While the "Fiscal Cliff" looms..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

Hollohas, honestly, can you post a link to the agreement to increase taxes part. News changes fast. I am interested to read the next angle. Its better than sports to me.

---

That's not new news, the GOP agreed to $800 billion in new tax revenue back in July to try to avoid this whole thing in the first place. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...ehner-20110723

Quote:

---

On Friday, July 15, it seemed the perseverance had paid off.
That day, GOP leaders invited White House officials to Capitol Hill for a private meeting. On the White House side were Chief of Staff William Daley and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. Representing the House were Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the majority leader who has taken a leading role among the conservative flank.
The Republicans made an offer: between $3 trillion and $3.5 trillion in spending reductions, and nearly $800 billion in revenue increases over 10 years through overhauling the tax code. Geithner and Daley took it back to the White House.

---

However, the White House countered with a proposal for $1.2 Trillion in new revenue.

The GOP put it to a vote (cut, cap and balance act) and it passed the House but didn't in the Senate.

Fast forward to today and the White House wants $1.6 trillion in new revenue. Their number keeps going up...

The GOP went from no new taxes to $800 billion. The White House went from $800 billion to $1.6 trillion. That's not how negotiations work....

The claim that a pledge to oppose taxes is unconstitutional is looney toons. The LIHOP 911 Truthers and the Birthers are more rational than your claim nynco.

Completely looney toons. That the Congress has a power, does not require that a Congressman not pledge not to exercise it.

This is the kind of logic nynco offers.

So basically what nynco is saying is that if you are a congressman, take a principled stance on something like, let's say not raising taxes, and put said stance in writing, you are violating the constitution.

http://affordablehousinginstitute.or...lliant_681.jpg

Spqrzilla read what I just posted. It out lines why an oath to abdicate congresses constitutionally mandated duty is unconstitutional.

Holohaus.... do you honestly think that 1.2 trillion is enough? Neither side is willing to take the hard steps necessary. I say we need to end the distinction between investment income/dividends/carried interest and tax it just the same as all forms of income. We then need to bring back a tariff system like we had from Washington till Reagan. Bringing back tariffs will bring a TON of revenue back into this nation by taxing the rest of the world and encouraging US manufacture.

This is part of the problem... the garbage we see now is not addressing the root cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

So basically what nynco is saying is that if you are a congressman, take a principled stance on something like, let's say not raising taxes, and put said stance in writing, you are violating the constitution.

---

Yes when that stance is a refusal to do your constitutionally mandated job.

I read it. Its nuts. Raising taxes is not a duty. Its a power. You are nuts. There is no other way to describe the incoherent argument.

It illustrates just how far from reality you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

Yes when that stance is a refusal to do your constitutionally mandated job.

---

Could you please...PLEASE show me where in the constitution that it MANDATES congressmen to RAISE taxes?

Go ahead...I'll wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

Yes when that stance is a refusal to do your constitutionally mandated job.

---

It is not "constitutionally mandated" that Congress increase the tax rate. That's utterly insane and incoherent.

Meanwhile, Democrats refuse to even adopt a budget. Which is a violation of the law that Congress is supposed to follow.

When someone is abdicating that power to an outside entity. When someone signs an oath that they will not do their constitutionally mandate role, then it is just what I assert.

What would you say if a soldier swore an oath to not follow the orders of the president but instead to follow the orders of an outsider? Its the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

It is not "constitutionally mandated" that Congress increase the tax rate. That's utterly insane and incoherent.

Meanwhile, Democrats refuse to even adopt a budget. Which is a violation of the law that Congress is supposed to follow.

---

Preach it brotherman![word]