Politics

[chicago51]

Big picture philosophical question for everyone:

At what percentage of a tax rate does one go from citizen to servant?

I would say anywhere between 0-100%.

Except for the 11 or so million of illegal immigrants we are all citizens. I think we would agree on that. Now as for the servant don't we all have an obligation to serve society? So wouldn't we all be servants as well. So basically I don't see amount of tax dollars one pays as a judgement of how much of a servant they are. I think people would agree that fortune is a combination of hard work, being in the right position at the right time, and reeping the benefits of society in some way shape or form.

I'm sure you appreciate my vague answer lol.

Now I too must ask a question. Is your desire to defend having lower taxes on rich people because you actually think it creates job or is because you really don't think it is fair to them? I actually would hope it is just that you so defender of rich rights and that you actually believe that if we just cut rich people's taxes more it create all these jobs when there is no evidence to suggest that.

 

[chicago51]

Got some random Affordable Care Act stuff:

Cool Calculator:

Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform

Gives an estimate of what you would pay on the exchange. You can only go to the exchange if you don't have employer provided care or if your employer provided care is more than 9.5% of your income.

Study on ACA in MA (aka Romney Care) and Jobs:

Will Obamacare Kill Jobs? A New Study Says No - Forbes

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41...-Loss-Evidence-from-Massachusetts-Says-No.pdf

 

[Ndaccountant]

Lot's of responses last night that I will try to address here.

First, when I said we talk abot the how and not the why, I meant that rarely to you see a politician trying to explain why we should be worried about our Social Security and Medicare obligations in 2025 and what we have to do now to make sure the programs are sustainable. We have a huge demographics problem and have a large amount of unfunded liabilities related to these entitlements.

Five Myths About Social Security and Medicare | Hoover Institution

Secondly, Obama care is supposed to "save" $700b over ten years based on the CBO (we won't get into what the Medicare actuary said, because it goes agains the CBO). Well, there were gimicks abound in the program, like the CLASS ACT, which requires people to pay for the benefit 5 years before receiving anything in return. Since in the ten year window the CBO looks at, this is a "savings". Aside from the ten year cost framing, I want to ask if you fundementally believe that hospitals will agree to future cuts. Before answering, consider that in 1997 reform was down to lower the reimbursement to doctors to help stem rising costs. However, for years we have discussed annualy the "doc fix" to roll back the cuts to doctors. What makes you think this won't happen in the future?

Next, framing discussions happen on both sides of the isle. You ever hear the left say the word taxes? They frame it as revenues. We "invest" rather than spend. It goes both ways there.

Finally, Ryan knows his budget is DOA and he has publicly stated it. He has called it his starting point to begin discussions on a "grande deal". If you take him at his word ( I do), he knows he has to give things up so why not ask for a Rolex when you know you will settle for a Swiss Army?

One last thing. Interesting discussion point. If the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office, unemployment would still be over 10%. If the LFPR was the same as what it was only one year ago, unemployment would be at about 8.5%. As a country, we still have a major jobs issue and it is structural.

 

[GoIrish41]

Eh, to me "narrative" is just a matter of opinion, about what about the issue you think is most important.

I'd imagine I'd agree with you that denying people the (religious) right to marriage based on sexual preference is wrong, but I'd imagine you would disagree with me on the issue, because I don't think the government should have any role in marriage (as its a religious rite, let each church/individual practice their own interpretation).

Eh, to me the issue about taxes isn't an economic one-- in that I'd like lower taxes for everyone regardless of whether it was beneficial or not for the economy. I'm also perfectly fine with the rich paying a higher percent than everyone else, I just think that all the taxes should be much lower than they are lol.

I don't agree with your framing of the abortion issue.

To me, the "narrative" is not just what people talk about things, but how they talk about them. Don't think for a moment that this isn't important and that both parties give this a tremendous amount of thought. What is the guy's name who focuses on this for a living for the republicans? ... Luntz is his name I think. Here's an example. When the Republicans were trying to wreck the Affordable Care Act and then pin that wreck on the President, what is the first thing they did? The coined the phrase "Obamacare." They used it every single time they talked about the ACA, no exceptions. As it was a contentious issue, the media covered it a lot and every time they interviewed a Republican it was referred to as Obamacare and trashed it unmercilessly. Pretty soon, the media picked up that phrase and they started using the term Obamacare, too, when referring to ACA. When the media picked it up, their viewers and readers naturally began referring to the ACA as Obamacare. The only people who were talking more about the affordable care act than the Obama administration were the Republicans, and they were trashing it and associating every negative idea they had about it to the term Obamacare. The Republicans set the narrative. They are great at doing this, as much as I hate it.

Now, what was Obama's reaction to this new narrative. For a while, he just took the punches. Maybe he thought the storm would pass and eventually the new name would lose it's luster. It didn't. It nagged him well into the presidential campaign when polling began to reveal that all of the component parts of the Affordable Care Act were actually quite popular but that "Obamacare as a whole" was damaged goods (again, thanks to the Republican spin machine). So, the president made a conscience effort to embrace the term. He, too, started using the term Obamacare and attaching the newfound polling information to the word and slowly the public sentiment about Obamacare began to shift.

None of this was done by accident on either side. Setting the narrative is a tried and true political strategy that has worked since politics was a thing. The Republicans are fantastic at doing it -- far better than the Democrats (though they are getting better).

I actually agree with the bolded part and it one of the many reasons the Republican attempt to take away the rights of gay people through federal law was so reprehensible.

Finally, we all want lower taxes. Nobody wants to pay more than they have to. But, while guys like Ryan talk about how his budget "makes the tough choices" his philosophy, his party's philosophy, runs couter to what he is saying. If we are in an "economic crisis" as the Republicans so adeptly have set the narrative to say, the grown up, responsible thing to do would be to raise taxes. But, Republicans by and large have not acted like grown ups in the past few years at all. They throw the equivelent of a politcal tantrum when they don't get their way, blocking everything the president is trying to do to move the country forward -- even things that have nothing to do with the economy (see the Violence Against Women Act). Anyway, we all want to pay fewer taxes and when we correct the problem that the republicans have convinced everyone we have, we can think about lowering them. Right now, the prudent thing to do is to raise taxes along with an equal amount of spending cuts.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Got some random Affordable Care Act stuff:

Cool Calculator

Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform

Gives an estimate of what you would pay on the exchange. You can only go to the exchange if you don't have employer provided care or if your employer provided care is more than 9.5% of your income.

Study on ACA in MA (aka Romney Care) and Jobs:

Will Obamacare Kill Jobs? A New Study Says No - Forbes

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41...-Loss-Evidence-from-Massachusetts-Says-No.pdf

Just a FYI....it has changed our hiring practices where I work. Previously we had a target of about 15% of the headcount to be spots filled through temp/contract employment agencies. That target has almost doubled.

It will become more difficult to be hired on as a full time worked in the future. The shift was already happening before Obamacare, but it the legislation sped it up.

 

[chicago51]

Lot's of responses last night that I will try to address here.

First, when I said we talk abot the how and not the why, I meant that rarely to you see a politician trying to explain why we should be worried about our Social Security and Medicare obligations in 2025 and what we have to do now to make sure the programs are sustainable. We have a huge demographics problem and have a large amount of unfunded liabilities related to these entitlements.

Five Myths About Social Security and Medicare | Hoover Institution

Secondly, Obama care is supposed to "save" $700b over ten years based on the CBO (we won't get into what the Medicare actuary said, because it goes agains the CBO). Well, there were gimicks abound in the program, like the CLASS ACT, which requires people to pay for the benefit 5 years before receiving anything in return. Since in the ten year window the CBO looks at, this is a "savings". Aside from the ten year cost framing, I want to ask if you fundementally believe that hospitals will agree to future cuts. Before answering, consider that in 1997 reform was down to lower the reimbursement to doctors to help stem rising costs. However, for years we have discussed annualy the "doc fix" to roll back the cuts to doctors. What makes you think this won't happen in the future?

Next, framing discussions happen on both sides of the isle. You ever hear the left say the word taxes? They frame it as revenues. We "invest" rather than spend. It goes both ways there.

Finally, Ryan knows his budget is DOA and he has publicly stated it. He has called it his starting point to begin discussions on a "grande deal". If you take him at his word ( I do), he knows he has to give things up so why not ask for a Rolex when you know you will settle for a Swiss Army?

One last thing. Interesting discussion point. If the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office, unemployment would still be over 10%. If the LFPR was the same as what it was only one year ago, unemployment would be at about 8.5%. As a country, we still have a major jobs issue and it is structural.

Get I get the negoiation stunt here. Although when negoiations start though the Democrats ought use the Progressive Caucus's budget as the starting point not the Senate Budget. The progressive budget is actually the typical "tax and invest" liberal budget. The Senate budget framework that Patty Murray but out their is already center left to center as it is a "tax and cut" budget with one tiny little stimulus of $100 billion not a true liberal "tax and spend" budget.

 

[chicago51]

Just a FYI....it has changed our hiring practices where I work. Previously we had a target of about 15% of the headcount to be spots filled through temp/contract employment agencies. That target has almost doubled.

It will become more difficult to be hired on as a full time worked in the future. The shift was already happening before Obamacare, but it the legislation sped it up.

Out of curiosity how big is the firm where you are at? They may be eligible for small business health care tax credits.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Out of curiosity how big is the firm where you are at? They may be eligible for small business health care tax credits.

Fortune 50

 

[chicago51]

Fortune 50

Okay you guys are not getting any tax credits.

 

[GoIrish41]

Finally, Ryan knows his budget is DOA and he has publicly stated it. He has called it his starting point to begin discussions on a "grande deal". If you take him at his word ( I do), he knows he has to give things up so why not ask for a Rolex when you know you will settle for a Swiss Army?

I don't take Ryan at his word and his evasiveness on the the budget topic is the reason why. If it is such a great deal, tell us why. Don't hold back the details because as we all know that is where the Devil is.

When negotiating for a used car, say a 1956 Ford T-bird, nobody with any sense would offer the owner $500 when the going rate is $30K (I'm just spitballing here), because that would be insulting to the owner of the car and it would negatively affect the negotiations moving forward. The difference between that analogy and the current economic discussions is that either you or the owner could walk away from the negotiations at any time in the auto transaction. You can only pretend to walk away from the economic negotiations because it is an issue that will always be there, that will hurt the whole country if you do. Ryan's budget wasn't just unrealistic, it was insulting and it will color the negotiations moving forward and probably cause them to draw out longer than they would have otherwise. It was irresponsible grandstanding.

 

[RDU Irish]

So is it OK to steal from rich people because they can afford it?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't take Ryan at his word and his evasiveness on the the budget topic are the reason why. If it is such a great deal, tell us why. Don't hold back the details because as we all know that is where the Devil is.

When negotiating for a used car, say a 1956 Ford T-bird, nobody with any sense would offer the owner $500 when the going rate is $30K (I'm just spitballing here), because that would be insulting to the owner of the car and it would negatively affect the negotiations moving forward. The difference between that analogy and the current economic discussions is that either you or the owner could walk away from the negotiations at any time. You can only pretend to walk away from the economic negotiations because it is an issue that will always be there, that will hurt the whole country if you do. Ryan's budget wasn't just unrealistic, it was insulting and it will color the negotiations moving forward and probably cause them to draw out longer than they would have otherwise. It was irresponsible grandstanding.

I guess I just don't put as much into these initial budget offering as you do.

 

[GoIrish41]

I guess I just don't put as much into these initial budget offering as you do.

Think about the Republican reaction if Obama would release a budget that looked more like something LBJ or FDR would have put out instead of the center left budget the Dems put out in the senate. They would be going ape sh*t and calling him a socialist. They would not look at it as a serious starting point of a negotiation. They would be insulted and they would publicly say so in every venue they could think of.

 

[connor_in]

Republicans are masters of setting the dialogue and the Dems could learn a lot from the way they do it. For decades they have given us terms like "job creators" when we talk about the beneficiaries of tax breaks for the wealthy. We talk about "the right to life" instead of talking about women's health issues. We talk about "the defense of marriage" instead of talking about denying gays their rights. It's why large numbers of people dislike Obamacare but like each provision that makes up the program. Frankly, their ability to define dozens of topics is the only thing that keeps them in the game.

I like you...you're funny!

On abortion (not "women's health issues", you are referring to one particular issue, a medical procedure), the two sides refer to themselves as pro-choice and pro-life. The pro-choice people refer to the pro-life people as anti-abortionists, and more often than not the MSM refer to them as anti-abortionists too and try to avoid the term pro-life.

The D's and the press often refer to revenue, as in the case of the budgetary items they talk about spending and revenues. What they mean are taxes. What happened to the word tax? Also, D's and the press refer to entitlements...what they mean is welfare. Now, I recognize that some of these means of welfare are desirable and necessary in a modern society. However, people are not entitled to these, they are granted them by society via the government. And, Constitutionally speaking they exist due to the phrase "promote the general welfare" in said document. I find it interesting, that people keep trying to widen the definition of the vague portions of the documents that provide the framework for our government while at the same time try to narrow the definitions of items spelled out more explicitly (but not necessarily specifically). By this I mean such items as the right to bear arms and the right to free speech among others.

oh and just to throw this in, the word liberal. This is where the R's did win the war of words. D's don't like to be tagged as liberal because people don't have a good opinion of the term. Nowadays, they call themselves progressives. Not necessarily the best choice if one actually goes back to study the prior progressive movement in american history, but most don't and it comes across as positve.

In your post, the terms you mention are generally ones used by R's and right leaning press. When used by D's or the MSM, they might come up, but they tend to be used derisively, like you did.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Think about the Republican reaction if Obama would release a budget that looked more like something LBJ or FDR would have put out instead of the center left budget the Dems put out in the senate. They would be going ape sh*t and calling him a socialist. They would not look at it as a serious starting point of a negotiation. They would be insulted and they would publicly say so in every venue they could think of.

Wouldn't a budget that far right hurt the R's then?

I really don't understand why you are so upset over this. Ryan's budget will never happen. It's like the progressive budget that Chicago posted. That would never happen either. If the budget is that extreme it would hurt the R's as it would hurt the D's.

 

[connor_in]

I don't take Ryan at his word and his evasiveness on the the budget topic is the reason why. If it is such a great deal, tell us why. Don't hold back the details because as we all know that is where the Devil is.

So, you are saying the Affordable Care Act is satanic, correct?

 

[GoIrish41]

I like you...you're funny!

On abortion (not "women's health issues", you are referring to one particular issue, a medical procedure), the two sides refer to themselves as pro-choice and pro-life. The pro-choice people refer to the pro-life people as anti-abortionists, and more often than not the MSM refer to them as anti-abortionists too and try to avoid the term pro-life.

The D's and the press often refer to revenue, as in the case of the budgetary items they talk about spending and revenues. What they mean are taxes. What happened to the word tax? Also, D's and the press refer to entitlements...what they mean is welfare. Now, I recognize that some of these means of welfare are desirable and necessary in a modern society. However, people are not entitled to these, they are granted them by society via the government. And, Constitutionally speaking they exist due to the phrase "promote the general welfare" in said document. I find it interesting, that people keep trying to widen the definition of the vague portions of the documents that provide the framework for our government while at the same time try to narrow the definitions of items spelled out more explicitly (but not necessarily specifically). By this I mean such items as the right to bear arms and the right to free speech among others.

oh and just to throw this in, the word liberal. This is where the R's did win the war of words. D's don't like to be tagged as liberal because people don't have a good opinion of the term. Nowadays, they call themselves progressives. Not necessarily the best choice if one actually goes back to study the prior progressive movement in american history, but most don't and it comes across as positve.

In your post, the terms you mention are generally ones used by R's and right leaning press. When used by D's or the MSM, they might come up, but they tend to be used derisively, like you did.

I'm not saying that Dems don't do it too. I'm saying that the Republicans are much better at it. Way more words in our political venacular were created by the Republicans than the Democrats. There may be a few examples where the Dems scored a point or two, but the Republicans are the Lebron James of spin.

I actually don't think "entitlements" is the same as "welfare." The big ticket entitlements are Medicare and Social Security which people pay for their whole lives with the understanding that they will reap the benefits when they retire. I don't like the word "entitlements" personally because it gives the impression that people feel like they are "entitled" to them, much the way that you used the term above.

 

[GoIrish41]

Wouldn't a budget that far right hurt the R's then?

I really don't understand why you are so upset over this. Ryan's budget will never happen. It's like the progressive budget that Chicago posted. That would never happen either. If the budget is that extreme it would hurt the R's as it would hurt the D's.

I think it does hurt the Republicans in the longrun. I've been repeating that about their words and deeds throughout this thread. It is troubling because it draws out debate much, much longer and it keeps things from getting done in this country. it makes us focus on the manufactured distractions instead of the core issues (like job creation). The Republicans are ultimately ruining their brand which you would think would make a guy like me happy, but it doesn't. This country needs a dialogue and two parties facilitate that dialogue. The extremists on the right of the GOP are destroying the party because they are not learning anything about the a** whipping they took in the election. They are doubling down on stupid and it hurts everyone.

 

[chicago51]

Wouldn't a budget that far right hurt the R's then?

I really don't understand why you are so upset over this. Ryan's budget will never happen. It's like the progressive budget that Chicago posted. That would never happen either. If the budget is that extreme it would hurt the R's as it would hurt the D's.

It will hurt swing district Republicans (which aint that manny thanks to Gerrymandering). The thing with the House is you got a wide range of "extremes" for lack of a better term. You got safe Republicans and safe Democrats for that matter who's only change is a primary challenge.

On the constrast in Senate races you have to win state wide races which requires a bit more a centrist approach. I think the Ryan budget even though it is a House budget hurts the national brand of the Republican party.

Kind of an aside here: It is interesting on how Republicans control the House and Democrats control the Senate.

The makeup of the House is supposed to favor big cities but because they way certain states have their districts drawn it doesn't.

It also interesting because I think the makeup of the Senate should favor the Republicans because Wyoming gets the same amount of Senators as California. I think the Senate would be Republican if Republicans didn't run these extreme candidates out their. Why would you primary Senator Lugar a moderate Republican in IN that regularly won with 65% of the vote? The GOP primaries him and then they lose the state wide race. Meanwhile the Democrats put these moderate candidates out there that can win states like Montana and North Dakota even though Barack Obama lost to Romney by 15% in those states.

 

[irishpat183]

All you need to know:

[/IMG]

 

[irishpat183]

^ BUT BUT BUT!! The GOP just blocks everything....


Cut the crap. Obama has failed, our government has failed, and will continue to fail the American people.

 

[chicago51]

So, you are saying the Affordable Care Act is satanic, correct?

Home | HealthCare.gov has all kinds of info on the health care law.

You can read the full thing. Although you'll need a lot of time on your hands and probably a lot of coffee.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/patient-protection.pdf

FYI for one my physical therapy classes a while back we had to learn about certain parts of the ACA. Luckily she didn't make us read all 2409 pages and just gave selections and summaries.

 

[chicago51]

^ BUT BUT BUT!! The GOP just blocks everything....


Cut the crap. Obama has failed, our government has failed, and will continue to fail the American people.

All the GOP has done is try to repeal Obamacare 33 times. The only "jobs bills" they put forward are basically to repeal Dodd Frank. So we can deregulate everything and go back to the days of booms, busts, and bubbles.

I think the Obamacare repeal attempt count might be up to 34 as Ted Cruz tride to amend a Senate bill yesterday that would have defunded Obamacare.

 

[connor_in]

I'm not saying that Dems don't do it too. I'm saying that the Republicans are much better at it. Way more words in our political venacular were created by the Republicans than the Democrats. There may be a few examples where the Dems scored a point or two, but the Republicans are the Lebron James of spin. .

With the details and examples I put in my post, I would respectfully say we would agree to disagree. I say this mainly because the MSM uses the terms the D's prefer more often than not.

I actually don't think "entitlements" is the same as "welfare." The big ticket entitlements are Medicare and Social Security which people pay for their whole lives with the understanding that they will reap the benefits when they retire. I don't like the word "entitlements" personally because it gives the impression that people feel like they are "entitled" to them, much the way that you used the term above.

Once again, agree to disagree to a point. Yes, you do pay into these. However, as has been discussed many times already, in today's world, most people are living so long they end up taking more out of SS and Medicare than they paid in. Also, due to disabilities and other situations, some people who never paid into SS and medicare receive payment out of it. I feel this falls under the definition of welfare and then items such as food stamps, umemployment enefits, etc, I take it you have no problem with me calling those welfare?

 

[irishpat183]

Home | HealthCare.gov has all kinds of info on the health care law.

You can read the full thing. Although you'll need a lot of time on your hands and probably a lot of coffee.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/patient-protection.pdf

FYI for one my physical therapy classes a while back we had to learn about certain parts of the ACA. Luckily she didn't make us read all 2409 pages and just gave selections and summaries.

Our congreess didn't either.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think it does hurt the Republicans in the longrun. I've been repeating that about their words and deeds throughout this thread. It is troubling because it draws out debate much, much longer and it keeps things from getting done in this country. it makes us focus on the manufactured distractions instead of the core issues (like job creation). The Republicans are ultimately ruining their brand which you would think would make a guy like me happy, but it doesn't. This country needs a dialogue and two parties facilitate that dialogue. The extremists on the right of the GOP are destroying the party because they are not learning anything about the a** whipping they took in the election. They are doubling down on stupid and it hurts everyone.

1) This dialogue and coming together garbage isn't going to get us anywhere and isn't going to make many people happy. We have two big parties clearly defining the two directions they'd like to take the country, and in our history they couldn't be further apart.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If we could have another political civil war with no blood spilled and split the country into two, I'd move to a red state tomorrow and not shed a tear. The conservatives could run their states as they wish and wouldn't have any democrats taxing and spending them into oblivion. The progressives could run their blue states without any republican "obstruction" and would have no republicans to blame. Everyone gets what they want and no excuses.

2) If obama getting 51% of the country to vote for him is an @$$ whipping, ND crushed Pitt last year in football.

 

[chicago51]

The GOP has no concept of reality. They passed a recent bill to defund ACORN an anti poverty group. Here's the thing ACORN no longer exists and has not exist for nearly 3 years.

ACORN, In New GOP Budget Bill, Would Be Defunded Again, Even Though It No Longer Exists

 

[connor_in]

Home | HealthCare.gov has all kinds of info on the health care law.

You can read the full thing. Although you'll need a lot of time on your hands and probably a lot of coffee.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/patient-protection.pdf

FYI for one my physical therapy classes a while back we had to learn about certain parts of the ACA. Luckily she didn't make us read all 2409 pages and just gave selections and summaries.

To pile on with IrishPat...he is right,that the memnbers of Congress did not read it either (nancy "we have to pass it to know what's in it" Pelosi)

But also, many of the DETAILS (what I was responding to originally) were not spelled out and left to be set up mainly by HHS.

So, post all the links you want, the fact that it left things to be set up by bureacracies after the fact means that a large number of DETAILS are not in the law

(have you gotten your 60+ page application yet that will apparently still leave 20M people without coverage)

 

[irishpat183]

The GOP has no concept of reality. They passed a recent bill to defund ACORN an anti poverty group. Here's the thing ACORN no longer exists and has not exist for nearly 3 years.

ACORN, In New GOP Budget Bill, Would Be Defunded Again, Even Though It No Longer Exists

We all know who ACORN is....and they're anything BUT an "anti-poverty" group.

Gimmie a break. Talk about being delusional.

 

[chicago51]

1) This dialogue and coming together garbage isn't going to get us anywhere and isn't going to make many people happy. We have two big parties clearly defining the two directions they'd like to take the country, and in our history they couldn't be further apart.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If we could have another political civil war with no blood spilled and split the country into two, I'd move to a red state tomorrow and not shed a tear. The conservatives could run their states as they wish and wouldn't have any democrats taxing and spending them into oblivion. The progressives could run their blue states without any republican "obstruction" and would have no republicans to blame. Everyone gets what they want and no excuses.

2) If obama getting 51% of the country to vote for him is an @$$ whipping, ND crushed Pitt last year in football.

I wouldn't call the election a landslide either.

GOP philosophy: Because the election was close we shoudn't compromise one inch and the side that won should have to do things 100% our way, even though we lost.

As far as losing goes we should not just look the presidency. The GOP lost Senate races in Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, and Montana even though Barack Obama lost in everyone of those states, sometimes badly.

The GOP lost the House popular vote too. The only reason John Boehner is speaker is because of incredibily partisan drawn districts.