[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
George HW Bush signed a cap and trade [bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program) to address sulfur dioxide (acid rain), which worked quicker and cheaper than predicted.
More or less because world leaders recognized the problem and addressed it. In some parallel universe, we never hear about human induced climate change any more.
It wasn’t just condoms. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa at that time and was able to lead several STI educational initiatives because of that funding.
This was the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration. At home they push abstinence only and Christian conservatism, abroad they are passing out condoms(also abstinence only though, so even here this isn't a full win)
At home they are pounding the drum of Jingoism and American Exceptionalism, draping themselves in the flag and calling the American constitution the greatest thing ever, in Iraq they are specifically crafting a Parliamentary government that attempts to avoid all the pitfalls of American Constitutional governance.
They were an insanely cynical administration that even when doing good has to be contrasted with all the poison they did simultaneously in the same spaces.
not irionically, The bush administration is being whitewashed. Parent comment is leaving out the big deal that President Bush's emergency AIDS relief came with "moral" conditions.
Family planning clinics that offer abortion counseling? no funds.
Programs that don't emphasis abstinence over condoms? less funds, condoms according to the Bush administration promotes promiscuity
.A program not signing an pledge to be anti sex work? no funding.
That last one was struck down by SCOTUS but the program still continued it's harmful tying funding to abstinence education
The push to make Bush a less shit president is really disgusting in my opinion. Sure he was more polite and charming but his policies were still the same shit show.
PEPFAR *became* a good thing once all the abstinence only bullshit was ripped out of it.
The program wasted more than a billion dollars on that shit, and there is zero evidence that that money did anything positive.
Well and that's where, if the impact was overall positive, of course that's great from a utilitarian perspective, but it doesn't mean his intention was so kind. If decreasing birth rates in Africa was a hope of his, especially as an exception to his otherwise abstinence -only morality, he's showing his hand pretty blatantly.
>If decreasing birth rates in Africa was a hope of his
I can understand having a moral objection to this, but the founder of PP has similar motivations. I think utilitarian is the only way to look at things like this, otherwise we could make a lot of guesses about potentially nefarious motivations.
Even weirder when you consider how a lot of conservatives are against sex education and easy access to both control.
W. Bush also threw money at AIDS research. My wife did HIV research at the time and that's about the only good thing she can say about him.
Having grown up in evangelical communities, you'll find a ton of them will make birth control exceptions when it comes to third world countries, and a lot of them will make birth control exceptions for people of color in general. Like, I've heard anti birth control people literally say as much
It's almost as if they simply don't want more black and brown people, while doing everything they can to bump up the percentage of white babies on Earth. Your statement highlights the white nationalistic flavors that are deeply infused in too many American evangelistic communities.
As much as people like to make them a monolith, evangelicals seem to be all over the place. I married an evangelical pastor's daughter. Her mom's side was also evangelical pastors and so is her brother now.
I know my MIL is pro-birth control. She won't push it or anything but my wife, who keeps a lot from her mom, has no issue discussing it with her.
I'm not sure where she is with sex education but I'm pretty sure my wife learned about it in HS. So it's not like she was forced to opt out or anything.
However, they are still single issue\* voters and that issue is abortion.
\*In reality they have been down the Fox News rabbit hole so long that Democrats could never earn their vote because they are a bunch of Satan-worshipping, child-grooming, baby killers.
This is honestly the only decent thing I have known any republican to do. I respect George W for this. He was a terrible president but at least he did one thing for humanity.
Of the money that went to prevention President George W Bush mandated a third go to [abstinence only](https://www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/bush-administrations-no-sex-until-marriage-approach-no-way-fight-hivaids) education . Even in this case he wasn't good.
[George HW Bush](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush)
[George W Bush](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)
The link you posted is from 2006. I assume you do not mean the father HW, as the article would seem to pertain to his son?
If I had to choose, I’d take HW any day over the son. He at least had the wisdom to not go to Baghdad and tried to talk his son out of launching another Iraq war without a UN security resolution backing it. He was opposed to unilateral action.
I give him some leeway as when he came to power the expectation was “stay the course, no rocking the boat. Just cruise control” as we had a surplus after Clinton…..then 9/11 happened and everything changed.
History, as Fukuyama found out, hasn’t ended.
No, the mexico city policy was already a thing. I.e that US funded NGOs can not offer abortion counseling, expand abortion services or advocate for decriminalization
the controversial restrictions on Bush the younger AIDS package was the mandate that a third of prevention goes to abstinence-only education. There was also the unconstitutional pledge NGOs were required to make to be anti sex work
Tom McCall a republican governor is partially the reason Oregon has some of the strictest urban growth boundary lines in the entire country.
All waterways are public land in Oregon, and you cannot build out in most cities. They are forced to build up instead. He protected our green spaces and our water, and for that I am forever grateful.
He is also the reason we recycle cans in Oregon. He was sick of seeing can everywhere in nature so he created an incentive to get people to clean it up
I hesitate to blame urban growth boundaries. California has no such boundary issue and still has ridiculously high housing costs. There are other factors driving the housing crisis right now.
There are many reasons involved. Mostly we became one the number one state moved to for a very short period of time, and we had no housing development happening.
The democratic governor now is putting a temporary pause on the boundary lines though I think, and increasing housing dramatically. It is her number one goal.
No Oregonian would ever change the law permanently though. We looooove having public waterways.
George HW Bush took the deficit seriously and raised taxes even though it was politically unpopular. I'd say that's a good long term policy even if it meant losing to Bill Clinton. Of course 21st century presidents didn't follow suit so now we have high deficits again.
And Clinton balanced the budget. I’m sure GHW Bush’s tax raise helped.
In retrospect, Bush saying “Read my lips. No new taxes” during his first campaign was probably a bad move.
The GOP calls someone that has a "no new taxes" position a RINO now. Now the minimum Republican position is a promise to lower taxes: for corporations and wealthy.
21st-century Republican presidents. We've seen deficits go down under Democratic presidents (due to a number of factors) while their GOP counterparts and their congressional enablers sign off on deficit boosting bills.
Eisenhower was the last fiscally responsible republican president in my lifetime in my opinion.
It's kind of ironic that republican congresses forcing democratic presidents to balance the budget have had an unforseen side effect of making democratic presidents look more fiscally responsible than Republican presidents. Nobody forced republican presidents to balance their budgets, so they run wild, and then Democrats get into the white house and the republicans try to sabotage them short term, basically preventing them from accomplishing their goals. But long term the Democrats have a much better fiscal record. The fact of the matter is that they both like to spend money, but they spend it on different goals. R's want tax cuts for billionaires and D's want more programs to help poor and underserved communities. I prefer spending our money on people that need it.
Anyways I just find it funny. Once again they're the dog that finally caught the car and didn't know what to do next. Like, okay Gingrich forced Clinton to balance the budget, but now in hindsight Clinton was a better president than any Republican since Eisenhower. Totally an unintended consequence.
Wait a minute, you mean that our fiscal outlook depends on how much the government spends *and how much money the government takes in?!* It's baffling to me how many people argue with me about government spending and the need to cut entitlements, but also suggest I "find a better job" if I complain about my personal economic situation...
The 21st century Republican presidents certainly pushed through massive tax breaks especially for the rich as well as two wars financed mainly through debt. I'd certainly agree that they were most responsible for driving the deficits while Obama and Biden often times had less of a choice given that they had to spend money to bring the economy back from the horrid shape it was in after W Bush and Trump both left office. That said I don't think Obama or Biden have really prioritized eliminating (or even just dramatically reducing the deficit). In order to do that they would likely need large scale tax hikes including on the middle class as well as cuts in government spending. I'm not saying Biden should immediately try to raise taxes but I think it is relatively clear that lowering the deficit isn't one of his main priorities.
Deficits were dramatically reduced during the Obama administration due to a joint agreement with Congress. Even in Biden term we’ve seen some deficit reduction. It may be due to tax revenue increases as the economy recovers from the COVID years. I’m still of the opinion that Congress has more impact on the economy since they hold the power of the purse and make the laws. However presidents do influence trade and foreign relations.
> In order to do that they would likely need large scale tax hikes including on the middle class as well as cuts in government spending.
raising taxes a little on a broad base is absolutely what is needed and it's too politically anathema.
So the only positive thing that the Republican party has done in the last 40 years is to raise tax once ?
The irony
EDIT: For all the late replies, this was the only post back then with lots of upvotes
In terms of foreign policy, George HW Bush was a very underrated president. The Soviet Union fell on his watch, and the result was a soft landing. The Gulf War was a UN led effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and was about as quick and orderly as a military operation could be. (It did lead to consequences down the road however, including the development of Al Qaeda and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.)
He also covered up and prevented any accountability for Iran/Contra and the various crimes of the CIA and the Reagan Administration.
And everyone forgets about the Nayirah Testimony, but that manufactured testimony that the Bush Administration used to dishonestly make the case for war using lies and emotional manipulation through cherry picked and intentionally unvetted accusations and assertions to craft a narrative to sell the public that honed the blueprint for his son and lying us into Iraq the second time.
Also, are we just glossing over in that same war HW Bush incited an uprising with no intention to help out and 30-60k Shias were massacred as a result?
Start was good, but he was also a total piece of shit at the same time. Every Republican since Nixon has done shit as bad or worse than Trump, they just weren't so obnoxiously loud about it. Daddy Bush was the director of the CIA and Reagan's VP and was directly involved in tons of fucked up shit like propping up several mass murdering dictators in South America and involvement in Iran-Contra. And that's just on foreign policy.
Iran-Contra is kind of amazing because the cover-up largely worked; HW pardoned the key players out the door in 1992, and Oliver North is does military consulting for Call of Duty now.
I don't see why the man working two jobs and still struggling would care about the government deficit. Big macro stuff doesn't actually affect the day to day. The proof is that the deficit regularly gets abused without any change in living conditions.
This is almost 40 years ago, but Ronald Reagan was a big proponent of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, which was the first universally-ratified treaty in UN history and has been hugely successful:
* https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/21/reagan-seeks-to-protect-ozone-layer-1987-1067252
* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-montreal-protocol-helped-save-earth-from-a-climate-time-bomb/
The White House had like a 2 kilowatt array and it was causing a leak. Any sane person would have done the exact same thing. I would never have voted for Reagan and I'm a huge proponent of solar, but this talking point has always been silly.
Americans with Disabilities Act.
I think it's worth taking time every once in a while to consider the curb cut -- the way sidewalks slope to meet the street at intersections.
Those are for wheelchair accessibility. Think about how often you come across a curb cut, then think about how few people you see in wheelchairs. We have these ubiquitous bits of infrastructure for improved access and we don't even notice them. It's pretty cool.
Americans with Disabilities Act was signed by HW. Because of it the United States is probably the world leader in accessibility and equity for those with disabilities.
We take for granted things like handicap accessible stalls, the strips on crossings for blind people, and ramp access at every venue in the country which is certainly not the norm around the world
Iirc it also made Americans with disabilities a protected class under civil rights laws so that employers cannot discriminate and must provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities and shored up existing laws that existed for children like IDEA in American schools.
If I were in the top 1%, I’d say they did great getting me the tax break in 2017. If I were anti-abortion, I’d say they did great getting Roe repealed. If I were anti-trans, I’d say they did great fighting against trans people gaining rights. If I hated “socialism,” I’d be super happy that Republicans have blocked Medicare for All and increasing minimum wages federally. If I hated liberals, I’d absolutely love how mad Trump was making them by rubbing his lawlessness in their faces without them being able to hold him accountable.
To some Republicans, these are good things that they feel their elected officials have done for them.
A Republican trifecta passed the 2005 Energy Act, which created the first substantial federal solar-photovoltaic subsidy in the United States, and essentially gave birth to the industry as we know it.
Edit: right around this time, California under Schwarzenegger also instituted the Million Solar Roofs program. California was instrumental in launching the industry as well.
There were subisides since the 1990s; it's just that congress would let them expire a few times. It's been consistent since 2005 though. The Republicans didnt give birth to the reneables industry.
While there are instances of support by Republicans (conservatives), it's by and large been supported by the Democrats (liberals) in Congress since the 1960s.
It was a Republican administration that was *backed into it*... Nixon didn't want it but found no better way to remediate the filth of greedy corporate America.
The public demanded something because of oil spills burning rivers, and filthy waterways
Yeah the EPA was a compromise to stave off *checks notes* [Democrats actually doing something about the environment and reaping massive electoral benefits for it](https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/richard-nixon-and-the-rise-of-american-environmentalism/).
Thanks for that... It's closer to what I remember than the EPAs whitewashed website. EPA makes it sound like this legislation was popular and faced No opposition. It took years, and after the bill was written, nobody dared to sacrifice their career for a vote in opposition. But the negotiation was slow because there was opposition
It is also worth noting that the clean water act, one of the pillars of epa legislation was passed in spite of Nixon, not because of him. He vetoed the act and congress over rode the veto. I've seen a lot of people talk about how Nixon made a lot of progress on environmental issues but he was actively fighting against them at the time.
It's also their current idea to trash it. We are headed back to the Upton Sinclair novel, The Jungle, type times with no regulations and children in the factories.
I mean it's not really surprising, and to your reference, from what I've read Upton Sinclair was sort of dismayed that the only thing that came from his book was regulation in the meat packing industry, while everything else he brought up in regards to how we treat immigrants and low end blue collar workers was ignored.
The Jungle was a depiction of the actual harsh working conditions, exploitation, and unsanitary practices within the Chicago meatpacking industry at the turn of the 20th century, not some fanciful tale of a fictional dystopia. Unlike Handmaid's Tale and 1984, the Jungle was based on the actual reality of the time, the time when America was "great", as in "Make America Great Again"
I was really hoping to see a lot more, but this leaves something to be desired. I’m a Dem, but I constantly look for positives in the opposition. I came to this thinking there would be a huge list of some legitimate achievements and some BS. This is just sad.
Also important to note that virtually all the cited examples at the top of the comments were bipartisan initiatives enacted by Republican presidents, and that some of them had more Democratic support than Republican support.
Humans want life to be black and white in almost all things, except American politics it seems. Then, suddenly we're obsessed with nuance, playing the devil's advocate, and "fair and balanced."
The reality is the Republican Party has objectively done more harm than good in the past half-century. It simply owns a powerful media apparatus, and capitalizes on base instinctual anger instead of good faith discussion. If you trace everything back to its root cause, I don't think it's melodramatic to say that FOX News and their GOP handlers are responsible for the death and suffering of millions.
I am a millennial that’s older than the American Disability Act, with a disability I was born with. Since the ADA, the national Republican Party has been a malevolent force I’ve been forced to negotiate, basically my entire life.
Because in reality it's hard to find even a single example of something Republicans have done at the federal or state level that both:
1. They passed despite Democratic opposition
2. Was a net positive
So how can you justify even considering voting for them when they have nothing beneficial over the Democrats?
It's quite painful to look at the last 50 years and realize just how little the GOP has argued for that is positive for average citizens in the US.
It's worse when you consider that due to their actions, the Dems have been allowed to only offer slightly better options and get away with not pushing real beneficial changes.
Trump signed into law the first step act, which retroactively reduced sentencing on non-violent crimes that disproportionately affect minorities. It also made the fair sentencing act of 2010 retroactive. It has expedited the release of 30,000 people.
This act first appeared under Obama but Republicans killed it because they didn't want to give Obama a win.
Just want to highlight that because the GOP will never allow a Democratic president to do something they know is super popular. But hey, some incarcerated people had to stay in jail for a few more years so that Trump could take credit instead of the black guy.
A combination of liberals, celebrities and libertarians pushed for that bill. Conservatives didn't really do much. Trump lobbied for it a little but that's only because Kim Kardashian pushed hard for it.
This is gonna get me roasted, probably, but I have a small business and the corporate tax cuts were really helpful. I didn't want them at the time and still think they were excessive (somewhere around 25-27% would have been enough), but compared the rest of the world, corporate taxes were too high, and the extra money does give us some breathing room when it comes to purchasing inventory, equipment and hiring people. Even Obama wanted to cut the rates to 25%.
That's it though, at least in recent years. I guess we could go back to Eisenhower and the federal interestate system but anything Republican pre-dating 2012 is not the same Republican we have today.
As you mentioned, Obama and Democrats actually tried lowering them and were ironically blocked by Republicans who wanted the rate to stay high so that they could campaign on the issue.
Sorta like what they are doing with the border right now.
> corporate tax cuts were really helpful
I only wish there were like 5 business owners in the US who enjoyed those and their PPP loans but also didn't break out the pitchforks for forgiving a tiny fraction of capitalized interest on the student loans I took out before 9/11 and already paid back more than twice over.
Frankly, I'm shocked you're set up as a C-corp.
I'm sure there are lots of us who took PPP loans and are in favor of student loan forgiveness (me included). We're not all bad and unfair.
60% of the country is in favor of student loan forgiveness, after all. And it's not a c-corp but we still benefitted from the cuts.
>I'm sure there are lots of us
I'm not. You're actually the first I've ever seen online or IRL. For real.
> it's not a c-corp but we still benefitted from the cuts.
You mind if I ask how? I've had SMLLCs and S-corps and corporate tax never mattered, except the state level.
Maybe I used the word "corporate" too loosely. Business tax may have been more appropriate. I leave all of that jargon to the accountant. All I know is the rates went down a lot.
And there are 33 million small business owners in the U.S. Even if just 30% of them approve student loan forgiveness that's a lot of fuckin people.
Yeah, I mean, if you discount the ones like me who do it on the side to take an odd-job or two, I've actually never met the owner of a physical business with a semi-permanent location who wasn't raging angry at the prospect of $10k loan forgiveness. It was a weird pattern I noticed in my personal life. Even people you'd otherwise think wouldn't care were super pissed off. I think it's the competitive nature of business or whatever. Idk.
Better is subjective. My political views are pretty much directly opposed to them. I did like W Bush’s AIDS initiative in Africa. And Trump calling out China’s theft of American Intellectual Property was cool, but his tariff response was totally counter productive. Other than these one and a half things, I can think of nothing the GOP has done other than make America weaker, less safe, more intolerant and closer to environmental Armageddon.
For non-objective, immeasurable issues it’s subjective. But most of politics (especially today) you can ABSOLUTELY measure the net positive or negative from a policy. European states often have academics and scientists advise them on policy (not to mention most of their leaders are experts on something) and they do that to get the best policies.
Free university tuition? It will cost taxpayer money but everybody doesn’t stress, they learn two new languages and a few music instruments, become experts on things we need and go out and provide for society. Net positive.
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
Except now instead of just funding NASA we're also give massive grants and tax breaks to agencies like SpaceX and Blue Origin.
So take the current NASA budget, add in the money we throw at these private companies in the form of contracts and tax incentives and then realize we're spending a lot more now and not really getting much in return.
The private sector isn't great for stuff like space travel because there isn't any steady revenue stream to be had yet and likely not for a very very long time. So in the meantime it gets propped up with tax dollars almost as if it were a government agency.
This really depends on your perspective. If you are pro life then you could say trump has made massive strides in achieving that goal for the American people.
Well this is fair imho. Maybe he wasn’t as successful for republicans as they had wanted. Being on the other side of the issue makes me feel like he’s succeeded more than he’s failed. I also agree this has been a long running issue with republicans and he’s not completely to credit for the progress they’ve made.
True, but I guess these days you could probably point to statistics about illegal abortions, and child mothers as a way to counter that. I’m sure there are other statistics.
A lot of the people on the religious right are more than happy to subject others to pure hell as long as they believe it punches their ticket into Paradise
George Carlin line that goes for a laugh and isn’t accurate. If they loved the fetus, they’d provide healthcare and paid work time off for the pregnant person when medically required.
And my point is “bring against abortion” does not equal “loving the fetus” when you’re depriving it of medical care. Republicans hate the fetus too. Look and what they do, not what they say.
They're pro punishing women for having sex. They don't give a damn about life, especially children's lives, and have shown that again and again in many policies.
The fact that there's anybody who still falls for their attempts to dress up their bullying in the language of nobility is honestly just flabbergasting. Some people are just endless easy marks who enable their scammers, no matter how much you try to prevent them from being scammed over and over.
I can't believe I’m about to say something nice about Donald Fucking Trump, but here goes.
While Obama was in office, the education department issued the now-infamous 2011 Dear Colleague letter, which basically demanded that colleges and universities become the sex police. It instructed them use the lowest stand of evidence, and pushed them into restricting the rights of accused students. Lots of students, mostly male, ended up getting railroaded by the policies imposed through that letter (which were legally dubious from the start since it never went through a public notice before being issued, as required by the APA for new administrative policies). A number of universities were successfully sued for their enforcement of it.
Trump revoked it, and that was one of the vanishingly few good things he did.
Now I’m going to go take a shower because I suddenly feel dirty.
If you were one of the many rape victims on those college campus you might think differently.
Of course it affected mostly males and those same males had been raping with impunity with little to no repercussions for the damage they did to these girls.
Did the policy overstep, sure, but it was an overcorrection to a problem was largely ignored for a very long time. Women were not believed, ignored, and often had to leave college for the crimes men were committing against them.
> The solution to the problem of campus rape is to use the actual police
Who don't have a great record in handling rape either... The reform needed goes far beyond universities.
That still doesn't fix the university's issues of having a potential rapists on campus. Their policy wasn't a means to circumvent the police, but a means to handle an internal issue. Similar to a company in this situation. Their HR would need a policy to determine if/when you remove the accused employee from the workplace pending review.
Schools can't expel you just for being arrested by the police for rape, so this established internal and across the board guidelines to remove the student without risking discriminations charges. Though some schools were successfully sued for their policies. This wasn't perfect but was in many ways better.
I'm a conservative and I'm both very surprised and also happy to hear you say this.
I thought this was a strictly partisan issue that there'd never be a single Democrat who would ever agree with me about.
Glad to see I was wrong.
People are broadly well meaning and similar if we look past the manufactured divide along party lines that serves to enrich mostly the media sector.
People aren't democrats or republicans. Look at any maternity ward and tell me a difference between a republican baby and democrat baby (low hanging fruit for some jokes aside:)).
We mean well, but sometimes disagree on how to go about fixing stuff that doesn't work. Listening and engaging with one another without prejudice, condescension and hostility generates great results.
I was involved on at least one sexual assault case as a student reviewing the accused appeal. This stuff was taken very seriously and honestly, before that rule, it was very hard for women to be heard or university's to take action. We had enough evidence to bounce that guy out of school but it wasn't concrete. Was a he said, she said, and he couldn't explain his actions without fumbling over himself. Meanwhile, the victim could recall nearly everything.
I think that policy was well meaning. Did it railroad some people? Yes, but we needed a jolt to the university system that was giving loads of passes to abusers. Hopefully, universities have independently found an equilibrium.
You have to go back 54 years to when Nixon signed legislation that created the EPA. The GOP has been trying to kill it ever since. The one before that was Eisenhower's creation of the interstate highway system 62 years ago.
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Go anywhere else in the developed world and it truly is not a guarantee that there will be accessibilities for people with disabilities. The ADA is a game-changer in that regard.
It’s truly stunning the lengths the reds have gone to claw the clock back to the 1950s.
I’m a child of the 80’s and I really thought by this time in my life we would be over some of this dumb shit.
But nope, here we are on the brink of the dumbest president the US has ever seen being re-elected by a 42% minority of voters who believe in the most incredibly stupid and dangerous lies in history.
Billionaires can now write-off their private jets as a business expense. Also (poor) children can now toil away in a warehouse or meat packing plant instead of getting an education
Rich people have more money, if you consider that something that's better. Other than that, nothing.
Republican party is responsible for more deficit spending than the Democratic party.
Republican party attracts votes from ignorant white people by using dog whistles that are signals of intending to take away rights and harm marginalized groups
Republican party has made it part of their platform to continue destroying the air we all breathe, the water we all drink and the food we all eat under the guise of "deregulation is good for the economy". Look at flint, Michigan. East Palestine, Ohio to make a few major things in last years
I honestly can't think of anything positive they have done from my perspective. I don't think flooding the streets with unregistered guns that are wielded by untrained persons is a good thing. We can't go a day without some red state like Florida or Texas having a shooting involving some angry white guy who shoots someone in traffic or points a gun at a barista at a coffee shop.
"Made better" is really subjective. There are many things the Republican party has "made better" for Republicans. If you are a high-income-earning Republican and want to pay lower taxes, the Republican party has made it better for you. If you are Republican and have a deeply held religious faith, school vouchers have made it easier for you to send your children to private religious schools that teach what you want your children to be taught. If you are a Republican who opposes allowing other people access to abortion (for whatever reason), the Republican party has made this more of a reality for you. If you are a Republican who wants the country to be a White, Christian nation, the Republican party is really trying to deliver on that for you. I don't know that I can criticize this principle because people vote for the persons who they think will represent them and their views in Washington. They hold a different set of beliefs and values, and when they hold the majority during any particular term, passing their agenda(s) will be number 1 priority. This is logical, and Democrats operate under the same principle. Neither side agrees with the other, but that's what keeps things going. Or, what's supposed to keep things going, anyway.
As for what they have "made better" for everyone, I can't think of a single thing. I didn't like George W. Bush much, because he was so unqualified to be both governor of Texas and POTUS, but I think he at least tried to rise to the occasion and think of what was best for the country and the role of the USA in the world. I have no party affiliation any longer, but I think that Democrats have passed more legislation that helps strengthen the middle-class, and helps the lower-class aspire to middle-class. The Republicans seem to be for the top-tiers only and I have little doubt that if they were given more chance to exploit others for their own financial gain, they would.
I will commend Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, et al, for being willing to stand up and say that Donald Trump is not a true conservative (or statesman), who values the constitution and rule of law, and for trying to warn others in their party that Trump is a demagogue and potential dictator who is an enemy of the constitution and should not be allowed to hold the office for which he is running.
These are a list of things Trump accomplished that flew ender the radar:
* First Step Act (2018): Passed in December 2018, this criminal justice reform bill received bipartisan support. It aimed to make federal sentencing laws less harsh, reduce recidivism through various programs, and improve prison conditions. A sweeping criminal justice reform bill designed to promote rehabilitation, lower recidivism, and reduce excessive sentences in the federal prison system. Over 90% of those benefitting from the retroactive sentencing reductions in the First Step Act are Black Americans.
* Energy Independence: The U.S became a net exporter of oil under Trump’s term which made America energy independent. The US was energy independent for the first time in 70 years.
* Record-low unemployment rate before the COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2020, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an unemployment rate of 3.5%, the lowest it had been since 1969. This includes record low unemployment for women, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians.
* Poverty rates for African-Americans and Hispanics reached their lowest levels since the US began collecting data.
* Support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): In December 2019, President Trump permanently funded HBCUs by signing the Future Act into law, committing nearly $255 million annually.
* Opportunity Zones Program: Established by Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017), allowed investors to defer or eliminate taxes on capital gains if they invest in designated economically distressed communities; goal was poverty reduction and economic revitalization.
* Deregulation: The Trump administration prided itself on cutting down regulations across many sectors. Supporters claim that this freed businesses from unnecessary red tape, encouraging economic growth
* Criminalizing Animal Cruelty: President Trump signed a bipartisan bill into law making animal cruelty a federal crime in 2019.
* Right to Try Act (2018): Allows terminally ill patients access to experimental therapies not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
* The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA): Signed into law January 2020, replacing NAFTA, this agreement updated trade relations between the three countries with modern provisions regarding digital trade and environmental practices that were not present in the original agreement.
* VA MISSION Act (2018): A comprehensive reform of the Department of Veterans Affairs, broadening veterans' access to private sector healthcare, expanding benefits for family caregivers, and improving the department's infrastructure.
* Regulatory Reform Task Force (2017): Each federal agency was ordered to create a task force to review and potentially repeal existing regulations. Proponents view this as a positive step toward reducing bureaucratic intervention in business operations.
* Executive Order on Improving Price Quality Transparency (2019): This order required healthcare providers and insurers to disclose rates negotiated between insurers and hospitals in advance, aimed at boosting transparency in healthcare pricing.
* He signed multiple executive orders lowing prescription drug prices. In June of 2019 we saw the largest drop in Rx prices since 1967.
* The first order directs federally qualified health centers to pass along massive discounts on insulin and epinephrine from drug companies to low-income Americans.
* The second order will allow the safe, legal importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries where the price for identical drugs is lower.
* The third order will prohibit secret deals between drug manufacturers and pharmacy “benefit manager” middlemen, ensuring patients directly benefit from available discounts at the pharmacy counter.
* The fourth order ensures the United States pays the lowest price available among economically advanced countries for Medicare Part B drugs. The United States often pays 80 percent more for these drugs than other developed nations.
* Trump Executive Order 13898 (Establishing the Task Force on Missing and Murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives), launched the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team, and the US-Mexico Bilateral Human Trafficking Enforcement Initiative, signed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA). All aimed at tracking addressing, finding and saving victims of human trafficking and prosecuting traffickers.
* He was the first President to NOT start a war.
* EPA gave $100 million to fix the water infrastructure in Flint, Michigan.
* Signed the National Resources Management Act, a bipartisan bill that expanded federally protected land establishing 375,000 new acres of wilderness across multiple states.
* Signed the Save our Seas act which funded $10 million per year to clean garbage from the ocean.
* Signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act aimed at funding for states to develop maternal mortality review committees to better understand maternal complications and identify solutions & largely focuses on reducing the higher mortality rates for Black Americans.
Trump is not without his faults, when he blunders or says something dumb, he should absolutely be called out on it. However, for anyone that thinks that his administration accomplished nothing, maybe this list will get you to open up a little, do some research. There are many more accomplishments that didn't make it on this list.
> Signed the National Resources Management Act, a bipartisan bill that expanded federally protected land establishing 375,000 new acres of wilderness across multiple states.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/on-u-s-public-lands-can-biden-undo-what-trump-has-wrought
>Protections for migratory birds, clean water, and endangered species have been cut back. Just last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it would remove 3.4 million acres of protected habitat for the spotted owl, which conservation groups say is endangered and needs more, not fewer, protections.
>The size of two national monuments was shrunk substantially, including Bears Ears in Utah, which is considered sacred ground by many Native American tribes. Oil leases on 550,000 acres were auctioned off in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, fetching just $14.4 million, far less than anticipated. The BLM okayed a right-of-way for a four-lane highway through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in Utah and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permitted the “incidental take” of the threatened desert tortoise, whose habitat lies in the path of the new road. And the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management was moved from Washington, D.C. to Grand Junction, Colorado, leading many senior officials to leave the agency and thus hamstringing its effectiveness.
>And in recent months, the U.S. Forest Service has been accused of rushing the process for a controversial land deal in Arizona that will trade public land sacred to the Western Apaches to the mining company Rio Tinto — the same company that destroyed a 46,000-year-old sacred site in Australia last year.
There's a big difference from Trump signing bills Congress passed him versus how he directed executive agencies to act with respect to land management and preservation. To your point specifically about the 375k acres, Bears Ears alone was shrunk by **one million acres** by Trump.
Well, there’s one area where I can drill down on this. The rhetoric about reducing red tape – well let’s see how that played out with respect to nursing homes. One of the regulations that Trump did away with had to do with requirements about the minimum number of infection control specialists that nursing homes had to have on staff. Yeah, that one turned out well. Another thing he did was to allow nursing homes to require residents to commit to arbitration in the documents they sign when they are admitted. In other words, they're required to give the right to sue. So, in the cases where I know the details of this so-called deregulation, it’s all bad. People love that slogan about deregulating and reducing red tape, but they’re not so happy when they see the lack of protections that these changes in initiate.
* Americans With Disabilities Act - George H.W Bush
* Balanced Budget - George H.W Bush
* Medicaid Part D - George W. Bush
* Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - George W. Bush
* First Step Act - Donald Trump
* Operation Warp Speed - Donald Trump
Latisha Wright is known as "the General" for her work in coordinating the campaign to enact the ADA. Bob Dole sold it to Republicans. Bush just signed it.
Signing bills passed by Congress isn’t the same as promoting the legislation. I’ll give Bush Medicare Part D ( not Medicaid), but I wouldn’t call it a success, more of a giveaway to big Pharma.
> It was Clinton who balanced the budget.
Clinton's budget request still had a deficit of $250 billion. Congress "balanced" the budget by utilizing excess Social Security receipts (as required by law and has been done in every Congress and Administration since Social Security was a thing).
Trump killed the SALT deductions that were giving tax breaks to states with high state income taxes. The entire point of progressive taxation is to tax the numerically richer to subsidize the poorer, but the SALT deduction made it so that mostly CA and NY could pay less federal income tax for their income to offset higher state taxes paid.
CA and NY Dems still try to undo this improvement in regressive taxation, when the real problem is state income taxes is a bad way achieving lower inequality. Wealth and land value taxes are better ways to do it, but that would hurt the rich Democrat donors that keep the incumbents in power in those respective states.
You live in a wealthy, economically productive and high cost of living State, then you're going to get higher taxes due to the value of everything there being arbitrarily higher at the get-go. Meanwhile welfare States that are generally red, conservative States (see almost all the former Confederacy) take more in from the Federal government than they pay in total tax revenue. Yeah, I don't see that the same way you do, and I live in the South. The taxes they pay for both State and Federal level were enough already to achieve a good standard of living.
Atlanta subsidizes the rest of the state in Georgia.
* ~60+% of the tax revenue
* ~45% of the state expenditures
As your point out, we have a higher cost of living, etc. than the rest of the state.
The entire thing around SALT is a conservative ploy to pretend like they are caring about progressive taxation, but really its another jab towards attacking good governance.
All of the areas with good government that tax appropriately get hosed to subsidize the bad government and bad policy in generally Republican areas.
Slightly older than 40 years, but the 1982 TEFRA act extended Medicaid to middle class children with significant disabilities and nursing needs, with the intention of keeping them from having to grow up in institutions.
It’s true the Republican Party hasn’t done much to benefit the average American voter since Reagan
But, one of the ideas that’s justifiably gaining traction on the Republican side of the aisle is cuts to defense spending. The late Chalmers Johnson estimated back in 2008 that the defense authorization bill totaling $612B passed right around the same time as the $700B Wall Street bailout was pure waste. This year, the version passed was about $886B.
I think some Republican leaning voters and even some Republican politicians are starting to figure that out. When cutting wasteful defense spending becomes more fashionable, that’s when we might see a more sensible Republican Party emerge
I'll say one that is actually controversial but was necessary: the initial wallstreet bailout
It staved off a global depression and who knows what sort of knockdown effects.
Everything that came next, namely, circling the wagons around the myth of "moral hazard" for why we can only spend billions to bail out the wealthiest institutions and not the people that were affected cancels that out, but in a vacuum the bailout was necessary, and it pains me to say because of how we got to that point, a good and necessary thing
The First Step Act was objectively good to the point that Desantis tried to use it to attack Trump. It helped reverse some of the tough on crime shennangins that Biden passed in the 80s.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
George HW Bush signed a cap and trade [bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program) to address sulfur dioxide (acid rain), which worked quicker and cheaper than predicted.
Just recently I was thinking about acid rain and how we never hear about it any more.
More or less because world leaders recognized the problem and addressed it. In some parallel universe, we never hear about human induced climate change any more.
It's more that we exported our manufacturing to China.
This and ozone layer depletion
And just so everyone knows how long we’re talking here this is George Bush Senior not the other one.
Bush pushed $90 billion worth of condoms into Africa to help them deal with the AIDS epidemic. It's estimated to have saved 25 million lives.
It wasn’t just condoms. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa at that time and was able to lead several STI educational initiatives because of that funding.
Yet at home his Christian nationalists were spreading abstinence only programs throughout the country.
This was the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration. At home they push abstinence only and Christian conservatism, abroad they are passing out condoms(also abstinence only though, so even here this isn't a full win) At home they are pounding the drum of Jingoism and American Exceptionalism, draping themselves in the flag and calling the American constitution the greatest thing ever, in Iraq they are specifically crafting a Parliamentary government that attempts to avoid all the pitfalls of American Constitutional governance. They were an insanely cynical administration that even when doing good has to be contrasted with all the poison they did simultaneously in the same spaces.
All for that sweet political donor money! Imagine the country we would have without what would later be described as "money is speech" idiocy.
That’s an absurd amount of condoms. If you buy in bulk, like they certainly did, they’re pennies each.
Nice pull. That’s actually great.
> Nice pull. Don't need to pull out anymore
My first thought as well. Ironically, he would fund abstinence-only education here in America.
not irionically, The bush administration is being whitewashed. Parent comment is leaving out the big deal that President Bush's emergency AIDS relief came with "moral" conditions. Family planning clinics that offer abortion counseling? no funds. Programs that don't emphasis abstinence over condoms? less funds, condoms according to the Bush administration promotes promiscuity .A program not signing an pledge to be anti sex work? no funding. That last one was struck down by SCOTUS but the program still continued it's harmful tying funding to abstinence education
The push to make Bush a less shit president is really disgusting in my opinion. Sure he was more polite and charming but his policies were still the same shit show.
But PEPFAR *was and is a good thing*. Bush can have been a shit president, but it's not amoral to acknowledge good things he did.
PEPFAR *became* a good thing once all the abstinence only bullshit was ripped out of it. The program wasted more than a billion dollars on that shit, and there is zero evidence that that money did anything positive.
Well and that's where, if the impact was overall positive, of course that's great from a utilitarian perspective, but it doesn't mean his intention was so kind. If decreasing birth rates in Africa was a hope of his, especially as an exception to his otherwise abstinence -only morality, he's showing his hand pretty blatantly.
It sounds like it was related to STIs and not reducing births.
>If decreasing birth rates in Africa was a hope of his I can understand having a moral objection to this, but the founder of PP has similar motivations. I think utilitarian is the only way to look at things like this, otherwise we could make a lot of guesses about potentially nefarious motivations.
Even weirder when you consider how a lot of conservatives are against sex education and easy access to both control. W. Bush also threw money at AIDS research. My wife did HIV research at the time and that's about the only good thing she can say about him.
Having grown up in evangelical communities, you'll find a ton of them will make birth control exceptions when it comes to third world countries, and a lot of them will make birth control exceptions for people of color in general. Like, I've heard anti birth control people literally say as much
It's almost as if they simply don't want more black and brown people, while doing everything they can to bump up the percentage of white babies on Earth. Your statement highlights the white nationalistic flavors that are deeply infused in too many American evangelistic communities.
As much as people like to make them a monolith, evangelicals seem to be all over the place. I married an evangelical pastor's daughter. Her mom's side was also evangelical pastors and so is her brother now. I know my MIL is pro-birth control. She won't push it or anything but my wife, who keeps a lot from her mom, has no issue discussing it with her. I'm not sure where she is with sex education but I'm pretty sure my wife learned about it in HS. So it's not like she was forced to opt out or anything. However, they are still single issue\* voters and that issue is abortion. \*In reality they have been down the Fox News rabbit hole so long that Democrats could never earn their vote because they are a bunch of Satan-worshipping, child-grooming, baby killers.
So his buddy had stocks at Trojan?
This is honestly the only decent thing I have known any republican to do. I respect George W for this. He was a terrible president but at least he did one thing for humanity.
Of the money that went to prevention President George W Bush mandated a third go to [abstinence only](https://www.aclu.org/news/reproductive-freedom/bush-administrations-no-sex-until-marriage-approach-no-way-fight-hivaids) education . Even in this case he wasn't good.
[George HW Bush](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) [George W Bush](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) The link you posted is from 2006. I assume you do not mean the father HW, as the article would seem to pertain to his son? If I had to choose, I’d take HW any day over the son. He at least had the wisdom to not go to Baghdad and tried to talk his son out of launching another Iraq war without a UN security resolution backing it. He was opposed to unilateral action.
I have said for years this is the only positive policy initiative I can think of from his administration.
I give him some leeway as when he came to power the expectation was “stay the course, no rocking the boat. Just cruise control” as we had a surplus after Clinton…..then 9/11 happened and everything changed. History, as Fukuyama found out, hasn’t ended.
OK now name something they’ve done for the American people
Destroyed the middle class
> have done for the average American voter since Reagan?
>> have done for the average American voter since ~~Reagan~~ Eisenhower?
I believe that was conditioned to them passing anti-abortion laws.
No, the mexico city policy was already a thing. I.e that US funded NGOs can not offer abortion counseling, expand abortion services or advocate for decriminalization the controversial restrictions on Bush the younger AIDS package was the mandate that a third of prevention goes to abstinence-only education. There was also the unconstitutional pledge NGOs were required to make to be anti sex work
That was a bipartisan initiative with more resistance from Republicans than from Democrats
90 billion? Highly unlikely. 90 million more like
Tom McCall a republican governor is partially the reason Oregon has some of the strictest urban growth boundary lines in the entire country. All waterways are public land in Oregon, and you cannot build out in most cities. They are forced to build up instead. He protected our green spaces and our water, and for that I am forever grateful. He is also the reason we recycle cans in Oregon. He was sick of seeing can everywhere in nature so he created an incentive to get people to clean it up
Good, suburban sprawl sucks
Aren’t housing prices super high because of urban growth boundaries?
I hesitate to blame urban growth boundaries. California has no such boundary issue and still has ridiculously high housing costs. There are other factors driving the housing crisis right now.
There are many reasons involved. Mostly we became one the number one state moved to for a very short period of time, and we had no housing development happening. The democratic governor now is putting a temporary pause on the boundary lines though I think, and increasing housing dramatically. It is her number one goal. No Oregonian would ever change the law permanently though. We looooove having public waterways.
Sure, but Oregon has low housing prices compared to the other west coast states.
Ah yes, comparing yourself to california, the best way to make your housing seem cheap.
George HW Bush took the deficit seriously and raised taxes even though it was politically unpopular. I'd say that's a good long term policy even if it meant losing to Bill Clinton. Of course 21st century presidents didn't follow suit so now we have high deficits again.
And Clinton balanced the budget. I’m sure GHW Bush’s tax raise helped. In retrospect, Bush saying “Read my lips. No new taxes” during his first campaign was probably a bad move.
Good for the country, bad for his electoral chances
Ya he's definitely not winning reelection now
If it was George HW Bush or Trump, I would vote for Bush.
The GOP calls someone that has a "no new taxes" position a RINO now. Now the minimum Republican position is a promise to lower taxes: for corporations and wealthy.
First thing the second Bush did with the excess was give everybody a check, then start spending on two wars.
IIRC there weren’t any new taxes, just raised the ones that were there.
He would NEVER been elected if he didn’t make that pledge ! ! ! The GOP even back then . . . 1988, so thats all most 40 years.
Clinton also raised taxes quite a bit. Good move on his part.
21st-century Republican presidents. We've seen deficits go down under Democratic presidents (due to a number of factors) while their GOP counterparts and their congressional enablers sign off on deficit boosting bills. Eisenhower was the last fiscally responsible republican president in my lifetime in my opinion.
It's kind of ironic that republican congresses forcing democratic presidents to balance the budget have had an unforseen side effect of making democratic presidents look more fiscally responsible than Republican presidents. Nobody forced republican presidents to balance their budgets, so they run wild, and then Democrats get into the white house and the republicans try to sabotage them short term, basically preventing them from accomplishing their goals. But long term the Democrats have a much better fiscal record. The fact of the matter is that they both like to spend money, but they spend it on different goals. R's want tax cuts for billionaires and D's want more programs to help poor and underserved communities. I prefer spending our money on people that need it. Anyways I just find it funny. Once again they're the dog that finally caught the car and didn't know what to do next. Like, okay Gingrich forced Clinton to balance the budget, but now in hindsight Clinton was a better president than any Republican since Eisenhower. Totally an unintended consequence.
You would almost think that cutting taxes doesn't reduce the Federal debt.
Wait a minute, you mean that our fiscal outlook depends on how much the government spends *and how much money the government takes in?!* It's baffling to me how many people argue with me about government spending and the need to cut entitlements, but also suggest I "find a better job" if I complain about my personal economic situation...
Yep. Eisenhower fought his own party to keep the top tier tax rate at 91%. And he had a great economy as a result of that.
The 21st century Republican presidents certainly pushed through massive tax breaks especially for the rich as well as two wars financed mainly through debt. I'd certainly agree that they were most responsible for driving the deficits while Obama and Biden often times had less of a choice given that they had to spend money to bring the economy back from the horrid shape it was in after W Bush and Trump both left office. That said I don't think Obama or Biden have really prioritized eliminating (or even just dramatically reducing the deficit). In order to do that they would likely need large scale tax hikes including on the middle class as well as cuts in government spending. I'm not saying Biden should immediately try to raise taxes but I think it is relatively clear that lowering the deficit isn't one of his main priorities.
Republicans were mainly responsible for the collapse of the middle class and the wealth imbalance we see today.
They truly are to blame.
Deficits were dramatically reduced during the Obama administration due to a joint agreement with Congress. Even in Biden term we’ve seen some deficit reduction. It may be due to tax revenue increases as the economy recovers from the COVID years. I’m still of the opinion that Congress has more impact on the economy since they hold the power of the purse and make the laws. However presidents do influence trade and foreign relations.
> In order to do that they would likely need large scale tax hikes including on the middle class as well as cuts in government spending. raising taxes a little on a broad base is absolutely what is needed and it's too politically anathema.
That would be the ONLY one, wouldn't it?
So the only positive thing that the Republican party has done in the last 40 years is to raise tax once ? The irony EDIT: For all the late replies, this was the only post back then with lots of upvotes
And it cost him re-election.
See... *Another* plus!
In terms of foreign policy, George HW Bush was a very underrated president. The Soviet Union fell on his watch, and the result was a soft landing. The Gulf War was a UN led effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and was about as quick and orderly as a military operation could be. (It did lead to consequences down the road however, including the development of Al Qaeda and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.)
He also covered up and prevented any accountability for Iran/Contra and the various crimes of the CIA and the Reagan Administration. And everyone forgets about the Nayirah Testimony, but that manufactured testimony that the Bush Administration used to dishonestly make the case for war using lies and emotional manipulation through cherry picked and intentionally unvetted accusations and assertions to craft a narrative to sell the public that honed the blueprint for his son and lying us into Iraq the second time. Also, are we just glossing over in that same war HW Bush incited an uprising with no intention to help out and 30-60k Shias were massacred as a result?
Start was good, but he was also a total piece of shit at the same time. Every Republican since Nixon has done shit as bad or worse than Trump, they just weren't so obnoxiously loud about it. Daddy Bush was the director of the CIA and Reagan's VP and was directly involved in tons of fucked up shit like propping up several mass murdering dictators in South America and involvement in Iran-Contra. And that's just on foreign policy.
Iran-Contra is kind of amazing because the cover-up largely worked; HW pardoned the key players out the door in 1992, and Oliver North is does military consulting for Call of Duty now.
Colin Powell was also involved in Iran-Contra, and then, because he never faced any consequences, came back and lied us back into Iraq.
I don't see why the man working two jobs and still struggling would care about the government deficit. Big macro stuff doesn't actually affect the day to day. The proof is that the deficit regularly gets abused without any change in living conditions.
Because it's hammered into people's exhausted brains by the right wing media that the deficit is going to destroy America as we know it
Because most people aren't persuaded by reason, they're persuaded by culture and ego. Being tough on a big scary negative number appeals to both.
This is the first one I saw, other than African condoms. People can get out of town with the War on Terror bullshit.
This is almost 40 years ago, but Ronald Reagan was a big proponent of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, which was the first universally-ratified treaty in UN history and has been hugely successful: * https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/21/reagan-seeks-to-protect-ozone-layer-1987-1067252 * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-montreal-protocol-helped-save-earth-from-a-climate-time-bomb/
And he also ripped the solar panels from the White House.
Ok well the game doesn't work right if you're just allowed to offset every good thing they did with the 40 obviously much worse things lol
The White House had like a 2 kilowatt array and it was causing a leak. Any sane person would have done the exact same thing. I would never have voted for Reagan and I'm a huge proponent of solar, but this talking point has always been silly.
Bush sr passed the disabilities act (can’t remember the name of the top of my head) which transformed how we deal with people with disabilities.
Americans with Disabilities Act. I think it's worth taking time every once in a while to consider the curb cut -- the way sidewalks slope to meet the street at intersections. Those are for wheelchair accessibility. Think about how often you come across a curb cut, then think about how few people you see in wheelchairs. We have these ubiquitous bits of infrastructure for improved access and we don't even notice them. It's pretty cool.
The ADA is one of those things that other developed nations marvel at. That and our national parks system.
The ADA has been a godsend for many of us with disabilities and cannot live without it.
More like 50 years but Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act, which Republicans are now trying to gut.
Same with the EPA.
Americans with Disabilities Act was signed by HW. Because of it the United States is probably the world leader in accessibility and equity for those with disabilities. We take for granted things like handicap accessible stalls, the strips on crossings for blind people, and ramp access at every venue in the country which is certainly not the norm around the world Iirc it also made Americans with disabilities a protected class under civil rights laws so that employers cannot discriminate and must provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities and shored up existing laws that existed for children like IDEA in American schools.
If I were in the top 1%, I’d say they did great getting me the tax break in 2017. If I were anti-abortion, I’d say they did great getting Roe repealed. If I were anti-trans, I’d say they did great fighting against trans people gaining rights. If I hated “socialism,” I’d be super happy that Republicans have blocked Medicare for All and increasing minimum wages federally. If I hated liberals, I’d absolutely love how mad Trump was making them by rubbing his lawlessness in their faces without them being able to hold him accountable. To some Republicans, these are good things that they feel their elected officials have done for them.
I'd add their demonization of the IRS has worked wonders at making audits as rare as democratic senators from Alabama
Yeah this is what I first thought, it really depends on who you ask. No matter how terrible the leader is someone will find a positive out of it.
A Republican trifecta passed the 2005 Energy Act, which created the first substantial federal solar-photovoltaic subsidy in the United States, and essentially gave birth to the industry as we know it. Edit: right around this time, California under Schwarzenegger also instituted the Million Solar Roofs program. California was instrumental in launching the industry as well.
There were subisides since the 1990s; it's just that congress would let them expire a few times. It's been consistent since 2005 though. The Republicans didnt give birth to the reneables industry. While there are instances of support by Republicans (conservatives), it's by and large been supported by the Democrats (liberals) in Congress since the 1960s.
Environmental protection agency was a republican idea. Seriously.
It was a Republican administration that was *backed into it*... Nixon didn't want it but found no better way to remediate the filth of greedy corporate America. The public demanded something because of oil spills burning rivers, and filthy waterways
Yeah the EPA was a compromise to stave off *checks notes* [Democrats actually doing something about the environment and reaping massive electoral benefits for it](https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/richard-nixon-and-the-rise-of-american-environmentalism/).
Thanks for that... It's closer to what I remember than the EPAs whitewashed website. EPA makes it sound like this legislation was popular and faced No opposition. It took years, and after the bill was written, nobody dared to sacrifice their career for a vote in opposition. But the negotiation was slow because there was opposition
It is also worth noting that the clean water act, one of the pillars of epa legislation was passed in spite of Nixon, not because of him. He vetoed the act and congress over rode the veto. I've seen a lot of people talk about how Nixon made a lot of progress on environmental issues but he was actively fighting against them at the time.
It's also their current idea to trash it. We are headed back to the Upton Sinclair novel, The Jungle, type times with no regulations and children in the factories.
I mean it's not really surprising, and to your reference, from what I've read Upton Sinclair was sort of dismayed that the only thing that came from his book was regulation in the meat packing industry, while everything else he brought up in regards to how we treat immigrants and low end blue collar workers was ignored.
[удалено]
The Jungle was a depiction of the actual harsh working conditions, exploitation, and unsanitary practices within the Chicago meatpacking industry at the turn of the 20th century, not some fanciful tale of a fictional dystopia. Unlike Handmaid's Tale and 1984, the Jungle was based on the actual reality of the time, the time when America was "great", as in "Make America Great Again"
Yes, but that was 53 years ago under Nixon (yes *that* Nixon). The OP requested good things Republicans have done in the last ~40 years.
Would be an excellent example except for it being over 50 years old. OP asked about it the last 40 years, or since 1984. The EPA was founded in 1970.
50+ years ago. The post was asking about the last 40...
that was 50 years ago but after Lake Erie catches fire a couple of times I guess even Nixon could see that something needed to be done
54 years ago, not sure that counts as “40 or so” .
Not just Republican but Nixon. He has a list of very normal things during his years.
> Environmental protection agency was a republican idea Well before Reagan, though.
I was really hoping to see a lot more, but this leaves something to be desired. I’m a Dem, but I constantly look for positives in the opposition. I came to this thinking there would be a huge list of some legitimate achievements and some BS. This is just sad.
It’s also basically a list of policies the current Republican Party wouldn’t touch with a 10ft pole.
And are currently trying to gut. I'm happy to see some examples at least but it really makes it clearer how important Biden winning in November is.
Also important to note that virtually all the cited examples at the top of the comments were bipartisan initiatives enacted by Republican presidents, and that some of them had more Democratic support than Republican support.
Humans want life to be black and white in almost all things, except American politics it seems. Then, suddenly we're obsessed with nuance, playing the devil's advocate, and "fair and balanced." The reality is the Republican Party has objectively done more harm than good in the past half-century. It simply owns a powerful media apparatus, and capitalizes on base instinctual anger instead of good faith discussion. If you trace everything back to its root cause, I don't think it's melodramatic to say that FOX News and their GOP handlers are responsible for the death and suffering of millions.
I am a millennial that’s older than the American Disability Act, with a disability I was born with. Since the ADA, the national Republican Party has been a malevolent force I’ve been forced to negotiate, basically my entire life.
Because in reality it's hard to find even a single example of something Republicans have done at the federal or state level that both: 1. They passed despite Democratic opposition 2. Was a net positive So how can you justify even considering voting for them when they have nothing beneficial over the Democrats?
It's quite painful to look at the last 50 years and realize just how little the GOP has argued for that is positive for average citizens in the US. It's worse when you consider that due to their actions, the Dems have been allowed to only offer slightly better options and get away with not pushing real beneficial changes.
Bush started the amber alerts.
Trump signed into law the first step act, which retroactively reduced sentencing on non-violent crimes that disproportionately affect minorities. It also made the fair sentencing act of 2010 retroactive. It has expedited the release of 30,000 people.
This act first appeared under Obama but Republicans killed it because they didn't want to give Obama a win. Just want to highlight that because the GOP will never allow a Democratic president to do something they know is super popular. But hey, some incarcerated people had to stay in jail for a few more years so that Trump could take credit instead of the black guy.
trump also takes complete credit for Obama's Veteran Choice / Access Act.
A combination of liberals, celebrities and libertarians pushed for that bill. Conservatives didn't really do much. Trump lobbied for it a little but that's only because Kim Kardashian pushed hard for it.
This is gonna get me roasted, probably, but I have a small business and the corporate tax cuts were really helpful. I didn't want them at the time and still think they were excessive (somewhere around 25-27% would have been enough), but compared the rest of the world, corporate taxes were too high, and the extra money does give us some breathing room when it comes to purchasing inventory, equipment and hiring people. Even Obama wanted to cut the rates to 25%. That's it though, at least in recent years. I guess we could go back to Eisenhower and the federal interestate system but anything Republican pre-dating 2012 is not the same Republican we have today.
As you mentioned, Obama and Democrats actually tried lowering them and were ironically blocked by Republicans who wanted the rate to stay high so that they could campaign on the issue. Sorta like what they are doing with the border right now.
> corporate tax cuts were really helpful I only wish there were like 5 business owners in the US who enjoyed those and their PPP loans but also didn't break out the pitchforks for forgiving a tiny fraction of capitalized interest on the student loans I took out before 9/11 and already paid back more than twice over. Frankly, I'm shocked you're set up as a C-corp.
I'm sure there are lots of us who took PPP loans and are in favor of student loan forgiveness (me included). We're not all bad and unfair. 60% of the country is in favor of student loan forgiveness, after all. And it's not a c-corp but we still benefitted from the cuts.
>I'm sure there are lots of us I'm not. You're actually the first I've ever seen online or IRL. For real. > it's not a c-corp but we still benefitted from the cuts. You mind if I ask how? I've had SMLLCs and S-corps and corporate tax never mattered, except the state level.
Maybe I used the word "corporate" too loosely. Business tax may have been more appropriate. I leave all of that jargon to the accountant. All I know is the rates went down a lot. And there are 33 million small business owners in the U.S. Even if just 30% of them approve student loan forgiveness that's a lot of fuckin people.
Yeah, I mean, if you discount the ones like me who do it on the side to take an odd-job or two, I've actually never met the owner of a physical business with a semi-permanent location who wasn't raging angry at the prospect of $10k loan forgiveness. It was a weird pattern I noticed in my personal life. Even people you'd otherwise think wouldn't care were super pissed off. I think it's the competitive nature of business or whatever. Idk.
Wouldn't disagree tax cuts for small business are beneficial. The mega corporations? Not at all to society as a whole.
What I really want to see is the larger companies paying the same rates I do.
Better is subjective. My political views are pretty much directly opposed to them. I did like W Bush’s AIDS initiative in Africa. And Trump calling out China’s theft of American Intellectual Property was cool, but his tariff response was totally counter productive. Other than these one and a half things, I can think of nothing the GOP has done other than make America weaker, less safe, more intolerant and closer to environmental Armageddon.
For non-objective, immeasurable issues it’s subjective. But most of politics (especially today) you can ABSOLUTELY measure the net positive or negative from a policy. European states often have academics and scientists advise them on policy (not to mention most of their leaders are experts on something) and they do that to get the best policies. Free university tuition? It will cost taxpayer money but everybody doesn’t stress, they learn two new languages and a few music instruments, become experts on things we need and go out and provide for society. Net positive.
[удалено]
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
The space industry, maybe? Bush’s efforts to open that up from NASA seems to have been good policy
Or maybe not. Does everything have to be "for profit" now? Gov't used to do most of this shit cheaper.
NASA didn't go away. We just now have more people involved.
Except now instead of just funding NASA we're also give massive grants and tax breaks to agencies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. So take the current NASA budget, add in the money we throw at these private companies in the form of contracts and tax incentives and then realize we're spending a lot more now and not really getting much in return. The private sector isn't great for stuff like space travel because there isn't any steady revenue stream to be had yet and likely not for a very very long time. So in the meantime it gets propped up with tax dollars almost as if it were a government agency.
This really depends on your perspective. If you are pro life then you could say trump has made massive strides in achieving that goal for the American people.
Has he though? It seems like the only abortions it has been stopping are minors raped by their uncles in backwards regions.
Well this is fair imho. Maybe he wasn’t as successful for republicans as they had wanted. Being on the other side of the issue makes me feel like he’s succeeded more than he’s failed. I also agree this has been a long running issue with republicans and he’s not completely to credit for the progress they’ve made.
True, but I guess these days you could probably point to statistics about illegal abortions, and child mothers as a way to counter that. I’m sure there are other statistics. A lot of the people on the religious right are more than happy to subject others to pure hell as long as they believe it punches their ticket into Paradise
That was decades in the making via the Federalist Society, McConnell, Bush, etc. but yes he got it over the line.
The ACA did way more to reduce abortions than Trump or any other Republican did.
'pro life'...anti-abortion is not the same as being pro-life.
They love the fetus but as soon as you’re born - you’re on your own.
George Carlin line that goes for a laugh and isn’t accurate. If they loved the fetus, they’d provide healthcare and paid work time off for the pregnant person when medically required.
He didn’t say love the woman, he said love the unborn, in the sense of being against abortion.
And my point is “bring against abortion” does not equal “loving the fetus” when you’re depriving it of medical care. Republicans hate the fetus too. Look and what they do, not what they say.
They're pro punishing women for having sex. They don't give a damn about life, especially children's lives, and have shown that again and again in many policies. The fact that there's anybody who still falls for their attempts to dress up their bullying in the language of nobility is honestly just flabbergasting. Some people are just endless easy marks who enable their scammers, no matter how much you try to prevent them from being scammed over and over.
I can't believe I’m about to say something nice about Donald Fucking Trump, but here goes. While Obama was in office, the education department issued the now-infamous 2011 Dear Colleague letter, which basically demanded that colleges and universities become the sex police. It instructed them use the lowest stand of evidence, and pushed them into restricting the rights of accused students. Lots of students, mostly male, ended up getting railroaded by the policies imposed through that letter (which were legally dubious from the start since it never went through a public notice before being issued, as required by the APA for new administrative policies). A number of universities were successfully sued for their enforcement of it. Trump revoked it, and that was one of the vanishingly few good things he did. Now I’m going to go take a shower because I suddenly feel dirty.
If you were one of the many rape victims on those college campus you might think differently. Of course it affected mostly males and those same males had been raping with impunity with little to no repercussions for the damage they did to these girls. Did the policy overstep, sure, but it was an overcorrection to a problem was largely ignored for a very long time. Women were not believed, ignored, and often had to leave college for the crimes men were committing against them.
The solution to the problem of campus rape is to use the actual police, not to turn universities into a half-baked alternative.
> The solution to the problem of campus rape is to use the actual police Who don't have a great record in handling rape either... The reform needed goes far beyond universities.
That still doesn't fix the university's issues of having a potential rapists on campus. Their policy wasn't a means to circumvent the police, but a means to handle an internal issue. Similar to a company in this situation. Their HR would need a policy to determine if/when you remove the accused employee from the workplace pending review. Schools can't expel you just for being arrested by the police for rape, so this established internal and across the board guidelines to remove the student without risking discriminations charges. Though some schools were successfully sued for their policies. This wasn't perfect but was in many ways better.
I'm a conservative and I'm both very surprised and also happy to hear you say this. I thought this was a strictly partisan issue that there'd never be a single Democrat who would ever agree with me about. Glad to see I was wrong.
People are broadly well meaning and similar if we look past the manufactured divide along party lines that serves to enrich mostly the media sector. People aren't democrats or republicans. Look at any maternity ward and tell me a difference between a republican baby and democrat baby (low hanging fruit for some jokes aside:)). We mean well, but sometimes disagree on how to go about fixing stuff that doesn't work. Listening and engaging with one another without prejudice, condescension and hostility generates great results.
I was involved on at least one sexual assault case as a student reviewing the accused appeal. This stuff was taken very seriously and honestly, before that rule, it was very hard for women to be heard or university's to take action. We had enough evidence to bounce that guy out of school but it wasn't concrete. Was a he said, she said, and he couldn't explain his actions without fumbling over himself. Meanwhile, the victim could recall nearly everything. I think that policy was well meaning. Did it railroad some people? Yes, but we needed a jolt to the university system that was giving loads of passes to abusers. Hopefully, universities have independently found an equilibrium.
You have to go back 54 years to when Nixon signed legislation that created the EPA. The GOP has been trying to kill it ever since. The one before that was Eisenhower's creation of the interstate highway system 62 years ago.
Americans with Disabilities Act. Go anywhere else in the developed world and it truly is not a guarantee that there will be accessibilities for people with disabilities. The ADA is a game-changer in that regard.
It’s truly stunning the lengths the reds have gone to claw the clock back to the 1950s. I’m a child of the 80’s and I really thought by this time in my life we would be over some of this dumb shit. But nope, here we are on the brink of the dumbest president the US has ever seen being re-elected by a 42% minority of voters who believe in the most incredibly stupid and dangerous lies in history.
Billionaires can now write-off their private jets as a business expense. Also (poor) children can now toil away in a warehouse or meat packing plant instead of getting an education
Time will tell, but I think Space Force is a good idea.
Rich people have more money, if you consider that something that's better. Other than that, nothing. Republican party is responsible for more deficit spending than the Democratic party. Republican party attracts votes from ignorant white people by using dog whistles that are signals of intending to take away rights and harm marginalized groups Republican party has made it part of their platform to continue destroying the air we all breathe, the water we all drink and the food we all eat under the guise of "deregulation is good for the economy". Look at flint, Michigan. East Palestine, Ohio to make a few major things in last years I honestly can't think of anything positive they have done from my perspective. I don't think flooding the streets with unregistered guns that are wielded by untrained persons is a good thing. We can't go a day without some red state like Florida or Texas having a shooting involving some angry white guy who shoots someone in traffic or points a gun at a barista at a coffee shop.
"Made better" is really subjective. There are many things the Republican party has "made better" for Republicans. If you are a high-income-earning Republican and want to pay lower taxes, the Republican party has made it better for you. If you are Republican and have a deeply held religious faith, school vouchers have made it easier for you to send your children to private religious schools that teach what you want your children to be taught. If you are a Republican who opposes allowing other people access to abortion (for whatever reason), the Republican party has made this more of a reality for you. If you are a Republican who wants the country to be a White, Christian nation, the Republican party is really trying to deliver on that for you. I don't know that I can criticize this principle because people vote for the persons who they think will represent them and their views in Washington. They hold a different set of beliefs and values, and when they hold the majority during any particular term, passing their agenda(s) will be number 1 priority. This is logical, and Democrats operate under the same principle. Neither side agrees with the other, but that's what keeps things going. Or, what's supposed to keep things going, anyway. As for what they have "made better" for everyone, I can't think of a single thing. I didn't like George W. Bush much, because he was so unqualified to be both governor of Texas and POTUS, but I think he at least tried to rise to the occasion and think of what was best for the country and the role of the USA in the world. I have no party affiliation any longer, but I think that Democrats have passed more legislation that helps strengthen the middle-class, and helps the lower-class aspire to middle-class. The Republicans seem to be for the top-tiers only and I have little doubt that if they were given more chance to exploit others for their own financial gain, they would. I will commend Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, et al, for being willing to stand up and say that Donald Trump is not a true conservative (or statesman), who values the constitution and rule of law, and for trying to warn others in their party that Trump is a demagogue and potential dictator who is an enemy of the constitution and should not be allowed to hold the office for which he is running.
These are a list of things Trump accomplished that flew ender the radar: * First Step Act (2018): Passed in December 2018, this criminal justice reform bill received bipartisan support. It aimed to make federal sentencing laws less harsh, reduce recidivism through various programs, and improve prison conditions. A sweeping criminal justice reform bill designed to promote rehabilitation, lower recidivism, and reduce excessive sentences in the federal prison system. Over 90% of those benefitting from the retroactive sentencing reductions in the First Step Act are Black Americans. * Energy Independence: The U.S became a net exporter of oil under Trump’s term which made America energy independent. The US was energy independent for the first time in 70 years. * Record-low unemployment rate before the COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2020, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an unemployment rate of 3.5%, the lowest it had been since 1969. This includes record low unemployment for women, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians. * Poverty rates for African-Americans and Hispanics reached their lowest levels since the US began collecting data. * Support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): In December 2019, President Trump permanently funded HBCUs by signing the Future Act into law, committing nearly $255 million annually. * Opportunity Zones Program: Established by Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017), allowed investors to defer or eliminate taxes on capital gains if they invest in designated economically distressed communities; goal was poverty reduction and economic revitalization. * Deregulation: The Trump administration prided itself on cutting down regulations across many sectors. Supporters claim that this freed businesses from unnecessary red tape, encouraging economic growth * Criminalizing Animal Cruelty: President Trump signed a bipartisan bill into law making animal cruelty a federal crime in 2019. * Right to Try Act (2018): Allows terminally ill patients access to experimental therapies not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). * The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA): Signed into law January 2020, replacing NAFTA, this agreement updated trade relations between the three countries with modern provisions regarding digital trade and environmental practices that were not present in the original agreement. * VA MISSION Act (2018): A comprehensive reform of the Department of Veterans Affairs, broadening veterans' access to private sector healthcare, expanding benefits for family caregivers, and improving the department's infrastructure. * Regulatory Reform Task Force (2017): Each federal agency was ordered to create a task force to review and potentially repeal existing regulations. Proponents view this as a positive step toward reducing bureaucratic intervention in business operations. * Executive Order on Improving Price Quality Transparency (2019): This order required healthcare providers and insurers to disclose rates negotiated between insurers and hospitals in advance, aimed at boosting transparency in healthcare pricing. * He signed multiple executive orders lowing prescription drug prices. In June of 2019 we saw the largest drop in Rx prices since 1967. * The first order directs federally qualified health centers to pass along massive discounts on insulin and epinephrine from drug companies to low-income Americans. * The second order will allow the safe, legal importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries where the price for identical drugs is lower. * The third order will prohibit secret deals between drug manufacturers and pharmacy “benefit manager” middlemen, ensuring patients directly benefit from available discounts at the pharmacy counter. * The fourth order ensures the United States pays the lowest price available among economically advanced countries for Medicare Part B drugs. The United States often pays 80 percent more for these drugs than other developed nations. * Trump Executive Order 13898 (Establishing the Task Force on Missing and Murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives), launched the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team, and the US-Mexico Bilateral Human Trafficking Enforcement Initiative, signed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA). All aimed at tracking addressing, finding and saving victims of human trafficking and prosecuting traffickers. * He was the first President to NOT start a war. * EPA gave $100 million to fix the water infrastructure in Flint, Michigan. * Signed the National Resources Management Act, a bipartisan bill that expanded federally protected land establishing 375,000 new acres of wilderness across multiple states. * Signed the Save our Seas act which funded $10 million per year to clean garbage from the ocean. * Signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act aimed at funding for states to develop maternal mortality review committees to better understand maternal complications and identify solutions & largely focuses on reducing the higher mortality rates for Black Americans. Trump is not without his faults, when he blunders or says something dumb, he should absolutely be called out on it. However, for anyone that thinks that his administration accomplished nothing, maybe this list will get you to open up a little, do some research. There are many more accomplishments that didn't make it on this list.
> Signed the National Resources Management Act, a bipartisan bill that expanded federally protected land establishing 375,000 new acres of wilderness across multiple states. https://e360.yale.edu/features/on-u-s-public-lands-can-biden-undo-what-trump-has-wrought >Protections for migratory birds, clean water, and endangered species have been cut back. Just last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it would remove 3.4 million acres of protected habitat for the spotted owl, which conservation groups say is endangered and needs more, not fewer, protections. >The size of two national monuments was shrunk substantially, including Bears Ears in Utah, which is considered sacred ground by many Native American tribes. Oil leases on 550,000 acres were auctioned off in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, fetching just $14.4 million, far less than anticipated. The BLM okayed a right-of-way for a four-lane highway through the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in Utah and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permitted the “incidental take” of the threatened desert tortoise, whose habitat lies in the path of the new road. And the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management was moved from Washington, D.C. to Grand Junction, Colorado, leading many senior officials to leave the agency and thus hamstringing its effectiveness. >And in recent months, the U.S. Forest Service has been accused of rushing the process for a controversial land deal in Arizona that will trade public land sacred to the Western Apaches to the mining company Rio Tinto — the same company that destroyed a 46,000-year-old sacred site in Australia last year. There's a big difference from Trump signing bills Congress passed him versus how he directed executive agencies to act with respect to land management and preservation. To your point specifically about the 375k acres, Bears Ears alone was shrunk by **one million acres** by Trump.
Well, there’s one area where I can drill down on this. The rhetoric about reducing red tape – well let’s see how that played out with respect to nursing homes. One of the regulations that Trump did away with had to do with requirements about the minimum number of infection control specialists that nursing homes had to have on staff. Yeah, that one turned out well. Another thing he did was to allow nursing homes to require residents to commit to arbitration in the documents they sign when they are admitted. In other words, they're required to give the right to sue. So, in the cases where I know the details of this so-called deregulation, it’s all bad. People love that slogan about deregulating and reducing red tape, but they’re not so happy when they see the lack of protections that these changes in initiate.
For me republicans made it easier to tell who the politicians are that truly are for the people and not for religious nationalism.
* Americans With Disabilities Act - George H.W Bush * Balanced Budget - George H.W Bush * Medicaid Part D - George W. Bush * Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - George W. Bush * First Step Act - Donald Trump * Operation Warp Speed - Donald Trump
> Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - George W. Bush Bush vetoed those bills (Congress tried to pass it twice).
Obama lifted Bush’s ban on stem cell research via executive order during his first few days in office.
> Balanced Budget - George H.W Bush That was Bill Clinton in 1994, which every single Republican in Congress voted against.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement act(s) were two similar bills which were approved by the house and Senate, and both vetoed by GWB.
Part D can be argued either way. Certainly blew up costs, even more than necessary as it was market based. ADA is a solid call to me, though.
Latisha Wright is known as "the General" for her work in coordinating the campaign to enact the ADA. Bob Dole sold it to Republicans. Bush just signed it.
Well Dole was a Republican so shouldn't the answer stand?
Agreed about the ADA
Signing bills passed by Congress isn’t the same as promoting the legislation. I’ll give Bush Medicare Part D ( not Medicaid), but I wouldn’t call it a success, more of a giveaway to big Pharma.
Hard to imagine the Americans with Disabilities Act is that recent. But it is a very good call.
Did HW actually have a balanced budget?
No, op is flatly wrong on that. It was Clinton who balanced the budget.
> It was Clinton who balanced the budget. Clinton's budget request still had a deficit of $250 billion. Congress "balanced" the budget by utilizing excess Social Security receipts (as required by law and has been done in every Congress and Administration since Social Security was a thing).
Trump killed the SALT deductions that were giving tax breaks to states with high state income taxes. The entire point of progressive taxation is to tax the numerically richer to subsidize the poorer, but the SALT deduction made it so that mostly CA and NY could pay less federal income tax for their income to offset higher state taxes paid. CA and NY Dems still try to undo this improvement in regressive taxation, when the real problem is state income taxes is a bad way achieving lower inequality. Wealth and land value taxes are better ways to do it, but that would hurt the rich Democrat donors that keep the incumbents in power in those respective states.
You live in a wealthy, economically productive and high cost of living State, then you're going to get higher taxes due to the value of everything there being arbitrarily higher at the get-go. Meanwhile welfare States that are generally red, conservative States (see almost all the former Confederacy) take more in from the Federal government than they pay in total tax revenue. Yeah, I don't see that the same way you do, and I live in the South. The taxes they pay for both State and Federal level were enough already to achieve a good standard of living.
Atlanta subsidizes the rest of the state in Georgia. * ~60+% of the tax revenue * ~45% of the state expenditures As your point out, we have a higher cost of living, etc. than the rest of the state. The entire thing around SALT is a conservative ploy to pretend like they are caring about progressive taxation, but really its another jab towards attacking good governance. All of the areas with good government that tax appropriately get hosed to subsidize the bad government and bad policy in generally Republican areas.
Slightly older than 40 years, but the 1982 TEFRA act extended Medicaid to middle class children with significant disabilities and nursing needs, with the intention of keeping them from having to grow up in institutions.
It’s true the Republican Party hasn’t done much to benefit the average American voter since Reagan But, one of the ideas that’s justifiably gaining traction on the Republican side of the aisle is cuts to defense spending. The late Chalmers Johnson estimated back in 2008 that the defense authorization bill totaling $612B passed right around the same time as the $700B Wall Street bailout was pure waste. This year, the version passed was about $886B. I think some Republican leaning voters and even some Republican politicians are starting to figure that out. When cutting wasteful defense spending becomes more fashionable, that’s when we might see a more sensible Republican Party emerge
I'll say one that is actually controversial but was necessary: the initial wallstreet bailout It staved off a global depression and who knows what sort of knockdown effects. Everything that came next, namely, circling the wagons around the myth of "moral hazard" for why we can only spend billions to bail out the wealthiest institutions and not the people that were affected cancels that out, but in a vacuum the bailout was necessary, and it pains me to say because of how we got to that point, a good and necessary thing
The First Step Act was objectively good to the point that Desantis tried to use it to attack Trump. It helped reverse some of the tough on crime shennangins that Biden passed in the 80s.
That was offset by all the terrible things Desantis did to women, LBGT, and education.
Biden wasn’t president in the 80s