Biden: Clear 'Mandate' to Raise Taxes

[Navy1960]

Forgive me here, but the last time I checked a "mandate" in an election meant to "Give (someone) authority to act in a certain way" It would seem that while we as a nation have a House that has a majority that is in the hands of one party and a Senate in the hands of another and the White House won in what you might call an electorial blowout, but a popular vote spilt, that would hardly qualify as a mandate. What it does indicate in my humble opinion is a nation that is fed up with both sides of a do nothing Govt. that not only spends to much but does not keep the nations finanacial house in order. It's also my humble opinion this is not a mandate to take meat cleaver to every Govt. program simply because someone might be opposed to it, however what it does mean is that Govt. should spend it's money in a wise manner and also recognize that revenue is required to run the Govt.

 

[LibertyLemming]

People claim to be "fed up" but keep voting in the same kind of politicians lolzlzlzl

 

[Navy1960]

Just a questrion Liberty , do you suppose that is because the choices are limited more so these day's by the cost it takes to actually run for election? I am sure there are many good people who would make fine public servants but do not have the financial ability to do so. While this is no excuse for the voter who complains about things , then turns around and votes a straight party line vote. It's just a question about more choice in elections.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Just a questrion Liberty , do you suppose that is because the choices are limited more so these day's by the cost it takes to actually run for election? I am sure there are many good people who would make fine public servants but do not have the financial ability to do so. While this is no excuse for the voter who complains about things , then turns around and votes a straight party line vote. It's just a question about more choice in elections.

I guess some people would reason it that way. It shouldn't matter how much money someone spent when you go to vote. If there are no cadidates that you like, don't vote. There is plenty of information available on 3rd party candidates if that is an alternative you would like to pursue. The problem is most people just believe everything they hear and then go vote R or D based on which one lies to them better. Even that is changing though, people are actually starting to favor the Constitutionless authoritarian people that keep winning election after election.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There was no mandate for anything. There was a clear message that very close to half the country intends to do everything they can to continue to stop obama's policies. That is, everything they can legally do. Heaven help us if that half should give up on the legally part.

While the other half wants to do everything they can to better our nation.

Americans voted NO to obstructionist politics.

 

[Oldstyle]

There was no mandate for anything. There was a clear message that very close to half the country intends to do everything they can to continue to stop obama's policies. That is, everything they can legally do. Heaven help us if that half should give up on the legally part.

While the other half wants to do everything they can to better our nation.

Americans voted NO to obstructionist politics.

So the Obama folks are going to do everything they can to "better our nation"? I'll bet money that this Administration will in fact allow the Bush tax cuts to expire...raising taxes on everyone. Why? Because it's a win/win for them. With the help of a compliant main stream media they will blame Republican "obstructionist politics" and in the meantime they will get to spend all that extra revenue coming into the Federal Government (before of course the economy grinds to a halt thereby lowering the amount of revenues coming in)

I'm curious, OohPoo...if you REALLY think America voted no to "obstructionist politics" then why do we have essentially the EXACT set up we had before?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There was no mandate for anything. There was a clear message that very close to half the country intends to do everything they can to continue to stop obama's policies. That is, everything they can legally do. Heaven help us if that half should give up on the legally part.

While the other half wants to do everything they can to better our nation.

Americans voted NO to obstructionist politics.

So the Obama folks are going to do everything they can to "better our nation"? I'll bet money that this Administration will in fact allow the Bush tax cuts to expire...raising taxes on everyone. Why? Because it's a win/win for them. With the help of a compliant main stream media they will blame Republican "obstructionist politics" and in the meantime they will get to spend all that extra revenue coming into the Federal Government (before of course the economy grinds to a halt thereby lowering the amount of revenues coming in)

I'm curious, OohPoo...if you REALLY think America voted no to "obstructionist politics" then why do we have essentially the EXACT set up we had before?

Obama does not get to write the law. He cannot prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring all on his own. If the Bush tax cuts expire its because Republicans in the House would prefer to stick it to everyone instead of allowing them to expire only on the wealthy. That's the plain truth. For Obama to sign into a law a bill that would keep them for everyone would be fiscally irresponsible.

 

[oldernwiser]

Just a questrion Liberty , do you suppose that is because the choices are limited more so these day's by the cost it takes to actually run for election? I am sure there are many good people who would make fine public servants but do not have the financial ability to do so. While this is no excuse for the voter who complains about things , then turns around and votes a straight party line vote. It's just a question about more choice in elections.

I guess some people would reason it that way. It shouldn't matter how much money someone spent when you go to vote. If there are no cadidates that you like, don't vote. There is plenty of information available on 3rd party candidates if that is an alternative you would like to pursue. The problem is most people just believe everything they hear and then go vote R or D based on which one lies to them better. Even that is changing though, people are actually starting to favor the Constitutionless authoritarian people that keep winning election after election.

Interesting point - and probably the reason that this election was so evenly divided. Both candidates were conservative authoritarians - the only real difference between them was their social stances, which put Obama slightly left of Romney. If viewed that way, then a slight majority of voters said that social issues are more important than fiscal issues. I wonder how the election would have been different had Romney come out in favor of women's rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . or Hispanic rights.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LL does not get it. The dems had 51.5% of the vote cast and 126 more EC votes than the Pubs.

Some major cons now are saying give in to a small tax on the wealthy. Look it up, cause I won't do it for you.

You don't get it. The Pubs and Dems are the same. Obama has continued basically every Bush policy and strengthened some as well.

Half of 1/3 of the country voting for Obama does not reflect the wants and needs of the entire country.

**** why do I keep responding to you

Bush's policy was the individual health care mandate?

Bush's policy was to raise taxes?

Who knew!


BTW, I like how you include children in the total vote! I guess you want to count yourself.

 

[LibertyLemming]

LL does not get it. The dems had 51.5% of the vote cast and 126 more EC votes than the Pubs.

Some major cons now are saying give in to a small tax on the wealthy. Look it up, cause I won't do it for you.

You don't get it. The Pubs and Dems are the same. Obama has continued basically every Bush policy and strengthened some as well.

Half of 1/3 of the country voting for Obama does not reflect the wants and needs of the entire country.

**** why do I keep responding to you

Bush's policy was the individual health care mandate?

Bush's policy was to raise taxes?

Who knew!


BTW, I like how you include children in the total vote! I guess you want to count yourself.

Reading is hard. I said basically every issue. Bush reformed healthcare just like Obama did. Bush lowered taxes and Obama wants to raise them, that is about the only difference. Obama continued Bush's wars and started some new ones. Bush had the Patriot Act, Obama kept it and added NDAA. Bush started massive drone strikes and Obama expanded it. Both parties want nothing more than to expand their control over your life.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, but Obama is giving out free phones i hear. So there is that.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Yes, but Obama is giving out free phones i hear. So there is that.

I enjoyed this one from the 08 election.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRwbPPcZLQY]We aint gotta pay no bills - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

LL, your anarcho-libertarianism is nothing but words that can only translate into a post-apocalyptic world.

And those who refuse and resist incorporation as civilization reasserts itself will be driven out or worse.

So you have a problem with authority whether familial or government or business or military.

No one cares.

 

[LibertyLemming]

LL, your anarcho-libertarianism is nothing but words that can only translate into a post-apocalyptic world.

And those who refuse and resist incorporation as civilization reasserts itself will be driven out or worse.

So you have a problem with authority whether familial or government or business or military.

No one cares.

I care and that is all that matters. Enjoy your chains.

Edit: learn to ******* quote reply by the way, you respond after so that people can read all the previous conversation and then read what you have to say (or lackthereof in your case)

 

[Oldstyle]

While the other half wants to do everything they can to better our nation.

Americans voted NO to obstructionist politics.

So the Obama folks are going to do everything they can to "better our nation"? I'll bet money that this Administration will in fact allow the Bush tax cuts to expire...raising taxes on everyone. Why? Because it's a win/win for them. With the help of a compliant main stream media they will blame Republican "obstructionist politics" and in the meantime they will get to spend all that extra revenue coming into the Federal Government (before of course the economy grinds to a halt thereby lowering the amount of revenues coming in)

I'm curious, OohPoo...if you REALLY think America voted no to "obstructionist politics" then why do we have essentially the EXACT set up we had before?

Obama does not get to write the law. He cannot prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring all on his own. If the Bush tax cuts expire its because Republicans in the House would prefer to stick it to everyone instead of allowing them to expire only on the wealthy. That's the plain truth. For Obama to sign into a law a bill that would keep them for everyone would be fiscally irresponsible.

Well thank heavens for that, OohPoo! We'd really be up the creek without a paddle if we were relying on Barack Obama to write a law. God, knows he hasn't even TRIED to do that since his second year in the Illinois State Senate when after two years of having every single piece of legislation he wrote not be passed, he gave up and went to Emile Jones for a little "help". Ever since he's had OTHERS write his legislation for him and he just signs his John Hancock on it when they're done. Gee, that must be why he and Joe Biden get along so well! Joe likes having other people do his work for him too.

As for what he could have done? I hate to remind all you progressives of the reality of the first part of his term but with super majorities in both the Senate and the House, Barry could have done pretty much whatever he WANTED to do. The reason that the Democrats didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts was because some of their more intelligent members pointed out to them that it would damage the economy so much that none of them would get re-elected. That's the plain truth...not the fairy tale you folks have come up with to make this all a Republican bail out of "rich guys".

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one cares about your authority problem, kiddo.

LL, your anarcho-libertarianism is nothing but words that can only translate into a post-apocalyptic world.

And those who refuse and resist incorporation as civilization reasserts itself will be driven out or worse.

So you have a problem with authority whether familial or government or business or military.

No one cares.

I care and that is all that matters. Enjoy your chains.

Edit: learn to ******* quote reply by the way, you respond after so that people can read all the previous conversation and then read what you have to say (or lackthereof in your case)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He seems to care. You could always show how little you care and STFU. But i realize that this is the log jammed in your eye.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So the Obama folks are going to do everything they can to "better our nation"? I'll bet money that this Administration will in fact allow the Bush tax cuts to expire...raising taxes on everyone. Why? Because it's a win/win for them. With the help of a compliant main stream media they will blame Republican "obstructionist politics" and in the meantime they will get to spend all that extra revenue coming into the Federal Government (before of course the economy grinds to a halt thereby lowering the amount of revenues coming in)

I'm curious, OohPoo...if you REALLY think America voted no to "obstructionist politics" then why do we have essentially the EXACT set up we had before?

Obama does not get to write the law. He cannot prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring all on his own. If the Bush tax cuts expire its because Republicans in the House would prefer to stick it to everyone instead of allowing them to expire only on the wealthy. That's the plain truth. For Obama to sign into a law a bill that would keep them for everyone would be fiscally irresponsible.

Well thank heavens for that, OohPoo! We'd really be up the creek without a paddle if we were relying on Barack Obama to write a law. God, knows he hasn't even TRIED to do that since his second year in the Illinois State Senate when after two years of having every single piece of legislation he wrote not be passed, he gave up and went to Emile Jones for a little "help". Ever since he's had OTHERS write his legislation for him and he just signs his John Hancock on it when they're done. Gee, that must be why he and Joe Biden get along so well! Joe likes having other people do his work for him too.

As for what he could have done? I hate to remind all you progressives of the reality of the first part of his term but with super majorities in both the Senate and the House, Barry could have done pretty much whatever he WANTED to do. The reason that the Democrats didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts was because some of their more intelligent members pointed out to them that it would damage the economy so much that none of them would get re-elected. That's the plain truth...not the fairy tale you folks have come up with to make this all a Republican bail out of "rich guys".

There was a super-majority for only 6 months, broken into two pieces.

Obama did not want to get rid of all the tax cuts.

BTW, when you're ready to stop acting like a child, let us know.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You don't get it. The Pubs and Dems are the same. Obama has continued basically every Bush policy and strengthened some as well.

Half of 1/3 of the country voting for Obama does not reflect the wants and needs of the entire country.

**** why do I keep responding to you

Bush's policy was the individual health care mandate?

Bush's policy was to raise taxes?

Who knew!


BTW, I like how you include children in the total vote! I guess you want to count yourself.

Reading is hard.

You keep saying that. Why is it hard? Do you have trouble reading the words with your eyes? You might wanna see an eye doctor.

I said basically every issue.

Yeah - right - basically every issue, except the two biggest ones.

Bush reformed healthcare just like Obama did.

Bush did not impose an individual healthcare mandate. You're stretching the meaning of "just as" to oblivion.

Bush lowered taxes and Obama wants to raise them, that is about the only difference. Obama continued Bush's wars and started some new ones. Bush had the Patriot Act, Obama kept it and added NDAA. Bush started massive drone strikes and Obama expanded it. Both parties want nothing more than to expand their control over your life.

Obama did not put boots on the ground in any major conflict that Bush hadn't already started.



You're a ******* idiot.