I did provide examples. Some people confuse links with examples. Is that what you're doing?
Bush said he could do what ever he wanted when he won his second term because he had a mandate. Now, you don't really need me t link that, do you? See, in debate, you don't need to link common knowledge. And as you decided to participate in debate, it is expected that you know what is commonly known.
You should also be aware of how politics have been played for some time. You should know both the comment made by a republican that republicans main job was to stop Obama from any success, and the complaints by liberals that democrats repeatedly caved into republicans. These are commonly known. I can link them when I get to a computer, but really you should be aware.
Ok, I see a reference to the OP Article. However I see no other "evidence" supporting your claim nor do I see an relation between the article and the statement you made about Reps. I have reviewed all your post in this thread and not, in a single post have you provided any intelligible or substantial support of our position. The best you have done so far is play semantics, contend that article did not provide enough information (I give you this, as I also found it incomplete, but I did find that it focused on just how much compromise was proposed on the issue that Reps were balking at, but not much on other issues) and other than that, give nothing but poorly referenced, unclear partisan statements, apparently unfounded since you, so far, have failed to support them.
I see a lot of "you should know", everyone knows, etc. but not a thing telling me what you know that you think everyone knows. And yes, I have been paying attention. The Reps have offered up some compromises even before the election. They tried to protect tax hikes, but that is only on objective. And recently they have gone from no tax hikes, to tax reform to ok, higher taxes on those making more than a million. Where are the compromises from Obama and the Dems?
What I get from the OP article.
Cut $600 billion over 10 years, $350 billion of which is Medicare, when he/Dems ran up a deficit of $1.3 trillion last year and $1.6 Trillion the year before that, so in two years, he has overspent a bit short of an annual budget, then plans to balance that out by not spending 20% of that amount over 10 years. BS, they need to cut over $600 Billion in this fiscal year, not spread out over 10 years. I call this BS because in two years, the House comes up for re-election and he cannot even promise today what he can get that congress to agree to and in 4 years, he is gone and the House is re-elected again. There is no way he can promise those cuts will be made any further than two years from now. And how many of those "cuts" are actually just promises not to spend projected growth and how many are really cuts?
Is anyone else confuse on how $600 Trillion in 10 years is supposed to pay back over 4 Trillion in the last 4 years? At his current average, his entire proposed cuts won't even cut in half current deficits if it were cut in 1 year. Exactly how much revenue is his tax hikes supposed to bring in, assuming of course all the rich people don't just loophole out of it, since, at least not mentioned in this article, he is not interested in actually reforming the tax code to stop it? This last is based upon the fact that he previously rejected a proposal to reform the code.
Even as he promises in one breath to cut $600 billion over ten years, he asks for an extra $200 billion for this year.
At this point, Boehner and the republicans should draw up a balanced budget with all the cuts they want, publicly publish all the details and then let Obama take us over the cliff. If all the compromising done so far is not enough for Obama, then to hell with him and the republicans should go back to their original stance.
As to the Bush "false referendum", I am still not clear on what you are trying to say about it, why it was false, or for that matter, what the hell it has to do with the discussion of this thread.
eace