5 ms·

It's a huge problem that when the opposition comes into power, they immediately try to revert and undermine what the previous party did. Not because of merit, b

It's a huge problem that when the opposition comes into power, they immediately try to revert and undermine what the previous party did. Not because of merit, but just because of partisanship. So you end up with a lot of programs that get started and after a while get repealed or maintained badly. This costs the country a lot of money. The ACA is a classical example. Instead of improving it or proposing a real replacement, they campaign for repealing it and some incantations of "free market" without explaining how patients won't get screwed over even more than now.

Alupis 2y ago
Perhaps people should stop treating the president like a king, and you know, actually pass laws the way our government was designed to work...
- thatguy0900 2y ago
  Congress honestly seems to have completely shut down as a body able to accomplish anything. The president is all we have
  - gottorf 2y ago
    This is a feature of the US constitutional system, not a bug. It's designed such that things move very, very slowly. If Congress isn't able to pass laws, it probably reflects a division in how the voting populace feels about the subject of such laws. The president may be all we have, but he is constitutionally forbidden from acting like a king. Though, of course, that hasn't stopped presidents from trying.
    - rqtwteye 2y ago
      “ it probably reflects a division in how the voting populace feels about the subject of such laws.” I don’t think that’s correct. There is way too much propaganda coming from the parties to think that voters have made up their minds based on the facts. It’s actually quite hard to get the facts because the media is mostly reporting politics like they report a football match.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      100% Correct. People all too often look at Congress and say "gee, they aren't passing all the things I want them to do, therefore Congress must be broken!" This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. As you said, inaction == lack of consensus. Imaging running a country where significant ways of life (influenced by laws) change willy-nilly depending on the flavor of the day? The legal whiplash would be absurd. So, people often look to the president as some sort of king analog, and demand action via Executive Order - then cry foul when the next president undoes the previous one's EO's... it's lunacy and not a good way to run a society.
      - iends 2y ago
        > This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. Don't really think so. The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders and clearly swayed the power balance back towards rural areas, even though they have equal representation in the senate.
        Alupis 2y ago
        [flagged]
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        >> This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. >The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders Stop playing dumb. The contradiction with your initial assertion was clearly articulated. Try addressing it instead of baiting other posters.
        Alupis 2y ago
        Posting this demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how the US government works - and a gross misunderstanding of the founding of the US and the framer's intentions. The "And?" was a prompt for the poster to elaborate on their uninformed view. You apparently saw fit to double-down on expressing your lack of understanding as well... Perhaps you would like to take a swing at explaining how Congress passing a law somehow "subverts" Congress?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtPgUrVPXeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtPgUrVPXeI https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he-s-100-percent-focused-stopping-biden-s-n1266443 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he...
  - Alupis 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Sorry but the elected leader of a party openly stating his objectives is not "partisan propaganda." So free of Koolaid you think simply citing the actual words that a grown adult said of his own free will and cognizance is "partisan propaganda."
      - Alupis 2y ago
        Care to explain what happened during the Trump Administration then? It's so easy for people to hyper-focus on "my side good" that they lose sight of the overall picture. Resisting an administration's agenda is pretty normal and expected... the people who voted for Mitch simply do not agree with the Biden agenda. Mitch (and other R's) are there to enact the agenda their constituents want. What a shocker... Why is this surprising to you? Have you pondered, even for a few moments, what Democrats do when there's a Republican administration in office?
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Surely you can find examples of Schumer saying that his party is fully committed to obstructing the Trump administration, right? Or Harry Reid saying it during the Bush administration? No, it's not normal. That's exactly my point. If it's normal, cite it. Believing it's normal for one party to have as an explicit goal to simply obstruct everything the administration is doing is a symptom of drinking too much Koolaid.
schmidtleonard 2y ago
In 1991 the ACA was the conservative proposal, but in 2010 when it was passed under the Obama administration it suddenly became communist marxism. Sigh.
- chuckadams 2y ago
  It's known as Cleek's Law: "Today's Conservatism is the opposite of whatever Liberals want today, updated daily."
KittenInABox 2y ago
I'm actually curious on the reverse. What programs did the GOP start that were cancelled by the Dems? Note I'm a biased liberal, so potentially the reversals might've been propagandized to me as lifting restrictions or some other such political language and I might be unaware of the actual policies.
- dripton 2y ago
  A couple of examples would be reduction of some of the Reagan-era defense spending under the Clinton administration, and partial rollback of some of the Reagan-era tax cuts under the Clinton administration. Of course these were not complete elimination of programs, but adjustments. And you could argue that there were other reasons besides partisanship, like the end of the Cold War and budgetary issues.
  - favorited 2y ago
    > reduction of some of the Reagan-era defense spending under the Clinton administration ...you mean when the USSR collapsed, and Cold War ended?
llamaimperative 2y ago
Please provide examples of Democrats undoing good policy/legislation just because it was passed by a prior Republican administration.
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  Our current border situation...?
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    But the Democrats haven't made an¥ significant changes to immigration policy. In fact, they offered an bipartisan immigration bill that tilted significantly toward the Republicans' wishlist and the GOP rejected because Trump wants to run on immigration and giving Biden a political win in that area was unacceptable to thim (even though many on the left found the proposed legislation very disagreeable). The main change at the border is a larger number of migrants. Migration trends are up globally, for a variety of reasons including climate change.
- giantg2 2y ago
  "Please provide examples of Democrats undoing good policy/legislation just because it was passed by a prior Republican administration." It's going to be hard to argue with people on the basis of what was "good". That's subjective, and the very basis for why there are separate parties.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > going to be hard to argue with people on the basis of what was "good" I'd expand this to examples of either party undoing legislation the other championed and passed. It's exceedingly rare, in large part by design.
    - pooper 2y ago
      I still hope we can undo the "permanent" tax cuts of 2017 at some point.
xp84 2y ago
You're totally right that it's especially bad with e-branch stuff, but it's not necessarily limited to that. Most programs established by congress will be given an expiration date beyond which it would require another act of congress to reauthorize. I think it's mandatory for anything that costs money, basically. I can see the basic rationale that if something is not popular enough to be reauthorized, why keep doing it, but it sure does contribute to instability not knowing if you can depend on something important continuing to exist.
peterangular 2y ago
In good faith, when have the Democrats have done this?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> ACA is a classical example. Instead of improving it or proposing a real replacement, they campaign for repealing it The GOP has controlled the government mulitple times since ACA passed. That nothing was done shows it's a talking point. Legislation is hard to overturn. Executive actions, less so.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  You have a pretty loose definition of talking point. It was pretty widely televised that McCain broke ranks with the party to prevent an ACA repeal [1] but ignoring that event there were many attempts over the course of 7 months [2] to replace it. That time could've been invested into literally anything else. But yeah a lot of things end up being campaign talking points. Like Obama saying they'd enshrine abortion rights into law and uh didn't. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/07/27/539907467/senate-careens-toward-high-drama-midnight-health-care-vote https://www.npr.org/2017/07/27/539907467/senate-careens-towa... [2]: https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_efforts https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_e...

Alupis 2y ago

Perhaps people should stop treating the president like a king, and you know, actually pass laws the way our government was designed to work...

thatguy0900 2y ago
Congress honestly seems to have completely shut down as a body able to accomplish anything. The president is all we have
- gottorf 2y ago
  This is a feature of the US constitutional system, not a bug. It's designed such that things move very, very slowly. If Congress isn't able to pass laws, it probably reflects a division in how the voting populace feels about the subject of such laws. The president may be all we have, but he is constitutionally forbidden from acting like a king. Though, of course, that hasn't stopped presidents from trying.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
    “ it probably reflects a division in how the voting populace feels about the subject of such laws.” I don’t think that’s correct. There is way too much propaganda coming from the parties to think that voters have made up their minds based on the facts. It’s actually quite hard to get the facts because the media is mostly reporting politics like they report a football match.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    100% Correct. People all too often look at Congress and say "gee, they aren't passing all the things I want them to do, therefore Congress must be broken!" This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. As you said, inaction == lack of consensus. Imaging running a country where significant ways of life (influenced by laws) change willy-nilly depending on the flavor of the day? The legal whiplash would be absurd. So, people often look to the president as some sort of king analog, and demand action via Executive Order - then cry foul when the next president undoes the previous one's EO's... it's lunacy and not a good way to run a society.
    - iends 2y ago
      > This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. Don't really think so. The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders and clearly swayed the power balance back towards rural areas, even though they have equal representation in the senate.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        [flagged]
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        >> This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. >The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders Stop playing dumb. The contradiction with your initial assertion was clearly articulated. Try addressing it instead of baiting other posters.
        Alupis 2y ago
        Posting this demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how the US government works - and a gross misunderstanding of the founding of the US and the framer's intentions. The "And?" was a prompt for the poster to elaborate on their uninformed view. You apparently saw fit to double-down on expressing your lack of understanding as well... Perhaps you would like to take a swing at explaining how Congress passing a law somehow "subverts" Congress?
llamaimperative 2y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtPgUrVPXeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtPgUrVPXeI https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he-s-100-percent-focused-stopping-biden-s-n1266443 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/mcconnell-says-he...
- Alupis 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Sorry but the elected leader of a party openly stating his objectives is not "partisan propaganda." So free of Koolaid you think simply citing the actual words that a grown adult said of his own free will and cognizance is "partisan propaganda."
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Care to explain what happened during the Trump Administration then? It's so easy for people to hyper-focus on "my side good" that they lose sight of the overall picture. Resisting an administration's agenda is pretty normal and expected... the people who voted for Mitch simply do not agree with the Biden agenda. Mitch (and other R's) are there to enact the agenda their constituents want. What a shocker... Why is this surprising to you? Have you pondered, even for a few moments, what Democrats do when there's a Republican administration in office?
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Surely you can find examples of Schumer saying that his party is fully committed to obstructing the Trump administration, right? Or Harry Reid saying it during the Bush administration? No, it's not normal. That's exactly my point. If it's normal, cite it. Believing it's normal for one party to have as an explicit goal to simply obstruct everything the administration is doing is a symptom of drinking too much Koolaid.

schmidtleonard 2y ago

In 1991 the ACA was the conservative proposal, but in 2010 when it was passed under the Obama administration it suddenly became communist marxism. Sigh.

chuckadams 2y ago
It's known as Cleek's Law: "Today's Conservatism is the opposite of whatever Liberals want today, updated daily."

KittenInABox 2y ago

I'm actually curious on the reverse. What programs did the GOP start that were cancelled by the Dems? Note I'm a biased liberal, so potentially the reversals might've been propagandized to me as lifting restrictions or some other such political language and I might be unaware of the actual policies.

dripton 2y ago
A couple of examples would be reduction of some of the Reagan-era defense spending under the Clinton administration, and partial rollback of some of the Reagan-era tax cuts under the Clinton administration. Of course these were not complete elimination of programs, but adjustments. And you could argue that there were other reasons besides partisanship, like the end of the Cold War and budgetary issues.
- favorited 2y ago
  > reduction of some of the Reagan-era defense spending under the Clinton administration ...you mean when the USSR collapsed, and Cold War ended?

llamaimperative 2y ago

Please provide examples of Democrats undoing good policy/legislation just because it was passed by a prior Republican administration.

dmitrygr 2y ago
Our current border situation...?
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  But the Democrats haven't made an¥ significant changes to immigration policy. In fact, they offered an bipartisan immigration bill that tilted significantly toward the Republicans' wishlist and the GOP rejected because Trump wants to run on immigration and giving Biden a political win in that area was unacceptable to thim (even though many on the left found the proposed legislation very disagreeable). The main change at the border is a larger number of migrants. Migration trends are up globally, for a variety of reasons including climate change.
giantg2 2y ago
"Please provide examples of Democrats undoing good policy/legislation just because it was passed by a prior Republican administration." It's going to be hard to argue with people on the basis of what was "good". That's subjective, and the very basis for why there are separate parties.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > going to be hard to argue with people on the basis of what was "good" I'd expand this to examples of either party undoing legislation the other championed and passed. It's exceedingly rare, in large part by design.
  - pooper 2y ago
    I still hope we can undo the "permanent" tax cuts of 2017 at some point.

xp84 2y ago

You're totally right that it's especially bad with e-branch stuff, but it's not necessarily limited to that. Most programs established by congress will be given an expiration date beyond which it would require another act of congress to reauthorize. I think it's mandatory for anything that costs money, basically. I can see the basic rationale that if something is not popular enough to be reauthorized, why keep doing it, but it sure does contribute to instability not knowing if you can depend on something important continuing to exist.

peterangular 2y ago

In good faith, when have the Democrats have done this?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> ACA is a classical example. Instead of improving it or proposing a real replacement, they campaign for repealing it The GOP has controlled the government mulitple times since ACA passed. That nothing was done shows it's a talking point. Legislation is hard to overturn. Executive actions, less so.

lesuorac 2y ago
You have a pretty loose definition of talking point. It was pretty widely televised that McCain broke ranks with the party to prevent an ACA repeal [1] but ignoring that event there were many attempts over the course of 7 months [2] to replace it. That time could've been invested into literally anything else. But yeah a lot of things end up being campaign talking points. Like Obama saying they'd enshrine abortion rights into law and uh didn't. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/07/27/539907467/senate-careens-toward-high-drama-midnight-health-care-vote https://www.npr.org/2017/07/27/539907467/senate-careens-towa... [2]: https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_efforts https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_e...