On Grover Norquist

[EriktheRed]

What has Grover Norquist done to deserve the Two Minute Hate?

I'll let this guy help answer that:

Awwwwwwwwwwww......how unfortunate.

You forgot to add the first-part!!​

"I'm going to keep it short today on account of the copious incoming traffic chewing on Monday's and Tuesday's posts. But we have enough time to indulge in a fun hypothetical."

.....And, his fun hypothetical included trashing some Black-dude!!!!

You think that cute, huh?????



​

Uh, how long have you known me on here? Do you honestly think I or the guy I'm quoting is trashing Jesse Jackson???

 

[Liability]

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.

Your historical references remain kind of -- pointless. If we were to stipulate (I don't but just for the sake of the discussion, IF we were to stipulate) that Pres. Reagan got us deeper into debt, that doesn't mean that getting us even deeper into debt is now a good thing. Regardless of who got us here (plenty of blame to go ALL around), the job now is to FIX IT.

The fact remains, we got into massive debt due to spending. Spending. More spending. More spending. Very large additional spending. Then, of course, even more and bigger spending.

We will not get out of the hole by continuing to spend.

If we are serious about not spending money we don't have, then there's no need for more authority to go deeper into debt. Doing so will never get us OUT of debt.

So, yes. We must STOP spending so damn much. We don't need to raise taxes. We take in shitloads.

We must reassign how it gets spent and we must spend LESS than we take in. We must pay down the debt over time and STOP pretending that we can live on credit.

Fine.

We spend billions abroad to support foreign militaries, and bases in foreign lands. We also inadequately fund the IRS and there are billions in lost revenue. There are billions in revenue that we can re-capture by ending subsidies and tax breaks for corporations. From 2001-2007 the pentagon cut 50 billion on their own..just in reducing waste. In waste! They were wasting so much money that they cut it themselves! And the Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent..and didn't do anything but make very wealthy people much wealthier.

But it seems the first thing you guys want to do is cut education, cut SSI, cut Medicare and cut programs for the poor.

You throw that shit down like it's some Holy Cow untouchable thing.

I have a reiteration of a very old news flash.

I have maintained (and I still maintain) that when it comes to haggling out what has to get cut, and by how much if anything, there can be no sacred cows. The military isn't so sacrosanct that it can't use a little budget trimming. We may or may not agree on what bases overseas (if any) get shut down, but maybe it is time to call the North Korean conflict OVER! Maybe it IS time to take some of our troops OUT of Japan and Germany. I understand that WWII is actually over.

The Pentagon has been know nto buy toilet seats for several hundred dollars a piece and some of their tools (basic tools like hammers) cost thousands of dollars a piece. SOMEBODY didn't learn how to perform the basic accounting needed to do his job ....

We can get rid of the ENTIRE U.S. Department of Education, too, while we're at it.

I say there's LOTS of stuff to talk about.

And now that Boehner has pulled out of the "talks" with the President, maybe we should give this a try!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

What Norquist doesn't understand or won't admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you've got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you've created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they're consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you're making big government more palatable.

Now that we're holding the line on taxes, it's time to hold the line on spending.

That's the point. Cutting taxes is easy for politicians; it's little more than throwing money at the voters.

Cutting spending is when the politicians take the money back. They won't do it, because voters don't vote for the politician who takes, they vote for the one who gives.

That's why cutting taxes WITHOUT accompanying spending cuts is by far the most irresponsible act a politician can do, at least in the arena of fiscal policy.

 

[daveman]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

Now that we're holding the line on taxes, it's time to hold the line on spending.

That's the point. Cutting taxes is easy for politicians; it's little more than throwing money at the voters.

Wow. You really do think that all money belongs to the government, don't you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

Now that we're holding the line on taxes, it's time to hold the line on spending.

....Except for $ub$idie$ to oil-companies (and, other such interests), because their lobbyi$t$ are so much-more generous with campaign-funding....right?

​

What oil company subsidies? Be specific.

 

[Liability]

Norquist's Pledge is a Colossal Failure

Starving the Beast is worse than the disease

Now that we're holding the line on taxes, it's time to hold the line on spending.

That's the point. Cutting taxes is easy for politicians; it's little more than throwing money at the voters.

Cutting spending is when the politicians take the money back. They won't do it, because voters don't vote for the politician who takes, they vote for the one who gives.

That's why cutting taxes WITHOUT accompanying spending cuts is by far the most irresponsible act a politician can do, at least in the arena of fiscal policy.

To the extent the thinking process revealed in the quoted post is indicative of "liberal thinking," the faith shown by Carby in "the People" is notably lacking and sadly illuminating.

It is, of course, true (undeniable) that lots of ignorant voters DO vote on the basis of what the politician can "bring home" to their districts.

But to ascribe that selfish, narrow thinking to ALL of the People -- or to "the People" in general -- shows a very disturbing elitist disdain for "the masses." THAT, sadly, does seem to be a hallmark of modern American liberal orthodoxy.

 

[editec]

Norquist hates government?

As does the mafia.

they ALSO think there are too many regulations keeping them from realizing their full potential profit.

And like Norquist, they HATE taxation.

 

[Liability]

Norquist hates government?

As does the mafia.

they ALSO think there are too many regulations keeping them from realizing their full potential profit.

And like Norquist, they HATE taxation.

So if one thinks that the Federal Government has gone too far and has transgressed the LIMITS imposed on it by the Constitution, then according to your childish syllogism, one must be very much like a Mafioso.

You aren't bright at all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Norquist hates government?

As does the mafia.

they ALSO think there are too many regulations keeping them from realizing their full potential profit.

And like Norquist, they HATE taxation.

So if one thinks that the Federal Government has gone too far and has transgressed the LIMITS imposed on it by the Constitution, then according to your childish syllogism, one must be very much like a Mafioso.

You aren't bright at all.

The comparison is a valid one, unless you can offer some evidence to dispute them the question is raised as to the legitimacy of GN and Americans for Tax Reform. I'm not suggesting illegality - though I wouldn't rule that out - or that supporters are into prostitution or selling drugs or other activities one associates with organized crime, but money raised to support GN goes somewhere. If it lines the pockets of lawmakers in the Congress or state legislators it may well be. Or not. Least we forget CU v. FEC.

Besides, organized crime is not known for having empathy or concern for the consequences of their actions. The end (their wealth and power) justifies any means; one more characteristic in common with GN and contemporary conservativism.

 

[Liability]

Norquist hates government?

As does the mafia.

they ALSO think there are too many regulations keeping them from realizing their full potential profit.

And like Norquist, they HATE taxation.

So if one thinks that the Federal Government has gone too far and has transgressed the LIMITS imposed on it by the Constitution, then according to your childish syllogism, one must be very much like a Mafioso.

You aren't bright at all.

The comparison is a valid one, unless you can offer some evidence to dispute them the question is raised as to the legitimacy of GN and Americans for Tax Reform. I'm not suggesting illegality - though I wouldn't rule that out - or that supporters are into prostitution or selling drugs or other activities one associates with organized crime, but money raised to support GN goes somewhere. If it lines the pockets of lawmakers in the Congress or state legislators it may well be. Or not. Least we forget CU v. FEC.

Besides, organized crime is not known for having empathy or concern for the consequences of their actions. The end (their wealth and power) justifies any means; one more characteristic in common with GN and contemporary conservativism.

The fact that you endorse that childish syllogism doesn't make it any less childish or invalid.

The group which you seek to impugn spends money on its campaign to persuade legislators, Governors and the President that we have a problem that will not be solved (but which will be made much worse) by increasing taxation. (The group seeks, as well, to educate the public on this political problem.)

We "get" the fact that you disagree with the public policy position of that particular "interest group." Your political disagreement, though, in no way makes any part of what they advocate even marginally improper.

No. The ends do not generally justify the means. Conservatives do NOT ascribe to that credo, either. That claim is just you being dishonest.

And it hardly matters for purposes of this discussion since the "means," here, happen to be protected political speech. It's not much. Just one of the Foundations of our Republic.

Not surprised to see that it offends you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So if one thinks that the Federal Government has gone too far and has transgressed the LIMITS imposed on it by the Constitution, then according to your childish syllogism, one must be very much like a Mafioso.

You aren't bright at all.

The comparison is a valid one, unless you can offer some evidence to dispute them the question is raised as to the legitimacy of GN and Americans for Tax Reform. I'm not suggesting illegality - though I wouldn't rule that out - or that supporters are into prostitution or selling drugs or other activities one associates with organized crime, but money raised to support GN goes somewhere. If it lines the pockets of lawmakers in the Congress or state legislators it may well be. Or not. Least we forget CU v. FEC.

Besides, organized crime is not known for having empathy or concern for the consequences of their actions. The end (their wealth and power) justifies any means; one more characteristic in common with GN and contemporary conservativism.

The fact that you endorse that childish syllogism doesn't make it any less childish or invalid.

The group which you seek to impugn spends money on its campaign to persuade legislators, Governors and the President that we have a problem that will not be solved (but which will be made much worse) by increasing taxation. (The group seeks, as well, to educate the public on this political problem.)

We "get" the fact that you disagree with the public policy position of that particular "interest group." Your political disagreement, though, in no way makes any part of what they advocate even marginally improper.

No. The ends do not generally justify the means. Conservatives do NOT ascribe to that credo, either. That claim is just you being dishonest.

And it hardly matters for purposes of this discussion since the "means," here, happen to be protected political speech. It's not much. Just one of the Foundations of our Republic.

Not surprised to see that it offends you.

The "means" as defined by the Supreme Court (5-4) made 'bribes' to elected officials and the ability to mislead the public on policy issues free speech. In effect CU v, FEC made bribery legal and purveyors of special interest propaganda legitimate. I doubt very much that was what the founders of our Republic had in mind.

 

[Dot Com]

What has Grover Norquist done to deserve the Two Minute Hate?

you don't remember his pledges that he trots out every year to have the Righties sign? Here, see if you can pick him out of this line- up:

 

[Lovebears65]

Is this dude running for president , if not why are you so bothered by him .

 

[daveman]

Is this dude running for president , if not why are you so bothered by him .

He's exposing the proles to unapproved thought and dangerous ideas.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Last night on 60-minutes Grover Norquist was interviewed by Steve Kroft, an interview no one interested in contemporary American politics should miss.

I found Norquist to be quite candide as well as evil. His ends and means world view is contemptable, his arrogance without bounds, and his smug demeanor deserving of a short, quick left hand to the nose.

 

[Truthmatters]

Is this dude running for president , if not why are you so bothered by him .

He does run the republican party.

Whoever the right runs will have to sign his pledge.

If they dont they are too liberal for your base and will not get the nod.

They will not get elected in a general election if they sign it.

Grover owns your party

 

[Wry Catcher]

GN does own the Republican Party, or at least most of those elected under the Republican brand. It's unfortunate the willfull ignorant didn't and will not watch the 60-minutes interview. In his own words he makes clear he is the shot caller.

 

[blastoff]

OH NOES!

If we cut gubmint social safety sofa programs, the poooooooor will be thrown out into the street, gramma will have to resort to eating dog food and the chiiiillllllldrrrrreeeeeennnnn will be eaten by dingos!!!!!

New day, same stale old socialist/progressive hair-um scare-um bullshit demonization and scare tactics.

Doesn't it get even the tiniest bit old?

Nope and it never will. It guarantees them X number of votes.

 

[Truthmatters]

How sad is it to tout a party so religiously as some do here and NEVER even KNOW the people who pull the levers behind the scene?

 

[Full-Auto]

How sad is it to tout a party so religiously as some do here and NEVER even KNOW the people who pull the levers behind the scene?

You are an excellent example of that problem.