GAME OVER: Grover Norquist! The Most Dangerous Man In America Falls.

Hmmm....so far I found the most interesting section to be on the whole janus-Merritt deal. It sounds pretty shady, and BTW, side note: this is the second shady company I know of that names itself after mythological characters.....the other shady company of course being this one:Cerberus capital management What's up with all the mythology? I guess it invokes a sense of power? 

This janus merritt thing might also explain the tie into to the Muslim brotherhood thing sheepslayer mentioned...apparently according to the article I read, that firm had dealings with a guy tied to Hamas and hezbollah: archive.frontpagemag.com...
(And the irony of that one is the article source is a conservative publication....)

But back to mr. Norquist, it seems like the king has been knocked off his throne, or at least that is what some of his fellow republicans are trying to do. Perhaps it is simply the passing of the old guard, perhaps they realize that his style is so 89 and they are simply not about it anymore. 

Maybe he ticked off enough people by pressuring them to sign pledges, that they finally had enough of it. Maybe they want to get as far away as possible from him because his approach has not seemed to work out well lately. 

For what ever reason the GOP seems to be distancing themselves from mr. Norquist, and I can't help but wonder if it is the first stage in the GOP trying to resurrect itself from the ashes of the election? Maybe that is overreaching a bit

reply to post by Mijamija

Norquist favors dramatically reducing the size of the government.[12] He has been noted for his widely quoted quip: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Nothing wrong with that at all. Hell, I like that idea.

When asked by journalist Steven Kroft about the goal of chopping government "in half and then shrink it again to where we were at the turn of the [20th] century" before social security and medicare, Norquist replied, "We functioned in this country with government at eight percent of GDP for a long time and quite well."

Failing to see a problem with that. Sounds like exactly what this country needs.

The guy may be an ahole, he may be a shill for megajillionaires, but if slashing government is his ultimate goal, and he has a realistic chance of making it happen, I'd throw a few grand his way to help out.

reply to post by TheAngryFarm


The issue for me is not his goals, desires, or platform. It's that he is a lobbyist with a personal agenda. An agenda that is tax exempt at that. An agenda that doesn't take into account anything other than one singular and isolated issue - taxation.

From one of my OP sources:

Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, has been particularly critical, describing Norquist's position as "[n]o taxes, under any situation, even if your country goes to hell."

Ideology that lacks an ability to take into account the bigger picture cannot be sound in practice. And that doesn't even address the underlying issue that Norquists position and grandstanding have made him a wealthy man - even at the risk of destroying the nation which consists of those he pretends to be championing.

~Heff

Finally the bourgeois pimp is going down. He is far more worried about protecting tax breaks for a few people at the expense of the nation. Norquist is a leach and all leaches have one fate – to be smashed! I am neither for nor against tax increases, per se, but when someone puts that issue above and even at the expense of the nation, there is a problem. We have far more important issues than cradling the rich. Let them burn for all I care; they have done nothing for our society except help in heaping up our own funeral pyre.

reply to post by TheAngryFarm



If you want to support mr. Norquist's policies I am not about to try and convince you not to, so...you will hear not a peep out of me.

I have no interest in discussing whether mr. Norquists policies or ideologies are right or wrong.

I was just responding to a few points heff brought up in his OP, ones that I found curious from the conspiracy side of the house.

Sorry if I gave off the impression I was bashing him or his policies, I did not intend for my post to come off like that, but I am certainly questioning the role he has played in politics.

Originally posted by Hefficide
I imagine that a few ATS conservatives will pipe up and say that they agree with the idea of lower taxes and approve of any man willing to fight that battle. To these people I offer the following advice: Just because a man is willing to take up your mantle in battle - it does not automatically infer that he is either honorable or loyal to your cause.

I could care less about this clown.

But as stated before, income taxes should not only be lowered, they should be abolished.

Please, please PLEASE people. UNDERSTAND, the government needs to CUT SPENDING. But theyve got you sheeple so brain washed with "taxing the rich" that you dont even think about the fact that government is INSANE with spending, its criminal.

Now, I agree that if there are going to be taxes on the fruits of our labor (it hurts to say that) it should be the highest income earners, but thats still besides the point.

Educate yourself about income taxes, the creation of the "Federal Reserve" and debt slavery. Its no coincidence that the IRS and the "Federal Reserve" were created simultaneously.

The Federal Mafia knew that the states would never agree to funding endless borrowing and money printing by the Fed, so they had to impose income tax on a FEDERAL level.

And what happens if you dont pay your income taxes?

Exactly what you would expect to happen in a "free" nation: they will seize your bank accounts, seize your assets, garnish your wages and eventually, STRIP you of your freedom and imprison you.

The IRS is the Gestapo, they instill FEAR and COMPLIANCE.

WAKE UP.

reply to post by Hefficide

Democratic Republic

Don't you mean Constitutional Republic?
I could be wrong.

reply to post by Hefficide


What?? His wife is a muslim? The muslims won't let they're women marry anyone who isn't muslim. Thats a HUGE taboo.The men can marry a non muslim woman,(she will then convert or else).But the women must marry a muslim man.

Ideology that lacks an ability to take into account the bigger picture cannot be sound in practice. And that doesn't even address the underlying issue that Norquists position and grandstanding have made him a wealthy man - even at the risk of destroying the nation which consists of those he pretends to be championing.

reply to post by Hefficide


Meh, me thinks you see too much here. So here is a political player that gets people to sign a petition not to raise taxes. That's it. From a political perspective it provides cover to a congressman or Senator. They can say, "i can't raise taxes, I signed a pledge not to do so." Your argument is that raising taxes is a good thing or at the very least something that should be able to happen. Something that they (politicians) should not be limited on in any way. That's fine. I personally don't see a pledge that a politician signs as a bad thing. Half the time they get in there adn DON'T do what they say they will do.

V

reply to post by Hefficide


Wow. So much energy and hate spent on bashing a guy who's just trying to save you from your own stupidity. Keep reading commie rags - see how far in life they will take you!

As always, Star and Flag Heff
Very well written and informative, thank you.
I don’t always agree with your ideas and political leanings but you do get your facts straight.

I have to agree with Neo96
“As a "conservative" I favor the abolition of income and property taxes, and don't really care if people oppose me on that issue.

Sick to death of politicians lying, and manipulating the American people over to win votes..”

And just for you
Redmoon

The ongoing discussions about reducing the deficit have made me think a lot of Norquist, and your first thread about him. It seems to me like the logical outcome would be allowing for the Bush tax cuts to expire, probably with an increase on the income that qualifies one as wealthy. Right now I think these tax cuts effect those with 250K+, I think they'll bump that to 500K, I would also hope that they close some loopholes, as Romney had promoted. I don't think giving to charity should be an act that makes one immune from paying taxes. Do both, pay taxes and give to charity.

The funny thing is that these "tax increases" are actually a retraction of tax reductions. Really not an increase at all. Still, Norquist has stated that allowing them to expire would be a violation of the pledge. That is nonsense. That precedent would leave lawmakers in the inflexible position of only being able to lower tax rates, which is a good idea in a good economy, and never being able to go back to the status quo when more benefits are needed for the poor and unemployed.

ETA: So, hopefully a lot of Republicans would sign on to such an approach and the public would agree with the decision (as most polled said they would). Then, Norquist will be left complaining and looking like an idiot who is out of touch with popular opinion.

I'm hoping that they can come to an agreement in December, or at the worst early-mid January. The agreement I'd like to see would be Bush cuts expire, more limits on deductions (geared toward wealthy and corporate tax loopholes), and a good first step in reducing spending. It'd be nice to see the next budget somewhere in the 500 billion deficit range, that'd be a great step toward balancing.


The most important thing of all is for the economy to continue recovering, so the government will take in more income tax and spend less on benefits.

ETA more: Just came across this story from Bloomberg.

In short, there’s more than one way to skin a fat cat. Theoretically, you can reverse-engineer a tax code raising almost any amount of money you want -- and with almost any distribution of the burden you want -- without touching the top tax rate. Politically, of course, it might not be so easy.

None of this changes the fact that it’s possible to make the tax code more progressive without raising rates. Or that Boehner is begging for a deal that could be labeled tax reform, not a tax increase. Close the loopholes, enjoy the revenue, and keep the top rate steady. Or, what the heck, close some more loopholes, lower the top tax rate, and still have enough to throw at the national debt.

The article talks about how Republican policy makers have found a loophole around the Norquist pledge, which ironically is closing loopholes in the tax code.

We don’t believe, as Obama’s critics do, that the president wants a tax increase simply to soak the rich. We believe he wants a tax increase to raise the money needed to run the government, and to do so as fairly and efficiently as possible.

At least, we want to believe that. Norquist reiterated his humble brag this week about how he has no power to release members of Congress from their promise. “The pledge is to the American people,” he said. Which makes the task all the more urgent: Mr. President, cut a deal with Boehner before the Norquist monster fully awakes.

The article, titled " Grover Norquist's gift to Obama," relays that Norquist himself has no power to recall a congressman for violating his pledge. For years the pledge has been a GOP election tactic, but with more peope becoming educated about US deficit/debt issues, we may be seeing a reversal where not violating the pledge would be detrimental to a candidate. The majority are in favor of some form of revenue increase for the gov, particularly ones that target the wealthy.

Originally posted by ActuallyActuary
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Wow. So much energy and hate spent on bashing a guy who's just trying to save you from your own stupidity. Keep reading commie rags - see how far in life they will take you!

So much assumed in such a short and baseless ad-hom attack of a post. Still, I will seek to address the minimal substance that your post manages...

Are there any links in my OP that you would consider a "commie rag"? If so please list it and explain to me why you feel it to be so.

Secondly, please elucidate upon how Mr Norquist would save me from my "stupidity" through his usurpation of power from the people and his inordinate control over elected officials?

I await your reply.

~Heff

Sounds like he is a lot closer to a patriot than comrade Obama. The OP must be a sad little liberal creature. Stoke up the taxes inferno, the OP has your back Master Obama.

What an enormous scumbag.

Originally posted by bigrex
Sounds like he is a lot closer to a patriot than comrade Obama. The OP must be a sad little liberal creature. Stoke up the taxes inferno, the OP has your back Master Obama.

edit on 17-11-2012 by bigrex because: (no reason given)

Your view of patriotism is obviously severely distorted. Norquist is more like Hitler or Lenin than any Founding father. As for the rest of your post? Ad hom attacks are customarily the last resort of those on the losing end of an argument so, though not graceful, I will honor your cries of "no mas" and take the higher road.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Well your primary source is Salon.com. Do I really need to comment on that?
I did not observe any attempts of usurpation of power by Mr. Norquist - he still has not obtained any public office, unlike historical boogie men you have compared him to. Au contrare, the current DC gang is trying really hard to suppress any opposition, however feeble it may seem.
As of saving anybody from oneself - I neither support nor attempt such pointless waste of energy: you seem grown up enough to have your views deeply entrenched.
There are plenty of historical facts about effectiveness of capitalism vs socialism; if you are willing to repeatedly step on the same rake - no amount of education or coercion will change your habits.
Good luck!

reply to post by ActuallyActuary


My OP contains twenty four individual sources. Salon.com is only one.

Here are some more sources that discuss Grover Norquists power in politics.

Time Magazine
USA Today
Rolling Stone
NY Times
The Wall Street Journal
And a very informative blog posting.

This concept is so woefully simple and easy that it pains me others seem to find the concept difficult for whatever reason. Politicians are elected by their constituencies and are beholden to serve only those constituencies while in office. When a man, such as Norquist, comes along and seeks to make politicians beholden to him and his agenda it violates the bond between representative and the represented.

The sad part is that the right so vehemently defends Norquist as a bastion of all that is good and fair in this world - yet if another man were to rise, with the same level of influence but who was promoting, say, communism, the right would cry foul so loudly that the Earth would shake and the clouds would part.

NO private citizen should have the level of influence in government that Grover Norquist does. He is a blind ideologue who cares only about a singular issue - and does so at the peril of all else. His use of money and power to exert influence over this nation should be criminal - if it is not already so.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide
I agree with you Heff. It is amazing to me how someone who manipulated our government and was wielding so much influence over our government is seen as a hero by the conservatives. Whoever said look at the screaming that would occur if a liberal was in that power is so right. I will say it again. no ONE person should be wielding that amount of power.Our government was designed to guard against that with checks and balances. For someone who was not elected by the voters to have that much power and influence over our government is outrageous and needs to be forbidden.

By the way folks I am a free voter with no affinity for the extreme.