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

[BDBoop]

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.

Exactly. If they are representing him, his wonts and wishes, then they are not representing their constituents, so therefore.

Those who signed will be voted out of office.

 

[Claudette]

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

It's not legal, you idiot. It's nothing more than a political device to hold somebody's feet tothe fire.


And no, i wouldn't sign it either. I don't think taxes should be raised until the economy is on stronger footing, maybe a few years down the road. 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.

Bingo.

Couldn't agree more.

Get rid of the tax breaks, subsidies and tax loopholes. How much revenue do you think that would create??

Until the Clowns in DC get the spending under control I wouldn't raise taxes either. This economy is shakey enough as it is.

The morons in DC are just that. Morons. If they handled their personal finances the way they handle the finances of we the taxpayers they would all be bankrupt or in jail.

Clowns one and all.

 

[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.

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

Common sense is not needing of rep

 

[bripat9643]

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?

This has to be one of the purest forms of idiocy I've ever seen posted in this forum. Nothing in that pledge is unconstitutional, nor does signing it violate A congressman's oath of office. To believe that, you'd have to believe the Constitution requires Congress to vote in favor of higher taxes, and there is no such requirement. The power to do something does not equate to a requirement to do it. Only a profound imbecile doesn't understand that.

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.

There's nothing "meaningless" about it. It allows the voters know where a politician stands on a given issue. You just don't like that particular stance.

It certainly doesn't violate the oath of office.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

I agree with you whole heartedly. I merely wanted to point out that the option should be open if fiscal responsibility is forefront.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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...

Common sense is not needing of rep

If he had commons sense he would have reped the person that had the same opinion and the one who started the thread and the discussion.

I have even reped Boop when she says something i like. Its a game to others