#25 Moogie – Yay, we agree. Getting to the fundamentals is how we get out of this. I’m not convinced throwing money around is a good idea, and I’m very concerned about spending money on “green” things is a bit scary. I agree that “IF” it is time to spend money, you might as well do it on the things we all know we need to do for the infrastructure, but I’m not convinced in this case that just going green is the right way to get the money where it needs to be.
#24 Moogie – Yes, I was saying that I want details before I slam the hammer down, but I was prognosticating that the Republicans would miss the mark. I might be clearly wrong, time will tell. This was not me saying it sucks, just saying why I expect it too (sadly). My issue was you painting me with the same brush you painted the others with, who you implied wanted details from a plan that explicitly said would have none. I was thrilled to have this chance to jump in before they gave details to say how they would fail. And I believe I am right. They won’t have details, and they won’t have any comparable numbers, and even the items they say they will accomplish will be left lacking. But, I clearly said I would wait until they laid their plan out before I trash it (I just know it will suck, so I am laying the foundation…if they refute my points that I made, I’ll have to eat it indeed!!!).
As to the closed door deliberations. Both parties are guilty. Agreed. Obama DID say he wouldn’t do that, and to the extent he can control it, he broke his word. No arguement there. However, when Bush came to office, his first few months were also decidedly aimed at overturning what they didn’t like about the Clinton era. This is no different. My hope is that once this period of bloodletting and further reversals is over, that he WILL be the guy he promised to be. Jury still out, but Bush killed the Clinton stuff, so Obama will kill the Bush stuff. That is social “policy”. I hope Obama does get back to his promises once the obligatory “fix what the last guy did” stuff gets over with.
As to bias, no, I’m one of the few people that I can safely say is not biased. Yes, I have points/beliefs on EVERY issue, but I am not biased in terms of party. If OUR parties continue to give us one or the other, then they are forcing me to make a choice. I continue to say that the FISCAL conservatives from both parties need to join together. We can disagree on social issues, but on fiscal issues we should be able to agree. My wish is that the fiscal conservatives join together and solve this thing. The social issues are important, but a totally different subject. I’d be glad to disagree about Abortion, yet agree about taxation…why can’t we solve the taxation issue that we all agree on, and then later continue the abortion discussion? Why do we have to keep us Blue Dogs out of the fiscal discussion because “conservatives” can’t make the distinction?
If you keep fiscal separate from social, you’ll have much more support. That you hold social issues over my head to get me to try to support your fiscal causes hurts you. My social views (i.e. people vs. money) are always going to overpower my fiscal views. Conservatives agree. So lets keep them separate. If we can do that, we can at least solve one problem (a huge one right now) and that is at least some progress.
Thanks,
Jack
