Reply to Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]I still for the life of me can't understand why the simpson-bowles suggestions were not acted on - other than no one really wants to be the first one to start making those cuts that frankly are LONG overdue.

Cowardice from our elected officials is just digging the hole deeper.  And I say this as a liberal.[/quote]

The Simpson-Bowles final report failed to achieve the required supermajority vote in favor. Voting against it were Max Baucus (D), Xavier Becerra (D), Dave Camp (R), Jeb Hensarling (R), [b]Paul Ryan (R),[/b] Jan Schakowsky (D), and Andy Stern (not an elected official). As such, exactly the same number of Republican elected officials voted against the report as Democratic elected officials. I think it is safe to say that the Republicans would have been more than happy to make the cuts. However, they voted against because of the included tax increases.

I emphasized the fact that Paul Ryan, the "most serious man alive regarding the budget", voted against Simpson-Bowles.
[/quote]

Jeff--you would be far more credible if once in a while you could cease throwing another spear for your beloved party.  The post was yet another "pox on both houses" over lack of compromise and you again go small.  Yeah, we get that Ryan isn't too credible either.  Plenty of blame to go around--are you really so unable to see a bit of the other side?[/quote]

[b]NP. I think he quite accurately described the votes on thie bipartisan commission result. But in a thread started by a republican about republicans, it is noteworthy to point out that he budget architect for the party voted it down.  Maybe you lost track of the OP's topic.[/b]  [/quote]

Do I have to read multiple pages of posts to make a comment that Jeff, yet again, is playing small ball?  My broader point, which it seems you're choosing to ignore, is that I would hope there's room around here for some balanced discourse and acceptance that either side has some good points.  That's so hard?  More practically, isn't it far more effective, when trying to make a point, to say "hey, I agree with you there and there but..."  Sorry to rag, but his posts so often are akin to schoolyard "oh yeah, well you're [b]double[/b] xyz" and I think it would be lovely if our moderator took, if not the high road, at least a slightly elevated path.

Now as for this thread, which I read some days ago, I do recall much of it was around center republicans yearning for a party of fiscal responsibility sans the social nonsense.  There were some good replies and, of course, those who donned cleats and stomped hard.

I just think anytime a thread wanders into the subject of looming fiscal catastrophe it defies credulity to try to attach to one party.  A great example is our own midwest version of Greece--Illinois.  I'm not blaming any party here, just wondering aloud (my Rodney King moment) if we can't make progress among a bunch of anonymous overeducated wonks, is there any hope more broadly of averting a crisis?[/quote]you sure do go on and on for a person who can't be bothered to read the subject line on a thread.

I think he accurately described the votes and that's enough. His use of bold was appropriate given the subject header. If you were being fair you would have acknowledged that he did in fact identify the demicratic vote on Erskine Bowles. You didn't, you chose to focus on one aspect. Does that mean I can say you are playing "small ball" which btw does not mean what you think it means?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics