He amplified his crackdown on soaring prescription drug costs, hidden fees for cable and air travel and corporate “price-gouging.” He also promised to “keep fighting to bring down costs.”
Following the links the above quote, the CNBC articles suggests we can expect progress on the first two items (prescription drug costs and hidden fees), but there's nothing I read in the linked article about dealing with price gouging other than some stern words. Maybe something is indeed in the works, but it wasn't obvious to me at the least.
Instead of taking a routine victory lap, the president doubled down on the war, pledging to do himself what the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes have not: Make things cheaper.
[…]
It is a marked tone shift from the president’s typical reactions to positive inflation data.
I do appreciate this narrative shift—transitioning from tone-deaf/gaslighting to acknowledging that key issues still aren't addressed.
He's trying to thread the needle, and to me it's kinda working. He won't be effective on most of it, I'm sure, but I've given up hope of effective government and just like it when it makes nice sounds.
I feel like the biggest reason he won’t be effective is that he’s against pure obstructionists in the GOP. They have no desire to govern and somehow won the House.
That and the biggest donors, on both political sides, have everything to lose from following through on stopping price gouging.
If they don’t, The golden goose will disappear forever
have everything to lose
You mean they won't profit as much.
Nothing they lose will be so much that they have to change their lifestyles over it.
Unless they've taken on lots of liability with the assumption of profit
Oh yeah, it's totally the GOP's fault. 100%. Just like the last 40 something years since Reagan. Which is why I've given up hope.
Note: I am not being sarcastic. The GOP broke our government.
You are massively underestimating the role of Democrats in getting us where we are today. It's not like industry consolidation slowed down when Democrats were in power.
Anti-trust is the real answer, at least within the scope of what neoliberalism will embrace. Biden has never been good on anti-trust. He's made some noise on that front recently, but it doesn't seem to have slowed down consolidation of every single industry.
What was the reason when Biden had the House and Senate?
Manchin and Sinema?
The reason inflation and price gouging continues under Biden? Inflation got better. And 40 years of deregulation and corporate mergers that never should have happened... That's pretty difficult to tackle in a 4 year term.
You mean a super slim majority with two "moderate" democrats holding every vote hostage?
This is the same shit we heard before when Obama was president. Republicans somehow manage to pass a ton of their shitty legislation, so maybe it's just that Democrats don't really give as much of a shit about the people as they say.
Because not all Dem senators have the same electorate base whereas republicans (although lately we're seeing a shift away from this) tend to fall lock step in line. Sinema and Munchin come from very purple states so their seats were never secure. It's not enough to have a slight majority. Also, the Senate is being held hostage by republicans right now with ever more polarization. I don't have an answer but to just pin it on the president is asinine. We need to show up to local elections and midterms.
Oh man that's right...
Too bad we didn't elect the guy with decades of Senate experience who.promised he'd be able to get Republican senators to vote for the Dem platform when a Dem Senate seemed impossible....
What's that?
That guy did get elected? And then as soon as he took office he did a 180 and said as president there's nothing he could do to change their mind and immediately gave up on the bulk of his campaign promises?
Huh...
You might remember that because of the filibuster, 41 Senators can block a bill from advancing, and despite that, quite a lot of bills got passed 51-50. Mitch McConnell could have stopped any and all of those bills if he wanted. It's probably not a coincidence that those passed and that Biden and McConnell have had a generally cordial relationship for decades.
The margin was so slim that he effectively didn't. If one or two democrats held out (and there were a few specific people who always did) then the votes would fail.
That would make sense...
If Biden hasn't spent the entire primary expecting a Republican Senate and telling everyone he was the only one to get Republicans onboard and that's why he should be president...
It's four years later. He wouldn't even try to get democrats onboard, he publicly said their choice is their choice and it would be wrong to try and change their mind.
So why is he running again?
Because he's the incumbent? It doesn't matter that as soon as he was elected, he said the reason he was elected just isn't possible?
Like, maybe if he had tried I could see letting him keep trying. But he immediately gave up. Do people get nearly think he'll start trying if he gets the second term? What's the excuse for not trying now?
Let's not forget how hard Biden worked to rehabilitate the anti-Trump Republicans. He has more Republican speakers at the DNC than progressives. All the worst shit Trump did had been Republican agenda items for decades. He should have hung Trump around their necks. Instead, he nearly handed them congresss.
Democrats know all they have to do is say the right things and people will keep voting.
Biden has no intention of doing anything meaningful on inflation.
Do you think Trump would?
He surely wouldn't but for those of who don't belong to either mainstream party your question is annoying AF. As long as we keep electing people from the same two pools of corporate backed idiots NOTHING is going to change.
None of us like it but most of us, eventually, learn what a trap third party voting is the way the system is set up. When you're young, naive and a bit idyllic it seems like an easy choice. "I'm standing up for change!" you think to yourself. Or perhaps the old "We gotta start somewhere, let's get that 5%!" nugget.
Then you get older and the shit you used watch from the sidelines on TV actually starts to affect your lives. Health care, education, retirement and other life issues show up and that naivety falls away rapidly as you learn that A) it'll take a revolution of sorts for any meaningful change and B) our lives are too short to hope for said revolution. Do we still want that change, absolutely. However, sometimes in life, you really do need to choose between the douche and the turd sandwich.
Then you get older...
Then you get even older and realize that choosing the douche or the turd sandwich ends up with you holding a douche or a turd sandwich.
At 52 I'm done with these games. Its too important to my children, my nation, and the actual environment I live in.
I don't think these people will ever get it. It's the same mentality that keeps climate change raging on, "I can't change anything on my own, so I'll just keep doing the same thing until someone else fixes it."
Fair to be fed up, but I feel that was more a concern when the two sides of the coin were very close to being the same. I'm not much behind you on age but I can still see that only one option TODAY is trying to blatantly and openly destroy most of the progress we made in your 52 years. I'd rather hold the douche and have a chance at getting out clean than hold the turd and assuredly end up covered in shit.
...but I can still see that only one option TODAY is trying to blatantly and openly destroy most of the progress we made in your 52 years.
They both are, one is just more open about it and willing to get there a bit faster on some issues. Yes, the bulk of Conservatives are somewhere between "Awful" and "JFC this person needs to be beamed into outer space!" but the Authoritarianism and Stupidity are running just as rampant among the so-called Liberals.
I’d rather hold the douche and have a chance at getting out clean than hold the turd and assuredly end up covered in shit.
You know what a douche is for, right? That's the point of that skit, it's a Hobsons Choice. It"s amazing to me people continually bring that skit up without understanding what it really meant.
Of course I know what one is for, the point I was making is that what SEEMS to be the same to you and what may have been is no longer the case.
You've clearly already checked out and, at best, listen to mainstream media if you're still in the "they are the same" or "one hides it better" camp. Lost cause.
I tried to ask an honest question ... no snark intended.
And I happen to agree with electing the insane same old-same old expecting different results.
Someone once explained representative democracy this way: Choosing a candidate is like riding a bus. None of them are going to come directly to where you are and none of them are going to drop you off at your exact destination. The best you can do is choose the one that gets you as close as possible in the shortest amount of time. Sometimes you're not even gonna get that close and you'll still have a long walk to your destination, but at least you'll be closer than where you started. Sometimes you have to take one bus then transfer to another to get to your final destination.
When the alternatives are buses that are traveling the opposite direction, your best available choice becomes very clear.
The place where this analogy falls apart is that by not taking either bus, you may actually lose ground and get further away from your destination. So I guess when the alternative is a bus that stands less than a 5% chance of arriving, you ultimately end up being shoved onto the bus that the majority of people are riding.
This person gets it.
The 'their guy sucks too' defense doesn't inspire much confidence.
Better to at least support whichever candidate is less likely to destroy the country while we wait for a better one to come and save it.
Ah, the "just wait til next time to vote for the person you want" argument that we see repeated every two years ad nauseam. That'll surely fix things.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but if you live in a swing state there is definitely an argument to be made about pragmatic damage control. I don't judge either way, if you don't feel like someone has earned your vote it isn't your fault that they haven't earned your vote.
I also agree that voting for the slightly less shitty candidate isn't going to fix anything in the longterm, but sometimes the best choice for the well being of people is damage control. Damage control isn't a strategy, but sometimes it is the best tactic within a broader strategy. That being said, fuck all that noise when people get upset at you for voting third party. You aren't the person that created a rigged system that doesn't provide meaningful choices for you to choose from. Someone can disagree with you on how best to fix that, but getting angry at you for choosing a different approach is just people taking out their anger on you for the system being rigged and broken.
That would be the third party candidates.
The last time a third party ever got close to winning the presidency was the progressive party with the candidate being Theodore motherfucking Roosevelt a well liked president to this day. And do you know what happened? It split the vote and we got fucking Wilson a segregationist bastard who revitalized the KKK and kept us out of WW1 which probably prolonged the war.
If you want a third party start at the local, dont even think about the presidency until ypu can overthrow one of the two parties. The Rupublicans went from being an irrelevancey to win ing the presidency back in the 1800s for example.
One thing that people fail to understand when voting third party is the overall makeup of the two big parties. Republicans are very homogenous. One need look no further than a picture of all republican senators and compare it to a picture of all current democrat senators. Both pictures will have a majority of white men, but one of those pictures will have a much larger number of minorities (women, people of color, etc...).
The democrat party is really an amalgam of lots of different types of people with different cultures and different desires unified by an interest in more progressive policy. But it's much harder to keep every sub-group of people happy. If even one of those sub-groups grows weary or defects to the other side, democrats lose.
I was happy for a while to start to see some cracks in the republican party, but I underestimated their ability to stick together despite having utter contempt for their populist leader. So many republicans detested the idea of a Trump presidency right up until he won. All of a sudden, they rabidly and staunchly defended his every action. There have only been a very few number of principled Republicans that have stood their ground against Trump, and one by one they're either losing elections or declining to run again. It's sad really.
He has no power to do anything really. I'm starting to think more socialism makes sense. I kind of want profit limits on certain essential sectors like food, medicine, probably others.
I'm tired of hearing about how company X made 3 billion more this quarter than last year. It's one thing to be profitable and make something, it's another to give it all to the execs and make consumers eat more year after year.
Raising prices to raise profits when you're still profitable is ridiculous and greedy.
I don't see how Biden could fix the situation on his own. It needs a massive change.
Nestle should not be allowed to own water supplies, it's beyond disgusting.
Want to buy a new TV? Sure capitalism ~can work for that~
Need Healthcare? Or food? Or internet? Or housing? Capitalism does not work for that.
Exactly. Nothing short of some socialism is going to fix this when companies can increase prices as much as they want. Current generation kids will say "well the fair market means someone will lower prices and everyone else will have to follow or lose customers." Adults know that all that's happening is everyone is raising prices across the board since they all win.
Depends on what you guys think "some" socialism means.
"Some" socialism means a minimum wage tied to inflation.
"Some" socialism means industries that provide basic necessities are well-regulated.
"Some" socialism means corporations pay taxes on income.
"Some" socialism means anyone paid in stocks (i.e. CEOs) pays taxes on the value of those stocks when they receive them (as income), and then pays capital gains when they sell them.
"Some" socialism means people pay into the social safety net (SSI, Medicaid, etc.) to the fullest extent of their income.
Continue as necessary.
All liberalism.
I'll never get articles like this. First off, Biden, specifically, is the one creating a price war? Huh, only him. No one else is engaged in any way, shape, or form.
Second, oh, he's only doing it because of the election. How do you know that? What proof do you have other than timing? Did you read his mind? That's a guess at best.
Third, why does the president always get all the blame or all the praise no matter what? We don't have a dictatorship (however much some people want us to). This has always seemed to be such bullshit to me. I hate how people act like the president is to blame for every single bad thing that ever happens that's even tangentially related to the government and given all the praise when other parts of the government did things that the president has nothing to do with.
Four, there's so much bias on this article that basically just says "Biden bad even though he's trying to help. Doesn't matter. He's still bad."
I mean, it's not anything special to presidency. With concerts, it's the conductor that gets the praise… with companies, it's CEOs, with sports it's usually coaches.
We're not good in general at remembering the individuals, let alone acknowledging them and their cog in the machine. A flaw to be sure, but a universal one.
That said, I certainly agree with the sentiment, the wrong people do get the praise and blame for those under their authority.
Well, I dunno' about a universal problem, but it's definitely a nasty little thing stuck in the craw of the social zeitgeist.
I genuinely blame it on corporate media. They NEVER simply describe events and must sensationalize and narrativize everything. It gives credibility to what would otherwise be judgemental gossip, and people latch on and follow suit because of the sense of formality the "news" gives it.
Well said but 50%-60% of everyone else is fucking stupid. You can't fix stupid.
George Carlin said it best. To paraphrase: Think about a person of average intelligence. Now realize that 50% of people are stupider than that.
I'm not sure what you're arguing. The authors claim that voters hold Biden responsible for a rising cost of living, but they don't even write the words "cost of living" or "consumer price index" so they obviously are not good at their jobs. In reality, "inflation" doesn't tell us anything about the impact on the average person. So I think everyone agrees that the authors need to write better. If that's your complaint, everyone agrees.
But what about Biden? I believe most people believe that centrist Democrats such as Biden are not serious about limiting corporate greed, because the Democrats have consistently failed to address the issue for the past few decades. Bank bailouts, unchecked private health care costs, train staff strike response, the list goes on. If Biden wants to score points with center-left voters, and certainly if he wants to get votes from far-left voters, he's going to need to pass some legislation to show that the future will be different from the past.
In other words, if he's all talk and no action, of course people are going to dump on him for it. He's the president, and he's certainly capable of doing something. Or you could argue that he's powerless because of Congress, but then who cares what his image is, because he's not doing anything, so good for him but the rest of us have other things to do.
If I may, it’s almost as if…
THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!
Somebody should run a political campaign on this premise
It'll only work if they have some seriously epic facial hair
And maybe some kind of memorable accessory? Gloves are cool, let's go with gloves.
Inflation cooling doesn't mean prices go down.
Especially when it seems most were artificially inflated.
Can't let the shareholders get hurt
LINE GO UP
ALWAYS
Worrying about the price of cable is the most boomer shit I've ever heard of.
Cable companies having a monopoly on internet in most areas affect almost everyone and should be dealt with though (it won't be though).
Right?
At my address, my choices for high speed Internet are Comcast or Go Fuck Yourself.
Go Fuck Yourself seems like the best option
If only I could go fuck myself at 500mbps... 😩
If you look at other countries like Germany you can get high speed 400mbps for around $30-35 a month. Fiber isn't as available in a lot of areas but it is expanding and you can get 1000mbps for $45 a month.
US cable companies are price gouging customers so bad. And that's all while getting money from the government to fund their infrastructure expansions.
Mediacom charges us $110 for 200 mbps here in America
$150 for "gigabit" which in practice means I usually get around 450mb.
"People are paying too much for television packages and don't have options to change it!"
"Yeah Grandpa, we figured this out in 2010."
Yeah, just pay $20 a month across 16 different streaming services that all have siloed content! It's so much better now! /s
We figured this out by pirating shit.
Amen. It's like piracy is the only governing force in capitalism anymore since there seems to be no regulation otherwise. The old cable monopoly is just now the multi-threaded streaming monopoly.
don't forget that you can't even use those without a $60+/m internet connection!
About time we saw some Dark Brandon again.
I used to think that was the dumbest shit a democratic administration would embrace...
Then they started unironically using the term "Bidenomics" like making people associate Biden and Regan was a good thing.
Like, if 20 years ago someone said in 2024 both candidates for US president would be ripping off Ronald Regan Id have laughed in your face.
But we're really fucking there, and at this point no democratic voter has a say of in it
A dozen eggs costs over $6 still. This is after the industry was called out for gouging 15-20 years ago AND after the bird flu panic raised prices a year or 2 ago (that was found to be BS too). He ain’t gonna do anything. He is another “chump block” for big biz, but at least he’s not Trump. I’m so tired of all this edit: some pics of the egg prices here today
Might be the store you shop at is to blame. I can get a dozen cage free eggs for $2.49 at my local Safeway. I feel like some stores just refused to lower their prices back down after that bird flu panic. They're all greedy, some just greedier than others.
$3.49 here.
That’s crazy. I was happy to buy Aldi’s eggs for $1.29/dozen, and I searched the brand. The results are so disgusting, I understand now that I most hard-boil or hard-scramble them or risk illness. I guess eggs are on their way out because I’m not paying that. Maybe firm tofu for protein.
I have several stores to pick from and that’s what the it is here. (Chicago area)
I grew up in Chicago area. Out of curiosity, I looked it up on the Jewel Osco website and a dozen normal eggs is 2 bucks a dozen, currently on sale for $1.79.
You are correct. Da jewel has their brand at that price, but no one ever buys those more than once. Here are the prices from jewelz about an hour ago...note the completely untouched house brand. And for anyone else, this is a mid-tier grocery store edit: pinch and zoom for fucks sake. was uploaded mobile. stopped paying adobe and i still need to put the time into learning Gimp. EDIT2: why are you downvoting can you not see or does it hurt when your lying eyes see this?
edit: pinch and zoom for fucks sake. was uploaded mobile.
cool but I'm reading this on desktop.
Although I agree that the egg industry has shown itself to be miserable bastards, I feel like all you've demonstrated is that consumers are still being gouged for eggs in chicago.
Prices have come down a lot here, and based on replies to your comment, many other places also.
That does suck, but it also leads me to believe that some entity local to you is the source of the problem.
Jewel and Mariano’s both have the cheapest eggs at or under $2.50. I get the ones that are supposedly more humane and for $5 though.
I live in the middle of Wyoming and an 18 pack of eggs is only $3.48 at Walmart. I dunno what HCOL area you're in or what kind of fancy stores you visit but eggs costing 50 cents each isn't the norm.
I live in a HCOL area and a dozen eggs at Lidl is under $2
$2.82 for 18 here from a store brand, $3.84 for 18 cage free.
Got plenty of billions to give to Netanyahu to continue his genocide of Palestinians no matter what. Just not enough for Americans to have stuff like healthcare or retirement.
Nope.
Gotta have priorities, it's not like we could ask the wealthiest to pay their fair of taxes either. Just think of all the donations politicians like Biden would lose our on!
What the fuck are you talking about? Biden and the Democrats are the only politicians trying to tax the rich, get people healthcare, and keep Medicare funded. Blame the Republicans that stop them every time. It has nothing to do with not being able to afford it.
Yea the US could sacrifice zero dollars in defense budget and still provide adequate service to the population. Healthcare is cheaper when it's not being profiteered by insurance middlemen, and private companies pricing is really hard to influence directly without something like a price fixing lawsuit.
But hey gotta maintain the "democrats are just as bad" image.
They’re one of those “gEnOcIdEr JoE” types that don’t realize the US would’ve backed Israel regardless of who was President.
Also, the military industrial complex is fucking insane and it’s arguable that the US has invested so much into it that it would hugely impact the economy between all the programs, jobs, and money in general we (over)give to them.
Of course I know we would have supported Israel regardless. They are an ally who was attacked. It's the right thing to do. That isn't to say that I don't think there shouldn't be restrictions that come with that aid. Limits on civilian casualties for example. That is all irrelevant to the point.
You're right that the MIC is a huge part of the economy, so if anything supplying weapons to Israel will inject billions into the US economy. That will only help the finances of the average American.
Not necessarily. Reagan stopped the bombing of West Beirut with a phone call. Fucking Reagan. Maybe at the start the US would've backed Israel, but things getting this bad is clearly genocide Joe's fault.
Yes.
If you pretend the only two options are Republicans or Moderate Dems, then the moderate Dems are the only ones doing anything.
They're throwing glasses of water on the fire while your house burns down and stopping for five minutes between glasses to demand you praise them.
And that is the two party system. And only the two parties can change it.
Which is why Bernie has spent decades trying to get a progressive movement going. And it's finally happening.
So now we have some democrats willing to fix shit.
But don't just lump everyone with a "D" next to their name into the same group.
So I'll go back to blaming the Republicans when Republicans make shit worse.
And I'll keep blaming moderate Dems when they refuse to fix anything once in power. Even the rare things they do fix, it's still less than what Republicans break.
Keep it up, shit keeps getting worse. It's just hitting a couple branches on your way down. It's ain't even a parachute, sure as shit isn't preventing the fall.
Everyone with a D by their name is in the same group. That is what a two party system means. There are no moderate or progressive Democrats. There are just Democrats. Sowing division amongst Democrats only helps Republicans.
There are no moderate or progressive Democrats. There are just Democrats.
While I agree with the message of unity in your comment, why would you push it via this complete fabrication?
When you look at the ballot to vote, It just says Democrat. In other countries there are more options, but here it is just D and R.
Having standards is sowing division!
Manchin and FDR are exactly equals!
If there's a D by the name we must support everything they do!
Get the Republicans out of power. Then you can criticize the Democrats all you want. That is all that matters. They are an existential threat.
Don't criticize Joe during the primary!
Don't criticize Joe during the general!
Dont criticize Joe his first two years, he's still getting things going!
Don't criticize Joe year three, an election is coming!
Looks like that's it for now, but I have a pretty good idea what comes next
Either we repeat those steps again, or you're actually right and Republicans are in power, then we still can't criticize him.
When exactly are we allowed to disagree with our politicians again? I knew Republicans stopped long ago. But I honestly missed the memo democrats are doing it now too.
Think I'll pass tho, it looked to work out pretty bad for Republicans
This thread is getting really cultish huh? If you just change a few terms around its uncanny...
I bet there's like a right-wing thread out there, a bizarro version of this one.
A Republican poster writes, saying they are gonna vote third party, cuz 'fuck dems' and also 'fuck the increasing fascism in the R party'
(It's probably out there, right? Bear with me).
In that possible/probable posting i wonder if we'd see responses like these?
Get the Democrats out of power. Then you can criticize the Republicans all you want. That is all that matters. They are an existential threat.
I feel like I've even read that on FOX news.
Everyone with a R by their name is in the same group. That is what a two party system means. There are no moderate or far-right Republicans. There are just Republicans. Sowing division amongst Republicans only helps Democrats.
Not as bad as the first one, but still shuts down thought.
I got long winded and i also don't know how to end it so hey, i appreciate you.
Beat Trump. Nothing else matters besides that.
Not only funding genocide but also defunding a country legitimately trying to defend itself from an invasion. Somehow, he can invoke emergency powers to weaponize Israel, but Ukraine's fate is left to another group who can't even manage to pass a bowl of mashed potatoes.
Military budget has nothing to do with prescription drugs and groceries.
Wait...
You think the 15 billion Biden wants Israel to have is coming out of the defense budget?!
You think any of the billions we give them annually is being taken away from the DoD?
Ludacris.
The military budget isn't paying for that.
It's getting added to our debt, which will then prevent moderates and Republicans from supporting shit like universal healthcare or tax cuts to the least wealthy
Gotta say, didn't think I'd have to break that down. Thought everyone in a political sub would understand
If you think that Republicans are against universal healthcare and progressive tax structures because the national debt is too high, then I also have a bridge to sell you.
They don't support those things because it's evil, evil socialism and makes rich people slightly less rich. Even if the debt was $0, they'd still oppose things like that. It's who they are.
Both groups will use any excuse not to do those things.
But an extra 15 billion in addition to the like 1.5 billion Israel always gets is going to give them a great big debt to point to. And they won't take that from defense spending.
It will be used to justify cuts to other shit we actually need.
When they don't have a plausible excuse, theyre less like to get re-elected.
It's why Netanyahu's government doesn't want to get rid of Hamas. They'd still do all the fucked up shit they always do, Hamas is just the best excuse they have
And debt is the best excuse "moderate" Dems have for standing lockstep with Republicans against progress.
Your really keeping that armchair warm aren't you.
Following the links the above quote, the CNBC articles suggests we can expect progress on the first two items (prescription drug costs and hidden fees), but there's nothing I read in the linked article about dealing with price gouging other than some stern words. Maybe something is indeed in the works, but it wasn't obvious to me at the least.
I do appreciate this narrative shift—transitioning from tone-deaf/gaslighting to acknowledging that key issues still aren't addressed.
He's trying to thread the needle, and to me it's kinda working. He won't be effective on most of it, I'm sure, but I've given up hope of effective government and just like it when it makes nice sounds.
I feel like the biggest reason he won’t be effective is that he’s against pure obstructionists in the GOP. They have no desire to govern and somehow won the House.
That and the biggest donors, on both political sides, have everything to lose from following through on stopping price gouging.
If they don’t, The golden goose will disappear forever
You mean they won't profit as much.
Nothing they lose will be so much that they have to change their lifestyles over it.
Unless they've taken on lots of liability with the assumption of profit
Oh yeah, it's totally the GOP's fault. 100%. Just like the last 40 something years since Reagan. Which is why I've given up hope.
Note: I am not being sarcastic. The GOP broke our government.
You are massively underestimating the role of Democrats in getting us where we are today. It's not like industry consolidation slowed down when Democrats were in power.
Anti-trust is the real answer, at least within the scope of what neoliberalism will embrace. Biden has never been good on anti-trust. He's made some noise on that front recently, but it doesn't seem to have slowed down consolidation of every single industry.
What was the reason when Biden had the House and Senate?
Manchin and Sinema?
The reason inflation and price gouging continues under Biden? Inflation got better. And 40 years of deregulation and corporate mergers that never should have happened... That's pretty difficult to tackle in a 4 year term.
You mean a super slim majority with two "moderate" democrats holding every vote hostage?
This is the same shit we heard before when Obama was president. Republicans somehow manage to pass a ton of their shitty legislation, so maybe it's just that Democrats don't really give as much of a shit about the people as they say.
Because not all Dem senators have the same electorate base whereas republicans (although lately we're seeing a shift away from this) tend to fall lock step in line. Sinema and Munchin come from very purple states so their seats were never secure. It's not enough to have a slight majority. Also, the Senate is being held hostage by republicans right now with ever more polarization. I don't have an answer but to just pin it on the president is asinine. We need to show up to local elections and midterms.
Oh man that's right...
Too bad we didn't elect the guy with decades of Senate experience who.promised he'd be able to get Republican senators to vote for the Dem platform when a Dem Senate seemed impossible....
What's that?
That guy did get elected? And then as soon as he took office he did a 180 and said as president there's nothing he could do to change their mind and immediately gave up on the bulk of his campaign promises?
Huh...
You might remember that because of the filibuster, 41 Senators can block a bill from advancing, and despite that, quite a lot of bills got passed 51-50. Mitch McConnell could have stopped any and all of those bills if he wanted. It's probably not a coincidence that those passed and that Biden and McConnell have had a generally cordial relationship for decades.
The margin was so slim that he effectively didn't. If one or two democrats held out (and there were a few specific people who always did) then the votes would fail.
That would make sense...
If Biden hasn't spent the entire primary expecting a Republican Senate and telling everyone he was the only one to get Republicans onboard and that's why he should be president...
It's four years later. He wouldn't even try to get democrats onboard, he publicly said their choice is their choice and it would be wrong to try and change their mind.
So why is he running again?
Because he's the incumbent? It doesn't matter that as soon as he was elected, he said the reason he was elected just isn't possible?
Like, maybe if he had tried I could see letting him keep trying. But he immediately gave up. Do people get nearly think he'll start trying if he gets the second term? What's the excuse for not trying now?
Let's not forget how hard Biden worked to rehabilitate the anti-Trump Republicans. He has more Republican speakers at the DNC than progressives. All the worst shit Trump did had been Republican agenda items for decades. He should have hung Trump around their necks. Instead, he nearly handed them congresss.
Democrats know all they have to do is say the right things and people will keep voting.
Biden has no intention of doing anything meaningful on inflation.
Do you think Trump would?
He surely wouldn't but for those of who don't belong to either mainstream party your question is annoying AF. As long as we keep electing people from the same two pools of corporate backed idiots NOTHING is going to change.
None of us like it but most of us, eventually, learn what a trap third party voting is the way the system is set up. When you're young, naive and a bit idyllic it seems like an easy choice. "I'm standing up for change!" you think to yourself. Or perhaps the old "We gotta start somewhere, let's get that 5%!" nugget.
Then you get older and the shit you used watch from the sidelines on TV actually starts to affect your lives. Health care, education, retirement and other life issues show up and that naivety falls away rapidly as you learn that A) it'll take a revolution of sorts for any meaningful change and B) our lives are too short to hope for said revolution. Do we still want that change, absolutely. However, sometimes in life, you really do need to choose between the douche and the turd sandwich.
Then you get even older and realize that choosing the douche or the turd sandwich ends up with you holding a douche or a turd sandwich.
At 52 I'm done with these games. Its too important to my children, my nation, and the actual environment I live in.
I don't think these people will ever get it. It's the same mentality that keeps climate change raging on, "I can't change anything on my own, so I'll just keep doing the same thing until someone else fixes it."
Fair to be fed up, but I feel that was more a concern when the two sides of the coin were very close to being the same. I'm not much behind you on age but I can still see that only one option TODAY is trying to blatantly and openly destroy most of the progress we made in your 52 years. I'd rather hold the douche and have a chance at getting out clean than hold the turd and assuredly end up covered in shit.
They both are, one is just more open about it and willing to get there a bit faster on some issues. Yes, the bulk of Conservatives are somewhere between "Awful" and "JFC this person needs to be beamed into outer space!" but the Authoritarianism and Stupidity are running just as rampant among the so-called Liberals.
You know what a douche is for, right? That's the point of that skit, it's a Hobsons Choice. It"s amazing to me people continually bring that skit up without understanding what it really meant.
Of course I know what one is for, the point I was making is that what SEEMS to be the same to you and what may have been is no longer the case.
You've clearly already checked out and, at best, listen to mainstream media if you're still in the "they are the same" or "one hides it better" camp. Lost cause.
I tried to ask an honest question ... no snark intended.
And I happen to agree with electing the insane same old-same old expecting different results.
Someone once explained representative democracy this way: Choosing a candidate is like riding a bus. None of them are going to come directly to where you are and none of them are going to drop you off at your exact destination. The best you can do is choose the one that gets you as close as possible in the shortest amount of time. Sometimes you're not even gonna get that close and you'll still have a long walk to your destination, but at least you'll be closer than where you started. Sometimes you have to take one bus then transfer to another to get to your final destination.
When the alternatives are buses that are traveling the opposite direction, your best available choice becomes very clear.
The place where this analogy falls apart is that by not taking either bus, you may actually lose ground and get further away from your destination. So I guess when the alternative is a bus that stands less than a 5% chance of arriving, you ultimately end up being shoved onto the bus that the majority of people are riding.
This person gets it.
The 'their guy sucks too' defense doesn't inspire much confidence.
Better to at least support whichever candidate is less likely to destroy the country while we wait for a better one to come and save it.
Ah, the "just wait til next time to vote for the person you want" argument that we see repeated every two years ad nauseam. That'll surely fix things.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but if you live in a swing state there is definitely an argument to be made about pragmatic damage control. I don't judge either way, if you don't feel like someone has earned your vote it isn't your fault that they haven't earned your vote.
I also agree that voting for the slightly less shitty candidate isn't going to fix anything in the longterm, but sometimes the best choice for the well being of people is damage control. Damage control isn't a strategy, but sometimes it is the best tactic within a broader strategy. That being said, fuck all that noise when people get upset at you for voting third party. You aren't the person that created a rigged system that doesn't provide meaningful choices for you to choose from. Someone can disagree with you on how best to fix that, but getting angry at you for choosing a different approach is just people taking out their anger on you for the system being rigged and broken.
That would be the third party candidates.
The last time a third party ever got close to winning the presidency was the progressive party with the candidate being Theodore motherfucking Roosevelt a well liked president to this day. And do you know what happened? It split the vote and we got fucking Wilson a segregationist bastard who revitalized the KKK and kept us out of WW1 which probably prolonged the war.
If you want a third party start at the local, dont even think about the presidency until ypu can overthrow one of the two parties. The Rupublicans went from being an irrelevancey to win ing the presidency back in the 1800s for example.
One thing that people fail to understand when voting third party is the overall makeup of the two big parties. Republicans are very homogenous. One need look no further than a picture of all republican senators and compare it to a picture of all current democrat senators. Both pictures will have a majority of white men, but one of those pictures will have a much larger number of minorities (women, people of color, etc...).
The democrat party is really an amalgam of lots of different types of people with different cultures and different desires unified by an interest in more progressive policy. But it's much harder to keep every sub-group of people happy. If even one of those sub-groups grows weary or defects to the other side, democrats lose.
I was happy for a while to start to see some cracks in the republican party, but I underestimated their ability to stick together despite having utter contempt for their populist leader. So many republicans detested the idea of a Trump presidency right up until he won. All of a sudden, they rabidly and staunchly defended his every action. There have only been a very few number of principled Republicans that have stood their ground against Trump, and one by one they're either losing elections or declining to run again. It's sad really.
He has no power to do anything really. I'm starting to think more socialism makes sense. I kind of want profit limits on certain essential sectors like food, medicine, probably others.
I'm tired of hearing about how company X made 3 billion more this quarter than last year. It's one thing to be profitable and make something, it's another to give it all to the execs and make consumers eat more year after year.
Raising prices to raise profits when you're still profitable is ridiculous and greedy.
I don't see how Biden could fix the situation on his own. It needs a massive change.
Nestle should not be allowed to own water supplies, it's beyond disgusting.
Want to buy a new TV? Sure capitalism ~can work for that~
Need Healthcare? Or food? Or internet? Or housing? Capitalism does not work for that.
Exactly. Nothing short of some socialism is going to fix this when companies can increase prices as much as they want. Current generation kids will say "well the fair market means someone will lower prices and everyone else will have to follow or lose customers." Adults know that all that's happening is everyone is raising prices across the board since they all win.
Depends on what you guys think "some" socialism means.
"Some" socialism means a minimum wage tied to inflation.
"Some" socialism means industries that provide basic necessities are well-regulated.
"Some" socialism means corporations pay taxes on income.
"Some" socialism means anyone paid in stocks (i.e. CEOs) pays taxes on the value of those stocks when they receive them (as income), and then pays capital gains when they sell them.
"Some" socialism means people pay into the social safety net (SSI, Medicaid, etc.) to the fullest extent of their income.
Continue as necessary.
All liberalism.
I'll never get articles like this. First off, Biden, specifically, is the one creating a price war? Huh, only him. No one else is engaged in any way, shape, or form.
Second, oh, he's only doing it because of the election. How do you know that? What proof do you have other than timing? Did you read his mind? That's a guess at best.
Third, why does the president always get all the blame or all the praise no matter what? We don't have a dictatorship (however much some people want us to). This has always seemed to be such bullshit to me. I hate how people act like the president is to blame for every single bad thing that ever happens that's even tangentially related to the government and given all the praise when other parts of the government did things that the president has nothing to do with.
Four, there's so much bias on this article that basically just says "Biden bad even though he's trying to help. Doesn't matter. He's still bad."
I mean, it's not anything special to presidency. With concerts, it's the conductor that gets the praise… with companies, it's CEOs, with sports it's usually coaches.
We're not good in general at remembering the individuals, let alone acknowledging them and their cog in the machine. A flaw to be sure, but a universal one.
That said, I certainly agree with the sentiment, the wrong people do get the praise and blame for those under their authority.
Well, I dunno' about a universal problem, but it's definitely a nasty little thing stuck in the craw of the social zeitgeist.
I genuinely blame it on corporate media. They NEVER simply describe events and must sensationalize and narrativize everything. It gives credibility to what would otherwise be judgemental gossip, and people latch on and follow suit because of the sense of formality the "news" gives it.
Well said but 50%-60% of everyone else is fucking stupid. You can't fix stupid.
George Carlin said it best. To paraphrase: Think about a person of average intelligence. Now realize that 50% of people are stupider than that.
I'm not sure what you're arguing. The authors claim that voters hold Biden responsible for a rising cost of living, but they don't even write the words "cost of living" or "consumer price index" so they obviously are not good at their jobs. In reality, "inflation" doesn't tell us anything about the impact on the average person. So I think everyone agrees that the authors need to write better. If that's your complaint, everyone agrees.
But what about Biden? I believe most people believe that centrist Democrats such as Biden are not serious about limiting corporate greed, because the Democrats have consistently failed to address the issue for the past few decades. Bank bailouts, unchecked private health care costs, train staff strike response, the list goes on. If Biden wants to score points with center-left voters, and certainly if he wants to get votes from far-left voters, he's going to need to pass some legislation to show that the future will be different from the past.
In other words, if he's all talk and no action, of course people are going to dump on him for it. He's the president, and he's certainly capable of doing something. Or you could argue that he's powerless because of Congress, but then who cares what his image is, because he's not doing anything, so good for him but the rest of us have other things to do.
If I may, it’s almost as if…
THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!
Somebody should run a political campaign on this premise
It'll only work if they have some seriously epic facial hair
And maybe some kind of memorable accessory? Gloves are cool, let's go with gloves.
Inflation cooling doesn't mean prices go down.
Especially when it seems most were artificially inflated.
Can't let the shareholders get hurt
LINE GO UP
ALWAYS
Worrying about the price of cable is the most boomer shit I've ever heard of.
Cable companies having a monopoly on internet in most areas affect almost everyone and should be dealt with though (it won't be though).
Right?
At my address, my choices for high speed Internet are Comcast or Go Fuck Yourself.
Go Fuck Yourself seems like the best option
If only I could go fuck myself at 500mbps... 😩
If you look at other countries like Germany you can get high speed 400mbps for around $30-35 a month. Fiber isn't as available in a lot of areas but it is expanding and you can get 1000mbps for $45 a month.
US cable companies are price gouging customers so bad. And that's all while getting money from the government to fund their infrastructure expansions.
Mediacom charges us $110 for 200 mbps here in America
$150 for "gigabit" which in practice means I usually get around 450mb.
"People are paying too much for television packages and don't have options to change it!"
"Yeah Grandpa, we figured this out in 2010."
Yeah, just pay $20 a month across 16 different streaming services that all have siloed content! It's so much better now! /s
We figured this out by pirating shit.
Amen. It's like piracy is the only governing force in capitalism anymore since there seems to be no regulation otherwise. The old cable monopoly is just now the multi-threaded streaming monopoly.
don't forget that you can't even use those without a $60+/m internet connection!
About time we saw some Dark Brandon again.
I used to think that was the dumbest shit a democratic administration would embrace...
Then they started unironically using the term "Bidenomics" like making people associate Biden and Regan was a good thing.
Like, if 20 years ago someone said in 2024 both candidates for US president would be ripping off Ronald Regan Id have laughed in your face.
But we're really fucking there, and at this point no democratic voter has a say of in it
A dozen eggs costs over $6 still. This is after the industry was called out for gouging 15-20 years ago AND after the bird flu panic raised prices a year or 2 ago (that was found to be BS too). He ain’t gonna do anything. He is another “chump block” for big biz, but at least he’s not Trump. I’m so tired of all this edit: some pics of the egg prices here today
Might be the store you shop at is to blame. I can get a dozen cage free eggs for $2.49 at my local Safeway. I feel like some stores just refused to lower their prices back down after that bird flu panic. They're all greedy, some just greedier than others.
$3.49 here.
That’s crazy. I was happy to buy Aldi’s eggs for $1.29/dozen, and I searched the brand. The results are so disgusting, I understand now that I most hard-boil or hard-scramble them or risk illness. I guess eggs are on their way out because I’m not paying that. Maybe firm tofu for protein.
I have several stores to pick from and that’s what the it is here. (Chicago area)
I grew up in Chicago area. Out of curiosity, I looked it up on the Jewel Osco website and a dozen normal eggs is 2 bucks a dozen, currently on sale for $1.79.
You are correct. Da jewel has their brand at that price, but no one ever buys those more than once. Here are the prices from jewelz about an hour ago...note the completely untouched house brand. And for anyone else, this is a mid-tier grocery store edit: pinch and zoom for fucks sake. was uploaded mobile. stopped paying adobe and i still need to put the time into learning Gimp. EDIT2: why are you downvoting can you not see or does it hurt when your lying eyes see this?
cool but I'm reading this on desktop.
Although I agree that the egg industry has shown itself to be miserable bastards, I feel like all you've demonstrated is that consumers are still being gouged for eggs in chicago.
Prices have come down a lot here, and based on replies to your comment, many other places also.
That does suck, but it also leads me to believe that some entity local to you is the source of the problem.
Jewel and Mariano’s both have the cheapest eggs at or under $2.50. I get the ones that are supposedly more humane and for $5 though.
People shop at the stores available, to which they can travel.
I live in the middle of Wyoming and an 18 pack of eggs is only $3.48 at Walmart. I dunno what HCOL area you're in or what kind of fancy stores you visit but eggs costing 50 cents each isn't the norm.
I live in a HCOL area and a dozen eggs at Lidl is under $2
$2.82 for 18 here from a store brand, $3.84 for 18 cage free.
But funding genocide isn't unaffordable...
Got plenty of billions to give to Netanyahu to continue his genocide of Palestinians no matter what. Just not enough for Americans to have stuff like healthcare or retirement.
Nope.
Gotta have priorities, it's not like we could ask the wealthiest to pay their fair of taxes either. Just think of all the donations politicians like Biden would lose our on!
What the fuck are you talking about? Biden and the Democrats are the only politicians trying to tax the rich, get people healthcare, and keep Medicare funded. Blame the Republicans that stop them every time. It has nothing to do with not being able to afford it.
Yea the US could sacrifice zero dollars in defense budget and still provide adequate service to the population. Healthcare is cheaper when it's not being profiteered by insurance middlemen, and private companies pricing is really hard to influence directly without something like a price fixing lawsuit.
But hey gotta maintain the "democrats are just as bad" image.
They’re one of those “gEnOcIdEr JoE” types that don’t realize the US would’ve backed Israel regardless of who was President.
Also, the military industrial complex is fucking insane and it’s arguable that the US has invested so much into it that it would hugely impact the economy between all the programs, jobs, and money in general we (over)give to them.
Of course I know we would have supported Israel regardless. They are an ally who was attacked. It's the right thing to do. That isn't to say that I don't think there shouldn't be restrictions that come with that aid. Limits on civilian casualties for example. That is all irrelevant to the point.
You're right that the MIC is a huge part of the economy, so if anything supplying weapons to Israel will inject billions into the US economy. That will only help the finances of the average American.
Not necessarily. Reagan stopped the bombing of West Beirut with a phone call. Fucking Reagan. Maybe at the start the US would've backed Israel, but things getting this bad is clearly genocide Joe's fault.
Yes.
If you pretend the only two options are Republicans or Moderate Dems, then the moderate Dems are the only ones doing anything.
They're throwing glasses of water on the fire while your house burns down and stopping for five minutes between glasses to demand you praise them.
And that is the two party system. And only the two parties can change it.
Which is why Bernie has spent decades trying to get a progressive movement going. And it's finally happening.
So now we have some democrats willing to fix shit.
But don't just lump everyone with a "D" next to their name into the same group.
So I'll go back to blaming the Republicans when Republicans make shit worse.
And I'll keep blaming moderate Dems when they refuse to fix anything once in power. Even the rare things they do fix, it's still less than what Republicans break.
Keep it up, shit keeps getting worse. It's just hitting a couple branches on your way down. It's ain't even a parachute, sure as shit isn't preventing the fall.
Everyone with a D by their name is in the same group. That is what a two party system means. There are no moderate or progressive Democrats. There are just Democrats. Sowing division amongst Democrats only helps Republicans.
While I agree with the message of unity in your comment, why would you push it via this complete fabrication?
As just one example among many -
AOC: ‘In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party’
When you look at the ballot to vote, It just says Democrat. In other countries there are more options, but here it is just D and R.
Get the Republicans out of power. Then you can criticize the Democrats all you want. That is all that matters. They are an existential threat.
Looks like that's it for now, but I have a pretty good idea what comes next
Either we repeat those steps again, or you're actually right and Republicans are in power, then we still can't criticize him.
When exactly are we allowed to disagree with our politicians again? I knew Republicans stopped long ago. But I honestly missed the memo democrats are doing it now too.
Think I'll pass tho, it looked to work out pretty bad for Republicans
This thread is getting really cultish huh? If you just change a few terms around its uncanny... I bet there's like a right-wing thread out there, a bizarro version of this one.
A Republican poster writes, saying they are gonna vote third party, cuz 'fuck dems' and also 'fuck the increasing fascism in the R party'
(It's probably out there, right? Bear with me).
In that possible/probable posting i wonder if we'd see responses like these?
I feel like I've even read that on FOX news.
Not as bad as the first one, but still shuts down thought.
I got long winded and i also don't know how to end it so hey, i appreciate you.
Beat Trump. Nothing else matters besides that.
Not only funding genocide but also defunding a country legitimately trying to defend itself from an invasion. Somehow, he can invoke emergency powers to weaponize Israel, but Ukraine's fate is left to another group who can't even manage to pass a bowl of mashed potatoes.
Military budget has nothing to do with prescription drugs and groceries.
Wait...
You think the 15 billion Biden wants Israel to have is coming out of the defense budget?!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/us/politics/bidens-funds-israel-ukraine.html
You think any of the billions we give them annually is being taken away from the DoD?
Ludacris.
The military budget isn't paying for that.
It's getting added to our debt, which will then prevent moderates and Republicans from supporting shit like universal healthcare or tax cuts to the least wealthy
Gotta say, didn't think I'd have to break that down. Thought everyone in a political sub would understand
If you think that Republicans are against universal healthcare and progressive tax structures because the national debt is too high, then I also have a bridge to sell you.
They don't support those things because it's evil, evil socialism and makes rich people slightly less rich. Even if the debt was $0, they'd still oppose things like that. It's who they are.
Both groups will use any excuse not to do those things.
But an extra 15 billion in addition to the like 1.5 billion Israel always gets is going to give them a great big debt to point to. And they won't take that from defense spending.
It will be used to justify cuts to other shit we actually need.
When they don't have a plausible excuse, theyre less like to get re-elected.
It's why Netanyahu's government doesn't want to get rid of Hamas. They'd still do all the fucked up shit they always do, Hamas is just the best excuse they have
And debt is the best excuse "moderate" Dems have for standing lockstep with Republicans against progress.
Your really keeping that armchair warm aren't you.