Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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), Paul Ryan (R), 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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:this has the potential to be a snark-free and interesting thread. i will suggest, tho, that while the reasonable right-ish among us seem willing to accept some more taxation and some cuts to sacred cows, i don't often see the reasonable left offer up too much. with most of the budget going to entitlements and defense, we just can't get there off "big oil" and "tax the rich" the money is in the middle, and that's where the entitlements are as well.

on defense, I saw an interview w buffet/simpson/bowles the other day (saved on cnbc) and one pointed out we spend on defense more than the next 10 or so nations combined.

Well, this Democrat absolutely believes that we should raise the retirement age for people 50 or 55 and under and use means testing to determine who can actually draw benefits from SS. I don't believe the program was supported to provide supplemental income to the extremely wealthy. I would be willing to offer up tax deductions for dependent children if your side would stop waging a war on access to reproductive healthcare including free birth control (a policy that was supported by none other than George HW Bush, a Republican I actually LIKED for the most part).

What else do you want?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My smaller government gets us out of areas such as:
Housing
Agriculture subsidies
Ethanol
SBA
Finance--eliminate FDIC insurance
and most areas where bureaucrats try to pick winners and losers
I'd make soc sec sustainable with means testing and extending retirement ages
Offer basic (very basic) health insurance to all
Stop spending huge amounts of tax money on Americans' last 90 days of life
Regrettably take over Education so that a kid in Arkansas has the same education as a kid in Bethesda
Pro life
Pro reasonable gun control (hunt away, the rest is stupid. I don't like to kill things but I recognize realities of this country's traditions)
Anti death penalty cuz we can't apply it fairly
Tax fairly and progressively but recognize limits of higher marginal rates
pro immigration and liberal citizenship rights

and finally, recognize that without a sound and fair balance of spending and revenue collection we can't afford much of what both sides want. facts are, indeed, stubborn things and compromise means both sides are roughly equally unhappy.

So..what will each side give on so we can make some progress?

Except for the incredibly intrusive 'pro life' thing (I prefer gubment stay outta my vagina) and the FDIC (which protects real people's money), I tend to agree with you. And I'm a hard-core Dem.

+1 I just can't understand how people who claim to want smaller government and value personal liberty think it is any of their business what I do or don't do with my reproductive organs. If you are a fundie Christian then feel free to either pray for me/condemn me to hell (whichever floats your boat) but mind your own effing business and stay out of my bedroom/doctor's office!

Anonymous wrote:How about this party ? Where would I fit in? I tell you where: nowhere currently!

pro-life
smaller fed govt, less taxes
conservative on social issue like gay marriage
pro-charter schools and things like tuition vouchers

anti-gun control
pro-environment
pro-animal rights
anti-capital punishment

You are a Republican. You're welcome.

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you. I lean more Republican than Democrat but issue by issue I'm split.

Abortion and Gay marriage, I'm a republican
Gun control, environment and general energy issues, I'm a democrat

The big budget, defense and entitlement spending issues I'm generally more republican but even then believe that there's lots of room for compromise.

You are a total conservative, if all you can claim is gun control and energy. If you want to keep spending gobs on defense and cut social welfare programs, you are in no way a Democrat.

I would actually talk to those people. The right-wing, willfully stupid, fundie nutjobs are not worth the time or effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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), Paul Ryan (R), 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.

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?

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.

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 double 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?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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), Paul Ryan (R), 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.

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?

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.

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 double 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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this party ? Where would I fit in? I tell you where: nowhere currently!

pro-life
smaller fed govt, less taxes
conservative on social issue like gay marriage
pro-charter schools and things like tuition vouchers

anti-gun control
pro-environment
pro-animal rights
anti-capital punishment

well, first of all, change "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" for starters. You're not "pro-life." You want abortion abolished as a legal procedure. That's the issue. Otherwise, you wouldn't have listed "anti-capital punishment" as a separate line item. The issue is abortion, not "life" or "choice."

second of al, you sound pretty much like a Republican down-the-line until you get to the anti-capital punishment thing.

Repubs aren't usually pro-animal rights or pro-environment, are they? They are pro-business and businesses need animal testing, animal products, and don't want to protect the enviornment at the expense of profits, right?

Anonymous wrote:How about this party ? Where would I fit in? I tell you where: nowhere currently!

pro-life
smaller fed govt, less taxes
conservative on social issue like gay marriage
pro-charter schools and things like tuition vouchers

anti-gun control
pro-environment
pro-animal rights
anti-capital punishment

well, first of all, change "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" for starters. You're not "pro-life." You want abortion abolished as a legal procedure. That's the issue. Otherwise, you wouldn't have listed "anti-capital punishment" as a separate line item. The issue is abortion, not "life" or "choice."

second of al, you sound pretty much like a Republican down-the-line until you get to the anti-capital punishment thing.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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), Paul Ryan (R), 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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:sorry..... until a republican is this stupid, the democrats are the stupid party.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

See, the problem is you post that clip EVERY TIME you want to make this point. Get some new material, otherwise you can't use it as a proxy.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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), Paul Ryan (R), 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.

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?

AGREE. X1000

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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), Paul Ryan (R), 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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:I was a Moderate Repiblican om another life and now am an Independent . Independents need to form their own platform , have a convention and become a third-party and nominate our own candidates for all elective offices. We could do no worse than the present two parties . Out og 300 million people , and we have Obamaand Romney to choose between the lessor of two evils.

Please don't take this as snark -- I make plenty of my own typos. But I love it when a typo has a meaning of its own: To whom does one lease evils?