jpatman wrote: "Yes Anon, it will, erm, Anon."
No, jpatman. It won't.
Let's look back at 1988, after George H.W. Bush won the White House after stating: "Read my lips - no new taxes!" Remember that? The Democrats would later pressure Bush to break his "no new taxes" pledge, promising to match any resulting tax increases with new spending cuts. And Bush foolishly went along. We GOT the tax increases, but NEVER saw the promised spending cuts by the Democrats!
One again, jpatman, President Obama CAN'T cut entitlement spending without damaging his own political party! It's impossible! He ONLY wants tax increases so that he can INCREASE government spending! He's NOT going to do ANYTHING to reduce government debt with the one exception of further gutting our U.S. military!
"Reagan "WINNING" (a la Charlie Sheen) a "war" 3 years AFTER leaving office never stops being funny. Increased military spending is just corporate welfare for Rs (then and now)."
And what do YOU think happened to the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republicans, jpatman? Are you now saying that they only collapsed because of their socialist economic system? You're partially right about that! Socialist economics strangles economic growth everywhere it's ever been tried! "The sun can always be blamed for light/warmth. Likewise, Dubya & Rs will always be responsible for what they did (i.e. The Great Recession)."
It's President Obama's recession now, jpatman! And increasing taxes won't make it go away!
Sylvester posted this: "Kyrsten Sinema Becomes Nation's First Openly Bi Congresswoman"
Any chance that she & her girlfriends will be releasing a DVD showing them partying together, Sylvester? Perhaps an all-female congressional sleep-over? They could use the money raised for "deficit reduction!" I know that I'D certainly purchase a copy!
Gee Syl, there are gay, lesbian, and bi people in all kinds of civil and political offices all over the country and world, including the very rich Jared Polis here in Colorado. This is nothing new or newsworthy. The most newworthy thing here is Embree getting axed from CU.
but the gop's are sticking to there story, no increase on taxes for the top 2 percent which would help close the deficit, even though 98 percent of America would see no increase, that's NO increase. Nothing was learned from the recent election wipeout on the right, NOTHING
As well they should, since it wouldn't even begin to help close the deficit, as I have explained earlier. I hope they don't give an inch and let the whole shebang fall off the cliff, then perhaps Obama will get serious about making serious reforms, instead of producing all this sturm und drang over a measly 4.9% increase in the tax rate.
The GOP'ers have nothing to lose, so they might as well hold fast. They will still keep the House in 2014 because half the country supports what they are doing to keep Obama from passing his costly and ineffective schemes.
Gee Skyjack, hate to add to your urinating on the sidewalk but I'M not the one who proclaimed the Arizona congresswoman first " out of the gate " , that's how the news outlets are treating it. I'm sure 60 minutes has her all lined up for ratings week in February...anyhow i noticed she was Dem of course, with the sinking ship over at GOP central her application as a self proclaimed bi congress candiate no doubt would have been marked return to " SENDER "....
Are they bailing on Grover , one by one ?
Since taking a beating in the 2012 elections, Republican lawmakers that have signed the Norquist pledge to never raise taxes are disavowing it.
Forbes writes: “Yet another prominent Republican has added his name to the list of those for whom the allure of the Grover Norquist “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” has lost its luster.
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) has announced that he will no longer honor his commitment to the Norquist pledge wherein he promised not to raise taxes under any circumstances whatsoever.”
The Norquist pledge has made it impossible for Republican lawmakers to follow through with their promises to reduce the federal deficit, since the goal cannot be achieved by cuts alone. The math simply does not add up.
There may be another factor in play here. Comments posted under articles on the Norquist pledge show strong objections against a vow that pledges allegiance to a man that no one voted for.
One such comment on Forbes by Drew Williams reads, “I never have understood the power this unshaven slob wields over elected members of Congress — short of the fact that, when it was quite stylish to be against taxation under any circumstances, they signed. Then came the real-politic of having to lead, of having to fix things that were broken, of having to find the money to actually reduce the deficit born of unfunded wars and tax breaks. And Grover sits on the sidelines with his bullhorn, responsible to no one. It’s about time Republican leadership started calling this phony out for what he is.”
Seems to be cracks in the foundation. Cracks.
Sylvester wrote: "Conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist appears to be losing his stranglehold on the US government."
What "stranglehold" are you talking about, Sylvester? Or did you just make that up?
If a U.S. Congressman or a Senator promises NOT to vote for tax increases when he-or-she runs for office, HOW exactly is it wrong for them to then KEEP that promise? Seriously, Sylvester, I really want to know! HOW is it wrong for an elected political figure to keep their promises? Just because President Obama didn't close Gitmo after solemnly promising to do so doesn't mean that ALL broken promises are good things!
For example, President Obama currently claims that he ran for re-election promising to raise taxes on the rich, right? This, despite the fact that presidents don't even control our nation's purse strings, right? So, according to YOUR logic, President Obama should consider "pulling another Gitmo" and ABANDON that so-called promise, leaving the Bush tax-cuts intact! Is that what you're saying? Because, if it IS, then I'm in FULL AGREEMENT with you for once, Sylvester!
The " pledge " against tax increases seems to be not worth the paper it's written on. As Forbes pointed out, it's one thing for an unelected Norquist to hold the GOP's feet to the fire, it's another thing for GOP's to actually govern and fix broken infrastucture ( perhaps the widespread power outages and broken and overcrowded highways have escaped your attention ) unfunded wars , tax breaks and dodges for upper income tax brackets etc etc...one by one GOP's are coming to the realization that Grover holds no one hostage. It's time to go to work, election over.
Sylvester wrote: "The " pledge " against tax increases seems to be not worth the paper it's written on."
Again, what exactly is wrong with an elected official KEEPING A PROMISE he-or-she made to his-or-her constituents NOT to vote for any tax increases?
"As Forbes pointed out, it's one thing for an unelected Norquist to hold the GOP's feet to the fire, it's another thing for GOP's to actually govern and fix broken infrastucture ( perhaps the widespread power outages and broken and overcrowded highways have escaped your attention ) unfunded wars , tax breaks and dodges for upper income tax brackets etc etc...one by one GOP's are coming to the realization that Grover holds no one hostage."
You're ignoring the FACT that most Tea Party Republicans were elected EXACTLY to shrink the size of government and to CUT government spending! We all understand that the Democrats CAN'T cut spending, Sylvester, because as you well-know the political power of the entire Democrat Party is based on ever-increasing federal-entitlements!
The Tea Party movement came into being to OPPOSE those Republicans who opt to borrow & spend like Democrats. Or weren't you paying any attention back in 2010? (It's why Nancy Pelosi is no longer our nation's Speaker of the House!)
"It's time to go to work, election over."
I'd say it's time for President Obama to begin concentrating on improving the life, liberty, & happiness of the American people/taxpayers and STOP spending/borrowing money to give out freebies to his political supporters!
The states with the most " handouts " from Uncle Sam...you can't make this up. It's our red state brethren with Alabammy with a banjo on my knee coming in at number 6...out of 50
Courtesy of Mother Jones magazine
—By Dave Gilson
"It's no secret: The federal budget is expanding faster than tax revenues, a trend that's been fueled by the rapid growth of entitlement programs and exacerbated by the recession. As a recent New York Times article documents, even as fiscally conservative lawmakers complain about deficit spending, their constituents don't want to give up the Social Security checks, Medicare benefits, and earned income tax credits that provide a safety net for the struggling middle class.
This gap between political perception and fiscal reality is also reflected in the distribution of tax dollars at the state level: Most politically "red" states are financially in the red when it comes to how much money they receive from Washington compared with what their residents pay in taxes.
A look at 2010 Census and IRS data reveals that the 50 states and the District of Columbia, on average, received $1.29 in federal spending for every federal tax dollar they paid. That means that some states are getting a lot more than they put in, and vice versa. The states that contributed more in taxes than they got back in spending were more likely to have voted for Obama in 2008 and were more likely to be largely urban. (There are some clear exceptions: For instance, New Mexico, a rural, Democratic state, gets more federal money per tax dollar than any other state.)"
oooops wonder what Grover thinks about red state red herrings now....
Sylvester wrote: "Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In"
And you SUPPORT that, Sylvester? You actually want MORE government spending and MORE debt?
jpatman wrote: "Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare (as Romney/Ryan so decried and campaigned on). The cuts were in over-payments and inefficiencies, but nonetheless Obama was “damaged” on Nov. 6, 2012 by being reelected (“oh the pain”). Poor fella', he won't be pumping his own gas for another 4 years."
And how exactly do you explain our national debt rising by an unsustainable $5.6-trillion these past four years, jpatman? Let me remind you that George W. Bush left office on January 20, 2009, when our debt stood at approximately $10.4-trillion. It's now OVER $16-trillion and growing by billions of dollars everyday!
President Obama CAN'T cut federal entitlement spending without seriously DAMAGING his party's political power! That's why he has NO CHOICE but to change the subject to tax increases. President Obama understands political infighting, but he DOESN'T understand basic everyday economics, jpatman! He CAN'T stop our nation's growing economic collapse without crippling his own party in the process."The USSR absolutely didn't collapse because Reagan stormed an imaginary beachhead with wastefully overpriced hammers and toilet seats (in a corporate welfare raid) on his way to tripling our national debt."
Actually, the Soviet state had 70+ years of a socialist economy, while Reagan presided over the world's leading capitalist economy. As you & Sylvester are both well-aware of by now, socialism strangles economic growth everywhere it's ever been tried! Socialist nations ALWAYS grow progressively weaker over time! If America wants to grow progressively weaker, we will continue spending ourselves into bankruptcy with ever-increasing spending on federal entitlements.
FORWARD and WEAKER