If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Meet the "RINO Seven" who have decided that you need more than a second grade education in order to deal with the tax code   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 69
    More: Obvious, RINO, Grover Norquist, Republican, Saxby Chambliss, Strict constructionism, Chambliss, japan today  
•       •       •

4467 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-26 08:35:48 AM
I'll believe it when Obama is signing legislation into law, until then it's yet another "Look! We're ready to compromise! We're actually willing to suggest that a Walton heir transferring more than $100 billion to an offshore Cayman Islands tax-free shelter should have to use the U.S. Postal Service to get the receipt -- once! So, this means we can eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and cancel Social Security!"
 
2012-11-26 08:58:54 AM
'Disowning some unelected tool's non-binding pledge' != 'Actually wanting to improve our finances'

This is all about trying to raise taxes minimally and instead gut medicare and social security. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right now, the GOP is a lot that guy that has cheated on his GF about 15 times in a row, been blatantly caught in flagrante delicto all 15 times, and is still trying to get the GF to sleep with him: desperate, a little pathetic, a little funny, and absolutely clueless about why no one is buying the same old lines that used to work like a charm.
 
2012-11-26 09:06:53 AM
talkingpointsmemo.com

Image of a Loser


I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.
 
2012-11-26 09:08:48 AM

Cythraul: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 302x160]

Image of a Loser

I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.


It should've been done when HWBush said something like "Norquist? Who the hell is that?"
 
2012-11-26 09:10:24 AM

somedude210: Cythraul: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 302x160]

Image of a Loser

I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.

It should've been done when HWBush said something like "Norquist? Who the hell is that?"


That was my impression too when I first heard his name. Though I figured I just wasn't educated enough in the who's-who of politics. It wouldn't have been the first time a 'big name' had eluded my politickin' radar.
 
2012-11-26 09:53:09 AM

A few welcome surprises there.

But damn that one guy! Every time I see his name I think...

1.bp.blogspot.com
"Stupid Saxby Chambliss!
 
2012-11-26 09:57:21 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I'll believe it when Obama is signing legislation into law, until then it's yet another "Look! We're ready to compromise! We're actually willing to suggest that a Walton heir transferring more than $100 billion to an offshore Cayman Islands tax-free shelter should have to use the U.S. Postal Service to get the receipt -- once! So, this means we can eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and cancel Social Security!"


Therin lies the problem. We need to raise the tax rates. We've already done the cuts. Taking away deductions from the poor /middleclass will hurt the economy more.
 
2012-11-26 10:47:55 AM
Add Bob Corker to that list.
 
2012-11-26 11:06:37 AM
The only way Norquist gets outta this one is to make an example out of someone. And he's gotta rip the innards out of someone important to the GOP...if he doesn't step up RIGHT NOW and viciously defend his turf....then the GOP will toss him aside like a broken Ken doll and down the memory hole he goes. within 4 years nobody will ever remember who the hell he was.

Either way this is a win/win for the Democrats. if Norquist sacrifices a prominent Republican in order to save his position...then the end result is to weaken the GOP and give the Democrats a gift. But if Norquist doesn't defend himself then his entire philosophy gets flushed. Which again is a win for the Democrats, since the GOP would be one step closer to a workable compromise.
 
2012-11-26 11:20:08 AM
Lawmakers are required to follow the law. Why anyone, particularly those that pretend to be experts in American citizenship, would even pay lip service to some unelected nut's ramblings, I don't know.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-11-26 11:23:24 AM
How farked up is it that it's newsworthy for a small handful of federal representatives to announce they will at least listen to dramatic changes instead of simply declaring NO?

/rhetorical
//the arguments will still be funny (to laugh at, not with) from a specific few here.
 
2012-11-26 11:23:52 AM

Weaver95: The only way Norquist gets outta this one is to make an example out of someone. And he's gotta rip the innards out of someone important to the GOP...if he doesn't step up RIGHT NOW and viciously defend his turf....then the GOP will toss him aside like a broken Ken doll and down the memory hole he goes. within 4 years nobody will ever remember who the hell he was.

Either way this is a win/win for the Democrats. if Norquist sacrifices a prominent Republican in order to save his position...then the end result is to weaken the GOP and give the Democrats a gift. But if Norquist doesn't defend himself then his entire philosophy gets flushed. Which again is a win for the Democrats, since the GOP would be one step closer to a workable compromise.


Problem is that his main threat is to go after someone's reelection chances and that's 2-6 years down the line AND not a sure success.

For that matter, has Norquist ever put his money where his mouth is? I mean, does he actually put money out supporting candidates at all or does he just threaten to primary them?
 
2012-11-26 11:25:32 AM
The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.
 
2012-11-26 11:25:58 AM
The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.
 
2012-11-26 11:26:20 AM
These guys are talking out of their asses. I note that most of them say they oppose higher taxes and only support closing loopholes or cutting deductions. Maybe in the Republic of Derpistan this is big news. In The Real World this is a non-story.
 
2012-11-26 11:26:56 AM
Meet the "RINO Seven" who have decided that you need more than a second grade education in order to deal with the tax code they have to drop the position that they were so gung-ho about a year ago because they will lose in the primary if they keep this shiat up.

A year ago, they allowed the country's credit rating to drop because they held firm to their "principles". Now, fark that shiat, lets raise taxes...oh, and while we're at it, we LOVE Hispanics.

/DIAF, shapeshifters.
 
2012-11-26 11:27:20 AM
OK Saxby. If you cared for our country as much as you say, why the fark were you such a proponent of the patriot act renewal?
 
2012-11-26 11:28:37 AM

lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.


How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.
 
2012-11-26 11:29:07 AM

organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.


"I'll also take away the tax incentive to help people in need through charitable contributions. But, I'm sure we'll find a way for Mitt to write off his donations to the Mormons."
 
2012-11-26 11:29:30 AM

Weaver95: The only way Norquist gets outta this one is to make an example out of someone. And he's gotta rip the innards out of someone important to the GOP...if he doesn't step up RIGHT NOW and viciously defend his turf....then the GOP will toss him aside like a broken Ken doll and down the memory hole he goes. within 4 years nobody will ever remember who the hell he was.

Either way this is a win/win for the Democrats. if Norquist sacrifices a prominent Republican in order to save his position...then the end result is to weaken the GOP and give the Democrats a gift. But if Norquist doesn't defend himself then his entire philosophy gets flushed. Which again is a win for the Democrats, since the GOP would be one step closer to a workable compromise.


Blood for the blood god.
 
2012-11-26 11:31:31 AM

Satanic_Hamster:
Problem is that his main threat is to go after someone's reelection chances and that's 2-6 years down the line AND not a sure success.

For that matter, has Norquist ever put his money where his mouth is? I mean, does he actually put money out supporting candidates at all or does he just threaten to primary them?


yeah, it's not looking good for Grover. he's at least 2 years out from a retributive strike and the GOP is looking for a scapegoat. Remember - Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, he cares only that it should flow. Grover's skull too is welcomed by the blood god.
 
2012-11-26 11:31:45 AM

Diogenes: A few welcome surprises there.

But damn that one guy! Every time I see his name I think...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]
"Stupid Saxby Chambliss!


I bet that, under his slacks, he's wearing nothing at all!

Nothing at all...

Nothing at all...
 
2012-11-26 11:31:57 AM

Darth_Lukecash: Mr. Coffee Nerves: I'll believe it when Obama is signing legislation into law, until then it's yet another "Look! We're ready to compromise! We're actually willing to suggest that a Walton heir transferring more than $100 billion to an offshore Cayman Islands tax-free shelter should have to use the U.S. Postal Service to get the receipt -- once! So, this means we can eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and cancel Social Security!"

Therin lies the problem. We need to raise the tax rates. We've already done the cuts. Taking away deductions from the poor /middleclass will hurt the economy more.


Personally, I don't think we need to raise taxes or cut spending until the economy improves-and then, once it does, do both gradually. I'm a Keynesian in this manner.

That is, when the economy sucks (like it still does), the government should deficit spend like a mofo. Once the economy is roaring, the government should both raise taxes and cut spending to slow it down, both to make the ups and downs less dramatic and to pay off the deficit spending during the bad times.

Once unemployment is in the 5-7% range, then is the time to (gradually) cut spending and raise taxes. But not until then.

As for which taxes to raise, raising them on the rich is obvious (as this both affects the economy the least, plus they can afford it more), taking the rates back to Clinton-era level, and eliminating the Social Security tax income cut off (IE, you only pay Social Security taxes on the first $110,100 you make a year-a clearly regressive policy).
 
2012-11-26 11:31:59 AM
Did Bush 41 sign the Norquist pledge and if so, was that a significant reason for his defeat in 1992? How about Dubya, did he sign the pledge? I have no internet skills so I must ask.
 
2012-11-26 11:32:30 AM

organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.


How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?
 
2012-11-26 11:34:18 AM

Diogenes: A few welcome surprises there.

But damn that one guy! Every time I see his name I think...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]
"Stupid Saxby Chambliss!


Saxby Chambliss will always be "that piece of penis-eel-anus sucking hooker pus that called Bona Fide War Hero Max Cleland's patriotism into question." That he's exhibiting fewer signs of TBI is encouraging, but rather like handing a step-stool to a man stuck at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
 
2012-11-26 11:35:29 AM

skullkrusher: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?


I think he's insinuating that the lack of specifics from the GOP is ominous towards the middle class. Maybe they just want to wait until after Christmas to spring the surprise details.
 
2012-11-26 11:35:58 AM

skullkrusher: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree



More than the soup kitchens, animal shelters, and institutions that help Veterans?
 
2012-11-26 11:36:02 AM
That's not fair, subby. Most 12-year-olds are in what, sixth grade?

/ Also, that article doesn't mention 50 members of the House, which is what we'd need to get a deal before January
 
2012-11-26 11:38:10 AM
I think we need to do all: raise taxes, change the tax code and possibly change entitlement programs. The problem is that raising/cutting taxes on the middle class hurts the enomony short-term, while tax code/entitlement changes will only help long-term.

The best way to get this done, to my mind:

1) For now, raise taxes on the wealthy and maintain current tax cuts for the middle class.
2) Review/revise tax rates if and only if congress can then come to a real, workable, practical deal on the tax code and entilements. 

And you all are way more pessimistic and cynical than I am. I think at least some repubs have seen the writing on the wall, are finally taking a hard look at their own ratings and trying to find an 'honorable' way out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

But we shall see.
 
2012-11-26 11:38:26 AM

organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.


I dunno-I think there could be an agreement here where such deductions would be eliminated only for rich taxpayers. However, I don't like eliminating the charitable deduction for the rich, as that would cause many charities to go out of business as rich people donate less, ultimately hurting the poor. Eliminating the home loan mortgage deduction on the rich is fine, but interest rates are so low right now that it barely matters. You'll need a lot more than that.
 
2012-11-26 11:40:44 AM

coeyagi: skullkrusher: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?

I think he's insinuating that the lack of specifics from the GOP is ominous towards the middle class. Maybe they just want to wait until after Christmas to spring the surprise details.


well, the charitable giving bit is obviously more "optional" than the home mortgage deduction - you save more money by not giving at all. I can't imagine a limit on mortgage deductions being such that impacts the middle class to any significant degree.
 
2012-11-26 11:41:35 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: skullkrusher: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree


More than the soup kitchens, animal shelters, and institutions that help Veterans?


No, they would be adversely impacted. That's why I said it is a silly deduction to limit. We're talking about tax bills though.
 
2012-11-26 11:41:36 AM

witzend52: Did Bush 41 sign the Norquist pledge and if so, was that a significant reason for his defeat in 1992? How about Dubya, did he sign the pledge? I have no internet skills so I must ask.


I don't think the pledge was around then, but Bush 41 did announce "Read my lips-no new taxes" (which amounts to the same thing) and then signed some into law anyways and that was considered to hurt him politically, although probably wasn't the reason he lost.
 
2012-11-26 11:46:46 AM

coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.



I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.
 
2012-11-26 11:50:20 AM

skullkrusher: I can't imagine a limit on mortgage deductions being such that impacts the middle class to any significant degree.


Someone who just purchased a fairly modest home could have 10,000 dollars in deduction on their first several years of the loan.
 
2012-11-26 11:54:08 AM

Headso: skullkrusher: I can't imagine a limit on mortgage deductions being such that impacts the middle class to any significant degree.

Someone who just purchased a fairly modest home could have 10,000 dollars in deduction on their first several years of the loan.


and what is the proposed limit?
 
2012-11-26 11:57:03 AM

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: I can't imagine a limit on mortgage deductions being such that impacts the middle class to any significant degree.

Someone who just purchased a fairly modest home could have 10,000 dollars in deduction on their first several years of the loan.

and what is the proposed limit?


I don't know, I read an article saying that it was a 500k hard limit on the cost of the home and I have read others that said there were limits on the tax deduction itself.
 
2012-11-26 12:01:49 PM

lennavan: I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.


I don't think they care. I see nothing surprising in Red Staters who are notorious for setting aside all sorts of logic and long-term considerations in favor of meth and abstinence-only education to be willing to put aside their obvious financial best interests in favor of racism and Jesus.
 
2012-11-26 12:02:28 PM

Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: I can't imagine a limit on mortgage deductions being such that impacts the middle class to any significant degree.

Someone who just purchased a fairly modest home could have 10,000 dollars in deduction on their first several years of the loan.

and what is the proposed limit?

I don't know, I read an article saying that it was a 500k hard limit on the cost of the home and I have read others that said there were limits on the tax deduction itself.


wouldn't it be a limit on the size of the loan on which you can deduct interest? In any case, what is McCain's suggestion?
 
2012-11-26 12:09:38 PM

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: I can't imagine a limit on mortgage deductions being such that impacts the middle class to any significant degree.

Someone who just purchased a fairly modest home could have 10,000 dollars in deduction on their first several years of the loan.

and what is the proposed limit?

I don't know, I read an article saying that it was a 500k hard limit on the cost of the home and I have read others that said there were limits on the tax deduction itself.

wouldn't it be a limit on the size of the loan on which you can deduct interest? In any case, what is McCain's suggestion?


Yeah, that's what I meant to say, a 500k hard limit on the loan amount... I don't know what McCain wants, I remember Romney saying something about a 17k limit but I think that was a total limit for all deductions.
 
2012-11-26 12:10:01 PM
Could someone please expling to good ol' loveable Grover that the issue is spending and not taxes? Thanks to deficit spending, taxes have already been raised, they just haven't been collected yet.
 
2012-11-26 12:21:40 PM

lennavan: coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.

I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.


I think many Republicans believe they can vote for their paternal betters, and receive benediction in return.
 
2012-11-26 12:28:33 PM

NewWorldDan: Could someone please expling to good ol' loveable Grover that the issue is spending and not taxes? Thanks to deficit spending, taxes have already been raised, they just haven't been collected yet.


Grover Norquist belongs to the "drown the baby in the bathtub" school of fiscal planning. Basically, the idea is that you let the debt grow large enough to destroy the country (i.e., fill the tub), and then you let the country drown to death in the debt. And then after the country is completely destroyed, a new perfect utopia with rainbows and flowers and dancing unicorns will take its place.

The "never raise revenues under any conditions" is not intended to balance the budget, and it is absolutely not intended to save the economy from some sort of credit collapse. The intention is to burn it all down so that they can start over.

And no, I'm not kidding about this at all. This is honestly what Grover Norquist actually believes.

// anyone who has ever been in any type of IT position is familiar with the type of people who don't think anything is worth fixing, and just want to throw everything out and start over
/// anyone who has ever been in an IT management position for more than a few years knows the result of throwing out something that has worked for years and trying to replace it with a new thing built from scratch.
 
2012-11-26 12:43:55 PM

Geotpf: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

I dunno-I think there could be an agreement here where such deductions would be eliminated only for rich taxpayers. However, I don't like eliminating the charitable deduction for the rich, as that would cause many charities to go out of business as rich people donate less, ultimately hurting the poor. Eliminating the home loan mortgage deduction on the rich is fine, but interest rates are so low right now that it barely matters. You'll need a lot more than that.


Cutting the tax break should, by all recent research accounts, actually increase charitable giving.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914427/
 
2012-11-26 12:44:57 PM

Cythraul: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 302x160]

Image of a Loser

I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.


Nah. He's still a hero to the Teabaggers, and they're pretty much the only reliable constituency the GOP has left.
 
2012-11-26 12:45:37 PM

organizmx: Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.


There's also a decent chance that it could slow the recovery of the housing market.
 
2012-11-26 12:52:04 PM

Cythraul: I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.


Agreed. His threat of "we'll launch a primary challenge at you in the next election if you violate the pledge" has vary narrow limits. After seeing how much money is needed for an election campaign these days, he could effectively do what...2 or 3 maybe simultaneously? If a bunch of them bailed he'd be totally farked. He'd have to pick and choose or spread himself so thin as to lose them all. All they'd have to do is stick together -- which we've seen them do before.

However, the difficulty is that they need to do it for the good of the country instead of the good of the party.
 
2012-11-26 12:54:30 PM

lennavan: coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.

I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.


They don't, I remember on election night a woman said that the reason she voted for R*Money was because "she was religious and pro-life"

I was literally screaming at the TV.
 
2012-11-26 12:59:44 PM

lennavan: I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.


Convincing to do exactly that is the GOP's greatest super power.
 
2012-11-26 01:02:14 PM

urbangirl: I think at least some repubs have seen the writing on the wall, are finally taking a hard look at their own ratings and trying to find an 'honorable' way out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

But we shall see.


What a heart-warming thought: Selfishness has let some Republicans glimpse reality.
But I remember what happened in 1995 and 1996.

/And I'd really like that to happen again because I'm really, really tired of the Party of "Party before country".
 
2012-11-26 01:26:29 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: urbangirl: I think at least some repubs have seen the writing on the wall, are finally taking a hard look at their own ratings and trying to find an 'honorable' way out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

But we shall see.

What a heart-warming thought: Selfishness has let some Republicans glimpse reality.
But I remember what happened in 1995 and 1996.

/And I'd really like that to happen again because I'm really, really tired of the Party of "Party before country".


Oh, make no mistake, I don't think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it because they see the tide is turning against them and they're prepping for the next election.  But at this point, I care less about the motivation than the results.
 
2012-11-26 01:43:31 PM

urbangirl:
Oh, make no mistake, I don't think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it because they see the tide is turning against them and they're prepping for the next election.  But at this point, I care less about the motivation than the results.


its never a good thing when half your campaign strategy depends on the voters being easily distracted and having problems with their long term memories...the GOP lacks any sort of moral center. they're hypocritical bastards and the f*cked up and let everyone see it in action. plus, ya know...there's that whole pro-rape thing.
 
2012-11-26 01:51:25 PM
Fark You Grover Nihilist and your bumper sticker propaganda war on behalf of silver spoon assholes everywhere
 
2012-11-26 02:09:22 PM

urbangirl: demaL-demaL-yeH: urbangirl: I think at least some repubs have seen the writing on the wall, are finally taking a hard look at their own ratings and trying to find an 'honorable' way out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

But we shall see.

What a heart-warming thought: Selfishness has let some Republicans glimpse reality.
But I remember what happened in 1995 and 1996.

/And I'd really like that to happen again because I'm really, really tired of the Party of "Party before country".

Oh, make no mistake, I don't think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it because they see the tide is turning against them and they're prepping for the next election.  But at this point, I care less about the motivation than the results.


I wouldn't call it particularly honorable either. If they did in fact sign the pledge, the honorable thing is to resign and let the people elect someone who didn't sign the pledge...but that would be crazy!
 
2012-11-26 03:29:00 PM

whistleridge: 'Disowning some unelected tool's non-binding pledge' != 'Actually wanting to improve our finances'



www.meh.ro

Republican politicians have more loyalty to a sleazy lobbyist than they do to the United States of America.
 
2012-11-26 03:32:24 PM

whistleridge: lennavan: I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.

I don't think they care. I see nothing surprising in Red Staters who are notorious for setting aside all sorts of logic and long-term considerations in favor of meth and abstinence-only education to be willing to put aside their obvious financial best interests in favor of racism and Jesus.


Fair enough.

HugsAndPuppies: Convincing to do exactly that is the GOP's greatest super power.


True dat.
 
2012-11-26 03:49:41 PM

skullkrusher: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?


Not if you do it as a percentage of income. The wealthy would still be able to donate a larger portion, and thus write off a larger portion, than a middle-class taxpayer. Not sure that makes much difference, though.
 
2012-11-26 05:25:36 PM
I love how Republicans like to suck corporate cock with the same mouth they praise Jesus with.
 
2012-11-26 05:42:06 PM

Cythraul: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 302x160]

Image of a Loser

I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.


Every time I hear that little piece of sludge talk I just want to punch the TV. He never has any new talking points which boil down to:

1) The Reagan recovery was so much better than the Obama recovery (which the idiot interviewer never seems to counter with "Yes, but, Reagan didn't have as big of a hole to pull us out of AND Reagan had a Congress willing to work with him.")

2) George H.W. Bush raised taxes after promising not to and look what happened to him! (A fair point, perhaps, but Bush got handicapped by a stronger-than-normal 3rd party candidate.)

3) If the GDP grows at just 4% per year we can bring in enough revenue. (And if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle. And it would be really weird.)

How about we start a White House petition to have Grover Norquist dragged out into the streets and set on fire?
 
2012-11-26 05:57:56 PM

coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.


Even if I earned $200 million per year I would have to be supremely selfish and uncaring to support the modern day Republicans.
 
2012-11-26 06:03:37 PM

skullkrusher: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?


Limiting deductions of charitable giving will likely reduce the income of charities, who primarily help the needy.
 
2012-11-26 06:33:25 PM

kg2095: coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.

Even if I earned $200 million per year I would have to be supremely selfish and uncaring to support the modern day Republicans.


That is an extreme where some would still be able to live in the stratosphere should their taxes be increased. The 200K - 400K crowd would actually see a noticeable difference, not that my sympathy would even register on the Richter scale.
 
2012-11-26 07:14:00 PM

Dog Welder: 1) The Reagan recovery was so much better than the Obama recovery (which the idiot interviewer never seems to counter with "Yes, but, Reagan didn't have as big of a hole to pull us out of AND Reagan had a Congress willing to work with him.")


China wasn't butt raping your manufacturing sector back then either.
 
2012-11-26 07:48:20 PM

mrshowrules: Dog Welder: 1) The Reagan recovery was so much better than the Obama recovery (which the idiot interviewer never seems to counter with "Yes, but, Reagan didn't have as big of a hole to pull us out of AND Reagan had a Congress willing to work with him.")

China wasn't butt raping your manufacturing sector back then either.


That's because the Republicans were still getting it nice a dry and rusty back then.

/Bastards stole the pillows, too.
 
2012-11-26 09:07:41 PM
Simple, really.

A) All compensation gets counted as "income", including insurance benefits paid for by your employer.

B) All of your expenditures get counted as "deductions".

(A - B)/2= Your tax liability, with ONE exception:

If you are a business owner ("job creator"): the proportion of the GROSS profits that goes to pay the ENTIRE blue-collar portion of the payroll is the portion of your salary that you get to keep.

(Your company makes $100,000,000 in 2013, and your blue-collar segment made a whopping $7,500,000- you get to keep a generous $750,000 of that $10,000,000 salary. *Before* you start your deductive calculations.

Business profits all get charged proportionally to the owner/ stock holder. and become part of their income.


Since the poor and Middle Classes typically spend all of what they make, their tax liability at the end of the year will usually amount to *zero*.

This will encourage the rich to quit hoarding and re-invest in the economy, as well as share out the profits to the people responsible for them.
 
2012-11-26 10:28:57 PM
Didn't McCain say that he'd be willing to get rid of deductions and not raise taxes? Bye bye mortgage deduction suckers!
 
2012-11-27 05:57:20 AM
The Democratic Party's BATNA is far better than the Republican Party's BATNA when it comes to the tax issue. They already have a bill through the Senate that would extend all the tax cuts for everyone's first $250,000 of income. They know that if January 1st comes, the Senate bill (or an equivalent that would be passed by the next Senate) would pass Grover's pledge because it would reduce taxes for virtually every single American, and the only thing being debated at that point would be whether to extend tax cuts for the income anyone makes above $250,000. That is a very hard sell to make, and it's even more difficult to make when more people are already planning on blaming the GOP for going over the cliff than the Democrats or Obama. If they're serious about limiting deductions rather than raising rates to increase revenues, they better make an actual offer.
 
2012-11-27 12:25:24 PM

Dog Welder: How about we start a White House petition to have Grover Norquist dragged out into the streets and set on fire?


They deleted mine to punch him in the dick due to vulgarity. Maybe resubmit and use genitals instead of dick? Or put one maybe to knee him to the groin...
 
Displayed 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report