Top Republican leader rejects anti-tax pledge by GOP lawmakers.

[RosieS]

Grover Norquist is just some washed up fool who thinks he is more powerful than he really is.

No elected Representative should ever sign a pledge to an interest group or ideology. They are there to serve in the best interests of the American people.

No pledges!!

Maybe we should get rid of that pesky oath of office as well, you know where they pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Unconstittutional spending is what got us here and will be our downfall. How do you propose to fix that?

Repeal the House of Representatives? Under the Constitution, all spending bills start there.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Wolfsister77]

Maybe we should get rid of that pesky oath of office as well, you know where they pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Unconstittutional spending is what got us here and will be our downfall. How do you propose to fix that?

I'm talking about pledges that tie the hands of duly elected representatives given to special interest groups and individuals who are not looking out for the interests of our country.

The oath of office is not the same thing.

We have to do both-raise taxes and cut spending. Not just one or the other.

Historically, regardless of tax rates the federal government hasn't taken in more than 16% of GDP, when spending exceed that point deficits will be the result. History also proves that when you tax anything, you get less of it, whether it's money or a commodity, so why not just keep doing the things that have never worked and expect different results, the presence of your dear learder not withstanding, it's still insane.

We need a balanced approach. Just cutting spending without raising revenue is not going to cut it. Tax rates are at historically low levels and we can't get out of this hole by cutting programs that benefit the poor and elderly or by refusing to touch military spending or by leaving the Bush tax cuts in place that gave large tax cuts to those that don't need them. They were never meant to be permanent.

The main reason we are in this hole is because of those tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, and a large unfunded prescription drug plan for Medicare.

And he isn't my dear leader. He's the President.

 

[RDD_1210]

He cares about his country... pfft... he's no better than the big government, tax and spend liberals.

Being a republican just doesn't mean shit anymore. They're all a bunch of spineless, mealy mouthed pussies that cave time and again to the democrats. It's getting hard to tell the difference between them.

**** 'em all. Civil War II, clean house.

Spineless you say? You mean like being a true conservative and not honoring your agreements. You'd know all about that, wouldn't you?

 

[RDD_1210]

NOTICE how they love love love the billionaire Buffet that Obama made a special RULE for him

but that damn Grover how dare Republicans

two faced hypocrites, ALL liberals

You are making less sense than usual.

 

[jillian]

He cares about his country... pfft... he's no better than the big government, tax and spend liberals.

Being a republican just doesn't mean shit anymore. They're all a bunch of spineless, mealy mouthed pussies that cave time and again to the democrats. It's getting hard to tell the difference between them.

**** 'em all. Civil War II, clean house.

spoken like a true wacko....

please... i hope your idiot fringe keeps on keeping on.

lose some more seats in the House in two years... give us more seats in the Senate...

works for me.

ayup.

 

[OKTexas]

Grover Norquist is just some washed up fool who thinks he is more powerful than he really is.

No elected Representative should ever sign a pledge to an interest group or ideology. They are there to serve in the best interests of the American people.

No pledges!!

Maybe we should get rid of that pesky oath of office as well, you know where they pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Unconstittutional spending is what got us here and will be our downfall. How do you propose to fix that?

Repeal the House of Representatives? Under the Constitution, all spending bills start there.

Regards from Rosie

Wrong, only bills that raise revene are required to originate in the house. See article 1, section 7, clause 1.

 

[kiwiman127]

People aren't serious about tackling the deficit it they can't accept A, cutting spending and B, increasing tax revenues. It's that plain and simple.
Rabbi posted,,,"The tax increase on income is estimated to bring in $800B over 10 years. Never mind that it wont. That's $80B a year. In the context of 1.4T deficits that's nothing." His comment has been repeated several times on these boards. So my question is, if that amount is so small, well then what's the problem?
The same goes with the cuts in spending, we have to have serious cuts,,across the board, not amounts that are just symbolic.
We have learned something from Europe's austerity, it's pretty foolish to cut government spending and raise taxes when the economy is still weak. It simply cuts economic growth and may bring on a recession.
It's better to to hold down some spending without stalling economic growth. Applying a stricter and more of an aggressive approach should be applied for the long-term after the economy picks up in a consistent manner.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm talking about pledges that tie the hands of duly elected representatives given to special interest groups and individuals who are not looking out for the interests of our country.

The oath of office is not the same thing.

We have to do both-raise taxes and cut spending. Not just one or the other.

Historically, regardless of tax rates the federal government hasn't taken in more than 16% of GDP, when spending exceed that point deficits will be the result. History also proves that when you tax anything, you get less of it, whether it's money or a commodity, so why not just keep doing the things that have never worked and expect different results, the presence of your dear learder not withstanding, it's still insane.

We need a balanced approach. Just cutting spending without raising revenue is not going to cut it. Tax rates are at historically low levels and we can't get out of this hole by cutting programs that benefit the poor and elderly or by refusing to touch military spending or by leaving the Bush tax cuts in place that gave large tax cuts to those that don't need them. They were never meant to be permanent.

The main reason we are in this hole is because of those tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, and a large unfunded prescription drug plan for Medicare.

And he isn't my dear leader. He's the President.

Then let them all expire, if the Clinton rates were so good, why would you object to all the rates returning to those levels? Your willing to force others to pay more but heaven forbid you have to get out your check book. The current rates reduced everyones tax rate not just the wealthy, where's your sense of fairness?

BTW, revenues are not at historically low levels.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Historically, regardless of tax rates the federal government hasn't taken in more than 16% of GDP, when spending exceed that point deficits will be the result. History also proves that when you tax anything, you get less of it, whether it's money or a commodity, so why not just keep doing the things that have never worked and expect different results, the presence of your dear learder not withstanding, it's still insane.

We need a balanced approach. Just cutting spending without raising revenue is not going to cut it. Tax rates are at historically low levels and we can't get out of this hole by cutting programs that benefit the poor and elderly or by refusing to touch military spending or by leaving the Bush tax cuts in place that gave large tax cuts to those that don't need them. They were never meant to be permanent.

The main reason we are in this hole is because of those tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, and a large unfunded prescription drug plan for Medicare.

And he isn't my dear leader. He's the President.

Then let them all expire, if the Clinton rates were so good, why would you object to all the rates returning to those levels? Your willing to force others to pay more but heaven forbid you have to get out your check book. The current rates reduced everyones tax rate not just the wealthy, where's your sense of fairness?

Fine by me-let them all expire like they were supposed to.

 

[OKTexas]

We need a balanced approach. Just cutting spending without raising revenue is not going to cut it. Tax rates are at historically low levels and we can't get out of this hole by cutting programs that benefit the poor and elderly or by refusing to touch military spending or by leaving the Bush tax cuts in place that gave large tax cuts to those that don't need them. They were never meant to be permanent.

The main reason we are in this hole is because of those tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, and a large unfunded prescription drug plan for Medicare.

And he isn't my dear leader. He's the President.

Then let them all expire, if the Clinton rates were so good, why would you object to all the rates returning to those levels? Your willing to force others to pay more but heaven forbid you have to get out your check book. The current rates reduced everyones tax rate not just the wealthy, where's your sense of fairness?

Fine by me-let them all expire like they were supposed to.

OK, we agree on that, now where do we cut spending? I say we start with all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies like the DOE that are doing nothing but waste money. They've existed 32 years, spent 1.5 trillion and provided no return. Can we agree to start there?

 

[The Rabbi]

People aren't serious about tackling the deficit it they can't accept A, cutting spending and B, increasing tax revenues. It's that plain and simple.
Rabbi posted,,,"The tax increase on income is estimated to bring in $800B over 10 years. Never mind that it wont. That's $80B a year. In the context of 1.4T deficits that's nothing." His comment has been repeated several times on these boards. So my question is, if that amount is so small, well then what's the problem?
The same goes with the cuts in spending, we have to have serious cuts,,across the board, not amounts that are just symbolic.
We have learned something from Europe's austerity, it's pretty foolish to cut government spending and raise taxes when the economy is still weak. It simply cuts economic growth and may bring on a recession.
It's better to to hold down some spending without stalling economic growth. Applying a stricter and more of an aggressive approach should be applied for the long-term after the economy picks up in a consistent manner.

The problem is the effect it will have on the rest of the economy. Raising taxes on high income earners will depress how much they are willing to work and make. Their working provides lots of economic activity for other people. You would probably lose more in GDP than you would take in in revenue. Plus the estimates are over inflated, as they always are. High income earners find ways to defer or shelter their incomes.
Europe has slightly different problems from us. But one thing we can learn is that you cannot legislate your way to prosperity. The big problem in Europe is the difficulty in starting and growing a business. Labor laws are so strict that in some countries firing a worker is nearly impossible. With that, no one will hire unless they absolutely have no other choice.
With Obamacare we move further towards that model. All the mandates and regulations we have on business cost real money and probably yield mostly illusory gains.

 

[Meister]

At last... common sense is starting to permeate the GOP. Welcome aboard comrads.





Chambliss fires off on Norquist’s anti-tax pledge – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(CNN) – A top Republican U.S. senator brushed off the anti-tax pledge pushed by activist Grover Norquist and embraced widely for years by GOP lawmakers.

"I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," Sen. Saxby Chambliss told Georgia television station WMAZ, a CNN affiliate, on Wednesday. "If we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt and I just have a disagreement with him about that."

Oh my bad....I was looking at the title of this thread and thought it was another Rush Limbaugh hit piece.

 

[zeke]

People aren't serious about tackling the deficit it they can't accept A, cutting spending and B, increasing tax revenues. It's that plain and simple.
Rabbi posted,,,"The tax increase on income is estimated to bring in $800B over 10 years. Never mind that it wont. That's $80B a year. In the context of 1.4T deficits that's nothing." His comment has been repeated several times on these boards. So my question is, if that amount is so small, well then what's the problem?
The same goes with the cuts in spending, we have to have serious cuts,,across the board, not amounts that are just symbolic.
We have learned something from Europe's austerity, it's pretty foolish to cut government spending and raise taxes when the economy is still weak. It simply cuts economic growth and may bring on a recession.
It's better to to hold down some spending without stalling economic growth. Applying a stricter and more of an aggressive approach should be applied for the long-term after the economy picks up in a consistent manner.

The problem is the effect it will have on the rest of the economy. Raising taxes on high income earners will depress how much they are willing to work and make. Their working provides lots of economic activity for other people. You would probably lose more in GDP than you would take in in revenue. Plus the estimates are over inflated, as they always are. High income earners find ways to defer or shelter their incomes.
Europe has slightly different problems from us. But one thing we can learn is that you cannot legislate your way to prosperity. The big problem in Europe is the difficulty in starting and growing a business. Labor laws are so strict that in some countries firing a worker is nearly impossible. With that, no one will hire unless they absolutely have no other choice.
With Obamacare we move further towards that model. All the mandates and regulations we have on business cost real money and probably yield mostly illusory gains.

Hey did you read the highlighted bullshit posted above?

Rabbie are you really so fuking stupid that you would claim that a person making, lets say a million a month gross income will all of a sudden quit working hard because instead of netting 750,000 dollars a month, he will net 700,000. a month.

Are you really that stupid? You really think people have a problem getting by on 700k a month?

Hey and a pro athlete, making millions a year. What's he gonna do if his taxes go up? Miss the game winning shot on purpose? Idiot.

But go ahead rappi. Tell me what hardships the multi millioniare will incur when their taxes go up. I am sure it is a terrible tradegy that will occur.

You are a water boy rabbi. Tote that pail, the rich love their cocksucking slaves like you. Really they do.

 

[kiwiman127]

People aren't serious about tackling the deficit it they can't accept A, cutting spending and B, increasing tax revenues. It's that plain and simple.
Rabbi posted,,,"The tax increase on income is estimated to bring in $800B over 10 years. Never mind that it wont. That's $80B a year. In the context of 1.4T deficits that's nothing." His comment has been repeated several times on these boards. So my question is, if that amount is so small, well then what's the problem?
The same goes with the cuts in spending, we have to have serious cuts,,across the board, not amounts that are just symbolic.
We have learned something from Europe's austerity, it's pretty foolish to cut government spending and raise taxes when the economy is still weak. It simply cuts economic growth and may bring on a recession.
It's better to to hold down some spending without stalling economic growth. Applying a stricter and more of an aggressive approach should be applied for the long-term after the economy picks up in a consistent manner.

The problem is the effect it will have on the rest of the economy. Raising taxes on high income earners will depress how much they are willing to work and make. Their working provides lots of economic activity for other people. You would probably lose more in GDP than you would take in in revenue. Plus the estimates are over inflated, as they always are. High income earners find ways to defer or shelter their incomes.
Europe has slightly different problems from us. But one thing we can learn is that you cannot legislate your way to prosperity. The big problem in Europe is the difficulty in starting and growing a business. Labor laws are so strict that in some countries firing a worker is nearly impossible. With that, no one will hire unless they absolutely have no other choice.
With Obamacare we move further towards that model. All the mandates and regulations we have on business cost real money and probably yield mostly illusory gains.

Yeah, I have heard that one before but in fact it's a theory only, history doesn't support that theory at all.

 

[Zoom]

He cares about his country... pfft... he's no better than the big government, tax and spend liberals.

Being a republican just doesn't mean shit anymore. They're all a bunch of spineless, mealy mouthed pussies that cave time and again to the democrats. It's getting hard to tell the difference between them.

**** 'em all. Civil War II, clean house.

Them not working with the dems and the dems philosophies is what made them LOSE big time. People like you will keep republicans out of office for the next twenty years. At least.

DONT CHANGE!

 

[The Rabbi]

People aren't serious about tackling the deficit it they can't accept A, cutting spending and B, increasing tax revenues. It's that plain and simple.
Rabbi posted,,,"The tax increase on income is estimated to bring in $800B over 10 years. Never mind that it wont. That's $80B a year. In the context of 1.4T deficits that's nothing." His comment has been repeated several times on these boards. So my question is, if that amount is so small, well then what's the problem?
The same goes with the cuts in spending, we have to have serious cuts,,across the board, not amounts that are just symbolic.
We have learned something from Europe's austerity, it's pretty foolish to cut government spending and raise taxes when the economy is still weak. It simply cuts economic growth and may bring on a recession.
It's better to to hold down some spending without stalling economic growth. Applying a stricter and more of an aggressive approach should be applied for the long-term after the economy picks up in a consistent manner.

The problem is the effect it will have on the rest of the economy. Raising taxes on high income earners will depress how much they are willing to work and make. Their working provides lots of economic activity for other people. You would probably lose more in GDP than you would take in in revenue. Plus the estimates are over inflated, as they always are. High income earners find ways to defer or shelter their incomes.
Europe has slightly different problems from us. But one thing we can learn is that you cannot legislate your way to prosperity. The big problem in Europe is the difficulty in starting and growing a business. Labor laws are so strict that in some countries firing a worker is nearly impossible. With that, no one will hire unless they absolutely have no other choice.
With Obamacare we move further towards that model. All the mandates and regulations we have on business cost real money and probably yield mostly illusory gains.

Hey did you read the highlighted bullshit posted above?

Rabbie are you really so fuking stupid that you would claim that a person making, lets say a million a month gross income will all of a sudden quit working hard because instead of netting 750,000 dollars a month, he will net 700,000. a month.

Are you really that stupid? You really think people have a problem getting by on 700k a month?

Hey and a pro athlete, making millions a year. What's he gonna do if his taxes go up? Miss the game winning shot on purpose? Idiot.

But go ahead rappi. Tell me what hardships the multi millioniare will incur when their taxes go up. I am sure it is a terrible tradegy that will occur.

You are a water boy rabbi. Tote that pail, the rich love their cocksucking slaves like you. Really they do.

I realize people earning real money is a foreign concept to you. But it's true: people will take advantage of timing and shelters and so and being high income they have both the means and incentive to do so. Hillary Clinton did exactly that at Rose Law Firm, deferring income into the next year when taxes would be lower.
Some people just aren't happy waiting for a gov't check and eating Cheeze Whiz. You just don't know any of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

People aren't serious about tackling the deficit it they can't accept A, cutting spending and B, increasing tax revenues. It's that plain and simple.
Rabbi posted,,,"The tax increase on income is estimated to bring in $800B over 10 years. Never mind that it wont. That's $80B a year. In the context of 1.4T deficits that's nothing." His comment has been repeated several times on these boards. So my question is, if that amount is so small, well then what's the problem?
The same goes with the cuts in spending, we have to have serious cuts,,across the board, not amounts that are just symbolic.
We have learned something from Europe's austerity, it's pretty foolish to cut government spending and raise taxes when the economy is still weak. It simply cuts economic growth and may bring on a recession.
It's better to to hold down some spending without stalling economic growth. Applying a stricter and more of an aggressive approach should be applied for the long-term after the economy picks up in a consistent manner.

The problem is the effect it will have on the rest of the economy. Raising taxes on high income earners will depress how much they are willing to work and make. Their working provides lots of economic activity for other people. You would probably lose more in GDP than you would take in in revenue. Plus the estimates are over inflated, as they always are. High income earners find ways to defer or shelter their incomes.
Europe has slightly different problems from us. But one thing we can learn is that you cannot legislate your way to prosperity. The big problem in Europe is the difficulty in starting and growing a business. Labor laws are so strict that in some countries firing a worker is nearly impossible. With that, no one will hire unless they absolutely have no other choice.
With Obamacare we move further towards that model. All the mandates and regulations we have on business cost real money and probably yield mostly illusory gains.

Yeah, I have heard that one before but in fact it's a theory only, history doesn't support that theory at all.

It's actually a fact. Further, when Reagan cut taxes payments from top tax earners actually went up, not down.

 

[oreo]

At last... common sense is starting to permeate the GOP. Welcome aboard comrads.





Chambliss fires off on Norquist’s anti-tax pledge – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(CNN) – A top Republican U.S. senator brushed off the anti-tax pledge pushed by activist Grover Norquist and embraced widely for years by GOP lawmakers.

"I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," Sen. Saxby Chambliss told Georgia television station WMAZ, a CNN affiliate, on Wednesday. "If we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt and I just have a disagreement with him about that."

It's high time you get it through your head that NO politician cares about the country--they care ONLY about their own job--which is REELECTION.

And that is why sequestration will take place on Jan. 2nd 2013. Obama has been reelected so he has nothing to lose now. A bi-partisan debt commission that was set up two years ago--and passed two years ago--that this will take place if they didn't come to some kind of agreement on tax's and budget cuts.

MEANING--that on January 2, or a little more than one month from now everyone will bend over and get it in the rear end by the Federal Government.

You voted for higher taxes--and you're going to get higher taxes. The Bush tax cuts will expire on Jan. 2, 2013 meaning that middle income households will get a $3500.00 tax increase--and those making 108K per year are expected to pay an additional 14K in federal income tax. Those making 20K or less will be required to pay an additional $425.00 per year.

In additional to this expect a 4 trillion massive budget cut--which they have also agreed upon. 1 trillion in military cuts--cuts to unemployment and food stamps--big bird is on the hit list also--along with every single government subsidy you can think of.

It's a done deal--and there are politicians on both sides of the isle that are stating "let it happen."

There isn't going to be a corner of our society that isn't going to feel it.

"Politicians are the only people that can create problems and then later campaign against them." Now you never really believed that less than 1% of the population was going to pay the tab for the other 99%--did you?--LOL

 

[Wolfsister77]

Then let them all expire, if the Clinton rates were so good, why would you object to all the rates returning to those levels? Your willing to force others to pay more but heaven forbid you have to get out your check book. The current rates reduced everyones tax rate not just the wealthy, where's your sense of fairness?

Fine by me-let them all expire like they were supposed to.

OK, we agree on that, now where do we cut spending? I say we start with all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies like the DOE that are doing nothing but waste money. They've existed 32 years, spent 1.5 trillion and provided no return. Can we agree to start there?

I'd rather start with DOD.

 

[zeke]

At last... common sense is starting to permeate the GOP. Welcome aboard comrads.





Chambliss fires off on Norquist’s anti-tax pledge – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(CNN) – A top Republican U.S. senator brushed off the anti-tax pledge pushed by activist Grover Norquist and embraced widely for years by GOP lawmakers.

"I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," Sen. Saxby Chambliss told Georgia television station WMAZ, a CNN affiliate, on Wednesday. "If we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt and I just have a disagreement with him about that."

It's high time you get it through your head that NO politician cares about the country--they care ONLY about their own job--which is REELECTION.

And that is why sequestration will take place on Jan. 2nd 2013. Obama has been reelected so he has nothing to lose now. A bi-partisan debt commission that was set up two years ago--and passed two years ago--that this will take place if they didn't come to some kind of agreement on tax's and budget cuts.

MEANING--that on January 2, or a little more than one month from now everyone will bend over and get it in the rear end by the Federal Government.

You voted for higher taxes--and you're going to get higher taxes. The Bush tax cuts will expire on Jan. 2, 2013 meaning that middle income households will get a $3500.00 tax increase--and those making 108K per year are expected to pay an additional 14K in federal income tax. Those making 20K or less will be required to pay an additional $425.00 per year.

In additional to this expect a 4 trillion massive budget cut--which they have also agreed upon. 1 trillion in military cuts--cuts to unemployment and food stamps--big bird is on the hit list also--along with every single government subsidy you can think of.

It's a done deal--and there are politicians on both sides of the isle that are stating "let it happen."

There isn't going to be a corner of our society that isn't going to feel it.[/I]

"Politicians are the only people that can create problems and then later campaign against them." Now you never really believed that less than 1% of the population was going to pay the tab for the other 99%--did you?--LOL

Couldn't tell if you think your sceniaro is a good thing or bad?

Is the debt the monster that it is sold as? Or are low tax rates, especially for the ultra rich more important?

All the money we owe was spent on the behalf of us citizens. We elected the people in Congress. My repub Congressman voted for every war, tax cut, bailouts ect. But I didn't vote for him, still my debt I guess. We are all Americans and the money was spent, supposedly on our behalf. Seems like we should man up, quit bitiching and pay the fuking bill.

If we have to eat beans for a while, eat beans. Most people have had a declining standard of living for a few years now. We could suck it up more. Cut welfare and entitlement benes 5%. No COLA's for 5 years. Increas taxes on ultra rich 5%. it's my 5/5/5 plan. Came to me after a fifth. jk

That is, IF the debt is the bogeyman they say it is.

You tell me.