You forgot unions outside of ones held for public servants. It’s no coincidence the strongest unions and best worker protections are for judges, police and firefighters.
Most people on the left aren’t willing to talk openly and honestly about why we lost and continue to lose so much of the working class.
The answer is almost always something to the effect that it’s because they’re stupid brainwashed rubes, which is highly counterproductive.
The truth is that the elites and elite institutions in this country have utterly failed the working class in every way. The right uses this to stoke class and regional resentment while steadily pushing exploitative policies, while much of the left takes only half measures and views much of what’s important to the working class with basically open contempt.
One of the above tactics has been far more effective than the other.
Their election system (basically winner-takes-all) pretty much guarantees that it will converge in a two-party system with roughly 50/50 share and people voting for “the lesser evil” rather than their favourite. If a third challenger appears, it will split the voter base of the more close candidate and guarantee a huge victory for the farther candidate (the opposite of what the challenger stands for). So essentially it’s doomed to be a bipartisan circlejerk unless the election system itself is changed.
Correct. Also worth saying that because it was designed by rich white male British colonists over 200 years ago who deliberately made it almost impossible to change, our system is hopelessly outdated and very difficult to upgrade. This is especially true when there are certain demographics that get a ton of over representation through the existing system.
Some states have switched over to ranked choice for some if not all of their elections. Alaska is a big one - nearly every election on the ballot is ranked choice.
Maine also allows it for their presidential elections. Originally, it would have been used for their gubernatorial, state legislature, House, and Senate elections, but the state Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional since the state constitution required a plurality to win.
Nevada is also likely to approve it for their primaries.
Many other states use it to some degree at the local level. Unfortunately, we’re unlikely to see much progress nationwide without a major shift in politics.
The Pentagon does know where there money goes but they are never going to tell a committee of idiots who cannot keep a damn thing secret. If you can’t trust even the President to not run his mouth or expose classified satellite capabilities to our enemies then why would they ever tell anyone in politics where that money is going? I want a transparent govt as much as the next person but it isn’t going to happen.
They’re legally required to tell those things, and democracy is not built on secrecy.
This is the major interest point for me in UAP investigations - it looks exceedingly likely that the Pentagon is embezzling some of those funds through “pet projects” that are all legacy, ultra-secret, unaccountable, and need to produce nothing.
Legally yes. But you have to prove they didn’t simply misplace the funds. Democracy is great and I love it. However, the fact remains you can’t report something you don’t have documentation on.
“Oh no no no, you misunderstand, we’re the party of WORKING the lower CLASSES to death, gotta read that fine print”. - Lionel Hutz, GOP Supreme Court Justice Candidate
For anyone that wants to really know exactly what the conservatives plan to do against the American people, read their ”Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership."
At least read the Forward, but here’s the whole PDF:
I’m not American, but reading the Foreword was just plain scary to me since it comes from a major party. There’s nothing about economics and all about moral outrage. You guys need to diversify your parties somehow.
Yeah, by voting 3rd party. But the vast majority are too stupid to realize that they need to be apart of the change they seek instead of voting for the “lesser evil”.
I can’t speak for the previous commenter, but I know that not voting for either party is my plan. Everyone that votes out of fear of “the bad one getting elected” is part of the problem. How about something you can vote for instead of something you’re voting against?
No, the people enabling fascists are the ones voting for them. I don’t take that notion of enabling fascists to heart at all in this context, not sorry either. For the record, when the Democrat party undermines citizens almost as badly as Republicans, it occurs to me that they’re not my party anymore. Thinking railworker strike, trade deals, erosion of support for US jobs, and lacking the spine to push through socialized medicine. I’m also thinking about how Bernie should have won the nomination instead of Hillary but the undemocratic superdelegates supported her against the will of the popular vote anyway, with the literal explanation of the superdelegates being that they are there to stop undesired grassroots efforts from being successful…and here you’re pretending they’re somehow not fascist themselves?
Dream on, we need the two parties thrown out, and to quit bickering amongst citizens and unite against the true enemy - billionaires who want us to vote the way we have been.
But you’re supposed to pick a side and be willing to literally lay down your life for them and their cause! Ra ra, go team go. Otherwise you’re just part of the problem according to either side.
I agree with you and I’ll go a step further and say fuck all politicians in general. Today, they’re all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power. They’ll all tell you what you want to hear. They’re all experts in half truths. Never trust a politician.
And for you last point about NAR, I have doubts. I could see home builders and home buyers benefitting from zoning changes. It would drive down costs of a new home, open up more choices for home buyers, and put construction companies to work. Realtors are middle men who work off commissions. The more they can sell a house for the more commission they make. Realtors have a vested interest keeping the market balanced in their favor.
Realtors with more property to sell make more than realtors with less property to sell. Do you know actual realtors? The vast majority are not selling a few multi-million houses and calling it a year.
A recent NAR study estimates that the U.S. has developed an “underbuilding gap” of at least 5.5 million housing units over the last 20 years. This translates into more than $4 trillion in underinvestment in housing. Even relatively modest steps taken now to reduce this gap will unleash tremendous economic activity and create millions of new jobs.
Multi-family housing proposals are a core plank of their program, for instance - and yet politicians don’t listen to them because their constituents don’t want them to
I’m not sure what you think you’re arguing when you call me out my link then share data that agrees with my link.
Your preconceived notions are incorrect, and lying about data doesn’t make it correct
Yes I do. None of them are selling affordable single family homes.
As a matter of fact multi-family housing is leading a housing construction “boom” as of articles published 6 days ago.
Here’s a quote from MReport:
Further, almost two-thirds of the apartments build during the pandemic are clustered in just 20 high-growth metropolitan areas, which make up about 41% of the total renter population in the U.S. Therefore, for many other places, the new supply barely made a dent in the existing supply. What’s more, around 89% of the apartments completed in the last three years are high-end and, thus, target upper-middle- and high-income buyers and renters.
So they are building “multi-family homes”, but targeting, wait for it, people with lot’s of money.
So you quit lying.
Come to think of it, you’re singling out the and focusing on the real estate angle pretty hard. Why is that?
It doesn’t matter who they’re targeting, because they’re increasing supply
You’re so desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad that you’re not thinking things through.
Real estate is easy because local ordinances prevent building, and congresspeople are held accountable locally. We can discuss any lobbying if you’d like and are willing to learn.
Continuing with the real-estate discussion (I know, now I’m focusing on it ;-) ), I whole heartedly disagree. When ignoring the needs of the lower 75% of the country’s wage earners, and focusing your efforts on the upper 25%, something is glaringly, obviously wrong, and saying things like,
It doesn’t matter who they’re targeting, because they’re increasing supply.
shows a level of privilege that most people in the US cannot fathom or afford, myself included. That statement says…a lot, but I don’t want to devolve into ad hominin bs because now you’ve piqued my interest.
Honestly, and I genuinely mean this, yes, I would love to know what a climate lobbyist does.
I know tone doesn’t translate via text very well, but I can assure you I’m not desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad. Am I angry? Yes, but never desperate, and I’m not angry without reason. I’ve seen it directly, more than once in my lifetime, politicians and policy be influenced by the efforts of lobbyists and their money. Not just something I read in the news, heard on the radio, or saw on a website. I’ve seen funding pulled from one project to another because of lobbyists. Not because the project the funding was being pulled from wasn’t worthy, but our lobbyists weren’t as good (or willing to donate as much) as their lobbyists.
It’s a system that allows to much room for abuse, is abused every single day. Even if for something as noble as a climate lobbyist, the quote “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I would think still rings true (religious connotations notwithstanding).
Now don’t ask me how to fix it all because I have no clue. Maybe it’s the best we have. I dunno. 😂 I just choose, like I said earlier never to trust a politician. They’re all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power.
Edit: I do want to say, I am enjoying this discussion. Thank you for making a long day at the office a little bit more interesting.
If I make a house that sells for a billion dollars, someone with a 900 million dollar house will buy it, and their 900 million dollar home will be bought by someone in an 875 million dollar home, ND that continues all the way down.
No amount of emotional appeal (not an insult to you/your argument) beats supply and demand. I’ll take new housing anywhere and anyway I can get it. I’m also for subsidizing weird ways of getting housing like converting office space, though that has potential boondoggle written all over it.
Problem with ending lobbying outright is it is guaranteed as a right in the constitution. I’m all about lobbying reform however, and a general leveling of he playing field. Would love to see more citizen-lobbies, too, and I think it’s arguably in the best interests of government to make that easier to do.
I absolutely know what I’m talking about, and it isn’t “trickle down” b cause it doesn’t involve any additional mechanics other than an increase in supply in a market defined by a massive shortage in supply.
Also rent seeking doesn’t mean what you think it means.
You don’t think that an increase in supply only for the wealthiest under the assumption that it will result in an increase in supply for those less wealthy is comparable to trickle down? It sounds pretty similar…
Also the expectation that even if it worked such an increase in housing stock at the very top wouldn’t result in an increase in the price of rentals seems naive. As much as rents the market will bear are dictated by what the owners charge their floor is dictated by the total cost of their expenses. Adding a new building with a new, expensive mortgage into the rental pool can’t push rents down unless it’s expenses are below some median or mean rent and that’s not true for rental units at the top.
Lots of things sound similar. Socialized costs and socialism sound similar, and are not similar at all.
You not understanding the concepts or criticism of “trickle down economics” just means you shouldn’t use it as a comparison until you learn more about it, and why it fails.
As a tip, the principal difference is that TDE assumes that cutting taxes for the wealthy will inherently result in business reinvestment, when it clearly does not. This does not rule out all supply-side economics, as renewable energy subsidies and grants have clearly demonstrated. However, demand-side policies are also necessary at times, as in 08 or during COVID.
Increasing supply does always change the supply/demand curve, and we have a massive shortage of supply in the housing market.
Politicians are almost all paid (some things like city council aren’t necessarily paid). Many politicians have “day jobs” they only leave once they reach a level of office where they can live off the pay.
Speaking very broadly, the cutoff is generally “state rep or higher” or “in a big city” where you can lean on politician as your main source of income.
I’ve worked with local politicians in office settings, as salespeople (trained a city councilwoman as a saleswoman once), etc. They also sometimes own businesses (a bit of selection bias there because that “plays” really well to the electorate).
Most political jobs that aren’t state/federal arent very demanding of time. School board, local government, etc, is generally unpaid/low pay and very much part time. If you can carve a couple nights a week, you can work in local gov.
Ah yeah. The kind of people who already had money to start a business in the first place.
If you can carve a couple nights a week, you can work in local gov.
That seems like not nearly enough time to be putting into something that is meant to change how things work. Government is incredibly slow though, I’m aware…
Most people start a business via a small business loan, which is surprisingly easy (in my view) to qualify for. You also only need like $50 in my state to register as a business owner.
Lots of relatively poor people own their own business. I ran my own consultancy for a while and I was definitely not rich.
Couple nights a week is plenty when you’re on city council for a town of 10,000 people. There aren’t that many hearings
Most people start a business via a small business loan, which is surprisingly easy (in my view) to qualify for. You also only need like $50 in my state to register as a business owner.
Now this is really wild to me. If I walked into a place and tried to get a business loan, I guarantee they’d say no to me REAL quick.
I don’t think only rich people own businesses but I think people who are able to be in a place financially where they can get a loan to start a business, are probably better off financially than say, some no body like myself.
There aren’t that many hearings
Jesus… is that based on locality or? That almost sounds like no one is really doing anything. What do they actually do?
Also I want to add, I have thought about getting into politics and the reason I don’t is the reasoning behind these questions. I can’t imagine having a job and doing this but really only doing it like politics are my hobby and hearings are my little meet ups.
It’s definitely by locality, but keep in mind that basically as a matter of course there will always be a shitload more small localities than large. Thus, most politicians aren’t paid much. Lots of localities have city councils that yeah, are basically meetups. They’ll literally meet in kitchens and shit. I had an embarrassing moment at a state rep dinner at my aunt’s house where I didn’t silence my phone and my ringtone was hilariously inappropriate. Politics can be extremely local, and I think that’s a good thing, even if I personally think it does fuck up a lot of small towns
The numbers can be a touch misleading, since there are a large number of larger towns and cities that do have paid representatives, because the country is absolutely enormous and there are “major” cities everywhere. There are a lot more politicians than you’d think if you really get granular.
Also the key aspects of a business loan are
1: some form of collateral
2: a solid business plan
You bring those things and you can probably start a business.
I’m someone who doesn’t have a form of collateral to give and I assume that there are other people in my poor people group who also lack this and would be unable to start a business of any kind.
In fact, that means a lot of people in the city I live in are unable to start a business.
So it definitely does point to a certain class of people that can start a business and those of us who can’t.
I’m definitely going to look into how many hearings are had where I live.
I mean you can start a business without a business loan. I started my LLC with $50 and some cold calls.
The thing is, if I do that - I won’t have a place to live afterwards. My rent is going up $45 in a few months. I currently make $36 an hour and they’re talking about paying me more and putting me on salary.
I do want to be more involved but it really seems blocked off for regular people who have to have full time jobs. Without my full time job I’m pretty much fucked.
I’m sick of the two party system also but also recognize that’s the system in place. Requires voting reform for that to ever change, which I support. I’m still going vote for democrats in the meantime because anything else, to include third party or abstaining, is ultimately supporting the republicans whether one wants to admit it or not.
If enough people, 5% of the population, voted 3rd party in one election, it gives the 3rd party the ability to get on the ballot in every state. This goes a long way.
Neither side wants ranked choice voting. Neither side is going to give up power.
We have to vote something different to change the 2 party system. Not going to change itself.
(Side note, I found it hilarious that the “Forward” felt like it was 1000 pages down. And reading that much BS made me feel gross.)
Ok so, the Project 2025 thing is terrifying. Their Forward is terrifying. They have no plan for making this country better for anyone except themselves. They state very clearly they want to delete anything they don’t like.
They want to ban books and open discussions.
They want to deny racism exists or ever existed.
They want to deny that biology exists outside of their narrow minded beliefs.
They want to force a single religion on everyone.
They cite problems and point the finger at everyone except themselves.
As if it wasn’t abundantly clear at this point based on their ACTIONS what Republican rule will be… And yet we still have millions of people fully invested in that cult of hate and fear.
Y’know, the only reason the Democrats struggle to win at all is that sometime in the post-Nixon era they collectively decided to stop standing up for labor’s buying power. When they did this, (which helped them a lot in terms of their ability to get corporate donors to finance their elections), it meant that working people would go from having 1 party represent labor to 0 parties doing that.
In the 50s an entry-level job that a high-school graduate could get would support a family, buy a home and a couple of cars, and pay out a retirement. Today, that job won’t even pay for an apartment without roommates.
That right there is the whole reason the GOP is a viable political party at the federal level- with both parties beholden to corporate donors, winning elections is more or less a matter of spending money on campaign ads attacking the other party because neither party has to do anything that voters want
In the 50s an entry-level job that a high-school graduate could get would support a family, buy a home and a couple of cars, and pay out a retirement.
While I agree with the general thrust that more needs to be done for the average worker, your comparison of these times completely falls on its face if you speak to anyone with firsthand experience. It shouldn’t be used because it is just noise, not relevant to the world we live in.
My dad grew up in the 50s and lives with me, due to his age/health. Here’s a mix of his take and current data:
Homes have tripled in size on average. Providing for a family involves machines that take on 16 hours per day of household chores (and this number is set to increase further), which are expensive and taken for granted. Electricity and television, to say nothing of the internet, are taken for granted. Cellular phones are taken for granted.
6 children would live in a 3 bedroom house - I know this because this is how my uncles grew up in the 50s, and my grandfather wasn’t just some regular guy, he was top salesman in his compamy. The vast majority of people did not have a “couple of cars.” They had one car and the entire family packed into it without seatbelts.
You can absolutely live like it’s the 50s right now. Cancel your cable, internet, and phone. Do not own a dishwasher, wash your laundry by hand, and only bulk-buy groceries in the forms of cereal grains, meat, eggs, and vegetables. Buy nothing pre-made. Mend your own clothes. Cook everything from scratch. Don’t have air conditioning.
If this sounds like a poor, miserable existence, it’s because almost everyone lives a standard of living unimaginable in the 50s except in science fiction, and that standard is expensive.
That’s why we should help people - because our standard of living rose and we no longer see the 50s as acceptable, not because tradwives and nuclear families made the world safe for one white guy to provide for his family. We are the richest country in the world and our standard of living should be a cudgel we wield in soft-power diplomacy.
As my dad said when I read him this post: “this going back to the past shit is about the stupidest shit in the world.”
You can absolutely live like it’s the 50s right now.
No, you can’t . You can’t send your kids to a state college or university today and expect them to work their way through on part-time minimum wage and graduate without debt. Pensions are a thing of the past. Unions have been decimated and their protections have been unavailable to most workers for decades now. Today, banks are regulated by private trade associations made up of- you guessed it- banks. Today, employers buy back their own shares (which was made illegal in the 1930s and brought back in 1982) at labor’s expense. Today’s median wage buys you less than minimum wage did then.
My post above was not a call to go back to the 50s, (fuuuuuck that) it was a call to recognize that the buying power available to labor has been squeezed so hard that the middle class as a demographic is shrinking and that in turn probably causes people to lose faith in democracy. When both major parties have worked together to dismantle labor protections and to deregulate finance, is your democracy really working for you, or for corporate power?
Yes, today it’s normal to buy things that didn’t exist then, and most fatal childhood diseases have been all but wiped out, and bigger houses and a housing inventory shortage is a thing, but that’s not the whole picture by a long shot. Raw material inputs (like lumber, and basic foodstuffs) cost more in normalized labor purchasing power terms and that’s probably largely because of corporate mergers in the supply chain and wage standards have not kept up with basic costs.
I think it’s remarkably silly that so many Americans that long for the 50s to come back think they’re gone because the Democrats embraced civil rights or because of feminism and not because they joined the GOP in dismantling the New Deal.
That’s why college is more expensive now. It used to be something you paid for to go, and now there are loans. This drove up demand and changed the financial incentive structure. It’s the #1 reason why I believe college should be free for the lower three quintiles.
Pensions are a crap idea and always were. Today my wife and I are straight up cashing in her pension because it’s worth more in an IRA.
Share buybacks are good for companies, workers, and the market in general - which protects 401(k)s as well. Not sure why that’s an issue for you?
Unions are expanding again and I hope that really takes off.
I definitely do not see how the New Deal was “dismantled” or that the Democrat party of today had anything to do with it. The New Deals/Great Society were a defining time for conservatives and many conservative Democrats left the party over it.
Back then, states funded their colleges- tuition wasn’t the primary funding mechanism. But, shortly after desegregation, that funding started to dry up now that brown people could benefit and the politics of keeping college cheap became fraught (and educating a multiracial egalitarian society became ‘communism’, which nicely dovetailed with the red scares of the time).
Then, as prices went up, loans became a thing- but loans were routinely discriminatory on things like race, gender, etc. So, when they made loans less discriminatory and easier to get, that’s when your answer became accurate: we all watched an army of MBAs swoop in and become middle-management of universities that transformed themselves to capture a share of all that available money.
Yeah, college got expensive because loans got easy to get- but the reason for loans in the first place was in large part that the right wanted to gatekeep education because they saw an educated public as a threat.
I definitely do not see how the New Deal was “dismantled”
Then you’re not looking. Glass-Steagall? Repealed under Clinton. Enforceable financial regulations? Deregulated quietly on a bipartisan basis since the 90s. Labor relations? Unions have been gutted and wage protections neglected, so much so that it became difficult to form unions. Antitrust? When the Democrats swept congress after Nixon, they retired the Democrats’ expertise on antitrust enforcement. The then-new dem leadership became fascinated with pivoting towards the center, such that the Democrats stopped representing labor and became the party of professionals. With 0 parties representing the working class and both parties engaged in the project of deregulation and privatizing public goods and services, several major parts of the New Deal were quietly neglected or just not enforced.
Today, banking is to a much greater extent regulated by private consortiums composed of… yes, bankers than it was then. The same fox that guarded the henhouse prior to the Great Depression was put in charge, and it wasn’t long before we had another depression-scale collapse.
As of the early 1970s, the robust trust-busting of the 1930s onward was quietly discontinued; the ‘watergate-baby dems’ (who were elected in the wake of Watergate) weren’t excited about monopoly enforcement. On their watch, enforcement was largely defunded. Non-enforcement of The Packers and Stockyards act eventually led to today’s state of affairs, in which there are just 4 conglomerates in the market between farm and grocer. This pattern isn’t limited to the meat industry, it is happening everywhere- middlemen control supply chains, ‘vertical integration’ and mergers and acquisitions mean producers are squeezed. That’s just plain down on the neoliberals getting hold of the Democratic party and letting corporations reassert dominance.
The New Deals/Great Society were a defining time for conservatives
If by that you mean conservatives hated everything about it and called it communism and conducted non-stop red-scares and moral panics to fight it, I suppose you’re right. That bit where conservative dems left the party- yeah, that coincided with the democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement too, and that party realignment broadly energized the American right under the GOP banner (where before that, both parties had conservative and progressive wings)
Jesus you people are fucking exhausting the way you write like you’re trying out for Last Week Tonight.
Just speak like a person. I would’ve been interested in this discussion. We’d have politely disagreed on a couple things, I’d have fixed some of your bad history, and it would’ve been fun
If you’re gonna keep writing all jackassy at least try to be funnier.
Sorry but I do all of that and it’s not any better at all. No washer/dryer, no washing machine, I live in a fucking garage and pay more rent than anyone in the 50s paid mortgage.
Houses that are glorified sheds in flood zones in the worst parts of town go for 300k+. I’m not even entry level and I can’t afford the cheapest garbage excuse for a house out here without becoming house poor. I can’t even “move where it’s cheaper” because WFH people did and now it’s not cheaper. The areas that are truly cheap, are so because there’s no work to be had around them. Can’t appreciate the low cost of an area when your unemployed.
I absolutely agree. I think the “smaller houses” bit just sent me off on a rant because I keep hearing that argument as a way to dismiss current housing price issues, but it’s just not the reality I see when I look at glorified sheds selling for 300k.
Well there’s also a dramatic under-supply of housing as well.
A tripling in housing cost resulting in average houses costing $80k or so, which would approximately align with price increase/sqft would be much more tenable for people.
Still, it’s a higher standard of living and more expensive though, and should be taken into account when looking to provide the right economic conditions for people. That’s why I brought that up.
Bottom line is, as always, fuck NIMBYism and build more. Big houses, small houses, multi-family housing, all of it.
As things stand right now, the GOP’s platform is “let’s pick a scapegoat to exhume the lower classes’ frustrations”, while the Democrats’ is “let’s not do that”. It’s no wonder why the Dems can only garner around ~27% of all elegible votes (vs the Republicans’ ~25%), most of their voters don’t particularly like their politicians nor their policies, they just don’t want to be governed by fucking crazies.
Unfortunately progress is making and eating gradually less shitty sandwiches until all of humanity individually decide we don’t like the taste of shit.
no no no he has it all wrong. It’s the party of the WORKING class. E.g. they are going to put you all TO WORK.
Keeping the wealth with the wealthy means you get to work for them. They’re in charge don’t you see? We’re just their worker bees. There’s enough of us that we don’t need healthcare. Education is a luxury for the children of the wealthy elite, NOT the workers. The dumber and more ignorant the worker the less they need to offer them in compensation. If you don’t know better, you don’t ask for more!
It’s all about being the smartest in the room. Why do good things for people when you can just fuck them over and have them sing your praises? This is why they want to teach that slavery taught valuable skills. They want to enslave us, and they are slowly doing that generation after generation with income disparities. Pretty soon we’ll work our whole lives just to subsist and owning a home will be only afforded to the wealthy elite. The rest of us will work for them in the form of rent and they will be our land LORDS.
It’s definitely the party of workers. More workers! Work for your owners!
There isn’t one. A subset of Lemmy users have decided to go down the Reddit path where anything and everything MUST be politically related. Ideally it would be 24x7x365 coverage of “Republicans Evil” and nothing else.
I actually don’t mind that. Life is inherently political, and Republicans truly do suck. I’m more upset that something is labeled a meme when it’s not a meme at all.
They don’t understand how paying for things works.
They also don’t understand how incompetent the government actually is.
They think that if you fund the government more, they won’t have any worry again. Just give the government more money and all your problems will be solved.
They also think ‘someone else’ will fund the government, and not them. They’re living in a fantasy land
What they don’t understand is that this ends with everyone being broke and the government still being absolutely incompetent meaning everyone is now even worse off than they were before.
The money needs to stay in the peoples pockets and the governments reach into your life needs to stay as minimal as possible. Trust the people, not the government.
Since you deleted the post where you called me stupid, you should really learn what a Kender is before you spout off about even more shit that you know nothing about.
None of us are an “Army of One”, none of us can do it all alone. We need each other. We’re stronger together, than apart.
And part of that means we tithe to each other for common cause, to “lift all boats”.
And we should definitely have intellectually honest conversations to decide what is needed to ‘lift all boats’.
But if one side is just trying to constantly throw wrenchs into the machinery to prevent having to tithe to the common good, then the center will not hold.
I'd rather pay taxes and get healthcare, education, roads, safety nets, social security, armies, research, etc. This can happen. Other countries do it.
Republicans are the ones that say government doesn't work...and when they are elected they work hard to make sure this is true.
Biden tried to give the working class student loan forgiveness. Republicans stopped it. He is trying again to make this happen for the working class. And I'm sure Republicans are trying to stop it.
But you are paying taxes and not getting those things.
I don’t even know how student loan forgiveness would even work, won’t other generations also have student debt? What about people who already paid for their schooling? Will they get a rebate? Will my kids get their student loans paid for too?
It’s such a ridiculous policy, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Remember when they got together and rewrote the tax code to help corporations? Remember when they pulled us out of the green new deal? Remember when buddied up to North Korea and Saudia Arabia? Remember when they told us to drink bleach and shove a light up our ass to stop the spread of covid? Remember when they handed out government loans to companies with zero regulation then forgave them? Remember when they put another sexual predator on the Supreme Court? Remember when one broke into the house of the minority leader and attacked her husband with a hammer? Remember when they marched with torches on Charlotte? Remember when they attacked the capital?
Yes they are actually. We’re out of the pointless war Bush started. Unemployment is at the lowest it’s been in decades. Obamacare is a first step toward socialized medicine. Infrastructure is finally getting properly funded and fixed. The largest road blocks have been that 4 years squished in the middle that saw tax cuts on the rich and the republicans in the Senate refusing to raise taxes on the rich.
Right, our current metrics for prosperity in armerica are absolute shit. Economy, unemployment, and stock market mean nothing to the majority of Americans which are living pay check to pay check with 50 years of stagnation in wage increases.
The poorest of Americans got fucked when the affordable care act got rolled out because red states REFUSED aid! All by design to undermine the policy.
Democrats keep putting forward legislation to help infrastructure and the GOP keeps hiding behind a God damn self imposed culture war.
Add comment