Obama launches fiscal cliff negotiations, reminds GOP that he just won a mandate for taxing the rich
90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Glaber;38388774]PAHA AHAHAH
Dude, I wasn't even thinking about that scandel. I was thinking of how Clinton actually worked with the Republicans to get stuff done. Clinton actually compromised. What compromise do you think Obama will do?
Oh wow, way to miss what I'm saying. I'm saying Republicans actually worked with Clinton back then, and that they are less likely to work with Obama now.
You know, you should really watch that gun you're jumping. It might just be ready to go off.[/QUOTE]
Why do Democrats always have to reach out? Republicans have been stomping their feet, and having a damn hissy fit for the past 4 years, denying any legislation from getting done just to blame it on the Democrats. You need to realize that your ideological bullshit is getting this country nowhere and actually work to get things done.
The reason Republicans worked with Clinton was because THEY actually gave a little back, too. Democracy isn't a one-way street.
I'd love to have another Clinton second term. A national surplus for the first time in DECADES, historic lows in unemployment, and a government that actually works together instead of bickering? Fuck yeah! Bring it on!
[QUOTE=draugur;38388866]I have an idea. If the rich can prove they are creating jobs and need the money, then they won't have to pay as much as the rich fuckers who do nothing, still gotta pay some, but not as much. That'd give incentive to create jobs and thus more tax payers.[/QUOTE]
But... but... capitalism is working! Right?
[QUOTE=Glaber;38388774]PAHA AHAHAH
Dude, I wasn't even thinking about that scandel. I was thinking of how Clinton actually worked with the Republicans to get stuff done. Clinton actually compromised. What compromise do you think Obama will do?
Oh wow, way to miss what I'm saying. I'm saying Republicans actually worked with Clinton back then, and that they are less likely to work with Obama now.
You know, you should really watch that gun you're jumping. It might just be ready to go off.[/QUOTE]
Compromise? Fucking hell, I hope you're right that Obama won't try that anymore, it's been made blatantly clear that compromise now means either giving the Republicans almost everything they want or getting absolutely nothing done at all. The bipartisan rhetoric was all very exciting in 2008 but it's been proven [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act]time[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis]time[/url] again that the Republicans are not genuinely interested in pursuing it and would rather focus on trying to frame the other side for the inaction that they are forcing. What Obama needs to do is take the fight to the GOP, and I hope and pray that he has learned that now, and that his challenge to the GOP on the middle class tax cut extension is a sign of that.
And by the way, going back to the mandate thing. Even if Obama doesn't have an electoral mandate, polls have [url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/cnn-poll-only-one-third-favor-tax-cut-extension-for-wealthy/]repeatedly[/url] [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/cain-pulls-even-with-romney-on-economy-for-republican-supporters-in-poll.html]found[/url] that roughly two-thirds of Americans want the Bush tax cuts to expire for the highest bracket. This is exactly the sort of thing that Obama should not compromise on.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;38386986]In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems with the Presidency. Isn't it a little odd that the moment a President gets reelected, he starts to implement policies that wouldn't have gotten him reelected in the first place?
I understand that every President that gets a second term does this, but it just doesn't seem right at all.[/QUOTE]
This is why Mexico has a term limit of one but it lasts six years
Cmon Glaber, what's next on your list of things
[QUOTE=Glaber;38388774]PAHA AHAHAH
Dude, I wasn't even thinking about that scandel. I was thinking of how Clinton actually worked with the Republicans to get stuff done. Clinton actually compromised. What compromise do you think Obama will do?
Oh wow, way to miss what I'm saying. I'm saying Republicans actually worked with Clinton back then, and that they are less likely to work with Obama now.
You know, you should really watch that gun you're jumping. It might just be ready to go off.[/QUOTE]
did u escape from the conservapedia forums again
[QUOTE=Trogdon;38386635]Yeah now the rich move to other countries[/QUOTE]
We still have one of the best markets in the world, where the hell do you think people will go? People go to the other countries for cheap labour and to ruin the environment generally speaking. We're still the land of opportunity for big business.
Conservatives are backwards, the will of man is to go foward not back in time. Conservatism is outdated.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38388479]the margin doesn't matter, majority does. whether it was 51% of americans or 60%, the majority of americans voted obama and want his policies. cope.[/QUOTE]
The majority of VOTING americans voted obama.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;38389417]The majority of VOTING americans voted obama.[/QUOTE]
If somebody isn't going to try to improve their situation then they don't get to be a part of the statistic.
[QUOTE=geel9;38389479]If somebody isn't going to try to improve their situation then they don't get to be a part of the statistic.[/QUOTE]
the fuck is this supposed to mean
[QUOTE=geel9;38389479]If somebody isn't going to try to improve their situation then they don't get to be a part of the statistic.[/QUOTE]
what are you even saying dude
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38389498]the fuck is this supposed to mean[/QUOTE]
It's actually a statement I use for the whole "discourage workers not in the unemployment rate" thing but it also applies for the election
[QUOTE=geel9;38389514]It's actually a statement I use for the whole "discourage workers not in the unemployment rate" thing but it also applies for the election[/QUOTE]
Do you have a habit of not making sense?
[QUOTE=geel9;38389514]It's actually a statement I use for the whole "discourage workers not in the unemployment rate" thing but it also applies for the election[/QUOTE]
im sorry this is even more confusing than your original post
please decipher
[QUOTE=geel9;38389514]It's actually a statement I use for the whole "discourage workers not in the unemployment rate" thing but it also applies for the election[/QUOTE]
i have no fucking clue what you're trying to argue but the most basic point of voting is to represent your opinion on thing x, y, or z
i voted for rocky anderson because that represents what i think
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38389531]Do you have a habit of not making sense.[/QUOTE]
Saying that "the majority of VOTING Americans" is to be considered differently from the majority of Americans is silly
First of all, it's a massive sample of the population, so it's very accurate and can generally be considered as a model for the entire population.
Secondly, if someone isn't voting, then it's hard to take their opinion into account if they don't give enough of a shit to do something about it.
got my best people at the NSA trying to figure out what the fuck Geel is saying.
not necessarily with you on line 3 but yes this is correct and brt is wrong
[QUOTE=geel9;38389479]If somebody isn't going to try to improve their situation then they don't get to be a part of the statistic.[/QUOTE]
Not voting, an abstain, isn't equivalent to not having a part in it. An apathetic abstain, maybe. But most people who consciously abstain are not doing so to avoid being part of a statistic, and not voting has an effect on both the election and the cultural and political mindset of the time.
I really despise it when people believe an abstain is bad or wrong practice. It's neccessary and should be done more often. A large and significant enough abstain would cause serious political drama and would NEED to be addressed. Voters who see the election as entirely pointless, a turd sandwhich and a giant douche as it were, and choose not to vote, are heros when there's enough of them.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;38386635]Yeah now the rich move to other countries[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;38386635]Yeah now the rich move to other countries[/QUOTE]
...dramatically reducing the value of the dollar temporarily as assets are liquidated, before slowly normalizing after an influx of foreign and domestic investment. This contrasts the exponentially declining net worth of individuals attempting to establish mansions and upper-class environments in Somalia, only able to defend themselves with sufficiently white (and thus pricey) mercenaries.
Truly profitable targets for criminal activity now within their grasp, the Somali warlord profession becomes a caste, propped up by an influx of pirates and criminals eager for easier and higher-paying conquests. This new horde proves unmanagable to all but the most hardened of rent-a-cops, and as the rapidly dwindling assets of those they protect dry up, in time, even the hired guns flee. Driving stolen sports cars, drinking wine from the skulls of obese old white men, and living in the blasted ruins of a short-term resplendence, the new money of Africa gradually begins to conquer Kenya and Ethiopia. Inter-warlord feuding begins, quickly mollified by a charismatic leader with dreams of broader, and soon international, plunder.
An empire is born.
[IMG]http://i.minus.com/jbbP7ybEwqy9eC.PNG[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Nikota;38388465]Oh man a guy got a blowjob.
Fuck he was a terrible president.[/QUOTE]
Conservatives can't handle people having more sex than them.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;38387671]dismantling the defense budget is a double-sided blade, but it's something i'm in favor for; it will take away jobs, but it will create excess in other eras, such as education, and social and human services, which i favor greatly over a saturated military and overly capitalizing defense contractors (e.g. Bath Iron Works in Maine)
we really have no reason to be in various third-world countries (iraq, afghan, etc), with the cost of imposing greater demand on our defense budget[/QUOTE]
Honestly I get the feeling that the only reason our defense budget is so high is because its a massive job creator in a sense. The US gained immense wealth directly after both world war 1 and 2, partially because of this, all the jobs it created, etc. The budget never went down probably because it would mean cutting out thousands of jobs from contractors keeping the US armed during those times, the soldiers training, etc.
In order for us to kill the defense budget as such we'd need to make it up in some other area, much like what FDR did for the "new deal" for americans to cure the great depression. That gave tons of government-mandated jobs for infrastructure which allowed stuff like railroads and highways to be built across the country, and also gave the american people a place to work. Except in this case, the "new deal" would be for people who find themselves out of work from military service or contracting work and need something to keep them employed.
[QUOTE=archangel125;38391077]Conservatives can't handle people having more sex than them.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;ENnAa7rqtBM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENnAa7rqtBM[/video]
[QUOTE=Trogdon;38386635]Yeah now the rich move to other countries[/QUOTE]
Like where? America is by far one of the better countries to be rich in considering Canada and most of Europe have higher tax rate, tighter regulation or both.[QUOTE=Glaber;38388282]He thinks he got a mandate. How cute.
Grow up Barry. the popular vote proved how tight the race was. you mandate would have only happened with a higher victory.[/QUOTE]
Glaber, how about me and you have a mandate
Remember when Obama got the pen out and said he was ready to sign an extension to the middle class tax cuts?
[img]http://puu.sh/1oyY5[/img]
Yeah
[QUOTE=Rents;38394051]Glaber, how about me and you have a mandate[/QUOTE]
"Now class, if you turn to page 53 of the revised karma sutra you'll find a particularly intricate one, the American Mandate."
