Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > The discussion is great and I welcome it. But no matter how much you > want to call his plan "serious" it just isn't.
The point you - and Krugman - are missing is that the discussion *must* begin around priorities. To your point, we all agree the deficit must be dealt with. But you don't go from that immediately to a detailed plan. You get increasingly focused towards the details; i.e., the next step must be a discussion about priorities. Anything that facilitates that discussion, like Ryan's plan does, is serious. (I would argue that anybody who HAS a detailed plan at this point is NOT serious.) In other words, yes the deficit must be reduced but the next discussion has to be around priorities. Defense? Entitlements? Education? Infrastructure? Enforcement? What are our priorities? And to Pres Obama's point, that the next discussion adults have. And that will be a looooonnngggg discussion. And it will result in 3 or 5 or 10 scenarios. And those scenarios will require analysis. And then you'll whittle down to 3 or 5 plans. And then you'll present those to the public and then you'll get down to 2 plans. And then we'll vote. And THEN we'll get all the details. Don't put the cart before the planet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:336361 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
