Alan Simpson Slams Fellow Republicans For Unwillingness To Compromise

iguanaman said:

LOL The ENTIRE HC bill was a Republican idea from the 90's including the mandate. McConnel said from the start that the GOP's only goal was to make Obama a 1 term President.

Click to expand...

The teaparty has alot of one issue Poor and working class people supporting them...not nearly as many as a year ago...the one issue can be guns, against gay marriage, against abortion...you know the routine and the agendas...When the teaparty first started it was a "RALLY" against obamacare...that was successful because senior citizens in droves who were anti obamacare. They didnt like the way Pelosi did it and they didnt like taking 400billion out of medicare and they believed it would kill medicare...but that wasnt the purpose of the original organizers and it soon became evident what they were all about...then guys like me that participate din 3 early teaparty rallies...said screw this and bailed....Paul Ryan made it clear what the teaparty is about...destroying medicare and social security and giving huge tax cuts to the rich...Whether its a year or two...they will fail

lpast said:

The teaparty has alot of one issue Poor and working class people supporting them...not nearly as many as a year ago...the one issue can be guns, against gay marriage, against abortion...you know the routine and the agendas...When the teaparty first started it was a "RALLY" against obamacare...that was successful because senior citizens in droves who were anti obamacare. They didnt like the way Pelosi did it and they didnt like taking 400billion out of medicare and they believed it would kill medicare...but that wasnt the purpose of the original organizers and it soon became evident what they were all about...then guys like me that participate din 3 early teaparty rallies...said screw this and bailed....Paul Ryan made it clear what the teaparty is about...destroying medicare and social security and giving huge tax cuts to the rich...Whether its a year or two...they will fail

Click to expand...

Says you and I'm sure that's your hope. Doesn't mean that will be what happens... nothing indicates a failure to me. They've been around for more than 4 years so far and have steadily gained ground, my hope is they will continue to do so.

Ockham said:

Says you and I'm sure that's your hope. Doesn't mean that will be what happens... nothing indicates a failure to me. They've been around for more than 4 years so far and have steadily gained ground, my hope is they will continue to do so.

Click to expand...

Your wrong and your obviously just a cheerleader that bases that on what YOU HOPE...im not going to run around and re post all the evidence that there is big time in fighting going on in the gop and that several prominent gopers and gop columnists that have come out and said this hardball pledge will backfire...and that the teaparty faction of the house is whats keeping anything from getting accomplished.
Now if you just want to write posts with merely YOUR OPINION go for it...just know your dead arse wrong

OpportunityCost said:

And your post is a shined up turd.

Defense spending is around 15%, entitlements are over 65%. Which one is it more important we get under control?

Im for means testing and have stated so several times.

Do you ever get tired of being so wrong?

Click to expand...

thank you for being so predictable and for proving exactly what I said about you.

Your phony concerns are a blatant fraud disguised as a sham in the halloween costume of deceit.

lpast said:

Your wrong and your obviously just a cheerleader that bases that on what YOU HOPE...im not going to run around and re post all the evidence that there is big time in fighting going on in the gop and that several prominent gopers and gop columnists that have come out and said this hardball pledge will backfire...and that the teaparty faction of the house is whats keeping anything from getting accomplished.
Now if you just want to write posts with merely YOUR OPINION go for it...just know your dead arse wrong

Click to expand...

Time will tell... so far, the tea party has stuck around and is gaining ground. So far I'm dead arse right.

Ockham said:

Time will tell... so far, the tea party has stuck around and is gaining ground. So far I'm dead arse right.

Click to expand...

No your wrong and they have lost alot of ground...but like I said im not going to repost all the articles and media stories ive posted again...
This thread is just one of several Ive posted showing GOP infighting and the table turning on the far right....

Former Senator Simpson's frustration is the result of the United States' having moved into an era where adherence to political ideology has displaced the willingness and ability of political leaders to pursue their responsibilities of office. The gap between the demands of fiscal problem-solving and ideology represent a growing weakness in the nation's political system. S&P rightly pointed to the nation's political defects, namely the inability and unwillingness of its political leaders to make the decisions necessary to begin to tackle its fiscal challenges, in downgrading the nation's credit rating.

In that context, political posturing has increasingly become the litmus test of who is or is not fiscally responsible. Concrete policy changes and the sacrifices involved are punted time and again to the future in a deferral of leadership responsibility. The continuing absence of a transformational leader has undoubtedly contributed to this situation. Nonetheless, there's more that could and should have been done with even adequate leadership. The Simpson-Bowles Commission did some heavy lifting in laying out a credible downpayment on fiscal consolidation. Yet, even that modest plan proved too much for contemporary Washington.

For now, the combination of the nation's still formidable level of debt intolerance and fiscal crises in parts of Europe, has allowed it to continue enjoy a sort of extended fiscal honeymoon. Today, the U.S. still benefits from abnormally low interest rates and placid debt market conditions that do not fully reflect its mounting long-term fiscal challenges. But no honeymoon is indefinite if the factors necessary to sustain it are neglected. No nations have found infinite debt intolerance. If contemporary U.S. leaders believe the U.S. is an exception, they not only blantantly misread history, but also plant the seeds of a future crisis.

In the end, when analyzing the quality of Washington's leadership, the process undertaken, and the choices made (namely to largely forego fiscal consolidation), S&P was not impressed. Senator Simpson is understandably frustrated. Posturing, even if pontificating loudly on the virtues of fiscal discipline or need for fiscal discipline, is not a substitute for concrete policy. It is not an act of leadership. Launching a concrete policy strategy that begins to tackle the nation's fiscal challenges, even if it requires concessions to the other side, would be an act of leadership. To date, that leadership has not been forthcoming. Instead, a lot of creative excuses have been made.

Is U.S. leadership, particularly on fiscal issues, third-rate, so to speak? That is the implicit issue is at the heart of Senator Simpson's criticism. The former Senator believes--and I agree with him--that the U.S. could and should have done far more than it has on the fiscal front, but rather than choosing to address reality's challenges, too many of its political leaders have embraced ideology as a de facto excuse to avoid making tough choices. I don't believe U.S. leadership, even with the current lack of a once-in-a-generation-type transformational leader, is third-rate. Unfortunately, Washington is maintaining the kind of fiscal course that would be pursued by third-rate leaders.

Simpson/Bowles SHOULD have been rejected. While tax increases are needed, REAL spending cuts have to be addressed. Offering to cut 4 trillion in DEFICIT spending over 10 years is moronic when we as a nation are hitting 2 and 3 trillion dollar deficits ANNUALLY. At the current pace and being GENEROUS, we can expect at LEAST 13 trillion in added debt due to deficit spending. The 'magnanimous' offer to reduce that by a whopping 4 trillion still guarantees massive debt increases that future generations are going to be stuck with and that is IF they bother to actually stick to the deficit 'cuts'. Considering the senate cant even pass a BUDGET and hasnt in 3 years, you would have to be a moron to trust them. Sadly...a whole lot of people actually do.

VanceMack said:

Simpson/Bowles SHOULD have been rejected. While tax increases are needed, REAL spending cuts have to be addressed. Offering to cut 4 trillion in DEFICIT spending over 10 years is moronic when we as a nation are hitting 2 and 3 trillion dollar deficits ANNUALLY.

Click to expand...

Simpson-Bowles was a starting point. It was a downpayment. Much more work was required and is necessary, and that includes mandatory spending program reforms.

Instead, Washington chose to do even less. Concrete results, not brave talk about fiscal sacrifice, matters and those results were lacking. Now, confronted by what amounts to a minimalist sequester, a number of Washington's policy makers are scrambling to reduce even that small amount of fiscal sacrifice. IMO, the nation would be better served if the sequester, imperfect as it is, goes through if the alternative is more delay on the fiscal front.

lpast said:

I absolutely agree with him...

Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) lashed out at members of his party on Sunday, slamming them for their unwillingness to compromise on proposed tax increases.



Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) lashed out at members of his party on Sunday, slamming them for their unwillingness to compromise on proposed tax increases.
In his characteristically colorful style, Simpson told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that Republicans' rigid opposition to new tax revenues has hampered productivity and diminished the chances of reaching an agreement with Democrats on debt reduction.


Simpson continued: "If you want to be a purist, go somewhere on a mountaintop and praise the east or something. But if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise. And you learn to compromise on the issue without compromising yourself. Show me a guy who won’t compromise and I’ll show you a guy with rock for brains."

Alan Simpson Slams Fellow Republicans For Unwillingness To Compromise

Click to expand...

Cue post "Simpson is a Liberal" in 3 - 2 - 1.......

lpast said:

First, I agree with you that we need reasonable spending cuts coupled with tax increases....whether the tax increases are through getting rid of loopholes and havens that allow the super rich and corporations to pay nothing and next to nothing or an increase in tax rate with some loopholes removed.

I strongly disagree that Social Security and Medicare...are the same as Medicaid and Welfare and Foodstamps....first of all every WORKING american if FORCED into paying for social security and medicare their entire working lives...you are given no choice, they take your money every paycheck.
We all know welfare and medicaid recpients do not prepay a dime for their benefits...
Before I agreed to one cent in spending cuts for Working middleclass americans....they MUST stop all foriegn aid and stop all the billions upon billions in subsidies to corporations...especially big oil and farm subsidies and including all the green companies....and to BIG BANKS and never ever give another bailout to any corporation....you want to suck all the profit you can and milk the middle class...then die when you fail all on your own and dont give them my tax money...

You right wingers got this thing in your head that all the money the govt spends goes to everyone but the rich....THAT IS PURE BOULDERDASH...

Click to expand...

You need to get some perspective. Some 8% of our budget goes into a spending category that is generally called other. Its where a lot of the subsidies are and the spending that goes back into business.

Ill address two of your point because they are opposite ends of the spectrum. Oil pays more taxes than any other industry in America. No one else is even close and their tax burden approaches 45%. Exxon pays the most at 45% but the rest vary down to around 39%. They get subsidies because government gets a retarded amount of tax revenue from them and everything they do influences everything else. They dont need to pay more---they already pay more than anyone else.

Farm subsidies, specifically soil banking needs to be cut back. Farm income is up a lot in the last 5 years and they recieve a lot of different subsidies and it permeates in almost every aspect of the Ag Business. Im in a big Ag state and Im saying this. As farm income rises, subsidies should be slowly cut.

Im going to clue you in though. Farm spending is only 0.50% of the federal budget.
farmdocdaily: Putting Agricultural Spending Into Perspective

Think you know energy subsidies? Im betting you dont.
Think Washington subsidizes Big Oil the most? Think again | Kyle Wingfield


Now Im not going to say oil companies do not recieve tax breaks, they do. They also pay one hell of a lot of taxes. Id be all for eliminating ALL of the subsidies and some of the tax breaks if their tax burden hovered around 35% or so. But we both know government isnt going to do that.

Secondly that chart shows that green initiatives are spending triple the amount big oil is getting.

I dont think we should be demonizing big oil, they are a net producer of tax revenue at every level---fed, state, county and local. But I agree there should be an examination of how they are taxed and subsidies (primarily structured as tax breaks).

Look some of this over lpast, its decent info and you seem like you really dont care about liberal or conservative, just good info.

haymarket said:

thank you for being so predictable and for proving exactly what I said about you.

Your phony concerns are a blatant fraud disguised as a sham in the halloween costume of deceit.

Click to expand...

Back on ignore you go, someone else let me know when his troll turd posts start turning into coherent thoughts, please.

donsutherland1 said:

Simpson-Bowles was a starting point. It was a downpayment. Much more work was required and is necessary, and that includes mandatory spending program reforms.

Instead, Washington chose to do even less. Concrete results, not brave talk about fiscal sacrifice, matters and those results were lacking. Now, confronted by what amounts to a minimalist sequester, a number of Washington's policy makers are scrambling to reduce even that small amount of fiscal sacrifice. IMO, the nation would be better served if the sequester, imperfect as it is, goes through if the alternative is more delay on the fiscal front.

Click to expand...

Its an opinion I reckon. Every 3-6 months congress has to sit down and figure out how they are going to 'compromise' an the next debt ceiling increase. Both parties are so invested in reelection and their special interest that 'compromise' means how do we look like we are doing something.

OpportunityCost said:

Back on ignore you go, someone else let me know when his troll turd posts start turning into coherent thoughts, please.

Click to expand...

So you are unable to actually speak intelligently to the post and you have exposed yourself as a hollow poster wallowing in hypocrisy and now you run away from it.

Again, you are SOOOOOOOO predictable.

danarhea said:

Cue post "Simpson is a Liberal" in 3 - 2 - 1.......

Click to expand...

He's not a liberal at all... he's just not keeping up with the times. Sure Simpson Bowles should have been adopted by our President and he failed to do so, to all of our detriment. Obama didn't want to compromise. But compromise is what got us here... today. It's not working out so well this compromising.

Dickieboy said:

President Obama’s stimulus went LARGELY to the 1%...

Click to expand...

LOL! Is that why the 1% have been complaining so about the stimulus spending??? :lamo

lpast said:

I absolutely agree with him...

Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) lashed out at members of his party on Sunday, slamming them for their unwillingness to compromise on proposed tax increases.

Click to expand...

First of all he is a RINO,Perhaps that is why is a Former Sen.Alan Simpson and not Sen.Alen Simpson.

Second the federal government shouldn't get one more dime until it makes every cut it can. Giving more money to someone who has a spending problem only makes the problem worse. It doesn't solve the problem. Promising to cut only a dollar when you still are spending a 100 bucks over budget and wanting more money doesn't solve the problem. Make actual significant cuts and then talk tax increases.

jamesrage said:

...Second the federal government shouldn't get one more dime until it makes every cut it can....

Click to expand...

why?

what crisis are we approaching?

interest on the debt is still below 7% of the federal budget. so where is the crisis?



what I think is going on is that Conservatives HATE entitlements, whether we can afford them or not, and have manufactured this crisis to scare the American people.

but this crisis..is a faux crisis.

Thunder said:

why?

what crisis are we approaching?

interest on the debt is still below 7% of the federal budget. so where is the crisis?



what I think is going on is that Conservatives HATE entitlements, whether we can afford them or not, and have manufactured this crisis to scare the American people.

but this crisis..is a faux crisis.

Click to expand...

I don't think they hate them, its just money they feel should go to the rich instead through more tax cuts and increased military spending. I would say rather than hating, they just don't give a rat's ass about the poor and the seniors.

Catawba said:

LOL! Is that why the 1% have been complaining so about the stimulus spending??? :lamo

Click to expand...

Well…technically no (sarcasm noted). But one has to wonder why the 99% (including you) think it was such a grand thing…:lamo

Dickieboy said:

Well…technically no (sarcasm noted). But one has to wonder why the 99% (including you) think it was such a grand thing…:lamo

Click to expand...

Hardly a mystery - It prevented states from laying off more workers and turned around the economy. To me that beats the hell out of another great depression that we were headed into.

If GOPers make "no compromise!!!!!" their mantra, they will either lead the USA into total collapse...or be kicked out of power.

The American people want compromise, for the sake of our nation.

VanceMack said:

Its an opinion I reckon. Every 3-6 months congress has to sit down and figure out how they are going to 'compromise' an the next debt ceiling increase. Both parties are so invested in reelection and their special interest that 'compromise' means how do we look like we are doing something.

Click to expand...

Republicans in DC need to hold their ground so the Obama credit rating can go down another notch.

johnny_rebson said:

Republicans in DC need to hold their ground so the Obama credit rating can go down another notch.

Click to expand...

you really hate Obama that much..that you want the American economy to suffer?

johnny_rebson said:

Republicans in DC need to hold their ground so the Obama credit rating can go down another notch.

Click to expand...

Two points in response.

1-That MAY be the single most idiotic sentiment I have ever seen expressed here.
2-You probably actually believe REPUBLICANS arent at least as responsible for the problems we face as democrats.

Please...whatever you do...dont treat your next zit by cutting off your head. While that may initially SEEM like a good option...its not. Promise.