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

I am honestly not sure. I'm not starting this to get people riled up, I'm genuinely curious.

Will they continue to try to filibuster anything the president supports? Will they make some concessions in the "fiscal cliff" deal? Or will they stick to "no taxes under any circumstances?

Will they try to get some goodwill with the people by governing responsibly and working with the other side, or do they think the answer is to go even harder to the right like some Republican leaders are suggesting? Sounds like some are suggesting Mitt's positions weren't conservative enough (I should say Republican enough) and they are calling him a "northeast liberal".

I would absolutely love to see Republicans move more towards the center and compromise, but I'm not sure it will happen. I'm getting a bad feeling it won't.

I'd say "obstruct" in general and at first, but I do think there is going to be more cooperation in both directions than before (not sure there could be less).

I really hope they can hammer out something neither of them like but both can live with. That's the real beauty of the way our country is set up. When it works like that even though no one gets all they want it usually ends up being the best for the most. Taking your ball and going home has to stop.

I'd say "obstruct" in general and at first, but I do think there is going to be more cooperation in both directions than before (not sure there could be less).

Front page of the post today say's Boehner has already contacted Obama saying the House GOP majority is open to new revenue (higher taxes) to overt sequestration.

I think it will happen. They just need to find a face saving way to get it done.

Front page of the post today say's Boehner has already contacted Obama saying the House GOP majority is open to new revenue (higher taxes) to overt sequestration.

I know. Means nothing right now, to me.

I know. Means nothing right now, to me.

I agree. Everyone wants to *look* cooperative right now. But if one side sees an opportunity to further their agenda and blame the other side for the fallout, all bets are off.

I know. Means nothing right now, to me.

synic... I wonder why..

I think establishment Republicans are ready to play ball, but I don't know if the TEA Party Caucus is going to budge. This may come to yet another stalemate, not just between Republicans and Democrats, but establishment Republicans and TEA Partiers.

Over the next couple months, we're going to see who really controls the Republican Party.

synic... I wonder why..

The curse of paying attention.

Both sides have been that way for 12 years. I can't see anything changing unless the public starts to get towards what's happening in Europe. Just like the sports leagues that are on strike/lockout, you hope that both sides can come to a compromise.

Both sides have been that way for 12 years. I can't see anything changing unless the public starts to get towards what's happening in Europe. Just like the sports leagues that are on strike/lockout, you hope that both sides can come to a compromise.

I honestly think (and of course I hope I'm wrong) that most people stateside don't think the unemployment levels of Spain & Greece as well as the attendant rioting could ever happen here. And excuse me for representing the Right side of the aisle but didn't Obama ignore Simpson/Bowles and also offer up budget plans that were unanimously voted against by both parties? Compromise means both sides give up something to get something they want. The leftside echo chamber on this board is amazing to me. I hold both sides equally culpable for the mess that we're in and I certainly don't envy the CIC for the economy that we're going to be faced with the next 4 years. We all want meaningful fiscal change.

Neither side can afford to be stubborn or to play hard ball right now. Maybe a year down the road, it will be different.

Cooperation is a 2 way street...

I honestly think (and of course I hope I'm wrong) that most people stateside don't think the unemployment levels of Spain & Greece as well as the attendant rioting could ever happen here. And excuse me for representing the Right side of the aisle but didn't Obama ignore Simpson/Bowles and also offer up budget plans that were unanimously voted against by both parties? Compromise means both sides give up something to get something they want. The leftside echo chamber on this board is amazing to me. I hold both sides equally culpable for the mess that we're in and I certainly don't envy the CIC for the economy that we're going to be faced with the next 4 years. We all want meaningful fiscal change.

Where in my post did I say I was for one side or the other? That's why I said the last 12 years, that includes both Bush terms and Obama's term. I was using the riots in Europe as an example of what it "might have to" get to in order to get a compromise. But riots rarely happen here anymore unlike other countries. But I want both sides to come up with a compromise that is NOT for them, but for the most important thing- Us, the People.

Both sides have been that way for 12 years. I can't see anything changing unless the public starts to get towards what's happening in Europe. Just like the sports leagues that are on strike/lockout, you hope that both sides can come to a compromise.

I'm with the "stop with the false equivalency" movement, and I've been a registered (when I can use the term on my registration) independent since '72, voting for a dem POTUS 3 times now, counting this election.

The dems have their share of assholio leadership and often done quite poorly in compromise, but a majority contingent of GOPers are borderline sociopaths (kidding--a little :pfft:) in the same areas. They are not "equivalent" as an accurate generalization, in my analysis.

^^^my post wasn't intended to be directed at you specifically. Apologies if that was ambiguous. Riots in my opinion could easily happen here once people are told their pensions aren't actually funded or proposed cuts are looming. Look no further than WI a couple years back for evidence of how entitled people really feel and act (an argument for another thread really). If the **** really hits the fan in regards our debt both parties will become the enemy of the people imho.

I'm with the "stop with the false equivalency" movement, and I've been a registered (when I can use the term on my registration) independent since '72, voting for a dem POTUS 3 times now, counting this election.

The dems have their share of assholio leadership and often done quite poorly in compromise, but a majority contingent of GOPers are borderline sociopaths (kidding--a little :pfft:) in the same areas. They are not "equivalent" as an accurate generalization, in my analysis.

He's right that both parties have been obstructionist in congress for years now though.

Also saying that both parties are bad or that they are part of the problem, doesn't meant that they are both exactly equal in their problem making.

^^^my post wasn't intended to be directed at you specifically. Apologies if that was ambiguous. Riots in my opinion could easily happen here once people are told their pensions aren't actually funded or proposed cuts are looming.

Oh, Ok. I wasn't sure where you were going with it. I'm cool. Not a problem.

Front page of the post today say's Boehner has already contacted Obama saying the House GOP majority is open to new revenue (higher taxes) to overt sequestration.

That would be amazing news. From what I've heard, Boehner is actually a pretty reasonable guy and was willing to put tax increases in before, but the powers that be put an end to that and Cantor would hear none of it. I don't think Boehner wants to go down in history as a speaker that did nothing.

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

I don't know. What does Grover Norquist think?

He's right that both parties have been obstructionist in congress for years now though.

Also saying that both parties are bad or that they are part of the problem, doesn't meant that they are both exactly equal in their problem making.

I hold both sides equally culpable

does mean that.

True. But saying

does mean that.

Good point. Although I wasn't referencing that post.

I think I missed it until you quoted it actually. lol

I think it's accurate to say that both sides have been up to these kinds of tricks, but at the moment one side is more to blame than the other, possibly by a wide margin.

He's right that both parties have been obstructionist in congress for years now though.

Yes, I know. Just as I said.

Of course.

That is, and always has been so.

Also saying that both parties are bad or that they are part of the problem, doesn't meant that they are both exactly equal in their problem making.

This is much more the piece that actually needs attention and frequent restating.

Cooperation is a 2 way street...

But the thing is, especially with the debt deal, Democrats DID compromise. Republicans didn't. The President was willing to put cuts on the table for many sacred cows of the Democrats. The Republicans would not entertain 1 cent of tax increases. We really need to stop with this false equivalency. I think it's ridiculous to say both sides have been obstructionist blah blah blah when we have never seen this level of obstructionism in our history. Look at the number of filibusters. Look how many times the house wanted to vote down "Obamacare" instead of legislating. There are proven examples of Republicans introducing bills that President Obama came to support and then all of a sudden Republicans hated the bill. Look at the blocked judicial nominations. I think it is unwise and unfair to just write it off as "well both sides do it democrats have done it too" because it's not the same.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

Read this