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

[RedskinsFan44]

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."

If the speaker agreed to 800 billion in tax increases why is he saying today he does not think tax increases are a valid way forward with a looming fiscal cliff? If the Republicans are willing to raise revenues by closing loopholes why did they scream bloody murder about a symbolic closing of a corporate jet loophole? How many Republicans have signed Norquist's pledge to oppose any increase in taxes? The answer to the last one is 236 Rs in the House and 41 Rs in the Senate.

[Larry]

If the speaker agreed to 800 billion in tax increases why is he saying today he does not think tax increases are a valid way forward with a looming fiscal cliff? If the Republicans are willing to raise revenues by closing loopholes why did they scream bloody murder about a symbolic closing of a corporate jet loophole? How many Republicans have signed Norquist's pledge to oppose any increase in taxes? The answer to the last one is 236 Rs in the House and 41 Rs in the Senate.

I'm looking forward to the flurry of spin that's going to come, if anybody asks the R's why they haven't voted to extend the payroll tax cuts.

[JimboDaMan]

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."

You can post it over and over again. It will still be false. Boehner never agreed to a dime of tax increases. He's have been ridden out of DC on a rail if he did. All of his $800M was smoke-and-mirrors stuff, increased tax compliance, eliminating waste, and the biggie, increased revenue through growth. Not a dime of tax increases. Republicans have pushed that narrative as a PR measure, but it just isn't so. Boehner's one attempt to get support for even a minor tax increase was immediately shut down by Cantor and the others.

[Jumbo]

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

It only supports my own answer, which I wish wasn't the case. Even the inability to agree on "facts" shows that the divides that exist are not likely to change.

Look at if from a human behavior POV (forgive me ). When you see an exchanges like the preceding ones, where even a couple of the non-rabidly partisan highly intelligent people (ignoring those who just think they are such but aren't) find little common ground, what should we expect from those of far less likelihood to cooperate and compromise?

As I read the forum, and listen/read elsewhere, I still see optimism as a positive, but an unsupported one.

[Wrong Direction]

He changed the ENTIRE health plan into a Republican idea. With the "Grand Bargain" he was willing to cut social security, medicare, medicaid but the Republicans would not allow 1 cent of tax increases on the rich or the closing of corporate loopholes. Then all of a sudden Romney supports "closing loopholes" near the end of his campaign.

False. He couldn't get single payer through his 60 vote Democrat Senate, so he designed the bill the way he did. Romney also supported closing loopholes in November, 2011.

[Larry]

False. He couldn't get single payer through his 60 vote Democrat Senate, so he designed the bill the way he did. Romney also supported closing loopholes in November, 2011.

False.

If the vote on a measure is:

• Democrats 59-1
• Republicans 0-40

then no, the measure was not defeated by the Democrats.

[brandymac27]

Bottom line, IMO, is until our representatives put the need of country and people first, instead of their own personal gain, there won't be much compromising.

[Wrong Direction]

False.

If the vote on a measure is:

• Democrats 59-1
• Republicans 0-40

then no, the measure was not defeated by the Democrats.

I disagree. How can the left expect the first person on the right to vote for a socialist solution (which single payer is) if even one person on the left won't? It's not reality. There would have had to be major (very) concessions elsewhere.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I disagree. How can the left expect the first person on the right to vote for a socialist solution (which single payer is) if even one person on the left won't? It's not reality. There would have had to be major (very) concessions elsewhere.

That's just awful. You actually view it as us vs. them. Two different groups with a line in the sand for which there are no shades of gray.

How about people think,muse their brains, and make educated decisions. Then people on the right and the left may find themselves going back on forth n some issues.

What a sad outlook your post is. Sad and disturbing.

[brandymac27]

As a lifelong Republican, I am now convinced. The hate spewing out of the tea party and other right-wing extremists has convinced me that the Republican Party is broken beyond repair. As a consequence, I will not vote for a single Republican candidate in the upcoming elections.

Instead, I will vote for independents and Democrats, and if I can’t find any on the ballot, then I will write in Honey Boo Boo. She has more honesty, integrity and intelligence than any of the Republicans running this year.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...rty-ruins-gop/



The Honey Boo Boo part was funny, but the guy hits the nail on the head. Until the tea party is gone, the GOP is gonna be in big trouble.

[Wrong Direction]

That's just awful. You actually view it as us vs. them. Two different groups with a line in the sand for which there are no shades of gray.

How about people think,muse their brains, and make educated decisions. Then people on the right and the left may find themselves going back on forth n some issues.

What a sad outlook your post is. Sad and disturbing.

The feeling is mutual, so we have that in common.

[zoony]

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

I tend to agree.

This entire thing, at the end of the day, reeks of poor leadership. It just does. Clinton/Gingrich is a great example. Or reagan/oneal

At some point you've got to lead. I've been beating this same drum for the past two years. Obama has been weak

[thebluefood]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...rty-ruins-gop/



The Honey Boo Boo part was funny, but the guy hits the nail on the head. Until the tea party is gone, the GOP is gonna be in big trouble.

Agreed. They maybe able to hold onto seats in the House, but they're going to have a hell of a time winning seats in the Senate and especially the Presidency.

[Larry]

I tend to agree.

This entire thing, at the end of the day, reeks of poor leadership. It just does. Clinton/Gingrich is a great example. Or reagan/oneal

At some point you've got to lead. I've been beating this same drum for the past two years. Obama has been weak

Although, neither Clinton nor Reagan faced such unanimous, lockstep, opposition.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 09:48 PM ----------

ABC: Boehner Exclusive: Raising Tax Rates 'Unacceptable' but Will Put New Revenue on Table

As predicted.

Raising tax rates is "unacceptable" to House Speaker John Boehner as he prepares to open negotiations on the looming "fiscal cliff" with the president and congressional Democrats, he told "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer today in an exclusive interview.

"Raising tax rates is unacceptable," Boehner, R-Ohio, said in his first broadcast interview since the election Tuesday.

"Frankly, it couldn't even pass the House. I'm not sure it could pass the Senate."

Not much more about what he means, by revenues that aren't taxes. But the article does cover other topics, like an assertion that Ron Paul has gained new prominence in the Party. Taxes aren't the entire interview.

[brandymac27]

Although, neither Clinton nor Reagan faced such unanimous, lockstep, opposition.

He didn't have to deal with the Bachmann's, Cantor's, etc.