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

[nonniey]

I like how it is always "will the Republicans work with the President this time?" while everyone seems to forget it was the President that didn't want to work with Republicans his first two years in office (i.e. "Elections have consequences" during the stimulous negotiations). And after those two years the one time a major spending and tax plan was almost worked out, it was the President that was mostly responsible for wrecking it. So stop with will the Republicans work with the President routine. The bigger question is, is he willing to work with the Republicans.

[Tweedr01]

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.

You said exactly what I was thinking, this is not a one way highway, both parties need to compromise. They both were stubborn and bullheaded last the last go around, and they both need to get their heads out of their butts and work together. This isn't a football game where one team wins and one team loses, we are all on the same team trying to find the right solution. It would be nice if we could get to a point where we have the formula or 'scheme' that we know works for both sides, and we aren't voting for party, but for the candidate.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

I like how it is always "will the Republicans work with the President this time?" while everyone seems to forget it was the President that didn't want to work with Republicans his first two years in office (i.e. "Elections have consequences" during the stimulous negotiations). And after those two years the one time a major spending and tax plan was almost worked out, it was the President that was mostly responsible for wrecking it. So stop with will the Republicans work with the President routine. The bigger question is, is he willing to work with the Republicans.

You can't be serious. You really think it's the president mucking things up? You really think the Republicans are the ones compromising?

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 02:32 PM ----------

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874

"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."

[nonniey]

You can't be serious. You really think it's the president mucking things up? You really think the Republicans are the ones compromising?

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 02:32 PM ----------

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874

"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."

Did he or did he not muck up "The Grand bargain?" Did he or did he not blow off the Republican Congressional delegation when they wanted input into the health care bill? Did he or did he not blow off Republican input into the Stimulous bill?

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Did he or did he not muck up "The Grand bargain?" Did he or did he not blow off the Republican Congressional delegation when they wanted input into the health care bill? Did he or did he not blow off Republican input into the Stimulous bill?

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.

[SkinsHokieFan]

You can't be serious. You really think it's the president mucking things up? You really think the Republicans are the ones compromising?

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 02:32 PM ----------

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874

"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."

From the Right wing rag, the Huffington Post and that right wing firebrand Bob Woodward

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/president-obama-debt-limit-talks-bob-woodward-book_n_1872731.html

But the arcane and complex subject matter is only merely confusing. What makes the book depressing is the inability of leaders in Washington, starting with President Barack Obama but also including top Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress, to look beyond their own political fortunes and forge an agreement when the nation's fortunes were so clearly at risk.

Woodward lays the blame, ultimately, at Obama's feet. But it's obvious from Woodward's reporting that the Obama White House wanted to reach a "grand bargain" to reduce the deficit and achieve some long-term reforms on spending and entitlements. That cuts against the Republican argument that Obama has not tried to fix these problems.

The more pertinent debate is whether Obama led on the issue. And Woodward's book makes a compelling case that Obama did not do as much as he should have. But he also faults House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who tried in June and July 2011 to reach a deal with the president.

"When you examine the record in depth, you cannot help but conclude that neither President Obama nor Speaker Boehner handled it particularly well," Woodward writes. "Despite their evolving personal relationship, neither was able to transcend their fixed partisan convictions and dogmas. Rather than fixing the problem, they postponed it."

The book has essentially three sections: the first 100 pages or so is a set up for the second and third portions, and lays down the predicate that Obama's White House did not do the necessary work to build relationships with Republicans or the business community early on in his presidency.

The most specific significant critique that Woodward levels is aimed largely at the president, and gives him substantial blame for talks with Boehner falling apart.

"Most extraordinary was the repeated use of the telephone for critical exchanges. Especially baffling was President Obama's decision to make his critical request for $400 billion more in revenue in a spur-of-the-moment phone call," Woodward writes. "The result was a monumental communications lapse between the president and the speaker at a critical juncture."

[Stadium-Armory]

The congressmen aren't being obstructionist or partisan just because they feel like it, they're being that way because their constituents sent them there to be that way. That is their mandate.

The people are who need fixin.

[JimboDaMan]

Did he or did he not muck up "The Grand bargain?"

No. Unless you mean he mucked it up by giving up 10:1 concessions instead of asking for 0. In the end both sides backed away. Maybe it could have been saved, but it sure wasn't Obama's fault.

Did he or did he not blow off the Republican Congressional delegation when they wanted input into the health care bill?

If "blow off" means "incorporated some of their concerns into the bill", then yes. Otherwise no.

Did he or did he not blow off Republican input into the Stimulous bill?

Not sure about that one. I don't recall any other Republican input other than "no". I feel certain that many Republican interested were included - didn't Paul Ryan request and receive stim money? But if they had more sweeping input (other than "no") maybe you are right.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

From the Right wing rag, the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/president-obama-debt-limit-talks-bob-woodward-book_n_1872731.html

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.

[nonniey]

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.

.The Speaker had agreed to 800 billion in tax increases during the Grand Bargain negotiations, It was a done deal and at the last minute the President demanded an additional $400 billion in tax hikes. There really is no dispute even among the left leaning press it was the President that mucked up that deal. So healthcare was a Republicans idea from past irrelevent, did he or did he not allow Republican input into this bill - Where was tort reform?

You better heed your own quote.

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]

I think establishment Republicans are ready to play ball, but I don't know if the TEA Party Caucus is going to budge.

They don't have to.

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

I will observe that there are, I think, several Republicans who lost re-election. Those people, in particular, can compromise and be exempt from retaliation. (At least from the voters. They are very vulnerable to pressure from the Party.)

If the Republican Party wants to compromise, then the word will be passed to those soon-to-be-ex Congressmen that "vote for this, so that the ones who are still within reach of the voter's wrath don't have to, and we'll give you a golden parachute, a month from now".

If the Party doesn't want cooperation, then those same people will be told "you compromise and your golden parachute is history".

[SteveFromYellowstone]

.The Speaker had agreed to 800 billion in tax increases during the Grand Bargain negotiations, It was a done deal and at the last minute the President demanded an additional $400 billion in tax hikes. There really is no dispute even among the left leaning press it was the President that mucked up that deal. So healthcare was a Republicans idea from past irrelevent, did he or did he not allow Republican input into this bill - Where was tort reform?

You better heed your own quote.

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."

But the thing is you're wrong. You may want to believe that, but it isn't true.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

The congressmen aren't being obstructionist or partisan just because they feel like it, they're being that way because their constituents sent them there to be that way. That is their mandate.

The people are who need fixin.

I do agree that the people need fixin'. Our electorate is becoming less educated and more misinformed. It's gotten to the point where you can't persuade some people with reason or facts. They will stick to their beliefs no matter what. It's almost like they think their political party is a sports team or a religion and they have to support them no matter what.

[pjfootballer]

The congressmen aren't being obstructionist or partisan just because they feel like it, they're being that way because their constituents sent them there to be that way. That is their mandate.

The people are who need fixin.

Well, the last time a bill was on the table, neither my representative nor my senator called me with my opinion as to how he should vote...so I'm pretty sure they used their own opinion. And what if the Rep/Sen in my district in DC isn't who I voted for? Doesn't seem like they would have my best interest when I didn't vote for them.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But the thing is you're wrong. You may want to believe that, but it isn't true.

Wah?

From Woodward

"Most extraordinary was the repeated use of the telephone for critical exchanges. Especially baffling was President Obama's decision to make his critical request for $400 billion more in revenue in a spur-of-the-moment phone call," Woodward writes. "The result was a monumental communications lapse between the president and the speaker at a critical juncture."

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Wah?

From Woodward

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/168103-boehner-expects-to-hear-from-obama-following-cantors-exit-from-debt-talks

In a news conference Thursday morning, Boehner said he understood Cantor’s frustration but pointedly declined to say whether he supported his decision to ditch the negotiations being led by Vice President Joe Biden. The Speaker also said the talks could continue if Democrats took tax hikes off the table.

“I understand the frustrations,” Boehner said. “I understand why [Cantor] did what he did. But I think those talks could continue if they’re willing to take the tax hikes off the table.”

I'm trying to find this really in depth article I read about the whole thing and it basically says while Boehner was at first willing to agree to some additional revenue, once Cantor got in he refused to entertain it at all.

[Larry]

Did he or did he not muck up "The Grand bargain?"

He did not.

Did he or did he not blow off the Republican Congressional delegation when they wanted input into the health care bill?

He did not.

The republicans wanted language demanding that e-verify be used, to keep illegals from receiving benefits. It was added.

The Republicans wanted language specifically forbidding federal funds paying for abortions (except for rape and incest), even though that law already exists, and was not changed. It was added.

The Republicans wanted to get rid of the public option. It was removed.

Did he or did he not blow off Republican input into the Stimulous bill?

I'm not sure on that one. I don't remember much debate at all about the stimulus bill. (Just complaints that it was all, 100% pork, and shouldn't be passed, at all.)

[Stadium-Armory]

Well, the last time a bill was on the table, neither my representative nor my senator called me with my opinion as to how he should vote...so I'm pretty sure they used their own opinion. And what if the Rep/Sen in my district in DC isn't who I voted for? Doesn't seem like they would have my best interest when I didn't vote for them.

Of course not, but I suspect they campaigned on a platform of doing this or that and probably were very passionate about how they'd fight hard and not compromise their values. Maybe put another way, constituents should be willing to re elect officials who compromise. Often, I see incumbents get lambasted by challengers within their own party because they compromised. The challengers do it because it resonates with the constituents. People need to realize that some times their officials need to compromise, and in some cases it might be on an issue that you feel passionate about. And that doesn't necessarily mean that they've abandoned you.

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/168103-boehner-expects-to-hear-from-obama-following-cantors-exit-from-debt-talks

In a news conference Thursday morning, Boehner said he understood Cantor’s frustration but pointedly declined to say whether he supported his decision to ditch the negotiations being led by Vice President Joe Biden. The Speaker also said the talks could continue if Democrats took tax hikes off the table.

“I understand the frustrations,” Boehner said. “I understand why [Cantor] did what he did. But I think those talks could continue if they’re willing to take the tax hikes off the table.”

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

[deejaydana]

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

Amen to that post. He's regularly credited for being a uniter when the behind the scenes reality stands in stark contrast. Maybe both sides are going to be forced into meaningful compromise.

[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/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=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_States_Senate_elections,_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.