PDA

View Full Version : Slaying the Norquist myth ...



LWW
11-29-2011, 08:15 AM
I have heard the lies about this regurgitated on command by the leftist parrots here so much that I felt it was time to post a rebuttal to their madness ... and then I found this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats are unanimous in charging that the debt-reduction supercommittee collapsed because Republicans refused to raise taxes. Apparently, Republicans are in the thrall of one Grover Norquist, the anti-tax campaigner, whom Sen. John Kerry called “the 13th member of this committee without being there.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid helpfully suggested “maybe they should impeach Grover Norquist.”

With that, Norquist officially replaces the Koch brothers as the great malevolent manipulator that controls the republic by pulling unseen strings on behalf of the plutocracy.

Leading, very conservative Republicans proposing tax increases. So why does the myth of the Norquist-controlled anti-tax monolith persist? You might suggest cynicism and perversity. Let me offer a more benign explanation: thickheadedness — <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the inability to tell the difference between tax revenue and tax rates</span>.

In deficit reduction, all that matters is tax revenue. The holders of our national debt care not a whit what tax rates yield the money to pay them back. They care about the sum.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Republican proposals raise revenue, despite lowering rates, by opening a gusher of new income for the Treasury in the form of loophole elimination. For example, the Toomey plan eliminates deductions by $300 billion more than the reduction in tax rates “cost.” Result: $300 billion in new revenue.

The Simpson-Bowles commission — appointed by President Obama and endorsed by Coburn — used the same formula. Its tax reform would lower tax rates at a “cost” of $1 trillion a year while eliminating loopholes that deprive the Treasury of $1.1 trillion a year. This would leave the Treasury with an excess — i.e., new tax revenue — of $100 billion a year, or $1 trillion over a decade.</span>

Raising revenue through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor. It is more economically efficient because it eliminates credits, carve-outs and deductions that grossly misallocate capital. And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place.

Yet the Democrats, who flatter themselves as the party of fairness, are instead obsessed with raising tax rates on the rich as a sign of civic virtue. This is perverse in three ways:

(1) Raising rates gratuitously slows economic growth, i.e., expansion of the economic pie for everyone, by penalizing work and by retaining inefficiency-inducing loopholes.

(2) We’re talking pennies on the dollar. Obama’s coveted repeal of the Bush tax cuts would yield the Treasury, at the very most, $80 billion a year — offsetting 2 cents on the dollar of government spending ($3.6 trillion).

(3) Hiking tax rates ignores the real drivers of debt, which, as Obama himself has acknowledged, are entitlements.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Has the president ever publicly proposed a single significant structural change in any entitlement? After Simpson-Bowles reported? No. In his February budget? No. In his April 13 budget “framework”? No. During the debt-ceiling crisis? No. During or after the supercommittee deliberations? No.</span>

Indeed, Obama was AWOL from the supercommittee — then immediately pounced on its failure by going on TV to repeat his incessantly repeated campaign theme of the do-nothing (Republican) Congress.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>A swell slogan that fits nicely with the Norquist myth. Except for another inconvenient fact: It is the Republicans who passed — through the House, the only branch of government they control — a real budget that cut $5.8 trillion of spending over the next 10 years. Obama’s February budget, which would have increased spending, was laughed out of the Senate, voted down 97 to 0. As for the Democratic Senate, it has submitted no budget at all for 2 1 / 2 years.</span>

Who, then, is do-nothing? Republicans should happily take on this absurd, and central, Democratic campaign plank. Bring Simpson-Bowles to the House floor and pass the most radical of its three deficit-reduction alternatives.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Dare the Senate Democrats to vote down the grandest of all bargains. Dare Obama to veto his own debt commission. Dare the Democrats to actually do something about debt.</span></div></div>

The Obamanation's worst nightmare ... THE TRUTH! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-grover-norquist-tax-myth/2011/11/23/gIQAsuJhtN_story.html)

eg8r
11-29-2011, 09:12 AM
It doesn't matter what the politicians do, the rich will continue doing the things that made them rich. They will not idly sit back and allow the government to steal any more money.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-29-2011, 11:06 AM
Charles Krauthammer here does what he does best, a form of cleverly captious casuistry.

But as some have noticed and written, the man, maybe now in his dotage, is several steps slower than he used to be, far off his game. It used to be it was relatively tricky to see exactly the logical fallacy he was using; more recently, it's as if he's phoning this in, how transparent are his rhetorical ploys and dodges.

Mr. K claims that the proposals to in effect raise tax revenues by closing loopholes shows that senior GOP figures are not in thrall to the Norquist pledge, QED.

He neglects to mention that the loophole closing causing an expanded taxable base and some new revenues mainly goes to offset their various proposed further tax rate cuts, either new rate cuts (reducing the top 35% rate to 28% or 25%, as the Paul Ryan plan proposed, e.g.), or maintaining the W rate cuts beyond their expiration.

But that omission is trivial compared to the underlying falsehood upon which this entire piece is based.

The proposal by some senior GOP members of Congress to 'raise tax revenues' via closing of loopholes (not by rate increases) is NOT an example of their bucking the Norquist pledge-- it is HONORING the Norquist pledge, according to Norquist himself. Krauthammer knows this well, even if most of his less informed audience may not.

What am I talking about? Some months back, Norquist went on record to say that in his opinion, getting extra revenues via the closing of loopholes would not count as the kind of 'tax increase' his pledgers had pledged to never do, and would not be a violation of the pledge. He ok'd the idea as consistent with his pledge. Nobody proposing this is demonstrating their freedom from the pledge, but rather honoring the pledge creator's publicly stated view of what that pledge actually allows.

So, the fundamental claim of this piece is monumentally fraudulent, and Krauthammer has to know it. Sophistry, much, Charles?

But wait, there's more! Krauthammer sneers at the amount of money raised by the already in law sunsetting of the Bush tax rate cuts for the top bracket, as merely $80 billion. Of course, that is $80 billion a year, x 10, = $800 billion.

Then he touts the $300 billion raised by eliminating loopholes. But that is the TEN YEAR REVENUE FIGURE. Meaning it's $30 billion a year, so much more powerful a revenue enhancer than that silly and weak $80 billion per year figure, which he discounts as pitifully and laughably small.

But wait! you say. How do we know it's $300 billion over 10 years, and not $300 billion a year? Because they use the $300 billion dollar figure. If it were a per year figure, they'd use the 10 year figure of $3 trillion in higher tax revenues. Have you heard them say 'we've proposed $3 TRILLION in higher tax revenues by this plan'? If so, Krauthammer surely missed a strong rhetorical talking point. (He didn't, he's not that far gone).

But just to back my analysis up with a fact, and not merely reason, here's how the Weekly Standard describes the Toomey proposal:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As part of a broader plan to rein in entitlement spending and reform the tax code, Toomey had offered to raise tax revenues $250 billion over 10 years.</div></div>

Dated 11/22/12 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/toomey-super-committee-democrats-rejected-compromise-demanded-1-trillion-tax-hike_610027.html)

Hey, wait again! That's not even the $300 billion Krauthammer claims! So he laughs at $80 billion per year as way too small, but then touts a **$25 billion** per year raise in revenues as really getting the job done? Tool. Liar.

That's not the end of his deceptions. For the law in place right now (not some Obama repeal, which is not required) sunsets not only the Bush tax rate cuts, but all the other various Bush tax cuts as well. Cap gains rises from a 15% maximum to a 20% maximum iirc, dividend and interest income go from a max of 15% to whatever the top marginal rate is (35% now, 39.6% under the law in effect as of 2013), and the estate tax goes from a $5 million estate exclusion and a 35% rate over that to a $1 million estate exclusion and a 55% rate over that.

Mr. K mentions ONLY the revenue from ending the top bracket rate cut, and leaves out all the above, which will occur by action of law as it is effect now, unless something else is passed.

And lastly, here is the very dirty secret in these tax talks. All the above increases in tax revenues, which exist in current law, create the CBO baseline from which deficit cutting is scored. That is, if they all go into effect as the law now mandates, THAT IS ZERO DEFICIT DECREASE (from the baseline). Getting to ANY stated figure of deficit reduction means AFTER THESE increases, that stated figure has to be MORE that what the baseline score is. To the degree any of these changes are rolled back, extended, that money has to be offset just to remain at ZERO deficit reduction. Real deficit reduction is only the amount above these baseline budgeting assumptions.

Gayle in MD
11-29-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Charles Krauthammer here does what he does best, a form of cleverly captious casuistry.

But as some have noticed and written, the man, maybe now in his dotage, is several steps slower than he used to be, far off his game. It used to be it was relatively tricky to see exactly the logical fallacy he was using; more recently, it's as if he's phoning this in, how transparent are his rhetorical ploys and dodges.

Mr. K claims that the proposals to in effect raise tax revenues by closing loopholes shows that senior GOP figures are not in thrall to the Norquist pledge, QED.

He neglects to mention that the loophole closing causing an expanded taxable base and some new revenues mainly goes to offset their various proposed further tax rate cuts, either new rate cuts (reducing the top 35% rate to 28% or 25%, as the Paul Ryan plan proposed, e.g.), or maintaining the W rate cuts beyond their expiration.

But that omission is trivial compared to the underlying falsehood upon which this entire piece is based.

The proposal by some senior GOP members of Congress to 'raise tax revenues' via closing of loopholes (not by rate increases) is NOT an example of their bucking the Norquist pledge-- it is HONORING the Norquist pledge, according to Norquist himself. Krauthammer knows this well, even if most of his less informed audience may not.

What am I talking about? Some months back, Norquist went on record to say that in his opinion, getting extra revenues via the closing of loopholes would not count as the kind of 'tax increase' his pledgers had pledged to never do, and would not be a violation of the pledge. He ok'd the idea as consistent with his pledge. Nobody proposing this is demonstrating their freedom from the pledge, but rather honoring the pledge creator's publicly stated view of what that pledge actually allows.

So, the fundamental claim of this piece is monumentally fraudulent, and Krauthammer has to know it. Sophistry, much, Charles?

But wait, there's more! Krauthammer sneers at the amount of money raised by the already in law sunsetting of the Bush tax rate cuts for the top bracket, as merely $80 billion. Of course, that is $80 billion a year, x 10, = $800 billion.

Then he touts the $300 billion raised by eliminating loopholes. But that is the TEN YEAR REVENUE FIGURE. Meaning it's $30 billion a year, so much more powerful a revenue enhancer than that silly and weak $80 billion per year figure, which he discounts as pitifully and laughably small.

But wait! you say. How do we know it's $300 billion over 10 years, and not $300 billion a year? Because they use the $300 billion dollar figure. If it were a per year figure, they'd use the 10 year figure of $3 trillion in higher tax revenues. Have you heard them say 'we've proposed $3 TRILLION in higher tax revenues by this plan'? If so, Krauthammer surely missed a strong rhetorical talking point. (He didn't, he's not that far gone).

But just to back my analysis up with a fact, and not merely reason, here's how the Weekly Standard describes the Toomey proposal:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As part of a broader plan to rein in entitlement spending and reform the tax code, Toomey had offered to raise tax revenues $250 billion over 10 years.</div></div>

Dated 11/22/12 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/toomey-super-committee-democrats-rejected-compromise-demanded-1-trillion-tax-hike_610027.html)

Hey, wait again! That's not even the $300 billion Krauthammer claims! So he laughs at $80 billion per year as way too small, but then touts a **$25 billion** per year raise in revenues as really getting the job done? Tool. Liar.

That's not the end of his deceptions. For the law in place right now (not some Obama repeal, which is not required) sunsets not only the Bush tax rate cuts, but all the other various Bush tax cuts as well. Cap gains rises from a 15% maximum to a 20% maximum iirc, dividend and interest income go from a max of 15% to whatever the top marginal rate is (35% now, 39.6% under the law in effect as of 2013), and the estate tax goes from a $5 million estate exclusion and a 35% rate over that to a $1 million estate exclusion and a 55% rate over that.

Mr. K mentions ONLY the revenue from ending the top bracket rate cut, and leaves out all the above, which will occur by action of law as it is effect now, unless something else is passed.

And lastly, here is the very dirty secret in these tax talks. All the above increases in tax revenues, which exist in current law, create the CBO baseline from which deficit cutting is scored. That is, if they all go into effect as the law now mandates, THAT IS ZERO DEFICIT DECREASE (from the baseline). Getting to ANY stated figure of deficit reduction means AFTER THESE increases, that stated figure has to be MORE that what the baseline score is. To the degree any of these changes are rolled back, extended, that money has to be offset just to remain at ZERO deficit reduction. Real deficit reduction is only the amount above these baseline budgeting assumptions.






</div></div>


Funny how these Myth Slayers are the leading myth spreaders!


Zombie Lie: Fox, WSJ Still Falsely Claiming Lower Taxes Generate More Revenue
November 22, 2011 12:50 pm ET — 58 Comments
Fox host Stuart Varney and The Wall Street Journal claimed that lowering tax rates increases tax revenue. In fact, many economists -- including former Bush advisers -- have rejected this claim.

Fox and WSJ: Lower Rates Would Lead To More Revenue To The Treasury
Varney: "How Do You Grow The Economy? In My Opinion, Tax Reform. Lower Rates, Fewer Deductions, More Revenue To The Treasury." During the November 22 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox host Stuart Varney claimed lower tax rates lead to more revenue. From the broadcast:

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): So, let's talk about the downgrade. I'm only kidding. Let's do this. How about this: The New York Times postulates that maybe this is going to work out good because in 2013, the Bush tax cuts go away, and the 1.2 trillion in cuts, it'll get us on the negative term when it comes to the deficit, and a lot of people don't really care that much about defense, and they're willing to take these cuts and this increase in taxes.

VARNEY: If you think that the way to tackle our debt problem is to raise taxes and cut the military, OK, I suppose this is a good thing. If you think that that will have a good outcome for our debt and our economy, yeah, OK, The Times has a point. I think the exact opposite. The way to fix the debt problem is not with higher taxes and cutting the military, it's to grow the economy. How do you grow the economy? In my opinion, tax reform. Lower rates, fewer deductions, more revenue to the Treasury. Better economy. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/22/11, via Media Matters]

WSJ: "[N]early All Economists Agree That Lower Rates And A More Efficient Tax Code Would Increase Economic Growth And Lead To More Revenues Over Time." In a November 22 editorial titled, "Thank You, Grover Norquist: The super committee's failure is rooted in a clash of visions," The Wall Street Journal claimed that "nearly all economists agree that lower rates and a more efficient tax code would increase economic growth and lead to more revenues over time." [The Wall Street Journal, 11/22/11]

In Fact, Economists -- Including Bush Advisers -- Reject Claim That Tax Cuts In The Past Have Increased Revenue
EPI: Bush Tax Cuts "Added $2.6 Trillion To The Public Debt Over 2001-10." In a September 26 article, Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) wrote:

A spending-cuts-only approach is regressive in that it forces the brunt of deficit reduction on the backs of poor and working families while ignoring a prime culprit of the budget deficit: the expensive, ineffective, and unfair Bush-era tax cuts. These top-heavy tax cuts added $2.6 trillion to the public debt over 2001-10 and will add $3.8 trillion to deficits over the next decade if fully continued. [EPI, 9/26/11]

Bartlett: Revenue Has Been Historically Low Because "Taxes Were Cut In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006." In a July 26 New York Times blog post, Bruce Bartlett, former policy adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, wrote:

In a previous post, I noted that federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product were at their lowest level in generations. The Congressional Budget Office expects revenue to be just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year; the last year it was lower was 1950, when revenue amounted to 14.4 percent of G.D.P.

But revenue has been below 15 percent of G.D.P. since 2009, and the last time we had three years in a row when revenue as a share of G.D.P. was that low was 1941 to 1943.

Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.

The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.

[...]

According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.[The New York Times, 7/26/11]

Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts, "Revenues Are Permanently Reduced Relative To What They Would Otherwise Have Been." In a July 2010 post on his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that "the revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend." He added, "This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been." [The New York Times, 7/15/10]

Time: "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues." In a December 2007 article titled, "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues," Time magazine asserted that "economists agree" that the idea that tax cuts raise revenues is "false." From the article:

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues. [Time, 12/6/07]

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible." Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), wrote on his blog on July 2, 2007:

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

[...]

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the [sic] same thing. [Greg Mankiw, 7/2/07]

Former Bush Economic Adviser Samwick: "Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues." In a January 2007 blog post titled "New Year's Plea," Andrew Samwick, former chief economist for George W. Bush's Council on Economic Advisers, wrote:

You [in the Bush administration] are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one. [Vox Baby, 1/3/07]

The Economist: "No Serious Economist Believes Mr Bush's Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves." A January 2006 Economist editorial stated:

A surprising rise in tax revenue last year has pushed this chutzpah even further. Mr Bush last week implied that the supply-side fantasy might hold after all: tax cuts do pay for themselves. "There's a mindset in Washington that says, you cut the taxes, we're going to have less money to spend," he noted contemptuously, before claiming that recent experience suggested otherwise.

Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office suggested that, after ten years, up to one-third of the cost of a 10% cut in income taxes can be recouped from higher economic growth. That fraction may be higher for cuts in taxes on capital alone. But it is nowhere near 100%. [The Economist, 1/12/06]

FactCheck.org: "Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts]." FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed. The post further stated:

The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been -- even if they spur some economic growth. [FactCheck.org, 6/11/07]

For more on the false claim that lowering taxes increases revenue, SEE HERE.



http://mediamatters.org/research/201111220018

LWW
11-29-2011, 12:51 PM
It went right over y'alls collectivist heads. which ... sadly ... is what experience has taught me to expect.

cushioncrawler
11-29-2011, 02:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....In deficit reduction, all that matters is tax revenue. The holders of our national debt care not a whit what tax rates yield the money to pay them back. They care about the sum.......</div></div>There lays the main problem for this whole article.

The main "holders" of usofa debt iz Norquist and others -- they are the "them" -- they are the "they".

Now, let me go a bit slower here so everyone kan keep up. The main debtors are Norquist and others.

In other words, the left pocket owes the right pocket.
In other words, the debt duznt matter outside your pants.
In other words, the debt duznt matter.

Hope i havnt gone too fast for some here.
mac.

Soflasnapper
11-29-2011, 06:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It went right over y'alls collectivist heads. which ... sadly ... is what experience has taught me to expect. </div></div>

No, this went over YOUR head.

Mr. K claims that what he details proves the GOP are willing to move beyond the Norquist pledge to never raise taxes.

However, those details are exactly what Norquist said were fine, and not a violation of their pledge.

So Mr. K claims that because they've shown they are still willing to stay within the allowable bounds of the Norquist pledge, that proves they are willing to break their pledges, and ignore Norquist. This is beyond false, it's idiotic, and a witting lie from a man who knows better. (You may not know better, but Mr. K is a well informed man, and therefore must.)

As the whole point of the column was to deny Norquist has a stranglehold on the GOP, and therefore a stranglehold on the debt and deficit reduction efforts of Congress (by that control of the GOP), we must judge Mr. K's efforts here as an F for FAIL.

The rest of his boilerplate is likewise nonsense. Or he should answer the obvious objection that if a higher tax rate will kill the economy and its growth potential, how is it that the very rate hikes that are in prospect (the Clinton era rates), saw both very strong growth and nearly unprecedented employment rates, both in terms of the raw percentage numbers, and the rate of citizen participation in the workforce?

Perhaps you could answer that in his stead.

Start with how $25 billion a year is a flood of new revenues, and $80 billion, a trivial sum.

Qtec
11-29-2011, 11:23 PM
Tap Tap Tap. Excellent rebuttal there S.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have heard the lies about this regurgitated on command by the leftist parrots here so much that I felt it was time to post a rebuttal to their madness ... and then I found this:

The Obamanation's worst nightmare ... THE TRUTH! </div></div>

LOL. Anyone with 2 brain cells working can see that the 'opinion' piece from K is one big lie from beginning to end.

eg,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With that, Norquist officially replaces the Koch brothers as the great malevolent manipulator that controls the republic by pulling <u>unseen strings</u> on behalf of the plutocracy. </div></div>

An obvious lie because Grover has been VERY up front about what he is for and does to reach his goals. Koch Bros?...not so much.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I work with [Speaker John] Boehner; I work with [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor; I work with [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell; I work with all the guys in the House and the Senate,”</span> Norquist said of his involvement in the debt dustups of the 112th Congress.

Sometimes, he said, he has to yank a wandering leader back into line, as he said he did with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in May. Kyl publicly ruled out raising tax rates to bring in revenue, which was interpreted by some observers as leaving the door open to a variety of tax increases that wouldn’t involve rate changes.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“So, I call Kyl. ‘What did you say? What did you mean? How can we work together on this?’” Norquist said, adopting the tone of a teacher scolding a second grader as he recalled the conversation.

“Yes, I said rates,” Kyl said, as Norquist recalled.

“And then,” Norquist said, “he went down on the floor, and he gave a colloquy about how we’re against any tax increases of any sort. Boom!”</span>

Kyl, a longtime proponent of lower taxes, didn’t have a comment, his office said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67906_Page2.html#ixzz1fAAhbI8X
</div></div>

Q

Gayle in MD
11-30-2011, 11:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tap Tap Tap. Excellent rebuttal there S.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have heard the lies about this regurgitated on command by the leftist parrots here so much that I felt it was time to post a rebuttal to their madness ... and then I found this:

The Obamanation's worst nightmare ... THE TRUTH! </div></div>

LOL. Anyone with 2 brain cells working can see that the 'opinion' piece from K is one big lie from beginning to end.

eg,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With that, Norquist officially replaces the Koch brothers as the great malevolent manipulator that controls the republic by pulling <u>unseen strings</u> on behalf of the plutocracy. </div></div>

An obvious lie because Grover has been VERY up front about what he is for and does to reach his goals. Koch Bros?...not so much.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I work with [Speaker John] Boehner; I work with [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor; I work with [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell; I work with all the guys in the House and the Senate,”</span> Norquist said of his involvement in the debt dustups of the 112th Congress.

Sometimes, he said, he has to yank a wandering leader back into line, as he said he did with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in May. Kyl publicly ruled out raising tax rates to bring in revenue, which was interpreted by some observers as leaving the door open to a variety of tax increases that wouldn’t involve rate changes.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“So, I call Kyl. ‘What did you say? What did you mean? How can we work together on this?’” Norquist said, adopting the tone of a teacher scolding a second grader as he recalled the conversation.

“Yes, I said rates,” Kyl said, as Norquist recalled.

“And then,” Norquist said, “he went down on the floor, and he gave a colloquy about how we’re against any tax increases of any sort. Boom!”</span>

Kyl, a longtime proponent of lower taxes, didn’t have a comment, his office said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67906_Page2.html#ixzz1fAAhbI8X
</div></div>

Q

</div></div>


http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

Gayle in MD
11-30-2011, 01:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tap Tap Tap. Excellent rebuttal there S.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have heard the lies about this regurgitated on command by the leftist parrots here so much that I felt it was time to post a rebuttal to their madness ... and then I found this:

The Obamanation's worst nightmare ... THE TRUTH! </div></div>

LOL. Anyone with 2 brain cells working can see that the 'opinion' piece from K is one big lie from beginning to end.

eg,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With that, Norquist officially replaces the Koch brothers as the great malevolent manipulator that controls the republic by pulling <u>unseen strings</u> on behalf of the plutocracy. </div></div>

An obvious lie because Grover has been VERY up front about what he is for and does to reach his goals. Koch Bros?...not so much.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I work with [Speaker John] Boehner; I work with [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor; I work with [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell; I work with all the guys in the House and the Senate,”</span> Norquist said of his involvement in the debt dustups of the 112th Congress.

Sometimes, he said, he has to yank a wandering leader back into line, as he said he did with Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in May. Kyl publicly ruled out raising tax rates to bring in revenue, which was interpreted by some observers as leaving the door open to a variety of tax increases that wouldn’t involve rate changes.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“So, I call Kyl. ‘What did you say? What did you mean? How can we work together on this?’” Norquist said, adopting the tone of a teacher scolding a second grader as he recalled the conversation.

“Yes, I said rates,” Kyl said, as Norquist recalled.

“And then,” Norquist said, “he went down on the floor, and he gave a colloquy about how we’re against any tax increases of any sort. Boom!”</span>

Kyl, a longtime proponent of lower taxes, didn’t have a comment, his office said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67906_Page2.html#ixzz1fAAhbI8X
</div></div>

Q

</div></div>


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/zealots-remorse.html?_r=1&ref=grovergnorquist