• Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I’m pretty sure they all overwhelmingly achieved the same goal for the rich, it’s really very dishonest not counting Clinton at least at around the same level as Reagan.

    (Well, Kennedy had that car accident, so perhaps he didn’t end his term fully.)

    • JakJak98@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      It was too partisan I think. The ideals of universal Healthcare were not fully realized but definitely did expand Healthcare access, which isn’t enough.

        • Corn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          The dems could have kicked them off all committees, the president appoints the head of the IRS and the Attorney General, either of whom can fuck a politician up, or just removed the filibuster. Pelosi chose to let Liberman be the villain of the week. Same shit we saw under Biden where every week 1 dem or another or the parliamentarian or norms would stop the democrats from doing anything that might improve people’s conditions (and get the dems reelected).

  • crawancon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    6 months ago

    they all got more money for rich people. did any of them impose term limits, stop insider training, or impose any meaningful penalties for those that already have a lot of wealth? they got wealthier and so did all around.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      They literally didn’t, though. Clinton obtained surplus by raising taxes and by removing several caps which benefitted the wealthy.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Nope, they all deregulated, supported monopolies & tax loopholes.

      … all while the core infrastructure (healthcare, transit systems, tax systems, education, housing, etc) withered away by design.

      Not to mention the massive bail-outs via blank no-strings attached checks (if a gov has to give monies to a private company that usually means shareholders lose their value, but not in the USA, they just get free monies).

      And ofc war profiteering (& constantly killing some of the poorest civilians on the planet).

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      What about Sanders? How about Warren?

      We need congressional primary attendance to break 15% before we get to complain about term limits. If you don’t show up when you have a say, then you are responsible for the career politicians.

      We should be voting twice every two years, not once every four, for federal elections alone.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          You asked about creating term limits. There are limits on presidential terms, so I assumed you meant congressional term limits. No? Am I missing your point?

          • crawancon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            the OP posted Pic about presidents. my comment was did any of those presidents introduce term limits on congress or SCOTUS, etc.

            I’d have loved Warren or Sanders, but neither were president.

              • crawancon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I’m sure an executive order or thirty would have sufficed in leau of proper legislation.

                see: current administration

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Executive orders can just be repealed by the next administration. The most it could possibly affect is one House term.

      • wpb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I hope you’re aware that Sanders was never president. But also that he’s not a democra, which folks sometimes forget.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          They’re asking about enacting term limits. There is a presidential term limit, so I assumed they were talking about Congress.

      • gradual@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, it’s why the clintons win primaries over progressives.

        Neo-liberals are the scum of the earth.

      • Corn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Reducing the deficit by cutting things that benefit the working class coincides with money for rich people.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      He did give free or extremely cheap healthcare to tens of millions of americans and brought down proces nationwide by creating competition.

      And if not for independent Joe Leiberman being the holdout for the 60 it took to pass any form of the bill he would have accomplished more.

    • ModestMeme@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      Congress wouldn’t let him. The President doesn’t write the laws and can only ask Congress to do so.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Technically you need 51 or 50 + VP tiebreaker unless a Republican filibusters then you need 60.

          You can change senate rules if you have a comfortable majority but I’m pretty sure they can filibuster that, too, and it might backfire like removing the filibuster for SCOTUS and cabinet picks has.

        • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Progressives would need to down ballot vote for that to happen. Would also need to support and fund progressive candidates.

          Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.

          • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.

            Of course not!

            They’re doing something far more critical and effective!

            They’re withholding votes based on purity testing and otherwise being manipulated into nullifying themselves by online manipulation by the right.

        • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Executive order deporting anyone in senate not voting for his agenda?

          /s (but only for a few months, then headlines will explain how it’s apparently a real option)

        • Wiz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes and, they also needed to break a filibuster by the Republicans, which took 60 votes in the Senate, despite severe illness and Republican shenanigans. It was a huge lift to get what we got.

      • Michael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        He never seriously fought for universal healthcare. He stopped advocating for it before he even started fighting. As soon as he got a “reality check”, not a word of support for universal healthcare was ever uttered by him to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, though.

        • SuperCub@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is exactly it. Obama waged no fight a pre negotiated good healthcare plan to get us the heritage plan.

  • ZMoney@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Missed a few.

    Johnson: use war to win re-election

    Nixon: fight hippies and commies

    Ford: pardon Nixon

    Carter: attain energy independence

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    I like former President Obama, but his ACA was half baked. It is not even close to the healthcare system in Germany and other EU members.

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      The ACA was essentially the republican compromise that was offered to Clinton when he tried to get universal health care. He rejected it and was unable to get any meaningful change.

      It shows how much we have moved to the right that the republican plan from 10 years earlier was barely able to be passed by Democrats.

      I’ll also point out that Clinton’s big goal for his time in offices was universal health care not balancing the budget. He completely failed on that but did briefly balance the budget.

      Still better than the republican goals.

    • Wiz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Blame Republicans and a couple of Democrats. Yes, it was half-baked, but it was also almost defeated, and later almost repealed. The alternative of “nothing” is so much worse.