Tax-hike 'mandate' sparks partisan debate
November 16th, 2012
01:17 PM ET
8 years ago

Tax-hike 'mandate' sparks partisan debate

Washington (CNNMoney) - As Congressional leaders and President Obama met for talks about ways to avoid the fiscal cliff, party leaders redefined their hard lines on tax hikes for the wealthy.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a key member of the House Democratic team, said Friday that President Obama's re-election leaves no doubt that Obama has a mandate to raise taxes on the rich.


Filed under: 2012 • Congress • Fiscal Cliff • President Obama
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. Decker

    If they are meeting in good faith without the loons on either end working and are determined to work for the betterment of America things should work out. I am now thinking Obama is going to get higher rates but it is going to be tied to actual spending cuts. I read an article on an enforcement mechanism this morning for spending cuts and higher taxes.The rates would go up if spending was lower than a designated point of GDP and the rates would go back down if spending was higher than that GDP number. You just have to keep the grover norquist followers and union head's worshippers out of the fray. If not we are looking at a protracted weak economy and everyone loses.

    November 16, 2012 01:35 pm at 1:35 pm |
  2. Ancient Texan

    51% isn't a "mandate" or political capital. It just means there is another 49% that is convinced that the nation is totally on the wrong track and about to run off the rails. I will give Obama credit for doing ONE thing in the last four years; dividing the country as close as possible to right down the middle. His class warfare won the election for him, but also split the nation to a desperate point in survival.

    November 16, 2012 01:44 pm at 1:44 pm |
  3. cali girl

    What did the GOP come to the table with? Cut Social Security, Education and whatever else that has nothing to do with their own lives.
    Stay firm President Obama. The rich have had a great ride over the last few years, still making money while the middle class has moved to just being in the 99%.

    November 16, 2012 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  4. Sniffit

    "If the president had a mandate, Nancy Pelosi would be the next Speaker of the House,"

    Dems runnign for the House won the popular vote over GOPers runnign for the House. The ONLY reason Boehner remains Weeper of the House is because the GOP/Teatrolls controlled enough state legislatures to gerrymander themselves into position to keep their majority. Moreover, over 2/3 of the country supports raising taxes on those making over $250,000. Higher tax rates only kick in on the 250,001st dollar anyway, so the apocalyptic demagoguery from the GOP/Teatrolls is complete nonsense. THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE. A MANDATE EXISTS.

    November 16, 2012 02:04 pm at 2:04 pm |
  5. FactCheck

    Just let the tax cuts expire on Jan 2013. The middle class has done enough to support the millionaire/billionaire welfare queens. After the cuts expire, draft a tax cut for the middle class and have the House vote individually (televised). Let's see how many of these dolts are willing to stand up for their crony principles.

    November 16, 2012 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  6. ST

    I would like to hear a sounding reason why republicans are defending the rich from paying higher taxes. If it is because of creating jobs, that is out as they were given time to create more jobs and it did not work out. The rich should understand that if the economy is flourishing, they are the ones who will benefit more than the middle class.

    November 16, 2012 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  7. Bill

    I work with a lot of small businesses who has management/owners who now pay themselves over $250K. From my discussions most of them that have other resouces and have stated they are going to cut their own salary under whatever target $200-$250K. It would be smarter to tie it to capped deductions like $15, $25K, $50K but the businesses said bring on the higher rates and we will adjust on ways to cut our tax burden.

    November 16, 2012 02:25 pm at 2:25 pm |
  8. Rudy NYC

    Of course, Republicans are going to claim we won the House, so we're right on taxes. Wrong, gerrymandering aside, Republicans won the House on spending cuts, NOT tax cuts. If the Repubicans had won the tax cut argument we would be talking about President-Elect Romney, not President Obama who won the tax cut argument.

    November 16, 2012 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  9. kayla

    it was a mandate, if bush said it in 2004 which is a big laugh, why isn't it a mandate now? the twitt got clobbered.

    November 16, 2012 02:40 pm at 2:40 pm |
  10. Bill from GA

    If the "fiscal cliff" is enacted, we will still be spending more than we take in.

    When do we begin to pay for this country we live in?

    One reason mitt romney lost the election was because he would not specify what cuts he would make to the budget. He couldn't get elected if he had. Paul ryan's budget is seen as too extreme. We want it all, without paying for it. That has to end.

    The fiscal cliff is just the beginning of us meeting our obligations. We did OK under Clinton's tax rates; we'll do OK again.

    November 16, 2012 02:44 pm at 2:44 pm |