Norquist gives GOP permission to not renew Bush tax cuts

[^_^ 5,021]

By Editorial, Published: July 20

WITH A HANDFUL of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer, and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No.

In other words, according to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.

...

Mr. Norquist’s comments come at a moment of remarkable and welcome fluidity in what had seemed to be a solid wall of Republican opposition to raising any tax revenue at any time for any reason. The surprising reemergence and expansion of the Senate Gang of Six this week was accompanied by a flurry of statements from Republican senators endorsing a proposal that included $1 trillion in new tax revenue. “This is a serious, bipartisan proposal that will help stop Washington from spending money that we don’t have, and I support it,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the GOP conference chair. “A fair compromise,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). There may not be time to translate the gang plan into law as the debt ceiling looms, but these reactions suggest that future negotiations could be conducted from a base line of reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/out-from-under-the-anti-tax-pledge/2011/07/20/gIQAoudbQI_story.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Shouldn't it be not continuing the Obama Tax Cut which extended the Bush Tax Cut another two years? In a sense, he is right. Current law is not being changed.

[^_^ 5,021]

Shouldn't it be not continuing the Obama Tax Cut which extended the Bush Tax Cut another two years? In a sense, he is right. Current law is not being changed.

IMO the "Obama tax cut" which no one is talking about is the payroll tax cut which no one noticed but is blowing a huge hole in the long term financial viability of social security. They need to do away with that too.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

IMO the "Obama tax cut" which no one is talking about is the payroll tax cut which no one noticed but is blowing a huge hole in the long term financial viability of social security. They need to do away with that too.

I agree. I am tired of fuzzy accounting.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Obama 2012 1,714]

By Editorial, Published: July 20

WITH A HANDFUL of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer, and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No.

In other words, according to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.

...

Mr. Norquist’s comments come at a moment of remarkable and welcome fluidity in what had seemed to be a solid wall of Republican opposition to raising any tax revenue at any time for any reason. The surprising reemergence and expansion of the Senate Gang of Six this week was accompanied by a flurry of statements from Republican senators endorsing a proposal that included $1 trillion in new tax revenue. “This is a serious, bipartisan proposal that will help stop Washington from spending money that we don’t have, and I support it,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the GOP conference chair. “A fair compromise,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). There may not be time to translate the gang plan into law as the debt ceiling looms, but these reactions suggest that future negotiations could be conducted from a base line of reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/out-from-under-the-anti-tax-pledge/2011/07/20/gIQAoudbQI_story.html

So sick of these hack idiots who say things like that. Tax cuts do not COST anything. This is a way to try and trick idiots (see liberals) into barking and keeping current spending trends. It's also erroneous in saying that because raising or lowering, you cannot guarantee revenue either way.

[^_^ 5,021]

Disregard, Norquist is denying he said any such thing.

[^_^ 5,021]

I agree. I am tired of fuzzy accounting.

Fuzzy accounting, no doubt. Terrible politics too! A tax cut that destroys a Democratic priority (social security) and gives amounts of money to taxpayers so miniscule that not a single Democrat actually notices. Way to shore up the base, fucktards!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Disregard, Norquist is denying he said any such thing.

So, letting temporary tax cuts sunset is raising taxes? Any vote for any temproary tax cut is then a vote to increase taxes. Where was Grover when the GOP passed this tax increase back in 2001 and 2003? That's when it was all set it up - the giant 'tax increase' at the end of 2010. And then they did it again when they voted at the end of 2010 to raise taxes at the end of 2012. That 'tax increase' vote has already been cast and many Republicans cast it. They are raising your taxes, y'all.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[웃 910]

So sick of these hack idiots who say things like that. Tax cuts do not COST anything. This is a way to try and trick idiots (see liberals) into barking and keeping current spending trends. It's also erroneous in saying that because raising or lowering, you cannot guarantee revenue either way.

Well in that case lets drop all taxes to 0....

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Michael Steele (Boehner's mouth piece) really needs a dictionary I've noticed. Somehow he thinks that Cut Cap and Balance had a bipartisan vote of support in the House....yeah here is another sign that certain individuals really lack intelligence.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Sousuke

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well in that case lets drop all taxes to 0....

Please don't post things that make you look stupid.

There is no cost associated with tax cuts, just as there's no guarantee revenue with tax increases.

Income is not a "cost"

The only things that have "cost" are the things you spend the income on.

If your income lowers, it doesn't "cost" you anything. You only need to stop spending as much as you were spending and redefine your budget.

If your income is Zero, then your spending should be zero.

And anyone who says that "keeping this tax cut will have a loss of revenue of $4 trllion over X period" can only GUESS what's going to happen based on today's market. If we were to have a "boom" tomorrow, the current tax rates could net increases revenues. Anyone who makes bold claims with big numbers without a HUGE ASTERIK behind their statement is a damn dirty liar.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Michael Steele (Boehner's mouth piece) really needs a dictionary I've noticed. Somehow he thinks that Cut Cap and Balance had a bipartisan vote of support in the House....yeah here is another sign that certain individuals really lack intelligence.

Is he still hanging out? I thought he faded off into oblivion.

I was right:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-23/news/29595532_1_msnbc-michael-steele-minimum-wage

Edited July 21, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Michael Steele (Boehner's mouth piece) really needs a dictionary I've noticed. Somehow he thinks that Cut Cap and Balance had a bipartisan vote of support in the House....yeah here is another sign that certain individuals really lack intelligence.

Technically, he's right. Among the Aye's:

OK-2 Boren, Dan [D]

TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]

UT-2 Matheson, Jim [D]

NC-7 McIntyre, Mike [D]

NC-11 Shuler, Heath [D]

More interesting, however, is this No vote:

MN-6 Bachmann, Michele [R]

Interesting, too, that more Republicans voted No (9) than Democrats voted Yes (5).

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They can no longer be called the "Bush tax cuts" They expired and were RENEWED by Obama. They are the Obama tax cuts now. He should take creidt where credit is due.

[scandal 951]

By Editorial, Published: July 20

WITH A HANDFUL of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer, and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No.

Just how and why is it that Grover Norquist, a man most Americans have never heard of, is not an elected official, is not an appointed official, is not a member of the Legislative or Executive or Judicial branches, is not a captain of industry or a man of letters or an esteemed academic, holds such sway over our lives and country anyway? Who the fck is this guy that his views should matter more than the President's or our elected representatives? Screw him.