Grover Norquist: impeach President Obama if he doesn't extend tax cuts for the rich

madvargr

I agree with you

Send this traitorous, puffed-up, arrogant Norquist...to GITMO

Norquist is no different than the terrorists who hit the twin towers on 9/11

Norquist deserves to be put in prison for a long, long time

And I remember the Jack Abramoff Fraud case and Norquist's involvment in de-frauding Native American Tribes:

Involvement with Jack Abramoff

According to a 2011 memoir by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Norquist was one of Abramoff's first major Republican party contacts.^[34] Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform were also mentioned in Senate testimony relating to the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal which resulted in a 2006 guilty plea by Abramoff to three criminal felony counts of defrauding of American Indian tribes and corrupting public officials. Records released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee allege that ATR served as a "conduit" for funds that flowed from Abramoff's clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns.^[35] Norquist has denied that he did anything wrong, and has not been charged with any crime.^[36]

And my one big issue about Ron Paul is that he signed Grover's pledge against all new taxes. Then we hear from Grover that taxes on the middle class are OK. Paul should not align himself in any manner with Norquist, his organization sponsore ALEC or the Koch brothers.

mountainmike-1199289, don't tell Marshall about r paul signing that treasonous pledge, it give a major trama.

don't tell Marshall about r paul signing that treasonous pledge, it give a major trama.

LOL...naw, Marshall will find a way to blindly support RPaul, no matter what. Have you EVER seen anyone so drunk on the Kool-Aid?

I will rescind any pledge to not raise taxes when Democrats sign a pledge to stop spending more money than we bring in.

How bout that? You boys and girls must believe in the static economy models which have been proven to be false. Taking money from others to spend on another thing does not GROW the economy. Economies can grow, you do know that, right? How about you advocate a dynamic economic approach instead of the static one.

Luddites.

Repubs have been having budget deficits. President Clinton was the one that had a surplus. FYI: President Clinton is a democrat.

Repubs do not know anything about economic growth, they have terrible track record.

Republican massive miserable failure in 2008...

.AT LEAST A 50 TRILLION DOLLAR LOSS IN 2008..

.Global Financial Assets Lost $50 Trillion Last Year, ADB Says... ..http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZ1kcJ7y3LDM. ..Most notably, MGI finds that:Falling equities accounted for virtually all of the drop in global financial assets. The world's equities lost almost half their value in 2008, declining by $28 trillion. Markets have regained some ground in recent months, replacing $4.6 trillion in value between December 2008 and the end of July 2009. Global residential real estate values fell by $3.4 trillion in 2008 and nearly $2 trillion more in the first quarter of 2009. Combining these figures, we see that declines in equity and real estate wiped out $28.8 trillion of global wealth in 2008 and the first half of 2009.. . http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Global_capital_markets_entering_a_new_eraThe 244 ACCOMPLISHMENTS of PRESIDENT OBAMA.. ..http://b4bmorenews.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-244-accomplishments-of-president.html

Repubs do not know anything about economic growth, they have terrible track record.

How's Obama's record? Answer the @!$%#ing question!

Better then Bush's "Rational". But I doubt you care and likely use the same flawed bull@!$%# stats that Include Bush's record to pretend Obama has a horrible record.

Read Congressional Budget report for next year's promising new economy.

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf on Wednesday projected that economic growth will slow by next year and unemployment will rise before that -- a forecast that Rep. Paul Ryan called ominous, grim and alarming.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/01/congressional-budget-chief-offers-dim-outlook-on-economic-growth-jobs/#ixzz1lEwf7ZhL

Must be great to be able to ignore reality.

Rational Must be a great world you live in where The greatest economic crisis since the great depression just stops because the Presidency changes hands. Sadly here in reality despite what you on the right are trying to push were still in the Bush great recession.

We actually aren't, noatg. Obama's policies arrested the plunge Bush pushed our nation into, and they have us on a road toward even more economic growth. The report that the previous poster quoted said that "growth will slow". It therefore says the opposite of what he apparently intended to communicate... because it means that there is economic growth, now, while when Bush left the White House he left us in recession. The economy goes through natural cycles, up and down. No matter who gets elected in the fall, the likelihood is that there will be at least one quarter during that four year period without economic growth. That wouldn't mean anything, though - it would be just a natural reflection of unsurprising economic variability. Clearly some Republicans think their own supporters are idiots and so they try to make a big deal of normal economic variability, while ignoring major trends such as how the Bush administration plunged us into the great recession.

The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge.

We have a repub here saying that economic growth WILL slow down. Now, what are the lazy do nothing repubs in the house of reps doing about it?

Ironic how the GOP always claim they can see the future when they never acknowledge their past.

This is just my opinion,

The Democrats are always cleaning up after a Repub congress/admin. but Repubs are great at getting out "tax and spend Dems". In reality if only for the 2000-2008 time period...I would say Repubs blew it.

Two unfunded wars

Medicaid part B

Tax cuts that mainly benefited the rich

Yep! I think Bush (repubs don't mention him much), cheney (won't write what i think) and 8 years of repubs congress screwed this country.

In the same breath, I will also say Clinton could have countered the repeal of a few regulations on wall street. But than again, they are all part of the same crowd.

Check out Rocky Anderson

WaltDis technically your correct the recession is over in reality though it isn't. While the "numbers are starting to add up" there only doing so because the top is once again seeing record profits the Rest of us are still stuck in a recession.

This is a strange time where the top of the top are drastically altering the number from the vast income inequality that has plagued our country.

With respect, neoatg, over three million jobs have been added over the last two years. That's more than just "the top ... once again seeing record profits".

yes but almost all those jobs are part time. Full time jobs with benefits are slowly but surely becoming non existent in the Private sector.

With respect When you take a hard look at the reality of whats going on you see the vast majority are still in dire straights and even the people getting jobs are only working 3-6 hours a day every few days. making FAR less then they did before the collapse. When Real full time jobs come back for the vast majority then the recession is over till then it's abusing Numbers to ignore the reality of what it happening.

What's worse Cost of living never dropped like there suppose to during a recession so anyone getting a new "full time job" is still making less because of abuse by companies in there pricing.

There's no question that Republicans are pushing against improvements in American employment. The defeat of the Republicans in 2008 didn't eliminate such selfish perspectives from our public life. Fully half of Congress is still beholden to that agenda. As things are now, the current administration is doing the best that anyone can expect given the obstructionism that is going on. Just imagine what would happen if those who, as a matter of profit, regularly export American jobs overseas, gain more control. We'll see a return to the free-fall that Bush's policies predicated.

The current administration may not be able to remedy the problems that the Republicans deliberate cause and deliberately intend to make worse, but they're as well-placed as any to fight against the destruction that the Republicans are working so hard to wreak on the American worker.

Grover is an idiot with delusions of grandeur.

Vlad-- in Grover's case, that would be "delusions of mediocrity."

I have watched Norquist talk

You watch his eyes when he speaks, he is a con-artist extraordinaire

He will recieve the rath of the American People

Karma is a bitch, Mr Norquist.

Speaking of bitches,

So what do you Democrats advocate? Tax increases? Why not pair them with spending cuts? Oh no we would not want to do that because it would take us away from the Progressive Socialist Utopian state, how am I doin' comrades?

The reason the repubs want to cut spending now is to create a great depression to get rid of President Obama.

Alex,

No I do not want to cause a great depression, that is why we must get our debt under control.

Look up Greece for crying out loud!

Democrats are ignorant.

The Republicans don't care what you think AmeriCAN; they just want to deceive you into given them your vote, and then do as Alex said: Drive the country into a depression to support their power-grab.

Democrats aren't ignorant; on the contrary, they recognize this deception that the Republicans are executing on the voters, and calling it out.

Nothing has changed, that’s why Monocrats/Republicans/Aristocrats are beyond ignorant, thinking they can rewrite history instead of learning from it and would rather rebrand every time they are discredited making the same mistakes over and over and over again, thinking the results will magically be different… That’s called insane not ignorant.

"Democrats... consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them, therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent.... Aristocrats fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:96

Did you just call Republicans racists, Redsfan? Please cite your source, can't be from MSNBC or MSDNC. Having been to a Taxed Enough Already rally some years ago I only remember people complaining they were being taxed too much - federal, state, local, sales, property, and now healthcare mandate. With no end in sight it is impossible to think we can tax our way to prosperity.

Americans paid $900 Billion in income taxes, businesses paid a similar amount in payroll taxes, corporate income generated revenue of ~$200B, throw in some excise tax revenue and you have our $2.1 Trillion revenue, so how do you close the $1.1 Trillion gap?

IF YOU DOUBLE THE TAX ON CURRENT TAX PAYERS YOU COME UP SHORT!

IF YOU DOUBLE THE PAYROLL TAX ON BUSINESSES YOU COME UP SHORT!

IF YOU QUINTUPLE THE CORPORATE TAX REVENUE YOU COME UP SHORT!

If you cut spending, you may have a chance. I know you are not that stupid.

I am @!$%#ing tired of the bull@!$%# demagoguery of fiscally responsible people of this great nation. Stupid @!$%#ing people need to buy a vowel and figure out the points above are facts you cannot ignore, or if you do, expect a Greece-like American debt crisis.

Stupid people, please report to the nearest euthanizing station, don't worry it will be covered under Obamacare.

Have a nice day Redsfan. I hope you find a job soon.

Democrats aren't ignorant; on the contrary, they recognize this deception that the Republicans are executing on the voters, and calling it out.

Are you recognizing the deception of the Democrats? Class warfare! Vilify the successful!

Come on, man! Democrats are completely ignorant of economics.

Are you recognizing the deception of the Democrats?

You have exhibited a failure in reading comprehension. What I wrote was, "Democrats ... recognize this deception that the Republicans are executing on the voters, and calling it out."

Class warfare! Vilify the successful!

You've got the vacuous Republican right-wing jingoism down-pat.

The reality is that the class warfare was initiated by the Republicans about thirty-five years ago. I should know - I was there. I was a Republican at the time, shocked and dismayed at how immorally greedy prigs were able to gain so much control over the GOP. As the years have progressed, many of us conscientious and moral Republicans have left the party, in disgust over its greed-mongering, war-mongering, and offensively religious self-righteousness. Others had been drummed out, as the Republican Party often eats its own in its mindless fervor. Still other Republicans of conscience have been marginalized by the inane RINO labeling that the Republican Party employs to drive itself far beyond any reasonable bounds of morality.

On the contrary, the Democrats have economic experts who are both intelligent and principled. While we may not always agree with some of what the Democrats do economically, we know that unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are generally responsible, compassionate, and considerate of others in their policy making. It's not surprising: Practically all the compassionate conservatives in this country are now moderate Democrats.

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf on Wednesday projected that economic growth will slow by next year and unemployment will rise before that -- a forecast that Rep. Paul Ryan called ominous, grim and alarming.

Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.

Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 "will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits."

"Trillions more dollars will be added to debt in the years ahead, putting a chilling effect on jobs creation today and committing the next generation to a diminished future," he said.

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen took a different approach, saying deficits and growth would have been worse without President Obama's stimulus plan. "The Recovery Act did serve its purpose. It's kind of like when you're walking up an escalator that's going down very quickly. If you take no action you will go down very fast," he said.

Yet future deficits depend in large part on how fast the economy grows, along with spending and revenues. And on that front, the CBO isn't offering a lot of encouragement.

"The pace of the recovery has been slow since the recession ended two and a half years ago," Elmendorf said. "And we project that it will continue to be slow for the next two years."

The CBO believes that economic growth will be only 2 percent this year -- and an anemic 1.1 percent next year.

The office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time.

That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director.
"Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the -- on inauguration day of 2009?" McClintock asked.

"I believe the answer to that," said Elmendorf, "is there are fewer people, congressman."

And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher -- at 9.2 percent.

Republicans have been wringing their hands about deficits for years, but one Democrat on Wednesday railed against those who focus only on cutting spending.

"Because there are people here that want to destroy the government, that it has no responsibility and it can't live up to the obligations," said Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J.

Several Democrats asked about how much revenues would be increased by eliminating the Bush tax cuts in hopes of avoiding more spending cuts.

One of the factors that will expand future deficits is entitlements, such as Medicare, which will explode as the baby boomers retire.

Elmendorf explained that "the fundamental fiscal challenge during this decade and beyond remains the aging of the population and rising costs for health care. The number of people aged 65 or older will increase by one-third in the coming decade, substantially raising the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."

In addition, he said, the new federal health care overhaul will significantly increase the number of non-elderly people receiving assistance through federal health care programs, such as Medicaid.

All of that is likely to balloon current levels of debt.

The CBO did project declining deficits under "current law."

But current law would end the Bush tax cuts for everyone, even those making less than $250,000 a year, which neither Congress nor the president supports.

It would also mean a cut of almost 30 percent to doctors who treat Medicare patients, which Congress has never let take effect.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/01/congressional-budget-chief-offers-dim-outlook-on-economic-growth-jobs/#ixzz1lEwf7ZhL

Keep up the great work Democrats. ^^^^^^^

You guys rock!

I think what the Repubs fear most is that if the Dems take control of Congress and actually improve the situation in the country, as was done under Clinton, the Repubs will be dead as a political party because their policies have only benefited the few and almost destroyed the country to benefit the few. Dead and gone is what they fear, dead and gone is what they deserve.

Let us think of who has benefited the most and least from trickle down economics and increase our tax rates by the same margin.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

This is what we did and it worked just until the avarice Right connived their way into power and screwed it up!

You do not need any evidence to prove that the repub party is a racist party. They have a long and terrible track record. Whenever they get together, all you see is """"a sea of white""""" People have been telling them for decades that they are racists and instead of trying to improve their record, they get more and more racist all the time.

I think what the Repubs fear most is that if the Dems take control of Congress and actually improve the situation in the country, as was done under Clinton,

@ Jennifer - Really? Republicans in Congress lost control to Democrats under Clinton? The how was Newt Gingrich, a Republican, the Speaker of the House?

The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge.

@Alex. CA

So in the 112th Congress there are 51 Democrats in the Senate and 47 Republicans.

There are zero African-Americans. Since the Dems hold the majority, that would statistically make the Democrats more racist than the Republicans.

There are 2 Hispanic Senators, one from each party. So that would mean the Democrats are, again, statistically more racist.

I will be sure to let Allen West know you think he is white.

Democrats are ignorant.

The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge.

Such arguments are hard to take seriously.

0.00000000000000000001% is greater than 0.000000000000000000000000000001%.

Who is the common denominator? President Obama.

If he was the CEO of the company I owned stock in I would vote him out in the share holder meeting or sell my stock. Either way, CEO Obama loses.

""Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the -- on inauguration day of 2009?" McClintock asked.

"I believe the answer to that," said Elmendorf, "is there are fewer people, congressman."

And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher -- at 9.2 percent.

That'll grow an economy like nothing else!

Dems are Igno

@ Yellowdog

Let us think of who has benefited the most and least from trickle down economics

President Obama seems to have benefited. Born in America to poor immigrant parents and now he makes $5 million a year as president.

Do you expect the people responsible for a 17 TRILLION DOLLAR LOSS in 2008, to be able to do anything good or positive?? I do not expect anything good to come from those people.

bush left a huge free falling great recession economic mess stuck in a deep ditch. And the repubs will do it again if we allow it.

The repubs have been praying for a great depression to get rid of President Obama.

RationalAmerican

Yes, that is why they voted in Arnold the Terminator womenizing slug and Issa the ex car thief is still in office who spends his time trying to get Obama and does nothing for the his district. Yes, we have some very ignorant dip @!$%#s in California. We have some others, some who did time for their criminal activity. Yes, California is known for putting in right wing a-holes from time to time who do more damage than good.

I cannot understand why the 240some legislators in our Congress who have taken a "pledge" to protect the Constitution from enemies are not standing at Ethics Committee investigations for breaking their pledge to the country in favor of an enemy who has committed fraud to get their signatures on a document that is clearly fraudulent in that it presumes to speak for all of the citizens of the United States. I am a citizen of the United States of America and have not requested Mr Nordquist to disseminate a pledge for me.

He has avowed his threats to the Constitution over and over in public, laughing all the time.

I have written to the Justice Department questioning why he isn't being charged with treason, I have written to the President questioning why he isn't in prison.

He has no authority from the citizens of this country for hamstringing our legislators with a fictional pledge. Why is this traitor even on our media?

AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

'against all enemies, foreign and domestic'

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm

the oath each one of them signed.

http://www.atr.org/about-grover

http://www.atr.org/about-grover

How about using an UNbiased source?

Grover Norquist and Karl Rove are two men who could never get elected if they ran so they find stooges to do their bidding. Rove used Bush and Norquist uses a whole lot of crew of fools. Of course in using others to do their dirty work, they don't have to take any responsibility for the evil they create.

In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. While ATR has the role of promoting and monitoring the Pledge, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is actually made to a candidate's constituents, who are entitled to know where candidates stand before sending them to the capitol. Since the Pledge is a prerequisite for many voters, it is considered binding as long as an individual holds the office for which he or she signed the Pledge.

Since its rollout with the endorsement of President Reagan in 1986, the pledge has become de rigeur for Republicans seeking office, and is a necessity for Democrats running in Republican districts.

Today the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is offered to every candidate for state office and to all incumbents. More than 1,100 state officeholders, from state representative to governor, have signed the Pledge. Statehouse tax-and-spend interests have to contend with Pledge signers in every state.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge#ixzz1kqB3xfLX

Personally, I wouldn't consider voting for a candidate for local, city, county, state, or federal office who did not sign this pledge. It is a minimal prerequisite for me to even consider voting for a person running for office.

http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge#ixzz1kqB3xfLX

Again, I would recommend an UNbiased source, but glad to know you're willing to disenfranchise yourself over something like this.

How am I disenfranchising myself? I want people in office who do promise in writing not to raise taxes. I would be disenfranchised if somehow it was made impossible to get those seeking office to sign the pledge. I am as for it and the group(ATR) and Norquist as you are opposed. I have every right as a voter to insist on a voting for candidates who take positions similar to my beliefs on the issues. I have every right to insist a person sign the pledge as you do to insist they do not. There is no right to curtail his or ATR's freedom of speech nd assembly and petitioning for redress. He has every right under the constitution to circulate the pledge and nothing under our constitutional republic can take that away.

By insisting that you will vote only for a candidate who takes this pledge, and saying that is more important than the pledge to uphold the responsibilities of one's office if elected, you have chosen an incredibly narrow and self-serving scope of judgment for making a decision.

BUT congratulations on posting something original (as opposed to the usual copy-n-paste of RWNJ propaganda). I didn't think you were capable of that.

Personally, I think any candidate that makes ANY pledge about behaviors in office, other than the one to uphold the responsibilities of the office to which they are elected, should be declared ineligible to hold that office.

Cornhusker4Palin

It's your right to chose to be anti-tax if you want to. I personally believe we have a responsibility to pay down our debt before we lower taxes. First things first. And I definitely think that Norquist wields too much power for a non elected person (being that he is not selected by the people) who is funded to represent the interest of big money.

But again. You can believe in no taxes if you chose. I will however continue to think you are wrong....at this point in time.

Now you have to appreciate that Grover is probably feeling a little long in the tooth lately, and perhaps impatient. With all the back-and-forth over who said and did what during the administration of St. Ronald Reagan, it’s bound to make him think back to his salad days in the early 1980s, when he as swaggering around Washington with a bumper sticker on his briefcase that read “I’d rather be killing commies,” an allusion to his pastime of hanging out with “freedom fighters” being backed by South Africa’s apartheid regime.

rolling eye's... sigh

It's ironic how the TP'ers think Norquist is so pro-American....I know that the Fux News crowd is uninformed, but I didn't think they were total idiots!

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., denounced Norquist from the House floor for his "unsavory" connections, including ties to known terrorist financiers Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian, his support for the Ground Zero mosque and his advocacy for transferring Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil.

"Simply put," said Wolf, "I believe Mr. Norquist is connected with or has profited from a number of unsavory people and groups out of the mainstream."

"Documentation shows that he has deep ties to supporters of Hamas and other terrorist organizations that are sworn enemies of the United States and our ally Israel," said Wolf.

Norquist called Wolf's speech a "hissy fit" and "a compilation of whack job criticisms," arguing the congressman is one of only six Republican members of the U.S. House who has refused to sign ATR's no-tax pledge.

The congressman did not back down from his remarks, however, asserting, "There's a clear pattern there. You need to look at who he's associated with."

And his response was....The Congressman refused to sign Hitl...err...Grover's pledge!

And his response was....The Congressman refused to sign Hitl...err...Grover's pledge!

"Let this be the distinctive mark of an American that in cases of commotion, he enlists himself under no man's banner, inquires for no man's name, but repairs to the standard of the laws. Do this, and you need never fear anarchy or tyranny. Your government will be perpetual." --Thomas Jefferson: Manuscript, 1801

The people that vote for grover like politicians are to blame.

any candidate that has made ANY pledge other than to his oath of office has been BOUGHT and PAID for. By norquist.

He is the pimp of the r party.

I want people in office who do promise in writing not to raise taxes.

The basic problem with this is it only addresses one side of a two-sided issue. To be rational it also has to address the spending side, what philosophy do you take to identify and prioritize what you are not going to spend money on?

I can tell my grocer that I am going to spend $100 a week for food. I pledge not to spend any more in the future. That limits me, but has no binding arrangement for the grocer, she can go ahead and raise prices. So then what do I do? I've made this pledge now I have to live with it. So I don't buy the Sugar Flakes cereal my kids love, and when I get home I get grief from them. And my wife gives me grief since she has to hear the moaning and complaining. She might say "If I knew this would happen, I would not have supported the pledge!"

The Norquist Pledge is feckless because it does not address the problems faced when taxes must be raised. If it said we would cut Social Security to fight a war no-one would sign on as constituents would be howling. In fact if it included any reduction plan, people effected by the proposed cuts would complain. That is why it doesn't and won't. People think not raising taxes is good, but when it comes down to what that may actually mean it could get worse for the politician. And us.

Ok so hear is the pledge for oath of office

Current oath was enacted in 1884:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Here is the pledge oath the GOP are interested in

List of Your Republicans Leaders in the new 112th Congress sign to Grover Norquist’s Controversial Americans For Tax Reform Pledge

Posted by FREDERICA CADE ⋅ December 29, 2010 ⋅

http://fredericacade.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/list-of-your-republicans-leaders-in-the-new-112th-congress-sign-to-grover-norquists-controversial-americans-for-tax-reform-pledge/#comments

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. Grover Norquist group American for Tax Reform and the United State Commerce both oppose the Employee Free Choice Act.
“Chamber president Thomas Donohue has turned the organization into a key ally of the Bush-era corporate agenda that has empowered Big Business at the expense of workers. The Chamber has made opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act its top priority.” http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/against_list.cfm
Alliance for Worker Freedom is an arm of American for Tax Reform. American for Tax Reform is a group that seeks to limit the federal government’s ability to protect workers and consumers and ensure economic fairness.
“We’re going to crush labor as a political entity.” –Grover Norquist, founder and president of ATR http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/against_list.cfm
American Tax Reform is a group that opposes all taxes and promotes limited government. Grover Norquist, President has a questionable history with this group. ATR group calls themself a 501 (c)(4) group. This means they are a non-profit lobbyist organization in which all donations made to the group are considered tax-deductible but wait a second the The Americans for Tax Reform Foundation is a 501(c)(3). Supposedly under 501(c)(3).
The ATR Foundation is used for research and educational organization, and all contributions to the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation are tax-deductible as allowed by federal laws.
Americans for Tax Reform’s mission statement: “ATR opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle. We believe in a system in which taxes are simpler, fairer, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today. The government’s power to control one’s life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized… ATR serves as a national clearinghouse for the grassroots taxpayers’ movement by working with approximately 800 state and county level groups.”
Would you be surprised that I could find very little on the American Tax Reform Foundation.

Well I did find a complaint: Norquist used either or both ATR and ATR Foundation as commercial enterprises by laundering money derived from Indian casino clients of former lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff.

The casinos made contributions to ATR, which then skimmed a fee off the top before passing the money on to former Christian activist Ralph Reed and other anti-gambling activists. In this way, Norquist, Reed and Abramoff were able to disguise the fact that the money used to fund anti-gambling activities was generated through Indian gambling. The point of the anti-gambling campaigns was to prevent competition to the Indian casinos.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/19054

Americans For Tax Reform Pledge, Which Requires Signers To
Vote Against Tax Increases. [Americans For Tax Reform, Accessed 10/8/10]
2010 Vote

To Close Tax Loopholes For Companies That Ship Jobs Overseas Seen

As Violation Of Pledge. Signers of ATR’s Pledge are Committed to Supporting
Tax Breaks for Companies Outsourcing American Jobs.

Americans for Tax Reform has stated that it is a violation of their pledge to support ending tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas. [Americans for Tax
Reform, 8/9/10; Washington Post, 8/5/10; Washington Post, 6/9/10]

2007 Vote To Close Tax Loopholes For Countries Shipping Jobs Overseas Seen
As Violation Of The Pledge. In 2007, the Americans for Tax Reform issued a
legislative alert making it clear to their pledge signers that if they voted
to remove a tax loophole taken by companies that ship jobs overseas it would
be “a clear and unambiguous violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.”
[ATR Legislative Alert, 7/25/07]

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers

So the GOP are telling the Middle class -FU, something all repubs/tp'er should be proud of/sarc

Norqiuist's pledge simply limits the ability of legislators to adhere to their pledge of office. It is as simple as that.

One doesn't have to raise taxes to fulfill the obligationns of their elected office.

Cornhusker4Palin I am glad that most voters disagree with you.

The only pledge they should be concerned with is the pledge to uphold the constitution. Pledging to Norquist equates to pledging to special interest, because maintaining the Bush tax cuts benefits the top end of society more than the majority of Americans... They might as well deal with lobbist in the open, not behind closed doors.... As Romney eluded to the way he likes to conduct business...

"I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:76

Cornhusker4Palin

One doesn't have to raise taxes to fulfill the obligationns of their elected office.

When taxes are at a fifty year LOW...

Analysis finds U.S. tax burden lowest since 1958
Taxes Reach Lowest Levels in 50 Years
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

.... you can't connect the dots to even suggest that reduced revenue might be at least part of the cause of the national debt?

Seriously? Nothing wrong there?

Grover's tax-hacking coalition owns a chunk of the responsibility for the deficit, C4P. That is an obligation of elected office.

One doesn't have to raise taxes to fulfill the obligationns of their elected office.

The same can be said about lowering taxes. Is there any significance to the statement?

The objectives are to protect the rich and get rid of President Obama at any cost.

sure thing husker but then again you support that ultimate loser FAILIN'

when your house (this country) grows in persons You NEED more to take care of them.

We cannot handle a 2012 population on a 1950's population sized budget. Doesn't work no matter how many pretty words you use.

More people means more money. If you build a house with three bedrooms and you end up with 15 kids....well you need a bigger house and a bigger paycheck to support everything that house needs.

The federal spending level increased way to much between FY 2008 and the preseent. We need to go back to 2008 levels of spendiing and adjust for only inflation and population increases since then. All other spending between 2008 beyond pop. growth rate and the inflation rate needs to be repealled. Then we won't need to raise anyones taxes.

Voters already decided to raise taxes on the rich. Just ignore the repubs.

And investors have decided to sit on investments hoarding cash and placing money off shore or in tax free bonds. We won't ignore a tax increase, we'll just declare less taxable income. Ignore that.

And JUST what charges would the ultimate nastiness norquist like to TRY to charge Obama with to impeach him.........

Hey Cornhusker4Palin

What do you have to say about the fact that the majority of the money coming from the Super Pacs that came from Wall Street went to ROMNEY? You keep dogging the President but your guys are the real criminals and the actual ones who took the country to the cleaners and will do it again, if they get the chance. How do you justify this in you mind?

OK Democrats of Redfans Vine,

What is your plan? What is your budget? Oh that's right, Obama has failed for over 1000 days to submit and pass a budget. A budget is a plan for spending and revenue. You have none. You Democrats fail to demand it. King Obama continues to spend without the budget.

Who is violating the laws of the land? I am sure Harvard does not have a class on which laws you can choose to ignore as a lawyer.

The only budget that has been submitted is the Ryan Plan, which as Chairman of the House Budget Committee he is supposed to submit. Democrats have nothing in response. To debate something you have to have two positions. You will compare and contrast for similarities and differences, common ground and battle ground. Democrats in the House have failed all of you Democrats by failing to do that. You cannot debate against yourself. Come to the table with something and then have a debate.

Here is the truth, Obama knows if he writes it all down it will be impossible to sell, not just to Republicans but to Democrats as well. It is impossible to sell us a spending bill that bankrupts our nation, so Obama just keeps on printing money.

Tell me how much you want to raise taxes on:

-Income earners ($900B revenue today)=_________. A 25% increase generates $225B.

-Corporate earners ($200B revenue today) = _______. A 100% increase generates $200B.

-Payroll tax ($900B revenue today)=______. A 25% increase generates $225B

- Excise tax ($100B revenue today)=______. A 100% increase generates $100B

The estimates I included only adds up to $750B and leaves you short another $350B to balance the budget.

So what shall you cut and where?

- Medicare = $832 B today

- Social Security = $728 B today

- Military = $704 B today

- Unemployment/ welfare = $400 B

-Government Pensions/Benefits = $216 B

When put out there for you like that, how do you argue against spending cuts, Democrats?

Democrats are ignorant. All those tax increases are going to wreck the economy. Companies will outsource faster. We are only a 90% service economy now.

Reference: www.usdebtclock.org

The rich have had tax cuts for a long time. Those tax cuts resulted in a huge free falling bush great recession economic mess.

President Clinton raised taxes and created 23 million new jobs and left a huge budget surplus.

Clintons big growth in the economy, jobs, and the markets didn't happen until after the chnge in control of congress and cutting capital gains tax rates.

Alex,

What tax revenues would you increase and what spending would you cut?

I know you will only obfuscate a bull@!$%# answer because that is all you have, bull@!$%#.

I dare you to man up and put in writing what tax revenues you would increase and by what amounts. Then follow up with a dissertation about how it will cause the economy to grow.

You see my dear friend, it is a simple math problem.

Revenue - Spending cannot = a Negative number forever.

-----------

PS. If Clinton built a huge surplus, then why did US Debt INCREASE every year of his presidency? Every single year! Your fake math does not add up. Never did.

redsfan,

Are you going to try to enforce YOUR code of honor or the actual code of honor? I have made no personal attacks.

I have not been rude at all. I have been in disagreement. Perhaps that is what you want? Only Democrat views on your vines?

You can obfuscate all you want, Redsfan. None of you Democrats want to write down the math problem that balances the budget because the Democrat argument is bull@!$%# and you all know it.

I dare you to write down the math problem that balances the budget. Show me how you have the stones. Rise to the challenge. Show me how smart you are. I know you won't, because anything you write down will force you to make very difficult choices, some that don't make sense for your Democrat talking points. See 5.34 post for the format I am seeking.

As I wait I am reminded of the much maligned Barbie Doll quote, "Math is hard!"

Well addition and subtraction are about as easy as it gets.

Come on Dems!

Revenue = $2.2 T

Spending =$3.3 T

Deficit = $1.1 T

A 25% increase in income tax = $ 0.225T

A 25% increase in payroll tax = $ 0.225T

A 100% increase in corporate tax = $0.200T

A 100% increase in excise tax = $0.100T

That equals only $ 0.750 Trillion in added revenue. And those are DRACONIAN tax increases that will destroy the economy! You are only short $350 Billion!

Now what are you going to cut?

Oh and now add the cost of OBAMA CARE To the bills!

It is a math problem, and a darned simple one at that.

-

Come on Redsfan! Tell me I am being rude for trying to get you to see the @!$%#ing light!

The left thinks that they can spend on whatever they want, confiscate from the wealthy and political opponents, and redistribute existing wealth with no fear of what tomorrow will bring when the bill comes due.

Cornhusker4Palin, you really think what you typed in#5.41?

Cornhusker4Palin, you really think what you typed in#5.41?

Of course she does. Blind hatred is immune to facts.

he.

Cornhusker4Palin, you really think what you typed in#5.41?

I wouldn't have typed those thoughts if i didn't believe them. I have no faith what so ever in Obama too be fair or just in dealing with Americans who disagree with him or in his reasoning on economic issues.

I have no faith what so ever in Obama too be fair or just in dealing with Americans who disagree with him or in his reasoning on economic issues.

But you went beyond that. You projected what you are afraid he will do, his track record ignored. And stated your opinion as fact.

??? I stated an opinion I have about our future with Obama particularly if he wins a 2nd term and the House. How can an obvious opinion be stated as fact?

"confiscate from the wealthy and political opponents"

You really believe that?

The deficit is not my priority. My priority is lowering unemployment and high economic growth. Economic growth will lower those deficits later.

Cut the defense dept budget.

We need to give 9 thousand dollar tax credits to companies hiring new employees. International trade related companies will hit home runs with these tax credits and create a huge trade surplus.

If you're in a car accident, and you've got a bone sticking out of your leg, you'll want the doctors to address that (reducing unemployment) before providing you information on nutrition and diet (reducing the deficit). Bush screwed things up so badly in the labor market, that it might take ten years to get us back to a point where we can begin seriously focusing on the deficit against - his transgression was that deep.

12lbc

You called him on it, 12lbc!

That means, President Obama WILL have a second term, ha!!

And Norquist knows it! Ha!! again~

Obama/Biden 2012 And we will kick your ass, Norquist

They already know that they are going to lose in November.

Sassy, I agree with you with all but one point, I would not call this low life "sir". He is excrement and therefore disposable.

Do you really expect scalia to overturn an impeachment of President Obama??

I expect to see further misrepresentations of the pledge as the issue comes up again this year. The view that Scarborough is describing, that any tax increase should also be accompanied by a spending decrease, is a mainstream one held by President Obama, President Clinton and others. It's a reasonable view in my opinion. But the actual pledge is one that does not allow for compromise in any form. The lack of compromise when compromise is needed is, in my view, a major contributor, if not the most important contributor, to our broken government.

If they have control of the media, congress and SCOTUS, who is going to stop them?? Will you be able to stop them??

well the law for starters, I do not not think you can impeach someone without legal justification.I don't think you can impeach a President just because he mildly supports the middle class, or is a Democrat or because he is black. Besides, they will be dealing with a Constitutional Scholar, something they obviously are not.

It’s amazing to me how the idiots on the right keep coming up with this crap.

Yeah, me too, though I can't be surprised by it...

It's called "Club Buffonery" Intelligence need not matter.

he wasn't accused of being "intelligent"