WSB Forum » Politics

(43 posts)

Mandate?


  1. No, I'm not talking about Ref 74. The wingers are grudgingly admitting that President Obama won, but don't want to say the M word. Some facts...

    Barack Obama's electoral wins (332 and 365) dwarf Bush's (286 and 271). Clinton got 379 and 370. You have to go back to 1988 for George HW Bush's 426 to find a Republican win over 300.

    Obama's 62,088,847 (votes are still being counted) is more than Bush in 2000 (50,460,110) and in 2004 (62,040,610)

    Obama is the 4th POTUS in the last century to win two terms with over 50% majorities. His company? FDR,Eisenhower,and Reagan.

    I think he has a mandate to implement the agenda he ran on. I'm hoping he's decided to play hardball with the disloyal opposition this time and get some important things done. My prediction is that if the Republicans continue to obstruct and delay as they have for 4 years, they're going to have a very unpleasant midterm election in two years.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  2. dobro..

    i will agree that he got as much of a mandate as any president has had...
    but i don't expect him to do much with it.

    He sees himself as the great uniter and is willing to compromise before he sits down at the table...

    Republicans see him as a pushover and refuse to acknowledge how far he is willing to go to compromise.

    i wish i saw things differently... but what i see is that the legacy Obama wants and the one we want for him are not the same :(

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  3. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    dobro - there are more people in the us now voting, thus your comparison to Bush totals is not valid!

    Clinton in his 2nd term worked with Congress and in had a very good 2nd term! Can Obama replicate this?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  4. I agree with dobro, and I hope the President does move Forward, with or without the blessing of Mr. Boehner. (Almost certainly without.)

    Can you even believe that Boehner and Co. are still clinging to their cry of "Don't raise taxes on the rich" ?

    Newsflash for Republicans: Obama campaigned vigorously on the tax issue, and he won the election, so if you want to assure your own irrelevance, just keep harping on that.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  5. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    eliminating deductions that overwhelmingly favor the wealthy achieves the same goal AND would simplify the tax code!

    what about reducing spending? raising the retirement age is very low hanging fruit!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  6. hoop..

    "there are more people in the us now voting, thus your comparison to Bush totals is not valid!"

    Dobro's comparison is valid because what was cited was the difference between the two vote counts, not the total count.

    more people wouldn't necessarily affect the difference.. just the totals

    "eliminating deductions that overwhelmingly favor the wealthy achieves the same goal AND would simplify the tax code!"

    No.. that could change the effective rate of taxes paid by the very wealthy.. but only for the portion of their income that is earned income...
    which in most cases is a very small percentage.

    it would do nothing to change the actual tax rate.
    which by the way.. does not have to be increased.

    WHAT PART OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE VERY WEALTHY WERE MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY DON'T YOU GET?

    sorry... but those tax cuts did not achieve their pupose in spite of the fact that they were extended.

    Those for the middle class on the other hand have achieved their purpose which was consumerism which generates jobs.

    "raising the retirement age is very low hanging fruit!"

    the retirement age has already been raised..
    or did you not get that memo?

    all we get from that is the illusion of savings. when you move those whose bodies wear out from social security to disability.. what do you save?

    On top of that we are encouraging earlier transition to disability because the way the system is set up to pay out.. it really does pay to file as quickly as you can when you think you might not be able to work again...

    "Clinton in his 2nd term worked with Congress and in had a very good 2nd term! Can Obama replicate this?"

    is this some kind of revisionist history? I don't remember Congress working well with Clinton during his second term... unless of course attempting to impeach him is your idea of a good working relationship.

    I am not thinking we should be repeating that one...
    are you?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  7. Democrats are now looking at capping tax deductions, which was one of Romney's things.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/politics/democrats-like-a-romney-idea-to-cap-tax-deductions.html?hpw&_r=0

    This is the way to govern. By honoring your opponent.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  8. DBP..

    capping the tax deductions that benefit the working middle class is a better move than eliminating them

    but yes.. i agree with you.. we have once again let the Republicans set the terms of the conversation...

    repeating a policy that hasn't worked out well for the American public in the past

    the republicans made me do it is pitiful excuse

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  9. kootchman
    Member Profile

    See this is selective and subjective...

    WHAT PART OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE VERY WEALTHY WERE MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY DON'T YOU GET?

    ALL the tax cuts were temporary.. they had a sunshine date... extended twice by Democrats....sooo.. we should take the plunge.... if we listen to the "mandate" (see growth population, total) then by god the will of the people should prevail.... you wanted the treats and biscuits... pay for them. Let the Bush tax cuts expire... for everyone. End of argument, Then, you can also send in your checks too! Yep, it's time to let them expire.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  10. Jo, there is a huge difference between compromising from a position of strength and compromising from a position of weakness.

    Having just won the election, it's time for the Dems to put the past behind them and offer a hand to the Republicans. If the Republicans don't take that hand, then move on without them. But keep that hand out there, even as you do.

    Capping tax deductions is a policy that both sides agree on anyway, so it's a great place to start. Dems should embrace it and make a big deal out of the fact that it was a Romney idea. That's just good strategy. Politics 101.

    *****************************************************************************************

    You know, a couple of days ago, I heard you speak approvingly of secession. Granted, that was in response to an idea proposed by Republicans. But still . . . That's not good, Jo. It's not the way Forward.

    So I'm giving you a New Year's resolution early. (And this one's for you too, Jan.)

    In the coming year, I want you both to consciously look for common ground with kootchman, hooper, and anyone else whom you now conceive of as being in "the opposition."

    But no more of this "us and them" attitude, if you please. We're all Americans here.

    Right now you're the victors.
    You can afford to be gracious.

    So be it.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  11. kootchman
    Member Profile

    First... let's see the cuts. Then, we will talk about revenue. It's your circus... bring out the clowns. What are you going to cut?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  12. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    it is about compromise,

    raising the retirement age is a reasoned cut in future government outlay.

    on the revenue side it appears that some agreement exists to eliminate/reduce deductions

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  13. "Right now you're the victors."

    Clearly. Which means after 4 years of relentless Republican obstruction, now is not the time to hold out olive branches. It's time to tell the disloyal opposition that the agenda the POTUS ran on and that the people voted on needs to be implemented. Now.

    "...it's time for the Dems to put the past behind them and offer a hand to the Republicans."

    What nonsense. Do you remember the Bush '04 election? Did he offer a hand to Democrats? No, he said, "I have political capital now and I'm gonna spend it" and promptly set about trying to privatize Social Security. BTW, the "past" is 4 years in which the Repubs only goal was to make Obama a one term president. They failed. Miserably, I might add. It's time for them to be offering their hands.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  14. kootch..

    "ALL the tax cuts were temporary.. they had a sunshine date... extended twice by Democrats"

    I notice you ignore entirely the small fact that the tax cuts for the middle class actually achieved the purpose .. job creation.

    Job creation is the inevitable result of people buying things kootch.. and when you put more money into the pockets of the middle class you actually stimulate consumerism because the little luxuries.. like new shoes become possible.

    we are still waiting for the trickle down from the tax cuts we gave the wealthy...

    it slays me when you chant all that stuff about how America is a shaky investment for American businesses because of the uncertainty...

    yet, they invest their money in environments far more uncertain than ours...

    and the notion that giving them even more tax breaks would stimulate investment in America?

    Nope. The only thing that will stimulate investment in America is ending the tax breaks for investing elsewhere and THAT is not on the Republican agenda.

    Nor is raising taxes which has the side effect of making it more effective for businesses to invest in research and development and employees than to lose the money to taxes.

    And you foolishly thought i didn't have any business sense ;->

    it turns out i have too much to buy that story.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  15. DBP..

    "Jo, there is a huge difference between compromising from a position of strength and compromising from a position of weakness."

    Negotiation is a process David.. if you give away half of your negotiating strength before you begin to officially negotiate you will end up with far less than if you sit down to the table with strength and negotiate from that position.

    that is what negotiating from a position of strength means.

    i am not suggesting that we fail to negotiate...
    i am suggesting that we remind ourselves that we don't have to give away the entire store to meet some imagined standard of negotiation with those who are unwilling to negotiate at all.

    right now, theirs is the position of strength...
    only because we mistakenly buy into the notion that it is our job to make negotiation work for them.

    I am perfectly willing to be inclusive DBP... i always have been perfectly willing to be inclusive.

    what i am not willing to do is believe that a lie told over and over becomes the truth..

    No matter how you tart up a lie.. no matter how many times you repeat it.. it is still a lie.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  16. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    why not simply phase out all of the Bush tax cuts over say 5 years. Thus next year they are 80%, the following 60% et al. At the same time start ratchet up the retirement age

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  17. Hooper , what do you think the retirement age should be...top number...?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  18. hoop..

    "it is about compromise,

    raising the retirement age is a reasoned cut in future government outlay."

    where is your spirit of compromise?
    I point out to you that raising the retirement age has already been done and that the cost savings from doing so may in fact far less than expected because of the resulting rise in disability claims filed at much younger ages than currently occur

    and you ignore my argument entirely and repeat your repeat.

    I am a charitable woman hoop,
    but even i have to conclude that you are not listening at all
    and are not actually willing to compromise.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  19. hoop...

    "why not simply phase out all of the Bush tax cuts over say 5 years."

    so..your suggestion is that we further extend a policy that is not working just to make nice to the people that are reaping huge benefits?

    Dobro puts forward a good point...

    Why on earth should we make nice?
    It's certainly not what your side would do.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  20. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    phasing out the Bush tax cuts would avoid the so called cliff by allowing people to adjust to paying more taxes over time. i am talking about every single one of the cuts including those that you and i in the middle benefit from!

    i am an independent voter. for president i voted for hillary! in hind-site she would have been far superior to obama

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  21. hoop..

    there is no tax cut cliff...

    it is not necessary to end all tax cuts to end those over a certain ceiling...

    ending the tax cuts on the most wealthy won't change a thing for our economy
    because giving them to them didn't change a thing.

    i do think the ceiling of $250K that President Obama set is too low...
    simply because those in that salary range do spend and therefore stimulate the economy...

    but the ceiling is easily negotiated and he had to start somewhere...

    the actual fiscal cliff will only happen if Republicans refuse to negotiate
    that would be a very stupid move on their part
    but i don't put it past them to buy their own advertising and do it anyway.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  22. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    JoB the $250k should be $500k for married people to be equitable. But then reality set's in; it simply would not raise sufficient revenue.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  23. hoop..

    the way to raise sufficient revenue is to get people working..
    and you do that by making sure that those who work do so for a livable wage...
    and that we use every resource possible to create more jobs

    tax cuts for the middle class stimulate consumerism which actually creates jobs

    "JoB the $250k should be $500k for married people to be equitable"

    i don't agree with this statement. I think that if you want the benefits of combined household incomes then you have to take the tax increase on that combined income...

    however.. i can see where in today's economy an argument could be made for a 500k earned income tax cut ceiling.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  24. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    job - i agree with creating more jobs.

    i would not extend unemployment benefits and instead re-direct the money towards infrastructure improvements. this creates private sector construction jobs!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  25. hoop..

    "i would not extend unemployment benefits and instead re-direct the money towards infrastructure improvements. this creates private sector construction jobs!"

    unfortunately, not all of the unemployed who lose benefits under that plan would be qualified to do construction work...

    what do you suggest we do with the rest of them?
    demand is exceeding supplies for homeless housing now.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  26. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    work, i was laid off in the 1993 recession and took not one unemployment check! i busted my butt finding work! enough is enough job, the victim mentality needs to stop.

    everyone knows how to use a shovel and a hammer! yes it can be tough work but it's honest work and society gets something in return such as a new bridge, fixed roadway a water pipe that isn't 100+ years old!

    i would much rather see money spent on public works than on extending unemployment.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  27. kootchman
    Member Profile

    It creates public debt JoB.... even the entire national interstater systems was a pay as you go program. See JoB, I am caring less and less about people who are unemployed and have no skills... go get them! I say go off the cliff... we tried a reorganization.... sorta like the pleas made to the bakers union at Hostess... they sure won that round... bet if there was no unemployment...they would be working on Monday.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  28. hoop..
    in 1993 thee was work to be found.
    it's not so easy now.

    kootch..

    i don't hear you worrying that all the tax breaks we are giving corporations to do business and create jobs overseas are contributing to the deficit...

    You worry when individuals might benefit from the public purse.

    Your lack of compassion for your fellow men saddens me...
    your lack of willingness to admit that you benefited from the very public services that you would deny others makes me shake my heard in weary disbelief..

    but your sour grapes..
    that inspires pity kootch.
    and don't think that was what you had in mind.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  29. kootch...

    "sorta like the pleas made to the bakers union at Hostess... they sure won that round... bet if there was no unemployment...they would be working on Monday."

    you left out the part where if they had been at work on monday it would have been without the pensions they earned and for wages that would have required many of them to apply for public assistance.

    i thought your mantra was that underpaid workers should help themselves by seeking better jobs... not by accepting conditions of employment that would force them onto the public dole.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  30. hooper1961
    Member Profile

    JoB

    better to have a job than no job. the hostess employees were warned!

    like many others i have taken a big cut in pay over the past few years. i too would like to make the money i made in 2008. i have been draining savings since 2009. that is why you are supposed to save during good times!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  31. hoop..

    "better to have a job than no job. the hostess employees were warned! "

    what seems to be lost in all of this is that the workers at wonder were already facing the loss of the futures they had invested in while baking all of those twinkies...

    they can get another low paying low return on your future job somewhere else...

    they had one chance to retain the futures they thought they had built there...

    this wasn't just about a pay cut hoop... it was about benefits and pensions...
    you know.. pensions.. a worker's savings account for that rainy day when they could no longer work.

    I am sorry you are draining your savings to get by hoop..
    but if you think it's justified for employers to hand out the kind of ultimatums Wonder did to their employees while rewarding the executives who ran the company in such a way that they had to raid employee pensions to show a profit....
    i wouldn't count on another good time to replenish them.

    those workers rights you are giving away are your own..
    even if you own your own company.

    Who do you think the profiteers will go after when they have drained their employee's resources.
    by your own admission, your wealth is already slowly being transferred to someone else's pocket.

    where do you think THAT will end?
    and how do you think you can end it without putting citizens back to work at a wage that allows to stop draining government resources?

    those who don't have can't spend
    and when they can't spend.. small business die

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  32. kootchman
    Member Profile

    You keep saying it.. it is no more true today then it was yesterday... the government does not give tax breaks to invest overseas. Well JoB .. now they have none of those things. They are unemployed, pensionless, .. if that's a win...I saw the video..chanting "shut it down, shut it down".. well, they did. You keep the illusion going that you can keep business here with draconian taxes... String it all together... you can't meet pension obligations that there is no revenue for. Who in their right mind would invest a dollar in a unionized company? I know whee it will end. I am prepared as I could get. Tell me, JoB.. there are less people working today then when Obama took office.. I watched Austin Gousbly squirm on that one! The US government spend... $1.65 for every dollar of revenue... how long do you think that can continue? Just a wild guess... see the magnitude of the tax hike to even get close to a balanced budget? And damned if Shumer thinks another 500 billion in stimulus money is just what we need. .. where ya going to cut? After all is said and done... it's not the "profiteers"... ( from which pensions and benefits come) ... the single largest draining of your resources is your government. Wait until the waiter comes with the check..... you are going to wish you stuck with a glass of water and breadsticks. Sadly in a sense, you are right... those with the mobility can largely avoid the fallout.... most won't. You cannot spend 165% more than your income and win. I ain't picking up the dinner tab... seperate checks please!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  33. Kootch

    "you can't meet pension obligations that there is no revenue for it"

    but you can bonus the executives who relieve the company of it's pension obligations?

    have you ever noticed that the executives who preside over the pension busting at their companies and receive those incredible bonuses for doing so are on their way out the door?

    that's because all they understand is the wall street formula of cutting labor costs to make the bottom line look good... they don't understand the business they are running.

    you can pick up the check kootch.
    since you are the one who benefits from policies like these

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  34. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    Hey Kootch,
    You remember just a few short years ago when we were running gov't SURPLUS' as far as they could project? Yeah, that was the 90's, dude. And they were paying down the debt. And making SS solvent for 75 yrs. And they had higher taxes on everything than they do now.

    The only things that changed was a new "businessman" president who ran two wars and made tax cuts on the credit card. Gee, wonder who thought THAT was a good idea? And I wonder where all the Teabaggers were then? Fools.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  35. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    And oh yeah, unemployment was at historic lows too. But that's all just inconvenient facts, right?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  36. wakeflood @34&35,
    Yeah. Robbing from the future, they were, in the 90s. And the future they robbed... was Now.

    It IS possible to live very well, have 'surpluses', for a small amt of time just using the credit card or playing an inflatable Ponzi scheme. There are diminishing returns tho, to that strategy - can't do it again (the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time) as easily. And the pay back is cruel. But pay back seems to be the future's problem - so, easily disregarded.

    Unemployment was low, sure, but not because Americans were making anything real, or building real wealth. America's economy was 2 ponzi bubbles. In the 90s and 2000s we inflated TWO very large debt bubbles, 2 Ponzi leverage bubbles. And we inflated them, back to back. They were the Ponzi Tech Bubble & Ponzi RE Bubble. Ponzi Tech ran inflated and burst under Clinton. Then it was quickly turned into the Ponzi Real Estate bubble under baby Bush, running and inflating and bursting once again, in 2008. And with no more inflatable bubbles waiting in the corridors, we were hit with long overdue economic contraction.

    Debt is NOT wealth; Leverage is not wealth. Debt, when it masqaurades as wealth, has rapidly diminishing returns. It's Payback Bites.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  37. I hate to agree with Kootchman on one thing: All Bush tax cuts should end. Period. The reason we projected a surplus so long ago is because our tax receipts were equal to or greater then our outlay. It worked then, it should work now. If not, go for taxing carried interest income too since we will need more revenue...it can only balance the books more fairly since it is income...so is my 401k but it will be taxed full meal deal when I withdraw it. Why shouldn't those like Romney do so as we'll have to? After all, he is supposedly retired from Bain?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  38. Econ 101- Capitalism is a constant series of boom-bust or "bubbles". This is built into the system. It is not a steady state system. Capitalism must be properly regulated or bad stuff happens.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  39. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Your forget a few things wakeflood.. like the kicking off the welfare roles of 50% of the recepients? Wanna see a video of Clinton's speech.. y;know the one.. "the era of big government is over? Amazing how many people magically become employed when there isn't 2 years of unemployment benefits... or cradle to grave biscuits and treats from your Uncle Sugar. Yep. That housing bubble was government interference into private markets with subsidized credit.. and so was the tech "bubble" when 401K's hit the scene and like magic the market was awash in cash... chasing market valuations instead of actual companies with good returns on invested capital. aka dividend income. Like that Clinton model? Obama has run more debt on Afghanistan then Bush...and.. he is borrowing a hell of a lot more at a faster rate. We didn't make a dent in the national debt under Clinton... but you can thank the Republican Congress headed by Gingrich for that restraint. We almost had Hilarycare.. yee gads!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  40. hoop

    "phasing out the Bush tax cuts would avoid the so called cliff by allowing people to adjust to paying more taxes over time. i am talking about every single one of the cuts including those that you and i in the middle benefit from!"

    an increase in taxes won't kill the middle class...
    they will in fact simply pay them

    but those tax dollars will not get spent in our communities... so businesses that depend upon them will fail.. which will increase unemployment.. which will spread the tax burden over a decreasing pool of taxpayers.

    i am thinking that is not what you had in mind.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  41. dobro - capitalism does not make speculative ponzi bubbles; leverage & easy credit does. further, economics isn't a science, it's more a philosophy. problem for the last century is that economics has been treated like its a science, where, if you just set up certain models (or scenarios & regulations), economists expect to get predictable results. thus, they argue & opine on how the levers should be turned. last century, everyone fell in love with science. before that, economics was more like philosophy or history. but the scientific tendency of the 1900s made it irresistably attractive to put economics into the Sciences category. I can't wait til someone figures out that the theories and models haven't actually worked -- except when all boats are floating.

    Next, we don't even have capitalism, so why bother to call it that. We have crony capitalism with the heavy influence of govt. skewing every input and every outcome.

    true capitalist free market, is dead.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  42. "true capitalist free market, is dead."

    True capitalist free market never existed. Please name the historical period in the US in which the gov't, its trade policies, regulations, and crony/lobbyist connections had no effect on the machinations of the market.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  43. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    like i've said: want to see what unregulated, unchecked free market capitalism looks like? take a look at aurora avenue north.

    or maybe at the hole foods site, which is about to get a whole foods as its neighbor.

    unregulated free market capitalism is merely narcissism writ large and institutionalized, with a healthy dose of stupidity thrown in to keep it interesting.

    Posted 2 years ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^