• 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!

Who are Norquist pledge-signers loyal to - the American People or someone else?

Is signing Norquist's anti-tax pledge un-American?

  • Signing Norquist's pledge is anti-American

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Signing Norquist's pledge is pro-American

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Other (please comment)

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • Total voters
    18
Lokiate said:
It's pledging to do what is expected of them by an entity other than the American People. It should be illegal.
Click to expand...

If not illegal, grounds for being voted out of office at least.
 
Catawba said:
Does the great economic crash referred to as the Great Depression ring any bells?
Click to expand...

why yes it does.... the Great Depression is when my family went from working class to very very poor.... which gave me inspiration to not be poor any longer.
my father was a lot like you and other statists here.... he died a very poor man, still waiting for someone to deliver the lifestyle he thought he was entitled to.
 
Thrilla said:
why yes it does.... the Great Depression is when my family went from working class to very very poor.... which gave me inspiration to not be poor any longer.
my father was a lot like you and other statists here.... he died a very poor man, still waiting for someone to deliver the lifestyle he thought he was entitled to.
Click to expand...

Either a there are enough jobs that pay a living wage, or you have poverty that require a safety net to prevent rampant crime or revolution. Like most people, I think jobs that pay a living wage are needed and making the wealthy that are not creating jobs in this country having their tax cuts ended will be needed to turn our economy around.

People have a clear choice this election whether they wish to continue with the supply side economics/financial deregulation of the last 30 years, or start investing in the consumer class that drives demand necessary for our economy to prosper.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
you mean Obama isn't courting wall street money, and getting it?
Click to expand...

Analysis: Wall St. cash flows to Romney over Obama

"(Reuters) - The captains of Wall Street have picked a presidential candidate for 2012 and it is Republican Mitt Romney, rather than Democratic President Barack Obama, campaign donation records show."

Analysis: Wall St. cash flows to Romney over Obama | Reuters

Can't blame them after Obama's Wall Street regulatory reform, and additional reform planned by the Democrats.
 
Catawba said:
Either a there are enough jobs that pay a living wage, or you have poverty that require a safety net to prevent rampant crime or revolution. Like most people, I think jobs that pay a living wage are needed and making the wealthy that are not creating jobs in this country having their tax cuts ended will be needed to turn our economy around.

People have a clear choice this election whether they wish to continue with the supply side economics/financial deregulation of the last 30 years, or start investing in the consumer class that drives demand necessary for our economy to prosper.
Click to expand...

you are entitled to your opinion.
 
Catawba said:
Analysis: Wall St. cash flows to Romney over Obama

"(Reuters) - The captains of Wall Street have picked a presidential candidate for 2012 and it is Republican Mitt Romney, rather than Democratic President Barack Obama, campaign donation records show."

Analysis: Wall St. cash flows to Romney over Obama | Reuters

Can't blame them after Obama's Wall Street regulatory reform, and additional reform planned by the Democrats.
Click to expand...
wasn't it Obama who just raised 2 million from a fundraising held by Tony James, the head of Blackstone ( a private equity firm)?

why yes, yes it is.
 
Thrilla said:
wasn't it Obama who just raised 2 million from a fundraising held by Tony James, the head of Blackstone ( a private equity firm)?

why yes, yes it is.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change that Romney leads Obama in Wall Street money according to campaign donation records as I've shown.
 
JayDubya said:
Already typed it once, why not recycle...
Click to expand...

Regardless of what this pledge says it does (which is utter bull****, in my opinion) There's one sentence from Norquist that stands out: "It is difficult to imagine somebody winning a primary without taking the pledge."

Let that sink in for a minute. That sounds a lot like coercion to me, which is illegal. Plus, a pledge written up by some lobbyist that is admitted under a thin veil to be a prerequisite for winning the Primary is not something that has the American People in mind. This pledge wasn't written by the taxpayer, it was written by a lobbyist, which in itself is one gigantic godamned red flag.
 
Catawba said:
Doesn't change that Romney leads Obama in Wall Street money according to campaign donation records as I've shown.
Click to expand...

i'm sure he will lead obama in wall street contributions.. but let's not pretend Obama isn't going after and taking wall street money.. he most certainly is.

how much of a funding lead does Obama have?.. is it still 10 to 1?
 
Thrilla said:
i'm sure he will lead obama in wall street contributions.. but let's not pretend Obama isn't going after and taking wall street money.. he most certainly is.

how much of a funding lead does Obama have?.. is it still 10 to 1?
Click to expand...

Obama's donation are smaller amounts from many donors vs Romeny's bigger donations from few donors.

Reflects their constituencies very appropriately. The 1% vs the 99%.
 
Catawba said:
Obama's donation are smaller amounts from many donors vs Romeny's bigger donations from few donors.

Reflects their constituencies very appropriately. The 1% vs the 99%.
Click to expand...

I love to watch hyperpartisans rationalize.. it entertains me to no end.
 
Catawba said:
Obama - He raised 53% of campaign funding in sub-$200 contributions.

Romney - He raised 13% of campaign funding in sub-$200 contributions.

The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates - Campaign Finance - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

I love to watch hyperpartisans try to call facts rationalizations! LOL!
Click to expand...

how many of obama small donors are repeaters?


in the last election the numbers were strikingly similar to now... supposedly Obama received around 50% of his donation from "small donors"... except that turned out to be a myth, the real number was about half that... it seems that giving obama 4,600 bucks at once is a "large donor".. but cutting it up into multiple donations of 199 bucks is considered a "small donor"
it was found the Obama small donations were about the same as George W Bush's small donations.. percentage wise.

but meh it doesn't matter to me much..I don't care where he gets his money or how much they give, i'm not part of the demographic who constantly screams and cries about money in politics.... that would be you and your ilk.... but i get it, money in politics is only bad for the other guy.. it's good for Obama, bad for Romney
 
Thrilla said:
how many of obama small donors are repeaters?


in the last election the numbers were strikingly similar to now... supposedly Obama received around 50% of his donation from "small donors"... except that turned out to be a myth, the real number was about half that... it seems that giving obama 4,600 bucks at once is a "large donor".. but cutting it up into multiple donations of 199 bucks is considered a "small donor"
it was found the Obama small donations were about the same as George W Bush's small donations.. percentage wise.

but meh it doesn't matter to me much..I don't care where he gets his money or how much they give, i'm not part of the demographic who constantly screams and cries about money in politics.... that would be you and your ilk.... but i get it, money in politics is only bad for the other guy.. it's good for Obama, bad for Romney
Click to expand...

Your imagination aside, I prefer a candidate supported by the people rather than by a few big money donors. I guessing the majority of voters will as well.
 
leftofabbie said:
What country can you think of that has survived such disparity? Any?
Click to expand...

Considering that pretty much every country or natoin falls at some point I think it's a loaded question. Considering the middle class in truth is a relatively modern ideal to the extent it exists I'd suggested its a loaded question. Considering there are many things in terms of the U.S. that are unlike what most other countries and nations have done before, I'd say its a worthless question. The United States in part was founded on doing things differently than the long established empires around in its day did...forgive me if a few alarmists seek to demonize the fruits of that difference as a means to try and push us to return to their shadow. Again, I don't generally are about what doomsayers bitch about in terms of the end of our country be it people comparing the moral depravity of the fall of Rome to what we have now or complaining about income disparity...in all cases its cherry picking information, statistics, and facts to suit their alarmist hyper partisan political agendas. People who routinely demonstrate themselves unable of unique thought or the ability/desire to actually objectively view things or talk about things outside of their hyper partisan world view are irrelevant to me and not worthy of being listened to nor taken seriously, nor worth listening to in terms of their sources as they are likely to be presented in an amazingly one sided way.

But again, wonderful attempt at moving the goal posts....well, changing the goal posts to a basketball hoop really...in terms of the original purpose, failed purpose may I add, of this thread.
 
Lokiate said:
Regardless of what this pledge says it does (which is utter bull****, in my opinion) There's one sentence from Norquist that stands out: "It is difficult to imagine somebody winning a primary without taking the pledge."

Let that sink in for a minute. That sounds a lot like coercion to me, which is illegal. Plus, a pledge written up by some lobbyist that is admitted under a thin veil to be a prerequisite for winning the Primary is not something that has the American People in mind. This pledge wasn't written by the taxpayer, it was written by a lobbyist, which in itself is one gigantic godamned red flag.
Click to expand...

It's only a prerequisite to win a primary if the people voting in that primary consider the pledge (or its verbal equivalent) a minimum expectation before offering a candidate their support.

I have shown you the text of the pledge. I fail to see why "who wrote it?" matters more than "what's in it?" and "who is it pledging to?"
 
Catawba said:
The reverse of what was done over the last 30 years to create the income disparity.
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific and connect the dots on how your plan addresses income disparity directly?

We will need to end the tax cuts for the wealthy that are not creating jobs in this country,
Click to expand...

And what about those wealthy who ARE creating jobs? Do we end their tax cuts also? And this will help how?

reduce our excessive military spending,
Click to expand...

I have no issue with this.

and re-regulate financial institutions.
Click to expand...

I thought Dodd-Frank did that. Was I wrong?
 
Catawba said:
People have a clear choice this election whether they wish to continue with the supply side economics/financial deregulation of the last 30 years, or start investing in the consumer class that drives demand necessary for our economy to prosper.
Click to expand...

Didn't they have the same choice three years ago? And what’s changed? Oh yeah, we spent $750b which “Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%”. How’d that work out for the ‘consumer class that drives the demand’?

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1% « Economics for public policy

If re-elected what’s gonna change in the next four years?
 
Zyphlin said:
Considering that pretty much every country or natoin falls at some point I think it's a loaded question. Considering the middle class in truth is a relatively modern ideal to the extent it exists I'd suggested its a loaded question. Considering there are many things in terms of the U.S. that are unlike what most other countries and nations have done before, I'd say its a worthless question. The United States in part was founded on doing things differently than the long established empires around in its day did...forgive me if a few alarmists seek to demonize the fruits of that difference as a means to try and push us to return to their shadow. Again, I don't generally are about what doomsayers bitch about in terms of the end of our country be it people comparing the moral depravity of the fall of Rome to what we have now or complaining about income disparity...in all cases its cherry picking information, statistics, and facts to suit their alarmist hyper partisan political agendas. People who routinely demonstrate themselves unable of unique thought or the ability/desire to actually objectively view things or talk about things outside of their hyper partisan world view are irrelevant to me and not worthy of being listened to nor taken seriously, nor worth listening to in terms of their sources as they are likely to be presented in an amazingly one sided way.

But again, wonderful attempt at moving the goal posts....well, changing the goal posts to a basketball hoop really...in terms of the original purpose, failed purpose may I add, of this thread.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your thoughtful post. As for the goalposts, someone else moved them and I foolishly followed.
 
leftofabbie said:
Dodd-Frank has all the teeth of a marshmallow.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point but it was/has been heralded as 'got to' pass legislation that will eliminate 'too big to fail' by those who promoted it. At the time it was passed the Democrats held the majority in both houses AND the WH. And after passage they all threw their arms out of socket patting themselves on the back. Unfortunately the American public was hornswagled...again...by the other side this time.
 
JayDubya said:
It's only a prerequisite to win a primary if the people voting in that primary consider the pledge (or its verbal equivalent) a minimum expectation before offering a candidate their support.

I have shown you the text of the pledge. I fail to see why "who wrote it?" matters more than "what's in it?" and "who is it pledging to?"
Click to expand...
The text is irrelevant, this "pledge" makes the signer responsible to an entity other than the American People. And it does matter where this pledge is coming from, it matters a lot. Look up the Jack Abramoff scandal. ATR, and Grover Norquist were both heavily involved.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom