- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
it is Mr. Biden’s reinvigoration of the government’s role as the nation’s most important investor that may endure as a turning point in the nation’s political and economic history.
Investments, like saplings, do not yield immediate fruit, and Mr. Biden has struggled to generate public enthusiasm for these long-term strategies.
You must log in or # to comment.
That’s because the US only cares about short term gains that benefit a small class. Americans are too stupid to look past their nose for the long term.
It’s not that Americans are stupid. Any nation can fall into the same trap if we devolve control of our infrastructure to plutocrats who look down on the public.
It’s the attitude that Americans are dumb and deserve our fate that’s shared by the elite who make it their business to fuck over the most vulnerable of us.
In this case, yes it is. The proof is everytime a President has implemented a policy that doesnt deliver economic gains immediately, it’s called a failure. That’s why Republicans always make the same plays for corps - lower taxes, remove regulations. It takes 0 effort and always gives short term gains that are bad in the longrun.
To be fair, it’s usually called a failure by corp owned media. And for most people that’s how they get all their news.
That’s a function both of poverty and the lack of quality public education. Most don’t understand how elections are run, and most don’t understand that in order to change our two party paradigm, they need to change the local election process. FPTP needs to be flushed down the unclean toilet of history and we need to implement RCV or STAR. Both will be complicated and either choice will require thorough education of the public, but it’s the first step towards breaking the deadlock of the Democratic or Republican parties.
It’s because the American economy is fueled by short term gains for the sake of politics. What’s actually good in the longterm is bad for the small groups that stand to lose the most.
The US is a corporate oligarchy propped up by a priesthood of politicians, lawyers, and economists.
Why do you think important government buildings look like temples? Why do they all wear priestly vestments and adornments? Why do you think the House has a magic stick?
This is “gold fringe on the American flag” level of nonsense
From the wikipedia article it says it was used by the sergeant-at-arms to retain order, and that those who ignored it would be arrested. Ceremonial in the fact that it was once used as a weapon long before as a way to whow authority.
But yea it’s always been for the rich.
I am highly unconvinced by STAR. The problem with STAR, as I see it, is that there is no cost to giving a candidate a higher or lower ranking, except that they may beat a more preferred candidate. It’s like Amazon ratings, the most simplistic, extreme voters win. The voters who carefully decide whether a candidate should get two or three stars have a subtle influence, while voters who go “yeah that guy’s great, five stars!” and “no not her, terrible, zero stars!” clearly have an outsized impact, determining the finalists.
With a fully ranked ballot, to vote one candidate higher, you have to vote another lower. I have not seen any convincing argument that any system is better than STV/IRV ranked choice.
Mr. Biden is articulating a simple, strong contrast: Republicans believe that collecting less money in taxes will catalyze economic growth; Bidenomics “is rooted in what’s always worked best for the country: investing in America and investing in Americans,” as the president put it in a November speech in Northfield, Minn.
It is an overdue end to an era in which the difference between the parties could be summarized as a debate about how large tax cuts should be.
Someone in this thread will inevitably talk about voting for Biden “even if he sucks” while he’s doing exactly the things they want.
Biden isn’t doing exactly the things I want. He’s doing some things I kind of want, or at least strongly prefer over what I might have expected him to do, and vastly prefer over what Trump would do, while also doing some things I think are very bad. He’s probably the most progressive president of my lifetime, but that’s more an indictment of politics in my lifetime than an endorsement of Biden. He not only isn’t doing, but has actively opposed doing what the best science available tells us we need to do in order to prevent the worst outcomes of the climate crisis, which is pretty terrifying. Ultimately, he could literally kill more people than any world leader in history, yet he’s still the best viable option. So yep, you got me: we gotta vote for him, even if he sucks.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Biden has planted a lot of trees during his first three years in office, pushing through Congress bills that direct the investment of billions of dollars into infrastructure, research and subsidies for domestic manufacturing.
It arms Democrats, for the first time in recent decades, with a message that can plausibly compete with “tax cuts,” the two words that define Republican economic policy.
In the opening months of his presidency, he pumped money into the economy on a scale unmatched during any other economic crisis of the postwar era, despite the warnings of some prominent economists that it was too much and would do more harm than good.
Federal aid shielded millions of American families from destitution, hunger and the loss of their homes, and it spurred a recovery that has far outstripped the postpandemic rebounds in other developed democracies.
He has supported labor unions more vocally than any of his predecessors, becoming the first president to walk a picket line, when he joined striking workers outside a Michigan auto plant.
The Biden administration has engineered a historic increase in the value of food stamps; proposed a ban on noncompete agreements, which hold down wages; and forgiven billions of dollars in student loans, among other measures aimed at reducing economic inequalities.
The original article contains 1,307 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
