DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|