1796
In the end, The Hill lied and Harris was right.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
1796 points (98.3% liked)
People Twitter
7380 readers
600 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Harris ran on a continuation of existing beneficial politics with a trend of effectiveness and some tuning after she took over the post.
In short, her position was
** gestures at 4 years of positive tending numbers **
. Oh: and not fucking up the treason trial for Trump.
But the sparkle junkies need everything to pop-pop-pop, so incremental improvement wasnt as good as destruction of America.
Wealth inequality continued to grow under Biden, and the average net worth of black families decreased.
This neoliberal obsession with "incremental improvement" is a fucking plague. It's so easy to blame voters for not recognizing marginal changes, but it's delusional to think today's American voters are any different from voters in any other era or part of the world. Not recognizing that is political malpractice on the part of Democrats.
This pattern that we are living through is the same pattern behind every fascist movement since Mussolini. It starts with a failure of leadership from out of touch liberal elitists.
Democrats stand for absolutely nothing. They check the polls to figure out what people think they want to hear, but they never follow through because they have no conviction. Someone who is passionate about starving children doesn't slow down to brag when starvation falls by 10%. Democrats do, and that registers with voters - consciously or unconsciously. Democrats can point to charts and figures all day long but,without genuine passion, they will always fail to break through.
Voters want conviction. Republicans have it, and Democrats don't. Shaving half a point off inflation won't change that.
Really large sweeping economic changes tends to have significant unexpected problems created from them. It would be bad if we lifted everyone up and then destroyed our ability to maintain that new status in the process.
Agreed
Yeah, consequences like FDR getting elected President four times in a row. That was the last time the Democrats had a popular President.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but America's ability to do much of anything is being dismantled before our eyes. The Democrats played it safe, so voters looked elsewhere.
60 years of unbelievable productivity gains and new technologies, and life has only gotten harder. I think we could do better than that. Bullshit excuses are easy to accept when it hasn't hit you yet.
This isn’t “bullshit excuses” as you are focusing on the potential political gains and I am talking about the economic problems that could come about from sweeping economic changes.
When the New Deal passed the USA was a larger portion of the world economy and it was growing.
It's absolutely bullshit. Most of what progressives want is stuff we had 50 years ago. The boldest new proposal is Medicare for All. Somehow every single other developed economy in the world can achieve universal healthcare, but the richest country in the world can't manage it? BULLSHIT! While you wrong your hands people are dying and lives are being ruined every single day. It's profane, and it's pathetic. Yes, we can do a hell of a lot better.
I don't think you are following this thread at all.
Large sweeping economic changes are usually bad. Medicare for all wouldn't be a sweeping change unless we immediately banned all private insurances which M4A would not do. M4A would be increasing the efficiency of the American economy which is what economists want.
Large sweeping economic changes would be things like adding $5 to the federal minimum wage all at once. The economy would likely grow from an incremental move that added $5 over the course of a few years but spiking it hard and fast will kill a lot of businesses that would have been fine with $1/yr over 5 years. It does not help to increase the minimum wage if it causes rapid widespread unemployment (note: I am absolutely not arguing against a minimum wage increase just against a rapid shift).
And, where in the thread again was an instantaneous $5.00 raise to the minimum wage mentioned? Alluded to? Implied?
You are absolutely right, I'm not following the thread. I'm following the discussion, but the thread is a figment of your imagination, and I don't know how to do that.
We were talking about whether large sweeping economic changes are a bad idea and whether incremental changes are better. You were arguing against that and I used minimum wage as an example.
Im tired of explaining things to you, so let's stop here.
Let me try to explain something to you. "Large" is not a fixed concept, it's a relative measure. Can you point to me where any bill or proposal for increasing the minimum wage has proposed doing it overnight? They always get phased in, even in the most progressive proposals. When you say "large", or even "large sweeping", no body is going to presume that you are jumping to something that far out of scope.