Biden: Clear 'Mandate' to Raise Taxes

[LibertyLemming]

It isn't too ludicrous an idea to expect the Head of the Party (president) to guide his party's hand in drafting legislation.

Oldstyle expects the President to FORCE his party's hand.

Just like GWB.

Well, he does everything else like GWB so why not?

 

[oldernwiser]

Let Democraps fuck things up even more with higher taxes, then see how they get out of their hole.

The joke is they will only getting less than $100B in new tax revenue but will spend $1T more.....making a bigger mess.

It amazes me how folks don't look at the actual data before they make these kind of statements. Carter increased taxes and balanced the budget. Reagan cut taxes to the rich in his administration and GHW Bush continued the process and by the time Clinton took office, the debt to GDP ratio had climbed over 30%. Clinton began balancing the budget and the debt to GDP ratio dropped 10% by the time G Dubya Bush got his hands on the wheel, cut taxes massively, and promptly drove the debt to GDP ratio another 30% higher. Even if we fully blame Obama for the 25% increase during his Bush's last fiscal year as president, Republicans have driven the debt to ratio up over 60% while Democrats have a net gain of about 10%.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It isn't too ludicrous an idea to expect the Head of the Party (president) to guide his party's hand in drafting legislation.

Oldstyle expects the President to FORCE his party's hand.

Just like GWB.

Well, he does everything else like GWB so why not?

Yes GWB wanted to raise taxes on the rich.

 

[oldernwiser]

Oldstyle expects the President to FORCE his party's hand.

Just like GWB.

Well, he does everything else like GWB so why not?

Yes GWB wanted to raise taxes on the rich.

I would disagree with that statement. Dubya saw what a tax increase meant to a presidency when he stood on the stage while his father gave his concession speech. He learned that lesson VERY well.

 

[Oldstyle]

What are you even talking about? The Bush tax cuts were set to expire, there was not passing legislation to get rid of an existing bill.




Because health care was a more important issue. He used the super-majority to pass that and now you and the right are whining like children. You whine when he uses the super-majority you whine when he doesn't its whining all the time, isn't it?


Your questions are childish your attitude is.

Just as the Bush tax cuts were quite easily extended...they could have also quite easily been gotten rid of. Yet Obama chose not to. Why is that?

I just told you. Health care was more important.

Nice to know that health care was more important than the economy and the millions of people who were out of work, OohPoo!

Where did I say that? Now you're just making shit up.

Once again your response has been feeble. I'm off to work now...try and come up with some better excuses for why Barack Obama didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts...you're embarrassing yourself with these!

The primary and sole reason is Congress did not send him a bill getting rid of those cuts. I'd like you to show me where in the Constitution it says the President gets to write the law anyway he sees fit so long as he has a super-majority in Congress.


Or perhaps you're just confusing the Democratic party with the Republican party. The Republicans all vote in lock-step like mindless drones, the Democrats actually think for themselves and as a result - don't usually all vote exactly the same.

The President is the LEADER of the party...he sets an agenda and asks Congress to pass legislation to further that agenda. If, as in the case of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, the President is working with a Congress controlled by the opposition then compromise is generally made on what the agenda will be. In Barack Obama's case he controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate...so he had ZERO excuses for the agenda that was chosen. It wasn't the Republicans that "forced" him to go after a massive expansion of government into health care while pushing things like unemployment onto a back burner. That was a choice that Barack Obama made.

At this point I've become increasingly amused by the ability of progressives like yourself to give credit to Barack Obama for things that happened during his Presidency that he had little to do with...such as the stock market rebounding or more oil and natural gas being produced...and at the same time absolve him from any and all responsibility for things like Benghazi and Fast & Furious. The buck stops at President Barack Obama's desk if there is credit being handed out but if there's blame to be shared...then it's ALWAYS someone else that's at fault and the buck stops THERE.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let Democraps fuck things up even more with higher taxes, then see how they get out of their hole.

The joke is they will only getting less than $100B in new tax revenue but will spend $1T more.....making a bigger mess.

It amazes me how folks don't look at the actual data before they make these kind of statements. Carter increased taxes and balanced the budget. Reagan cut taxes to the rich in his administration and GHW Bush continued the process and by the time Clinton took office, the debt to GDP ratio had climbed over 30%. Clinton began balancing the budget and the debt to GDP ratio dropped 10% by the time G Dubya Bush got his hands on the wheel, cut taxes massively, and promptly drove the debt to GDP ratio another 30% higher. Even if we fully blame Obama for the 25% increase during his Bush's last fiscal year as president, Republicans have driven the debt to ratio up over 60% while Democrats have a net gain of about 10%.

With all due respect, Older...I disagree with your rather simplistic characterization of what's taken place over the past thirty or so years. Carter's economic policies had this country mired in nasty stagflation that was so bad it prompted the creation of a new economic statistic...the misery index. Reagan turned things around with the economy by pursuing a supply side solution. His problem was that he couldn't say no to military appropriations and spent huge sums of money on defense. Clinton's economic numbers look great because he was able to cash in the so called "peace dividend" because we weren't involved in any major military engagements during his two terms and because the Dot Com Boom was going on for much of his two terms. W. cut taxes in an attempt to spur the economy following the bursting of the Dot. Com. bubble. Lumping Obama's awful economic numbers in with Clinton's to try and make the point (I guess that's the point you're making?) that Obama's economic policies have worked is at best misleading.

 

[oldernwiser]

Let Democraps fuck things up even more with higher taxes, then see how they get out of their hole.

The joke is they will only getting less than $100B in new tax revenue but will spend $1T more.....making a bigger mess.

It amazes me how folks don't look at the actual data before they make these kind of statements. Carter increased taxes and balanced the budget. Reagan cut taxes to the rich in his administration and GHW Bush continued the process and by the time Clinton took office, the debt to GDP ratio had climbed over 30%. Clinton began balancing the budget and the debt to GDP ratio dropped 10% by the time G Dubya Bush got his hands on the wheel, cut taxes massively, and promptly drove the debt to GDP ratio another 30% higher. Even if we fully blame Obama for the 25% increase during his Bush's last fiscal year as president, Republicans have driven the debt to ratio up over 60% while Democrats have a net gain of about 10%.

With all due respect, Older...I disagree with your rather simplistic characterization of what's taken place over the past thirty or so years. Carter's economic policies had this country mired in nasty stagflation that was so bad it prompted the creation of a new economic statistic...the misery index. Reagan turned things around with the economy by pursuing a supply side solution. His problem was that he couldn't say no to military appropriations and spent huge sums of money on defense. Clinton's economic numbers look great because he was able to cash in the so called "peace dividend" because we weren't involved in any major military engagements during his two terms and because the Dot Com Boom was going on for much of his two terms. W. cut taxes in an attempt to spur the economy following the bursting of the Dot. Com. bubble. Lumping Obama's awful economic numbers in with Clinton's to try and make the point (I guess that's the point you're making?) that Obama's economic policies have worked is at best misleading.

I guess you missed my point. What is painfully obvious is that the current situation is neither Democrat or Republican based in and of itself and isn't the fault of any single individual - our government has worked very hard over the last 60 years to put us in this situation. The real fact is that neither side has controlled spending very well and pointing to a Democrat as the root cause is silly at best.

 

[Claudette]

Your right there. Both parties have landed us in the mess we are now in.

The Clowns in congress simply can't resist spending, spending and spending like they have a credit card with no end.

I doubt seriously that the eocnomy is going anywhere for the next four years. The Reps have the House and the Dems have the Senate and we still have the same fuck in the WH. Nothing has changed

 

[LibertyLemming]

Oldstyle expects the President to FORCE his party's hand.

Just like GWB.

Well, he does everything else like GWB so why not?

Yes GWB wanted to raise taxes on the rich.

You can find maybe 2 or 3 differences. They are still overwhelmingly more alike than different.

 

[Oldstyle]

It amazes me how folks don't look at the actual data before they make these kind of statements. Carter increased taxes and balanced the budget. Reagan cut taxes to the rich in his administration and GHW Bush continued the process and by the time Clinton took office, the debt to GDP ratio had climbed over 30%. Clinton began balancing the budget and the debt to GDP ratio dropped 10% by the time G Dubya Bush got his hands on the wheel, cut taxes massively, and promptly drove the debt to GDP ratio another 30% higher. Even if we fully blame Obama for the 25% increase during his Bush's last fiscal year as president, Republicans have driven the debt to ratio up over 60% while Democrats have a net gain of about 10%.

With all due respect, Older...I disagree with your rather simplistic characterization of what's taken place over the past thirty or so years. Carter's economic policies had this country mired in nasty stagflation that was so bad it prompted the creation of a new economic statistic...the misery index. Reagan turned things around with the economy by pursuing a supply side solution. His problem was that he couldn't say no to military appropriations and spent huge sums of money on defense. Clinton's economic numbers look great because he was able to cash in the so called "peace dividend" because we weren't involved in any major military engagements during his two terms and because the Dot Com Boom was going on for much of his two terms. W. cut taxes in an attempt to spur the economy following the bursting of the Dot. Com. bubble. Lumping Obama's awful economic numbers in with Clinton's to try and make the point (I guess that's the point you're making?) that Obama's economic policies have worked is at best misleading.

I guess you missed my point. What is painfully obvious is that the current situation is neither Democrat or Republican based in and of itself and isn't the fault of any single individual - our government has worked very hard over the last 60 years to put us in this situation. The real fact is that neither side has controlled spending very well and pointing to a Democrat as the root cause is silly at best.

Now THAT I agree with completely! It's why I've advocated across the board cuts to Federal spending of 10% to every department and agency with no exceptions that the politicians can exempt "their" pet program from. It's my belief that waste is so widespread in our present government that if their feet were held to the fire they could make cuts of that size without our losing any services.

Knowing Government as I do however I'm also very aware that the first thing the folks who control those departments and agencies will do is try to frighten us into letting them keep their big budgets. They will do so by the time honored method of shrieking loudly and repeatedly that such cuts will force them to lay off "teachers, cops and fire fighters"...not to mention any other service that they know we the people really like...things such as parks. Cut our funding, they will tell us...and you will leave us no choice but to punish you with the loss of the parts of government that you like and need.

If we, as an electorate had enough unity to call that bluff and demand that those same "managers" in our government DID get their houses in order...then and only then will we start to get this run a way spending problem under control.

 

[oldernwiser]

With all due respect, Older...I disagree with your rather simplistic characterization of what's taken place over the past thirty or so years. Carter's economic policies had this country mired in nasty stagflation that was so bad it prompted the creation of a new economic statistic...the misery index. Reagan turned things around with the economy by pursuing a supply side solution. His problem was that he couldn't say no to military appropriations and spent huge sums of money on defense. Clinton's economic numbers look great because he was able to cash in the so called "peace dividend" because we weren't involved in any major military engagements during his two terms and because the Dot Com Boom was going on for much of his two terms. W. cut taxes in an attempt to spur the economy following the bursting of the Dot. Com. bubble. Lumping Obama's awful economic numbers in with Clinton's to try and make the point (I guess that's the point you're making?) that Obama's economic policies have worked is at best misleading.

I guess you missed my point. What is painfully obvious is that the current situation is neither Democrat or Republican based in and of itself and isn't the fault of any single individual - our government has worked very hard over the last 60 years to put us in this situation. The real fact is that neither side has controlled spending very well and pointing to a Democrat as the root cause is silly at best.

Now THAT I agree with completely! It's why I've advocated across the board cuts to Federal spending of 10% to every department and agency with no exceptions that the politicians can exempt "their" pet program from. It's my belief that waste is so widespread in our present government that if their feet were held to the fire they could make cuts of that size without our losing any services.

Knowing Government as I do however I'm also very aware that the first thing the folks who control those departments and agencies will do is try to frighten us into letting them keep their big budgets. They will do so by the time honored method of shrieking loudly and repeatedly that such cuts will force them to lay off "teachers, cops and fire fighters"...not to mention any other service that they know we the people really like...things such as parks. Cut our funding, they will tell us...and you will leave us no choice but to punish you with the loss of the parts of government that you like and need.

If we, as an electorate had enough unity to call that bluff and demand that those same "managers" in our government DID get their houses in order...then and only then will we start to get this run a way spending problem under control.

Yep - the best way to get what you want from the electorate is to try to scare them. "The fiscal cliff will drive us into another recession", "limiting spending will mean deep slashes to services", "Obamacare will cause massive layoffs"... The thing is, it works.