It hasn’t though. Dems aren’t Communists, but they’ve moved slowly toward the left over decades.
Even if strategy A is a total failure, that’s no indication that strategy B will succeed just because it isn’t strategy A. That’s a ridiculous conclusion. It’s like saying “Bloodletting didn’t cure my cancer, therefore healing crystals will!”.
they’ve moved slowly toward the left over decades.
Absolutely false. Dems have moved to the right for decades since Clinton’s attacks on the working class with NAFTA. Obama called himself a moderate republican and governed like it. Read “Listen, Liberal” by Thomas Frank for a detailed description of this.
Even if strategy A is a total failure, that’s no indication that strategy B will succeed just because it isn’t strategy A
Then try it and see, that’s how it works. Instead you want to consent to the Democratic party’s right wing policies without getting any concession for your vote. ___
Dems have moved to the right for decades since Clinton’s attacks on the working class with NAFTA. Obama called himself a moderate republican and governed like it.
So your assertion is that the arc Clinton -> Obama -> Biden represents an increasing rightward shift in the party, is it?
Do you know what would have happened to a self-described socialist who tried to get the nomination in 1996, or a Palestinian congresswoman who talked about “From the river to the sea” in 2008?
Read “Listen, Liberal” by Thomas Frank for a detailed description of this.
I genuinely started looking for this, because I was curious what it had to say, but then I reread how you summarized it and concluded I probably don’t need to.
So your assertion is that the arc Clinton -> Obama -> Biden represents an increasing rightward shift in the party, is it?
That is factual. Income and wealth inequality and all legislation allowing it proves me right.
Do you know what would have happened to a self-described socialist who tried to get the nomination in 1996, or a Palestinian congresswoman who talked about “From the river to the sea” in 2008?
Do you know what would happen to Biden if he went back in time and ran in the 1930’s? The workers would riot.
I genuinely started looking for this, because I was curious what it had to say, but then I reread how you summarized it and concluded I probably don’t need to.
It is a book written by a liberal like you who actually researched the Democratic party abandoning workers. You refuse to read it because it would hurt your feelings to know you’re wrong.
This, was the clearest single chart I could find that can encapsulate the extremely complex topic of income inequality in a succinct way.
Notice the Reaganesque skyrocket in inequality that continued under Clinton, and then its flatness under Obama. Of course, having the chart end in 2014 means it’s tough to use it to say anything about Biden, but I do know that wages at the 10th percentile were rising very substantially, even outpacing historic inflation, during the first few years of Biden’s presidency, as income at the 90th percentile was actually dropping somewhat as inflation ate up their gains.
What numbers are you looking at that are saying that Clinton was best on inequality, then Obama after him, and Biden was worst? To me it looks like 100% the exact opposite.
Cherry picked chart, also wealth inequality is more important. You misunderstood my previous comment, Clinton was not good on inequality, it was the opposite. He started the trend of abandoning workers with NAFTA and it’s gotten worse ever since. It was the Dems before him that were decent. Those Dems are long gone now.
Look at what you’re trying to celebrate with that article:
Bunny White, 65, is a cashier at pro sports stadiums in New Orleans. She was part of a movement at her workplace to form a union, and they secured their first contract in early April. The result? Her pay will go from $12.50 an hour to $16 an hour, she said.
To help pay her bills, she has a second job at a private catering company and also occasionally drives for Uber or Lyft, or delivers meals for DoorDash. Now, she said, she has more flexibility to take time off.
Living paycheck to paycheck still, no future for them, even stating they would need more raises to have savings. All of this is irrelevant considering how bad wealth inequality is.
It’s getting worse because of the Dems shift to neoliberalism, there is no counter to Republicans economic policy. Only way to stop it is to not vote for them and instead express democracy and vote for a candidate that has decent economic policy.
Clinton was not good on inequality, it was the opposite. He started the trend of abandoning workers with NAFTA
Yes, 100%. This part I agree with; Clinton was very bad.
and it’s gotten worse ever since
This part I also agree with.
You spent a long time restating your claim that the Democrats are responsible for all of that and that the trend is accelerating with successive Democrats, neither of which I agree with, and I already laid out some data to say why. Did you have some kind of data or something to back up the argument?
(I saw your chart… it’s hard to draw too many conclusions from just 3 data points on the X axis but it looks to me like what it shows is what I said: Inequality got massively worse under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 1 and 2, and then tapered off although still getting worse under Obama, and nothing is shown after that. I.e. I’m not sold that that chart means that Democrats are the ones doing it.)
How did you come to that conclusion?
Decades of your strategy failing every time to move the Dems to the left.
It hasn’t though. Dems aren’t Communists, but they’ve moved slowly toward the left over decades.
Even if strategy A is a total failure, that’s no indication that strategy B will succeed just because it isn’t strategy A. That’s a ridiculous conclusion. It’s like saying “Bloodletting didn’t cure my cancer, therefore healing crystals will!”.
Absolutely false. Dems have moved to the right for decades since Clinton’s attacks on the working class with NAFTA. Obama called himself a moderate republican and governed like it. Read “Listen, Liberal” by Thomas Frank for a detailed description of this.
Then try it and see, that’s how it works. Instead you want to consent to the Democratic party’s right wing policies without getting any concession for your vote. ___
So your assertion is that the arc Clinton -> Obama -> Biden represents an increasing rightward shift in the party, is it?
Do you know what would have happened to a self-described socialist who tried to get the nomination in 1996, or a Palestinian congresswoman who talked about “From the river to the sea” in 2008?
I genuinely started looking for this, because I was curious what it had to say, but then I reread how you summarized it and concluded I probably don’t need to.
That is factual. Income and wealth inequality and all legislation allowing it proves me right.
Do you know what would happen to Biden if he went back in time and ran in the 1930’s? The workers would riot.
It is a book written by a liberal like you who actually researched the Democratic party abandoning workers. You refuse to read it because it would hurt your feelings to know you’re wrong.
This, was the clearest single chart I could find that can encapsulate the extremely complex topic of income inequality in a succinct way.
Notice the Reaganesque skyrocket in inequality that continued under Clinton, and then its flatness under Obama. Of course, having the chart end in 2014 means it’s tough to use it to say anything about Biden, but I do know that wages at the 10th percentile were rising very substantially, even outpacing historic inflation, during the first few years of Biden’s presidency, as income at the 90th percentile was actually dropping somewhat as inflation ate up their gains.
What numbers are you looking at that are saying that Clinton was best on inequality, then Obama after him, and Biden was worst? To me it looks like 100% the exact opposite.
Cherry picked chart, also wealth inequality is more important. You misunderstood my previous comment, Clinton was not good on inequality, it was the opposite. He started the trend of abandoning workers with NAFTA and it’s gotten worse ever since. It was the Dems before him that were decent. Those Dems are long gone now.
Look at what you’re trying to celebrate with that article:
Living paycheck to paycheck still, no future for them, even stating they would need more raises to have savings. All of this is irrelevant considering how bad wealth inequality is.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/charts-that-explain-wealth-inequality-in-the-united-states/
It’s getting worse because of the Dems shift to neoliberalism, there is no counter to Republicans economic policy. Only way to stop it is to not vote for them and instead express democracy and vote for a candidate that has decent economic policy.
Yes, 100%. This part I agree with; Clinton was very bad.
This part I also agree with.
You spent a long time restating your claim that the Democrats are responsible for all of that and that the trend is accelerating with successive Democrats, neither of which I agree with, and I already laid out some data to say why. Did you have some kind of data or something to back up the argument?
(I saw your chart… it’s hard to draw too many conclusions from just 3 data points on the X axis but it looks to me like what it shows is what I said: Inequality got massively worse under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 1 and 2, and then tapered off although still getting worse under Obama, and nothing is shown after that. I.e. I’m not sold that that chart means that Democrats are the ones doing it.)