TheHill.com: Pelosi-says-dems-aim-to-win-majority-35-house-seats

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So, we need bills passed to solve everything? Didn't the right run on smaller government?

That's absurd. Honestly, the worst post I've ever read.

So, you are attributing the decreased unemployment to the fact that Congress has done nothing to decrease unemployment. Ok, I'm done with this thread now.

[Baculus]

Why would anyone vote for a Democrat? They can't get anything done with the majority. They are a party of no ideas. At least the GOP has bad ideas.

No ideas? Do you even pay attention to politics? Seriously? NO ideas? So, the year plus debate on health care reform took place because the Democrats didn't have any ideas? LOL. This is a fundamentally bizarre twist to the debate, seeing how Republicans constantly attack Democratic ideas, which are usually reform based..

It's hard to take you folks seriously when you push forward this sort of nonsense, when you display an inability to even research the Democratic party's platform. I don't have time to explain American Politics 101 to you, but the Wikipedia article on the Democratic Party is probably a good start.

There is a very good reason to vote for the Democrats, at least for the average American: Because their legislative efforts, from jobs bills to tax cuts to "ObamaCare," are aimed at the lower and middle classes, while the Republicans seem primarily concerned solely with the upper-income classes (who they call "job creators). The Democrats are certainly not a perfect party, but they are the cliched Bleeding Heart Liberals who have good intentions -- sometimes they are successful, sometimes they aren't.

[NoVaO]

To be fair to Timmy, much of the Republican argument is to just get out of the way, and let the private sector do its thing. The problem is Republicans have gotten in the way of job growth. They basically paralyzed economic activity as they threatened to destroy the nation's credit. And many of the policies Republicans have been floating would actually hurt economic growth. If your policies actually hurt the recovery, doing nothing is preferred. Unfortunately they couldn't even do that.

[TimmySmith]

That's absurd. Honestly, the worst post I've ever read.

So, you are attributing the decreased unemployment to the fact that Congress has done nothing to decrease unemployment. Ok, I'm done with this thread now.

Yours is worse. Despite the fact that the Right ran on job creation and has lowered unemployment, they get no credit because it was not done by passing bills. Buh bye.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

To be fair to Timmy, much of the Republican argument is to just get out of the way, and let the private sector do its thing. The problem is Republicans have gotten in the way of job growth. They basically paralyzed economic activity as they threatened to destroy the nation's credit. And many of the policies Republicans have been floating would actually hurt economic growth. If your policies actually hurt the recovery, doing nothing is preferred. Unfortunately they couldn't even do that.

Right, they didn't pass any bills that curtailed regulations or otherwise limited the government. They didn't even really do that. I guess they got some of that in the debt ceiling debate, but most of the tea partiers voted against that compromise.

Some really strange arguments coming from the right now: 1) not passing any bills is productive; and 2) the dems didn't pass anything in two years in office; in conjunction with 3) everything the dems passed in office was bad for the economy.

---------- Post added January-17th-2012 at 01:18 PM ----------

Yours is worse. Despite the fact that the Right ran on job creation and has lowered unemployment, they get no credit because it was not done by passing bills. Buh bye.

Honestly, did the democrats who ran in 2008 and who ran against the GOP in 2010 run on something other than job creation and lower unemployment? Now just running on it means you've accomplished it and should get credit for it?

Obama is for lower unemployment, we now have lower unemployment, therefore Obama deserves all credit for better unemployment numbers?

[TimmySmith]

Honestly, did the democrats who ran in 2008 and who ran against the GOP in 2010 run on something other than job creation and lower unemployment? Now just running on it means you've accomplished it and should get credit for it?

Obama is for lower unemployment, we now have lower unemployment, therefore Obama deserves all credit for better unemployment numbers?

Welcome back.

1. How do you explain the 15% drop in unemployment since the 2010 elections?

2. Do you really and truly think that government intervention is the only way things happen in this country?

[Baculus]

s

In no particular order:

1. Debt

The greater portion of the debt is from Republican presidents. Debt is the LEAST reason to vote for them.

2. Unemployment

The unemployment rate increased under Bush, using the same supply-side policies that the Republicans still want to continue. The Republicans have done NOTHING in Congress to address this issue. But I guess you believe that more tax cuts for the rich is going to fix this problem, right?

The GOP can only offer the same old solutions.

3. Spread of Islamic states

What? This is a bizarre claim. First of all, Bush wanted to spread "democracy" in the Middle East. So what did we see over the last year? Populist revolts against dictators, and aspiration for Democracies. And WHERE are the spread of Islamic states? What nations? Because NONE of the nations affected by the recent revolts have become an "Islamic state."

Who supported the Islamic Mujahideen in Afghanistan? Oh, right -- the Reagan administration.

Let's stick to reality and avoid the Glenn Beck talking points, shall we?

4. Lack of support for Israel

No, you mean "Unequivocal, uncompromising support of Israel." The US still provides billions of dollars in aid to Israel, and we still have very close ties with the. The problem is that some folks, I guess you included, apparently think Israel is perfect, and can't be criticized, to the degree that you'll hate an American president over the Israeli state (which, incidentally, is a socialist state to some degree, and I have no idea why you and others support it). The Republicans have an unhealthy attitude towards Israel -- we need an adult, healthy relationship with our allies, but this is beyond the understand of some Republicans (who throw tantrums whenever anyone criticizes the US).

And believe me, if Ron Paul wins the presidency then our relationship with Israel will change.

5. Energy development

You mean fossil fuel drilling and pipeline building. The Republicans have long resisted true energy development, alternative energy development, for years.

As it is, Obama has moved forward with new well exploration and even the construction of new nuclear power plants, so your claim does not hold water.

6. Tax rates

Most Americans got a tax cut under Obama, and the Republicans were willing to let the middle class tax cuts die from the Bush tax cuts if the tax cuts for the wealthy weren't retained. And if anything, this is the WORST reason to vote for the Republicans, seeing their tax plans would RAISE taxes on some lower and middle class people, even eliminating some deductions, while adding BILLIONS to the debt, with supply side tax cuts. Have you even looked at the studies done on the Republican candidate's tax plans?

7. ObamaCare

ObamaCare increases, or will increase, coverage to millions of Americans. Republicans want to repeal this while furthering cutting Medicare and fundamentally changing the nature of Medicare and offering little to no reform legislative ideas outside of tort reform. And you think the average American should vote for this?!

If anything, health care reform is the reason to vote AGAINST the Republicans.

---------- Post added January-17th-2012 at 06:35 PM ----------

Yours is worse. Despite the fact that the Right ran on job creation and has lowered unemployment, they get no credit because it was not done by passing bills. Buh bye.

But the right hasn't done a damn thing to address it. You can't give Republicans credit when they have resisted all efforts to do so. This is rubbish.

[GibbsFactor]

No ideas? Do you even pay attention to politics? Seriously? NO ideas? So, the year plus debate on health care reform took place because the Democrats didn't have any ideas? LOL. This is a fundamentally bizarre twist to the debate, seeing how Republicans constantly attack Democratic ideas, which are usually reform based...

You call that reform? I guess if I change the title of my name to The GibbsFactor, that's reform too. Nothing in that bloated bill addressed the core issues of healthcare as it relates to the economy. The triangle of expense was scratched in only one angle. Medicare and Medicaid are completely out of control because the pill producers and drug dealers get paid to prescribe them. There are companies that exist who's sole mission statement is geared toward the fact that the government will approve what ever they are selling, from wheelchairs to antidepressants. Don't come at me saying the Democrats did something positive for healthcare and don't call it reform. Pork is a better term.

It's hard to take you folks seriously when you push forward this sort of nonsense, when you display an inability to even research the Democratic party's platform. I don't have time to explain American Politics 101 to you, but the Wikipedia article on the Democratic Party is probably a good start..

That's the problem we folks have. American Politics 101 is a fraud and that's what needs the reform. The Donkeys and the Elephants are the exact same. American Politics 101 dictates that to be true.

There is a very good reason to vote for the Democrats, at least for the average American: Because their legislative efforts, from jobs bills to tax cuts to "ObamaCare," are aimed at the lower and middle classes, while the Republicans seem primarily concerned solely with the upper-income classes (who they call "job creators). The Democrats are certainly not a perfect party, but they are the cliched Bleeding Heart Liberals who have good intentions -- sometimes they are successful, sometimes they aren't.

Don't be a donkey simply because the elephants suck.

[Baculus]

Welcome back.

1. How do you explain the 15% drop in unemployment since the 2010 elections?

Easy. On the jobs bills and stimulus which the Democrats enacted. Even the OMB says as much. This ain't magical pixie dust.

2. Do you really and truly think that government intervention is the only way things happen in this country?

You want it both ways: Blame Obama for unemployment while denying him credit for any raise in employment.

There lies the problem: The Right ran on job creation, but they haven't done anything about it, while the Democrats have been trying one effort after another.

This is truly a bizarre argument. You want to give credit to the party which has done nothing, while denying credit to the party which have pushed one solution after another (which the Republicans used as a "big government" argument in the 2010 elections).

Seriously -- your line of reason is illogical and absurd. It's incredible.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

It's Rasmussen. He was pretty much discredited with his results in 2008 and 2010. And on all the elections he was off, it was always skewed toward the Republican.

This. Folks, please don't use Rasmussen. He's a hack, his polls are hackish. I don't care if he says Dems are going to pick up 50 seats, don't pay any attention to him.

[Baculus]

You call that reform? I guess if I change the title of my name to The GibbsFactor, that's reform too. Nothing in that bloated bill addressed the core issues of healthcare as it relates to the economy. The triangle of expense was scratched in only one angle. Medicare and Medicaid are completely out of control because the pill producers and drug dealers get paid to prescribe them. There are companies that exist who's sole mission statement is geared toward the fact that the government will approve what ever they are selling, from wheelchairs to antidepressants. Don't come at me saying the Democrats did something positive for healthcare and don't call it reform. Pork is a better term.

You said they have no ideas. Am I supposed to take your response seriously in light of that claim? And yes, it WAS reform, though a bit on the conservative side. Here is the funny thing: The right wingers the ACA a "socialist takeover of America" while you scoff at it, saying it's basically nothing. So which is it? A socialist takover, or tepid reform?

By the way, I wanted a single payer system, so I am not thrilled by the ACA, but that doesn't mean that the bill is totally lacking. There are millions of people who now getting health care coverage which they weren't previously. And the bulk of the ACA won't be implemented until 2014, or even beyond.

That's the problem we folks have. American Politics 101 is a fraud and that's what needs the reform. The Donkeys and the Elephants are the exact same. American Politics 101 dictates that to be true.

No, I am talking about your seemingly ignorance of the fundamentals, e.g,, Democrats having no ideas. I have been screaming about the US political system for years, as it is.

Don't be a donkey simply because the elephants suck.

Ironically, you still seem to be suggesting that I should vote for the Elephants.

Yeah, but people would still want me to vote for the sucking elephants. If I am going to vote for the lesser of the suckage, I am going to vote for those who at least have my interests at heart.

[Wrong Direction]

The greater portion of the debt is from Republican presidents. Debt is the LEAST reason to vote for them.

There is one party talking about cutting spending right now. One party has passed budgets to cut spending. One party. Not two. You may have noticed that the fiscal conservatives have increased their influence dramatically in the last few years in the R party. This is a good thing.

The unemployment rate increased under Bush, using the same supply-side policies that the Republicans still want to continue. The Republicans have done NOTHING in Congress to address this issue. But I guess you believe that more tax cuts for the rich is going to fix this problem, right?

Most of Bush's two terms had historically low unemployment. The rate was high and going up when he left office, due to a bank system meltdown that has decades of both party's hands all over it.

The GOP can only offer the same old solutions.

Ryan plan is same old? Chilean model is same old? Tax reform that eliminates most deductions and broadens the tax base is same old? Come on, Bac.

What? This is a bizarre claim. First of all, Bush wanted to spread "democracy" in the Middle East. So what did we see over the last year? Populist revolts against dictators, and aspiration for Democracies. And WHERE are the spread of Islamic states? What nations? Because NONE of the nations affected by the recent revolts have become an "Islamic state."

Not an Islamist state, but worth following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypts-parliament-to-be-led-by-islamist/2012/01/16/gIQASabE3P_story.html

No, you mean "Unequivocal, uncompromising support of Israel." The US still provides billions of dollars in aid to Israel, and we still have very close ties with the. The problem is that some folks, I guess you included, apparently think Israel is perfect, and can't be criticized, to the degree that you'll hate an American president over the Israeli state (which, incidentally, is a socialist state to some degree, and I have no idea why you and others support it). The Republicans have an unhealthy attitude towards Israel -- we need an adult, healthy relationship with our allies, but this is beyond the understand of some Republicans (who throw tantrums whenever anyone criticizes the US).

Israel's enemies don't want them to exist. It's kind of hard to negotiate with them.

You mean fossil fuel drilling and pipeline building. The Republicans have long resisted true energy development, alternative energy development, for years.

As it is, Obama has moved forward with new well exploration and even the construction of new nuclear power plants, so your claim does not hold water.

Energy from fossil fuels isn't true energy development? Obama has given lip service to energy development beyond his alternative energy proposals, which have seen company after company fall on their face. The path to hell is laid with good intentions...or something like that.

Most Americans got a tax cut under Obama, and the Republicans were willing to let the middle class tax cuts die from the Bush tax cuts if the tax cuts for the wealthy weren't retained. And if anything, this is the WORST reason to vote for the Republicans, seeing their tax plans would RAISE taxes on some lower and middle class people, even eliminating some deductions, while adding BILLIONS to the debt, with supply side tax cuts. Have you even looked at the studies done on the Republican candidate's tax plans?

Obama's tax plan...lower taxes on people already paying next to nothing. Raise taxes on mean rich. Ignore the systemic problems in our tax code.

I'll believe he has a real tax reform plan when I see one.

ObamaCare increases, or will increase, coverage to millions of Americans. Republicans want to repeal this while furthering cutting Medicare and fundamentally changing the nature of Medicare and offering little to no reform legislative ideas outside of tort reform. And you think the average American should vote for this?!

If anything, health care reform is the reason to vote AGAINST the Republicans.

And he did all of that for free too, right? If you buy the claims above, I guess you probably buy the saves money claim too.

But the right hasn't done a damn thing to address it. You can't give Republicans credit when they have resisted all efforts to do so. This is rubbish.

Generally, you're a liberal. I'm a conservative. You're biased to the left. I'm biased to the right. I can accept that you believe what you wrote above and you should probably accept that I believe what I wrote above.

However, the point of my answer earlier was to provide reasons that non-Baculus Americans might want to not vote for Obama. You can argue all you want about what they should do. In fact, you should. That's America. However, in the end, people will have the chance to choose an alternative. There are many things that an alternative will point out, agree or not, and the fact is that people who have had or are having a really hard time in this economy will be pulling the lever.

[NoVaO]

There is one party talking about cutting spending right now. One party has passed budgets to cut spending. One party. Not two. You may have noticed that the fiscal conservatives have increased their influence dramatically in the last few years in the R party. This is a good thing.

Baculus is talking about debt, not spending. Until Republicans get serious on the revenue side of the leger, they have no credibility on the debt and deficit. If they were serious about the debt and deficit, they would have to be serious about revenues. You personally are somebody that can do a little give and take and come out with a deal. Republicans in Congress...you can't negotiate with them.

Most of Bush's two terms had historically low unemployment. The rate was high and going up when he left office, due to a bank system meltdown that has decades of both party's hands all over it.

Thanks to a bubble on credit. Once the economy exploded, nobody could pay back the debt they accumulated.

Ryan plan is same old? Chilean model is same old? Tax reform that eliminates most deductions and broadens the tax base is same old? Come on, Bac.

Some potential problems with the Chilean model.

The problem I see with many Republican plans is that almost all of them continue shoveling money to the very top of the chain, expecting money to trickle down when that never actually happens.

Obama's tax plan...lower taxes on people already paying next to nothing. Raise taxes on mean rich. Ignore the systemic problems in our tax code.

I'll believe he has a real tax reform plan when I see one.

Obama's tax "plan" is to put money into the pockets of people that will spend it so money will be circulating throughout the economy, not put into a bank accumulating interest that never finds a way to trickle down. That includes every middle class American. We are a consumer driven economy. Our economy grows when people can spend. A thriving middle class is extremely important for a consumer-based economy.

Obama has plenty of supply side tax cuts in his recent proposals as well. Small business tax cuts, cuts for research and development, etc.

Most of this is just short term stuff. I agree fundamental tax reform is needed. But it won't be addressed until after the election. I suspect Obama will put out a broader outline when he lays out his vision for a second term.

[Kilmer17]

There arent enough GOP held seats in play for this to happen this year with Obama at the top of the ticket. Those kid of massive results require a groundswell like Obama had in 08 and like the GOP had in 10.

I think it's too early to call, but my guess would be a Dem loss or gain of no more than 10 in either direction.

I do think the GOP will come close to taking the Senate though.

[Wrong Direction]

Baculus is talking about debt, not spending. Until Republicans get serious on the revenue side of the leger, they have no credibility on the debt and deficit. If they were serious about the debt and deficit, they would have to be serious about revenues. You personally are somebody that can do a little give and take and come out with a deal. Republicans in Congress...you can't negotiate with them.

Revenues have fallen over the last few years specifically because the economy has floundered. Not because rates are too low. Conservative economists generally agree that large tax increases will hurt economic growth, thus lowering tax receipts. I'm sure there's some happy medium, but tweaks to this tax system are wasted energy, IMO. On the other hand, we know that no level of taxation will pay for our current committments. There's no way around them, without real reform and cuts in spending. We cannot tax our way out of this.

Thanks to a bubble on credit. Once the economy exploded, nobody could pay back the debt they accumulated.

Democrat Pot, please meet Republican Kettle. The credit bubble, like the stock bubble, was bi-partisan.

Some potential problems with the Chilean model.

Those problems seemed relatively minor, frankly. The transition to a new system is a huge issue and will require either a super majority with some stones or a lot of incrementalism. Contribution rates, minimimum benefits, etc., are all negotiable details.

The problem I see with many Republican plans is that almost all of them continue shoveling money to the very top of the chain, expecting money to trickle down when that never actually happens.

I think the R's have made an important strategic change by focusing on corporate tax rates this time around. I know corporations are the devil to many D's, but the big corporations are entities, not individuals. Those entities having a healthy bottom line is good for hiring. Personally, I'd help finance these lower rates with higher rates for individuals, relative to the reform plans out there now. So, to some degree, we agree here.

Obama's tax "plan" is to put money into the pockets of people that will spend it so money will be circulating throughout the economy, not put into a bank accumulating interest that never finds a way to trickle down. That includes every middle class American. We are a consumer driven economy. Our economy grows when people can spend. A thriving middle class is extremely important for a consumer-based economy.

Obama has plenty of supply side tax cuts in his recent proposals as well. Small business tax cuts, cuts for research and development, etc.

Most of this is just short term stuff. I agree fundamental tax reform is needed. But it won't be addressed until after the election. I suspect Obama will put out a broader outline when he lays out his vision for a second term.

Hopefully he, like you, agrees that a more fundamental reform is needed. Frankly, I don't think the real establishment types in Washington, in either party, favor real reform. They gain too much in the current system. Imagine a tax debate that didn't have a ton of Harry and Sally exceptions where, you know, we just discussed a simple rate that applied to everyone.

We can only hope.

[Larry]

Revenues have fallen over the last few years specifically because the economy has floundered. Not because rates are too low.

True.

However, we had a deficit problem before the economy collapsed, too.

Just because the tax cuts aren't the sole reason for the deficit, doesn't mean they aren't a part of it.

Conservative economists generally agree that large tax increases will hurt economic growth, thus lowering tax receipts.

Oh, I think that all economists agree with that.

Course, nobody's proposing large increases, either.

On the other hand, we know that no level of taxation will pay for our current committments. There's no way around them, without real reform and cuts in spending.

Absolutely untrue.

For example, Social Security is good for the next 75 years, if the SS tax rate is raised by 1.8%. (Total, on the employee and the employer.)

We cannot tax our way out of this.

I don't think it's possible to claim that we can't. (Or, at least, to prove it.)

I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't.

But then again, No one is proposing that we fix our deficit entirely through tax increases.

(OTOH, I do know one political party which appears to unanimously think that you can fix it with tax cuts. In fact, with tax elimination.)

[Predicto]

It's too early to make predictions, but if I had to make one, I would agree with Kilmer.

But I laugh at the idea that there is anything wrong or unusual about the leader of the Democrats in the House saying: "we are going to try to take back the House majority in the next election." That is what she is supposed to say, every election.

[Larry]

It's too early to make predictions, but if I had to make one, I would agree with Kilmer.

But I laugh at the idea that there is anything wrong or unusual about the leader of the Democrats in the House saying: "we are going to try to take back the House majority in the next election." That is what she is supposed to say, every election.

Yeah. It's like Head Coaches saying that they're playing for the Super Bowl.

[88Comrade2000]

I keep asking this, and no one ever has an answer: WHY would anyone, outside of social conservatives, vote for Republicans in 2012?

BTW, the right wing hatred shown towards Pelosi is rather obnoxious.

You could say, why would anyone with a brain vote for the democrats also. Frankly, both the demoncats and republidiots deserve to lose power and have all the various third parties take their place.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Speaking from a purely statistical standpoint, I think a lot of you are seriously underestimating the potential for dems to take back the house. I just did a google search and found this from august:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/08/boehner-as-unpopular-as-pelosi.html

I think most national pundits continue to be missing the boat on how possible it is that Democrats will retake control of the House next year. We find Democrats with a 7 point lead on the generic Congressional ballot this week at 47-40. After getting demolished with independent voters last year, they now hold a slight 39-36 advantage with them. And in another contrast to 2010 Democratic voters are actually slightly more unified than Republicans, with 83% committed to supporting the party's Congressional candidates compared to 80% in line with theirs.

This poll is certainly not an outlier. We have looked at the generic ballot 11 times going back to the beginning of March and Democrats have been ahead every single time, by an average margin of about 4 points. This 7 point advantage is the largest Democrats have had and if there was an election today I'm think that they'd take back the House. Of course there's plenty of time between now and next November for the momentum to shift back in the other direction.

Since August, I can only imagine the odds have further improved for democrats too.

[Larry]

OTOH, won't 2012 be the first election with new districts?

Wonder which Party will be drawing the new districts.

[Kilmer17]

Speaking from a purely statistical standpoint, I think a lot of you are seriously underestimating the potential for dems to take back the house. I just did a google search and found this from august:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/08/boehner-as-unpopular-as-pelosi.html

Since August, I can only imagine the odds have further improved for democrats too.

The problem is that the next election will be AFTER all house districts are redone. Most by GOP controlled legislatures. And as such, the GOP held districts will be slightly harder for Dems to take over.

Using a Generic ballot to extrapolate the possible results of a local election this far out is no more reliable than throwing darts at a board to decide.

Once the districts are set, then it will be easier to look at battleground seats and go from there. My guess is that there will be less than 15 GOP held seats that are considered toss ups or worse for the incumbent GOPer.

---------- Post added January-17th-2012 at 06:00 PM ----------

OTOH, won't 2012 be the first election with new districts?

Wonder which Party will be drawing the new districts.

The GOP controls 18 outright, the Dems 8 outright. 11 are split. 7 only have one rep, so there are no districts. And 6 more either use a non political process or something similar. The issue for the Dems is that the GOP will be controlling most of the states that are either losing or gaining districts, which will have the greatest changes in their existing districts.

[NoVaO]

Revenues have fallen over the last few years specifically because the economy has floundered. Not because rates are too low. Conservative economists generally agree that large tax increases will hurt economic growth, thus lowering tax receipts. I'm sure there's some happy medium, but tweaks to this tax system are wasted energy, IMO. On the other hand, we know that no level of taxation will pay for our current committments. There's no way around them, without real reform and cuts in spending. We cannot tax our way out of this.

The Bush tax cuts blew a huge hole in our deficit. The recession just made things much worse and because we were already running a large deficit, our government had much less room to operate and combat the recession.

Conservative economists always agree its a good time to cut taxes. Running a surplus? Give it back to the people. Economy collapsing? Tax cuts for stimulus. I don't agree with increasing taxes during times of economic downturn.

Lets not set up a straw man. I know of zero liberals on this board who think we can tax our way out of this. There is also no way around tax increases. I think there are many who, like myself, who think we can do long term deficit reduction (tax reform, spending cuts) while at the same time address the short term employment problem.

Those problems seemed relatively minor, frankly. The transition to a new system is a huge issue and will require either a super majority with some stones or a lot of incrementalism. Contribution rates, minimimum benefits, etc., are all negotiable details.

That's fine, but you're talking about a system that takes the place of Social Security, a system that works and will continue to work with just a few tweaks. We don't need an overhaul.

I think the R's have made an important strategic change by focusing on corporate tax rates this time around. I know corporations are the devil to many D's, but the big corporations are entities, not individuals. Those entities having a healthy bottom line is good for hiring. Personally, I'd help finance these lower rates with higher rates for individuals, relative to the reform plans out there now. So, to some degree, we agree here.

Corporations are not the devil -- I'd be fine with lowering the rate while getting rid of some of the deductions. Most Democrats would agree. The problem comes at the individual rate, which Republicans in Congress also want to lower. I think Democrats would be fine with lowering the rates of those making in the six figures, so they're not lumped in with people making 10s of millions. I'd like to add a couple of brackets to reflect this, but I'm not sure if Democrats working on tax reform are moving in that direction. Still, your compromise seems good.

Hopefully he, like you, agrees that a more fundamental reform is needed. Frankly, I don't think the real establishment types in Washington, in either party, favor real reform. They gain too much in the current system. Imagine a tax debate that didn't have a ton of Harry and Sally exceptions where, you know, we just discussed a simple rate that applied to everyone.

We can only hope.

I think both sides understand the tax code is a mess. You do have special interests protecting their interests though with money. I still think it will be done after the election simply because it has to. It's literally the next big thing on the agenda.

---------- Post added January-17th-2012 at 06:29 PM ----------

The problem is that the next election will be AFTER all house districts are redone. Most by GOP controlled legislatures. And as such, the GOP held districts will be slightly harder for Dems to take over.

The GOP controls 18 outright, the Dems 8 outright. 11 are split. 7 only have one rep, so there are no districts. And 6 more either use a non political process or something similar. The issue for the Dems is that the GOP will be controlling most of the states that are either losing or gaining districts, which will have the greatest changes in their existing districts.

Not quite. Remember the Republicans pretty much gerrymandered everything back in 2000, so they were limited in what they could do. Looking at the states that are currently in the books, Democrats are up about 2 or so seats. Washington will give Democrats another Dem-leaning seat, Florida will give Dems another seat or two (thanks to the Fair Districts Act and how Republicans had already maximized their gains in 2000), and Texas is the wild card. The Supreme Court is reviewing the map now, and if the current map is upheld, Democrats will get another four or so seats in their column.

There will be enough seats that Democrats can target. As you said, Republicans have tried to shore up some of their most vulnerable seats to make it a little tougher for Democrats, but most of them are still winnable. I see almost zero change Democrats lose seats unless Obama's approval rating plunges. If you couldn't win a seat in 2010, you're very unlikely to win it in 2012.

[Kilmer17]

The Bush tax cuts blew a huge hole in our deficit. The recession just made things much worse and because we were already running a large deficit, our government had much less room to operate and combat the recession.

Conservative economists always agree its a good time to cut taxes. Running a surplus? Give it back to the people. Economy collapsing? Tax cuts for stimulus. I don't agree with increasing taxes during times of economic downturn.

Lets not set up a straw man. I know of zero liberals on this board who think we can tax our way out of this. There is also no way around tax increases. I think there are many who, like myself, who think we can do long term deficit reduction (tax reform, spending cuts) while at the same time address the short term employment problem.

That's fine, but you're talking about a system that takes the place of Social Security, a system that works and will continue to work with just a few tweaks. We don't need an overhaul.

Corporations are not the devil -- I'd be fine with lowering the rate while getting rid of some of the deductions. Most Democrats would agree. The problem comes at the individual rate, which Republicans in Congress also want to lower. I think Democrats would be fine with lowering the rates of those making in the six figures, so they're not lumped in with people making 10s of millions. I'd like to add a couple of brackets to reflect this, but I'm not sure if Democrats working on tax reform are moving in that direction. Still, your compromise seems good.

I think both sides understand the tax code is a mess. You do have special interests protecting their interests though with money. I still think it will be done after the election simply because it has to. It's literally the next big thing on the agenda.

---------- Post added January-17th-2012 at 06:29 PM ----------

Not quite. Remember the Republicans pretty much gerrymandered everything back in 2000, so they were limited in what they could do. Looking at the states that are currently in the books, Democrats are up about 2 or so seats. Washington will give Democrats another Dem-leaning seat, Florida will give Dems another seat or two (thanks to the Fair Districts Act and how Republicans had already maximized their gains in 2000), and Texas is the wild card. The Supreme Court is reviewing the map now, and if the current map is upheld, Democrats will get another four or so seats in their column.

There will be enough seats that Democrats can target. As you said, Republicans have tried to shore up some of their most vulnerable seats to make it a little tougher for Democrats, but most of them are still winnable. I see almost zero change Democrats lose seats unless Obama's approval rating plunges. If you couldn't win a seat in 2010, you're very unlikely to win it in 2012.

Youre simply mistaken about how the districts will play out in FL. The Dems "win" with the fair districts act isnt going to help them win seats, it will simply help them prevent losing a half dozen. The GOP will undoubtedly gain seats in the FL delegation.

I agree with you about seats that will remain unchanged, but the ones that WILL be changed, will in a big majority help the GOP.

[NoVaO]

Youre simply mistaken about how the districts will play out in FL. The Dems "win" with the fair districts act isnt going to help them win seats, it will simply help them prevent losing a half dozen. The GOP will undoubtedly gain seats in the FL delegation.

I agree with you about seats that will remain unchanged, but the ones that WILL be changed, will in a big majority help the GOP.

Republicans are maxed out. Democrats can be packed into only so many areas. They won't be able to create these hideous districts like they did last time. Democrats are likely going to gain two seats out of Florida. One in the Orlando area where one of the new seats will be added, and Allen West's district, which will add more Democrats this go around in a district that typically leans Democratic anyway.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about the seats that WILL be changed, but of all the seats switching partisan make-up, there will be more Democratic seats that do so, though not by much.