this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
99 points (87.2% liked)

politics

19224 readers
3052 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

it is Mr. Biden’s reinvigoration of the government’s role as the nation’s most important investor that may endure as a turning point in the nation’s political and economic history.

Investments, like saplings, do not yield immediate fruit, and Mr. Biden has struggled to generate public enthusiasm for these long-term strategies.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 800XL 28 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's because the US only cares about short term gains that benefit a small class. Americans are too stupid to look past their nose for the long term.

[–] utopianfiat 40 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not that Americans are stupid. Any nation can fall into the same trap if we devolve control of our infrastructure to plutocrats who look down on the public.

It's the attitude that Americans are dumb and deserve our fate that's shared by the elite who make it their business to fuck over the most vulnerable of us.

[–] 800XL 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In this case, yes it is. The proof is everytime a President has implemented a policy that doesnt deliver economic gains immediately, it's called a failure. That's why Republicans always make the same plays for corps - lower taxes, remove regulations. It takes 0 effort and always gives short term gains that are bad in the longrun.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

To be fair, it's usually called a failure by corp owned media. And for most people that's how they get all their news.

[–] thisisawayoflife 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

That's a function both of poverty and the lack of quality public education. Most don't understand how elections are run, and most don't understand that in order to change our two party paradigm, they need to change the local election process. FPTP needs to be flushed down the unclean toilet of history and we need to implement RCV or STAR. Both will be complicated and either choice will require thorough education of the public, but it's the first step towards breaking the deadlock of the Democratic or Republican parties.

[–] 800XL 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's because the American economy is fueled by short term gains for the sake of politics. What's actually good in the longterm is bad for the small groups that stand to lose the most.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

The US is a corporate oligarchy propped up by a priesthood of politicians, lawyers, and economists.

Why do you think important government buildings look like temples? Why do they all wear priestly vestments and adornments? Why do you think the House has a magic stick?

[–] SCB 2 points 11 months ago

This is "gold fringe on the American flag" level of nonsense

[–] 800XL 1 points 11 months ago

From the wikipedia article it says it was used by the sergeant-at-arms to retain order, and that those who ignored it would be arrested. Ceremonial in the fact that it was once used as a weapon long before as a way to whow authority.

But yea it's always been for the rich.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

I am highly unconvinced by STAR. The problem with STAR, as I see it, is that there is no cost to giving a candidate a higher or lower ranking, except that they may beat a more preferred candidate. It's like Amazon ratings, the most simplistic, extreme voters win. The voters who carefully decide whether a candidate should get two or three stars have a subtle influence, while voters who go "yeah that guy's great, five stars!" and "no not her, terrible, zero stars!" clearly have an outsized impact, determining the finalists.

With a fully ranked ballot, to vote one candidate higher, you have to vote another lower. I have not seen any convincing argument that any system is better than STV/IRV ranked choice.

[–] SCB 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Mr. Biden is articulating a simple, strong contrast: Republicans believe that collecting less money in taxes will catalyze economic growth; Bidenomics “is rooted in what’s always worked best for the country: investing in America and investing in Americans,” as the president put it in a November speech in Northfield, Minn.

It is an overdue end to an era in which the difference between the parties could be summarized as a debate about how large tax cuts should be.

Someone in this thread will inevitably talk about voting for Biden "even if he sucks" while he's doing exactly the things they want.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

Biden isn't doing exactly the things I want. He's doing some things I kind of want, or at least strongly prefer over what I might have expected him to do, and vastly prefer over what Trump would do, while also doing some things I think are very bad. He's probably the most progressive president of my lifetime, but that's more an indictment of politics in my lifetime than an endorsement of Biden. He not only isn't doing, but has actively opposed doing what the best science available tells us we need to do in order to prevent the worst outcomes of the climate crisis, which is pretty terrifying. Ultimately, he could literally kill more people than any world leader in history, yet he's still the best viable option. So yep, you got me: we gotta vote for him, even if he sucks.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


President Biden has planted a lot of trees during his first three years in office, pushing through Congress bills that direct the investment of billions of dollars into infrastructure, research and subsidies for domestic manufacturing.

It arms Democrats, for the first time in recent decades, with a message that can plausibly compete with “tax cuts,” the two words that define Republican economic policy.

In the opening months of his presidency, he pumped money into the economy on a scale unmatched during any other economic crisis of the postwar era, despite the warnings of some prominent economists that it was too much and would do more harm than good.

Federal aid shielded millions of American families from destitution, hunger and the loss of their homes, and it spurred a recovery that has far outstripped the postpandemic rebounds in other developed democracies.

He has supported labor unions more vocally than any of his predecessors, becoming the first president to walk a picket line, when he joined striking workers outside a Michigan auto plant.

The Biden administration has engineered a historic increase in the value of food stamps; proposed a ban on noncompete agreements, which hold down wages; and forgiven billions of dollars in student loans, among other measures aimed at reducing economic inequalities.


The original article contains 1,307 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!