Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans open to more revenue, Graham says
NBC / Politico ^ | 2011-06-19 | Byron Tau

Posted on 06/19/2011 3:14:52 PM PDT by rabscuttle385

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that any Republican-backed plan to raise more government revenue would have to come from eliminating subsidies and tax deductions, not by raising taxes.

"No one on the Republican side is going to vote to raise taxes, but I think many of us would look at flattening the tax code, doing away with deductions and exemptions and take that revenue and help pay off the debt," said Graham on NBC's "Meet the Press."

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 112th; bho44; biggovernment; dnc4graham; graham4obama; lindseygraham; mccain4obama; mccaintruthfile; mclameslapdog; rino; rinos4obama; senate; taxes; ussenate; vichy

1 posted on 06/19/2011 3:14:55 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

revenue, newspeak for TAXES.


2 posted on 06/19/2011 3:15:49 PM PDT by Grunthor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Sorry Lindsay, we don't have a revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem. You are an incompetent boob who the good people of South Carolina should kick to the curb.
3 posted on 06/19/2011 3:20:46 PM PDT by fuente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Scheißemeister Graham is open to more revenue ... cause he’s a RINO, not a conservative and completely co-opted by his Liberal/Democrat neer-do-wells across the aisle. probably even has a crush on Harry Reid.

“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. “ ~ John Adams


4 posted on 06/19/2011 3:21:48 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

speak for yorself and not the party you queer!


5 posted on 06/19/2011 3:23:16 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Maybe Wash., DC should step aside and let the economy grow?


6 posted on 06/19/2011 3:23:23 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Republicans really ARE the Stupid Party. This is stupid and the Senate has more than its share of RINOs: Graham, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Lugar, Hatch, McConnell, et. al. They need to kicked out and join the ranks of the unemployed.
7 posted on 06/19/2011 3:24:25 PM PDT by MasterGunner01 (To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- SEAL Team SIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Truly. while private business spend fortunes on trying to ascertain why the customer will give them revenue for products and services, the government spawn, call it revenue, and could care less about earning it. The same as how “layoffs” are call “reduction in force”. Wordsmithing does not ad value unless it adds clarity.


8 posted on 06/19/2011 3:27:34 PM PDT by King Moonracer (Bad lighting and cheap fabric, that's how you sell clothing.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Since when is “taking away deductions” not a tax increase? I really can’t articulate the depths of my disgust for this piece of garbage.


9 posted on 06/19/2011 3:39:27 PM PDT by Politicalmom ("Obama has put the wrong gas in the tank of our economy."-Herman Cain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I would completely support a tax hike on the 51% of US households which pay nothing in federal taxes. Let them pay their fair share!


10 posted on 06/19/2011 3:43:18 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Deductions and loopholes have the same effect upon the Laffer curve as cutting taxes.


11 posted on 06/19/2011 3:54:31 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Deductions and loopholes have the same effect upon the Laffer curve as cutting taxes.


12 posted on 06/19/2011 3:54:40 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Many of these still pay state taxes. For those who favor a smaller Federal government, this is good.


13 posted on 06/19/2011 3:56:07 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Eliminating “tax deductions” IS raising taxes.

God, “1984” and “Atlas Shrugged” have collided in 2008-2011!


14 posted on 06/19/2011 4:08:19 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Tax the media.


15 posted on 06/19/2011 4:08:38 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Any political leader who votes to increase taxes at a time of such irresponsible spending that equates to years of 1.5 Trillion deficits must be removed from office.

Liberals elevate the deficit by increasing Spending, then they claim the answer to the deficit problem is now to increase Taxes.

If Ronald Reagan were hare right now all he would say is...

“there you go again, tax and spend...tax and spend”.


16 posted on 06/19/2011 4:36:11 PM PDT by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Many of these still pay state taxes.

I don't care if they pay state taxes. If I have to pay over half of my take home pay to federal, state and local taxes then why should anyone be exempt from that?

Perhaps if these people had some skin in the game at the federal level, they'd be more averse to an expanding federal government, simply because they would know it would hit them directly in the bank account.

Another poster said it very well, in our country we have rights but we also have responsibilities. It is not right over half the people in this country to be exempt from paying even something towards the costs of running the federal govenrment.

17 posted on 06/19/2011 4:37:30 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

How much money do we cut if we cut all things related to global warming? Can we cut the entirety of the EPA? Department of Education? The ATF? Cut our foreign aid by half? All the worthless common sense scientific studies? Revamping contracts the Pentagon has so they are not charged $$$$$$$ for hammers, nuts, bolts, etc? Hell, we can fix the budget problems around 24 hours to a week.


18 posted on 06/19/2011 5:00:52 PM PDT by nerdwithagun (I'd rather go gun to gun then knife to knife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I don't know how to say this. Republicans have always favored more revenue. In FY 2001, (the last fiscal year which Clinton was responsible for signing) total federal revenues were about $1.99 trillion. In FY 2007 (the last fiscal year passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate and signed by President Bush), total federal revenues were about $2.57 trillion.

Of course, Republicans like to spend a lot when they are in full control, too. Spending rose even more than revenues over those 6 years, resulting in larger deficits.

19 posted on 06/19/2011 5:12:30 PM PDT by cc2k ( If having an "R" makes you conservative, does walking into a barn make you a horse's (_*_)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdwithagun
nerdwithagun wrote:
How much money do we cut if we cut all things related to global warming? Can we cut the entirety of the EPA? Department of Education? The ATF? Cut our foreign aid by half? All the worthless common sense scientific studies? Revamping contracts the Pentagon has so they are not charged $$$$$$$ for hammers, nuts, bolts, etc? Hell, we can fix the budget problems around 24 hours to a week.

You have some good ideas. Unfortunately, after decades of writing "IOU's" and putting them in the "Social Security trust fund" and "Medicare trust fund," the bill is coming due. The reality is that if there are not significant changes to Medicare especially, and Social Security next, those two programs will consume all federal revenue soon. You could cut 100% of everything else, discretionary spending and defense, and you'd still have to borrow money to pay Medicare and Social Security benefits.

The Ponzi scheme is going to collapse. Time is not on our side. "Reform" is inevitible, if only because there will not be enough money in the world to pay the benefits that have been promised so far.

20 posted on 06/19/2011 5:20:22 PM PDT by cc2k ( If having an "R" makes you conservative, does walking into a barn make you a horse's (_*_)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

EXACTLY!! Than You! I keep screaming this over & over but I’m afraid our congressmen don’t even know this! EVERY TIME I bring this up to a liberal when they’re whining about the tax cuts causing the deficit to be greater, they say “well, it it wasn’t the tax cuts that made the deficit worse, then what was it? I tell them THE SPENDING! Sheesh! And they always say: “Well, then Repubs were in control then”....then I tell them to put the bong down and listen very carefully..... it’s LIBERAL POLICIES that don’t work, it doesn’t matter WHO passes them... And then I go on to tell them we tried our best to kick as many on our side out as we could for all that spending. Then, I ask them how many of their big spenders did they boot in the primaries? NONE! At least we got rid of a chunk of ours....then they always, ALWAYS walk away scratching their heads.


21 posted on 06/19/2011 5:25:36 PM PDT by DrewsMum (There is no other NAME whereby we may be saved....JESUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Who in the GOP keeps letting this little poofter get in front of a camera?


22 posted on 06/19/2011 5:28:21 PM PDT by Redcloak (What's your zombie plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Here’s an even better idea.

Currently, the US Income Tax Code is 7500 pages long. Direct the Internal Revenue Service to rewrite it to under 1000 pages, then present the US House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee with a list of changes in the law that are needed to justify this code simplification.

For instance, instead of describing a unique code for a multitude of industries, determine what industries have similar code written for them, and combine the two or more as far as the administrative side of taxation goes.

The bottom line is that, if tax code simplification is taken to heart, much of the irritation and expense are removed as well. Eventually most citizens should be able to calculate their tax with just basic math, and will no longer need to pay a fortune to a legion of tax accountants.


23 posted on 06/19/2011 5:56:14 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Sorry buddy, we don’t want no stinking taxes.....period


24 posted on 06/19/2011 6:02:55 PM PDT by The Wizard (Madam President is my President now, and in the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

fyi


25 posted on 06/19/2011 7:12:10 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

It’s morons like Lindsey who have gotten us into this mess.

And his solution to to make a bigger mess.

Lindsey, you will see a wave like never before, when u are up for re-election. Real americans all over the country will be working hard to defeat your ass.


26 posted on 06/19/2011 7:29:19 PM PDT by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alarm rider; Alex1977; at bay; Babsig; BILL_C; bnelson44; ColdOne; DesScorp; G.Love; gruntSGT; ...
Fairy Boy Graham speaks for no Republicans I'm aware of.

Uber RINO Lindsey Ping
"Republican by day, Democrat by night."


Want on or off this ping list?
Just FReepmail me.


27 posted on 06/19/2011 8:22:35 PM PDT by upchuck (Think you know hardship? Ha! Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

As would I, but only if it also meant less punishing tax rates on success. A flat 10% rate with no deductions or tax credits would force those 51% to feel what government costs, and encourage the creators of wealth to create more of it.

It would also, incidentally, generate more tax revenue as a smaller slice of a larger pie. I can’t believe there are many Freepers who would reject a low-rate flat tax simply because it would generate more revenue than the progressive tax system we have.


28 posted on 06/20/2011 1:16:59 AM PDT by Kellis91789 (There's a reason the mascot of the Democratic Party is a jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

So, sneaky, back-door tax hikes are okay with Miss Lindsey?
Sure. That’ll fly. Everybody will be fooled.


29 posted on 06/20/2011 1:25:28 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks rabscuttle385.
...said Sunday that any Republican-backed plan to raise more government revenue would have to come from eliminating subsidies and tax deductions, not by raising taxes.
I think I'll look up "tin ear" in the dictionary.


30 posted on 06/20/2011 3:41:43 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
yefragetuwrabrumuy wrote:
Here’s an even better idea. <snip>

Good intro, but some problems after that.

First, it's the responsibility of the Congress to write the laws, not unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service.

Second, 1,000 pages is still too long and complex.

Thankfully, there is a solution. And many Representatives have already pledged to support this solution. The solution is in the Contract From America. Item 4 in that is the tax reform item. Here it is:


4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution.

That point enjoyed almost sixty-five percent support from the participants in the polling when that "Contract from America" was developed. That was an online contract, and it was developed from suggestions/proposals that anyone could make at their website in the early part of the development. Anyone could make proposals for items, and anyone/everyone could vote for the proposals they supported.

Now, how do we get it moving. Start by looking to see if your Represenative and/or Senators signed that Contract. Here's a link to the Signers of the Contract from America. If your Represenative or your Senator(s) signed that pledge, drop them a letter or fax and ask them if the bill is ready yet, and if they can send you a copy. Let them know that it's important that they follow up on the promises they made when they signed the "Contract from America."

You might even post back here and let us know what you found out. ;)

P.S. If your Rep/Senator says they support the FairTax for that, inform them that the Fair Tax is far longer than 4,543 words, and far too complex to satisfy that pledge.

31 posted on 06/20/2011 5:08:14 AM PDT by cc2k ( If having an "R" makes you conservative, does walking into a barn make you a horse's (_*_)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.)

Fixed.

32 posted on 06/20/2011 5:12:00 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cc2k

I would agree that this is fine as an eventual goal, but there are even larger issues at stake.

To start with, America has never had an adequate means of funding the federal government in a responsible manner. But a bad breakthrough happened when Lincoln imposed a Civil War income tax, which “broke the chain of command” by allowing the federal government, for the first time, to routinely and directly involve itself in the lives of the citizenry.

This is the evil twin of direct democracy. Direct tyranny.

In original concept, the only real federal democracy in the US was the election of “The People’s House”, the House of Representatives. The States would then *appoint* the US Senate, and the Electoral College would elect the President. And these latter two systems were *intended* to prevent too much democracy. (Including the Supreme Court, whose justices were nominated by the POTUS, but had to be confirmed by the senate, and thus the States.)

After the Civil War, the “revolt of the States”, was the adoption of the 14th Amendment, which in its first section had the “privileges or immunities clause.” This created the federal authority to intervene if the States were oppressive to their citizens.

(Justice Thomas, writing in the recent McDonald v. Chicago gun decision, wrote a brilliant, 100 page dissertation in the defense of the “privileges or immunities” clause, revitalizing and resurrecting it.)

However, within just two months after enacting the 16th Amendment, The Income Tax, the 17th Amendment, The Direct Election of Senators, was also enacted, which *stripped away* the complementary authority to “privileges or immunities”.

That is, because Senators were no longer responsive to the State legislatures, they no longer had motivation to stand up for their States, to protect the people from an oppressive *federal* government.

So the 16th Amendment gave the federal government the authority to be oppressive, and the 17th Amendment, in the name of “faux democracy”, stripped away the people’s defenses, the States, ability to protect them.

Unfortunately, senators adore the 17th Amendment, because it means that they can now become entirely federal animals, no longer obedient or caring of their State. Just once, every six years, they have to do a dog and pony show before their voters. But the rest of the time, they are free agents. Some senators with wealthy wives even cynically buy their seats, like John’s McCain and Kerry, and live in Washington, not caring one whit what their State wants or needs.

So how do we overcome this dilemma and restore balance?

This is the larger issue, even more important (though integrating) reform of federal taxation.

The best solution is to create another body, much like the original senate, but in the judiciary. Not a federal court, but a court composed of 100 judges appointed by the State legislatures, superior to the federal district courts, but inferior to the SCOTUS.

Likewise, their purpose is *not* to determine constitutionality, which is the job of our 3,600 federal judges; but to determine *jurisdiction*.

A Second Court of the United States would restore the ability of the States to balance the federal government, as well as to methodically reduce the size of the federal government.

Each year, federal judges in effect “federalize” local and State laws, by finding constitutional issues in them. And once federalized, there is no way for them to be “de-federalized”. This leads to much bench activism and legislation, with no one to say otherwise.

Even after many decisions are reached in lower federal courts, each year, some 8,000 cases are appealed to the SCOTUS, which can only hear a few dozen.

A Second Court of the United States would be capable of digesting these 8,000 cases, and either forward those with a real constitutional issue in them to the SCOTUS, or order it returned to the States for their decision, “de-federalizing” it.

If a majority, or 51 judges decided that it was a State issue, it could still be appealed to the SCOTUS, but the SCOTUS would have to cite an exact phrase in the constitution, not extrapolation or judicial precedent, if they decided to affirm that a constitutional issue was involved.

And if a 2/3rds majority, or 67/100 judges decided that its was of State jurisdiction, they would in effect become a standing constitutional convention, but for that one decision only. Thus it could *not* be appealed to the SCOTUS.

And since the SCOTUS would still be only able to accept a few dozen cases each year, the vast majority of that 8,000 would be returned to the *jurisdictional* authority of the Second Court. And only if they decided it was a real constitutional issue, would they return it to the federal district courts for *their* decision.

Importantly, the one other function of the Second Court of the United States, would be one of *original jurisdiction* of lawsuits between the federal government and the States. And this would be how the States would have a continual process by which they would prune the overgrowth of the federal government.

Say a State sued the federal government with the argument that the Department of Education had no authority to impose its regulations on the States. It would be up to the other 49 States to agree or disagree.

So while federal tax reform is an important issue, it is just as important to get the federal government out of direct influence on our lives as much as possible.


33 posted on 06/20/2011 6:36:41 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
You make some good points. But one thing "the left" is good at that conservatives are really bad at is moving the ball in small, incremental steps. The liberals didn't build this socialist monstrosity all in one bill. They built it brick by brick over the years.

Taking it down will require removing it brick by brick. When a brick is exposed and worked loose, we have to pounce on the oportunity and remove it. Any tax simplification that significantly reduces rates and subjects more people to taxation would be a good thing.

As for the 17th amendment, I would favor repeal of that. But since that will probably never happen, I have another solution. While it is in the form of a constitutional amendment, I think it is something that Conservatives and even Progressives could unite on. Progressives also believe in "democracy" and that their representatives and senators should represent the little guys, not just the big money. Here's my proposed amendment. I'm actually considering starting a campaign for this and setting up a web site and petitions and whatnot. What are your thoughts:

The "You Represent Us" amendment:
  1. Congress shall make no law establishing compensation or benefits for United States Represenatives or United States Senators.
  2. Any law of the United States which provides for compensation or benefits for United States Senators and/or United States Representatives, which is in effect at the time this amendment is ratified by the several states shall be null and void after December 31 of the year of ratification.
  3. Effective January 1 of the year following ratification of this amendment, United States Representatives and United States Senators shall be employees of the State they are elected to represent. They shall receive compensation and benefits as defined by the legislatures of their state. They shall be subject to all laws which apply to elected officials of their state.

Your thoughts on that?

It gives Representatives and Senators a reminder (at least twice a month) who they work for. Their paycheck would come from their state, possibly signed by the Governor, possibly with a note from the speaker of the State House, or whatever. It helps to remind them who pays their salary, and maybe they'll figure out who they really work for.

34 posted on 06/20/2011 7:10:38 AM PDT by cc2k ( If having an "R" makes you conservative, does walking into a barn make you a horse's (_*_)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Obama must have found that video with Lindsay and the little boys.

How this openly queer dude can call himself a Republican is beyond me.


35 posted on 06/20/2011 8:25:45 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
Real americans all over the country will be working hard to defeat your ass.

They worked hard against him in 2010, he still got elected.

36 posted on 06/20/2011 11:23:48 AM PDT by itsahoot (I Stand with Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

I think he ran for re-election in 2008. He’s up in 2014, a six year term. That was before the Tea Party took off. He won’t walk that easy into re-election in 2014.


37 posted on 06/20/2011 11:33:05 AM PDT by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

He and Franks should get married


38 posted on 06/20/2011 4:51:46 PM PDT by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
flattening the tax code, doing away with deductions and exemptions and take that revenue and help pay off the debt spacer

A little inartfully said, perhaps, but that is precisely what ought to be done - in fact, that is precisely what was done in 1986 when Reagan managed to manhandle through the largest revision/reform to the tax code since the code had been rewritten in 1954.

Flattening the rate brackets and getting rid of deductions and exemptions - the one big gimmie he forgot is credits, which have to be done away with as well - is precisely what the doctor ordered when it comes to reforming the tax code.

That is also how the code is made fairer and how the distortionary effects of the tax code on the economy are reduced (tho' not done away with).
39 posted on 06/20/2011 5:02:48 PM PDT by Oceander (The phrase "good enough for government work" is not meant as a compliment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman

Graham was elected to the Senate in 2002 and reelected in 2008, garnering over one million votes and becoming the top vote-getter in South Carolina history.


You are correct sir.


40 posted on 06/21/2011 10:58:19 AM PDT by itsahoot (I Stand with Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson