Word of the day seems to be MANDATE.
As it, Obama's winning of a second term does not constitute a MANDATE.
What does that mean?
Does Obama have a mandate?
Or does he not have a mandate?
From the Encarta Dictionary: Mandate: 1.the authority bestowed on a government or other organization by an electoral victory, effectively authorizing it to carry out the policies for which it campaigned
2 .The party in power has a clear mandate for reform.
It would seem that some authority is entrusted to someone to carry something out. Lets see if something like that can happen the second time around with some of the idiots in charge!
MM, it always seem that 'mandate', rather than having a consistent definition in the dictionary has, in the partisan world a relative definition depending on which side of the political divide one finds oneself
Obama's win was decisive in popular vote and electoral college, and winning elections have consequences.
I did not hear all this talk of kumbaya when Bush "the great usurper' was awarded the presidency by the Supreme court back in 2000. He lost the popular vote and won the electoral college by a hair, which is still disputed today.
The people, majority support Obama and say that they trust the president and his agenda and are tired of GOP parlor tricks.
For the President to have a successful second term, I say that he takes no prisoners this time and vanquish GOP without mercy when they continue to play the obstructionist game.
"I did not hear all this talk of kumbaya when Bush "the great usurper' was awarded the presidency by the Supreme court back in 2000."
You don't seem to know what the Supreme Court did in 2000, Bush won the count then the recount, Gore tried to count votes in selective counties favoring democrats and the supreme court said no! If you are going to count you must count ALL votes, Gore team knew how that would turn out and gave up!
Who is disputing his Presidency? Oh, yeah the democrats.
Repair, Bush won the popular vote in FL by a hair but he lost the national popular vote. The electoral college and Florida electoral votes went to Bush based on that outcome, Bush won only because of the electoral college taking precedent over the popular vote, if memory serves
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_presiden … s_and_lost
On REALLY? Did you miss this: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=653831n
It would be a good idea to acquaint one's self with the actual Supreme Court decisions - there was more than one - that sent the Bush v. Gore case back to Florida. It wasn't the clear cut Bush cheated or Republican Justices cheated for Bush lie the press and liberals have been telling for years. The 14th Amendment protections were upheld in a 7-2 decision - essentially saying that the counting was over because no state wide recount could guarantee equal protection that each vote would be handled exactly alike.
It is far more interesting and hardly some corrupt deal.
Below is a synopsis of Ginsburgs opinion in the Bush V Gore case. The interesting thing is how bias works; when any Republican mentions states rights, Liberals immediately counter with voting rights violations (do you realize that Texas has extra levels of scrutiny that other states are not bound by due to it's history of voter fraud/suppression etc?) and slavery as what Republicans really mean by states rights. Liberals are about increasing the power of the federal government. There is no doubt about this in my mind and they are constantly looking for ways around the Constitution. Yet below Ginsburg suddenly cares about states rights (you should read the opinion; it's amazing how much deference she summoned). Think about it: deference to state courts opinions of their own state law. Can you believe this? It's hypocritical in my view. Now in case you think I'm a Republican just know that I voted for Obama and you can find many civil rights poems in my collection here on Hubpages; but I like to see life as it is and not as a partisan so that is why I am interested in this sort of thing.
http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/ … 4/opinions
BUSH V. GORE
Deference to other branches and levels of government is a consistent theme of Justice Ginsburg's jurisprudence, and it featured in one of the Justice's most famous dissents, her opinion in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). There Justice Ginsburg vehemently disagreed with her colleagues' decision to halt the presidential election recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. She argued that longstanding traditions of deference to state court interpretations of state law precluded intervention on the ground that the Supreme Court disagreed with the Florida court's interpretation of governing Florida statutes, and that questions regarding the practical possibility of a timely recount or consequences of missed federal deadlines should be left to Florida officials and Congress.
What Obama has is hyper-partisianship and a divided nation.
An electoral victory does not make a mandate. Obama had short coat tails in down ballot races. He lost in states where he had won in 2008. He received millions fewer votes than in 2008 and he still has a Congress that is deeply divided. There are more Republican governors and state legislatures in a long time, perhaps since the days of Reconstruction.
Doesn't sound like a mandate.
I see your spin and I'll turn it again. Obama only lost two states he won in '08 - North Carolina and Indiana - which usually go Republican anyway. Yes, he received 6.5 million fewer votes than he did in '08 - which is still more votes than any president has ever gotten except well...him. Those Republican governors are obstructionists and those legislatures are useless.
Here's a mandate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elect … ge1984.svg
Obama won; no doubt. But he won by a margin of less than 2% of the popular vote. It's not a slam dunk like Reagan had. Not even close. I don't even know why it's being discussed.
So, a guy has to win 49 states to have a mandate? Please stop. and by the way, Obama won by three million votes. Oh, and he received millions more votes than Reagan.
He received millions more votes than George Washington, also. Obama must be REALLY awesome, then!!
My point is that he is the duly-elected President of the United States and that election gives him a mandate. He won...period.
Yeah, I think we all figured out pretty quick that W's mandate was to find any excuse to invade Iraq.
He cobbled one together, all right.
United States ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and President Barack Obama have echoed George W. Bush in saying that their current imbroglio is due to faulty information provided by the "intelligence community." An excuse also used by Hillary Clinton to excuse her pro-Iraq War Senate record.
So you are saying that the entire reason GWB ran for office was to invade Iraq? If you would like to review the actual connections between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence operations; the presence of banned weapons - this includes but is not limited to missiles and nuclear capable aircraft; the presence of chemical weapons, biological warfare capacity and tonnes of refined uranium, I would be happy to provide multiple pages of reference sources - many from out side the US and none from Fox News. That is if you are curious.
Presidents seek election to enact policies detrimental to the US? If so, than Barack Obama has done an awesome job - the longest period of high unemployment since the Democrat FDR's Depression. If so, than a program that transferred hundreds of firearms to Mexican drug cartel thugs and resulted in the murders of innocent Mexicans and Americans, including a US Border Agent, was the goal of Obama's Presidential run?
The point was that being elected President of the United States constitutes its own mandate, if this is so than GWB received that mandate, twice. Or is it only a mandate when a Democrat is elected?
Bush has much to answer for; but why do Liberals NEVER mention that the Legislative Branch has to declare war? Why do Liberals ignore the drumbeat that Hussein had WMD that was played by prominent Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore? It's because a biased and emotional point of view is incapable of accepting the truth of the flaws in their own arguments.
In 2004 I voted for Ralph Nadar because the WMD that Bush, Cheney et al practically guaranteed would be found, were never found. It is quite possible that they did lie about this; regardless I decided we needed a change. But why didn't the fact that both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for the 2nd Iraq War not destroy their political careers? There is no excuse. It is Congress that declares war. To say that they were duped shows how dysfunctional Congress is OR maybe just maybe there was a real fear that Hussein had WMD and Kerry and Clinton decided to go for it. Is it not true that Obama voted against the declaration of war? How was he able to figure it out? This is why these political arguments are so ridiculous because people just take sides and then make arguments and ignore the facts.
And now we have this mandate question. It is silly to even discuss because people who pay attention without an agenda understand that a mandate in the political sense is a term to describe such overwhelming support for a politician that it is a slamdunk that change is being demanded. This is why I posted a link to Reagan's electoral map in 1984. If you think I'm not balanced then look up LBJ's electoral map in 1964. He destroyed Goldwater. That was a mandate. Winning the popular vote by less than 2% is not a mandate. But Obama does have momentum, power and his agenda is what will be raised and considered first. He has the bully pulpit and he will select the next Supreme Court justice. His mandate is the built-in advantage of winning and the Republicans have to take his first shot and weather his speeches. That is what happens to the loser. They are reactive or obstructive. But the minority (millions who voted for Romney) must be heard; it is the American way.
That is the old way, there is a new way. Buckle up, these are just the opening days of a New America.
Things will get bumpy; just check our total credit market debt versus GDP; it is at alarming levels compared with history. That is the difference because the money is not about civil rights or a social issue such as sitting on the back of the bus or glass ceilings or gay rights; it's financial and we haven't been here before.
We have had swings in our society before. Clinton dealt with it when the country overwhelmingly voted in Republicans in the legislative branch; Gingrich was never more in power. But then things changed and now the Republicans are scrambling to remain relevant.
We need a statesman. We need someone to tell the American people what is needed to be done; I seem to recall though that Carter tried that (the "malaise" speech) and people didn't want to hear it. Sometimes I think we should just drive over that fiscal cliff and take the medicine now. We need to reign in the spending and I don't have a problem with tax rates easing to higher levels; they are still low when compared to historical levels. The problem is the American people want their goodies and it's really funny to me to hear Romney catching hell about the 47% or the giveaways because the fact of the matter is it's true. People don't like to admit it but there is a massive patronage system in place (some of it is clearly necessary - elderly care; alzheimers, parkinson's... things like that) and too many able-bodied people are now able to accept welfare because it's no longer a pride issue. I worked for $9,000 a year with no insurance when I was 24 years old (1982) and slowly worked my way up. I am now a CPA. Time is your ally if you spend it wisely and I don't see that kind of encouragement or advice being given out. Instead it's blame everyone. There is no doubt about this. But like I said, nobody wants to admit it...
State legislatures are hardly useless. California, Illinois, New York all have legislatures that have nearly sunk their states under massive and intractable debt.
Governors have no obligation to obey the President of the United States - they don't work for him, nor do we. If the Federal government seeks to impose its will against the will of a State the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to settle those disputes with both parties equal in the court. It is the obligation of a Governor to obstruct that which he deems destructive to his state.
As for the number of votes Obama received - they still represent a smaller percentage of the over all population than Reagan received in both of his electoral victories. Raw numbers mean little unless accompanied by a context. Reagan may have claimed a mandate but he won neither house during the 1980 election and only the Senate in 1984 election - not really a mandate either.
In Indiana and California, there are mandates for the controlling parties in that they have total control (quorum control) over the whole policy mechanisms in their states.
What in the heck does the number of Republican governors have to do with Obama?
California has a Democrat super majority in our legislature now.
That is an interesting tidbit. But has zip to do with the president.
Apples and oranges.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politica … ttails.htm
It has a great deal to do with a presidential candidates over all appeal - certainly an undeniable component of mandate.
It would behoove the Republicans to cede California to total Democrat control. Offer no candidates for any office. Let Californians reap what they have sewn. The catastrophe that is California, with the assistance of a President who doesn't accept Federalism, will sink the nation. It is inevitable now that Californians have awarded the authors of their current tragedy total control.
How much better it will be for the rest of the world for America to be in decline, with California leading the way.
Jerry Brown's certainly got his hands full, for sure. And, by all accounts, he's making some headway.
Inherited a giant mess from Ahnold. Who is not to blame for the mess, either.
I think we all had high hopes that he could come swaggering in and go all Terminator in the capitol.
I wonder sometimes if the current Washington Congress came out to the Golden State to take gridlock lessons.
Just heard a report tonight that CA stands to lose more than any other state if they can't avoid the fiscal cliff. Swell.
The word is always thrown around when a president gets re-elected. I never knew what it meant, and I still don't. People say Clinton never had a "mandate" since he never even won 50% of the popular vote. The facts are, Obama did far worse in 2012 than in 2008; in addition to 6.5 million fewer votes nationwide, he underperformed in 44 out of 50 states. The whole process was so revolting to people that about 9 million fewer folks turned out to vote....
I suppose that's one way of looking at it.
How many presidents far exceed their numbers in their second term than their first?
But truly, there was enough dissatisfaction with Obama's first term that this election should have been ripe for the taking.
Republicans can argue amongst themselves whether the problem was:
a) Romney wasn't far right enough (although he did capture all the far right votes and that would have been the case regardless -- where he had to pull from was the middle)
b) Romney wasn't centrist enough (which he did try to pivot back to late in the campaign after going hard right to win the primary, plus he got hurt by the extreme platform of the Tea Party/Norquist et al)
c) Romney was not a strong enough candidate (many have called him an "empty suit")
d) Romney self-destructed (which, if you lay all of his gaffes end to end, they would circle the earth 10x over)
Obama didn't so much define his second term as wait for his opponent to implode. Which may have been his strategy all along.
Regardless, he pulled it out. And to coin a phrase from his predecessor, Obama's "got political capital and he's gonna use it!"
I can't believe R's are still whining about this. Obama won, fair and square. Romney was heard on tape saying he despised 47% of our country, and that they were losers and takers. He is nothing but a corporate raider, and he didn't even carry MA, where he was governor. Apparently he wanted to buy himself a Presidency, like a child buys a new toy, because it's something he never had. And he never will, as he has demonstrated disdain for the American people. He is completely out of touch with reality. I hope the more moderate or sane R's can sway the rest to look at our country and see it as it is now, not as it was during the Civil War. It was noticable that many moderate R's stayed away from him, and are even being quiet now. He's poison. The old boy system is finished, and R's need to learn to work together with people of color, women and young people. It's not an old man's world anymore. We still need wisdom and guidance from elders, but not their hatred and refusal to try to understand times different than what they grew up in. As far as Obama goes, I hope he uses the full Presidential powers in any situation he can, because so far the R's have been defiant, and it appears Rush is the head of the R party. Did you see either Pres. Bush or John McCain or anyone respected speak for Romney? No.
No he does not. Look at the popular vote. Anyone who thinks he has a mandate is a biased partisan and can't be counted on to bring the country together.
This link defines a mandate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elect … ge1984.svg
That's the latest in a never ending stream of plots by the Republicans to take over this nation. Since when does the president have a "mandate" when ignorant knot heads from the welfare states do not?
The only "mandate" is on the heads of the Republicans who need to change their ways or be shut down for good. We are tired of them and their destructive ways. That is the mandate.
President Obama knows what he needs to do while the Republicans do not have a clue. It is time to run them out of Washington because the job was only 2/3 done last night.
We need pest control in the House of Representatives before any more fake ideas like "mandates" waste any more of our time.
And with attitudes like yours, Xenonlit, our two sides can not and will not work together.
You want our side to give and give and give while your side only takes. It doesn't work that way, Xenonlit. Not in a free nation. Here's a clue for you. Freedom doesn't mean you get all you want for free.
You lost an you will continue to lose. We are not through.
Aren't you forgetting that obstacle called congress? Dems have been blaming them for two years, what makes you think you won anything?
WOW!!! Do you ever actually read what you typed or do you just spew forth your hatred of anything Republican or Conservative?
I also read (part of) an academic paper entitled "The Myth of the Presidential Mandate."
Colloquially, it seems to mean a very, very clear consensus of the people on what issues they want the elected president to address.
As I see it, there is definitely a mandate on the table. It is for both the POTUS and Reid's Senate and Boehner's House to put on their big boy panties and work together.
Oh wait. Isn't that what they were supposed to be doing since 2010?
Well then, I guess it's not really a mandate after all.
" . . . put on their big boy panties . . ."
Gee, thanks for the mental image, MM!
Can't claim that little droopy drawers.
My son is 6' tall and edging in on 21!!
Just like mine, only he's slightly over six foot!
Is that because you Brits measure in metres?
Not his one- I can't work with metres- or kilos for that matter. I am such a kid of the 1970's. In fact, I remember when my dad used to buy cigarettes from a vending machine and he'd get a sixpence in the packet for his change.
Oh, I have a son that's 22, 6'3", and 260 pounds but I also have one that's 4 YO and into the superhero underwear also.
Superhero underwear is ace. But back in the day, my son were Ninja Turtle underwear.
Remember the Star Wars Underoos? My nephews wore them. The song:
Star Wars Underoos are fun,
And you can choose from more than one.
C3PO has lots of style,
And R2D2 just makes me smile.
My son had a pair of pj's that had the planets of the solar system on them. They were long and flannel, and he insisted on wearing them in the summer. My husband said he would finally take them off if he got hot enough! He is 24 now, but still has his mobile of planets in his room. I taught him a lot about the stars and he's very psychic.
I think Obama won by a large enough margin that it is a mandate. But both sides have to be more willing to work out the problems. I believe the R's deliberately blocked whatever Obama tried to do for 4 yrs. though, and have no reason to believe they will try to cooperate now. If they cannot be honest about the changing demographics of the US, maybe they should get out of the way. The far right loonies ruined their party, and white people are a minority now, which will continue. It appears in rich, isolated circles, R's still don't mingle with Hispanics, Blacks, Women, or young people. Bill Maher calls it "the bubble." I've spoken to many stunned R's today, who watch Fox news and get any other "facts" from hateful people like Rush and the like. I have never seen an election where facts were ignored, or people thought they were not necessary. Arrogance like that will not carry the day long. I am proud that hate did not win.
MM, I guess the stink over the "mandate," (I am so tired of the "language") is that the voting was so close, clearly showing the division in this country. Not only does Washington need their big boy/girl panties, but so do the citizens of this country. It is time for us to come together as one nation...Sometimes I think we bitch to hear ourselves talk, so taken with our own voices, and so few ACT...It is time for us all to buckle down and get to work, be activist, be progressive, be innovative, BE what we want to SEE and stop all the endless complaining...Why have we become a country of whiners and complainers...it's time to (as used to be a NIKE add) Just Do It!!!
Here's the thing, Tammy.
We have been dealing with gross distortions of the truth and a stubborn refusal to accept facts (remember the famous coumment "this campaign will not be dictated by fact checkers"?).
This election was not a "squeaker."
President Obama won by the largest margin of any incumbent since Ronald Reagan.
Currently the EC split is 303 to 206. Assuming Florida gets called for Obama, that's 332 to 206.
Obama took every swing state except North Carolina.
That's pretty decisive.
As of 2:30 p.m. ET on Wednesday, Obama leads in the popular vote as well:
60,193,076 or 50.4% to 57,468,587 or 48.1%.
If it makes someone feel better to believe that the race was "really, really close" then they are welcome to that interpretation.
I've spent enough time arguing against irrationality.
Just gonna be quiet now.
He won, no doubt, but not by the landslide I expected. Meaning we are a very divided nation. It is time to not only compromise, but synergize! Carpe Diem
"President Obama won by the largest margin of any incumbent since Ronald Reagan."
Are you speaking strictly of the Electoral College count? Because in his re-election campaign Reagan took 58.8% of the popular vote.
No one is saying the Electoral count was close, but last time I checked, this was not a governing body. It is an electing body.
Those who screamed about Romney's 47% comment and ignoring half the nation now are coming out claiming this as some sort of mandate for the President. In other words, let's ignore 48.6% of the population that voted for Romney. A 2.5% margin of victory in the popular vote, is not the overwhelming support of his policies that everyone is trying to claim.
That said, now we see if the President means what he says, or is just full of hot air. Do we see compromise? Or do we see what I've already been told by the liberal members of Hubpages, that the 48.6% is supposed to dump all their beliefs and principles or they are the problem. No give from the Democrats, just take. Wherein lies the problem.
Sassy, The approval rating of Congress, 9%...so yes the people have spoken, they will need to get their act together and learn to compromise with the President. They drew a line in the sand and it has come back to bite them, so my guess, they will not make that mistake again...they will be thinking of 2016.
That 9% approval rating is for the entire Congress, Tammy. That would include the Democrats as well. The GOP did not lose the House. If I'm not mistaken, they even gained a larger majority there. So what have the people really spoken about? That they are divided. Which means that BOTH sides have to meet in the middle.
I am pointing out that the people have spoken about compromise...I know that a majority means the democrats in Congress never had a say in what was happening, I know that Simpson Boles could have done wonders for our country, yet Republicans would not concede to one penny of taxes, that is ludicrous...It is ovbvious that revenues have to be increased and cuts have to be made, to what extent is a valid arguement, not "NO TAX"...so yes it is the Congress that will need to see what the people have said. Half the country voted one way and the other half the other for President, but 9% approval speaks volumes, right?
"I know that a majority means the democrats in Congress never had a say in what was happening," Democrats hold one Chamber, the GOP holds the other. So, I guess the GOP didn't have a say in what was happening either. The Democrats held both Chambers the first two years. As for Simpson Bowles, the President chose to ignore the recommendations with in it. How does that become a GOP problem?
I believe that is exactly what I said though about compromise. Compromise does not mean the GOP rolls over and plays dead. Compromise means BOTH sides meeting in the middle.
What did the President Ignore exactly? And yes compromise means everyone meets in the middle, which is a shorter walk for some, and don't expect the POTUS to roll over and play dead, because obviously he doesn't play that game, and refuses to be bullied...Since the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, I have a feeling Congress will be happy to play ball this time...leverage is on the democratic side this go around...
Can you name one thing, just one thing, that the President and the Democrats have agreed to cut from spending other than the military? They want to raise taxes, right now on those making over $250,000 (I wouldn't exactly call them the 1% either) but not make any concession on spending. In fact, they've called for more spending. So who gets taxed next year? The fact is that spending is going to be advantageous to someone, and someone is not going to like it getting cut but it has to be done.
The Obama administration wants to end subsidies to large oil companies and the tax credit for moving expenses when an American company wants to relocate abroad. They have already ended giving money to middlemen in the private sector in college loans, and want to end many farm subsidies (over the objections of so-called "free market" Republicans in the House).
Here are more:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/14/news/ec … /index.htm
LOL Yep that's wise. Who do YOU think is going to pay for those subsidies that they cut from the oil companies? Do you realize that EVERY corporation receives government subsidies of some sort? Oh but not the big bad oil companies! We can't allow that! So he's practically killed coal, he's in the process of killing natural gas, and it's time to take down oil. For what? Energy that the US is not in a position to produce. Say hello to moving from dependence from OPEC to China. Great plan.
Farmers? We're going to pick on the people who grow our food? And you think that's a good idea? But heaven forbid we stop giving welfare money to drug addicts and alcoholics. Nope. They deserve disability, free medical care and food stamps. Yep. That's logical.
There is no tax credit for moving a company overseas. Absolutely none. It is an outright Obama lie. There are expenses that are deductible for businesses. Moving expenses. They apply regardless of where a company moves his business but there is no tax credit for re-locating a business overseas. So how exactly is he going to remove something that doesn't exist? Is he just going to generally remove these expenses, make them not tax deductible? Do you think that's going to expand business and create jobs? Hmm...interesting.
Just look at the first four years as they were given a Mulligan.
Yea am proud of my native land 'AFRICA'. President Barrack Obama win again as US president. Babe say anytin u lyk he ll rule u 4 d nxt 4 yrs UP AFRICA, UP KENYA AND UP NIGERIA
i see some proof RG, but not what you are speaking about as much as how you are speaking...
Some don't recognize sarcasm when they see it, RG.
I know, no sense of humor among that bunch. And they call us uptight.
Most are so uptight they could pass a greased BB.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologize. I really do have a sense of humor, you actually made the funniest forum post of the election season in my opinion in one of Jaxson Raines forums, I sent you a and I still giggle everytime I think about it...So, sorry for not getting the joke,lol, good one
If you had a sense of humor you would have known better!
Without going into the technical definitions of "mandate" I think that yes, President Obama does have a mandate from the people.
To continue and expand policies and actions that give individuals what they want but can't afford. To expand the welfare system to at least double what it puts out now. To provide "free" health care for everyone, regardless of ability or willingness to provide for themselves and find someone else to cover the actual cost. To take ever more from those that have accumulated more that others - to redistribute the wealth of the nation until everyone is broke and poor.
This is the mandate the people demand. One day perhaps we'll grow up and realize that we are responsible for ourselves, that we don't have a right to demand that others supply our wants.
A society must help the least fortunate. That is what makes a society. Not everyone is greedy and lazy and wants everything handed to them. Not everyone only cares about themselves.
People at least want to know if they fail that the safety net will be there for them. There is no doubt it is going to get harder for people to get benefits and there will probably be cutbacks. At times when I have moved into a higher tax bracket I haven't minded it... it means I have become more successful and I can support myself and my society.
UW, I fully agree with what you say. We need a safety net and can provide one; lets do so. We can help the least fortunate and should do so.
On the other hand, when my taxes go towards providing free cell phones for these "least fortunate" while I cannot afford one and get by fine without one myself, that's not a safety net.
When I help provide food stamps for someone with a house twice the size of mine (that I could not afford), with satellite TV and all the movie channels (that I cannot afford), with a monitored security system (that I cannot afford) and fancy phones with unlimited talk, text and surfing (that I cannot afford), that's not a safety net. It's simply charity, and charity that I cannot afford to give and resent enormously.
When my taxes go towards supporting a welfare Mama that intentionally and deliberately pushes out baby after baby to keep taking more and more from the govt., that isn't a safety net (except for the children) - it's unwarranted and unneeded charity and needs stopped immediately.
Somehow, somewhere, we've crossed the line between helping those that need it (especially temporary help) and simply supporting people with luxuries that those footing the bill can't afford themselves. And that's the mandate that our President will continue and expand on irregardless of the cost to the nation, which I believe will ultimately be a total economic meltdown.
We can and should provide a safety net for those that need it; we cannot and should not provide support for those that simply want to live on the dole or that simply want luxuries without paying for them.
Wilderness, I am excited for the days ahead, when all of these such untruths, rhetoric, talking points, lies, are all dispelled by the actual movement of a nation, movement out of poverty, did you know he brought 7 million families out off poverty in 2010..I am so excited for the time we are blessed with now, when money did not trump common sense
No he didn't. He may have brought 7 million families higher than an artificial definition of "poverty" but that's all and even that's doubtful.
You don't bring people out of poverty by providing them with money; you do it by providing an incentive to work hard, by providing meaningful work and by training them to do that.
You've heard the old adage that giving a man a fish will feed him for a day, teaching him to fish will feed him for a lifetime? We've lost sight of that, and just provide the fish in far too many cases.
Save a child from starving every evening and he may be able to learn and eventually work in future leave a child in hunger and you will get the opposite. Conservative politics are firmly focused on the present with no concept of the future.
Well presently we are broke! Not going to do anybody any good when there is nothing.
We are broke, have been about 15 years now, but we have to come forward with balanced approaches to increase revenues while cutting spending...you don't go and cut out the programs feeding and caring for poor...and I get so frustrated with this fish scenario, we aren't trying to give out free fish, we are teaching people to fish when we give them help to work out of the hole...the 15% of this country living in poverty is the same 15% that recieves food assistance, they are not all a bunch of lazy not good for nothings, they are people with low paying jobs and kids to feed, many who lost their jobs and 401k's when the bottom fell out...most of them work their tales off everyday and deserve the chance to better themselves and the lifives of their children, who are by the way, the future generation of our country
There has been a budget proposed and ignored by Obama! We are broke due to excessive spending in many areas. 50% of American households are on some type of welfare, 50% of Americans pay taxes. Do you not see the disconnect?i
When the poor cry that they want an expensive cell phone rather than a cheap land line (and get it through the charity of the American taxpayer) they aren't learning to fish - they are being given fish for a day.
You may be getting tired of hearing about the fish, but we actually do very little in the form of teaching how to work and support oneself. Yes, we all know there are programs to do that, but a very small percentage of those receiving Govt. charity take advantage of them. It's much nicer to sit at home in the evening after work than to go to school and extend the work day by several hours. When a liberal government will pay for your groceries, home and medical care while also throwing in a pile of pure luxuries, why bother?
I do not recall a single Republican uttering the phrase "We are broke" from January 20, 2001 until November 3, 2008. In fact, Republicans took the largest budget surplus in the history of the world-- and in less than 8 years---turned it into the largest budget deficit in the history of the world. There was "too much money" according to George W. Bush-- when he eliminated the surplus by cutting taxes, started two off-budget wars, gave away $1 trillion to Big Pharma in a shady Medicare Prescription Drug bill without any cost containment, etc. before crashing the economy. The Republicans who participated in looting the treasury and ladling on more and more debt from 2001 to 2009 and beyond (because Obama's first year was budgeted by the Bush admin) should be BANNED from using the words "we are broke"--- unless those words appear in the sentence "We are the ones that nearly broke America."
One small problem. The Democrats controlled Congress from 2006 forward. You're right about one thing though. Not one of them uttered the words "we're broke".
As for the surplus, you do realize that Clinton had a Republican controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years yes?
Actually they didn't, I think it was 7 months of control.
The huge budget surplus that was handed over to George W. Bush on January 20, 2001 was gone within a year, replaced by deficits each and every year of his presidency. The congress that passed the authorization to go to war with Iraq over ficticious WMD was controlled by Republicans, as was the congress that passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Act-- the two single largest deficit-building pork projects during Bush's disasterous 8 years, if not the history of the nation.
Someone seems to have forgotten something that happened on September 11, 2001.
Is September 11, 2001 an excuse to pass a Medicare Prescription Drug bill that costs $1 trillion over 10 years, a bill that did nothing to cut costs? Really? The Iraq War was connected to September 11th how again? And why did the administration need to pay Iraqi and American journalists to promote their policies, and create fake news reports supporting their policies designed to deceive the public?
And I suppose you think 9-11 had no effect our economy at all. Typical.
That's not what I said. The Medicare Prescription Drug bill was an ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENT, proposed, drawn up, and passed largely by Republicans WHILE the nation had a deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars and was fighting two wars OFF BUDGET. I began my discussion on this thread because YOU said "We are broke." We were "broke" when the Republican congress and the Republican President passed this unwise piece of legislation . Where were YOUR cries of "we are broke" to stop your party from passing that pork bill with the donut hole, no cost controls, and a big wet porky kiss to Big Pharma? You weren't. You kept your mouth shut. You said nothing, as we added another 100 billion per year to the deficit with Bush's signature. Here is the House vote on the bill, which you might find interesting:
Nope. 50/50 split in the Senate and only a 10 seat difference in the House.
@Uninvited Writer You're right there. It was the 2006 elections. So they didn't take over until January of 2007. That is still more than 7 months until November 2008.
A 50-50 split in the Senate is broken by the Vice President. That would have been Dick Cheney.
That would work for you if he had to vote. He did not.
He didn't have to vote because a handful of conservative Democrats voted with the Republicans and George W. Bush. But weren't you JUST saying that the 50-50 split in the Senate meant that Democrats were responsible? So you're blaming Democrats for some of them agreeing with the Republican President and the Republicans in the Senate?
You claimed it was a Republican controlled Congress. It was not. You were saying it was all the big, bad Republicans. I merely pointed out the fallacy of your claim. The Senate was a 50/50 split, the House had a 10 seat GOP majority. Hardly controlled by the GOP.
This always makes me laugh, is congress to blame for the last two years? No Obama is responsible for them, but when it suits you throw up the congress excuse, it's very transparent, the executive branch is the most powerful especially when combined with the Senate.
Bush and congress spent a lot of money fighting two wars, that's true.both republicans and democrats voted for it!
The Democrats held complete Control for his first two years. It was a split Congress the last 2 years.
Republicans controlled congress for the last two years. Obviously they are responsible for this bad economy
Presidents bear responsibility for their terms, simple as that anything else is just blame shifting.
Oh yes, that makes perfect sense. It only took 2 years of Republican control to make all of those laws that loosened up mortgage lending, regulations on Wall Street, tax cuts, etc. Good grief, where have you been?
Inflation accounted for Obama has reduced spending 2.6% this term and that process is speeding up, suddenly withdrawing the massive amounts of spending created by Bush will instantly kill the economy, it's a weening process.
Josak, is there something in my post that would indicate that I think we should let a child go hungry?
Is it the concept of learning to work (hardly applicable to a 6 year old child, I thought)?
What am I saying wrong that every time I mention that the entitlement mentality has gone overboard that everyone jumps up and declares I obviously want starving children everywhere? Or is it just an emotional "rebuttal" intended to draw attention from the real problem?
The point is that "welfare" is human investment, at all stages but particularly for people with children the fact is when we cut welfare you do in fact harm people including children and thus harm the future of the country, when there are no jobs available all you accomplish is drive people to crime so they can eat and get by and that just does massive damage, to the individual to society and to the taxpayer who ends up paying for the legal costs and the prison time.
So what exactly was the point of Obama removing the work requirement from welfare? Is that a way to encourage people to succeed while still receiving help while they look for work? No, it just makes it easier to receive the help and not bother to try for more. Pointless.
That's BS. Either you know that and you're just being obtuse and obstinate, or you believe all the garbage you hear without investigating.
Governors of states, including many Republican governors, asked--no, BEGGED-- to be able to apply for waivers of the work requirements on receiving welfare. They want to be able to substitute job training, internships, or other exceptions to the strict federal limits to encourage people to better prepare for work. In fact, Mitt Romney HIMSELF begged for these waivers on work rules as Governor of Massachusetts in 2005.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 … 86543.html
I am aware of the new requirements. And I will raise your ridiculously liberal link with a ridiculously conservative one.
http://www.heritage.org/research/report … or-welfare
Obama is the one who allowed these restrictions to be waived, thus he removed the work requirement, whether you like it or not.
How about one that actually explains the background, why the states asked for flexibility, why it's not true that the "work requirement has been gutted."
Good detail on the state of Utah here, btw.
I see. We have a very different concept of what the "welfare" system in America does, then.
You appear to believe that it primarily provides goods and/or services for those that cannot provide for themselves, while I believe that the primary use of the system is to provide luxuries for those that want them but do not have the ability or desire to earn them themselves.
I wish I could believe as you do, but I simply see far, far too much abuse of the type I mention to believe that. While I do see and understand that some recipients are truly in need through no fault of their own, I also observe far more that demand this form of charity because they want (not need but simply want) something they cannot afford.
Given that, you can understand why I do not see most welfare payments as an investment in the future, but simply a means to make it easy for the majority of recipients to gain wants rather than needs. It is a "fish" rather than a "teaching" and as such has no investment value except to provide for future growth of more of the same.
I agree with you. Unfortunately I have seen to much of the abuse of the system to believe that it is being used by those who need rather than want. I have no problem providing something for someone who needs it, especially if it is training or help with providing for themselves. I have a problem with providing for those who are able bodied but lazy. Liberals always say this is the minority, I say it's not. It's just a difference in beliefs. As a realist I believe my eyes and own experience, some prefer to be idealistic.
Of course Obama has a mandate! Any win under the rules means you have a mandate (as the people you defeated got even less votes than you and therefore less authority than you to talk about anything).
Wins over 50% constitute a clear majority. In corporate boardrooms even holding 50.01% of the shares gives you complete control over a company.
And there are instances from history where even a one vote majority was decisive. In the 1790's the state of Pennsylvania had a vote about whether their official language should be English or German. The house was tied between English and German and the speaker of the house was a man called Muhlenberg who was of German descent but spoke mainly English and believed that Pennsylvania's future depended on English. So he stepped down as Speaker so he could cast the single decisive vote. And because with that vote no state in the Union had German as it's official language, and German was formally demoted as an official American language.
Was that single vote invalid? Did the vote have a mandate, or do people want to re-write the rules to say that unless there was a 5% or 10% or 15% lead it's invalid?
Of course any head of state has to govern for the whole country otherwise you get instability. Obama has some interestingly big mandates however - for example 69% of Jewish Americans voted for him - so when he meets Netenyahu he can remind him that he, Obama, speaks for American Jews and not Netenyahu's war-mongering Likuds (though they like to pretend this).
I'm a Brit and I'm so relieved Obama won - I think this puts a kibosh on any further ruinous wars.
For all of you people who only started paying attention to politics when Obama began running for office, there is a traditional belief in the political world that a "mandate" is only earned when one wins a clear majority of the popular vote. It has nothing to do with the elctoral college. Which generally means that a President who wins closer to 60% of the vote has a clear mandate. This has been historically true, do some research.
"President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future and the nation responded by giving him a mandate." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, November 3, 2004
"[N]obody has done it since 1988. The president [Bush] wins reelection with a majority of the vote. It is a mandate. What will he do with it now?" -- Tucker Carlson, November 3, 2004
"He [Bush] has, I would argue, a mandate now. You can bet he's going forward boldly. He announced it today in his victory speech. He said, 'Honey, I'm not just going to lower your taxes. I am transforming the tax system.''" -- Peggy Noonan, November 3, 2004
George W. Bush 2004: 285 electoral votes, 50.7% national popular vote (2.4% margin).
Barack H. Obama 2012: >= 303 electoral votes, 50.4% national popular vote (2.4% margin).
Nonsense. Presidents are responsible for what they do, for the choices they make or fail to make.
They aren't responsible for the jobs lost as a direct result of Congressional austerity measures and revenue cutting. Blame Obama for what he did if you don't like it; but don't blame him for what Boehner's troops decided to do.
As opposed to the many jobs bills passed in the Senate recently? Really??
Boehner's troops have not had the power to do anything. They hold only one Chamber so therefore cannot pass anything into law without the Senate (held by the Democrats) and signed by the President.
The Democrats, however, held both Houses for the President's two years. If they had a clue, the country would not still be in a sluggish economy because they had the power to implement anything at all that they wanted.
Oh, but they did! Don't know you that the Stimulus fixed the economy? Just watch the news and you'll hear all about it. And did you know that all of the 'shovel ready' projects were designated as union only work, so that no private non-union contractors could even get the jobs? Pay off anyone? Well it worked, he got re-elected and non-union people still don't have jobs.
Mandate is just a slogan MM that is thrown around without any clear definition in practical terms. President O has the "power" to impliment the progressive policies he was elected to carry out. Whether or not he is acting from some mandate of the voters is irrevelent because with an obstructionist House that will continue to delay and obstruct, he must use strong-armed tactics to get the results the country needs. ...No more attempts to compromise with a group that has no intention of compromise even for the good of the country...the election is over...almost half the voters rejected Obama and he still won and the American people won.
Prez O put a concilatory face on compromise with House GOP/Tea Party, but forget that BS. Voters didn't elect him to a second term so he would accomodate them, they elected him to break their ability to hold up meaningful legislation "by any means necessary"...No more Mr. Nice Guy!
Like most liberals/progressives/communists/Dems in this country, you seem to have forgotten something, Chip. There's this thing called a Constitution Obama swore to uphold. Not that that means a whole lot to the "Incompetent One" or the people who voted for him.
Come on HJ let's not thrown that communist term around some much when it certainly doesn't apply to me or Prez O. I would suggest Prez O attack and not let up until he completes his mission.
And what would that mission be, Chip? The COMPLETE destruction of this country and it's Constitution?
I, personally, don't believe Obama is a communist. Whatever he is, it's certainly not American or patriotic.
As to your political affiliation, I couldn't care less. You're not the ineffectual leader of this country. What I do care about is you and people like you seem to have forgotten your president must work within the framework of the Constitution. If he doesn't, there's other thing you've forgotten about.
It's called impeachment.
OOH it's a birther who is also a sore loser, it's twice as funny!
And you would be wrong on both parts, Josak. I happen to believe Obama was born in Hawaii, thus making him a U.S. citizen. But there's a big difference between being a citizen and being a patriot that believes in the Constitution rather than hoping for it's destruction by a horrible president.
As to your sore loser remark, not at all, Josak. Yes, I'm disappointed but like I said even the current office occupant must live within the powers of the Constitution or face removal. Also, from what I've seen, there's been more a few "sore winners" here on HubPages. Would that include you?
Fair enough, your comment of "certainly not American" gave the opposite impression.
As for impeachment well I think it's time to move on.
On whether I am a "sore winner" I am hardly the right person to comment am I?
Any citizen can still be un-American in their way of thinking, Josak. In my humble opinion, this certainly applies to "the occupant."
Of course you think we should move on from the word "impeachment," Josak. Perhaps I've struck a nerve.
I think Obama's administration will be plagued with scandals and problems with Bengazi and Petraeus being just the beginning.
As to you being a "sore winner," I have my opinion. Others will have to form theirs. We'll leave it at that.
Nah no nerve struck if you can't move on an want to waste your time on an impeachment that won't happen good luck
I'll admit, the pendulum swung in your guy's favor on the last election, Josak. Two years from now, that may very well have changed. We have the House and could get back the Senate, thus making Obama a lame duck as well as subject to impeachment.
A lot will depend on whether or not Obama can continue to tap dance his way out of trouble when it comes to potential scandal and impeachable offenses.
We shall see, Josak. We shall see.
Not actually my guy, I voted third party, just infinitely better than the major alternative.
Well, it looks like Congress is FINALLY going to work with the President. I imagine things will be a lot different in 2 years. I don't think he will be a lame duck and I don't see anything he can be impeached for . Something may come up but so far there is no evidence of anything impeachable. And he's not "my guy" either since I'm not American Not so much partisan bickering up here.
That's nice, Uninvited Writer.
No, really, that's nice. You have a good afternoon, now.
Someone who isn't American obviously can't say anything true or relevant as we all know everyone worth listening to lives in one country
I didn't tell anyone to shut up, Josak. Simply put, I wouldn't expect a Canadian, Frenchman, or Englishman to give a damn what I thought of their politics anymore than I care what they think about ours. They can state it but that doesn't mean I have to give it any relevance.
If properly supported it's more valid than an unsupported claim from a national, opinions are judged on their merit and evidence not on the person stating them, that is called a logical fallacy and was determined as such over 2000 years ago it's called an "ad hominem".
This link defines a mandate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elect … ge1984.svg
If Obama does not have a mandate Republicans have no right to do anything at all, the Democrats won the popular vote in the Congress elections.
Hey folks! the election is over if you haven't noticed! You voted, some won, some lost! But either way the POTUS got the electoral votes and popular votes. So instead of wasting all this negative energy, move on. You can dislike the President, but he deserves the respect the American People, as a majority, gave him! If your Religeous, instead of mud slinging, pray that God will help the POTUS find the ways to get this nation back on track! And don't forget, in four years you can vote for anyone you want yet again.
Yes....that sort of thing normally occurs when 150% of the registered voters turn out in the county or precinct. I wouldn't concern myself with mandates but apply the energy to election tampering instead. ~WB
What are you responding to?
As for electoral tampering I would ask you to prove it but I know you can't so I won't bother.
You seriously don't think obama and the democrats cheated every chance they could?
I don't believe there was any major voter fraud and I don't believe any side is worse than the other in the voter fraud sense and the Republicans are certainly worse in the voter suppression sense with the shortening of early voting periods in Florida (still lost anyway). That is the only election changing attempt I have seen which has any actual evidence behind it.
I wonder how many democrats voted more than once? Hard to get 150% of the registered voters. Democrats have a looooooong history of voting shenanigans.
See all these claims and never ever any proof. On the other hand Republican voting shenanigans are proven and open attempts to reduce the number of people who vote. It's pretty clear who comes off worse there.
I'm not going to provide you proof, history can be your friend, Google can be your friend. What difference would it make to you? You would only deny that what you read was real, attack the source and scream republicans are worse! Its what liberals/democrats/socialists do!
How much proof do you need when the numbers add up to more than 100% of the registered voters in a county???
Josak wrote: "If properly supported it's more valid than an unsupported claim from a national, opinions are judged on their merit and evidence not on the person stating them, that is called a logical fallacy and was determined as such over 2000 years ago it's called an "ad hominem"."
For this to be true, we would have to work under the pretense what Liberals/Dems say is true and accurate. I'm not willing to do that. Just because they say it's either only makes it true in the head of another Liberal/Dem or their own.
I thought we could have an end to the name calling with the end of the election. Obviously not.
I didn't call anyone a name. Did you, Repairguy. Oh, wait, are we not suppose to use words like "Canadian" or "Frenchmen" or "Englishmen" anymore? Is "Liberal" or "Dems" off limits as well?
OMG, I'm so confused!!!!!!!!!
Its the hubpage trick to get someone banned.
Maybe not, but many,many of your friends do!
And others who have gotten me banned in the past and some of my friends... not talking about anyone in particular.
I have been banned twice, once probably deserved even though I responded to an attack, and once for some unknown reason. But both times talking to people who align themselves with you on many issues. I have never written a single profane word on this site (I think) and never went after anybody who didn't attack me first. Those same people continued to post daily, how does that work?
Oh the poor persecuted conservatives, I ave been banned four times once for a month, even though I try to be polite so don't complain.
Fair enough, complain all you like just know it has no validity whatsoever .
Its valid for all of those who have been banned by the moderators of this site who lean left. You must have really gone off the deep end to have been banned!
I wasn't specifically referring to this thread but overall. Got a bit philosophical. Sorry to confuse you,
Well, the same back and forth bickering doesn't help anyone either.
By your definition state legislatures are useless as evidenced by California, Illinois and New York. The Supreme Court did settle a dispute. Those obstructionists will be exposed for what they are...hyper-partisans who are only concerned with the next election.
Prez O needs to move his agenda forward by any means necessary. That agenda includes immigration reform that will allow undocumented workers to remain in the country on a path towards citizenship, increased employment measures to continue the current trend of job growth, rationale and meaningful tax reform, increased global trade with an eye towards lifting the trade embargo against Cuba and increase loans to small businesses.
Use the term mandate, use the term agenda...use whatever term you wish...but our point guard in chief should "shoo fly" the opposition, ignore the doom slayers and spear chucker's and lead the country in a MOST POSITIVE DIRECTION!
A second week of 400000 unemployment increase - we do need to keep creating jobs like we have for the last 4 years and so far we have a good start.
I think in general terms in politics a politician who has a majority and holds a good amount of respect and interest from the public can say he has a mandate. In 1997 British Prime Minister Tony Blair in his victory speech said he had "A mandate for change". In fact I don't think it matters how much of a mandate a prime minister or a president like Barack Obama has. When the prime minister or the President's time is done they step down from their role as leader and move on to new postings. Here in England Tony Blair was seen as a revolution almost because his election bought to an end 18 years of Government from the opposite party to Tony Blair, the conservatives. But here in England we found that when Tony Blair stepped down his work or his "mandate" was over. The public changed their priorities and a coalition government led by David Cameron and Nick Clegg moved into government leading the Conservative and the Liberal democrats into parliament.
Obama is in power now. There may well be a lot of talk of a mandate. But as per rules in 2016 Obama's time will have ended. The rules of the American electoral system do no allow president to stand for a third term or more as is permitted in the United Kingdom.
Tony Blair lost power hear and so to did many of the ideas that he believed he had a mandate for. In the United States of America Obama could be said to have a mandate at the moment. That mandate being made up of around 52% of the total vote in America cast for Obama. And a amount of media support as well as energy among the younger Americans. But 2016 will soon come round and all the reforms that the pubic has passion for now, that Obama is the Icon for, could have lost steam and a Republican Party President could be on the horizon. Obama may also find that he is popular now but if the recession continues or deepens that mandate could crumble and blame from the public could lead those same supporters to vote for a different party next time.
In the United Kingdom the pace of change has been slow. The optimism that was high when Blair was elected has gone. That mandate crumbled as the voters priorities changed. Obama could face exactly the same in the United States. He could lose popularity and in four years time that mandate could have collapsed. It's all very temporary in the world of politics and Obama should strike while the press is hot on his reforms. Otherwise he should know there will never be another Obama government again unless Michelle Obama decides to follow in the footsteps of her husband using Hilary Clinton as a role model. Mandates. They come and go.
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that...
by Sychophantastic13 months ago
I've seen and heard this idea tossed about. It seems that several Republican officials have claimed that Donald Trump has a mandate.Do you think that Donald Trump has a mandate? What is a mandate? Does every politician...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that...
by Stump Parrish6 years ago
McConnell: No real deficit deal until Obama is gone.If there was any doubt that the GOP is holding this country hostage in order to retake the Whitehouse, McConnell removed it with this statement. Mr. Obama says he will...
by pisean2823117 years ago
how do you see his upcoming two years?
by rakuba7 years ago
Why do you like him as a President?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.