Every SOTU since at least Clinton has had a section where the president says he supports a variety of populist economic policies. Anyone who follows politics closely knows that this is just pandering to voters, it is not representative of actual policy that will be adopted.
Your friends are right to be cynical.
This is just flagrantly untrue. Trumps SOTU addresses we’re almost entirely about his personal foreign relationships with North Korea, Mexico, his takes on various Mexican gangs, “global freeloaders”, warning against “the call to adopt socialism”, how much of ISIS he wiped out, etc.
This is deeply different from Joe Biden going up and saying “hey maybe Billionares shouldn’t pay 8% in taxes, maybe 25% would be a good benchmark” and “hey maybe we should give new home buyers a few hundred bucks a month” which are real and substantiate new initiatives and not just masturbatory remarks about how much other people suck
But how is Joe Biden saying "billionaires should pay more taxes" any different from when Obama said it?
I hope I'm proved wrong, but I expect the same results: no legislation, no policy change, only rhetoric.
Biden has drastically more experience working politics in DC than Obama, and has already gotten more done. If he can inspire more people to vote, he could do even more.
I think you misspelled “old as heck”. Biden first got elected to the senate in 1972.
I don’t think the “more experience” angle means what you think it means.
It means Biden is a corporate crony in a room full of corporate cronies, who actively stifle progress so that “nothing will fundamentally change” which keeps the donor class happy.
Do you know the context for that quote?
Yes. Which negates any ideas Biden has mentioned raising taxes on the wealthy.
In the same speech he also told wealthy donors income inequality is not the fault of the wealthy. He was begging the donor class to support him.
Nina Turner was right. I’m no longer going to choose between a bowl of 💩 and a half bowl of 💩
3/4’s of US Americans believe taxes should be raised for the wealthiest Americans
(Well, if you knew the context you would know that absolutely something fundamental needs to change)
...if you knew the context you wouldn't be writing out disinformation. He said that wealthy people being taxed at higher rates would not fundamentally change their lifestyle, which is true. Someone making 500k and being taxed 20% would not see a substantial change if it raised to 30, 40, even 50%.
So he agrees with you.
Cheers.
You're woefully ignorant of how the legislative process works. Hint: it certainly isn't by fiat.
Also, Biden's policy has long been lowering taxes on middle-class earners.
I understand the president is not a dictator, there's no expectation of fiat rule here.
I also understand that the SOTU is a sales pitch, not a serious legislative agenda.
I do appreciate the tacit admission of his policy targets.
Alas, even though you now claim to understand Biden's hands are legislatively tied, he has since become unserious.
You really are doing some work moving that target.
There is a huge difference between a sales pitch and a policy target, you seem to be confusing the two.
A sales pitch is just rhetoric and can often be disingenuous.
I see no reason to suggest that economic populism will become a serious part of the Biden policy agenda.
what do you mean? you don't mean that he had some of the same platform promises in 2020 and didn't come through, right?
Man, I guess we should look at the common factor of what’s opposing the tax raises for billionaires instead of saying “well, it hasn’t happened yet - I guess both sides are equally bad!!”
Common factor of what’s opposing the tax raises for billionaires
Billionaires is the answer. They donate pretty equally to each party but Republicans are affected by this while Democrats are not.
There is no "both sides are equal" argument here, Republicans are obviously worse.
I agree that we should examine who is opposing tax raises for billionaires. And we agree Repubs are horrible, so just consider when Democrats had full control of Congress and the WH- what stopped them then?
Democrats can't pass economic populism, even when they have full control, due to their corporate donors, lobbyists, the DNC, etc. This Democratic establishment has prevented anything left-of-center from getting passed in my lifetime.
so just consider when Democrats had full control of Congress and the WH- what stopped them then?
They had control for ~70 days and in that period they passed the largest healthcare overhaul in a generation (that's still incredibly popular). Seems to me like they got some serious shit done when we gave them a relatively small period of actual control. The idea that they didn't get anything done is completely ahistorical.
Yes that is exactly my point, Dems had full control and they still passed a right wing healthcare plan.
In that 70 days they abandoned a public option and quickly adopted Romneycare. Then they added even more corporate subsidies and giveaways for health insurance companies.
The Democrats abandoned the public option? I seem to remember Senator Lieberman and the GOP being the ones that blocked that.
So the Democrats propose legislation, the GOP fights tooth and nail to water down and make it worse at every possible step knowing the Democrats don't have the seats needed to pass the original legislation, and your takeaway from that is that Democrats are passing right wing policy?
I'm sorry you don't like the ACA, but the solution to your problem is electing more progressive Democrats, the thing you seem to be advocating against. Do you have a solution or do you just want to say "Democrats bad" and act like the party of domestic terrorists across the aisle doesn't exist?
We can agree that Republicans are horrible and make everything worse, but how is that applicable in the case of the ACA?
The ACA got exactly 0 Republican votes. There was no reason to negotiate or even listen to Republicans in this case. It was Democrats doing it to themselves. And as I have already established, yes the ACA is a right wing bill.
As for advocating for progressive ideals, I am doing that when I call out the hypocrisy and corruption of the corporate Dems. It's becoming very difficult to tell the difference between a modern corporate Dem and a 90s-00s Republican, and that scares me.
I think it's a good thing to say "Democrats bad" when they are in fact bad. Whatever demons lurk on the other side of the aisle does not change this. Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "vote blue no matter who" is not a solution.
As for advocating for progressive ideals, I am doing that when I call out the hypocrisy and corruption of the corporate Dems
This is absolutely meaningless unless you put it in context and offer solutions. You aren't offering anything of value to the discourse of how to improve the country or the Democratic Party.
I have absolutely no issue criticizing the Democratic Party, especially right wing Democrats. The Democratic party is incredibly diverse from an ideological perspective, there are plenty of good progressives pushing for the policies we both agree on. The only way we can get that shit done is by gaining more support. So instead of painting the entire party as a bunch of corporate goons with nothing to offer, why not advocate for the progressive wing and grow their influence by primarying conservative Democrats? You want to get rid of hypocrisy and corruption, there's your road map.
My original intention here was to try to convince people to think critically when hearing a politician's stump speech, which I believe is adding value to the discourse.
I surely didn't have lofty goals to "improve the country or the Democratic Party" when I opened Lemmy today lol.
And I do believe the DNC and the donor class are a bunch of corporate goons who have little to offer, and almost all Democratic politicians are subservient to this superstructure.
Let me ask you, how do you suggest we overcome the institutional hurdles when running a progressive primary challenge? The last 2 progressive primary challengers I volunteered for had extreme problems finding vendors to supply them with the basic supplies that they need to run a campaign. This is because the DNC has a policy of blacklisting any vendors that work with a progressive primary challenger.
Organizing and bring more people into the tent. At the end of the day, there aren't enough progressives in the Democratic Party right now. We have not done a good job getting people who support progressive ideas out to vote. Claiming that all Democrats are bound to the DNC and corporations doesn't help, it actually hurts progressives more than anything. Why would a voter show up to a primary to boot someone like Gottheimer if they think it's a pointless endeavor?
Having DNC support is an advantage for sure, but that doesn't mean we can't win elections. Progressives have made gains every election in spite of the DNC. If you're already volunteering for progressive candidates, that's great, keep doing that. Recruit people. Donate money if you can. Talk to people you know. Instead of saying only the party is controlled by goons point out the opportunities we have to make the party more progressive and why it matters. We as individuals have to make up for the advantage that a conservative Democrat has being backed by the DNC. It won't come from anywhere else.
I've posted this elsewhere, but look at the "Conservative" playbook for the last 40 years. Right wing crazies were able to take over the entire Republican party this way. They've hit school boards, city councils, statehouses, and congress with hard right primary opponents for decades. They were able to slowly rachet the party further and further right.
Their goals are abhorrent, but the strategy is sound. This is a game of incremental progress and electoral strategy. We will never topple the Democratic donor class or establishment party members until we understand that. They've fortified their position. We need a siege, not a bomb. A bomb leaves us with nothing to improve. And whether we like it or not, right now the Democratic Party/DNC is what is keeping the GOP from erasing every bit of progress we've made.
Well it sounds like we agree on most things then, except on how to communicate to voters. I have found that being honest with voters about things like the corruption of the DNC and the serious flaws of the ACA actually helps to win them over.
Try to do a door knocking campaign and act like the Democratic Party is perfect, most voters will smell the bullshit.
It only takes a few seconds to say "yes most Democrats are corporate lackeys, but not this candidate, and here's why..." Acknowledging the flaws of the party does not suppress turnout. It is the flaws themselves that do the suppression.
Willfully ignorant it is then.
Willfully ignorant of what?
Reality.
So many downvotes just for having doubts. I too have heard many a speech promising the delivery of progressive policies, and time, and consistent let-downs by the DNC informed my cynicism.
The speech also featured a lengthy wish list of progressive proposals: ending Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy, lowering the price of prescription drugs and capping the annual costs of such medicines, tax credits for first-time home buyers, increasing affordable housing, establishing universal access to pre-school, increasing Pell grants, raising taxes on billionaires and corporations, upping pay for public school teachers, boosting the minimum wage, enhancing voter rights, protecting transgender rights, banning assault weapons. (There was plenty more!)
I hope and suspect Biden will be re-elected. My suggestion is that after you lot downvote me you make a copy of these promises and see whether any of them come true. You may guess by my demeanor that i believe they will remain wishes. Don't change your vote friends, but do allow for doubt and don't believe the excuses made when those dreams don't come true. Then you will at least understand voters displeased with the Democratic party et al
Being skeptical is fine. We should be skeptical. And we should also keep track. And good news, we have and do keep track.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/
He's honestly not doing too bad so far. Wouldn't be surprised if his looks alot like Obamas after 8 years. Glad Trump sucked at keeping promises. He still managed some terrible things, but glad to see so much red on his tracker.
Then you will at least understand voters displeased with the Democratic party et al
My good sir, many of us are Democrats. Of course we understand.
lol on the downvotes, the bots are strong today
I'm not sure about bots, but this is politics@world, Lemmy's home for BlueMAGA.
I wear my downvotes from here with pride.
Oh ok I was wondering, I didn’t realize that
I didn’t realize that
Maybe that's because it's not true. Blue MAGA? Is that even a thing‽
Every SOTU since at least Clinton has had a section where the president says he supports a variety of populist economic policies. Anyone who follows politics closely knows that this is just pandering to voters, it is not representative of actual policy that will be adopted.
Your friends are right to be cynical.
This is just flagrantly untrue. Trumps SOTU addresses we’re almost entirely about his personal foreign relationships with North Korea, Mexico, his takes on various Mexican gangs, “global freeloaders”, warning against “the call to adopt socialism”, how much of ISIS he wiped out, etc.
This is deeply different from Joe Biden going up and saying “hey maybe Billionares shouldn’t pay 8% in taxes, maybe 25% would be a good benchmark” and “hey maybe we should give new home buyers a few hundred bucks a month” which are real and substantiate new initiatives and not just masturbatory remarks about how much other people suck
But how is Joe Biden saying "billionaires should pay more taxes" any different from when Obama said it?
I hope I'm proved wrong, but I expect the same results: no legislation, no policy change, only rhetoric.
Biden has drastically more experience working politics in DC than Obama, and has already gotten more done. If he can inspire more people to vote, he could do even more.
I think you misspelled “old as heck”. Biden first got elected to the senate in 1972.
I don’t think the “more experience” angle means what you think it means.
It means Biden is a corporate crony in a room full of corporate cronies, who actively stifle progress so that “nothing will fundamentally change” which keeps the donor class happy.
Do you know the context for that quote?
Yes. Which negates any ideas Biden has mentioned raising taxes on the wealthy.
In the same speech he also told wealthy donors income inequality is not the fault of the wealthy. He was begging the donor class to support him.
Nina Turner was right. I’m no longer going to choose between a bowl of 💩 and a half bowl of 💩
3/4’s of US Americans believe taxes should be raised for the wealthiest Americans
(Well, if you knew the context you would know that absolutely something fundamental needs to change)
...if you knew the context you wouldn't be writing out disinformation. He said that wealthy people being taxed at higher rates would not fundamentally change their lifestyle, which is true. Someone making 500k and being taxed 20% would not see a substantial change if it raised to 30, 40, even 50%.
So he agrees with you.
Cheers.
You're woefully ignorant of how the legislative process works. Hint: it certainly isn't by fiat.
Also, Biden's policy has long been lowering taxes on middle-class earners.
I understand the president is not a dictator, there's no expectation of fiat rule here.
I also understand that the SOTU is a sales pitch, not a serious legislative agenda.
I do appreciate the tacit admission of his policy targets.
Alas, even though you now claim to understand Biden's hands are legislatively tied, he has since become unserious.
You really are doing some work moving that target.
There is a huge difference between a sales pitch and a policy target, you seem to be confusing the two.
A sales pitch is just rhetoric and can often be disingenuous.
I see no reason to suggest that economic populism will become a serious part of the Biden policy agenda.
what do you mean? you don't mean that he had some of the same platform promises in 2020 and didn't come through, right?
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/joe-biden/
oh
Man, I guess we should look at the common factor of what’s opposing the tax raises for billionaires instead of saying “well, it hasn’t happened yet - I guess both sides are equally bad!!”
Billionaires is the answer. They donate pretty equally to each party but Republicans are affected by this while Democrats are not.
There is no "both sides are equal" argument here, Republicans are obviously worse.
I agree that we should examine who is opposing tax raises for billionaires. And we agree Repubs are horrible, so just consider when Democrats had full control of Congress and the WH- what stopped them then?
Democrats can't pass economic populism, even when they have full control, due to their corporate donors, lobbyists, the DNC, etc. This Democratic establishment has prevented anything left-of-center from getting passed in my lifetime.
They had control for ~70 days and in that period they passed the largest healthcare overhaul in a generation (that's still incredibly popular). Seems to me like they got some serious shit done when we gave them a relatively small period of actual control. The idea that they didn't get anything done is completely ahistorical.
Yes that is exactly my point, Dems had full control and they still passed a right wing healthcare plan.
In that 70 days they abandoned a public option and quickly adopted Romneycare. Then they added even more corporate subsidies and giveaways for health insurance companies.
The Democrats abandoned the public option? I seem to remember Senator Lieberman and the GOP being the ones that blocked that.
So the Democrats propose legislation, the GOP fights tooth and nail to water down and make it worse at every possible step knowing the Democrats don't have the seats needed to pass the original legislation, and your takeaway from that is that Democrats are passing right wing policy?
I'm sorry you don't like the ACA, but the solution to your problem is electing more progressive Democrats, the thing you seem to be advocating against. Do you have a solution or do you just want to say "Democrats bad" and act like the party of domestic terrorists across the aisle doesn't exist?
We can agree that Republicans are horrible and make everything worse, but how is that applicable in the case of the ACA?
The ACA got exactly 0 Republican votes. There was no reason to negotiate or even listen to Republicans in this case. It was Democrats doing it to themselves. And as I have already established, yes the ACA is a right wing bill.
As for advocating for progressive ideals, I am doing that when I call out the hypocrisy and corruption of the corporate Dems. It's becoming very difficult to tell the difference between a modern corporate Dem and a 90s-00s Republican, and that scares me.
I think it's a good thing to say "Democrats bad" when they are in fact bad. Whatever demons lurk on the other side of the aisle does not change this. Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "vote blue no matter who" is not a solution.
This is absolutely meaningless unless you put it in context and offer solutions. You aren't offering anything of value to the discourse of how to improve the country or the Democratic Party.
I have absolutely no issue criticizing the Democratic Party, especially right wing Democrats. The Democratic party is incredibly diverse from an ideological perspective, there are plenty of good progressives pushing for the policies we both agree on. The only way we can get that shit done is by gaining more support. So instead of painting the entire party as a bunch of corporate goons with nothing to offer, why not advocate for the progressive wing and grow their influence by primarying conservative Democrats? You want to get rid of hypocrisy and corruption, there's your road map.
My original intention here was to try to convince people to think critically when hearing a politician's stump speech, which I believe is adding value to the discourse.
I surely didn't have lofty goals to "improve the country or the Democratic Party" when I opened Lemmy today lol.
And I do believe the DNC and the donor class are a bunch of corporate goons who have little to offer, and almost all Democratic politicians are subservient to this superstructure.
Let me ask you, how do you suggest we overcome the institutional hurdles when running a progressive primary challenge? The last 2 progressive primary challengers I volunteered for had extreme problems finding vendors to supply them with the basic supplies that they need to run a campaign. This is because the DNC has a policy of blacklisting any vendors that work with a progressive primary challenger.
Organizing and bring more people into the tent. At the end of the day, there aren't enough progressives in the Democratic Party right now. We have not done a good job getting people who support progressive ideas out to vote. Claiming that all Democrats are bound to the DNC and corporations doesn't help, it actually hurts progressives more than anything. Why would a voter show up to a primary to boot someone like Gottheimer if they think it's a pointless endeavor?
Having DNC support is an advantage for sure, but that doesn't mean we can't win elections. Progressives have made gains every election in spite of the DNC. If you're already volunteering for progressive candidates, that's great, keep doing that. Recruit people. Donate money if you can. Talk to people you know. Instead of saying only the party is controlled by goons point out the opportunities we have to make the party more progressive and why it matters. We as individuals have to make up for the advantage that a conservative Democrat has being backed by the DNC. It won't come from anywhere else.
I've posted this elsewhere, but look at the "Conservative" playbook for the last 40 years. Right wing crazies were able to take over the entire Republican party this way. They've hit school boards, city councils, statehouses, and congress with hard right primary opponents for decades. They were able to slowly rachet the party further and further right.
Their goals are abhorrent, but the strategy is sound. This is a game of incremental progress and electoral strategy. We will never topple the Democratic donor class or establishment party members until we understand that. They've fortified their position. We need a siege, not a bomb. A bomb leaves us with nothing to improve. And whether we like it or not, right now the Democratic Party/DNC is what is keeping the GOP from erasing every bit of progress we've made.
Well it sounds like we agree on most things then, except on how to communicate to voters. I have found that being honest with voters about things like the corruption of the DNC and the serious flaws of the ACA actually helps to win them over.
Try to do a door knocking campaign and act like the Democratic Party is perfect, most voters will smell the bullshit.
It only takes a few seconds to say "yes most Democrats are corporate lackeys, but not this candidate, and here's why..." Acknowledging the flaws of the party does not suppress turnout. It is the flaws themselves that do the suppression.
Willfully ignorant it is then.
Willfully ignorant of what?
Reality.
So many downvotes just for having doubts. I too have heard many a speech promising the delivery of progressive policies, and time, and consistent let-downs by the DNC informed my cynicism.
I hope and suspect Biden will be re-elected. My suggestion is that after you lot downvote me you make a copy of these promises and see whether any of them come true. You may guess by my demeanor that i believe they will remain wishes. Don't change your vote friends, but do allow for doubt and don't believe the excuses made when those dreams don't come true. Then you will at least understand voters displeased with the Democratic party et al
Being skeptical is fine. We should be skeptical. And we should also keep track. And good news, we have and do keep track. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/ He's honestly not doing too bad so far. Wouldn't be surprised if his looks alot like Obamas after 8 years. Glad Trump sucked at keeping promises. He still managed some terrible things, but glad to see so much red on his tracker.
My good sir, many of us are Democrats. Of course we understand.
lol on the downvotes, the bots are strong today
I'm not sure about bots, but this is politics@world, Lemmy's home for BlueMAGA.
I wear my downvotes from here with pride.
Oh ok I was wondering, I didn’t realize that
Maybe that's because it's not true. Blue MAGA? Is that even a thing‽