PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Mandate: At what point would Obama and Dems state that they have one?


chris
10-19-2008, 10:47 AM
And what would that mean for the the USA?

I'm thinking that if Obama wins by even 5-7% and the Senate goes to 60 seats, the leaders of the Dems are going to declare a MANDATE for radical new ideas and pent up quest for spending on social programs. Much like LBJ and the 60s.


Roll back on tax cuts & less people paying income taxes thus insuring more class warfare, another $1,000 "go shopping" give away, increased welfare, a run at national health insurance, etc.

Spend, spend, spend.

Thoughts??

clemensol
10-19-2008, 10:50 AM
Well the media declared a mandate when Bush won in 04 so using that as a barometer, I would say a lot less than 5-7%

Direckshun
10-19-2008, 10:53 AM
A mandate is technically any time you win 50% of the vote.

If Obama wins that, it's a mandate.

However, that mandate is basically just a useless rhetorical tool. Functionally, it means nothing.

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:54 AM
Bush:

“earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.” He said, “That’s what happened in the—after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election—and I’m going to spend it.”

Bush, always so quick to spend whether he has the money (capital) or not.

HolmeZz
10-19-2008, 10:56 AM
Obama's not going to govern radically. He's not the type to completely upset the applecart. I think he'll realize people will expect him to because he'll have a Dem congress with him, but I think he'll use this opportunity to govern much more moderately. This'll allow him to gain the respect from many on the center-right as it shows that Obama is reasonable and not interested in alienating the portion of the country that disagrees with him on many issues.

Obama doesn't want to be a one-term President. He's had a penchant for seeing the big picture.

chris
10-19-2008, 10:59 AM
Obama's not going to govern radically. He's not the type to completely upset the applecart. I think he'll realize people will expect him to because he'll have a Dem congress with him, but I think he'll use this opportunity to govern much more moderately. This'll allow him to gain the respect from many on the center-right as it shows that Obama is reasonable and not interested in alienating the portion of the country that disagrees with him on many issues.

Obama doesn't want to be a one-term President. He's had a penchant for seeing the big picture.

My pocket book hopes you are right. :)

banyon
10-19-2008, 11:00 AM
Obama's not going to govern radically. He's not the type to completely upset the applecart. I think he'll realize people will expect him to because he'll have a Dem congress with him, but I think he'll use this opportunity to govern much more moderately. This'll allow him to gain the respect from many on the center-right as it shows that Obama is reasonable and not interested in alienating the portion of the country that disagrees with him on many issues.

Obama doesn't want to be a one-term President. He's had a penchant for seeing the big picture.

The great thing about that is that all of these "He can't be trusted, he's a Moslem-Marxist with no experience" type attacks will be useless in 2012.

penchief
10-19-2008, 11:02 AM
Well the media declared a mandate when Bush won in 04 so using that as a barometer, I would say a lot less than 5-7%

Bush governed like he had a mandate in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote and had to hijack Florida to win.

chris
10-19-2008, 11:09 AM
Bush governed like he had a mandate in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote and had to hijack Florida to win.

snore; old issue, and no, he didn't "hijack". This comment has nothing to do with the thread.

penchief
10-19-2008, 11:14 AM
snore; old issue, and no, he didn't "hijack". This comment has nothing to do with the thread.

Sure it does. If Bush is going to govern like he has a mandate even when he didn't, that helps to determine where the bar currently is. If that is the bar, then winning alone serves as a mandate.

That said, I don't advocate for that. I believe that a president represents all the people. Even the ones who didn't vote for him. Which is something that Bush never understood.

jidar
10-19-2008, 11:57 AM
And what would that mean for the the USA?

I'm thinking that if Obama wins by even 5-7% and the Senate goes to 60 seats, the leaders of the Dems are going to declare a MANDATE for radical new ideas and pent up quest for spending on social programs. Much like LBJ and the 60s.


Roll back on tax cuts & less people paying income taxes thus insuring more class warfare, another $1,000 "go shopping" give away, increased welfare, a run at national health insurance, etc.

Spend, spend, spend.

Thoughts??

For one, there are fiscally responsible groups in the democratic party that wouldn't let that happen.
Secondly, Bush already spent all the money so democrats can't spend anymore.

chris
10-19-2008, 12:04 PM
For one, there are fiscally responsible groups in the democratic party that wouldn't let that happen.
Secondly, Bush already spent all the money so democrats can't spend anymore.

The same responsible groups that spent all the money along with BOTH parties the past 8 years?

jidar
10-19-2008, 12:13 PM
The same responsible groups that spent all the money along with BOTH parties the past 8 years?

You want some facts?

Democrats have been a minority for most of this presidency, until 2006. At which point they got a majority in the House only. They don't have the presidency and they don't have the senate.

The lions share of the spending increases have been tax cuts for the wealthy and defense, by a wide margin, it's not even close.

The Democratic party is the only one of the two major parties that has a strong support for paygo. If you don't know what that it's, it's the idea that you don't pass laws to increase spending without finding a source for the funding.

Republicans don't like paygo because they say it would hamstring defense spending. Imagine that! Having to pay for your spending apparently stops republican policies. hhrrmmmm

Some day the people are finally going to stop, look at some budgets, look at some deficits, and realize that it's not the democrat party that is fiscally irresponsible. Only one party consistently cuts taxes and increases spending at the same time.

Baby Lee
10-19-2008, 12:15 PM
You want some facts?

Democrats have been a minority for most of this presidency, until 2006. At which point they got a majority in the House only. They don't have the presidency and they don't have the senate.

The lions share of the spending increases have been tax cuts for the wealthy and defense, by a wide margin, it's not even close.

The Democratic party is the only one of the two major parties that has a strong support for paygo. If you don't know what that it's, it's the idea that you don't pass laws to increase spending without finding a source for the funding.

Republicans don't like paygo because they say it would hamstring defense spending. Imagine that! Having to pay for your spending apparently stops republican policies. hhrrmmmm

Some day the people are finally going to stop, look at some budgets, look at some deficits, and realize that it's not the democrat party that is fiscally irresponsible. Only one party consistently cuts taxes and increases spending at the same time.
I see what you did there.

jidar
10-19-2008, 12:20 PM
I see what you did there.

Listen, I realize it's an advanced concept to think of a budget as something that has to be balanced, but that's how it is.
This government is now hamstrung and the dollar is inflated because of this policy that we can cut taxes and increase spending and the massive deficits that result are no big deal.

Guess what, they are a big deal. The governments ability to control inflation and address this current issue is horribly compromised because of these deficits and again that's a fact.

I don't understand why people can't get this through their skulls.
Taxes bad, deficits good. I swear to god, we're figuratively in a sinking ship that is half full of people saying water in the ship is no problem.

Baby Lee
10-19-2008, 12:24 PM
Listen, I realize it's an advanced concept to think of a budget as something that has to be balanced, but that's how it is.
This government is now hamstrung and the dollar is inflated because of this policy that we can cut taxes and increase spending and the massive deficits that result are no big deal.

Guess what, they are a big deal. The governments ability to control inflation and address this current issue is horribly compromised because of these deficits and again that's a fact.

I don't understand why people can't get this through their skulls.
Taxes bad, deficits good. I swear to god, we're figuratively in a sinking ship that is half full of people saying water in the ship is no problem.

I KNOW!!! Especially when you do both at the EXACT SAME TIME, I mean PRECISE EXACT, like when you say most of the spending increases are tax cuts and then point out that we are increasing spending AND CUTTING TAXES TOO!!!

jidar
10-19-2008, 12:34 PM
I KNOW!!! Especially when you do both at the EXACT SAME TIME, I mean PRECISE EXACT, like when you say most of the spending increases are tax cuts and then point out that we are increasing spending AND CUTTING TAXES TOO!!!

meanwhile we'll pretend the pork barrel spending is why we're in this problem...

jAZ
10-19-2008, 12:36 PM
And what would that mean for the the USA?

I'm thinking that if Obama wins by even 5-7% and the Senate goes to 60 seats, the leaders of the Dems are going to declare a MANDATE for radical new ideas and pent up quest for spending on social programs. Much like LBJ and the 60s.


Roll back on tax cuts & less people paying income taxes thus insuring more class warfare, another $1,000 "go shopping" give away, increased welfare, a run at national health insurance, etc.

Spend, spend, spend.

Thoughts??

Hell, Bush established the 1 vote rule for Mandate. If Obama wins by 7% and the Senate gets a veto proof majority, the PUBLIC will have declared an undeniable mandate for Democratic change.

Hell, just having all 3 parts in Dem control will be a mandate.

That said, Obama and the Dems will govern to appeal to the 65 year old white female voter (the voter group least likely to strongly support him). He would still need to win again in 2012, so he's not stupid enough to govern in a way that will turn off that group.

whoman69
10-19-2008, 04:05 PM
meanwhile we'll pretend the pork barrel spending is why we're in this problem...

Yes, pork barrel spending is absolutely 100% of the problem. :)

Perhaps this way of thinking is the reason the last four Republican Presidents have all doubled the debt during their tenures.

Ultra Peanut
10-19-2008, 04:28 PM
My pocket book hopes you are right. :)How much do you net in a year?

chris
10-19-2008, 04:57 PM
How much do you net in a year?

Enough to pay the bills, not enough to retire and eat pastries all day.

But I pay more than my fair share in taxes. And it's going up. :(

I pray that the new Admin doesn't go too far left and spend on wasteful social programs.

We'll see.

SoCalBronco
10-19-2008, 05:01 PM
It's irrelevant what anyone proclaims.

If the Democrats have 250+ seats in the House as they might, and 60 seats in the Senate, or something very close to that given that there are a few liberal Republican Senators (Snowe etc.), that means that they have an actual mandate. If they have the numbers to push their agenda through without the need for any compromise, or only with the need for just a very small bit of compromise, then they have the mandate. It's that simple.

clemensol
10-19-2008, 07:52 PM
Enough to pay the bills, not enough to retire and eat pastries all day.

But I pay more than my fair share in taxes. And it's going up. :(

I pray that the new Admin doesn't go too far left and spend on wasteful social programs.

We'll see.

Seriously, so many people take what they learn about the two parties in high school government class and believe it to be true for the rest of their lives.