“Republicans who raise taxes are rat heads in Coke bottles.” Grover Norquist, un-elected, self-appointed Grand Hyena of the Flat Earth Society, The New Yorker, August 1, 2005.
Note to centrists: Stand down. Take some time off. Go to the beach. Give this guy all the running rope he wants.
(comments below)
I heard Norquist mentioned on NPR this morning and nearly laughed myself to death.
He had lawmakers sign a pledge never to raise taxes under any circumstances. Ha. Guess we can’t really expect much in return then then, eh?
The guy is completely out of touch with reality. He and his “Americans for the Removal of Government Programs”…excuse me…”Americans for Tax Reform” are the reason why one of our candidates for governor uses Jim Gilmore as an example of fiscal sanity:
“Governors George Allen and Jim Gilmore both increased funding for education without raising taxes.”
-Jerry “The Duck” Kilgore
How badly in debt were we afterwards though? Is it worth it?
Such quotes from Norquist show just how classy a guy he really is.
I wonder why “flat earth” was decided upon to label the anti-tax faction when “scorched earth” often seems more appropriate.
Good Ole Grover.
You got to love a guy that knows his rats.
RE: “Blue”: Another fine example of the benefits of public education. He seems thoroughly indocrinated in the propaganda of the Liberal welfare State. I wonder if they have a “Two Minute Hate” for GWB at his school, led by an NEA official?
RE: JJD: Because disparagement is so much easier than addressing their arguments, and the fact that Laffer is right?
RE: Laszlo: ROTFLMAO. He sure does.
My school, being in the ultra-Republican 68th district (see above post about Brad Marrs), is EXTREMELY Republican. I’m surrounded by 1000 James Youngs-in-training.
Its easy to be indifferent towards Government programs when you don’t fit into the income bracket that benefits from them, and obviously don’t care about those who do.
blue,
If you’d lay of the dailykos talking points and actually study the Constitution, you’d discover that government is doing all manner of things that it’s not supposed to do, and that there’s a huge difference between not “caring” — ooo, you wound me so with that typical soc/lib accusation — and understanding that the least efficient and effective way of putting your “caring” into action is through a government welfare program, aside from the fact that it’s immoral and not indicative of “caring” at all, but of intellectual and moral laziness.
Soooo, first, I’m not “indifferent” to government programs; I’m hostile to them. My money could be much more effectively spent through private charities (just as private education is much more efficiently rendered than public education), and government’s confiscatory taxation rates prevent me from doing as much as I’d like to. Second, you hardly embody “caring” by getting government to take someone else’s money and give it to someone whose vote you covet.
When you earn and give away a substantial portion of your income voluntarily, we’ll compare notes, and perhaps then you can lecture me on how little I “care.” Until then, you really have little authority to talk about how to spend the money that other people earn, and even less legitimacy.
I personally don’t understand the “flat-earther” monnicker apparently derived from Barnie Day’s writings. He seems to like to apply it to those people who support limited government spending, reasonable (not nonexistent as some would have you believe)taxes, and the sanctity of human life. These all appear to be very reasonable and positive goals for our society. As opposed to those like Day who promote unending increases in government spending (along with confiscatory taxes to pay for it), and seem to have this pathological need to promote a culture of death.
Since the fiscal and social policies supported by liberals like Barnie Day will eventually lead to the death of our society and our economy, I believe a monnicker for him and his ilk is in order. In future posts when Mr. Day refers to his “flat-earthers”, he and those like him also I suggest should be referred to as “dead-earthers” in response. It seems quite fitting to me.
What does the constitution have to do with what you seem to perceive to be basic economics, Mr. Young?
We have an amendment to our constitution providing for an income tax.
For your information, i give away a substantial percentage of my income voluntarily. Don’t make assumptions, we both know what you do when you ass-u-me.
Take a good look at anything written by John Maynard Keynes and you’ll learn that its important for the government to provide certain public goods (education being one of them).
If all education was private, the vast majority (including me) of people would not be able to afford it. We’d live (even more so) in a society where only the richest had the opportunity to succeed.
Oh yeah…one more thing…i don’t even read the dailykos.
Blue boy, that your government school hasn’t taught you that the Constitution creates a government of enumerated powers, and that NOT among them is the power to impose a socialist welfare state, is neither surprising, nor something I’m going to be able to cure here. Especially since, as a tax-paying citizen of the Commonwealth for the last 16 years, I’ve already paid for your education once. And you should know that the income tax is the funding device, having nothing to do with my discussion of illicit government spending for things not enumerated.
And I’m delighted that you give away your income, whatever it is, to charity. Let’s see if you can do the same thing when Mummy and Daddy aren’t putting food in your mouth, a roof over your head, and clothes on your back, and your butt in a car, as well as paying taxes to support the welfare cheat on the other side of the tracks.
But your sanctimonious little rant doesn’t justify your political agenda of taking away the money earned by others and giving it away to your favorite charities.
And as for public education, you might want to consider the distinction between publicly-provided education (which I support) and government-controlled schools (which I don’t). Your comments constitute Exhibit A as to the failure to government schools to educate individuals in basic American government.
Well, that just took a turn for the worse.
Norquist was in Kansas venting bile, which is under court order (some crusty old Republicans on the Kansas Supreme Ct) to prop up its failing education system and serve the poorer areas. The legislature may have to approve gambling to get added revenue. Norquist, of course, is paid handsomely by gambling interests (I think he’s admitted to $1.5 million in the last few years). Conflict of interest?
Mr. Young,
Nice lecture. You might want to look in the mirror though on the “sanctimonious” label when writing with a pen dipped so freely into the sanctum inkwell.
Like I said, nice lecture, pure manure, but one I’m sure you’ve memorized and given often…
Life has some humbling lessons waiting for you Mr. Young. There is a world of difference between “right” and “self-righteous.”
Gee, Anon 9:03, I agree. There IS a world of difference between “right” and “self-righteous.”
For instance, I haven’t said (lately, at least) that someone with whom I disagree is “completely out of touch with reality.” Or that someone who support limited government “don’t care about those who” benefit from government programs.
There’s also a difference between courage and making broad, unsupported accusations behind a cowardly anonymity.
There were no “broad and unsupported” accusations… Only reference back to your own words… You try to hide behind a veil of attack on anonymity while avoiding any accountability for what you yourself write. Argue not with the individual Mr. Young, but with the truth of the words written. But of course, you can’t…
Can we all just resist the urge to personally attack each other from now on…that would be great.
I do thank Anon for standing up for me though…
I hope Blue understands that there is a widely held theory that “James Young” is a parody (remember Pastor John?) and that the occasional lucid postings are just set-ups for the satire rants. If you understand this, the humor is easier to appreciate. Don’t take it too seriously, son. In any event, “James Young”‘s most heavily targetted individuals are conservative Republicans. You’re in good company for a young, self-professed liberal.
Anon 10:10 and 8:22 — Let’s see, a coward calls me a “parody”!?!?! High praise indeed. And not “accountable”? As opposed to whom? Someone who is too craven to put his or her own name on his or her comments. Bold talk indeed from a coward.
No broad and unsupported accusations? After asserting that I “writ[e] with a pen dipped so freely into the sanctum inkwell”? Anon 9:03. Your own words belie your denials.
And BTW, my most “heavily targetted individuals” are not conservative Republicans. They are most frequently the far Left, and when not the far Left, individuals who claim to be “conservative Republicans” who are, more often than not, Liberals masquerading as “conservative Republicans” because, in modern Virginia, that is most frequently the path to the political power they so desperately crave.
“Mr. Young”
Be very careful as you roll around on the floor alternating between screaming and holding your breath with this tantrum. Wouldn’t want you to turn “blue” and be mistaken for someone who cares outside of his own existence…
And to Anon of 8:22, unfortunately there are quite a number of people such as Mr. Young who bluster and fume and exhort their followers to shove the poor and widows out of the way in their quest for “what’s rightfully MINE, MINE, MINE!!!”
The problem is that so many of this ilk are like the spoiled rich kids that they actually are. All of the investment and sacrifice that they now benefit from was done either before they were born, or while they were infants so they fail to recognize or acknowledge any effort other than their own… Quite childish really, as evidenced above, and I’m sure, by what will follow. You know, last word and all…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.