Now what, USA?

I agree completely. Mr. Obama and the Senate have got to get tough with these goofy sons of bitches.

That's the other thing that's changed. He has spent a whole term playing nice -- people know he's made numerous good-faith efforts and that the Republicans were baldly, proudly obstructionist. That gives him room to go ahead and be more hard-nosed without being a hypocrite.

They're not listening to The Donald, they're listening to the lobbying firms on "K" Street who are offering them employment for millions of dollars a year after they leave congress. It's hard not to respond to an offer like that, so I don't expect much in congress will change (until the basic underlying problem is addressed... and that's not likely to happen).

Obama played nice?? No way..he has acted like an arragant asshole. Nice from him would be a new thing.

As usual, you are perfectly 180 degrees from being correct.

Cycloptichorn

More Fox news or something you just made up?

The dow is down 2.5% because Wallstreet believe there is less chance of Washington getting there act togetter today then there was yesterday.

First, we need to get out of the depression. I would like to see a new stimulus package of one trillion dollars a year, for as many years as it takes to get unemployment below 5.5 percent or inflation above 4 percent, whichever happens last. (Two years should do it, but I'm willing to learn.) The federal government should give the stimulus money to the states, who in turn should spend the money on re-hiring the teachers they laid off after the financial crisis, and on burying their electric cabling underground. That way, the next Sandy will not ruin our electrical grid.

Next, we need to curb the budget deficit. After the Lesser Depression is over with, I'd like to see a combination of tax increases and military spending cuts. The People's Budget, designed by liberal House Democrats, offers a good template and should start off a good discussion.

Also, Obama has to implement Obamacare. That's not going to be easy.

Finally, immigration reform. George Bush almost managed to build a bipartisan alliance to pull it off. Obama promised it in 2008. Now that Republicans are looking for ways to win back the Latino voters they had alienated, maybe it's a good time to try again.

Are we going to see any of those things? Maybe not. But that's what I, a voter in the 2014 election, want to see happen.

I've much more to say on this subject, but just can't help posting a response to the ludicrous demands for Obama to "get tough" with the GOP controlled House.

As if he's been treating them with kid gloves until now.

In any case, just how do you folks who favor such a bold move suggest he can do so?

Post their home addresses on the internet?

Share FBI files with the National Enquirer?

Jail them?

Obama and his supporters have been blaming the GOP controlled House for everything that can be perceived as bad. Will they now resort to two exclamation points instead of just one?

The GOP members of the House will respond to voters, not Obama.

Should the people who sent them to DC give them the impression that they need to compromise, they will. Should they tell them to resist, they will.

Somehow, though, you seem to think that getting tough can eliminate the inconvenient political barricades intended by The Founders.

If you want to sweep the playing field of "obstructionist" House Republicans, you will need to arrange for them to be voted out of office.

Right now you are all flushed with victory and Lord knows, I would be too if I were in your shoes, but in a month or two you will realize that while Obama's victory was a highly significant event, and will shape the future of this country, it wasn't total and for all time.

How many times have we heard both parties pronounce that their electoral victories presage an end to their opponents and the first of the American thousand year Reichs?

There is no doubt at all, that Obama's victory is remarkable and truly significant, but it is as foolish to think it is the end of politics as Fukuyama's assertion that the demise of the Soviet Union was the end of history.

I'm positive they have no intention of doing that. I see no change in Congress's methods, but the president now has an opportunity to be much more forceful.

For one thing, Finn, I hope Obama and the Democrats stop letting the House GOP get away with agreeing to some plan and then backing out as they did with the Simpson-Bowles plan and during the early negotiations for the Affordable Healthcare Act.
And The Republicans need to start moving towards some realistic negotiation stances. They say "We need this, this and this."
The Democrats say " Okay, you can have this, this and 92.456% of the last this."
"NOT GOOD ENOUGH" And walk out.

In the words of Mitt Romney and Charlie Brown "Good grief."

The Speaker has been murmuring over the past twenty-four hours about finding middle ground. He's been murmuring such things for the past two years without ever stepping foot outside his own position.

It's in the GOP's interest to really negotiate. The President intends to constantly show where he has reached out and where they have remained stuck. If the GOP stays stuck, stays the Party of NO, they will be gone in 2014.

Joe(and good riddance)Nation

I'm hoping the Republican leadership will learn that obstructionism is a losing tactic. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Even if the republican leadership is willing to compromise on revenue (that was the sticking point in past debt negotiations) it is doubtful the tea party which is still strong in the house will let them if the past is any indication.

Eric Cantor is saying there is not a mandate for increasing taxes which is flat false but I expected him to say it.



source

In poll after poll a majority of those polls favor increase taxes for the top 1%.

The Tea Party doesn't have enough members to block a bi-partisan vote. If they can present a compromise bill that includes new revenues from the top earners (via tax reform or otherwise) then they can get some Ds to go along with the non-TP Rs.

Mostly, what they need is a bill that will allow Rs to vote yes and be able to stand up to Grover Norquist's threats of being primaried in two years.

They may not have the votes but they seem to have the influence. A good deal of the tax loopholes benefit the middle and lower class. The only one which affects the richest among us is the capital gains taxes on dividends income. The whole argument was made during the last year when Romney was talking about tax loopholes as a way to pay for his tax plan.

here

here

If the Democrats and the non-teabagger Republicans decide on a compromise, the teabaggers can't stop them--they don't have enough votes.

So long as Mr. Obama holds their feet to the fire, and makes it clear, every day if necessary, that the Republicans are not cooperating, unless and until they will compromise--as long as he makes it clear to the electorate that the Republicans are recklessly driving toward the fiscal cliff--that will be getting tough with them.

No, but Grover Norquist can. He has vowed to finance a primary campaign against anyone who has signed his friggin' pledge and then votes for any kind of tax increase. That was where the idea came from of allowing the fiscal cliff deadline to pass, raising taxes on everyone automatically, and then the R's can join a bipartisan effort to quickly pass a middle class tax cut in January. They can look Grover in the eye and say they never voted for a tax increase and look their constituencies in the eye and say they passed a tax cut for the middle class.

Yeah . . . it that's not too late. Grover Norquist has shown himself to be irrelevant to electoral politics.