Is redistricting the reason why there is no debt deal?

Andy, my point is not when gerrymandering began, it is what was created when the Republicans did started in the 1990's. This train of thought actually has come from other republicans because of the conflict they see coming, and the lack of any solution. You are correct that the president and the house have two different views of how the country should be run. But, in the past both sides have been able to to compromise for betterment of the country. The president has said that he would consider entitlement cuts, but the burden of this problem should fall on the entire population, not just the middle class and the poor. Republicans have refused to allow the wealthy in this country to bare ANY pain (part of which was caused by their tax cuts, and breaks), while expecting the rest of the country to pay for all of the spending. "What is best for my employer, is what is best for the country. False dichotomy." Right now US corporations are sitting on over $2 TRILLION dollars in profits that they made while the rest of the country struggled to make it through the Bush repression. While the average American was struggling to pay their bills, and keep their family fed, US corporations were raising prices knowing that people had to purchase food and clothing to stay alive. That is a FACT!!!!

Republicans have refused to allow the wealthy in this country to bare ANY pain With all due respect.... BULL CRAP. LOL What are you smoking??? You are either completely ignorant, or a liar. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the top 25% of all wage earners, pay nearly 66% of all taxes. Further the top 1% are paying 37% of all taxes. 1% of the US population is paying 1/3rd of all Federal income taxes. They haven't had any pain? You are wrong. Bottom line, you are incorrect sir. Right now US corporations are sitting on over $2 TRILLION dollars in profits that they made while the rest of the country struggled to make it through the Bush repression. Funny... they (being American businesses) cite Obama's regulation spree as why they have refused to invest more into the economy. What... you think if you tax money from them, suddenly they will use their missing money to create jobs? Your grasp of economics is lacking.

Andy, where are these IRS statistics? Where does it say that "the top 25% of all wage earners, pay nearly 66% of all taxes"? A link would be nice, if you can find it.

Ted, I agree that both sides have gerrymandered, but the point of my discussion is based on our current debt problem. You know as well as I do that if ANY republican in a conservative district votes to compromise with democrats the Tea Party will be all over them. This is the problem when you create these districts based totally on political lines, just like your example showed. I am also not calling this a trick, or a ploy, it is a fact that both sides have created their own monsters. The problem now is that there will be NO compromise on this debt ceiling, which every economist I have seen has said would, at the very lest, cause another recession, if not worse.

Bob, how much of National Defense are you willing to cut? How much do you want to cut for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Do you want to get rid of the EPA, and allow corporations to regulate themselves? How are YOU going to pay down our debt? We didn't get here alone on the spending of the last two years, it has been the spending for the last 11 years. Where were YOU when Bush REFUSED to pay for two wars that HE started? Where do you think we got the money to do that? I still fail to understand the logic of republicans who think that only two classes in this country should pay for all of the spending that three received. Please Bob, explain to me why it is that the richest people in this country shouldn't have to feel any "pain". While the rest of the American people should have to deal with huge cut backs in services, pay more for their current services, and pay down the debt that has help increase the wealth for richest people in this country? Explain that to me like I am a four year old, because that makes NO SENSE AT ALL!!! Bob, you know the minute that one republican decides to compromise the Tea Party will have a candidate waiting to run against him in the next election within the hour. Tell me again that redistricting has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!

Taskr, good post. I agreed with you when we spoke of this in another post, and it had the same cause and effect as what I am pointing out. What this Gerrymandering is doing is fuming the far right and left wing partisans in these small district who can dictate their extreme views on the entire country, and hold them hostage. Both parties have done it, and continue to do it today. I am merely pointing out that this is part of the problem in this country, and we need to find a way to fix it. You are correct that these politicians only want to get reelected, and they have set up a system in Washington to give them every advantage they can. The House is by far the worse because of the number of representatives, and their ability to create their own districts (or have them created for them). The deal that republicans passed wasn't worth the paper it was written on, and everyone knows it. ALL AMERICANS got us into this mess, ALL AMERICANS should have to help get us out!!! Please explain to me again why a hedge fund manager making A BILLION (like a Henry Paulson) dollars a year shouldn't pay a DIME in taxes? Why do you think there are so many hedge fund managers right now? If you only have a group of people on the extreme side politically, than you will have to vote the same way to stay in office. I think you are making as good if not better case of how this is hurting the country than I am. The difference in the Senate is just purely numbers. It is much more difficult for them to be as extreme because you have groups on both political extremes voting for them. In the house, it is usually just one extreme that they have to bow to, on both sides of the isle.

"the Democrats championed and passed civil rights laws outlawing segregation." Actually that legislation was championed by Republicans. Kennedy and LBJ were on the right side, but Democrats by and large supported segregation and opposed civil rights. The civil rights movement started with republicans like Eisenhower. Kennedy and LBJ just continued what he started against the wishes of their own party.

Political gerrymandering affects elections, legislation, and public policy at the local, State, and national levels. Both political parties use it to consolidate their power. The Courts are loath to interfere on the ground that gerrymandering is a political, not legal, issue. The exception is when it raises a question of equal protection or due process under the 5th or 14th Amendments of the Constitution. Those cases usually involve discrimination against racial minorities. I believe you are correct that political gerrymandering in conservative Republican states has given Republicans an advantage. Today, since many are Tea Party candidates, there is more of a political divide than ever in Washington and less likelihood of political or pragmatic compromise. That, however, is the political process in action. I look at the situtation in a historical perspective. When the stock market crashed on Wall Street in 1929 and Herbert Hoover and the GOP were in power, the country blamed the Republicans and elected FDR and heavy Democratic majorities in Congress. That generational view held probably up to the Reagan revolution when the older depression-age people dwindled in numbers. With the post-war prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s, many formerly poor families became middle class and more conservative in outlook. At the same time political alliances changed drastically. The old solid Democratic South began shifting to the GOP when the Democrats championed and passed civil rights laws outlawing segregation. The South is now a solid Republican bastion, giving the GOP a very competitive advantage in national elections. I personally think that most of the preference for the GOP in relatively poor areas of the South and other sections of the country has more to do with social than economic issues since the Democratic party is associated with abortion, gay rights, and secular humanism-- which the current GOP agenda opposes. The political/economic dichotomy between the red and blue States is also an irony to me. On a whole the blue States are wealthier and pay more in federal taxes than they receive, while the poorer red States -- the largest beneficiaries of government socialism -- receive more in federal taxes than they pay. However, it's citizens and representatives of the red States who are most in favor of lowering taxes and reducing or ending programs that seem to more heavily benefit them. The current controversey over the debt ceiling and the 2012 election may be another seminal moment in the political course of the country. If the GOP wins and drastically slashes government programs and spending, the result could be a political disaster for the Republicans if the economy tanks and the employment situation gets worse. In that event, the ghost of Herbert Hoover could rear his ugly head. On the other hand, if we become more prosperous in a pre-New Deal type America, the Democratic party will have to move decidedly to the right to be competitive.