755
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
755 points (99.6% liked)
politics
24265 readers
2129 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You're, right he did. In 1992.
As far as I can tell, his political strategy has not evolved even a little over the past 3 decades, as he continues to push unpopular 'compromise candidates' and continues to tell people to 'sit down and shut up' whenever they suggest maybe the Democrats should chase some reforms that benefit the working class rather than simply appeasing the Wall Street paymasters.
I don't know if stubbornly sticking to the same failing strategy for 30 years makes you 'stupid', but it certainly doesn't make you smart.
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.
This:
and this:
aren't the contradiction that you think they are.
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.
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/
Divided government is very common in the US.
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.
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.
The laffer curve absolutely does have to do with trickle down. It's the pseudoscience backing for lowering the top tax rates. It starts off with the lie that that'll actually result in an increase of revenue, even when that's laughably untrue -- which is evidenced by the fact that the government has never been as broke as when it has continued to pursue this disastrous form of tax policy.
The thing about the Laffer curve is that...yes obviously you cannot tax 100% of everyone's paycheck and expect that the economy will grow, and yes obviously taxing everyone 0% will result in 0 revenue...these obvious things are obvious. But the rates in between have fairly straightforwardly predictable effects on revenue, and even adding a tax bracket where you take 100% of the income above a certain level is not one of the ends of the laffer curve, because the effective tax rate for those earners is still not 100%...because tax brackets exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve