Do you have adblock enabled?
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 11
    More: Obvious, RINO, Grover Norquist, Republican, Saxby Chambliss, Strict constructionism, Chambliss, japan today  
•       •       •

4473 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-26 11:25:32 AM  
5 votes:
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 11:06:37 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:28:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:46:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:34:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:28:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:26:20 AM  
1 votes:
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.
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-11-26 11:23:24 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:20:08 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-11-26 08:58:54 AM  
1 votes:
'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.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report