Republicans say, "The revenue side has already been addressed..."
"Now let's address the spending side."
What "revenue side" are they talking about? Was this the deal that was made to keep us from going over the "fiscal cliff" just a few weeks ago?
Wasn't revenue scheduled to go up by a much larger amount with the expiration of the original Bush tax cuts but they made a deal to cut taxes for everyone under $450K per year? So, in the end, very little of the revenues of the Bush tax cuts were recovered and that is why we still have a huge revenue shortfall.
The Republicans are calling the expiration of the temporary tax cuts for the wealthy a "tax increase". Is that really the correct definition for the ending of a tax break? They knew it was going to end when they passed it in 2001 and 2003. Isn't there just a smidgeon of dishonesty in calling this a "tax increase"?
Now, the only thing on the table as far as the Republicans are concerned are spending cuts. The question is, would any of this be necessary if we had not experienced the big spending and tax cuts of the Republicans and George W Bush? There would have been no "fiscal cliffs" and no "sequestrations" if not for the ill-advised policies of the Republican Party. Is that not fair to say?
= new reply since forum marked as read
