10 total posts
tell me about this pledge
Is it general in nature, or directed to some person or organization?
Don't you read the newspapers or watch TV??
Grover Norquist promised funding for Republican Candidates if they signed on to a pledge to oppose any increase in any and all taxes. I believe he started it during the Bush Administration, but it was definitely in place before 2008. It was one of the reasons for Republican intransigeance over the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
As I understand it governs whatever Grover in his Garbage Pail believes is a tax at the Federal level, which is just about anything, including taxes reduced for short term grace periods, like Bush's. It is directed at the American People who need to get Revenues back to where they were in the Clinton era or higher in order to dig the US out of the Bush deficit, and the Bush Wall Street Crash, or if you don't like that phrasing, the deficit and massive fiscal crisis which the President inherited from his pre-decessor. Need confirmation that it was Bush's fault? Bush passed the early parts of Tarp to try and keep some businesses solvent. I guess that means it's also against the Democratic Party who is charged with trying to rectify this ludicrous situation.
Actually, it is the same pledge
that the Republicans led by Newt brought to the people and election during Reagan's administration, and it worked well. However, although the main part deals with not raising taxes, there is also a clause that says no deductions could be done away with because it would amount to a raise in taxes in Norquist's viewpoint. What the Republicans are negotiating now is to do away with or limit/cap the deductions based on a certain income level, and many Republicans are changing their minds about that part of the pledge. Romney actually ran on that platform along with government cuts.
Correction, Clinton not Reagan
He has a wiki
Odd person, at least his personal life, and some of his political views. However in review it seems he's not opposed to tax increases which also incorporate a "dollar for dollar" decrease in govt spending. Isn't that what Clinton wanted, to balance spending against revenue? Reagan wanted to reduce spending and revenue, resulting in the biggest and longest economic rally American hadn't seen in a long time, maybe better than the one following WW2. I don't see anything unusual in his tax and spend views based on what I read in the wiki.
My problem with any of it is our representatives being expected to sign a pledge to some individual who isn't elected himself, simply in order to receive some campaign funding, when those representatives only pledges which they will also stand up for should be to the electorate alone.
I note however the funding Obama received from Soros and his friends, among others, and seeing as how you haven't expressed having a problem with that source of funding for Obama's campaign, I have to question why you would have problems with Norquist funding campaigns for those who are willing to support views his organization endorses.
Your wishful thinking is making you blind.
You don't remember the Reagan Recession? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_recession
"Long term effects of the recession contributed to the Latin American debt crisis, the savings and loan crisis in the United States, and a general adoption of neoliberal economic policies throughout the 1980s and 1990s."
The thing about conservatives is, they make up "history" as they go along in order to conform to how they believe things should be. In only sporadic instances does their "history" and reality coincide.
Rush Limbaugh was once at least insightful enough to know that his views didn't correspond to reality, that's why his book was called The Way Things Oughta Be. He's been blabbering so long however, that he has probably convinced himself that when Bush was President, things were perfect.
And no, I had nothing to do with writing that particular entry.
The problem with Reagan was that he reduced income
and didn't reduce spending. Wasn't it him that increased the deficit from 1 trillion to 4 trillion and the dollar was worth more.
Reagan cut a deal with Bob Dole that for every dollar Reagan increased in taxes, the Dems would reduce spending by three dollars. The deal got made.....Reagan held up his end of the bargain and the Dems never cut spending. This is the same crap that's coming from BO and Reid right now......BO says 'we'll TALK about cutting next year' and Reid says "We already cut spending by $1 BILLION (pi.s in a bucket)"
I also remember that Reagan took away
various deductions because we wouldn't need them anymore because the tax rates were decreased. Then he raised the taxes and did give back the deductions. That was all him.
Also I remember that he didn't push the cuts the way he pushed the tax reductions.