RE: Where are the GOP's "fiscal cliff" spending cuts?

RE: Where are the GOP's "fiscal cliff" spending cuts? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Where are the GOP's "fiscal cliff" spending cuts? (12/17/2012 6:45:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Sure am, tazzy. I'm thinking you've gotten into the ether tank... What difference does it make if it's incorrectly assigned to Bowles? If I were to write out a grocery list and say it was yours, I would be wrong in assigning it to you (unless I was prescient while writing it), but it would still be there. If the R's are saying that Bowles' statements to Congress are the basis, regardless of what they are calling it, isn't it still there? Allow me to try again. Boehner said look to Bowles testimony. Testimony Bowles gave. The proposal Boehner gave was based upon that testimony. The proposal, according to Bowles, is not what Bowles supported then. In other words, the testimony is NOT what Boehner gave as a proposal. But that is one of the things Boehner said to use as a source for the answers... the testimony. Getting it yet? Post#24 quote: From Bowles.... Erskine Bowles While I'm flattered the Speaker would call something "the Bowles plan," the approach outlined in the letter Speaker Boehner sent to the President does not represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan. In my testimony before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, I simply took the mid-point of the public offers put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where I thought a deal could be reached at that time. Apparently, a letter was sent by Boehner to Obama that outlined an approach (which, I'm assuming had spending cuts in it) that was called "the Bowles plan." Regardless of what it was called, isn't it still outlined in the letter? Had Boehner called it "The Photo Montage of tazzygirl's Beautiful Ass Pics Plan," it would not be titled according to the information contained within, but it would still be there. Nicely done Des! Flawless!

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Where are the GOP's "fiscal cliff" spending cuts? (12/17/2012 6:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It isnt either plan. Yet that is where Boehner and his aides are telling people to look for the answers about where the GOP cuts are. If there is a place that outlines spending cuts, then, regardless of what it's called, it is there. Nice how you've decided to concentrate on only one source of the 3 given. Des...you weren't "specific" enough...you didn't say that on "January 27th, 2011 Boehner said thus and such and then offered a proposal called thus and such" (all of which, any thinking person is clear, was based on and included 90% of Simpson/Bowles)...you didn't mention the color tie Boehner was wearing, why he wore that tie vs. another....simply put...you failed in multiple ways.

tazzygirl -> RE: Where are the GOP's "fiscal cliff" spending cuts? (12/17/2012 8:11:35 PM)
When reporters ask what Republicans would cut, GOP aides refer to three documents: The 2012 House GOP budget, 2011 testimony by Democrat Erskine Bowles, and the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act that would replace the automatic cuts to defense that are part of the "fiscal cliff" with cuts to food stamp and other mandatory programs. You did see that, yes? Did you also see the following? Erskine Bowles While I'm flattered the Speaker would call something "the Bowles plan," the approach outlined in the letter Speaker Boehner sent to the President does not represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan. http://www.momentoftruthproject.org/publications/bowles-statement-speaker-boehners-letter-president Apparently not.... since you made the following statement.... quote: (all of which, any thinking person is clear, was based on and included 90% of Simpson/Bowles) Then again, its nice you admit you arent thinking. quote: Wonkbook’s Number of the Day: $2.6 trillion. That’s the tax increase we’d get if we passed the Simpson-Bowles plan today. Speaker Boehner’s counteroffer, which he traces back to Bowles, includes $800 billion in taxes, or a bit less than a third of what the Simpson-Bowles plan calls for. Perhaps that’s why Erskine Bowles says the Boehner plan is not his plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/04/wonkbook-boehner-vs-simpson-bowles/ When Boehner presents a plan by someone who is denying its his plan, then its not his plan, and his testimony is a moot point.

Yachtie -> RE: Where are the GOP's "fiscal cliff" spending cuts? (12/17/2012 8:30:12 PM)
fr DesideriScuri's defense lines up at the scrimmage line. Lookienonookie hold position outside, ready to sweep around and pounce on the opposing QB. The ball's snapped. Tazzygirl falls back, and back, and back looking for a receiver...

tazzygirl -> RE: Where are the GOP's "fiscal cliff" spending cuts? (12/17/2012 9:03:59 PM)
lol Naaa... Im done here. The bopsie twins can pat each other on the back because neither of them get it. It happens a lot with those two.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Where are the GOP's "fiscal cliff" spending cuts? (12/18/2012 8:11:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I gave those shources at least a page back. Those are the ONLY sources Boehner or his assistants have given as sources for the cuts. And you said they were there.... The testimony is NOT what Boehner gave the President. Have you yet to find this mysterious proposal? I havent. But I am supposed to go with the testimony to find them out????? We aren't communicating here, Tazzy. I don't know why. In order to try to get to the same page, can we get some things out of the way? Bowles testified in 2011 before a committee. Was this testimony the "Simpson-Bowles Debt Reduction plan?" From my reading, I don't think it was. I think the S-B plan was what the Debt Reduction group headed by Simpson and Bowles believed needed to be done to avert a debt crisis. From the comments Bowles made about the testimony (from the quotes you posted), Bowles' testimony wasn't the S-B plan, but a potential plan that both sides could compromise and agree on. Boehner sent a letter to the President with a plan based on Bowles' 2011 testimony. Boehner called it the "Bowles' Plan." Bowles came out and said that it wasn't his plan and that his plan (the S-B plan) wasn't what he testified. All that means is that what Boehner sent to the President wasn't the S-B plan, and what was sent wasn't what Bowles' believed was needed. Thus, what Boehner sent to the President wasn't wrongly named "the Bowles' Plan." Was the plan outlined in the letter based on the 2011 testimony given by Bowles? It seems that Bowles believes it was. So, we have the Ryan Plan, which you have linked to. And, we have the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, which you also linked to. The only other source being pointed to for people to find the Republicans' spending cut offerings is the 2011 testimony by Bowles in front of the Joint Select Comiittee. So, we have searchable cuts via the Ryan Plan and the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. Apparently, we don't know exactly what was outlined in the letter, though it is alleged to be based on the 2011 testimony. That looks like we have 2 and possibly 3 sources for Republican spending cuts. Do you see where we weren't talking about the same things, or where we weren't communicating on the same level? It seems to me that we may be arguing apples and oranges, which won't ever end up in an accord. You can now see where I'm coming from. Is this the same basis from where you are coming from? If not, what is that basis. As much as I enjoy debating, I don't find it to be debating when we aren't even debating on the same plane.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125