November 14, 2012 at 7:10 am #605581
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.November 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm #777320
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 :(November 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm #777321
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?November 14, 2012 at 5:27 pm #777322
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.November 14, 2012 at 5:35 pm #777323
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!November 14, 2012 at 6:00 pm #777324
“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?November 14, 2012 at 6:03 pm #777325
Democrats are now looking at capping tax deductions, which was one of Romney’s things.
This is the way to govern. By honoring your opponent.November 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm #777326
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 excuseNovember 14, 2012 at 6:40 pm #777327
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.November 14, 2012 at 11:42 pm #777328
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.November 15, 2012 at 12:19 am #777329
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?November 15, 2012 at 3:57 am #777330
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 deductionsNovember 15, 2012 at 5:07 am #777331
“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.November 15, 2012 at 4:12 pm #777332
“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.November 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm #777333
“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.November 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm #777334
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 ageNovember 15, 2012 at 4:27 pm #777335November 15, 2012 at 4:27 pm #777336
“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.November 15, 2012 at 4:30 pm #777337
“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.November 15, 2012 at 4:54 pm #777338
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 obamaNovember 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm #777339
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.November 15, 2012 at 6:21 pm #777340
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.November 15, 2012 at 7:03 pm #777341
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.November 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm #777342
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!November 16, 2012 at 3:09 am #777343
“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.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.