this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
277 points (86.7% liked)

politics

19138 readers
3477 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The last time this happened, voters didn’t credit Bill Clinton. That may be a bad omen, or a good one.

If the stock market chose presidents, Joe Biden would be a shoo-in for reelection in 2024. The market rallied this month amid growing optimism about the economy, with the S&P 500 zooming 1.9 percent Tuesday on news that the consumer price index rose only 3.2 percent in October (compared to 3.7 percent in September). Stocks rallied again Wednesday on news that the producer price index fell 0.5 percent. Commentators are no longer debating whether the economy will experience a “soft landing” (i.e., a reduction in inflation without recession). The only question now is when it will arrive. The S&P 500 seems to have decided it’s already here.

But the stock market doesn’t choose presidents. Voters do, and polls continue to show they think the economy is in terrible shape. A Financial Times–Michigan Ross Nationwide Survey conducted November 2–7 is absolutely brutal on this point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But grocery receipts are not an indicator of inflation, only of corporate greed and record profits. The Democrats need to a better job pointing the blame where it really lies.

what do you think "inflation" means to consumers? it's the increase over time of the cost of the things they buy. Nobody cares if it's coming from corporate greed or climate change or whatever else. They only care that they've already been living pay check to pay check and now they're cutting back on food into ever more shitty options.

or housing. or any of a dozen other necessary-to-live things.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That’s fine but it has fuck-all to do with Biden’s policies and it’s beyond any President to change those things. It’s like when people judge a president by the price of gas during the administration. The reasons housing and food are expensive as fuck currently is

  • lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades
  • interest rates and other trends that were due to Covid response
  • massive price gouging by cuntbag rich people

Maybe “nobody cares if it’s coming from corporate greed” but that’s just basically saying voters are incredibly stupid. It’s rather unwise to blame it on Biden, vote him out, and then get a Republican (especially the unholy moron in the lead currently) who will do absolutely worse about the real issues in every way possible.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I dunno, he certainly could go after monopolies, breaking up companies like walmart, kroger, cargil, and amazon, and all the other joints that have the power to fix prices... he could also direct the US DOJ to go after price gouging and other anti-competitive practices that absolutely are illegal, work out more favorable trade deals (a lot of produce comes up from Mexico, for example avocados and tomatoes); and he could work with congress to bring SNAP benefits to more people; or increase SNAP benefits to people already on it.

lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades

Gee, if only there was some way to mandate some sort of guaranteed wage... maybe we could call it a minimum... wage... yeah he'd have to work with congress to get that done. But that's... kinda part of his job.

interest rates and other trends that were due to Covid response the interest rates that were predicated on fucking over the same wages we just talked about? the wages that... for the vast majority of americans... have been stagnant. kinda makes you go... 'HMMM', doesn't it?

massive price gouging by cuntbag rich people

maybe they should make federal laws against price gouging, huh? sounds like something a president might be able to work on (most states have laws against price gouging, however)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The problem is that those things are quite complicated legislatively and politically, and/or are the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. And true, Democrats could be much better on minimum wage and restraining big business. But so what, as usual - you’re going to elect a Republican instead, when they’re much worse on all of those issues?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

The problem is that those things are quite complicated legislatively and politically

"These things are too complicated" when it's something that might help people. Not a concern when building Trump's wall for him or shoveling money to the IDF.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

"oh pity poor me, I can't do ANYTHING!" is a bad look for a president. He's done a fair bit, most of it is of the 'taking care of business' variety.

Yes, he needs to work with congress- that's part of his job. I'm not asking him to do anything that isn't part of being... you know... the president. Just because he's better than a field of alternatives, doesn't mean he's not also worse than... I don't know, a progressive democrat? By and large, the president sets the political course for his party; at least while in office.

but again, there's things he CAN be doing. Like, going after monopolies; breaking up companies that are much too large- actions that increase competition and bring direct price actions. they can go after people for unfair (or fraudulent) practices in the sectors hurting people most. Instead hes focused on... ticketmaster... and airlines. yeah, they're scummy companies. they should be dealt with. What about Kroger, Cargill, Nestle. Student loans. predatory landlords.

There's a lot that Biden could be doing. Or more specifically, directing his federal agencies to be doing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The FTC just wrapped up a major antitrust suit against Google. Not sure how you missed that one.

But anyway, could Biden be less of a corporate Democrat and work more effectively as a populist? Sure. I’m not sure who you think was disagreeing with that. As far as breaking up large corporations in 5 different industries all at once though, and taking executive action on duties of the legislative branch, I think you’re expecting a bit much, which is not even remotely the same thing as “pity me I can’t do anything”.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I think this thread has lost sight of the original argument. We shouldn’t elect a republican because breaking up a monopoly is so politically complicated that we know they cannot pull it off, therefore any republican promise to do so should be treated as a farce.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, he needs to work with congress- that’s part of his job.

They don't want to work with him. Or have you forgotten that the only Republican goal anymore is "own the libs?"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He ran on being able to work with them. Which was a giant crock of shit, just like all the "he's the most progressive evar" nonsense we're expected to buy now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who would have believed that? Republicans supporting a Democratic president and helping pass legislation? It was hard enough to get Manchin, a supposed Democrat, to go along with it and typically zero Republican senators will.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And yet, it's what Biden ran on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Biden ran on "elect someone but Trump jfc". Just like the republicans had no stated platform for 2020, he didn't really need one besides that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

lack of meaningful and timely wage increases for decades

Gee, if only there was some way to mandate some sort of guaranteed wage… maybe we could call it a minimum… wage… yeah he’d have to work with congress to get that done. But that’s… kinda part of his job.

1.4% of Americans are on minimum wage so I'm not sure this will have the impact you think it will.

I dunno, he certainly could go after monopolies, breaking up companies like walmart, kroger, cargil, and amazon, and all the other joints that have the power to fix prices

This is going to need some proof.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Apparently Walmart and Kroger BOTH have a monopoly on grocery retail.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

but that’s just basically saying voters are incredibly stupid.

Is there something wrong with that? Voters elected Trump with the help of the electoral college. Over the last several decades, they're the ones who repeatedly voted in people who've enacted policies that have lead to the trend of lack of wage increases and increased regulatory capture that has allowed the current inflation problems.

Why can't the conclusion simply be voters are stupid, so they'll make decisions based on whims and feels that may not have a strong connection to the policies of the specific person?