not sure the jmfcst fits in the GOP.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I can't really find anyone in the GOP with whom I agree.

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically admit that Bush43 was very naive to believe we could bring democracy to the Muslims by overthrowing their regimes?  Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare we should pull out of Afghanistan?

[King]

Unfortunately not, jmfcst.  Republicans have decided to separate themselves from their sensibilities.  They've tricked themselves into building their beliefs on rhetoric instead of rhetoric on beliefs.

The only hope is to walk away from the party for awhile, let it self-destruct, and try to build again on the rubble.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Joe Scarborough is about as close as you'll get but he ain't runnin' for anything.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I'd agree with all three of those...I'm also disappointed by many things my party has become but know that the alternative is worse

[Simfan34]

Jon Huntsman, obviously.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well there's Ron Paul for the last two.

[Torie]

Mittens does not eschew any revenue increases beyond those from more economic growth; he just does not want to raise the rates (he wants to slash the deductions).  I also think he would agree with you about overthrowing the regimes thing (although not in your view or his, perhaps they should have been overthrown (or at least the US not opposing it) for other reasons).

Some Pubs including myself want to pull out of Afghanistan at this point, or at least effecting that over a relatively short period in an orderly way.  Maybe I could be persuaded otherwise if I studied it some more, since I don't claim to have much expertise about it, but I tend to doubt it. But not many Pub politicians are willing to go there publically yet.

[opebo]

Oh boo hoo.  Your views and interests are a lot better served by your party than mine by my party.

[LastVoter]

I think a good trade would be for every increase $1 of public spending we raise taxes on the rich by $2.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Most GOP lawmakers who might support it aren't going to say so without a specific proposal on the table because it's not a great place to negotiate from. But the Republicans who supported Simpson-Bowles such as Tom Coburn would qualify.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yes there's quite a few. One of them is running for president.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

I'm sure there are Democrats, but they really shouldn't be Democrats.

[Purch]

For the second part see Ron Paul.

For the first part see every Republican on the Simpson-Bowle commite

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For the second part see Ron Paul.

For the first part see every Republican on the Simpson-Bowle commite

the idea is to find a candidate that meets both criteria, while also being a statesman.

[Purch]

O well I don't think Paul is the kind of Republican who'd be against raising taxes AT THE EXPENSE  of balencing the budget. I remember in one of is interviews he admitted that not all taxes are bad and taxes used to improve things like infrastructure were actually good.

I think why Ron Paul's so anti tax is he belives the reason the goverment has to raise taxes is always to support their out of control spending.

The difference between him and other Republicans is he realizes the idea of controlling spending whiles maintaining the inflated military budget we have is unrealistic.

[opebo]

I think a good trade would be for every increase $1 of public spending we raise taxes on the rich by $2.

That's the spirit! 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I can't really find anyone in the GOP with whom I agree.

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically admit that Bush43 was very naive to believe we could bring democracy to the Muslims by overthrowing their regimes?  Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare we should pull out of Afghanistan?

I agree with all 3 of your points.

[BigSkyBob]

I can't really find anyone in the GOP with whom I agree.

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically admit that Bush43 was very naive to believe we could bring democracy to the Muslims by overthrowing their regimes?  Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare we should pull out of Afghanistan?

Bush 43 was worse than naive in believing he was the savior of mankind.

We should bail on Afghanistan.

$10 in tax cuts simply isn't on the table, only the $1 in tax increases. What is called a "cut" is really a reduction in the rate of increase. Noone has advocated actually cuts, save Ron Paul.

[Pingvin]

Come to the good side of Power, jmfcst.

[LastVoter]

I can't really find anyone in the GOP with whom I agree.

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically admit that Bush43 was very naive to believe we could bring democracy to the Muslims by overthrowing their regimes?  Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare we should pull out of Afghanistan?

Bush 43 was worse than naive in believing he was the savior of mankind.

We should bail on Afghanistan.

$10 in tax cuts simply isn't on the table, only the $1 in tax increases. What is called a "cut" is really a reduction in the rate of increase. Noone has advocated actually cuts, save Ron Paul.

Government increasing with the size of economy to fullfill it's obligations is status quo. So it is a cut.

[Mr. Morden]

Haven't you been insisting for ages that you are the perfect proxy for "Generic Republican Voter"(tm), and that's why the party always nominates the candidate who you like?  So then how did you so quickly become un-representative of the party?

[Simfan34]

Perhaps the party has become unrepresentative of the average voter.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I can't really find anyone in the GOP with whom I agree.

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare they would trade $10 in budget cuts for $1 in tax increases?

Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically admit that Bush43 was very naive to believe we could bring democracy to the Muslims by overthrowing their regimes?  Is there anyone in the GOP willing to publically declare we should pull out of Afghanistan?

Bush 43 was worse than naive in believing he was the savior of mankind.

We should bail on Afghanistan.

$10 in tax cuts simply isn't on the table, only the $1 in tax increases. What is called a "cut" is really a reduction in the rate of increase. Noone has advocated actually cuts, save Ron Paul.

Well said!

[All Along The Watchtower]

Haven't you been insisting for ages that you are the perfect proxy for "Generic Republican Voter"(tm), and that's why the party always nominates the candidate who you like?  So then how did you so quickly become un-representative of the party?

The "Generic Republican Voter" (TM) is always disappointed in the politicians he votes for( except the fictional idealization of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, of course). This is by definition; a Party increasingly dominated ideologues and demagogues is going to hate "The Establishment" no matter what, even if (maybe especially if) the Movement is the Establishment

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Haven't you been insisting for ages that you are the perfect proxy for "Generic Republican Voter"(tm), and that's why the party always nominates the candidate who you like?  So then how did you so quickly become un-representative of the party?

I am not out of sync with GOP voters, rather the GOP pols are out of sync with GOP voters.

GOP pols are now less pragmatic than GOP voters.

[Simfan34]

Haven't you been insisting for ages that you are the perfect proxy for "Generic Republican Voter"(tm), and that's why the party always nominates the candidate who you like?  So then how did you so quickly become un-representative of the party?

I am not out of sync with GOP voters, rather the GOP pols are out of sync with GOP voters.

GOP pols are now less pragmatic than GOP voters.

This is what I have been saying. jmfcst, voice of reason!