Originally Posted by Shaid
2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.
....and he campaigned on a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.
the latest White House proposal?
$1.6 trillion in 'revenue'
$400 billlion in spending cuts (not specific or immediate of, course)
so the 3:1 ratio he campaigned on to show himself that he believes in a balanced approach is actually 1:4....if that.
The other thing is how do the Dems get away with saying that it is up to the Republicans to offer up their cuts? (Actually we all know the answer to that). I thought THEY were in the leadership positions!!
Anyone can see what's going on. The White House proposes revenue increases based on taxing the rich (which BTW will never give $1.6 trillion over 10 years) and scant spending cut details. Then it says the Republicans should offer up the spending cuts, which will of course be unpopular and the Dems can demagouge the hell out of.
Boehner should absolutely not budget on revenue until the spending cuts are large and immediate.