The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance
Attaching a poll ... Dems unfavorability rating increased from 45% to 57% during the Biden Administration.
When did Biden / Obama ever come close to the following ?
Housing: The right to a decent home.
In 2024, official homelessness increased in the US by a record 18% under the Biden Administration while 1/4 of US homes were sold to rent gouging investors.
That is indicative of a society ruled by feudal lords, not one which is remotely interested in the economic rights of the common man which FDR has envisioned.
Go find a single statement from the Obama or Biden Administrations or Harris campaign against this trend.
They called Obama a warmonger and the deporter in chief but those two things aren't why people think Trump is an autocrat
I think FDR has become a little too recontextualized and became the go to dude for the lefties.
He was to the right of Bernie, he wanted to save and reform capitalism and inject govt support, he was far from some revolutionary simpleton.
Had he been just that, the country would certainly be different today.
Like, Biden in thr great depression would almost certainly be to the left of fdr.
I think FDR has become a little too recontextualized and became the go to dude for the lefties.
He was to the right of Bernie, he wanted to save and reform capitalism and inject govt support, he was far from some revolutionary simpleton.
Had he been just that, the country would certainly be different today.
This is an intentional mirroring, punctuation mistakes and all.
I think Reagan has become a little too recontextualized and became the go to dude for the righties.
He was to the left of
Had he been just that, the country would certainly be different today.
ISIS was rampaging through the ME literally burning people alive in cages and taking sex slaves. I am not a big fan of this retroactive history where we pretend Obama was just bombing people for kicks with no rationale. Defeating ISIS was one of the most justifiable and effective operations the US has had in the ME. The mistake was supporting the IRGC and proxies to fill the power vacuum.
But the ME circa 2014 didn't have a lot of great options. A lot of brutal dictatorships and 7th century morality religious fanaticism in the region at that time. (and not a whole lot better today).
I think FDR has become a little too recontextualized and became the go to dude for the lefties. He was to the right of Bernie, he wanted to save and reform capitalism and inject govt support, he was far from some revolutionary simpleton.Had he been just that, the country would certainly be different today.
This is an intentional mirroring, punctuation mistakes and all.I think R
The left-right labels get fuzzy when it comes to economic policy. If we define “right” as favoring a freer market with guardrails and “left” as leaning more toward a controlled economy, then Reagan falls on the freer-market side. Not a libertarian but clearly not trying to micro manage the economy from the top down either.
Reagan probably came closer to Coolidge’s hands-off approach than anyone since. And Kennedy and Clinton weren’t far behind. Both set parameters, then largely let the invisible hand do the rest. Basically since Coolidge every other administration has governed to left of Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton in that regard, irrespective of party or rhetoric.
And frankly, you believing FDR had no political opposition that stalled his initiatives (at least from ~1938 on) shows more ignorance on your part than anything else. Prior to the start of WW2, he was really on the defensive as the New Deal and the economy stalled, until WWII gave him the wartime boost. And even with the wartime boost, it's not like he crushed the popular vote
Yeah, FDR couldn’t even end segregation in the armed forces despite his personal views that it was wrong. It’s a very child like view of FDR that he did not heavily compromise snd had to pick and choose what was possible rather than just forcing his will.
Thank you for providing some evidence along the lines of a uniparty with two different faces.
THIS!!!
Both parties are all-in with the Military-Industrial Complex, BigPharma, Perpetual War, Perpetual Debt, etc...etc...
Both parties are owned and operated by the Donors.
I've been saying for years that ultimately it's not Left vs Right, or Democrat vs Republican, or Liberal vs Conservative, it's rather the Ruling Class (top 1%) vs The Citizenry (everybody else).
He was to the left of
Reagan was a rightwing idiot who wanted to slash and burn the federal government and his politics were mostly indistinguishable from your average libertarian nutjob.
Reagan was a rightwing idiot who wanted to slash and burn the federal government and his politics were mostly indistinguishable from your average libertarian nutjob.
Fun Factoid:
I never voted for Reagan in the GE. In both 1980 and 1984 I voted for the Libertarian Party candidates for President (Clark and Bergland, respectively).
It was long before I made the horrendous blunder of listening to and believing "mental health professionals" who though I would benefit from psychotropics.
AMA probably the most evil organization in the USA imo.
It was long before I made the horrendous blunder of listening to and believing "mental health professionals" who though I would benefit from psychotropics.
AMA probably the most evil organization in the USA imo.
Well, to each his own I guess.
The human body is complicated so not everything works for everyone. Never will.
But I have a relative who spent her entire life talking about the evils of the ama and big pharma. She started having psychotic episodes later in life and went off the rails several times. She refused any sort of medication until she got baker acted several times, lost every penny she had, and shacked up with an abusive nutcase.
She's been on meds now for about 2 years, is stable and has her life back.
So, yeah.
THIS!!!
Both parties are all-in with the Military-Industrial Complex, BigPharma, Perpetual War, Perpetual Debt, etc...etc...
Both parties are owned and operated by the Donors.
I've been saying for years that ultimately it's not Left vs Right, or Democrat vs Republican, or Liberal vs Conservative, it's rather the Ruling Class (top 1%) vs The Citizenry (everybody else).
Exactly, although I might say the top 10% is still pretty content.
Name a Democrat who speaks to this ......
NN, if you had to choose between 10% unemployment nationwide with home prices at half off versus now, what would you choose?
Looks like UE rates are beggining to elevate like the end of the charts. You may get your homeownership numbers if thats what youre after.
NN, if you had to choose between 10% unemployment nationwide with home prices at half off versus now, what would you choose?
Looks like UE rates are beggining to elevate like the end of the charts. You may get your homeownership numbers if thats what youre after.
You offer a false choice.
I would choose a tax system which does not provide interest and depreciation deductions beyond a primary residence for dwellings <= 4 units.
Home ownership has been a hallmark of social stability. The gap between the Boomer "have's" and the Gen Z "have-nots" is ruining the social stability of the nation. We are no longer a meritocracy .... success is becoming more dependent upon having wealthy parents and reflective of a feudal society.
We had both high home ownership and low unemployment in the post-war era. They are not the mutually exclusive goals you imply.
You offer a false choice. I would choose a tax system which does not provide interest and depreciation deductions beyond a primary residence for dwellings <= 4 units. Home ownership has been a hallmark of social stability. The gap between the Boomer "have's" and the Gen Z "have-nots" is ruining the social stability of the nation. We are no longer a meritocracy .... success is b
It is once things are actually looked at inside a 30,000 ft view.
You make a good point that real estate businesses buying up homes drives up prices but it doesnt hold a candle to the overall market in what 99% of people are willing to spend with their money. What do you think would happen if homes instantanously dropped the the level that you deemed right? - minus instituional buyers. Theyd get bought up instantly by the middle class and youd have no inventory. Youd need to safeguard against that.
But it isnt that. Its the fact that homes are 50+% bigger than at times you stated. Its that homes arent the same asbestos filled, termite destroying rust buckets as they were when your grandpa bought one. Codes demand that homes supply a level of safety for you and the home that was never a thing 50 years ago, and that comes at a price because it has demand for it. If you want to go back in time and buy a home built in the 40s with all the same ammenities today that you had then, you can buy them for 40k in areas like War, west Virginia.
There is more too it than pops bought one so why cant i. And yes, comparatively speaking, home prices defintiely run opposite to employment.
What do you think would happen if homes instantanously dropped the the level that you deemed right? - minus instituional buyers. Theyd get bought up instantly by the middle class and youd have no inventory. Youd need to safeguard against that.
.
That is exactly the outcome I would hope for. Home ownership in the middle class.
Why in the world would you want to safeguard against that ??
That is exactly the outcome I would hope for. Home ownership in the middle class.
Why in the world would you want to safeguard against that ??
I'm not against making housing more affordable.
My argument is that things aren't as simple as some may think they are and that generally speaking, prices heavily reflect what people like you and I would deem something is worth. Magically tanking the housing market by 50% overnight to temporarily increase the % of middle class folks owning a home would be worse than a 2008 recession and is just really dumb - especially if your concerned about foreclosures, homelessness and building more homes.
Raising wages would be better.
I'm not against making housing more affordable. My argument is that things aren't as simple as some may think they are and that generally speaking, prices heavily reflect what people like you and I would deem something is worth. Magically tanking the housing market by 50% overnight to temporarily increase the % of middle class folks owning a home would be worse than a 2008 re
Let's unpack the hyperbole of your post with respect to the actual policy suggestion that I made.
I discussed removing the tax benefits which Congress has in place to incentivize the feudal accumulation of residental real estate in the USA.
I'm not suggesting changing anything with respect to a primary residence. Only the homes owned above and beyond the first home.
That would certainly result in a big correction for people whose relationship to home ownership is that of a financial commodity in which maximization of personal profit is to be pursued without regard to the wellness of the nation's social fabric.
The experience of a young person in their 20's today is being priced out of the market and being subject to rent gouging. This is leading to a deep bitterness building up in an entire generation which is without hope of getting on the property ladder. They feel abused, especially when they see the contrast with privileged Boomer lifestyles. That's the kind of bitterness that keeps them from voting for either of two parties .... neither of which have made any mention of this profound intergenerational injustice. Their checking out paves the way for the Project 2025 fascists to take over our government.
If I must choose between tanking the market value of 2nd, 3rd or 20th homes of wealthy people or tanking our democracy, the choice is easy. Investors take risks when they buy properties, its not the job of the government to guarantee ROI nor immunity from market forces.
How can the Democratic Party make a claim that they have any virtue to offer while remaining silent on this matter ? Is there any greater evidence of their corruption than their silence on this ?
The greatness of a country is not based solely on how well it does for its investment class !!!!!! The experience of the average person matters. When we become indifferent to the experience of too many people, these are the seeds of madness and Trumpism !!!
I think the obvious answer to the Democratic Party's identity is the person they choose to lead the party.
Nancy Pelosi is a big-time landlord. She is a feudal lord.
The Clintons and Obama became feudal lords as a result of their presidencies .... not wealthy going in, but wealthy afterward. How did they get there ..... by being policy caretakers for the feudal lords who funded their campaigns. It's an exercise in mutual caregiving.
