Why should the losers demand to win something in fiscal negotiations?

[grasswire]

Every talking head on TV is parroting this line today:

"Boehner is willing to negotiate on tax rates, but he must take something back to his party. He must show them what they GET."

Goddammit. Why should there be any parity?

THEY LOST. The losers should LOSE.

No ponies for the LOSERS!!!!!

[Enrique]

1. affirmative action for orange people

[leftstreet]

2. We must have the appearance of a two party system n/t

[sadbear]

3. I can think of a few spending cuts he can take back to his party.

[kairos12]

4. Rethug Bookie Politicos

Rethugs have managed to game the political system much like bookies and their betting lines. For Rethugs, even if "their" team loses they still manage to win.

[PoliticAverse]

5. 'Losers' still control the House and have filibuster available in Senate. n/t

[unblock]

6. i don't recall winning the house....

sure, we have a political advantage.
the upper hand, if you will.

but republicans control the house and therefore still have a say in the process.

sad but true.

[grasswire]

8. only because of pernicious gerrymandering

More Democrats voted for house members than Republicans. Many more.

[unblock]

9. certainly a valid, if unfortunately also fairly academic point.

[democrattotheend]

12. True, but that doesn't change the reality in Washington

Which is that the Republicans have control of the House by a decent margin and they have the ability to force big cuts using the debt ceiling. No responsible president can allow the country to default and they are prepared to take advantage of that. Which is why I think the president is better off making a deal now, depending on the details, rather than winning the battle but losing the war.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Gerrymandering, and many reps were not due for re-election. Still....

Dems got more votes, and technically, the Repubs weren't voted to keep control of the House. It just happened. They lost seats.

Still, they do have some power, so that we would have to let all tax cuts expire. I think that's okay, but apparently some think that will sink the economy.

[unblock]

13. all seats in the house are up for election/re-election every 2 years.

only the senate has staggered terms, so only one-third of the seats there are up every two years.

yes, gerrymandering made more than the usual tilt, but it is what it is. they control the house and have the power to refuse to enact any legislation at all if they wish. in this case, that means automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, something they don't really want and certainly don't want the blame for, so they're likely to agree to something. but we do need them to agree to something because WE don't want all the tax hikes and spending cuts either.

i also don't think it's really the tax hikes as much as the spending cuts that would tank the economy, though the tax hikes for those at the low end certainly wouldn't help matters.

i think the drama is overplayed and of course it was artificially created (out of a previous overplayed drama), but it is real. if they do nothing and continue to do nothing, we're all in big trouble.

personally, i think we'll have an agreement in late january, and that's likely to be something pretty decent for us by then.

[Honeycombe8]

14. I could've sworn at election time that I heard pundits talking...

that not all reps were up for re-election. Maybe they were saying they didn't have much in the way of candidates contesting their elections? Or maybe they wre talking about the Senate and I misunderstood.

Why can't I remember this stuff? It's so confusing!

[pansypoo53219]

7. because the rich are 'entitled' to get tax cuts. welfare kings. stealing from the people.

where is robin hood? and why hasn't he defeated grover norquist?

[democrattotheend]

11. Unfortunately, he has some leverage

Because the debt ceiling has to be raised in February. The president knows this and recognizes that he might be in a better position to make a deal now rather than wait until his back is up against the wall and we are facing default.

Plus, the sequester is not all roses for us...important programs like the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, federal housing assistance, and community block grants will face large cuts, as will funding for govt. agencies tasked with enforcing labor, environmental and consumer laws.

Also, it's likely the president will have to give something in order to get the stimulus funding and hurricane aid he is pushing for. Unlike the tax hikes those don't happen automatically.

Like it or not, Republicans control the House and they have some leverage. If we had won enough seats they wouldn't.

I just hope he doesn't give more than he has to. Raising the Medicare age is a price too high.

[Generic Brad]

15. Even the losers get lucky sometimes

But this is not one of those times.