Political Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Romney or Super Grover (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=4214)

merrylander 06-24-2012 02:19 PM
Romney or Super Grover
 
1 Attachment(s)
Who is the real leader of the GOP?:confused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...6uV_story.html

finnbow 06-24-2012 02:27 PM
It would indeed be hard to argue that what we have here isn't a puppet (Mitt) and a puppet master (Norquist).

noonereal 06-24-2012 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander (Post 109016)
Who is the real leader of the GOP?:confused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...6uV_story.html
Another rhetorical question I see Rob.

CarlV 06-24-2012 06:39 PM
Yep, sad but true. And he has all the financial wisdom of "I guess I was wrong, oh well" Greenspan.
Sure makes it easy to vote my conscious.


Carl

merrylander 06-25-2012 07:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal (Post 109031)
Another rhetorical question I see Rob.
I simply wonder how all those sheep who voted in those repubs feel about having their elected representative representing Super Grover and not them.:p

mezz 06-25-2012 08:54 AM
Based on the thread title I thought you might be making fun of Obama's ears. I guess I should have known better.

merrylander 06-25-2012 09:22 AM
Nope, just poking a little fun at you GOP sheep who let 'your' elected representatives represent that anarchist Grover and not the folks who elected them.:D

Boreas 06-25-2012 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezz (Post 109078)
Based on the thread title I thought you might be making fun of Obama's ears. I guess I should have known better.
Childish much?

Also not apropos.

Grover, the Muppet that is, doesn't actually have ears. I do't know whether the same is true of Norquist.

John

merrylander 06-25-2012 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 109088)
Childish much?

Also not apropos.

Grover, the Muppet that is, doesn't actually have ears. I do't know whether the same is true of Norquist.

John
If he does he seldom uses them.:p

whell 06-25-2012 11:03 AM
Wow. I thought Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party. Now its Norquiist? I'm so confused.

Question 1: with all the money that flows through Washington, and you've all stated that politicians in DC are bought and paid for (particularly those dastardly Republicans), what does Norquist use as leverage to maintain politician's fidelity to "The Pledge"? Americans for Tax Reform has contributed only about $232K in campaign donations over the last 10 years, and very few of those $$ have gone to specific candidates. That kind of money doesn't even buy you a cup of coffee in DC. Norquist personally has donated only about $3K over that same time frame.

Oh, and just so we have our facts straight, here's the language from "The Pledge":

"ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

So, its not necessarily an opposition to all taxes. It is a pledge not to increase the tax burden on individuals or businesses.

Question 2: is this to say that the Republicans have been corrupted not by money, nor by a person, but by an idea (no new taxes unless paid for)?

Boreas 06-25-2012 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109095)
Wow. I thought Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party. Now its Norquiist? I'm so confused.
Anyone who, on their own, can exact a pledge from elected Republican politicians which runs counter to the wishes of the people they were elected to serve, whether they be a "leader" or not, exerts far too much influence on the Party.

Quote:
Question 1: with all the money that flows through Washington, and you've all stated that politicians in DC are bought and paid for (particularly those dastardly Republicans), what does Norquist use as leverage to maintain politician's fidelity to "The Pledge"?
Norquist is a lobbyist. Whom is he lobbing for?

Quote:
Oh, and just so we have our facts straight, here's the language from "The Pledge":

"ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

So, its not necessarily an opposition to all taxes. It is a pledge not to increase the tax burden on individuals or businesses."
Nobody is saying the pledge is to eliminate taxes, though the Republicans certainly seem to be working in that direction - at least for the top 1%. After all, isn't it Norquist who vowed to shrink government to a size where it could be "drown in the bathtub"? How do you "shrink" government? Why, by denying it the operating capital it needs, of course!

Quote:
Question 2: is this to say that the Republicans have been corrupted not by money, nor by a person, but by an idea (no new taxes unless paid for)?
How do you "pay for" a tax? Taxes are the principle mechanism for governments raising the money to pay for things.

Oh, I see! You pay for them by cutting the programs that the tax revenues were designed to fund! Brilliant!

John

merrylander 06-25-2012 12:02 PM
Here is a direct quote from Super Grover;

"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."

Now if that is not anarchy what is it?

whell 06-25-2012 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander (Post 109109)

Now if that is not anarchy what is it?
Not to pick nits, but its not anarchy. I've never been sure that that quote was ever sourced in context either. It is referenced incorrectly to a 2003 "Nation" article. Its actually from a 2001 Nation article. The quote was used Roberty Dryfuss, not exactly at fan of conservatism.

I do believe that the words are intended as blunt "fighting words", not unlike Obama's statements about "getting in the face" of your political opponents. I guess if you sincerely believe that Obama wants you to bodily confront folks about their politics, you believe that Norquist has a bathtub big enough to "drown" every agency of the Federal government.

whell 06-25-2012 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 109098)
Anyone who, on their own, can exact a pledge from elected Republican politicians which runs counter to the wishes of the people they were elected to serve, whether they be a "leader" or not, exerts far too much influence on the Party.



Norquist is a lobbyist. Whom is he lobbing for?



Nobody is saying the pledge is to eliminate taxes, though the Republicans certainly seem to be working in that direction - at least for the top 1%. After all, isn't it Norquist who vowed to shrink government to a size where it could be "drown in the bathtub"? How do you "shrink" government? Why, by denying it the operating capital it needs, of course!



How do you "pay for" a tax? Taxes are the principle mechanism for governments raising the money to pay for things.

Oh, I see! You pay for them by cutting the programs that the tax revenues were designed to fund! Brilliant!

John
1. What info do you have that suggests that capping the tax burden ISN'T something that the Republican constituency is in favor of?

2. Norquist may be a lobbyist, but per my question, what's his leverage if it isn't campaign money or influence peddling?

3. The government's budget and tax revenues are both on a upward growth curve. There's no evidence that the government is being denied anything? and how is it that tax revenues have continued to increase over the years, particularly as a % of GDP which should be the yardstick used during the recession years, if we've enacted all these tax cuts?

4. "Oh, I see! You pay for them by cutting the programs that the tax revenues were designed to fund!" Yup, unless you're suggesting that there's absolutely no room for spending reductions anywhere in the federal system.

Boreas 06-25-2012 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109125)
1. What info do you have that suggests that capping the tax burden ISN'T something that the Republican constituency is in favor of?
"Capping" isn't the issue. Whether or not to increase at all is.

Poll results show a plurality of both Democrats and independents as well as a majority of both Republicans favor taxing thr wealthy at a higher rate than they currently are.

That and other interesting findings here.

Quote:
2. Norquist may be a lobbyist, but per my question, what's his leverage if it isn't campaign money or influence peddling?
It is money and influence peddling.

Quote:
3. The government's budget and tax revenues are both on a upward growth curve.
Sources, please.

Quote:
There's no evidence that the government is being denied anything?
As long as we continue to borrow money to compensate for the lost revenue.

Quote:
and how is it that tax revenues have continued to increase over the years, particularly as a % of GDP which should be the yardstick used during the recession years, if we've enacted all these tax cuts?
Again, sources?

Quote:
4. "Oh, I see! You pay for them by cutting the programs that the tax revenues were designed to fund!" Yup, unless you're suggesting that there's absolutely no room for spending reductions anywhere in the federal system.
Of course there is. There always will be so, in that light, to hold hostage certain programs - and people (unemployment extensions and tornado relief as examples) - until cuts are made in other programs the Right doesn't like is disgusting and immoral.

John

merrylander 06-25-2012 01:46 PM
Leslie Graham according to Millbank's article indicated he might be amenable to a tax increase. Norquist 'visited' him and he fell back in line. How does he do this? No idea unless he has some dirt on all of them. Given the behaviour of several repubs to date that would not surprise me.

Tax burden? What tax burden? We are the lightest taxed industrial country in the world Most especially the top 1%. The gross inequality in incomes is destoying this country and y'all seem to think that is just fine. The top 5% spend relatively little of their income, the bottom 95% spend nearly all of it because it is not enough to go around. he result is little if any 'consumerism' and the economy suffers because of it.

Repubs moan about SS and we old folks being a burden, tell me how many years did SS go without a COLA/ My pension from Bell Canada has had a COLA every year since I have retired. They did not give me any BS about no inflation. Adjusted for inflation average salaries here are at 1968 levels.

For a little while spurred on by Greenspan's et. al. BS people borrowed and spent, then the bubble burst. Well stupid if your economy is 70% based on consumer spending and you beggar the consumer, guess what, you get a nice big fat recession, a nice long, long recession.

So you repubs want austerity, take a good look at Europe, suicide rates are climbing exponentially in Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland, I hope Angela can get the blood off her hands sometime soon. Funny she did not mind at all when things looked rosy and everyone was buying imports from Germany. Well now that they are all broke, and likely to stay that way for a long time I guess Germany will not be exporting so much. Especially as they now equate us with the Chinese labour market and are building their cars here.

Ther are none so blind as those who will not see.

BlueStreak 06-25-2012 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 109088)
Childish much?

Also not apropos.

Grover, the Muppet that is, doesn't actually have ears. I do't know whether the same is true of Norquist.

John
He only hears the sound of his own voice.

whell 06-25-2012 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 109129)
"Capping" isn't the issue. Whether or not to increase at all is.

The pledge is about keeping the total tax burden at its current level. Tax increases in one area are OK as long as they're offset by reductions in another.

Poll results show a plurality of both Democrats and independents as well as a majority of both Republicans favor taxing thr wealthy at a higher rate than they currently are.

That and other interesting findings here.

A majority of Americans thought the first and second Gulf Wars were a good thing when we first went over there. I could really care less about polling data on taxes. I'd prefer to address the economics.

It is money and influence peddling.

Not when neither the Tax Center nor Nyquist make any significant campaign contribution it isn't.

Sources, please.

Everywhere, including posts in this forum. Again, don't ask me to do your homework for you.


As long as we continue to borrow money to compensate for the lost revenue.

WHAT lost revenue??

Again, sources?

Same as above

Of course there is. There always will be so, in that light, to hold hostage certain programs - and people (unemployment extensions and tornado relief as examples) - until cuts are made in other programs the Right doesn't like is disgusting and immoral.

John
So what cuts in government spending would be considered Immoral?

finnbow 06-25-2012 02:40 PM
Norquist is an unelected person with unreasonable, if not total, sway over the GOP. Doesn't the GOP constantly bitch about unelected folks (judges, czars, bureaucrats, Soros .....) having too much influence over government?

whell 06-25-2012 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander (Post 109130)
Leslie Graham according to Millbank's article indicated he might be amenable to a tax increase. Norquist 'visited' him and he fell back in line. How does he do this? No idea unless he has some dirt on all of them. Given the behaviour of several repubs to date that would not surprise me.

So, you don't have an answer to the question.

Tax burden? What tax burden? We are the lightest taxed industrial country in the world Most especially the top 1%. The gross inequality in incomes is destoying this country and y'all seem to think that is just fine. The top 5% spend relatively little of their income, the bottom 95% spend nearly all of it because it is not enough to go around. he result is little if any 'consumerism' and the economy suffers because of it.

Depends on what tax you're looking at. Personal income taxes, yes, the burden is relatively low, thankfully, but we're not the lowest. Business income, we're on our way to being the highest, number one, the big kahuna.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ountry.svg.png

Repubs moan about SS and we old folks being a burden, tell me how many years did SS go without a COLA/ My pension from Bell Canada has had a COLA every year since I have retired. They did not give me any BS about no inflation. Adjusted for inflation average salaries here are at 1968 levels.

So, you're suggesting that a pension run by a private, for profit company is managed better than Social Security? Yup, we can agree on that. "course the private pension fund is not restricted on what it can invest in, unlike your Soc Sec dollars. And, your private pension isn't funded by IOU's like Social Security is.

For a little while spurred on by Greenspan's et. al. BS people borrowed and spent, then the bubble burst. Well stupid if your economy is 70% based on consumer spending and you beggar the consumer, guess what, you get a nice big fat recession, a nice long, long recession.

You can also get the same scenario if you tax the hell out of business, dis-incent grown by penalizing investment, and have an economic and energy policy that looks like a shell game.

So you repubs want austerity, take a good look at Europe, suicide rates are climbing exponentially in Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland, I hope Angela can get the blood off her hands sometime soon. Funny she did not mind at all when things looked rosy and everyone was buying imports from Germany. Well now that they are all broke, and likely to stay that way for a long time I guess Germany will not be exporting so much. Especially as they now equate us with the Chinese labour market and are building their cars here.

Ther are none so blind as those who will not see.
So which came first in Europe: the mentality of dependence and fear of government or the suicide rates? Yes, this is a nasty heartless comment/question, and I really do feel for the poor folks in Europe who are facing some pretty desperate circumstances, but this didn't happen overnight.

finnbow 06-25-2012 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109146)
So which came first in Europe: the mentality of dependence and fear of government or the suicide rates? Yes, this is a nasty heartless comment/question, and I really do feel for the poor folks in Europe who are facing some pretty desperate circumstances, but this didn't happen overnight.
What's interesting is that the two countries who were the darlings of the American Right during the go-go years for their adoption of right-wing economic dogma were Ireland and Spain.

Boreas 06-25-2012 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109142)
The pledge is about keeping the total tax burden at its current level. Tax increases in one area are OK as long as they're offset by reductions in another.
Which is short-sighted, arbitrary and just plain stupid.

Quote:
A majority of Americans thought the first and second Gulf Wars were a good thing when we first went over there. I could really care less about polling data on taxes. I'd prefer to address the economics.
You asked me to provide proof that a majority of Republicans opposed an arbitrary cap on taxes. I provided it. To now impugn the wisdom of the people is irrelevant to your question. Your question, by the way, assumes that Senators and congressmen were elected to serve their party constituents and not the citizens of their states, districts and the country as a whole. I find that quite revealing of the Right wing mentality.

Quote:
Not when neither the Tax Center nor Nyquist make any significant campaign contribution it isn't.
Norquist.

Those whose interests he serves, on the other hand, most assuredly do.

Quote:
"Sources, please."

Everywhere, including posts in this forum. Again, don't ask me to do your homework for you.
Everywhere, eh? So it ought to be easy for you to find some that support your argument. It is your argument, you know, so it's not up to me to offer support for it.

Quote:
WHAT lost revenue??
This is a joke, right? Borrowed money isn't revenue.

Quote:
"Again, sources?"

Same as above
Same as above.

Quote:
"Of course there is. There always will be so, in that light, to hold hostage certain programs - and people (unemployment extensions and tornado relief as examples) - until cuts are made in other programs the Right doesn't like is disgusting and immoral."


So what cuts in government spending would be considered Immoral?
Cuts, or refusals to fund, things such as those I mentioned above. The refusal to recognize the people's right to health care, regardless of their ability to pay, is another.

Don't worry. I have absolutely no doubt that you will disagree with me here.

Oh, and the red type was pretty obnoxious.

John

Boreas 06-25-2012 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 109148)
What's interesting is that the two countries who were the darlings of the American Right during the go-go years for their adoption of right-wing economic dogma were Ireland and Spain.
Don't forget Icelend and Chile.

John

BlueStreak 06-25-2012 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 109144)
Norquist is an unelected person with unreasonable, if not total, sway over the GOP. Doesn't the GOP constantly bitch about unelected folks (judges, czars, bureaucrats, Soros .....) having too much influence over government?
Norquist, Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch.................

merrylander 06-25-2012 03:22 PM
Whell I would respond but that last paragraph told me all I need to know - get stuffed.

Boreas 06-25-2012 03:30 PM
Whell, that chart is of tax RATES. That's far different from the actual taxes paid, what with all our exemptions and loopholes.

In terms of taxes paid, we're the lowest among first world industrialized nations. (Also, parenthetically, the only one without a single payer national health care system.) I can't help but thinking that you know this but assume we "clueless liberals" don't.

John

BlueStreak 06-25-2012 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109142)
So what cuts in government spending would be considered Immoral?
I'm guessing the ones that would leave folks, such as many of our elderly, in dire straights should they lose benefits.

But, I really don't expect you to understand that as your soul exists only in your wallet, and your conscience ends where you're expected to do something for someone else with no or little return.

It's very sad, really. That our once generous country is being dragged down such a dark and empty path to selfishness and apathy. The future grows darker by the day.....And it's YOUR ideology that's fueling the creeping evil.

Dave

whell 06-25-2012 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 109164)
I'm guessing the ones that would leave folks, such as many of our elderly, in dire straights should they lose benefits.

But, I really don't expect you to understand that as your soul exists only in your wallet, and your conscience ends where you're expected to do something for someone else with no or little return.

It's very sad, really. That our once generous country is being dragged down such a dark and empty path to selfishness and apathy. The future grows darker by the day.....And it's YOUR ideology that's fueling the creeping evil.

Dave
You've got me all figured out, dontcha Dave?:rolleyes:

BlueStreak 06-25-2012 05:00 PM
No.

But, I've watched the Neo Conservative movement grow over the years and see that it is rotten. It stinks. It absolutely reeks of the concentration of wealth and the creation of a servile peasantry. It seeks to take power from the common man and grant nearly unlimited rule to small pools of individuals based on the possession of wealth. I struggle to see very much good at all coming of it at all.

More jobs? Perhaps. But none of them will be worth a shit and we will have paid for them with our freedom.

So long as your masters can keep the average American close to the bone, ignorant of their right to organize and stripped of their ability to speak out against corporate sponsored injustice, they have us by the balls. This is the Conservative dream. The subjugation of the masses to the well-heeled few. So, they let you keep your pea shooters, your cholesterol laden "Freedom Fries", your heathcare exclusivity and whatever other shiney trinkets you think represent freedom. So what? There are other ways of slipping the shackles onto the slave and have him thanking you for it.

We are always so happy to have whatever work we can find after they've starved us for a while, aren't we?
Long periods of unemployment do have a way of making the little people more compliant and willing to accept less, don't they?

Dave

Boreas 06-25-2012 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109167)
You've got me all figured out, dontcha Dave?:rolleyes:
As have most of us. It ain't that hard, really.

John

whell 06-25-2012 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 109158)
Whell, that chart is of tax RATES. That's far different from the actual taxes paid, what with all our exemptions and loopholes.

In terms of taxes paid, we're the lowest among first world industrialized nations. (Also, parenthetically, the only one without a single payer national health care system.) I can't help but thinking that you know this but assume we "clueless liberals" don't.

John
OK, I'll stipulate that for the moment. However, if you're going make comparisons of taxes paid in the US vs other countries, you've got to factor in GDP, and you also have to factor in the labor required to produce the tax revenue. This gets you to a more meaningful comparison, which is per capita tax revenue. I'm going to try to find some data on this, but I suspect the US shakes out much closer to the middle of the pack.

noonereal 06-25-2012 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109167)
You've got me all figured out, dontcha Dave?:rolleyes:
I don't know if he does but I do.

Boreas 06-25-2012 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109175)
OK, I'll stipulate that for the moment. However, if you're going make comparisons of taxes paid in the US vs other countries, you've got to factor in GDP, and you also have to factor in the labor required to produce the tax revenue. This gets you to a more meaningful comparison, which is per capita tax revenue. I'm going to try to find some data on this, but I suspect the US shakes out much closer to the middle of the pack.
Okay, do it then.

John

JJIII 06-25-2012 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 109149)





Oh, and the red type was pretty obnoxious.

John
Boy... you sure told him!;)

Boreas 06-25-2012 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJIII (Post 109193)
Boy... you sure told him!;)
Yeah, I'm a pretty tough customer, huh?

John

bobabode 06-25-2012 07:32 PM
Really doesn't matter what color whell paints with as it's mostly squirmy black dog opinion, any how. Harsh? Meh- just my opinion for what it's worth.:p

whell 06-25-2012 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 109215)
Meh- just my opinion for what it's worth.:p
About zero...and falling. :p

whell 06-25-2012 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 109177)
Okay, do it then.

John
Well, comparisons that are easily posted in a forum like this are not easy to find, but here's one. It is about what I thought it would be as well. Tax income per capita, at least based on 2003 numbers on which this chart is based, show US tax revenue per capita to be right in line with Canada and the UK, and very close to other countries that some of you think we should be emulating, like Germany.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...Population.pdf

Since there have not been any drastic economic upheavals that have impacted only the US, or any other country exclusively, I'd suspect that these numbers haven't changed all that much.

The point? You can say we need to be taxed more, and that's fine. But don't tell me that the US is somehow far out of whack with your social-ist utopias in Europe and Canada.

finnbow 06-25-2012 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell (Post 109220)
Well, comparisons that are easily posted in a forum like this are not easy to find, but here's one. It is about what I thought it would be as well. Tax income per capita, at least based on 2003 numbers on which this chart is based, show US tax revenue per capita to be right in line with Canada and the UK, and very close to other countries that some of you think we should be emulating, like Germany.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...Population.pdf

Since there have not been any drastic economic upheavals that have impacted only the US, or any other country exclusively, I'd suspect that these numbers haven't changed all that much.

The point? You can say we need to be taxed more, and that's fine. But don't tell me that the US is somehow far out of whack with your social-ist utopias in Europe and Canada.
Here's your answer.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-cont...3/image003.png

And to think we're protected by two oceans.:confused:

Boreas 06-25-2012 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow (Post 109221)
And to think we're protected by two oceans.:confused:
No, not anymore, Pat. Didn't Bush teach us that "Oceans no longer protect us"?

John


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.