To continue getting breaking news and the full stories from The Boston Globe, subscribe today.

The Boston Globe

Nation

Hopes rise for a deal on tax rates

More in GOP foresee increase for the rich

WASHINGTON — There were faint signs on Sunday that Washington could cut a deal before reaching the so-called fiscal cliff, despite House Speaker John Boehner’s declaration last week that no progress was being made in negotiations.

More Republicans are imagining what an agreement that includes tax hikes on the wealthy might look like — a broader pact that would include spending cuts — rather than digging in against any rate increase.

Comments

More Republicans are imagining what an agreement that includes tax hikes on the wealthy might look like — a broader pact that would include spending cuts — rather than digging in against any rate increase."

And more Democrats are realizing that if the economy tanks., they alone are responsible.

Replies

What universe do you live in where the Democrats have complete control of congress? It certainly isn't this one.

miker lives in the same universe, muggman, as the climate change deniers, the poll disbelievers who still think Romney actually won and that the defunct ACORN stole the election, the ones who believe the weak economy has nothing to do with longterm Republican policies, that Obama isn't a citizen, he's an anti-colonialist Kenyan, that he is a secret Muslim,  maybe even a terrorist and he certainly isn't a real American. That's the universe miker lives in, muggman. It might as well be a different dimension.

"... the merging question for the House and Senate GOP is weather they can secure ..."

"... in a capital that is consumed with speculation ..."

Really?  In a periodical of the repute of The Boston Globe?  Language is the primary tool of journalism, and yet the author of a story on the front page (apparently without a proofreader or an editor) cannot spell at a sixth-grade level.

Okay, a colleague has presented me with a cogent argument that the author may have been referring to the capital city and not the Capitol building. Fair enough, and I should have thought of that myself. Perhaps I should have had someone proofread my earlier comment.