Fun fact: 63% of US workers can't afford a $500 expense
Fun fact: 63% of US workers can't afford a $500 expense
SOURCES:
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/15/biden-economy-bidenomics-poll-republicans-democrats-independents
- https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-poverty-rate-jumped-2022-child-poverty-doubled/story?id=103130527
- https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/63percent-of-workers-are-unable-to-pay-a-500-emergency-expense-survey.html
Enjoy your strong economy, everybody!
You're viewing a single thread.
Linking this to just Biden is disingenuous and really buries the lede. This meme just divides us further in service of ignoring that the problem is the entire fucking system and not just one politician or one party.
Furthermore, establishing that the economy is strong is a necessary counterpoint to inevitable GOP talking points of "Of COURSE the rich can't pay you more; the economy, she is vewwy sick right now".
Society is busted - but Biden trying to get the messaging out ahead of the GOP isn't the sinister plot the OP seems to think it is.
well, it is primarily the 'fault' of one political party... it's just not the one currently residing at 1600 penn ave nw
I agree with you, but still think this is still an overly divisive take. This isn’t all directed at you or your comment - just some general observations that I want to share.
The fact is the damn near all federal politicians and their policies are in favor of their corporate and high-net-worth donors.
Democrats had the full trifecta after the 2020 election, executive branch and both houses of congress. The didn’t raise the minimum wage. Didn’t rollback trump-era tax cuts. At the end of the day, failed to take decisive action to reverse the wealth/income inequality plaguing the US.
The same during Obama administration - which set the stage for one of the biggest upward wealth transfers in history in the post-2008 economy.
Sure, both of these D leaders have made select changes that are against R policies (healthcare and student loan debt). But they aren’t our saviors. They’re undeniably shills for their big donors. Period.
This is why term limits and donor transparency (I.e., legislating against the Citizens United ruling) are necessary changes. We need actual fucking leadership. Ones who aren’t afraid of making moves that will piss off big donors. Ones who only want to be in politics for a few years to actually make the country better and improve lives for the masses. We simply do not have that option right now, outside a few rare examples.
It can happen. We just can’t be complacent with the current shit, no matter which uniform they’re in. We need real change led by real leaders.
Democrats had the full trifecta after the 2020 election, executive branch and both houses of congress.
I used to think this exact same thing. It's false & now a subversive #GOP talking point.
Let's clear that all up, shall we?
Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.
Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).
Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.
But legislation does not become law without the Senate.
The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.
"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.
On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)
The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.
An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.
Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.
In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.
The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.
The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/
Permanently Deleted
The technical details of that article are valid. A simple majority doesn’t mean you can pass any legislation you want.
But it does mean you hold what’s usually called the trifecta by most who are interested in this sort of thing, and it also means your party should be at basically the peak of its power. Minimizing this fact is looking at the trees and missing the forest.
And even then, this article admits that Obama actually DID have this for 4 months. They could have had bills ready to go and sent them through like wildfire. But they didn’t. To say “it’s not the democrats’ fault” is letting these leaders off way too easily.
The republicans after the 2016 election were able to pass a comprehensive tax bill which greatly benefited the wealthy in exchange for minuscule and temporary benefits to others. They also repealed countless Obama-admin executive actions and fucking STACKED the courts. How? By using their majority powers to put things to a vote and winning over the few opposing votes they needed through bribery.
All without the full 60 seats this article claims is necessary. The democrats when they hold the trifecta should be able to do the same thing.
The democrats are not pulling their weight when they have the chance to. 60 seats or not, having the simple majority and the executive power should be enough to get shit done. They let republicans do it, then fail to do so when they can. Don’t let someone convince you they just haven’t had the chance and they’re your saviors.
And even then, this article admits that Obama actually DID have this for 4 months. They could have had bills ready to go and sent them through like wildfire. But they didn’t. To say “it’s not the democrats’ fault” is letting these leaders off way too easily.
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
You: Why didn't the Democrats 14 years ago do the same thing the Fascists just did in Congress?
That you are thinking this makes me doubt you were even cognizant of politics in 2009.
Obamacare did very little to actually change the insurance or medical industries and is a perfect example of what I’m saying. If you think the democratic leaders are willing to piss off big donors, you’re wrong. It provided more insurance access and subsidized the existing industry. It did NOT tackle the inherent problems with the US healthcare industry in any meaningful way. Was it better than the alternative? Absolutely. Was it the change that’s actually needed? Not at all.
Me: Democrats have held the trifecta TWICE since 2008 and had the executive leadership for all but 4 years. That’s 11 fucking years as the President and 4 of those with majority of both houses on congress. They have had the power, full stop.
Republicans meanwhile held the presidency for 4 of those years, trifecta for 2. And got a massive tax cut, greatly increased control of the courts, and gutted multiple federal agencies and budgets with lasting consequences.
Your personal attacks are a little wild man. You have no idea how old I am or what experience I have. I’ll just leave it at I am extremely well educated, knowledgeable, and experienced in the political, legal, and economic spheres. Not armchair analysis bullshit. Real world understanding and experience of how this whole system works. With multiple degrees and the resume to back it up.
And the only thing I am saying is do not trust current federal leadership to do anything except keep their big donors happy. That’s the system we’re in. Is one party better than the other? Absolutely. Has that party actually made progress in the fight for the people? Fuck no.
If you’re won over by a “but they haven’t had 60 seats!” argument and don’t think we need change that’s more than the current leaders or system offers, that’s pretty short sighted. You should be furious that these leaders aren’t doing more to help.
And what I'm saying is quit fucking spreading #fascist #GOP talking points.
We already know the democrats are a big tent. We already know they should be three separate parties. We also understand math, game theory & how what you want doesn't fucking work at all with First Past the Post voting.
The #fascist #GOP is outlawing other voting methods for that reason.
Pick and support a fucking side, #fascists or everyone else.
You don’t think I can criticize my government? Because someone on the other team says the same thing?
I am absolutely pissed that democratic leaders have done jack shit when they have held so much power since 2008. And I’ll shout that from the top of any mountain.
Absolutely nowhere am I saying R leaders are better. I’m saying we can and should be pissed about this fact of D leaders. You are the one sewing discourse against someone that is calling for progress. Not me.
The #fascist #GOP is outlawing other voting methods for that reason.
And just enough centrist Democrats vote with them. But when anyone points that out you call them a fascist republican and a child.
That you are thinking this makes me doubt you were even cognizant of politics in 2009.
And the standard centrist response to people calling out their failure worshiping bullshit: "I assume you are young and therefore wrong!"
While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, it’s important to note that a centerpiece of Biden’s reelection campaign is “Bidenomics”. HE’S the one trying to link the current/future economic trajectory to his presidency here, not us.
That’s just one of the many reasons this message feels so tone-deaf. It reminds me of those ridiculous “I did that!” stickers that people were putting on gas pumps. Only now, it’s the Biden campaign that’s basically saying “yup, we really did do that” but for the entire economy.
And to add to this it's not only the strength of the economy, but also the effect that the strong economy is having on workers as a plank of his campaign is my biggest gripe. For a good number of people in my region gross wages rose over the last year or two, but nowhere near enough to meet inflation. The base rent alone on non-subsidized units have more than doubled since the pandemic with an anemic response in wages or public assistance. In fact, the wage increases a lot of service sector jobs are seeing has had an unintended consequence of driving people off of public assistance because they're now over the federal guidelines despite below AMI.
Do you know what's in the "Inflation Reduction Act" that Biden and the Democrats passed? This dude kicked pharma companies in the nuts and it sounds like you have no idea.
Did they now? When will the Pharma part take effect? Are court cases heading to the Supreme Court to overturn that function?
Personally, I don’t think the IRA means anything for Pharma companies. SCOTUS will get their backs and block anything that cuts their profits as unconstitutional. It’s 6-3 and they love love love Pharma companies.
Do you know anything about the act? Are you "just asking questions"?
Why don't you look up the answers so you can contribute informed opinions.
Ah yes, as everyone knows, the economy is made up entirely of our interactions with pharma companies.
US Census data definitely hasn't recorded a yet another year of decline for real median household income. Supplemental Poverty definitely didn’t see its first overall rise in the last year in over a decade.. Child Supplemental Poverty definitely didn’t double last year after maintaining a historic low due to the expiration of child tax credits. The Gini Index certainly isn’t maintaining its 50 year high.. Personal savings as a percentage of disposable income definitely didn’t decrease by 13% in three years. And in conjunction with all this, the ticking time bomb of the household debt service ratio is certainly not recently tending upwards and is projected to continue due to high interest rates
But yeah, totally, us stupid ungrateful American workers who went a couple years without wage growth and are further squeezed out of the possibility of homeownership probably just haven’t read the IRA. Otherwise we’d join all you very well-read geniuses celebrating an inflation-locked price increase specifically for a portion of Medicare Part B and D biologics which lack generics and which doesn’t limit launch prices at all. Oh, and whose non-interference exceptions don’t take effect for another two years and are contingent on a good-faith agreement from a presidential cabinet position which has a very real chance of falling into Republican control. Specifically, the Republican who has already made overtures towards getting rid of drug rebates.
Crazy that some of us are not more excited about the economy. Probably just in our imagination, huh?
Pretending one party isn't much more behind that kind of economy than the other is disingenuous as well. Dems at least try to put in benefits to support workers who aren't paid a lot or in some cases have even tried to raise wages (which by itself is only a half step). Republicans are against benefits and against supporting wages.
So you can say one is misguided because they're trying to support both corporate and individual interests. But ignoring that half of the equation is not helpful.
You can't just say both are equally bad as that simply justifies not voting or equating voting for either is bad. Yes, both parties are not "good" but one would be much easier to "fix" than the other.