Why the Full Employment Created by Bidenomics Should Be Celebrated
Why the Full Employment Created by Bidenomics Should Be Celebrated
The economy has many problems. But the labor market hasn’t been doing this well in many decades.
You're viewing a single thread.
Woo we have full employment because everyone is so poor they are working three jobs! /s
This is why people don't take Democrats seriously. Too much crowing about bullshit like this.
It's like the ACA, they crowed about how many more Americans were now insured, but they didn't talk about how universal healthcare would mean you don't need to cover everyone with "insurance" anymore.
Just like a few years ago when they crowed about how a thanksgiving dinner was like $3 less than the year before.
It's all public relations propaganda bullshit.
The parties aren't the same, but they serve the same masters of capital who only want to see US citizens getting scraps. Democrats love to pat themselves on the back for the bare minimum for their citizens. They know they don't have to try because the other party literally wants to kill their political enemies. Not hard to sell yourself as "better" when it is as simple as "we aren't actively trying to kill you like they are, but we will let you starve to death or die of medical complications."
"Because we are capitalists and that's that.". -Nancy Pelosi
Yeah, but you've got to participate in politics/vote enough to drag the discussion left. And that includes reaching out in local elections and see if Working Families is participating in smaller elections.
It can be necessary to protest against politicians you vote into office. The reason you vote is to pick someone who has a better chance of listening, even if it is 10% to 0%.
I'm sure everybody working three jobs gets a day off on election day and enough spare time to go to all local political functions. /s
Dude over 60% of the US lives paycheck to paycheck. Maybe stop blaming them for lack of participation when most states make it outright difficult to participate. Missing work means risking losing their job (At-Will Employment ensures this, just like it makes discrimination legal. "We didn't fire you cuz you're gay, it's because you missed a spot/were three minutes late one time."), and if they're working paycheck to paycheck, it also means being unable to pay rent or bills. Risking homelessness just to fucking vote. That's what you're asking of over 60% of US citizens.
Young people make the least money and have to work the most to get ahead, but we are always blaming them for not showing up on election day. Sorry they were at fucking work instead of risking homelessness. Because ending up homeless will really help them if the Democrats win, you know how good Dems are at solving homelessness! /s
They kick homeless people out of city centers in Democrat cities, too. Because businesses making money matters more than a humanitarian crisis I guess.
Most people don't have the time nor the money to be involved and that is on purpose.
Get outta here with this "you just gotta vote harder" BS. Political participation is stacked against regular citizens purposefully.
I didn't blame. I even included that voting isn't the only political action to take.
But there isn't going to be a violent revolution to change politics in the USA towards communism while there are known groups to push it for fascism.
If you aren't going to vote, what are you going to do to change politics?
I didn't say I wasn't going to vote. I was simply pointing out that telling people to "vote harder" isn't working, and for very real and visceral reasons such as risking employment and ability to care for oneself. You can't act like real reasons that prevent people from being able to participate aren't part of the conversation.
Democrats are still the better choice, but I really don't like people who could do more choosing not to because it's easier to rake in money and sit on their hands while the Republicans act the fool, and then acting like it's the voting public's fault. That's some kind of abuse. "I know we don't treat you very well, but the other guys will actually really hurt you." It feels like a threat. "We'll let them hurt you if you don't do enough for us."
We need a real leftist party in the US. Yet the top Democrats think we need a Republican party. They think we need a lunatic far right fringe always pushing us to the brink of authoritarianism. Why the fuck would they think we need that instead of a true leftist party? Because they like how much money they can make off how the game currently works. It is a game to them.
"I will say this—you'll be shocked, probably—I think the country needs a strong Republican Party [like] we need a strong Democratic Party...but this is not it," Pelosi said. "It isn't our judgment about what it should be. It's their judgment, but it's a missed opportunity for America."
I pointed out a third party to vote for that is actually worth something in my reply. So it isn't like I'm saying to only vote Democrat.
Wake me when a third party is viable in the US. Unfortunately, as it stands, with First Past the Post voting, third parties currently do nothing but split the vote. That's purposeful, too.
There's unfortunately just so much that has to change for this country to move forward. There isn't going to be a revolution, I agree with that, but it's also not going to get better by trying to work within the status quo.
The Working Families Party, especially in areas where Republican candidates aren't viable.
And I didn't say to only vote either. There will have to be other political action as well, and I even gave an example of choosing a politician who would be more willing to negotiate during a mass protest.
Voting is a tool in the toolbox, but it isn't the only tool. And if you are going to get enough people together to push for other political action to induce change, you might as well get them to vote too.