Grover Norquist - How Does this Guy Wield So Much Power

[Daelak]

Could someone explain to me why this guy has so much sway over the GOP? I realize that he has some outdated pledge that most of the Republican Party signed decades ago, but how is something like this still holding so much power over people? You agreed to do something back when it made sense, it doesn't make sense any more, so we don't do it anymore. Not complicated.

Keep in mind, our current tax rate is at one of the lowest rates in the modern history of this country.

He is a leader in the tea party faction of the republican party, and since they are the minority party in Washington, they have become extremely desperate, even to the point that senate republicans are starting to talk like far right entertainers like rush etc.

Their base wanted blood, and this was one of the tempered positions the republican party has taken in the past two years. They are lost, and they are trying to find a strategy that will bring people to their party, but I don't think it will occur before they breakup.

[Reeve]

Grover losing power is a side effect of Obama winning. Grover and his backers have a lot of money to pool, which in the past was use successfully to kick Republicans who did not agree with Grover's views out of office. But with O winning against the amount of money spent by the Republicans, the Republican can now see that money alone will not keep them in office. In which case, they now feel empowered to antagonize Grover and no longer fears his money or his threats.

He's still a threat to moderate Republicans in the Republican primaries, even if he's less threatening now in presidential elections.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

It was once a commonly held principle that the Earth was flat.

Moral principles aren't the same as information that was found to be untrue over 3000 years ago.

[Jackmoves]

Good work, Kalle Blomkvist!

hehe :P

There are some cool people with some scandinavian ancestry though, how about Uma Thurman(swedish mom) or Michelle Pfeiffer(grandmother), Matt Damon, I think Mark Wahlberg got some of that nordic shit pumping in his veins to.... but Scarlett Johansson takes the cake! haha

Steven Soderbergh must have scandinavian ancestry to, obvious with that name!

[Urti]

Could someone explain to me why this guy has so much sway over the GOP? I realize that he has some outdated pledge that most of the Republican Party signed decades ago, but how is something like this still holding so much power over people? You agreed to do something back when it made sense, it doesn't make sense any more, so we don't do it anymore. Not complicated.

Keep in mind, our current tax rate is at one of the lowest rates in the modern history of this country.

Because neo-conservative idealogues value a 20+ year old pinkie swear more than there vow to enact the will of the people they were elected to represent.
Basically.

[Adam Jensen]

So flip-flopping is cool now?

Oh I see.

Uh no. That's not flip flopping.

There are times when current situations call for course correction. Blindly holding on to your principles rather than doing the right thing is stupid. Adaptation to new situations not flipflopping. Flipflopping is when you change stances to appease someone without a good reason to change stances.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

So flip-flopping is cool now?

Oh I see.

As others have mentioned, this isn't exactly flip-flopping. I just wanted to add that flip-flopping isn't necessarily bad. If you previously held a position and change it because of new information provided to you, what's bad about that?

[Urti]

As others have mentioned, this isn't exactly flip-flopping. I just wanted to add that flip-flopping isn't necessarily bad. If you previously held a position and change it because of new information provided to you, what's bad about that?

Some people, for whatever reason, think it's better to stand by a wrong idea than admit a different idea might be better. For example, any number of pouty stone-walling republican congressmen who have shut down any reasonable budget discussion. As soon as they see anything that even remotely looks like a tax hike they cross their arms, stick their noses in the air and refuse everything until it's taken away.

[cubby]

Because neo-conservative idealogues value a 20+ year old pinkie swear more than there vow to enact the will of the people they were elected to represent.
Basically.

I'm gonna go with this answer so far.

[Deleted]

To quote Grover, "there is no expiration date on principles".

That is one of the dumbest quotes I have ever seen. No offense to you, but to Grover himself.
Through history, there have been many many outdated "principles" that have held society back and that has oppressed people.

Seriously, that is the dumbest quote I've ever read.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 11:05 PM ----------

I'm gonna go with this answer so far.

An elite will always consider itself above others, especially when you let them have all the power and the money.
Many of your so-called elected leaders don't give a wooden nickle about the people, they have more important things to listen to, things that matter. The people? They can tell the people what they need, and the people will think they need it.

[FusedMass]

Republicans are using him as an excuse not to raise taxes. The Bush Era Tax Cuts expire at the end of the year. They have a bill right now to save 98 percent of America's tax rate. Business wouldn't see their tax's raised but sadly can't pass the bill needed because mostly all republicans. (Google it) have signed it making a pledge under no situation..ever..would they raise taxes.

In a world that's forever changing they have one thought on taxes not to raise them no matter what. Even if it means millions of America would hit problems and situations. As long as it doesn't affect the non binding legal contract.

[Reeve]

Republicans are using him as an excuse not to raise taxes. The Bush Era Tax Cuts expire at the end of the year. They have a bill right now to save 98 percent of America's tax rate. Business wouldn't see their tax's raised but sadly can't pass the bill needed because mostly all republicans. (Google it) have signed it making a pledge under no situation..ever..would they raise taxes.

In a world that's forever changing they have one thought on taxes not to raise them no matter what. Even if it means millions of America would hit problems and situations. As long as it doesn't affect the non binding legal contract.

The 98% just made me think, "You been havin' debt problems? I feel bad for you son, I got 98 problems but a tax ain't one."

[Lenonis]

People who are elected to Congress take a vow -- to uphold the constitution and to represent their constituents.

For any politician of any stripe to sign a pledge of any nature to any third party is completely inappropriate. It should be considered a violation of their oath of office and punished as such.

But of course that will never happen because...politics.

[Ayonel]

Grover doesn't have sway. The idea that you can't fix a spending problem by giving the government more money does.

You have $16.4 Trillion in debt, $4.1 Trillion in annual spending (no budget in 4 years, so that's irrelevant), and take in $2.9 Trillion in annual revenue. Let's ignore the $88.5 Trillion in entitlement liabilities for now. In the steady state, the deficit grows by $1.2 Trillion a year.

How does raising taxes on the top 2% and eliminating other tax loopholes, to the tune of $130 Billion a year assuming they don't work around it, fix the problem? It doesn't.

Taxing the rich is a punitive measure and a red herring that people buy into because it allows them to avoid the problem, which is an out of control unaccountable government that spends vast amounts of money on all sorts of things that many people believe it shouldn't do.

So, back to first principles, just like in home ec: you don't spend money you don't have. Maybe once you prove to me that you can be responsible with what you have now, I will think about letting you have more. Hence, a no tax pledge.

And note I didn't say anything about the $100 Billion a year in fraud, waste, and abuse that the Obama Administration has ostensibly identified within the government, but has taken no action to eliminate for some reason. How about you run the government efficiently before you ask people to give you more money?

[Reeve]

Grover doesn't have sway. The idea that you can't fix a spending problem by giving the government more money does.

You have $16.4 Trillion in debt, $4.1 Trillion in annual spending (no budget in 4 years, so that's irrelevant), and take in $2.9 Trillion in annual revenue. Let's ignore the $88.5 Trillion in entitlement liabilities for now. In the steady state, the deficit grows by $1.2 Trillion a year.

How does raising taxes on the top 2% and eliminating other tax loopholes, to the tune of $130 Billion a year assuming they don't work around it, fix the problem? It doesn't.

Taxing the rich is a punitive measure and a red herring that people buy into because it allows them to avoid the problem, which is an out of control unaccountable government that spends vast amounts of money on all sorts of things that many people believe it shouldn't do.

So, back to first principles, just like in home ec: you don't spend money you don't have. Maybe once you prove to me that you can be responsible with what you have now, I will think about letting you have more. Hence, a no tax pledge.

And note I didn't say anything about the $100 Billion a year in fraud, waste, and abuse that the Obama Administration has ostensibly identified within the government, but has taken no action to eliminate for some reason. How about you run the government efficiently before you ask people to give you more money?

How about "Don't buy what you can't pay for?" The Republicans are no more willing to make the necessary cuts than the democrats and are responsible for the biggest increases in recent memory, but at least the democrats are trying to pay for it while also reducing spending.

[Ayonel]

Business wouldn't see their tax's raised

Now, when you wrote that you were taking into account that the vast majority of businesses in the US are Chapter S corporations or similar, meaning that income passes through to the individual filer's tax return, so in fact, every sole proprietorship in the country with income over the limit would see their taxes increase, and in fact this would represent a large portion of new revenue, right?

[Lenonis]

The idea that you can't fix a spending problem by giving the government more money does.

No, but you can fix a deficit/debt problem with more revenue. Revenue and spending. Two sides of the deficit/debt coin.

How does raising taxes on the top 2% and eliminating other tax loopholes, to the tune of $130 Billion a year assuming they don't work around it, fix the problem? It doesn't.

(Disclaimer--this isn't directed at you personally). Ok, so conservatives really need to get their story straight. I don't know how many times I heard things like "Cutting funding for PBS is a start! Every little bit helps!"

Either small steps are good or they aren't. You don't get to pick and choose which small steps you take because of what your little pet goals are. So tired of the hypocrisy!

[Urti]

Grover doesn't have sway. The idea that you can't fix a spending problem by giving the government more money does.

You have $16.4 Trillion in debt, $4.1 Trillion in annual spending (no budget in 4 years, so that's irrelevant), and take in $2.9 Trillion in annual revenue. Let's ignore the $88.5 Trillion in entitlement liabilities for now. In the steady state, the deficit grows by $1.2 Trillion a year.

How does raising taxes on the top 2% and eliminating other tax loopholes, to the tune of $130 Billion a year assuming they don't work around it, fix the problem? It doesn't.

Taxing the rich is a punitive measure and a red herring that people buy into because it allows them to avoid the problem, which is an out of control unaccountable government that spends vast amounts of money on all sorts of things that many people believe it shouldn't do.

So, back to first principles, just like in home ec: you don't spend money you don't have. Maybe once you prove to me that you can be responsible with what you have now, I will think about letting you have more. Hence, a no tax pledge.

And note I didn't say anything about the $100 Billion a year in fraud, waste, and abuse that the Obama Administration has ostensibly identified within the government, but has taken no action to eliminate for some reason. How about you run the government efficiently before you ask people to give you more money?

No, but it would be a good start to a comprehensive plan to solve the deficit. Using your own example of "You don't spend money you don't have", it's also true that you should try to improve your income, and increase the amount of money you do have.

FACT: The deficit is not gonna go anywhere as long as taxes are prevented from reverting back to what they're supposed to be. Any realistic solution has to have both spending cuts AND a reversion back to the taxes as they were before Bush gave us his "never-ending" tax holiday. You say you cant close the deficit by just raising taxes, and that's true. But you also can't do it by just cutting spending everywhere either. Like in all things, moderation is key.

[Ayonel]

How about "Don't buy what you can't pay for?" The Republicans are no more willing to make the necessary cuts than the democrats and are responsible for the biggest increases in recent memory, but at least the democrats are trying to pay for it while also reducing spending.

I agree, the Repubcans broke the unspoken code that they were the party of fiscal discipline(you have to go back a ways). Politicians of neither party can run on a platform in which they want to cut benefits that go out to almost half of the country. My point(I don't do TLDR versions well) was that we know that no amount of raising taxes will pay for the giant amount of debt we face.

That said, even though the rich already pay a disproportionately large portion of all taxes now, the biggest base for taxes is the middle class. The idea that you can fix the problem without taxing people under $250k is silly, hence my example. But like entitlements, you can't run on a platform that you are going to raise everyone's taxes.

So here is the play: Obama runs joyfully off the fiscal cliff, taxes go up, the Republicans get blamed. At that point, negotiations can begin again, and Obama is in a much better position because the Republicans will go for any cuts they can get, and more importantly get their defense spending back.

A real, viable solution means that everybody pays more taxes, everybody gets fewer benefits, and it sucks all around. But that isn't working so well in Greece; it turns out that austerity really sucks and everyone wants to find someone else to fix it.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 05:38 PM ----------

FACT: The deficit is not gonna go anywhere as long as taxes are prevented from reverting back to what they're supposed to be. Any realistic solution has to have both spending cuts AND a reversion back to the taxes as they were before Bush gave us his "never-ending" tax holiday. You say you cant close the deficit by just raising taxes, and that's true. But you also can't do it by just cutting spending everywhere either. Like in all things, moderation is key.

I don't want to go way off topic, but from here, you get into the discussion of "what is the role of the government?", and I'm willing to bet there will be a wide variety of opinions on that. The Dems will want to cut defense and other useless things; the Reps will want to cut all the free stuff and 'waste'. A big part of the rationale behind the no tax pledge is at you starve the beast because it's the only way you stop it.

Ah well, rich or poor, liberal or conservative, it's time to do dailies.