• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saxby Chambliss: 'I Care A Lot More About' America Than About Grover Norquist

rocket88

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,221
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
randel said:
good for him, about time someone in the republican party came out in public and told norquist to piss off.
Click to expand...

This! Glad it's someone from Georgia as well. Norquist is a jackass, and should be told that many times over.
 
rocket88 said:
Saxby Chambliss: 'I Care A Lot More About' America Than About Grover Norquist (VIDEO)

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Any credible fiscal consolidation plan will need to include an increase in revenue. Mandatory spending reforms, discretionary spending savings, and a degree of revenue increases are all needed to tackle the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances. The nation is no longer in a position to make meaningful progress in stabilizing and then reducing its debt as a share of GDP or in absolute terms without increasing revenue. The idealistic hope of "growing its way" out of its deficits is not viable. Senator Chambliss's position is a realistic one.

His taking such a stance does not mean he would agree to any tax hike, but if a share of tax increases are part of a larger credible deficit reduction package, he would support it.
 
PoliticalAnswer said:
Perhaps I am too jaded, but I don't see how is does this without a political upside...but I cannot, for the life of me, determine what that upside is?
Click to expand...

There's always looking out for the best interests of the country first and foremost. A quality we should all demand in our politicians, but seems all too absent these days.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Chambliss is an opportunistic douche.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty much it. This country doesn't have a revenue problem, the wealthy (both individuals and corporations) shoulder the lion share of federal contributions. We have a spending problem.

Frankly, I like the compromise floating around. Tax rates will return to the Clinton era as a long as spending does the same. Is that a "balanced approach?"
 
Fishstyx said:
Thats pretty much it. This country doesn't have a revenue problem, the wealthy (both individuals and corporations) shoulder the lion share of federal contributions. We have a spending problem.

Frankly, I like the compromise floating around. Tax rates will return to the Clinton era as a long as spending does the same. Is that a "balanced approach?"
Click to expand...

Well, I know about Saxby.
And what I know about him, is that he's a douche, regardless of what he say's or supposedly supports.

He just wants to keep his seat, by any means necessary.
To me, he's a turd.
 
rocket88 said:
Saxby Chambliss: 'I Care A Lot More About' America Than About Grover Norquist (VIDEO)




Thoughts?
Click to expand...

considering that the deficit and debt are critically important issues (and, to be perfectly honest, national security issues) and that any real solution is going to involve tax increases and spending cuts, i think Chambliss is right.

more important than holding the line on tax rates or spending increases is how they will be phased in. it has to be done, and it has to be planned very carefully. anything less runs the risk of delaying economic recovery.
 
rocket88 said:
There's always looking out for the best interests of the country first and foremost. A quality we should all demand in our politicians, but seems all too absent these days.
Click to expand...

Why should I put the country's best interests above my best interests?

Jumping off the fiscal cliff looks more attractive than giving in to Obama.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Why should I put the country's best interests above my best interests?

Jumping off the fiscal cliff looks more attractive than giving in to Obama.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess you're right and all the economists are wrong then.
 
Fishstyx said:
Thats pretty much it. This country doesn't have a revenue problem, the wealthy (both individuals and corporations) shoulder the lion share of federal contributions. We have a spending problem.
Click to expand...
Not sure I totally agree. If we (collective "we", as a society overall) keep demanding more in programs and spending than we are willing to pay for, then we do have a revenue problem. And I think that is indeed a significant factor in the whole issue... we keep demanding more and more. It seems to have been pretty well established that programs and spending gets votes, and politicians are willing to indulge us regardless their rhetoric to the contrary.

The wealthy get their perks because the wealthy contribute money, and the unwealthy get their programs because the unwealthy still massively outnumber the wealthy so their votes are still needed. You cannot... rationally... give everybody on both sides everything they want, but that is precisely what our so-called leaders are trying to do.


Fishstyx said:
Frankly, I like the compromise floating around. Tax rates will return to the Clinton era as a long as spending does the same. Is that a "balanced approach?"
Click to expand...
I would be fine with that.


Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, I know about Saxby.
And what I know about him, is that he's a douche, regardless of what he say's or supposedly supports.

He just wants to keep his seat, by any means necessary.
To me, he's a turd.
Click to expand...
You mean he's a politician changing direction with the wind? No! :mrgreen:
 
PoliticalAnswer said:
Perhaps I am too jaded, but I don't see how is does this without a political upside...but I cannot, for the life of me, determine what that upside is?
Click to expand...

grand-standing as an independent thinker. Either way, I'm happy he said this. Let's see if he acts on it.
 
radcen said:
It still baffles me that this Norquist clown was able to gain so much influence to begin with.
Click to expand...

It's my tin-foil hat time...

There are some unseen ties there. Norquist's pledge is always feared by those who signed it as a threat to be facing a highly funded primary challenger if they break his pledge. To me, that looks like he's got connections with the funders of such a primary which he must have... or the GOP signers of that petition wouldn't fear him as much as they have for so long.
 
rocket88 said:
Saxby Chambliss: 'I Care A Lot More About' America Than About Grover Norquist (VIDEO)




Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Democrats should be careful what they wish for. A republican cave on increasing taxes puts the burden squarley on the shoulders of democrats to come up with real reductions in spending. Thats not going to happen. So what we will get is about $6 billion in new revenues each month which would have effectively reduced last months deficit from $120 billion to about $114 billion. OK libs, now what?
 
Fishstyx said:
Thats pretty much it. This country doesn't have a revenue problem, the wealthy (both individuals and corporations) shoulder the lion share of federal contributions. We have a spending problem.

Frankly, I like the compromise floating around. Tax rates will return to the Clinton era as a long as spending does the same. Is that a "balanced approach?"
Click to expand...

Yes. Clinton was the last administration to nearly achieve federal budget balance, federal taxation at 18% of GDP and federal spending at 19% of GDP. Obama (like Bush) had federal taxation at 17% of GDP and federal spending at 24% of GDP (Bush spending averaged 20% of GDP). However, the Obama "balanced approach" seems to be federal taxation of 18% of GDP and federal spending at 22% (or more) of GDP, still depending on huge (nearly $1 trillion) annual federal deficits.
 
Fletch said:
Democrats should be careful what they wish for. A republican cave on increasing taxes puts the burden squarley on the shoulders of democrats to come up with real reductions in spending. Thats not going to happen. So what we will get is about $6 billion in new revenues each month which would have effectively reduced last months deficit from $120 billion to about $114 billion. OK libs, now what?
Click to expand...

It's a first step, it's good to see some people starting to move to the middle and be focused on a solution rather than blame.

I don't know if you think it's OK to go over the cliff since it's "libs' fault" but that's a very counter-productive attitude. Chambliss has decided to take a constructive attitude. I hope that others on both sides join him.
 
rocket88 said:
It's a first step, it's good to see some people starting to move to the middle and be focused on a solution rather than blame.

I don't know if you think it's OK to go over the cliff since it's "libs' fault" but that's a very counter-productive attitude. Chambliss has decided to take a constructive attitude. I hope that others on both sides join him.
Click to expand...
I think it is a distraction. The real issue is entitlements and you dont hear a word about them. The truth is, there needs to be tax increases. Everyone knows that Medicare is in trouble, so how do you fix that? Raise the Medicare withholding on everyone to a level that makes the program solvent. It is not that hard and it is really a self-evident solution to an obvious problem. But no one has suggested such a thing. If people want Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, everyone needs to be prepared to fund them. Everyone. Any suggestion that raising taxes by a few % on the rich will have any impact whatsoever on our fiscal problems is kidding themselves.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well, I know about Saxby.
And what I know about him, is that he's a douche, regardless of what he say's or supposedly supports.

He just wants to keep his seat, by any means necessary.
To me, he's a turd.
Click to expand...

If he was only concerned with keeping his seat I would think the last thing he would want to do is cross Norquist and possibly provoke a Tea Party primary challenge.
 
Maybe a lot of the imported Obama supporters that really, really care about the United States were imported into his district. This would cause his original base to move out and so Mr. Chambliss has to go through an evolution in thinking. He would have to shift from an adult balanced budget philosophy to an infantile Santa Claus philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom