Will the Republicans continue to obstruct, or will they actually work with the president this time around?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Amen to that post. He's regularly credited for being a uniter when the behind the scenes reality stands in stark contrast.

I am completely baffled that a former Senator has so much trouble with Congress, even when his party has 60 seats in the Senate and 240 in the House.

Lets see what happens going forward, but the failure to lead and build consensus in a body where he spent 4 years baffles me.

Somehow Clinton got Newt, who himself was a hardass obstructionist, to get a budget deal done, along with welfare reform.

The fact we are about to jump off a fiscal cliff in 48 days, despite 1 party rule and the most political capital a President has had in a generation is ridiculous. These issues, debt ceiling, budget issues, tax cuts, all could have been resolved in 2009 without 1 Republican vote

[SteveFromYellowstone]

The deal was done until the President asked for another 400 billion in tax revenue.

And he botched presenting that to the Speaker.

While the Republicans have been utterly useless and economically brain dead since 2000, this particular President has been a terrible leader and unable to forge any connection with Congress, including a Senate his party has controlled for 6 years, and 2 years with an overwhelming majority in the House

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/ma...anted=all&_r=0

"The Republican version of reality goes, briefly, like this: Boehner and Obama shook hands on a far-reaching deal to rewrite the tax code, roll back the cost of entitlements and slash deficits. But then Obama, reacting to pressure from Democrats in Congress, panicked at the last minute and suddenly demanded that Republicans accede to hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue. A frustrated Boehner no longer believed he could trust the president’s word, and he walked away. Obama moved the goal posts, is the Republican mantra. "

"In recent weeks, as it became clear that I was planning to write a more nuanced and detailed account of the final week of negotiations, both sides — but primarily the speaker and his aides — went out of their way to give extensive accounts to reporters at other outlets, in an effort to reinforce their well-rehearsed narratives. And yet it’s possible now to get beyond these clashing realities. Over the last several months, I spoke with dozens of people who were involved in or were kept apprised of events that week, some of whom made available private documents from that time, including the various offers and counteroffers. I conducted most of these interviews on the condition that I would neither reveal nor quote the people who spoke to me, so that they would feel free to speak candidly.

What emerged from these conversations is a clearer and often surprising picture of exactly how close Obama and Boehner came to finalizing a historic agreement, what exactly was in it and why it ultimately fell apart — including a revelation that illuminates Boehner’s thinking in those final hours and directly contradicts a core element of the version he has told, even to some in his own leadership. "

I have to head out for a few hours, this definitely didn't happen as you think it did. I will be back.

[nonniey]

I'm not going to blame a record number of filibusters, blocking of judicial nominations, and refusal to support any laws that the president likes (even if Republicans proposed it) on Barack Obama. You know I agree that there are times when he could have showed better leadership, but when the president is willing to cut things that his party holds sacred, and the Republicans REFUSE to entertain any tax increases on the rich or closing of loopholes, I'm going to blame the Republicans. I'm NOT saying the president is perfect and I'm not saying he is blameless throughout his presidency, but how can you blame the president for Republicans refusing any compromise on any issue, especially when the senate minority leader himself said "Our #1 goal is to make sure Barack Obama is a 1 term president". They never meant to work with him, they just wanted to him to look as bad as possible, and they were willing to put their party above the welfare of this country.

I'll post this again, The Speaker agreed to $800 billion in tax increases requested by the President, during the Grand bargain negotiations.

Wow I love that you posted this earlier can use it again again in response to your posts.

"New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best."

[Larry]

The deal was done until the President asked for another 400 billion in tax revenue.

And the House Rs announced that Boehner isn't negotiating for them, any more, threatened to remove Boehner as Speaker if he agreed to any tax increases whatsoever, and announced that Cantor was in charge, now.

The final bill that was finally passed:

• Did it have Obama's additional $400B tax increases in it?
• Did it have the $600B in increases that you claim the Rs agreed to, in it?
• Did it have any tax increases in it?

So, which side compromised, and which side didn't?

[Ellis]

They don't have to.

They don't need every Republican to be reasonable. They just need 10% or so of them.

I've been thinking of that since the election results have come out...
One only needs to observe the 2014 election to know which politicians are in play ...and it's also important to note which of the Dem's have their own house to consider as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2014

33 Senate seats are up for election in two years... 20 Dem's and 13 Repub's... and all of them will be wary of what they choose to do here on out.
Great thing about the link above is that there is a chart of who is in power as well as the margin of victory in 2008. Now that this election is over, it's clear that more people are leaning towards the left, and the 18-29 yr old vote is heavily favored to the Dem's 2 to 1.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll post this again, The Speaker agreed to $800 billion in tax increases requested by the President, during the Grand bargain negotiations.

Wow, $800 billion almost pays for eight months of the Iraq war, I say almost because that $800 billion doesn't cover the interest accrued on what the Bush administration failed to pay for.

[SkinsHokieFan]

And the House Rs announced that Boehner isn't negotiating for them, any more, threatened to remove Boehner as Speaker if he agreed to any tax increases whatsoever, and announced that Cantor was in charge, now.

The final bill that was finally passed:

• Did it have Obama's additional $400B tax increases in it?
• Did it have the $600B in increases that you claim the Rs agreed to, in it?
• Did it have any tax increases in it?

So, which side compromised, and which side didn't?

No deal was ever done.

It was just punted (as has been typical the lsat 4 years) and here we are...48 days from the largest tax hike ever.

[Arasmus]

It's an impressive feat when a thread can answer the question posed in the original post so thoroughly as to leave no doubt.

[alexey]

I am not sure why media is reporting Boehner's position as being open to compromise. He says he will support "new revenues" but only if it comes from lowering taxes.

Boehner is signaling openness to new revenue from growth, and to growth from lower taxes. Same old.

The independent accounting firm Ernst and Young says going over part of the fiscal cliff and raising tax rates on the top two brackets will cost our economy more than 700,000 jobs.

Ernst and Young also confirms many of those hit with the rate increase will be small business owners the very people both parties acknowledge are the key to private sector job creation.

There is an alternative to going over the fiscal cliff, in whole or in part.

It involves making real changes to the financial structure of entitlement programs, and reforming our tax code to curb special-interest loopholes and deductions.
...


For purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions.

What matters is where the increased revenue comes from, and what type of reform comes with it.

Does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the American people earn through higher tax rates?

Or does it come as the byproduct of a growing economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes, and lower rates for all?

....

The question we should be asking is not 'which taxes should I raise to get more revenue,' but rather: 'which reforms can we agree on that will get our economy moving again?'

There are two paths we can take to get the revenue the president seeks.

Feeding the growth of government through higher tax rates won’t help us solve the problem.

Feeding the growth of our economy through a better and cleaner tax code will.

The president has signaled a willingness to do tax reform with lower rates.

Republicans have signaled a willingness to accept new revenue if it comes from growth and reform.

Let's start the discussion there.

...

transcript:
http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-st...ext-transcript

I do not see a suggestion to compromise here at all. Same old song about all tax raises being bad, unicorn revenue coming from fairer tax code and fewer "loopholes", etc.

If anybody can show a single GOP issue where Boehner is signaling an ability to compromise, please do.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, I guess we have the answer to the question posed. The GOP will keep being obstructionist. And we also know that the GOP will keep living in a fantasy land where they are the ones willing to work with the democrats and the democrats are the "mean ones."

[alexey]

Well, I guess we have the answer to the question posed. The GOP will keep being obstructionist. And we also know that the GOP will keep living in a fantasy land where they are the ones willing to work with the democrats and the democrats are the "mean ones."

Yep it looks like we will continue to see a "pro-growth GOP" (low taxes for rich people) trying hard to fight against the success-punishing Democrats.

[PeterMP]

No deal was ever done.

It was just punted (as has been typical the lsat 4 years) and here we are...48 days from the largest tax hike ever.

The "deal" that was passed says there are going to be across the board cuts.

It doesn't say anything about tax increases.

Even in the deal being drafted by Boehner, he wasn't agreeing to tax INCREASES.

He was agreeing to REVENUE increases.

There's a difference.

REVENUE increases come from economic growth, selling federal land, etc.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 03:55 PM ----------

I'll post this again, The Speaker agreed to $800 billion in tax increases requested by the President, during the Grand bargain negotiations.

This simply isn't true.

He NEVER agreed to any TAX increase.

He agreed to REVENUE increase where the details would be worked out later by Congress.

IF he would have walked in and said I can deliever $800 billion in TAX increases on the top 2%, it would have been a completely different story.

But that NEVER happened according to ANYBODY.

[Larry]

I'll post this again, The Speaker agreed to $800 billion in tax increases requested by the President, during the Grand bargain negotiations.

So, where are they? They in the final bill?

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 04:31 PM ----------

No deal was ever done.

Really? The debt ceiling wasn't increased? Twice?

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 04:34 PM ----------

It's an impressive feat when a thread can answer the question posed in the original post so thoroughly as to leave no doubt.

Actually, I'm observing the irony of a thread that asks whether the GOP will obstruct, and we've got people trying to deny that they ever had.

Just a theory, here. But I suspect that the odds of us agreeing on a future event, when we can't even agree on a past event, are rather slim.

[Special K]

They'll continue to obstruct. Guaranteed. Any semblence of a cooperative atmosphere in DC has devolved into a my side vs. your side ego pissing contest. I don't expect any (Rep. or Dem) politicians to grow up any time soon.

[wysknz1]

Cooperation is a 2 way street...

True, but the other "side" doesn't want to give either. There will never be complete compromise or you would just have one political party.