Reagan was able to work with a Democrat House majority and Clinton was able to work with a Republican House?
Reagan worked with a Democratic congress to reform taxes and social security. In spite of unemployment reaching 10.8% he fostered a rapid recovery with millions of new jobs, with only 7.4% unemployed by October of 1984. Bill Clinton shifted to the right after his first two years in office and was able to work with Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress and Republican Senate to reform welfare, cut capital gains taxes and balance the budget. Clinton even went as far as to declare "the era of big government is over" in 1996. Even Bush Junior was able to work with a Democratic congress after 2006. Bush Senior had a Democratic House and Senate for all four years of his presidency and saw passage of deficit reduction and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
So maybe it isn't the fault of Congress and just might have something to do with the person in the White House? Why is it so hard for some people to admit that the person in the oval office is just an ineffective leader?
How is the House supposed to compromise with Obama though? He's a far left ideologue. At least Clinton, after his first disastrous 2 years in office correctly shifted to the right/center and abandoned his liberal ideals when the GOP took control of the House and Senate. Obama even said himself that he refuses and rejects triangulation.
- 7 years agoBest Answer
Obama inherited the Great Recession, a much more severe recession than Reagan had.
The weak global economy, the Euro-crisis, and the severe drought all slowed our recovery.
“It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism,”
A book by congressional experts (from America's two most respected think tanks) Thomas Mann (Brookings institute) and Norman Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute) points out "the Republicans have become ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise,implacably refusing to allow anything that might help the Democrats politically, no matter the cost."
"No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is striking."
It was treason and it failed.
Andrew Ferguson wrote an article 'The Roots of Lunacy', for The Weekly Standard, in which he states "Nearly everything that Obama has done as president... would have been as eagerly pursued by President John Edwards or President John Kerry. And the points where they might differ—in the escalation of troops in Afghanistan, for example, or energetic education reform, or the push for nuclear power—mark Obama as more moderate than either of them."
Super-conservative J.D. Kleinke, a health care economist serving as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute is a strong supporter of Obamacare and wrote this “the architecture of the Affordable is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces.” and much more at http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/01/u...
- LA_ChickLv 67 years ago
The Republicans in Congress made absolutely no effort to work with Obama, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously told the National Journal, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." They were not concerned about economic growth, jobs, healthcare, national security, or anything else. A failed Obama presidency was the only goal of the last two Republican congresses.
- megLv 77 years ago
You forget that it was only after a major confrontation which shut down the government (which the public blamed the Republicans) did the Republican majority in Congress began to compromise and work with Clinton. Hopefully Obama reelection will convince the Republican House that confrontation does not work, and they will also be willing to compromise in Obama´s second term.
Edit: Not defaulting on the debt is not a far left policy nor is taking care of wounded veterans.
- ChristaLv 44 years ago
Are you asking a question, or just ranting? No, most republicans would LOVE to have someone like Reagan. They tried a wimpy guy like McCain and got nowhere and nothing. You talk like you know a lot about Republicans but it is clear you do not. By the way, if you think the Republicans are so out of touch and deranged, you should sit back and not worry about them, they can not possibly win any future elections. The majority of Americans voted for Obama. They would never support people who were out of their mind and liars, right?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ?Lv 57 years ago
In 1994, Clinton's approval rating went dangerously low. He was determined to get re-elected and he understood that if he wanted to achieve that, he needed to move towards the center. He did work with Gingrich and got stuff passed. Obama is not Clinton. He's even farther left. He was very uncooperative during the debt crisis in Summer 2011. While Congress was scrambling to make a deal, he was standing on the sidelines and saying that republicans weren't being bi-partisan enough. That's not a very good leader. That's like a football game and your best player is standing out and criticizing you and fellow team mates. He's done very little cooperation at all in his first term. He had less inclination during his first 2 years, as Democrats controlled both houses of Congess.
Reagan and Tip O-Neil got along very well. It was said that they were personal friends "after 6 o'clock". Reagan was a serious president. Even though Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, he still got work done.
Here's something to note to Obama voters. Mitt Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts. Massachusetts of all places! That's a solid democrat state. As Romney said, 87% of the state legislature were democrats, so the 2 sides had to compromise to get anything done. Romney knows bipartisanship.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Hey, that just might have worked if some old white mother ****** from Kentucky hadn't said on natioinal television that it was the republican goal to deny obama a second term. This white mo fo said in no certain terms that the republican party did not give a **** about the american people so long as a black man was president! Screw everybody, white, black, who cares! Mitch McConnell of kentucky filibustered the american citizen into the poor house just to sandbag Barrack Obama! The speaker of the house did the same. Their motto being, Fu** america unless we control it!
- tonalc2Lv 77 years ago
Those Congresses actually went so far as to--gasp!--compromise on proposals and legislation. BOTH sides compromised. BOTH sides were willing to give a little to get a little.
At NO time did anyone in those Congresses state that their main focus would be to make the President a one-term President, and as such be completely intransigent, blocking 99% of the President's proposals.
At NO time did all Republican votes in those Congresses go lockstep.
At NO time did GOP Congresspeople vote against legislation that they themselves had written and proposed, simply because the President now supported it.
- Walter CLv 67 years ago
Let''s not forget. Obama in 2008 promised bipartisan and after being sworn in the first think he did was to have a closed door meeting with just democrats invited. All republicans were locked out.
Also how many good bills were sent to the Senate where Harry Reid would not let them be read on the floor.
I predict more of the same
- VolbiaLv 67 years ago
Because a lot of people in congress have tried to hold important legislation for ransom until "obamacare" is repealed for personal profit?
- 7 years ago
-NOW Let's see what Obama can Do with a divided House...Source(s): He's got 4 more years...