Grover Norquist, the founder and head of Americans for Tax Reform, suffered some serious setbacks in the recent November election although he isn’t admitting to it. Mr. Norquist is best known for his anti-tax pledge – the Taxpayer Protection Pledge – which he started promoting over 20 years ago. Those
for any reason ever.
Before the 2012 election, Mr. Norquist claimed that 279 incumbent candidates and 286 challenger candidates had signed the pledge. The election results showed that 55 Republican incumbent or challenger candidates for the House of Representatives who had signed the pledge had lost . In the Senate 24 Republican incumbent or challenger candidates similarly lost. At the same time, exit polls indicated that a majority of voters including Republican voters supported increased taxes for those with the highest incomes.
This disconnect is becoming more untenable for those who were elected and now must take steps to avoid the fiscal calamity that is possible at the first of the year. Even though the majority of the newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives have signed Mr. Norquist’s pledge, there 16 who have not and one new Republican Senator also has not signed. Support is starting to fall away. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) has announced he is no longer bound by his pledge of 20 years ago. Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, co-chair of the Simpson/Bowles Commission, attempting to find a way to avoid the fiscal crisis, has denounced the pledge and its supporters, and key prospective Republican Presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, has refused to sign it.
Mr. Norquist continues to say that the pledge-signers will not waiver going forward. Maybe so, but has he noticed that the Republican leadership in Congress is twisting themselves into knots trying to find a way around the “tax” word and find other ways to do the same thing by proposing to close tax code loopholes and eliminate deductions among other methods, all of which raise “taxes” by another name? While not raising taxes is certainly a goal supported by most, being beholden to Grover Norquist, an individual who is not anyone’s representative, makes those who are elected to solve the fiscal problem look and act both foolish and ineffectual.
A) Obamacare has not contributed a single penny to the debt so far B) those "entitlement" programs have been around much longer then before the debt had gotten so out of control, it's clearly not the biggest problem C) you think businesses will use the money to hire workers and whatnot, when in reality they just keep it for themselves, hence why trickle-down economics doesn't work. Less regulation is exactly how you end up with 2008, when bankers and traders put themselves above their clients and clearly participated in if not illegal, at very least severely shady activity in which they toyed with people's life savings, and you think LESS regulation is needed? D) you do realize Romney wanted to give unprecedented spending increases to the military right? Your and other's logic that entitlements are solely or even mostly responsible for the debt is severely misleading and flat out wrong.
And I guess things like Gay Rights and Women's Rights are "nonsense" issues simply because they don't affect you...
But the issue is spending. It has always been spending ... until it got licoriced by those who think that government is a licensed manna-maker. If taxes are to be raised to cure the debt ... or even just manage it properly ... the middle class is going to have to be involved in the revenue activity ... and that means higher taxes on them. Where else can the gov't turn to for relief? No one's left. Nobody. And that takes us all back to spending. This spotlight on taxes is nonsense. Argue all day ... and night ... and the cause is still the same: the federal government lives beyond its means. It promises too much. Delivers it inefficiently. And, in some cases, perpetuates a dependency that suspends responsibility. And leave Mother Theresa out of this. She was a "zero percenter".
Raising taxes has always meant more spending, not less. Thus, no tax increase without real spending curbs. As a matter of fact, the Republicans should call the Obama bluff- here is the tax increase, and it will be triggered by actual spending curbs. Remember, only in the world of the government can a spending increase of 10 % be considered a spending cut, if the spending was supposed to go up 15%.
*The penalty for not having health insurance is so low, compared to the premium, that companies will gradually stop offering health insurance because they save money simply by paying the penalty. *Individuals can pay a low fine for not having health insurance, get sick, and then get health insurance for their condition, What other insurance can you acquire after you incur the condition requiring the use of the insurance? Can you imagine having a car accident, then getting insurance, and forcing the insurance company to pay for it? *Obamacare does nothing to prevent the over usage of the medical system caused by doctors ordering tests of questionable value, to avoid being sued. Further, look at the estimates of what medicare was supposed to cost, versus its actual costs. Thus: Obamacare can be expected to explode the deficit.
In 2003, when Barney Frank said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not in financial trouble, was he right or wrong? Another question to Mr. Gruber: Where did you get your documentation that 9/10 of any industry will do what the Miami Marlins did, ditching expensive employees? I think you made that fraction up out of thin air to make a point.
to drive home my point, Bush and Obama have collectively put on over $11 trillion of debt in 12 years. What was different now than in 2000 when the debt was $5 trillion? A) 2 wars B) tax cuts C) terrible recession D) bailout after bailout this is indisputable. it's fact. these 3 factors are what directly led to the massive spending in the last decade or so. Entitlement programs have been around much longer than we've been $5 trillion or more in debt.
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1980_2013USb_09s1li111lcn_00f10f40f_En
If those are our only propects, I say let's go over the cliff. Care to hold my hand before we jump?
If this had been dealt with before the election, everyone would have seen what a clown our president is. Where's the leadership?
You are both right! Look how sound together... So much for the "balanced approach" this liar of a president we have promised during the campaign. Obama won the election and part of the reason was the incompetence of the Republican Party. Elections have consequences. So, deal with it. And shame on all of you who voted for him. And shame on the Republicans if they don't stand up to him. They were re-elected also, and not on a tax hike platform. (Now kiss, hug... and wash your pants while your at it).
Both you & more importantly Obama need to deal with that fact & soon. The my way or the highway approach isn't working nor will it ever work. And why's Obama in PA today? Shouldn't he be in DC crafting a plan? Or is that not worthy of this time?
Your argument would have more weight if the figures didn't show that even though the Democrats lost the elections, they still had more of the popular vote than the Republicans. So you see, you can spin it either way, but President Obama is still President and Romney; well he's at the beach house, or the ski house or the city house or whatever but thank God he ain't in the White House.