re: #188 Killgore Trout

Because a compromise is the only way a deal is going to get done. If one side overestimates their leverage then no deal will get done. It’s a very dangerous game I wish politicians weren’t playing. The economic uncertainty about the basic essentials for the country is sign that we are broken and dysfunctional.

I’m not sure if I’ve been communicating clearly, so I will try again. (I don’t dispute what you’re saying about compromise being necessary, but it wasn’t really what I was asking.)

Bob Woodward’s point is that the administration is “moving the goalposts” by seeking a compromise that features a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases to replace the sequester. My understanding is: that was the purpose of the sequester, to drive the necessity of compromise which, at the time, was believed to be a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases.

I totally get all of the Republican bullshit which is why no compromise has happened, but that doesn’t change the purpose of the sequester, which is to drive both parties back to the negotiating table with that in mind.

His claiming that the administration is moving the goalposts seems to be saying that the sequester cuts can only be replaced by equivalent targeted cuts instead of broad, across the board cuts like will happen. I don’t understand how a logical interpretation of events leads to this position and claims to be backed by facts. That’s what I’m trying to understand. That’s my question.