this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
559 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19223 readers
3585 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

that situation was a complex one and a reminder to not view the world in black and white.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

There is little evidence that the current administration has any interest in dealing with this crisis. Our hope is that a Biden administration would be historically bold. But make no mistake that both our political and economic systems will collapse absent solutions that scale to the enormous size of the problem. The central goal of our nation’s economic policy must be nothing less than the doubling of median income. We must dramatically narrow inequality between distributions while eliminating racial and gender inequalities within them. This is the standard to which we should hold leaders from both parties. To advocate for anything less would be cowardly or dishonest or both.

The 1% have extracted 50 trillion dollars from the bottom 90%. It's time we side with labor in no uncertain terms.

the reason the strike was killed was because it was “thousands of working people vs millions of working people”.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/more-than-500-labor-historians-condemn-bidens-intervention-in-freight-rail-dispute/

The second reason Phillips-Fein finds the labor fight compelling is because of the way Biden framed it, as a choice between the interests of railway workers and the economy as a whole. But he didn’t have to do that. “The president could also embrace a sensibility that more explicitly identifies the interests of the country as a whole with those of the workers and their unions, rather than seeing them in opposition,” she said.

Biden is a pro-union neoliberal. We need pro-union progressives and socialists with a populist narrative to campaign on.

[–] Denidil@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Neoliberals are anti-union. there is no such things a a pro-union neoliberal. All you're doing is showing that you have no idea what you're talking about, and making the rest of us leftists look like idiots by your company.

as for your stupid vice link, i see you and raise you the actual unions involved: https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

screw your kiddie-pool-depth faux-leftism.

Neoliberals are anti-union.

Neoliberals are institutionalists. Unions are institutions. So no one should be surprised when a neoliberal like Joe Biden incrementally improves things for unions and their members.

i see you and raise you the actual unions involved

My argument is not that Biden did nothing, but that he could and should have done more. The president should leverage the full power of the executive branch to benefit workers. There is no need to capitulate to the owner class and break strikes. Incremental changes will not correct the fifty trillion dollar transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.

screw your kiddie-pool-depth faux-leftism.

The incremental changes your argument is unsuccessfully attempting to justify are neoliberal policies. The fact neoliberal policies benefit unions does not change the fact that they are incremental changes. Your argument is not a leftist argument, but a neoliberal argument pretending to be a leftist argument. Your argument relies on name-calling and ad hominem attacks in an attempt to distract from this deception.