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=jsteele][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]

I think that "pox on both houses" is often a lazy argument. For example, saying that "no one really wants to be the first one to start making those cuts" is inaccurate in that Republicans would be willing to start making those cuts. It is actually my fear that Democrats would be willing to make those cuts as well, but I hope they won't. The Republicans didn't vote against Simpson-Bowles because of cuts, but because of tax increases. If you want to cast stones at both parties, at least do it for the correct reasons: The Republicans are willing to cut entitlements, but they aren't willing to raise taxes; the Democrats might (hopefully not) be willing to cut entitlements, but not without tax increases. That is the root of the intransigence.

The basic issue I have with you self-declared centrists who think you sit squarely in the middle of every issue is that you aren't really in the middle. You are just as partisan as everyone else, but simply much less self-aware. If you consider the political options, the far left position is not "raise taxes but don't cut entitlements", but rather "raise taxes and launch a massive stimulus program, accepting that this will increase the deficit." "Raise Taxes but don't cut entitlements" is center-left. "Raise taxes and cut entitlements" is center-right", and "Don't raise taxes but cut entitlements" is far-right. I believe Obama is firmly in the center-right position and more than willing to cut entitlements in exchange for a tax increase. I'd accept the argument that Obama is in the center-left position. But, there is no argument about Romney/Ryan. They are squarely in the far-right position. So, when you getting ready put a pox on both houses, be sure to apply it in the correct measure.
[/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