• Wooster@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    151
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      85
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          62
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Neither of the choices you’d vote for are viable either, unless all you care about is war spending.

          I will be voting third party.

          • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            33
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Today on Lemmy, which is dumber?

            -Distilling an entire presidency to what happens in proxy wars (the RU one admittedly being an amazing deal for the US against a long term adversary).

            -Voting third party in '20/'24

            • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              39
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              the RU one admittedly being an amazing deal for the US against a long term adversary

              You chickenhawks say the same things about every war. I remember 2003 when Iraq was going to last six months and cost 30 billion. “Mission Accomplished”. Back then you told us it was a bargain because Saddam had uranium.

              Voting third party in '20/'24

              What’s dumb is seeing 40 years of conservative outcomes and the progression of fascism under a Democratic president and then telling us to do more of it.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Back then you told us it was a bargain because Saddam had uranium.

                I don’t remember this, care to provide some justification? The way I remember it is that Americans were tricked into being afraid of Saddam and his WMD and it was sold as a preemptive move to a bunch of people still reeling after the 9/11 attacks.

                Russia is actually a major adversary, this is not secret. They are also acting like aggressive imperialists. I would be hesitant to get boots on the ground, but helping Ukraine defend itself is both a win for us, and the right thing to do.

                I don’t see how they’re really comparable.

                • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Holy shit I’ve argued with you a few times, this comment is actually something I can totally agree on.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Back then you told us it was a bargain because Saddam had uranium.

                Nope, I was against that war before it ever started. Ukraine isn’t even close to the same situation.

              • JonEFive@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                the progression of fascism under a Democratic president

                Please explain your reasoning behind this statement and compare those outcomes to the alternative (voting republican)

            • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              There’s always going to be some Trump-like figure waiting in the wings if you demand that we continue limiting ourselves to these two parties alone.

              • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                That’s not remotely true. If you look at the demographics data, we basically have to just hold on until the Boomers die. Once that happens, Republicans will be a severe minority if they don’t change their politics. Then the left can go back to its usual circular firing squad without risking American democracy.

                • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Then the left can go back to its usual circular firing squad without risking American Democracy.

                  Jesus fucking Christ thank you. Republicans just line up to be cucked by Trump and their worst policies. Americans, even Republicans, aren’t in favor of these abortion bans, but Trump goes out on the circuit being like “you know, I got those judges in there” and that’s a win for him. More benign, but Ted Cruz can have Trump call his wife ugly or whatever and just hop right back on that dick without even enough time to grab some mouthwash and wipe down with a towel.

                  Meanwhile, the someone anywhere sneezes, Biden doesn’t say “bless you” fast enough and that’s the fucking news cycle.

          • Okkai@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which one are you voting for?

            I’d like to find a viable 3rd party candidate that can win the presidential election and disrupt the 2 party system we currently have.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          33
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.”

              • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  …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.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • JonEFive@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                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.

                • JonEFive@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nestle should not be allowed to own water supplies, it’s beyond disgusting.

    • guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

        • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          “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.

  • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.”

    • Wooster@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Surp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well said but 50%-60% of everyone else is fucking stupid. You can’t fix stupid.

      • JonEFive@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        George Carlin said it best. To paraphrase: Think about a person of average intelligence. Now realize that 50% of people are stupider than that.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • Sendbeer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cable companies having a monopoly on internet in most areas affect almost everyone and should be dealt with though (it won’t be though).

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “People are paying too much for television packages and don’t have options to change it!”

      “Yeah Grandpa, we figured this out in 2010.”

      • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, just pay $20 a month across 16 different streaming services that all have siloed content! It’s so much better now! /s

          • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • distantsounds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            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!

            • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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

                • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Military budget has nothing to do with prescription drugs and groceries.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

        • Jerbattimus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.