How Should We Then Live?

Grover Norquist

Go down

Grover Norquist

Post by JoelKizz on Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:32 am

Is the tax pledge that Grover pushes unreasonable? Also, under this pledge is a situation where x dollars of tax increase will take place AND x+y (y being a positive number) dollars of tax decrease will take place dishonoring to the purpose of the pledge??
In other words, if the Tea party contingent is in a situation where they can get 2 billion in tax decreases for giving 1 billion in tax increases (net loss of 1 billion in taxes) shouldn't they be free to vote "AYE" for that bill? The tax pledge seems a little restrictive to me.

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Grover Norquist

Post by XianSmitherman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:58 pm

I personally think it is because I'm one of those few Republicans that think that taxes should be raised across the board solely for the purpose of paying down the national debt and possibly to pay for some entitlement expenditures. It's completely unacceptable that 47 percent of the nation pays absolutely nothing. As for the 2-to-1 tax deal, it's kind of like communism or unicorns. They're mythical, sound great, and have never had a living example. Anytime this kind of deal is offered, the taxes are raised and the cuts never happen.

____________________
Christian
avatar
XianSmitherman

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-03-04
Age : 27

Back to top Go down

Re: Grover Norquist

Post by JoelKizz on Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:18 pm

XianSmitherman wrote:I personally think it is because I'm one of those few Republicans that think that taxes should be raised across the board solely for the purpose of paying down the national debt and possibly to pay for some entitlement expenditures.

Christian, it may have been the lighting in the room I happen to be sitting in or perhaps just a trick of the eyes but I'm almost certain I caught your Milton Friedman avatar shed a solitary tear drop at that comment.

Consider just two brief statements from Dr. Friedman..."“If taxes are raised in order to keep down the deficit, the result is likely to be a higher norm for government spending. Deficits will again mount and the process will be repeated.”

"“Yet I must confess that I favor tax cuts—not as a cure for recession but for a very different reason. Our basic long-term need is to stop the explosive growth in government spending. I am persuaded that the only effective way to do so is by cutting taxes—at any time for any excuse in any way."

In a year when the Federal (National is probably more appropriate) Government is taxing $18,276 per household and spending $31,406 per household I would contend that it might be more appropriate to reduce the 31K not raise the 18K. 18K per household should be enough.

XianSmitherman wrote:As for the 2-to-1 tax deal, it's kind of like communism or unicorns. They're mythical, sound great, and have never had a living example. Anytime this kind of deal is offered, the taxes are raised and the cuts never happen.

This is true when you take the Reagan approach of increases now with promises of cuts later. The solution is to pass the bills simultaneously or with the implementation of the tax cuts being the trigger for the tax increases. This is what I meant with my original point. Assuming you could guarantee the cuts (by the means just mentioned) doesn't it make sense to take that deal? The Grover Norquist pledge seems to prohibit such a situation.

____________________
Joel Kizzy
avatar
JoelKizz
Admin

Posts : 187
Join date : 2012-02-28
Age : 40
Location : Tuscaloosa, AL

http://thenlive.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Grover Norquist

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum