• ModestMeme@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Congress wouldn’t let him. The President doesn’t write the laws and can only ask Congress to do so.

      • Michael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        He never seriously fought for universal healthcare. He stopped advocating for it before he even started fighting. As soon as he got a “reality check”, not a word of support for universal healthcare was ever uttered by him to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, though.

      • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sadly, even if Sanders were elected, it wouldn’t have made universal healthcare a reality.

        You need 218 progressives in the house and 50 progressives in the senate. So… not happening.

        • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Progressives would need to down ballot vote for that to happen. Would also need to support and fund progressive candidates.

          Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.

        • Wiz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes and, they also needed to break a filibuster by the Republicans, which took 60 votes in the Senate, despite severe illness and Republican shenanigans. It was a huge lift to get what we got.

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I would point out that, objectively, Clinton did achieve a budget surplus, and Kennedy’s program eventually got us to the moon (though he, obviously, didn’t live to see it). Say what you will about the ACA. No matter what standard you take, that’s at least a 2/3rds success rate for the blue party by your measure.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I would point out that, objectively, Clinton did achieve a budget surplus,

        That’s not even a worthwhile goal. The state can print money for whatever it wants. Clinton didn’t change any of that. The state still wastes endless resources on the MIC, imperialism, etc. while many people lack basic human needs: food, shelter, healthcare, livable environment, etc.

        Zero is a meaningless goal that changed absolutely nothing, especially long term.

  • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Kennedy got to the moon by giving some Nazis a free pass for heavy participation in the Holocaust.

    Clinton got to the White House by pushing for and signing the death warrant for a man who was executed with a mental age of 9 as a campaign stunt. Also a serial molester.

    Obama became Pakistan’s No.1 Wedding crasher, had a personal kill list, reneged on his promise to close the US concentration camp in Cuba and bugged Merkel’s phone.

    If these are the best examples someone can come up with, it rather illustrates how we got to this point. Those were the “good” ones.

  • crawancon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    they all got more money for rich people. did any of them impose term limits, stop insider training, or impose any meaningful penalties for those that already have a lot of wealth? they got wealthier and so did all around.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      They literally didn’t, though. Clinton obtained surplus by raising taxes and by removing several caps which benefitted the wealthy.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration

        President Clinton oversaw a healthy economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998 to 2001

        raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.

        The 28% rate for capital gains was lowered to 20%. The 15% rate was lowered to 10%. In 1980, a tax credit was put into place based on the number of individuals under the age of 17 in a household. In 1998, it was $400 per child and in 1999, it was raised to $500. This Act removed from taxation profits on the sale of a house of up to $500,000 for individuals who are married, and $250,000 for single individuals. Educational savings and retirement funds were given tax relief. Some of the expiring tax provisions were extended for selected businesses.

        Clinton signed the bipartisan Financial Services Modernization Act or GLBA in 1999.[41] It allowed banks, insurance companies and investment houses to merge and thus repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had been in place since 1932. It also prevented further regulation of risky financial derivatives. His deregulation of finance (both tacit and overt through GLBA) was criticized as a contributing factor to the Great Recession.[citation needed] While he disputes that claim, he expressed regret and conceded that in hindsight he would have vetoed the bill, mainly because it excluded risky financial derivatives from regulation, not because it removed the long-standing Glass-Steagall barrier between investment and depository banking. In his view, even if he had vetoed the bill, the Congress would have overridden the veto, as it had nearly unanimous support.[2]

        What Clinton did was disadvantage income against capital gains further, thus preventing more people from the middle class and upper middle class to become rich through work, while making it easier for rich people to become even richer. Add to that the deregulation of banks so more “too big to fail” casino players could play in a more deregulated casino which then needed to be bailed out a few years later. By slashing and taxing social security benefits he also made it so that less people could lift themselves out of poverty, which would not only lead to more poverty but also increase spending long term as people kept relying on insufficient benefits instead of getting the means to gain self sustainability and subsequently contribute more to taxes than they needed in temporary aid.

        tldr: Clinton fucked the poor and middle class and benefited the rich. He just was more clever about it.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          He raised the taxes on the highest bracket 7% and remove caps on several taxes that they pay into.

          He definitely could have done better but he absolutely wasn’t the friend of the rich.

          That’s just it, to prove your point you dont need to show he fucked over the poor, you need to show he helped the rich, and it simply is not there.

  • andybytes@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I love how short-sighted this is. Like, I think there are more people that are on a higher level of understanding nowadays, but still the old game still remains. America is an imperialist empire and fascist are the useful idiots of empire. Neoliberalism is a right-wing ideology. Do you think a million dollars is a lot of money? Well I can tell you a billionaire uses that to wipe his ass. So when he donates it to charity, he’s just trying to manage perception. So what I’m trying to say is that the Democrats are neoliberal and they are fascist and both the Democrats and the Republicans work together to keep the working class down. That’s why we live the way we do today because things only continue to get worse. The rest of the world sees us as a right-wing country. The Democrats are controlled opposition. The bourgeois elections mean nothing to me or anybody with a fucking clue. The Democrats supported genocide in Gaza. Bernie Sanders and AOC are sheep dogs. They are not socialist, but they are there to defame socialist ideas. You can look this up online. It’s called the ratchet effect. So no, this is a little too simple for me. This is like baby boo boo diaper information. It’s a very immature analysis of the current state of things or what has happened in the past. End Wokeism no War but the Class War.

    • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      as others have said, try synthesizing your ideas. You have a good core argument, but its a little rambly, with some things that feel more buzz word then argument.

      Try leading with your thesis, in this case “The democrats are controlled opposition that work with the Republicans to keep the working class down” and then follow up with your supporting comments and evidence. Alot of people wont read everything and just by the first half will judge what you say.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I like former President Obama, but his ACA was half baked. It is not even close to the healthcare system in Germany and other EU members.

  • MetalMachine@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah let me ignore all the atrocities that blue presidents committed abroad, those don’t count since its brown people

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I happen to be a fan of voting for what’s best for the country I live in and the people I care about, then taking other countries into consideration after that.

      Life isn’t perfect. I strive for whatever is closest. And I’m smart enough to know voting 3rd party in a presidential election is dumb as fuck because no 3rd party is viable because none have done the work to become viable.

      So I’ll take the party that has a record of voting in favor of middle/lower class Americans over the party that only punishes average Americans and takes their rights away.

      Pretty basic math.