one would quickly take a 10:1 cuts for tax deal if the cuts were real. When we remove taxes from the kitty we have NOTHING left to negotiate with.

You don't sign a pledge to behave a certain way, in any position of leadership, regardless of external circumstances. That is just stupid.

I hate taxes BTW and don't think they should or need to be raised but cut more.

 

[MarcATL]

As a Conservative Id tell Grover to mind his own fucking aristocratic business.

I'm for dropping taxes and spending and regulation because I'm Conservative not because I signed some idiots stupid pledge

I already repped you so...

 

[MarcATL]

Most new congressmen are confronted with this pledge before they are even elected. I see the lefts complaint about this as partially valid. While I disagree with the premise of raising taxes in general I have a problem with this anyhow. A prospective congressman does not know what lies before him and to box himself into a corner and remove a set of chips from himself before he even sits down at the poker table is just stupid.

Then there is the fact that Grover uses this pledge signed or not to try to pressure individuals with the threat of big money either used against you or for you just seems wrong. This is where everyone should agree. The right doesn't like unions flooding money into elections to further their agenda right? Well this in a way is no different.

I saw one congressman mention that a pledge signed may have had merit when it was signed but years later circumstances change yet he is somehow still bound to a rigid ideology.

Bottom line their may come a time when the only way to save our country is through higher taxes and that is far better than ending up like Greece.

And I for one would quickly take a 10:1 cuts for tax deal if the cuts were real. When we remove taxes from the kitty we have NOTHING left to negotiate with.

You don't sign a pledge to behave a certain way, in any position of leadership, regardless of external circumstances. That is just stupid.

I hate taxes BTW and don't think they should or need to be raised but cut more.

Yeah, I already repped you too, so...

 

[MarcATL]

I don't even know how this is legal. The only document that congress should be upholding and protecting is the United States Constitution.

For now I'd much rather see a reform to the tax code to remove the tax breaks and loopholes and cut the rates correspondingly. I'd also cut or remove the subsidies to big corps and I wouldn't allow tax credits to be applied in future years.

You do know that is part of the pledge also. Not only can't they raise taxes but they can't close loopholes either. That is why the super comittee failed because they were going to close loopholes and lower rates. Norquist stopped it dead in its tracks.

Yep, the RW FIEND, Norquist, is at the very root of the failure of the SuperCommitte.

 

[Navy1960]

Oath of Office; Congress

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 1

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

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.
Grover Norquist

So let me see if I understand this correctly, here you have a man who has those that we represent sing a pledge to basically brak their oath of office and NOT uphold the constitution so that he and his group may buy votes to their liking? I don't call this anything other than what it is a lobby group no different than any other on K Street, however in this one, they tend to want to pay more attention to the man more so than others. As I said in my previous posting, the important factor here is the "voter" it is we who choose who we wish to represent us and as such they should reflect those wishes whatever they may be and to sign a pledge that is meaningless and on it's surface appears to go directly against the Oath they take serves no other purpose other than to take that vote away from us.

 

[Full-Auto]

Most new congressmen are confronted with this pledge before they are even elected. I see the lefts complaint about this as partially valid. While I disagree with the premise of raising taxes in general I have a problem with this anyhow. A prospective congressman does not know what lies before him and to box himself into a corner and remove a set of chips from himself before he even sits down at the poker table is just stupid.

Then there is the fact that Grover uses this pledge signed or not to try to pressure individuals with the threat of big money either used against you or for you just seems wrong. This is where everyone should agree. The right doesn't like unions flooding money into elections to further their agenda right? Well this in a way is no different.

I saw one congressman mention that a pledge signed may have had merit when it was signed but years later circumstances change yet he is somehow still bound to a rigid ideology.

Bottom line their may come a time when the only way to save our country is through higher taxes and that is far better than ending up like Greece.

And I for one would quickly take a 10:1 cuts for tax deal if the cuts were real. When we remove taxes from the kitty we have NOTHING left to negotiate with.

NOT ANOTHER DIME..................


Once I am convinced we have spending reigned in, tax increases can be discussed.