this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
611 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4186 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Historians suggest Democrats might have fared better against Donald Trump by embracing the economic issues championed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who has long pushed for a focus on “bread-and-butter” concerns for working-class voters.

Despite Kamala Harris’s progressive policies, polls showed Trump was favored on economic issues, particularly among working-class and Hispanic voters.

Historian Leah Wright Rigueur argued that Sanders’ messaging on economic struggles could be key for future Democratic strategies.

Sanders himself criticized the party for “abandoning” the working class, which he said has led to a loss of support across racial lines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

We tried. Biden's Build Back Better bill had a lot of pro-working class stuff in it. We just couldn't pass it with Manchin and Sinema resisting.

Details are important.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 59 minutes ago

Yeah, and maybe if progressive voters showed up en Masse we wouldn't have had to rely on those two. Imagine that progressives. Imagine that...

[–] moncharleskey 33 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

This is about messaging, not policy. Most people don't really pay attention to actual policy, so it's more about convincing your average Joe you're working for them. Bernie had that, Biden and Harris didn't.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I think the inherent problem with the build back better deal is it's still framed within the neoliberal trickle down economics of post Regan America.

Would it have increased some workers protections and child care, sure. But it would ultimately be a gift to the shareholders and owners of corporations able to tap into the 3 trillion dollars of funding.

Americans are tired of progressive bills that vicariously improve their lives by further bribing the economic class that actually have their boots on our necks.

People are tired of seeing headlines that the American economy is doing fine while they struggle to put food on the table. Nobody cares if your bosses retirement portfolio is breaking records when they have to pull overtime to maintain the same quality of life they had 20 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Funny when it was the more neoliberal, pro-business dems that shot it down, shortly before leaving the democratic party. There's really not a whole lot of corporate profits to be found in here, though, despite the rampant misinformation floating around online. It actually raised corporate taxes, which is not a neoliberal policy position:

https://schakowsky.house.gov/build-back-better-act#:~:text=The%20Build%20Back%20Better%20Act%20invests%20in%20securing%20universal%20preschool,and%20the%20universal%20preschool%20initiative.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, they split it into two bills, one with all the stuff that was intended to pass, and the one with all the stuff they ran on that they never intended to pass.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Funny how it still almost passed, then. Unless you're proposing a grand conspiracy where they all actually secretly were lying about their intentions. Such a conspiracy theory would be a strong claim, and those require evidence. Perhaps in the thousands of individual staffers and advisors to each member of congress you could find a whistleblower indicating such a conspiracy? Otherwise it'd have to be as airtight as Jewish Space Lasers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Funny how it still almost passed, then.

It was never in any danger of passing. Centrists had Manchin.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This sounds like conspiracy again, where this was all orchestrated. You can believe whatever you want, that's part of living in the free world. But to actually be something worth considering, there should be evidence of this orchestration that can be found among the thousands of people that would've had to have been involved. Has AOC or Bernie or any of their staffers spoken of any orchestration?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

There doesn't need to be orchestration.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If that's true, then the bill failed by a slim margin. It almost passed, and had the support of the majority of the democratic party, including passing the House of Representatives. This is an important detail.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

It almost passed,

It didn't "almost" do anything. Manchin blocked it for you. If by some miracle a progressive had won Manchin's seat, some other centrist in another state would rotate in to vote no.

There are always enough Manchins.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, that's orchestration, which you just said was not happening. You are insinuating that most of them are neoliberals who simply put forward a chosen sacrificial scapegoat in some sort of planned scheme to deceive the American public. Strong claims require evidence, otherwise they are simply convenient ideas we can adopt to oversimplify a messy world and make ourselves feel better.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, that’s orchestration, which you just said was not happening. You are insinuating that most of them are neoliberals who simply put forward a chosen sacrificial scapegoat in some sort of planned scheme to deceive the American public.

Nope. All it takes is for some moneyed interest to buy just enough Manchins. They buy whoever's cheapest.

And you make excuses for them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 hours ago

No, not excuses, simply doubt. Manchin has a long record in the Senate as a moderate, Clinton-style dem. He's even voted against abortion rights. Rather than corruption, I think he's just semi-conservative, he even voted with Trump around 50% of the time during his first term. That is not typical for a democrat, it's quite unusual actually.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Funny when it was the more neoliberal, pro-business dems that shot it down, shortly before leaving the democratic party.

Shot it down? The bill passed in 2022 after being modified to hell by special interest.

There's really not a whole lot of corporate profits to be found in here, though

If it's not going to be implemented directly by the state it means that it's going to be implemented by private businesses. Those private business owners are going to walk away with the lion's share of any money they accept from the government.

It actually raised corporate taxes, which is not a neoliberal policy position:

It's almost like corporations aren't a monolith of mutual aid and support. You don't think Raytheon wouldn't support raising some taxes if it meant they could funnel a ton of government funding towards the privatized military industrial sector?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

No, that is a false claim. It was not passed by the Senate and never became law. We can certainly criticize our neoliberal factions, but we should do it factually instead of weaving whatever narratives we find most convenient. Unless you're confusing it with the Infrastructure bill, which did pass. They were linked at one time, but were separated after both failing became likely.

https://ballotpedia.org/Build_Back_Better_Act

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

My dude..... The inflation reduction act is an amended version of the build back better deal. What are you talking about?

On July 27, Manchin and Schumer announced the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the final result of these negotiations, surprising other congressional Democrats.[192] The bill, which includes provisions on tax, health care, and climate and energy spending, was introduced in the Senate as an amendment to the Build Back Better Act. On August 7, the Senate passed the bill on a 50–50 vote with Vice President Harris breaking the tie.[193] On August 12, 2022, the House passed the bill on a 220–207 vote.[194] President Biden signed it into law on August 16.[195]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Fine, technically true I suppose. But when you gut something that comprehensively and change its thrust, I think it's a little disingenuous to call it the same thing. It had all the workers rights stuff stripped out of it.

edit: Disingenuous on the bill author's part, not yours. Though tbf, they did rename it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 36 minutes ago

Tbf I did say it was passed after being modified to hell by special interest.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

We just couldn’t pass it with Manchin and Sinema resisting.

There are always enough Manchins.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago

Yep. That excuse does not fly.