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.
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with trickle down. The fact you bring up trickle down shows how little you understand about this subject.
I think the statement behind the Laffer curve, that there’s a point where taxes are set so high that you will see an increase in tax revenue by keeping it beneath that point, was proven to be likely true in 1983. That is when the tax cut passed by the democrats was matched with the corresponding spending cut and the government took in more tax revenue.
You aren’t proving that you have any understanding of common political concepts.
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.
One implication of the Laffer curve is that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue. Particularly in the United States, conservatives have used the Laffer curve to argue that lower taxes may increase tax revenue.
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.
The Laffer curve has nothing to do with trickle down. The fact you bring up trickle down shows how little you understand about this subject.
I think the statement behind the Laffer curve, that there’s a point where taxes are set so high that you will see an increase in tax revenue by keeping it beneath that point, was proven to be likely true in 1983. That is when the tax cut passed by the democrats was matched with the corresponding spending cut and the government took in more tax revenue.
You aren’t proving that you have any understanding of common political concepts.
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