John Boehner willing to "raise" taxes

[IndyFan]

JMO, but it really doesn't matter what Boehner says in public, it matters what he says in the meetings with Reid and Obama. It will be clear fairly quickly if he is serious about making a deal. If Boehner comes to the meeting ready to deal, things will go quickly. If he starts jerking around, then things will get political quickly.

There is a deal there to be made, if Boehner is willing to do it.

[hoosiercubsfan]

JMO, but it really doesn't matter what Boehner says in public, it matters what he says in the meetings with Reid and Obama. It will be clear fairly quickly if he is serious about making a deal. If Boehner comes to the meeting ready to deal, things will go quickly. If he starts jerking around, then things will get political quickly.

There is a deal there to be made, if Boehner is willing to do it.

Same could be said for Obama and Reid. Nothing is getting done if all three of them aren't coming to the table ready to get things done. Both sides are going to have to give. If not nothing is going to get done since the GOP still holds firmly the House.

[IndyFan]

Same could be said for Obama and Reid. Nothing is getting done if all three of them aren't coming to the table ready to get things done. Both sides are going to have to give. If not nothing is going to get done since the GOP still holds firmly the House.

your right of course, but it seems to me that if the GOP comes to the table ready to deal, a deal will be made. I just cannot see a Democrat unwilling to make a deal if one is there to be made. Deal making is such a big part of Democratic Party politics.

[stephkyle7]

Boehners Junk is in a vice.
He will deal and he has no choice.
If the Rs obstruct, the dems will win a super majority in 2014...not doubt about it.
Im not trying to stir the pot with you Rs Im being realistic.
The country listened to Obama say "the rich needs to pay more" for the last year and no matter how you want to read the tea leave to reflect..."well they musta wanted us in charge of the House"(lol)
If Obama comes out in Jan and says "sorry, no matter what they say it was the Rs obstructing again...you can say goodbye to 2014.

[cabernetluver]

Actually the government tends to define middle income as between the 25th and 75th percentile of earnings, which of course varies from region to region.

[SportsAndrew25]

Congress must come up with a deal, whether it will raise taxes or not, to solve the budget issues.

[hoosiercubsfan]

Boehners Junk is in a vice.
He will deal and he has no choice.
If the Rs obstruct, the dems will win a super majority in 2014...not doubt about it.
Im not trying to stir the pot with you Rs Im being realistic.
The country listened to Obama say "the rich needs to pay more" for the last year and no matter how you want to read the tea leave to reflect..."well they musta wanted us in charge of the House"(lol)
If Obama comes out in Jan and says "sorry, no matter what they say it was the Rs obstructing again...you can say goodbye to 2014.

Your forgetting one major thing that is the single reason the Republicans are in the situation they are in. The new lines for redistricting have only recently been drawn. In those two years the only way for what you describe above is for the demographics of a large portion of the house districts drastically change. If they do not change the Republicans will keep the house no matter what is done by them in Washington.

I personally don't think things will change that drastically population wise in the newly drawn districts. Eventually the benefits of the new districts will lessen though just not that quickly regardless of what is done in Washington. Not to mention the people in pro Republican districts may prefer there to be gridlock. May not be a good strategy leading toward 2016 and the presidential race but thats an entirely different thread.

[cabernetluver]

Your forgetting one major thing that is the single reason the Republicans are in the situation they are in. The new lines for redistricting have only recently been drawn. In those two years the only way for what you describe above is for the demographics of a large portion of the house districts drastically change. If they do not change the Republicans will keep the house no matter what is done by them in Washington.

I personally don't think things will change that drastically population wise in the newly drawn districts. Eventually the benefits of the new districts will lessen though just not that quickly regardless of what is done in Washington. Not to mention the people in pro Republican districts may prefer there to be gridlock. May not be a good strategy leading toward 2016 and the presidential race but that's an entirely different thread.

This election was the peak election for the GOP benefit of redistricting. The value will go down, and in each cycle, the artificial benefit of redistricting will dissipate. In this cycle, with peak effectiveness, the GOP lost at least 8 seats. This does not bode well for the GOP until it changes and realizes all of the demographic changes that are occurring. What is sad for me, is I am in the shrinking part of the electorate. Oh well, at least my philosophy seems to be on the ascending side.

[hoosiercubsfan]

This election was the peak election for the GOP benefit of redistricting. The value will go down, and in each cycle, the artificial benefit of redistricting will dissipate. In this cycle, with peak effectiveness, the GOP lost at least 8 seats. This does not bode well for the GOP until it changes and realizes all of the demographic changes that are occurring. What is sad for me, is I am in the shrinking part of the electorate. Oh well, at least my philosophy seems to be on the ascending side.

I agree that within two years that benefit will be lessened even more though not enough in my opinion to really put the majority in the house in peril. That was more or less my entire point I was trying to make. Also midterms tend to bring an entirely different electorate out (how different remains to be seen admittedly) without the President and his coattails.

[hoosiercubsfan]

In this cycle, with peak effectiveness, the GOP lost at least 8 seats.

Can't sleep so figure this might bore me enough to put me to sleep . Your basing your premise on the assumption that only Republicans rewrote the districts. Not taking into account that some of the loses quite possibly came from states with Democrats in charge of the redistricting in places like IL and NY where some of the losses came from. So I still hold to my opinion that at least until/after the midterms of 2014 the GOP could be obstructionists (assuming we don't go over any fiscal cliffs) and it wouldn't effect them in the short term with control of the house. Now if you want to make a case for it harming them in the long run I would agree with you.

[stephkyle7]

heres the thing HCF and i wrote basically the same thing in another thread.
By embracing the fringe elements of the party the Rs have painted themselves the party of whackos.

Rush limbaugh, hannity, santorum,palin,bachman,huckabee,west...all spouting absolute nonsense like they are radio shock jockeys, getting attention and support from angry hateful, intolerant bigots.
the message of fiscal conservatism is gone.
even when you have someone willing to pick up the banner they are faced with a more then 30 year history of greater republican spending.
Social conservatism is dead.
No one cares.
We dont care if gays want to get married.
We dont care if women want birth control or choose to get abortions.
We are not afraid of Muslim encoachment.
We are not afraid of immigrants.

The party has no where to go in its current form.
they will adjust or be replaced by more moderate politicains who have a chance to actually accomplish something.

[hoosiercubsfan]

heres the thing HCF and i wrote basically the same thing in another thread.
By embracing the fringe elements of the party the Rs have painted themselves the party of whackos.

Rush limbaugh, hannity, santorum,palin,bachman,huckabee,west...all spouting absolute nonsense like they are radio shock jockeys, getting attention and support from angry hateful, intolerant bigots.
the message of fiscal conservatism is gone.
even when you have someone willing to pick up the banner they are faced with a more then 30 year history of greater republican spending.
Social conservatism is dead.
No one cares.
We dont care if gays want to get married.
We dont care if women want birth control or choose to get abortions.
We are not afraid of Muslim encoachment.
We are not afraid of immigrants.

The party has no where to go in its current form.
they will adjust or be replaced by more moderate politicains who have a chance to actually accomplish something.

Two things here. First this is an issue for 2016 that they must face for sure. In the short term (i.e. 2014 midterms) this isn't going to be a hindrance on the party remaining in power in the house which was my entire point. The midterms are an entirely different animal without the national race at the top of the ticket. There won't be President Obama at the top of the ballot to draw people out in droves to vote for him. That is the reason there are always less votes for the midterm elections than the presidential. Therefore the candidates running can focus on local issues instead of national and not be bogged/weighted down by the national party. That is the reason I don't think the house is in trouble of being lost prior to at the earliest 2016.

Second I disagree that the message of fiscal conservatism is dead. I still honestly believe it is a winning argument to the electorate. It's problem is it has taken a back seat to social conservatism. Social conservatism needs a revamp of its issues without a doubt. I hope something is done about gay marriage within the next four years taking it forever off the table for either side. Separate is not equal in any case. I disagree entirely on your assertion over abortion though think the GOP needs to drop the issue and be happy with where it is at. To stop attempting to defund planned parenthood and stop talking about contraception its just a stupid view to hold and likely did great damage to Romney's bid to be president.

If the GOP doesn't realize that they need to soften their rhetoric on the social issues whatever they have to say about fiscal issues will always take a back seat. It will constantly give the left a wedge issue to drive voters away from them. If that isn't addressed within the next four years they will continue to lose national elections.

[cabernetluver]

Can't sleep so figure this might bore me enough to put me to sleep . Your basing your premise on the assumption that only Republicans rewrote the districts. Not taking into account that some of the loses quite possibly came from states with Democrats in charge of the redistricting in places like IL and NY where some of the losses came from. So I still hold to my opinion that at least until/after the midterms of 2014 the GOP could be obstructionists (assuming we don't go over any fiscal cliffs) and it wouldn't effect them in the short term with control of the house. Now if you want to make a case for it harming them in the long run I would agree with you.

First, you need to get some sleep my friend.

The most (by population) Democratic state (mine) did not redistrict by Republicans but in fact it was an independent committee, composed of equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, with specific rules not to include politics in their redistricting. However, the main point I want to make, is if you look at the aggregated popular vote, across the country, the GOP lost there, as well as the loss of seats.

The electorate is different in off year elections, it tends to be older and smaller, but not always. The gains by Democrats in this election, were muted (but not eliminated) by redistricting, as proven by the aggregate popular vote. If this were not true, the Democrats would have a majority the House too.

[Patsfan56]

Sequestration isn't going to look good for either party. While it may at forst glance to harm the dems more as they are in control of the senate and WH, each seat the GOP has is proportionally more critical to them in comparison.

I think what might be the best thing is to lay out a plan to first avoid sequestration, and then look toward a massive restructuring of the tax code- raising taxes on the top 1%, and simplifying the tax code thereafter. Thereby increasing the tax base and pulling in more money from the nations wealthiest.

Just a thought.

[cabernetluver]

Sequestration isn't going to look good for either party. While it may at forst glance to harm the dems more as they are in control of the senate and WH, each seat the GOP has is proportionally more critical to them in comparison.

I think what might be the best thing is to lay out a plan to first avoid sequestration, and then look toward a massive restructuring of the tax code- raising taxes on the top 1%, and simplifying the tax code thereafter. Thereby increasing the tax base and pulling in more money from the nations wealthiest.

Just a thought.

Bravo