Obama lost the House of Representatives in years 3 and 4. And again in years 5 and 6. Then he lose both the House of Reps and the Senate in years 7 and 8. That was the thanks he got for the ACA. He pushed for progress, got it, and the left voters never showed up for more.
You want progress? You need to vote and give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
To be clear the ACA was Romneycare...not progress.
In Kentucky, a new Marist poll conducted for NBC News finds that 57 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable view of “Obamacare,” the shorthand commonly used to label the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That’s compared with only 33 percent who give it a thumbs up – hardly surprising in a state where the president’s approval rating hovers just above 30 percent.
By comparison, when Kentucky voters were asked to give their impression of "kynect," the state exchange created as a result of the health care law, the picture was quite different.
A plurality – 29 percent – said they have a favorable impression of kynect, compared to 22 percent who said they view the system unfavorably. Twenty-seven percent said they hadn't heard of kynect, and an additional 21 percent said they were unsure.
Chicken or the egg?
I look at it as a Mexican standoff. The protest left voter is not going to win this Mexican Standoff because the Dems have an out, to go for the center voter. Which is a voter that actually shows up. The leftist has no alternative. Bemoan the two party system if you want, but there is no alternative.
When the left doesn't show up, Dems just go to the center even more.
Democrats past center decades ago. Harris' acceptance speech was full fledged right wing
Call it whatever you want, when they lose they will go to where the votes are. They have an out in this Mexican Standoff. You don't.
And as they go to where the votes are, republicans, they should be abandoned by left leaning voters.
Depends if you want to stop them from going center. They will go where the votes are. When you don't vote, you tell them to not do anything left ever. "Don't bother with us, there's no support over here!" Congrats, it's the biggest self own ever.
I'm going to vote Harris in Nov, but I think the perception by many on the left (including me) is that when Harris wins they won't go "good thing the left/progressive faction helped us win despite not being in lockstep with our policies because they understand how detrimental a Trump presidency will be" - they will instead go "Look at this clear mandate delivered at the ballot box. Harris' policies are overwhelmingly popular, there is no need to push for a more progressive platform."
And frankly, that's exactly what I think will happen, so I'm voting Harris, but I'm doing so knowing that I'll die of old age before there's someone like Bernie with any chance of winning again. (and that person will probably get fucked by corporatist/centrist Dems just like Bernie did anyhow)
Again, what was the thanks that Obama got for the ACA? He lost for the next 6 years. Fucking thanks huh.
What was Biden's thanks for all his work? Lost the house. Fucking thanks huh.
That's why they need consistent victories. Not 2 years every 16 fucking years.
Frankly, they do left things in spite of the left never showing up. And they pay for it every time.
I can only cast my own vote, that's how this whole thing works. Not sure how responsible I feel for whatever you are trying to smear on me.
I responded to your "perception". That was quite the rant and rave that yes demands a response.
I find it funny that you felt that was a rant. Buhbye now.
It's funny that you think that wasn't a rant you went on. It was quite an impressive one. Ciao.
Why are you utilizing collective guilt in your argument?
If that's what you want to call what happened, that's you. This is what happened.
You're blaming an individual for the actions of a group that they are not a part of and did not participate in. That's collective guilt
No I'm not blaming the individual, I'm saying the group. The group that doesn't show up. Like where in that message did I specifically say him the specific individual user. And I'm saying what literally happened, you're trying to change this to guilt of some kind or other.
I seem to have a lot of messages from you that focus on frankly weird and/or incorrect pedantry. I'm out.
They don't need to pander to centrists because they will vote for them regardless of what they do. So as they move further and further to the right pandering to Republicans, the DNC sees that as a mandate to shift further to the right.
As long as centrists keep rewarding bad behavior they will keep moving the Overton Window
centrists because they will vote for them regardless of
Uh no they won't. That's what makes them centrists. Centrists will change their votes. That's what makes them centrists.
DNC sees that as a mandate? May I remind you they are going to where the voters are. You have cause and effect mixed up.
Guess what the Overton Window would have been if Gore had won? Way further left. Guess what the Overton Window would have been if Hillary had won? Again, further left. Leftists protest voting is quite literally the biggest self own in history.
Trying to imply that Hillary would have been more left is absolutely ridiculous.
Hilary vs Trump. Hmmmmmmm. Which one is more left? Hmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmm.
Did things go of the deep end on the right with Trump? Hmmmmmm. Hmmmmm.
It's a tossup. They are both firmly right wing
Oh yes. After Trump's win, the right is now talking quite seriously about disbanding federal agencies like the EPA, FTC, DOE, etc. But they're totally the same. Yup. Absolutely the same. The Overton window on the right certainly didn't go off a cliff when Trump won. /s just in case.
If you can't see the difference you are willfully blind. Ciao.
Except every time Democrats do win then the excuse becomes that they can't unite the party.
Walz is the perfect solution for this excuse. He passed progressive policies weekly in the governorship with a 1 seat majority. There are plenty of reasons to be excited about this ballot that are new. You could of course argue the same thing about early Obama, but I trust Walz.
What evidence is there that Kamal will even try to pass an agenda that is similar to what Walz did in Minnesota?
I think Walz is the most progressive governor in the country and would love to see his policies implemented on a national level. What evidence is there that Kamala's administration will even attempt to enact those policies? She has been light on policy, with the exception of supporting Israel and building the wall via the bipartisan immigration bill that the Dems are now running on.
I'm assuming Tester wins in Montana and dems have a blue house and 50/50 senate. But even with that, idk why we would presume she would be as progressive as Walz
When do they win? They need all 3 of House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency to do much of anything. And they've had that for, drumroll please, 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 years of the last 44 years. They basically never win. So they are forced to compromise and then they go to the center to find voters.
And when they do get all 3, Obama passed the ACA, Biden passed green energy, student debt, drug price control, etc,. And the thanks they get is to then lose the midterm elections. Thanks voters that don't show up!
Biden did historically well in the midterms tbh. If it wasn't for gerrymandering and a population capped House, Dems would still have complete control of Congress
Yeah but it still kneecaps them. He can't even do a sweetheart border deal without the House.
Yeah my point is that voters did show up. Dems did historically well in 2022 for an incumbent party
Its just that the structure of our electoral politics favors rural areas and gerrymandered districts. Which currently means the red team benefits. Which isn't the fault of recent voters
He still lost the house. Not enough showed up.
Honestly, voting for representatives was a hard sell back then but after 2020 young people actually showed up to vote between presidential elections. Uniting the party is easy if all the elected party members are progressives.
The ACA is a huge black mark on Obama's legacy. Clinton certainly wasn't going to push for universal healthcare. She was just a terrible candidate.
It was just really hard to get excited to pay 1100$ a month for bare bones family insurance. (At the time...it's closer to 2500 a month today).
Oh the most progressive healthcare reform ever is suddenly a bad thing? Fucking lol.
Want more? Vote and give them consistent and overwhelming victories. 2 years every 16 years is going to be slow. Bump that up champ.
Oh the most progressive healthcare reform ever
In America? That was Medicaid, and was established in 1965 by adding Title XIX to the Social Security Act. The PPACA was the biggest increase in enrollment since it was established, but was by no means universal or even approaching the scope of the original act.
Your first sentence is a joke right? Most progressive health care ever is a misnomer. It was Romneycare rebranded.
Get a clue
It's a joke if your "black mark" is a joke. Like it or not, it was and is the most progressive healthcare ever, on a federal level if you want to be pedantic. Get a clue indeed.
Which brings us back to: If you want more, then you have to give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
In what way was it more progressive than Medicare and Medicaid?
Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society is the high-water mark of progressive domestic legislation. Nothing in the 60 years since then is remotely close - quite the opposite, actually
Want more? Vote and give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
Lucy with the football.
Hello Mr Crab! You have graced me with two messages today. What shall we cover today? Oh, that they "take away" something. Ok let's cover how much power they have had:
They have had control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years. If you to go back further, then it's 6 years of the last 44 fucking years. If you want more progress, then you're gonna have to up that!
Is this where you complain that they didn't do everything, everywhere, all at once when they had control? If so, then I say that writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can't do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
Ok we'll see how this conversation goes huh MrCrab.
They have had control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years.
And they wasted as much of that as possible. How large does the majority have to be? How long do we have to hold it before Democrats actually keep their fucking promises to someone other than Netanyahu?
When will Democrats start using the majorities we give them?
Yup there is Mr Crab! so I'll just C+P
Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
Here's a very short list of what Biden has done: Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along 'party lines'). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine.
But you want to suggest they aren't using the majority to do anything.
I wonder if that will suffice for this conversation!
Most of what you're claiming Biden accomplished aren't real accomplishments though... not yet at any rate. He WANTS to do more, it's that what he has done is either ineffective, blocked by the courts, or so far in the future nobody knows or cares.
For example...
EV investment. Biden signed a law pushing $7.5 billion dollars into fast charging infrastructure. That's fantastic! And 100% mandatory for an EV future.
In the 2 years since signing it, only 8 have been built. That's NOT a success.
Now you can go "Well, that's not Biden's fault, he gave everyone the funding they needed to make it happen..."
No, but what IS Biden's fault is claiming it as a giant achievement when it's absolutely not.
When Republicans do it, we actively mock them, not claim we should put their face on Mt. Rushmore:
I'm sorry but y'all have no idea how many levels there are to infrastructure. Biden does funding and basic rules. Then the states and perhaps cities have to do the planning. Which is a big deal - if they're trying to fill in gaps they need to study this. Then after planning is public open houses and public input, which may change planning (loop created). That's where the nimbys get to cry and say no, which the government has to listen to and accommodate to various degree. Lots of back and forth between public, state planning, and federal ok. Then it goes to engineering (different than planning). Then a competitive bid - this is government, everything needs a long competitive bid for anti corruption. Then bid review. Then bid award. Then building permits. Then finally construction contractor mobilization. All those have wait times too because none of these companies or departments (planning, engineering, construction) are sitting twiddling their thumbs. New work generally goes to the back of the queue or has to be fit in somewhere.
Biden did his part, and yes after that it's not on him. Personally I don't blame or mock either party when things take time. He gets credit for his part. He was successful at his part.
You don't get to brag about it until it's done and it's, what? 1% done?
Same thing with student debt relief.
"We're going to forgive student debt! Yay!"
* If you borrowed $12,000 or less.
** And you haven't missed any payments in 10 years.
If you borrowed $12K or less and have been making payments for 10 years, you don't have any significant debt to forgive.
Dude I already explained the mechanism of infrastructure. I explained in great detail why it takes a long time and why you can't wait, which you don't even bother to respond to. You just make the same claim and you're off to the next one. For that I could talk about the courts and then how they had to rewrite the specifics (those weren't the conditions I heard, the ones I heard were very decent), but then you won't respond to the detail, you'll make the same claim, and you'll be off to next one again. What's the point?
So yes he gets credit for his part. Demanding we wait for the whole thing to play out when the wheels are in motion and it's happening is frankly ridiculous. Ciao.
I get it, it took a year of permitting and inspections to get solar panels on my house, but I wasn't bragging that it was done and how much solar I was generating when the project wasn't completed yet.
That's what Biden is doing. And if Harris loses in November, Trump will kill it all and Biden will have done nothing.
marijuana rescheduling
HE. HAS. NOT. RESCHEDULED. A. GODDAMNED. THING.
You've decided to lie to me, so we're done.
HE. HAS. NOT. RESCHEDULED. A. GODDAMNED. THING.
Lol are we at the point where you are being pedantic? He told whatever agency to take a look at scheduling, because it's their jurisdiction. Hint Hint wink wink.
You can be done, I just take it to mean you don't like his accomplishments (oh wait I said his, are you going to be pedantic again?)
You lied; we're done.
Lol yup you're being pedantic. On such an odd, little common turn of phrase. But you can leave, I just take it to mean you have no real response.
You lied. Cannabis is still Schedule 1. "We're looking into it" is not an accomplishment. You lied so we're done. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have lied.
Oh so instead I may have gotten a little ahead of the ball. Like wow you're still being pedantic. Instead of actually responding.
Have at being upset, I think everyone can see you're just trying to use it as an out instead of an intellectual response. Like how you keep saying you're done, but you keep coming back.
I was paying for health insurance when the ACA was passed. My cost went up and my coverage got worse, and nowadays I can't afford any coverage at all despite making too much money to qualify for Medicaid. The ACA increased "access to healthcare" but it was an absolute, unmitigated failure - Obama got exactly what he deserved for it.
I make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but my ACA premiums, net of tax credit, are $0. Sorry it hasn't worked for you, but that's obviously not the universal outcome.
You want [more] progress? You need to vote and give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
So they can find just enough no votes like they always fucking do.
Hello Mr Crab! What should we cover today? Oh ok it looks like you're on a semi-conspiracy that they will "find" aka you are implying create no votes. I think it's enough to call out the conspiracy. I wonder if that's enough for this one.
It's not a conspiracy to notice that the party breaks its promises.
Ah MrCrab, you are implying that they do nothing, ever, anywhere, that any one of their voters want. Thus the semiconspiracy. As addressed in my other reply, you can't do everything, everywhere, all at once. Because: Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
Ah MrCrab, you are implying that they do nothing, ever, anywhere, that any one of their voters want.
No, they do what you want. Break their promises and support genocide.
Because: Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital.
You're pretending that legislation can't be written ahead of time. You're making excuses.
No, they do what you want. Break their promises
Again: Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along 'party lines'). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine.
I like all that.
Obama's ACA? Like.
You’re pretending that legislation can’t be written ahead of time.
You don't blindly write everything ahead of time. This isn't like Project 2025 where you do whatever you want despite what the people want. The situation on the ground changes, what you can fund changes, what the most important issue is changes, the findings of studies changes, which reps and which senators will vote for what. Fucking everything changes.
Obama probably wanted to do more on healthcare. You know what changed? The fucking great recession. You have to change with the situation you have.
Biden probably wanted to fund more things? You know what changed everything? Fucking COVID with another insane budget crunch. He had to focus on covid relief first. Then see how business changes coming out of that. You have to change with the situation you have.
Seriously that you want to blindly write everything is just... unbelievable. That's dogma and ideology. Not reality, and the complexity and nuance of life (or politics, which is tenfold complexity and nuance).
You lied to me. We're done.
To anyone else, Mr Crab is upset that in a different chain that I said Biden rescheduled weed, when he told whatever agency to look at it. So he's using it as an out instead of replying.
You lied. Cannabis is still Schedule 1. "We're looking into it" is not an accomplishment. You lied so we're done. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have lied.
Oh so instead I may have gotten a little ahead of the ball. Like wow you're still being pedantic. Instead of actually responding.
Have at being upset, I think everyone can see you're just trying to use it as an out instead of an intellectual response. Like how you keep saying you're done, but you keep coming back.
Obama lost the House of Representatives in years 3 and 4. And again in years 5 and 6. Then he lose both the House of Reps and the Senate in years 7 and 8. That was the thanks he got for the ACA. He pushed for progress, got it, and the left voters never showed up for more.
You want progress? You need to vote and give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
To be clear the ACA was Romneycare...not progress.
Romneycare that didn't kick into action until 2014. And because state agencies got to rebrand their programs, you had some crazy A/B poll testing results.
Chicken or the egg?
I look at it as a Mexican standoff. The protest left voter is not going to win this Mexican Standoff because the Dems have an out, to go for the center voter. Which is a voter that actually shows up. The leftist has no alternative. Bemoan the two party system if you want, but there is no alternative.
When the left doesn't show up, Dems just go to the center even more.
Democrats past center decades ago. Harris' acceptance speech was full fledged right wing
Call it whatever you want, when they lose they will go to where the votes are. They have an out in this Mexican Standoff. You don't.
And as they go to where the votes are, republicans, they should be abandoned by left leaning voters.
Depends if you want to stop them from going center. They will go where the votes are. When you don't vote, you tell them to not do anything left ever. "Don't bother with us, there's no support over here!" Congrats, it's the biggest self own ever.
I'm going to vote Harris in Nov, but I think the perception by many on the left (including me) is that when Harris wins they won't go "good thing the left/progressive faction helped us win despite not being in lockstep with our policies because they understand how detrimental a Trump presidency will be" - they will instead go "Look at this clear mandate delivered at the ballot box. Harris' policies are overwhelmingly popular, there is no need to push for a more progressive platform."
And frankly, that's exactly what I think will happen, so I'm voting Harris, but I'm doing so knowing that I'll die of old age before there's someone like Bernie with any chance of winning again. (and that person will probably get fucked by corporatist/centrist Dems just like Bernie did anyhow)
Again, what was the thanks that Obama got for the ACA? He lost for the next 6 years. Fucking thanks huh.
What was Biden's thanks for all his work? Lost the house. Fucking thanks huh.
That's why they need consistent victories. Not 2 years every 16 fucking years.
Frankly, they do left things in spite of the left never showing up. And they pay for it every time.
I can only cast my own vote, that's how this whole thing works. Not sure how responsible I feel for whatever you are trying to smear on me.
I responded to your "perception". That was quite the rant and rave that yes demands a response.
I find it funny that you felt that was a rant. Buhbye now.
It's funny that you think that wasn't a rant you went on. It was quite an impressive one. Ciao.
Why are you utilizing collective guilt in your argument?
If that's what you want to call what happened, that's you. This is what happened.
You're blaming an individual for the actions of a group that they are not a part of and did not participate in. That's collective guilt
No I'm not blaming the individual, I'm saying the group. The group that doesn't show up. Like where in that message did I specifically say him the specific individual user. And I'm saying what literally happened, you're trying to change this to guilt of some kind or other.
I seem to have a lot of messages from you that focus on frankly weird and/or incorrect pedantry. I'm out.
They don't need to pander to centrists because they will vote for them regardless of what they do. So as they move further and further to the right pandering to Republicans, the DNC sees that as a mandate to shift further to the right.
As long as centrists keep rewarding bad behavior they will keep moving the Overton Window
Uh no they won't. That's what makes them centrists. Centrists will change their votes. That's what makes them centrists.
DNC sees that as a mandate? May I remind you they are going to where the voters are. You have cause and effect mixed up.
Guess what the Overton Window would have been if Gore had won? Way further left. Guess what the Overton Window would have been if Hillary had won? Again, further left. Leftists protest voting is quite literally the biggest self own in history.
Trying to imply that Hillary would have been more left is absolutely ridiculous.
Hilary vs Trump. Hmmmmmmm. Which one is more left? Hmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmm.
Did things go of the deep end on the right with Trump? Hmmmmmm. Hmmmmm.
It's a tossup. They are both firmly right wing
Oh yes. After Trump's win, the right is now talking quite seriously about disbanding federal agencies like the EPA, FTC, DOE, etc. But they're totally the same. Yup. Absolutely the same. The Overton window on the right certainly didn't go off a cliff when Trump won. /s just in case.
If you can't see the difference you are willfully blind. Ciao.
Except every time Democrats do win then the excuse becomes that they can't unite the party.
Walz is the perfect solution for this excuse. He passed progressive policies weekly in the governorship with a 1 seat majority. There are plenty of reasons to be excited about this ballot that are new. You could of course argue the same thing about early Obama, but I trust Walz.
What evidence is there that Kamal will even try to pass an agenda that is similar to what Walz did in Minnesota?
I think Walz is the most progressive governor in the country and would love to see his policies implemented on a national level. What evidence is there that Kamala's administration will even attempt to enact those policies? She has been light on policy, with the exception of supporting Israel and building the wall via the bipartisan immigration bill that the Dems are now running on.
I'm assuming Tester wins in Montana and dems have a blue house and 50/50 senate. But even with that, idk why we would presume she would be as progressive as Walz
When do they win? They need all 3 of House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency to do much of anything. And they've had that for, drumroll please, 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 years of the last 44 years. They basically never win. So they are forced to compromise and then they go to the center to find voters.
And when they do get all 3, Obama passed the ACA, Biden passed green energy, student debt, drug price control, etc,. And the thanks they get is to then lose the midterm elections. Thanks voters that don't show up!
Biden did historically well in the midterms tbh. If it wasn't for gerrymandering and a population capped House, Dems would still have complete control of Congress
Yeah but it still kneecaps them. He can't even do a sweetheart border deal without the House.
Yeah my point is that voters did show up. Dems did historically well in 2022 for an incumbent party
Its just that the structure of our electoral politics favors rural areas and gerrymandered districts. Which currently means the red team benefits. Which isn't the fault of recent voters
He still lost the house. Not enough showed up.
Honestly, voting for representatives was a hard sell back then but after 2020 young people actually showed up to vote between presidential elections. Uniting the party is easy if all the elected party members are progressives.
The ACA is a huge black mark on Obama's legacy. Clinton certainly wasn't going to push for universal healthcare. She was just a terrible candidate.
It was just really hard to get excited to pay 1100$ a month for bare bones family insurance. (At the time...it's closer to 2500 a month today).
Oh the most progressive healthcare reform ever is suddenly a bad thing? Fucking lol.
Want more? Vote and give them consistent and overwhelming victories. 2 years every 16 years is going to be slow. Bump that up champ.
In America? That was Medicaid, and was established in 1965 by adding Title XIX to the Social Security Act. The PPACA was the biggest increase in enrollment since it was established, but was by no means universal or even approaching the scope of the original act.
Your first sentence is a joke right? Most progressive health care ever is a misnomer. It was Romneycare rebranded.
Get a clue
It's a joke if your "black mark" is a joke. Like it or not, it was and is the most progressive healthcare ever, on a federal level if you want to be pedantic. Get a clue indeed.
Which brings us back to: If you want more, then you have to give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
In what way was it more progressive than Medicare and Medicaid?
Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society is the high-water mark of progressive domestic legislation. Nothing in the 60 years since then is remotely close - quite the opposite, actually
Lucy with the football.
Hello Mr Crab! You have graced me with two messages today. What shall we cover today? Oh, that they "take away" something. Ok let's cover how much power they have had:
They have had control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years. If you to go back further, then it's 6 years of the last 44 fucking years. If you want more progress, then you're gonna have to up that!
Is this where you complain that they didn't do everything, everywhere, all at once when they had control? If so, then I say that writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can't do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
Ok we'll see how this conversation goes huh MrCrab.
And they wasted as much of that as possible. How large does the majority have to be? How long do we have to hold it before Democrats actually keep their fucking promises to someone other than Netanyahu?
When will Democrats start using the majorities we give them?
Yup there is Mr Crab! so I'll just C+P
Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
Here's a very short list of what Biden has done: Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along 'party lines'). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine.
But you want to suggest they aren't using the majority to do anything.
I wonder if that will suffice for this conversation!
Most of what you're claiming Biden accomplished aren't real accomplishments though... not yet at any rate. He WANTS to do more, it's that what he has done is either ineffective, blocked by the courts, or so far in the future nobody knows or cares.
For example...
EV investment. Biden signed a law pushing $7.5 billion dollars into fast charging infrastructure. That's fantastic! And 100% mandatory for an EV future.
In the 2 years since signing it, only 8 have been built. That's NOT a success.
https://reason.com/2024/05/30/7-5-billion-in-government-cash-only-built-8-e-v-chargers-in-2-5-years/
Now you can go "Well, that's not Biden's fault, he gave everyone the funding they needed to make it happen..."
No, but what IS Biden's fault is claiming it as a giant achievement when it's absolutely not.
When Republicans do it, we actively mock them, not claim we should put their face on Mt. Rushmore:
I'm sorry but y'all have no idea how many levels there are to infrastructure. Biden does funding and basic rules. Then the states and perhaps cities have to do the planning. Which is a big deal - if they're trying to fill in gaps they need to study this. Then after planning is public open houses and public input, which may change planning (loop created). That's where the nimbys get to cry and say no, which the government has to listen to and accommodate to various degree. Lots of back and forth between public, state planning, and federal ok. Then it goes to engineering (different than planning). Then a competitive bid - this is government, everything needs a long competitive bid for anti corruption. Then bid review. Then bid award. Then building permits. Then finally construction contractor mobilization. All those have wait times too because none of these companies or departments (planning, engineering, construction) are sitting twiddling their thumbs. New work generally goes to the back of the queue or has to be fit in somewhere.
Biden did his part, and yes after that it's not on him. Personally I don't blame or mock either party when things take time. He gets credit for his part. He was successful at his part.
You don't get to brag about it until it's done and it's, what? 1% done?
Same thing with student debt relief.
"We're going to forgive student debt! Yay!"
* If you borrowed $12,000 or less.
** And you haven't missed any payments in 10 years.
If you borrowed $12K or less and have been making payments for 10 years, you don't have any significant debt to forgive.
Dude I already explained the mechanism of infrastructure. I explained in great detail why it takes a long time and why you can't wait, which you don't even bother to respond to. You just make the same claim and you're off to the next one. For that I could talk about the courts and then how they had to rewrite the specifics (those weren't the conditions I heard, the ones I heard were very decent), but then you won't respond to the detail, you'll make the same claim, and you'll be off to next one again. What's the point?
So yes he gets credit for his part. Demanding we wait for the whole thing to play out when the wheels are in motion and it's happening is frankly ridiculous. Ciao.
I get it, it took a year of permitting and inspections to get solar panels on my house, but I wasn't bragging that it was done and how much solar I was generating when the project wasn't completed yet.
That's what Biden is doing. And if Harris loses in November, Trump will kill it all and Biden will have done nothing.
HE. HAS. NOT. RESCHEDULED. A. GODDAMNED. THING.
You've decided to lie to me, so we're done.
Lol are we at the point where you are being pedantic? He told whatever agency to take a look at scheduling, because it's their jurisdiction. Hint Hint wink wink.
You can be done, I just take it to mean you don't like his accomplishments (oh wait I said his, are you going to be pedantic again?)
You lied; we're done.
Lol yup you're being pedantic. On such an odd, little common turn of phrase. But you can leave, I just take it to mean you have no real response.
You lied. Cannabis is still Schedule 1. "We're looking into it" is not an accomplishment. You lied so we're done. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have lied.
Oh so instead I may have gotten a little ahead of the ball. Like wow you're still being pedantic. Instead of actually responding.
Have at being upset, I think everyone can see you're just trying to use it as an out instead of an intellectual response. Like how you keep saying you're done, but you keep coming back.
I was paying for health insurance when the ACA was passed. My cost went up and my coverage got worse, and nowadays I can't afford any coverage at all despite making too much money to qualify for Medicaid. The ACA increased "access to healthcare" but it was an absolute, unmitigated failure - Obama got exactly what he deserved for it.
I make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but my ACA premiums, net of tax credit, are $0. Sorry it hasn't worked for you, but that's obviously not the universal outcome.
So they can find just enough no votes like they always fucking do.
Hello Mr Crab! What should we cover today? Oh ok it looks like you're on a semi-conspiracy that they will "find" aka you are implying create no votes. I think it's enough to call out the conspiracy. I wonder if that's enough for this one.
It's not a conspiracy to notice that the party breaks its promises.
Ah MrCrab, you are implying that they do nothing, ever, anywhere, that any one of their voters want. Thus the semiconspiracy. As addressed in my other reply, you can't do everything, everywhere, all at once. Because: Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.
No, they do what you want. Break their promises and support genocide.
You're pretending that legislation can't be written ahead of time. You're making excuses.
Again: Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along 'party lines'). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine.
I like all that.
Obama's ACA? Like.
You don't blindly write everything ahead of time. This isn't like Project 2025 where you do whatever you want despite what the people want. The situation on the ground changes, what you can fund changes, what the most important issue is changes, the findings of studies changes, which reps and which senators will vote for what. Fucking everything changes.
Obama probably wanted to do more on healthcare. You know what changed? The fucking great recession. You have to change with the situation you have.
Biden probably wanted to fund more things? You know what changed everything? Fucking COVID with another insane budget crunch. He had to focus on covid relief first. Then see how business changes coming out of that. You have to change with the situation you have.
Seriously that you want to blindly write everything is just... unbelievable. That's dogma and ideology. Not reality, and the complexity and nuance of life (or politics, which is tenfold complexity and nuance).
You lied to me. We're done.
To anyone else, Mr Crab is upset that in a different chain that I said Biden rescheduled weed, when he told whatever agency to look at it. So he's using it as an out instead of replying.
You lied. Cannabis is still Schedule 1. "We're looking into it" is not an accomplishment. You lied so we're done. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have lied.
Oh so instead I may have gotten a little ahead of the ball. Like wow you're still being pedantic. Instead of actually responding.
Have at being upset, I think everyone can see you're just trying to use it as an out instead of an intellectual response. Like how you keep saying you're done, but you keep coming back.