re: #134 klys

I’m still trying to understand how Woodward thinks that Obama is “moving the goalposts” by pushing for a replacement to the sequester that involves a balance of spending cuts and revenue increases. Wasn’t that the whole goal of the sequester? To force both sides to come to a compromise on something like this?

Of course, it’s hard to compromise when one side refuses to talk, which is why we’re at where we are now, but. Does he really think that the proposal from the supercommittee should have involved only spending cuts because that’s what was in the sequester?

CSM explores the situation fairly well if you’d like a nonpartisan view
Bob Woodward vs. the White House: Who’s right in ‘sequester’ smackdown?