On Grover Norquist

[Toddsterpatriot]

They are betraying a cause or a trust..

It is their solemn pledge to uphold the constitution..and the Norquist pledge restricts their ability to fulfill that pledge.

Many of their constituents trust them to not raise taxes.
Is it now unconstitutional to not raise taxes?

It is Unconstitutional not to pay America's debts. It is Unconstitional not to make sure that we are a fiscally sound country. The Constitution provides for ways to do both. One is to raise taxes.

If you are restricted by this..or restricted by the ability to close loopholes, then you are circumventing your pledge to unhold the Constitution.

And sometimes that's going to make your constituents mad.

But then again..constituents seem to like Federal Money when it helps their districts and not so much when it helps other districts. That's why we hire professional politicians. They are supposed to look at every side of an issue and make an informed decision so the rest of us can continue living our lives and be productive.

Who doesn't want to pay America's debts?
Have you ever heard of paying debts without going deeper into debt?
It's the way that works the best.

 

[Liability]

The Pledge itself only amounts to Norquist (and his supporters) petitioning Congress and the Government in general for the redress of grievances.

Insofar as it goes, it calls upon Congressmen, Senators, Governors and the President and candidates for those offices to bind themselves by a pledge to oppose increased taxation.

Wouldn't that amount to nothing more than a campaign promise to their constituents in HOW they intend to perform the duties if elected?

And isn't that something they can do as Congressmen (etc) as their manner of upholding their oaths TO the Constitution?



For those keeping score at home, here is the version which Congressional candidates are called upon to agree:

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

I know what it says..and it adds a restriction on the ability of congress to tax. Like it or not that's a major source of revenue for this country. And like it or not..along with all the goodies the last administration larded on Americans..it also saddled this nation with two full wars with no way to pay for them. That's why Paygo was done away with. I'm not even counting the debt..which no one addresses at all. At some point the principle has to be addressed. Letting people starve or not educating them or not providing health care; just can't be the answer.

Seriously..Bush could have proposed a "patriot tax" to fund both Afghanistan or Iraq. He didn't. He could have come up with a better way to fund the new entitlement. He didn't. Some where some time down the line..someone has got to say..don't add shit..or fund it.

And the Norquist plan does neither. And no congress person should be signing pledges anyway.

That pledge doesn't restrict the ability of Congress to tax.

That's absolutely correct. If HONORED by the Congresspersons making that pledge, it restricts THEM from voting in favor of additional taxation.

 

[Liability]

I know what it says..and it adds a restriction on the ability of congress to tax. Like it or not that's a major source of revenue for this country. And like it or not..along with all the goodies the last administration larded on Americans..it also saddled this nation with two full wars with no way to pay for them. That's why Paygo was done away with. I'm not even counting the debt..which no one addresses at all. At some point the principle has to be addressed. Letting people starve or not educating them or not providing health care; just can't be the answer.

Seriously..Bush could have proposed a "patriot tax" to fund both Afghanistan or Iraq. He didn't. He could have come up with a better way to fund the new entitlement. He didn't. Some where some time down the line..someone has got to say..don't add shit..or fund it.

And the Norquist plan does neither. And no congress person should be signing pledges anyway.

That pledge doesn't restrict the ability of Congress to tax.

Sure it does.

Read it.

Nope. It really doesn't.

It is a PLEDGE by individual (potential) Congress-persons NOT to vote in favor of issuing more taxes.

That does not restrict Congress. That's a separate matter which is also desirable, but it's not what the Pledge does.

 

[Sallow]

I know what it says..and it adds a restriction on the ability of congress to tax. Like it or not that's a major source of revenue for this country. And like it or not..along with all the goodies the last administration larded on Americans..it also saddled this nation with two full wars with no way to pay for them. That's why Paygo was done away with. I'm not even counting the debt..which no one addresses at all. At some point the principle has to be addressed. Letting people starve or not educating them or not providing health care; just can't be the answer.

Seriously..Bush could have proposed a "patriot tax" to fund both Afghanistan or Iraq. He didn't. He could have come up with a better way to fund the new entitlement. He didn't. Some where some time down the line..someone has got to say..don't add shit..or fund it.

And the Norquist plan does neither. And no congress person should be signing pledges anyway.

That pledge doesn't restrict the ability of Congress to tax.

That's absolutely correct. If HONORED by the Congresspersons making that pledge, it restricts THEM from voting in favor of additional taxation.

Texas just got a region declared a disaster area because of fires..and now the federal government is going to send aid to assist them.

The Midwest suffered massive flooding..and the federal government sent funds and personnel to assist them.

Troops in the field are getting injured in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

These are additional costs to the Federal government.

How does that cost get managed? In fact..how do costs not provisioned get managed? We deal with emergencies all the time.

Of course districts DO provision funding for projects in their regions with no regard as to where that funding comes from..a good many of the very same people signing the pledge have done that. That's the thing about Americans in general. They want free lunch.

And seriously..if you think SSI (which adds nothing to debt or deficit..and is solvent for 26 years) and Medicare are going to be easy to cut..watch in 2012.

 

[Liability]

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I know. That's why I said "our" dictionary and also why I "thanked" you for your post and "repped" ya.



And I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing how Sallow or Fly Catcher make the case that the signing of THAT pledge amounts to "treason" against the Constitution (or treason in any other form).

They are betraying a cause or a trust..

It is their solemn pledge to uphold the constitution..and the Norquist pledge restricts their ability to fulfill that pledge.

No. No it doesn't.

It simply directs them in HOW to fulfill that pledge of fidelity TO the Constitution.

Indeed, it is happily consistent with a fair and accurate interpretation of what the Constitution commands.

 

[Sallow]

That pledge doesn't restrict the ability of Congress to tax.

Sure it does.

Read it.

Nope. It really doesn't.

It is a PLEDGE by individual (potential) Congress-persons NOT to vote in favor of issuing more taxes.

That does not restrict Congress. That's a separate matter which is also desirable, but it's not what the Pledge does.

Sure it does.

If they vote to raise taxes..they violate the pledge and the personal integrity.

If they vote not to raise taxes they violate clauses in the Constitution that give that to them as an option to fulfill the promise to pay debts.

And everything that raises revenue..whether that be closing loopholes, eliminating rebates, letting the Bush tax cuts expire..etc..are tax hikes to Norquist.

He's said he wants the Tax Cuts permanent.

I musta missed it. Who the heck elected Norquist?

 

[Sallow]

Many of their constituents trust them to not raise taxes.
Is it now unconstitutional to not raise taxes?

It is Unconstitutional not to pay America's debts. It is Unconstitional not to make sure that we are a fiscally sound country. The Constitution provides for ways to do both. One is to raise taxes.

If you are restricted by this..or restricted by the ability to close loopholes, then you are circumventing your pledge to unhold the Constitution.

And sometimes that's going to make your constituents mad.

But then again..constituents seem to like Federal Money when it helps their districts and not so much when it helps other districts. That's why we hire professional politicians. They are supposed to look at every side of an issue and make an informed decision so the rest of us can continue living our lives and be productive.

Who doesn't want to pay America's debts?
Have you ever heard of paying debts without going deeper into debt?
It's the way that works the best.

Then stop cutting taxes.

 

[daveman]

Grover Norquist / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

A lttile history from a fine source.

Angle to meet with GOP leaders, fundraisers - News - ReviewJournal.com

From a Las Vegas paper.

I've been following Norquist for quite some time..when he was just considered a loon with his "Starve the Beast" crappola until now when he's got over 200 traitors to the United States Constitution signed up to his pledge sitting in congress.

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's never really done anything to acquire wealth..he was born into it. And he supports generational wealth..and generational poverty.

In other words...he's into Plutocracy..or Conservatism.

The hyperbole is thick here.

"traitors to the . . . Constitution" ???

Oh brother.

He meant "traitors to Obama".

 

[Liability]

That pledge doesn't restrict the ability of Congress to tax.

That's absolutely correct. If HONORED by the Congresspersons making that pledge, it restricts THEM from voting in favor of additional taxation.

Texas just got a region declared a disaster area because of fires..and now the federal government is going to send aid to assist them.

And?

The Midwest suffered massive flooding..and the federal government sent funds and personnel to assist them.

And?

Troops in the field are getting injured in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That's true. And it is painful. But your point is ... ?

These are additional costs to the Federal government.

No. They're not. The costs of the wars is a basic cost of government if the government has committed to engaging IN war. The costs of aiding the American people (in regions afflicted with disasters) can also be viewed as one of the responsiblities of the Federal government (within certain obvious vounds, of course).

How does that cost get managed? In fact..how do costs not provisioned get managed? We deal with emergencies all the time.

And? It is not impossible to attend to such "costs" without raising taxes OR going into debt. And such things would be a whole lot easier if we weren't already choking o death on debts and deficits for all manner of "costs" which we have had no CONSTITUTIONALLY valid business accruing.

Of course districts DO provision funding for projects in their regions with no regard as to where that funding comes from..a good many of the very same people signing the pledge have done that. That's the thing about Americans in general. They want free lunch.

If there's a "point" in that paragraph, it's not apparent. Because people have behaved irresponsibly and irrationally in the past, we have no choice but to continue down that same path?

And seriously..if you think SSI (which adds nothing to debt or deficit..and is solvent for 26 years) and Medicare are going to be easy to cut..watch in 2012.

I don't think I have EVER suggested that managing the costs of SSI or Medicate would be "easy." In fact, I absolutely have conceded that it would be very difficult and painful. The thing is, that's no excuse not to get on with the job.

None of that has anything to do with the claim that the Norquist pledge is akin to treason. It isn't.

 

[daveman]

No government with a standing military of 1.4 million, and certainly no government with over 800,000 people holding "TOP secret Security clearance" is every apt ot be small enough to drown in a bathtub.

When the GOP gets real about reducing the military and intelligence services, then and ONLY then will I believe that the GOP really wants a SMALLER government.

Last time we cut back on Intelligence was under Clinton.....then we had to rely on foreign intell, then 9-11 happened.

Oh.....that was nearly 10 years ago...my bad.

So then you do not believe that destroying this nation by eliminating the government is a good idea?

Glad to read it.

Who wants to eliminate the government?

 

[Liability]

It is Unconstitutional not to pay America's debts. It is Unconstitional not to make sure that we are a fiscally sound country. The Constitution provides for ways to do both. One is to raise taxes.

If you are restricted by this..or restricted by the ability to close loopholes, then you are circumventing your pledge to unhold the Constitution.

And sometimes that's going to make your constituents mad.

But then again..constituents seem to like Federal Money when it helps their districts and not so much when it helps other districts. That's why we hire professional politicians. They are supposed to look at every side of an issue and make an informed decision so the rest of us can continue living our lives and be productive.

Who doesn't want to pay America's debts?
Have you ever heard of paying debts without going deeper into debt?
It's the way that works the best.

Then stop cutting taxes.

No. Lower them. Then reassess what matters require funding -- and how much -- after paying one's debts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is a fundamental difference between those who reject the theory of a social contract and those who support the theory. The difference is in the details and the details usually show the hypocrisy of those who reject it.

By accepting the benefits of government it is argued that they accept SC theory, at least tacitly. The examples of the fires in Texas and floods in the midwest are valid examples of some residents and elected officials accepting the largess of the federal government while arguing the Constitution doesn't authorize those benefits.

As a liberal I support the government providing money to the citizens of Texas to fight fires, and to the citizens of the flood ravaged midwest for relief. Nowhere in the enumerated powers is such an authority granted the President, yet he has acted. Please explain what to me is an obvious contradiction LIEability.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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


Read more: Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Discuss

"Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase," Norquist told the newspaper's editorial board. "So it doesn't violate the pledge? 'We wouldn't hold it that way,' he said."

Teabagger Moment-Of-Clarity Goes VIRAL​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is Unconstitutional not to pay America's debts. It is Unconstitional not to make sure that we are a fiscally sound country. The Constitution provides for ways to do both. One is to raise taxes.

If you are restricted by this..or restricted by the ability to close loopholes, then you are circumventing your pledge to unhold the Constitution.

And sometimes that's going to make your constituents mad.

But then again..constituents seem to like Federal Money when it helps their districts and not so much when it helps other districts. That's why we hire professional politicians. They are supposed to look at every side of an issue and make an informed decision so the rest of us can continue living our lives and be productive.

Who doesn't want to pay America's debts?
Have you ever heard of paying debts without going deeper into debt?
It's the way that works the best.

Then stop cutting taxes.

That's an excellent idea. And then we'll cut spending 10% a year until the debt is paid off.

 

[Liability]

There is a fundamental difference between those who reject the theory of a social contract and those who support the theory. The difference is in the details and the details usually show the hypocrisy of those who reject it.

By accepting the benefits of government it is argued that they accept SC theory, at least tacitly. The examples of the fires in Texas and floods in the midwest are valid examples of some residents and elected officials accepting the largess of the federal government while arguing the Constitution doesn ot authorize those benefits.

As a liberal I support the government providing money to the citizens of Texas to fight fires, and to the citizens of the flood ravaged midwest for relief. Nowhere in the enumerated powers is such an authority granted the President, yet he has acted. Please explain what to me is an obvious contradiction LIEability.

Fly Catcher, I will presume that you were addressing me, since you are thoroughly unoriginal and glaringly dishonest.


I am GUESSING that you think that the President has no enumerated power to help the victims in to disaster areas within the United States. Maybe, maybe not. But when FEMA acts, it acts with the imprimatur of some duly passed Congressional Acts which have become law.

Now if what you are trying to say is that the Congress has no Constitutional authority to create a FEMA type agency, that's another story.

In fact, Congress DIDN'T create FEMA. Jimmy Carter did during his Administration by way of an Executive Order. But it was a mere consolidation of a vast hodge podge of Federal Agencies created to address all manner of local disasters within the United States, so it did start out as Congressionally authorized.

That still begs the question. By dint of what Constitutional authority did Congress create those other agencies?

In some ways, I'm surprised that YOU would even "ask" that question. Are you suggesting that Congress has no Constitutional authority to do this? Or, are you just trying to be slick here? could it be that you hope to get a concession that the "welfare clause" in the Preamble justifies such Federal Government actions?

The Preamble, in fact, gives Congress ZERO authority. It is just that: a preamble. it has no legal weight on its own.

The authority of Congress to enact such laws, instead, is likely found in Art. I, Sec. 8.

Article 1, Section 8 states:

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

There is a specific expression of authority by which it may at least be intelligently claimed that the Constitution grants some authority to Congress for such purposes.

I'm not sure the claim is valid, but like you, I take the position that I want the WHOLE (the Federal Union) to look out for the interests of the States when disasters do strike. So there you have it.

My foot has taken the first step on the slippery slope. Is that what you were looking for, Fly Catcher?

It could be argued (as a question of proper Constitutional interpretation) that the U.S. Constitution instead contemplates that disaster relief is a proper government role for the STATES but not for the Federal Government. I could see that too, but I believe that it is probably a bit too dogmatic to go that far.

What happened in La. and N.O. during Katrina, for example, was not mostly a failure of the Federal government. It was PRIMARILY a failure of STATE and LOCAL government. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine that it would have been Constitutionally impermissible for the Federal Government to lend a hand under those dire circumstances.

 

[Sallow]

Who doesn't want to pay America's debts?
Have you ever heard of paying debts without going deeper into debt?
It's the way that works the best.

Then stop cutting taxes.

No. Lower them. Then reassess what matters require funding -- and how much -- after paying one's debts.

Reagan began dramatically cutting taxes..while lobbing on more debt. To his credit, George HW Bush tried addressing this..and was largely successful. And continued with Clinton and got shot to hell with George W. Bush.

Cutting taxes hasn't helped the economy. Quite the opposite.

You're right. We need to address the debt. And that's not going to happen by cutting spending alone.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Papa Obama spending us into more debt has not seemed to help either

 

[Dot Com]

it stopped us from going into a depression dummy

 

[Oscar Wao]

it stopped us from going into a depression dummy

It hasn't stopped us from going into a depression: That's just an illusion given to you by witch-doctor economists and a media that's not doing its job by being critical and analytical of the President's and Congress' actions.

 

[Dot Com]

Well. There you have it. LOL

Hey. Did Norquist cave w/ his dopey pledge that he trots @ D.C. year after year?