So, Mr. Heim, you continue to insist that the Commission did not issue a report although it did. Of the 18 members of the bipartisan Commission, 11 voted in favor of it; where I come from, that represents a majority. Since the report did not receive the necessary 14 votes to constitute a "super majority", it was not forwarded to Congress for a formal vote there. I believe that the article is simply stating that the report was produced and that the majority of the 18-member Commission supported it, both of which are true. In fact, that same report containing 66 pages of "clear" language has now morphed into a bill containing over 600 pages of "legislative" language. This bill is being floated around Congress and has been receiving some increased support.
More importantly, your philosophy toward the issue is reflective of the approach that I feel many Americans, including Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowels and myself, have grown tired of. Why is it that a discussion of all issues, including those of the most substance and importance, must quickly evolve into a divisive, partisan-inspired attack? When the leaders of both parties refuse to explore the merits of compromise and retreat to their sandboxes where they stubbornly draw their lines, no solutions materialize. Meanwhile, the cloud of debt continues to mushroom. The article was not promoting either party and was essentially politically neutral. It advocates a more balanced and civil approach, something the system desperately needs. Yet, your analysis of the article promptly turned into an aggressive and combative lecture.
Have you considered the possibility that parts of the report may make sense, or is simply easier to reject the whole plan because you don't agree with certain elements of it? If we keep sending them back to the drawing board to start from scratch, since they cannot strive for compromise, we will never see daylight through that mushroom cloud. Incidentally, I do not understand your above interpretation of the report's recommendations that our Social Security be turned over to Wall Street. When in doubt, just blame Wall Street. Also, the report addresses several areas in addition to Social Security. Have you actually read the report? I presume not since you maintain that it does not exist.
This article was well done and points to the need for common sense and compromise. Actually, Mr. Heim, the Commission did issue a report. It is about 66 pages long and can be found at the following website: http://www.momentoftruthproject.org/report. And, it was supported by a majority of the members of the bipartisan Commission. One would have thought you would know these facts, given your position. Your rhetoric is sadly an example of more of the same partisan tone . . . . to scrap the whole thing and start over because the report may have some provisions you don't like. With such a close-minded approach, we will never arrive at solutions. Moreover, the clock continues to tick.
digdeeper 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Simpson, Bowles Still Have the Right Idea
Yes, and sad.
digdeeper 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Simpson, Bowles Still Have the Right Idea
So, Mr. Heim, you continue to insist that the Commission did not issue a report although it did. Of the 18 members of the bipartisan Commission, 11 voted in favor of it; where I come from, that represents a majority. Since the report did not receive the necessary 14 votes to constitute a "super majority", it was not forwarded to Congress for a formal vote there. I believe that the article is simply stating that the report was produced and that the majority of the 18-member Commission supported it, both of which are true. In fact, that same report containing 66 pages of "clear" language has now morphed into a bill containing over 600 pages of "legislative" language. This bill is being floated around Congress and has been receiving some increased support.
More importantly, your philosophy toward the issue is reflective of the approach that I feel many Americans, including Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowels and myself, have grown tired of. Why is it that a discussion of all issues, including those of the most substance and importance, must quickly evolve into a divisive, partisan-inspired attack? When the leaders of both parties refuse to explore the merits of compromise and retreat to their sandboxes where they stubbornly draw their lines, no solutions materialize. Meanwhile, the cloud of debt continues to mushroom. The article was not promoting either party and was essentially politically neutral. It advocates a more balanced and civil approach, something the system desperately needs. Yet, your analysis of the article promptly turned into an aggressive and combative lecture.
Have you considered the possibility that parts of the report may make sense, or is simply easier to reject the whole plan because you don't agree with certain elements of it? If we keep sending them back to the drawing board to start from scratch, since they cannot strive for compromise, we will never see daylight through that mushroom cloud. Incidentally, I do not understand your above interpretation of the report's recommendations that our Social Security be turned over to Wall Street. When in doubt, just blame Wall Street. Also, the report addresses several areas in addition to Social Security. Have you actually read the report? I presume not since you maintain that it does not exist.
digdeeper 7 months, 3 weeks ago
Simpson, Bowles Still Have the Right Idea
This article was well done and points to the need for common sense and compromise. Actually, Mr. Heim, the Commission did issue a report. It is about 66 pages long and can be found at the following website: http://www.momentoftruthproject.org/report. And, it was supported by a majority of the members of the bipartisan Commission. One would have thought you would know these facts, given your position. Your rhetoric is sadly an example of more of the same partisan tone . . . . to scrap the whole thing and start over because the report may have some provisions you don't like. With such a close-minded approach, we will never arrive at solutions. Moreover, the clock continues to tick.