Republicans are willing to accept a deal

[colfax]

Now the House Republicans willing to make a deal to avoid "fiscal cliff" and accept Mitt Romney's tax plan!

Is "lost" too advanced a concept for you guys?

 

[GordonGecko]

Opening bid....for those who know they're holding a losing hand and are lamely trying to bluff.

 

[fairsheet]

The Mitt plan was "unique" in that it drew a line in the sand at anything that might actually increase total revenues. That was his compromise with the Grover pledge. Some individuals or entities might pay a little more, but the total amount taken in by the guvmint, would not increase. Of course, that sort of begged the question of...."what's the point?"

What the GOP's now apparently proposing, is that if we do something that ends up in increased revenues, they'd be okay with it. But, they're still beholden to Grover as to rates.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Now the House Republicans willing to make a deal to avoid "fiscal cliff" and accept Mitt Romney's tax plan!

Is "lost" too advanced a concept for you guys?

I think the Pugs are just playing games - I don't think they have any intention of raising taxes on the wealthy or cutting a deal. A few Pugs pretend they are flexible so they can try blaming Obama for the meltdown when we hit the fiscal cliff.

 

[Bluedog]

The House of Representatives may have lost seats but not the party majority. If the GOP was wrong across the board, why did the voters not do what they were able to do in 2010?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

The House of Representatives may have lost seats but not the party majority. If the GOP was wrong across the board, why did the voters not do what they were able to do in 2010?

Because the GOP has gerrymandered the districts to such an extent that the GOP seats are nearly all "safe" for the GOP.

Texas still votes GOP for prez; many districts will still vote GOP for the House. Why? Who knows.

 

[Bluedog]

Because the GOP has gerrymandered the districts to such an extent that the GOP seats are nearly all "safe" for the GOP.

Texas still votes GOP for prez; many districts will still vote GOP for the House. Why? Who knows.

If thats the case the House GOP has no motive to change its tactics. If gerrymandering allows them to keep power than they have no fear of losing in 2014. Regardless of what side of the aisle one is on, scary thought.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

To a degree. A handful of seats are in play despite the gerrymandering, but it's true that nearly all of them can cling to Teabagger/Grover Norquist positions without fear of election loss no matter how much mayhem their positions cause.

 

[MaryAnne]

The House of Representatives may have lost seats but not the party majority. If the GOP was wrong across the board, why did the voters not do what they were able to do in 2010?

Does the name,"Gerry mandering," ring a bell with you,Blue? it is so out of whack here in Ohio,even Republicans are ashamed. And,that is just one state!

 

[Bluedog]

Does the name,"Gerry mandering," ring a bell with you,Blue? it is so out of whack here in Ohio,even Republicans are ashamed. And,that is just one state!

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if the Presidents policies were what the electorate wanted the coattail effect should have had more influence in the House.

imho

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if the Presidents policies were what the electorate wanted the coattail effect should have had more influence in the House.

imho

Even with the extreme gerrymandering the Dems picked up some seats. Solid GOP House districts will vote GOP no matter what.

 

[fairsheet]

The difference between the 113th House Dems and GOPs is a mere 34 seats. I say "mere", because the Dems need only flip 18 seats in 2104, to regain the majority. Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election anymore. The 113th GOP House's biggest concern over the next 2 years, will be their own re-election to a majority. It's a whole new day.

 

[Bo-4]

Freaking AWESOME!! Does this mean the repeal of Obamacare as well?

God i can't wait to step off the fiscal CURB.