To add to that, even though he helped get Clinton elected, Clinton’s main accomplishment was making the Democrats more useless to the people as a result. Third way Democrats have been an abysmal failure from a progress perspective. Some of Clinton’s “main accomplishments” were helping demolish the welfare state, and increasing the incarceration rate.
Obama, in retrospect, can be viewed as a third-way Democrat as well, and the primary policy accomplishment his presidency produced is a Republican think-tanked, half-measure healthcare policy that was largely a gift to the insurance companies even at the onset and has since been left out in the field to be continually picked at by vultures.
I was wondering this morning why Democrats don’t seem to really have effective policy think-tanks like the Republicans do and then I thought maybe they just use the same ones.
You need to pay closer attention to who controlled Congress under Clinton. Most of what you list as Clinton’s accomplishments were bills introduced by a conservative run Congress.
If you are unaware of what the democratic think tanks are you should address that.
Sure, he had a congress of the opposite party for some / most of his terms. You know who else had that? Nearly every president ever elected to office.
It makes it ever the more important to use what little time you have to push your agenda through, to veto things you disagree with, and sit your court appointees.
EDIT:
I also realized I left this “point” unaddressed:
If you are unaware of what the democratic think tanks are you should address that.
Dude, I’ve been a bigger political news person for 20+ years than most people bother being. I can name organizations like “the Heritage Foundation” and the “Cato Institute” without a reference. You know why? Because these think-tanks are effective. Note my original comment. I said “effective policy think-tanks”. Would you consider democratic think tanks effective when Obama with a sweeping mandate from the people unlike anything else I’ve seen in my lifetime wound up producing a copycat plan of a Republican governor?
Sure, they may exist, but if they do they’re not what I’d term “effective” and me looking up their names isn’t going to make them that way.
37 times since 1857 means most Presidents did not have an opposing Congress. Your premise is built on an incorrect notion namely that what Clinton was facing was common when as your link shows that wasn’t the case. Furthermore Clinton is the first POTUS to confront a GOP that us unwilling to compromise in many/most situations.
Using your logic, Reagan’s legacy was actually whatever Democrats wanted then because he had a divided government as well.
Yes, Clinton had to deal with Newt Gingrich, but as you’re getting an abject lesson in daily these days, the president has and has always had a large amount of power. He could’ve used that for good, instead he used it to help Republicans dismantle welfare, pass “tough on crime” laws, and get his dick sucked in the Oval.
No it would not. It would mean some of the things he gets credit or blame for also belong to the democrats such as the 1983 tax cut that proved the notion of the Laffer curve held some truth or the 1985 one which turned out to be bad because they neglected to cut spending and taxes at the same time. Some of POTUS’ policies are theirs alone such as the sale of TOW missiles to Iran by the Reagan White House but much/most should be shared by Congress.
Are you under the impression that you are in a position to be teaching anyone anything regarding this subject? You shouldn’t as I don’t think you have been correct in any point you have made this far and you seemingly have a terrible grasp on the history of that time.
To be clear here you have already provided a link that completely undid the claim you made previously and you seemed to not be aware of that fact. Im not learning anything from you here so you should dial back the attitude.
the 1983 tax cut that proved the notion of the Laffer curve held some truth
Are you kidding me? You actually think trickle down works?
Now I get why you’re such a fan of ineffective Democratic shit, you’re in the .00001% of “Republican-lite” voters in the country they’re looking to please at the cost of the rest of the electorate.
To add to that, even though he helped get Clinton elected, Clinton’s main accomplishment was making the Democrats more useless to the people as a result. Third way Democrats have been an abysmal failure from a progress perspective. Some of Clinton’s “main accomplishments” were helping demolish the welfare state, and increasing the incarceration rate.
Obama, in retrospect, can be viewed as a third-way Democrat as well, and the primary policy accomplishment his presidency produced is a Republican think-tanked, half-measure healthcare policy that was largely a gift to the insurance companies even at the onset and has since been left out in the field to be continually picked at by vultures.
I was wondering this morning why Democrats don’t seem to really have effective policy think-tanks like the Republicans do and then I thought maybe they just use the same ones.
Policy think-tanks cost money. Since the owner class has all the money, all the think-tanks serve the owner class.
Are you being serious? There are absolutely democrat leaning think tanks.
This:
and this:
aren’t the contradiction that you think they are.
You need to pay closer attention to who controlled Congress under Clinton. Most of what you list as Clinton’s accomplishments were bills introduced by a conservative run Congress.
If you are unaware of what the democratic think tanks are you should address that.
Sure, he had a congress of the opposite party for some / most of his terms. You know who else had that? Nearly every president ever elected to office.
It makes it ever the more important to use what little time you have to push your agenda through, to veto things you disagree with, and sit your court appointees.
EDIT:
I also realized I left this “point” unaddressed:
Dude, I’ve been a bigger political news person for 20+ years than most people bother being. I can name organizations like “the Heritage Foundation” and the “Cato Institute” without a reference. You know why? Because these think-tanks are effective. Note my original comment. I said “effective policy think-tanks”. Would you consider democratic think tanks effective when Obama with a sweeping mandate from the people unlike anything else I’ve seen in my lifetime wound up producing a copycat plan of a Republican governor?
Sure, they may exist, but if they do they’re not what I’d term “effective” and me looking up their names isn’t going to make them that way.
That isn’t true? Post WW-II to 1992 it was controlled by the democrats.
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/
Divided government is very common in the US.
37 times since 1857 means most Presidents did not have an opposing Congress. Your premise is built on an incorrect notion namely that what Clinton was facing was common when as your link shows that wasn’t the case. Furthermore Clinton is the first POTUS to confront a GOP that us unwilling to compromise in many/most situations.
Using your logic, Reagan’s legacy was actually whatever Democrats wanted then because he had a divided government as well.
Yes, Clinton had to deal with Newt Gingrich, but as you’re getting an abject lesson in daily these days, the president has and has always had a large amount of power. He could’ve used that for good, instead he used it to help Republicans dismantle welfare, pass “tough on crime” laws, and get his dick sucked in the Oval.
No it would not. It would mean some of the things he gets credit or blame for also belong to the democrats such as the 1983 tax cut that proved the notion of the Laffer curve held some truth or the 1985 one which turned out to be bad because they neglected to cut spending and taxes at the same time. Some of POTUS’ policies are theirs alone such as the sale of TOW missiles to Iran by the Reagan White House but much/most should be shared by Congress.
Are you under the impression that you are in a position to be teaching anyone anything regarding this subject? You shouldn’t as I don’t think you have been correct in any point you have made this far and you seemingly have a terrible grasp on the history of that time.
To be clear here you have already provided a link that completely undid the claim you made previously and you seemed to not be aware of that fact. Im not learning anything from you here so you should dial back the attitude.
Are you kidding me? You actually think trickle down works?
Now I get why you’re such a fan of ineffective Democratic shit, you’re in the .00001% of “Republican-lite” voters in the country they’re looking to please at the cost of the rest of the electorate.