Anonymous
08/28/2012 17:36
Subject: Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
The problem the Republican Party faces today is that the GOP no longer even exists. The GOP once stood for balanced budgets or at least conservative economic policies and moderate social policies. Unfortunately for this group of Republicans they have been flooded, swamped, and totally diluted by intra-party coalitions of members with single issue agendas. Their Hedge Fund Coalition is willing to bankrupt the country rather than pay the taxes required to keep the country solvent. On the other hand the Religious Right Coalition of the Party is happy to vote against their own economic self-interests in the belief they are going to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned. The hedge fund Republicans may pander to the religious right, but they're not dedicated to the social agenda of the religious right.
The Republican Party will remain terminally broken until working class Republicans stop listening to the madness of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and start voting in their own self-interest again as was envisioned by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.
Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned. The hedge fund Republicans may pander to the religious right, but they're not dedicated to the social agenda of the religious right.
The Republican Party will remain terminally broken until working class Republicans stop listening to the madness of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and start voting in their own self-interest again as was envisioned by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 16:29
Subject: Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
I do not know, but I cannot follow her (his?) posts, the weird way he/she quotes. I wish he/she would just quote it normally. I cannot follow it so I don't even attempt to read what he/she has written.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 16:26
Subject: Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
Who's the fawning acolyte poster? She sure is fragile.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 15:23
Subject: Re:Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
[quote=Anonymous][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. [b]That is the root of the intransigence. [/b]
[b]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[/b]. 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]
hold that spear high, Jeff. maybe someday your loyalty will be rewarded with a low-end administration job. I can't engage with this degree of sanctimony and chin-thrusting. but, no worries, i'm an outlier. you have many fawning acolytes here.
[/quote]
Not everything is black and white as you insist. I know [i]exactly[/i] where I stand and I don't bend to fit into parties who clearly change their ideas depending on how close we are to the elections. Do I lean more one way? Sure. Mind blowing, I know.
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. [b]That is the root of the intransigence. [/b]
[b]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[/b]. 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]
hold that spear high, Jeff. maybe someday your loyalty will be rewarded with a low-end administration job. I can't engage with this degree of sanctimony and chin-thrusting. but, no worries, i'm an outlier. you have many fawning acolytes here.
[/quote]
Not everything is black and white as you insist. I know [i]exactly[/i] where I stand and I don't bend to fit into parties who clearly change their ideas depending on how close we are to the elections. Do I lean more one way? Sure. Mind blowing, I know.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 15:12
Subject: Re:Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
[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. [b]That is the root of the intransigence. [/b]
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]
hold that spear high, Jeff. maybe someday your loyalty will be rewarded with a low-end administration job. I can't engage with this degree of sanctimony and chin-thrusting. but, no worries, i'm an outlier. you have many fawning acolytes here.
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. [b]That is the root of the intransigence. [/b]
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]
hold that spear high, Jeff. maybe someday your loyalty will be rewarded with a low-end administration job. I can't engage with this degree of sanctimony and chin-thrusting. but, no worries, i'm an outlier. you have many fawning acolytes here.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 13:25
Subject: Re:Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
12:44 again. Maybe I'm wrong regarding the other centrist-Republican posters here, but for me here's the challenge.
I am pro-life, yet I am also pro-birth control.
I do not at all identify with the right wing crazies who shoot abortion doctors, claim that women often cry rape when they regret the one night stand, and want to limit access to birth control.
Assuming the Second Amendment stays in place, I don't believe it gives everyone the right to own an arsenal of military-grade weaponry.
I can't make the jump to the Democrats since I do disagree with them on a large number of things. At the same time, the party which I do more closely identify with is being held hostage at its extreme edge.
I am pro-life, yet I am also pro-birth control.
I do not at all identify with the right wing crazies who shoot abortion doctors, claim that women often cry rape when they regret the one night stand, and want to limit access to birth control.
Assuming the Second Amendment stays in place, I don't believe it gives everyone the right to own an arsenal of military-grade weaponry.
I can't make the jump to the Democrats since I do disagree with them on a large number of things. At the same time, the party which I do more closely identify with is being held hostage at its extreme edge.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 13:23
Subject: Re:Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You can call it the Selfish Asshole Party. But you'd never win anything without whipping up all the stupid people with scary things like gay marriage, death panels and big government.
This is now one of my all-time favorite brittle, sarcastic replies on DCUM. It comes in at a close second to the one Jeff recently made to an over eager grammarian on the DCPS forum. Hilarious. Ok, now I'll be internet throat punched for sure.
+1
Gee more martyrs in the GOP than Al Qaeda!
Anonymous
08/28/2012 13:16
Subject: Re:Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You can call it the Selfish Asshole Party. But you'd never win anything without whipping up all the stupid people with scary things like gay marriage, death panels and big government.
This is now one of my all-time favorite brittle, sarcastic replies on DCUM. It comes in at a close second to the one Jeff recently made to an over eager grammarian on the DCPS forum. Hilarious. Ok, now I'll be internet throat punched for sure.
+1
Anonymous
08/28/2012 13:13
Subject: Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
Anonymous wrote: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
I am right there with you on most of it. I like to call myself part of the Fencer Party
Let me guess! You were raised by rich Catholics!
I didn't say I agreed with all of it. I guess I should make my own list at this point.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 13:11
Subject: Re:Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
I forgot to mention, poor Pentecostal fundamentalists at that. It's not necessary to label everything or put everyone in compartments. But if it makes you feel better...I'm sure you can find another one. I see point on both sides and I'm not impressed with either party right now.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 13:08
Subject: Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
Anonymous wrote: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
I am right there with you on most of it. I like to call myself part of the Fencer Party
Let me guess! You were raised by rich Catholics!
Not even close. Try Pentecostal fundamentalists. Heart-breaking, isn't it?
Anonymous
08/28/2012 12:56
Subject: Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
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
I am right there with you on most of it. I like to call myself part of the Fencer Party
Let me guess! You were raised by rich Catholics!
Anonymous
08/28/2012 12:53
Subject: Re:Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
Anonymous wrote:You can call it the Selfish Asshole Party. But you'd never win anything without whipping up all the stupid people with scary things like gay marriage, death panels and big government.
This is now one of my all-time favorite brittle, sarcastic replies on DCUM. It comes in at a close second to the one Jeff recently made to an over eager grammarian on the DCPS forum. Hilarious. Ok, now I'll be internet throat punched for sure.
Anonymous
08/28/2012 12:48
Subject: Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
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
I am right there with you on most of it. I like to call myself part of the Fencer Party
Anonymous
08/28/2012 12:44
Subject: Re:Can we have a separate party for smart Republicans?
Anonymous wrote: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.
Never ever said I was a Democrat. Said I am a centrist who does lean to the right, but who hates the polarization of both parties and wishes there were a middle-ground party. I said there's lots of room for compromise on both defense and entitlement spending. Crazy multi-billion dollar programs for military hardware that DoD doesn't want are ridiculous. Low low Tricare premiums for military families should be sliding scale more in line with private sector. Military pensions shouldn't be double-dipped. I'm a contractor and see folks retire from the military and go work in the civil service and some then retire from the civil service and become contractors, all the while receiving 1 or 2 government pensions. No, needs to stop as it's killing the defense budget. All of these are things that are rabidly protected by the far right in the Republican party.
On the other side of things, to take SS and Medicare off the table of any budget conversations and instead say we just need more revenue is ridculous. Oil, agriculture, aviation subsidies need to go. Tax structure desperately needs reformed, however I don't believe that the answer to our budget woes is simply to take more and more from the wealthy without seeking to reasonably cut or more appropriately manage these behemoths.