george h. w.bush

anonymous asked:

My thing though is that while Dem.s are incompetent as a party and prone to hackery, they've been more conservative and not really the party of FDR on the national level since the 90's, hence the ACA being a very conservative approach to creating more access to healthcare. Repub.s b/c of the rhetoric and the alliance with gangster capitalism and white nationalists have been undermining our system aggressively recently and seemed unlikely to ever take any kind of outreach from Obama b/c of this.

The Democratic Party became that way largely because of the tremendous electoral showing of Ronald Reagan in 1984 and the victory of George H.W. Bush in 1988. This was not a small matter; this had been the first time since FDR that a single party had won the Presidency over two consecutive times. The Democratic Party believed it was time for a course change, and appointed Bill Clinton as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council in 1989, formed the Democratic Party that we see today in response to “Reagan’s America.” So the “Clinton years” don’t start in 1992, they start in 1989 with Bill Clinton taking control of the party direction and vision in response to the strong Republican showing in the Eighties.

There are plenty of reasons to theorize why the Democratic Party moved away from the New Deal and it’s successor, the Great Society, and talking heads on both sides will give all sorts of answers of who’s to blame. I personally think it was a combination of Vietnam eroding public trust in LBJ and the Democratic Party, Watergate destroying public trust in government in general, Jimmy Carter’s political missteps and general lack of political charisma (especially when compared to Reagan, who I consider along with Barack Obama to be the two truly masterful campaigners in the modern presidential era), and the economic boom of 1983 following the stagflation of 1978 and the recession of 1981-82 being seen as the result of Reagan’s economic policies.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

It’s so funny how Trump gives one speech that is considered “presidential” and people are fucking falling over themselves to praise him. Y’all will praise his tone and presentation and say “finally Trump shows himself to be presidential enough for the job,” while ignoring that his speech was filled with inaccuracies and basically everything he’s said leading up to yesterday has been fucking awful. But what do I expect from people who paint a war criminal POS like George W. as just a cute, funny old man who did his best or whatever apologist bullshit you have for him now.
Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds
But a new study finds that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality
By Derek Thompson

“ … In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession. … “

“ … But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes, and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth. ,,, “

“ … That was the conclusion from David Leonhardt’s new column today for The New York Times, and it was precisely the finding of a new study from the Congressional Research Service, “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945.” … “

“ … Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates “have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.” However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have “a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth” or “no effect on economic growth.” … “

“ … In short, the study found that top tax rates don’t appear to determine the size of the economic pie but they can affect how the pie is sliced, especially for the richest households. … “

Read All


In 1992, Bill Clinton was facing an uphill battle against incumbent President George H. W. Bush for the highest office in the land. Bush may have been leader of the free world, but nobody ever accused him of being “cool.” That’s a weakness Clinton soon capitalized on, donning a pair of Ray-Bans and playing the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show. It was ridiculous, it was entirely out of character for a serious politician, and it totally worked.

The saxophone stunt wasn’t merely a ploy to make Clinton seem hip and accessible. It was that, but more importantly, it was an attempt to distract voters from a sex scandal that he was embroiled in. This would become somewhat of a running theme in his career. Years before Monica Lewinsky, there was Gennifer Flowers, who went to the press during Clinton’s campaign to claim that he’d been having an affair with her. This, of course, was back in the days when accusations of infidelity and sexual impropriety could cost you a presidential bid.

In response, one of Clinton’s campaign advisors, Mandy Grunwald, suggested a radical new strategy, in which the 46-year-old Arkansas governor would be presented as a hip young dude, while also using the national platform to dismiss Flowers’ accusations. Grunwald’s pop culture bombardment technique landed Clinton the cover of several gossip magazines, as well as Nightline, Phil Donahue, Don Imus, and a pretty solid Simpsons gag. And the night on Hall’s show would have been another run-of-the-mill talk show interview had Grunwald not been there. At the last minute, before Clinton went on the air, his advisors made him change his tie, handed him a pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses and a sax, and told him to break America’s heart – but in a good way this time.

4 Cultural Milestones With Insanely Dark Backstories

The flyboy who got away became president of the United States. What might have been for Warren, Earl, Dick, Marve, Glenn, Floyd, Jimmy, the unidentified airman, and all the others who had lost their lives?…And what might have been for those millions of doomed Japanese boys, abused and abandoned by their leaders? War is the tragedy of what might have been.
—  James Bradley, Flyboys