Asking as someone from the other side of the planet.

From the things I saw about the US election, the Dems were the side with plans for the economy - minimum wage adjustments, unions, taxing the rich, etc. The Republicans didn’t seem to have any concrete plans. At least, this is what I saw.

I don’t doubt Bernie Sanders though - he seems like a straight truth teller. But what am I missing?

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    They’ve taken the side of corporations over unions and dangle popular policies like Medicare for all until the general election where they abandon it.

    But mostly it’s vibes. The Dems don’t say “it’s hard we’ll fix it” they say “it’s actually going really well we already fixed it”

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Absolutely this.

      This is going to sound awful coming from a person who voted for Kamala. But when Trump wanted something, he pushed forward and gave zero fucks who he burned. Trump wanted a wall, and then there’s a wall. Granted, it’s shitty, it’s expensive and an eyesore, and it does absolutely nothing and no Democrats voted for it (that I’m aware of). But to the stupids, they see it as a win.

      Democrats fight for a policy, and then carve it over and over to appease corporations, billionaires, conservatives, and anybody who might feel threatened by it. And to those who could really benefit, they suffer. So yeah, I can see why people would shrug at giving a vote for Kamala.

      Again, I voted for her. But in reality, I want a candidate who will go, “Listen motherfuckers. All kids in America will get fed. Suck my dick if you hate it. Every single kid will get a sandwich and if you speak again, will destroy you.”

  • chetradley@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Think of this from his perspective: the Democrats put their faith in the idea that money wins elections, and if you can out-raise your opponent the votes will follow. Twice they conspired against Bernie in the primaries because of his platform: tackling wealth inequality, progressive tax reform, and overturning Citizens United v. FEC. They chose corporate interests over the working class because they valued money more than votes.

  • MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I think what Bernie is saying is that for decades Dems have paid lip service to working class concerns while not actually doing much. In reality Dems have been much more beholden to corporate interests.

    By the time these plans came out, too many working class folk were already disenfranchised. They saw a party that was vocal about social issues that frankly were not high on the list of priorities for most of them. They were more concerned that inflation was out of control and they could not afford basic expenses. Sure Trump was racist but at least prices were lower when he was in office, or so they would conclude. If he could bring prices down, they would go with him.

    Basically Dems were just out of touch with the most important part of their base until it was too late.

    • seaQueue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Basically Dems were just out of touch with the most important part of their base until it was too late.

      Which is their consistent problem every election when the prior Republican admin hasn’t made a catastrophic fuck-up.

      You can’t run on the “we’re pro labor” platform and expect the working class to show up for you when your pro labor stance hasn’t put money directly into working class pockets since the 1970s or 1980s.

      Where are the big public works programs? Where’s the massive government spending that employed millions? That’s why labor showed up for Democrats in the 1900s, when there were huge govt contracts that employed organized labor, and it’s no surprise at all that when Democrats abandoned those policies labor stopped being reliable supporters.

      You want to run a successful campaign? Talk about the massive public spending that employed hundreds of thousands during your prior admin. Talk jobs. Talk improved standard of living. Talk taxing corporations to pay for those things and voters will hand you a landslide. Democrats are so afraid of taxing corporations to pay for social spending that directly recruits voters that they’re seen as corporate stooges.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      The DNC does not have the peoples’ best interests in mind. Not to say they aren’t the same as the GOP (not by a wide margin), but they are the political extension of their corporate donors. This is the reason why they don’t push forward with universal healthcare, why they’re cowards regarding Israel, and why not much meaningful legislation makes it through the gamut that puts the populace first. This is what conservative voters are done with, and many Democrats are fed up with as well. The GOP, for all their evil faults, actually do execute on the issues that their base cares about, though those action tend to be reprehensible.

      Any mainstream Democrat candidate will NOT put forth or affirmatively vote for legislation or policy that goes against their donors’ wishes. The GOP are the same way, but at least they’re up front about it. But it hasn’t been just this election cycle, they’ve been this way for a long time. This is why many call them spineless, but it’s not about that; they aren’t paid to represent the people, they paid to pretend to care while preserving the status quo (their corporate “donations” far outweigh their salaries for the “right” politicians). Everyone and their mom has been screaming corporate greed for the last four years, yet not a single political committee has put forth an honest effort to go after corporations for price gouging, because they’d lose their campaign donations, similar to how any candidate that goes against Israel would get financially throttled.

    • lordnikon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      This is very much on point I have always seen America as as really having four parties masquerading as two. Progressives , corporate Left , Corporate Right, and zealots and bigots. The problem is the Corporate Left and corporate Right have been edging Progressives and the zealots and bigots on single issues but never following through as they wouldn’t have anything to campaign on. Trump was too stupid to realize this but when he killed roe. Not to be crass but he finely let the zealots and bigots cum and they fell in love. With Progressives that happened with Obama but he just kept edging us never truly giving what we need other than it could be worse. Instead of single-payer Health we got a Republican idea for healthcare. Every Progressive will tell you that the electoral system is broken but do we ever get running on election reform. No because both Corporate Left and Corporate Right don’t want that. The country is divided up like cable companies Charter gets the northern states and Comcast gets the southern states. But they didn’t see musk going over their heads with StarLink fucking up the arrangement.

    • gramie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I can understand being frustrated and angry with the Democrats for essentially being a status quo party that favors their corporate benefactors.

      What boggles my mind is thinking that voting Republican would make any of that better, when in fact it seems pretty clear that it is going to make everything much, much worse.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Maybe so, but if it’s guaranteed shittiness vs. possible improvement, obviously people will make their own decisions about gambling.

        I think it’s a bad gamble, but I understand it. And also, one major point is that many people think “it’s going to suck either way, fuck it, I’m staying home”.

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    From the things I saw about the US election, the Dems were the side with plans for the economy - minimum wage adjustments, unions, taxing the rich, etc

    The dems are in power now, they didn’t do those things, so nobody believed they’d actually do it if they were elected again.

    Additionally, parading around endorsements from Dick and Liz Cheney, and promising to build a border wall, tax breaks for small businesses, and other republican policies from 2016 didn’t help the perception that the dems weren’t going to help people.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      look at how Biden talked about the economy.

      After stabilizing from COVID, it took him 2 or 3 years to figure out and even acknowledge that inflation is killing people’s financial outlook.

      The first mention of that at all was at the NATO thing right before he dropped out.

      Sure, he was handed an absolute shit show by Trump; but the messaging was incredibly tone deaf about it.

      Same tone deaf manner as the “we’re going to be okay” comment earlier. We don’t all have millions and 246k pension, free health care and 24/7 protection. We’re not okay now, and it’s not going to be fine.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Ah, but didn’t Biden throw the train union under the bus? I think he did. And neither Biden nor Obama pushed to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, and also to key it to the cost of living.

      Even though Biden’s regulators did take some positive action, a lot of that was this calendar year. Why did he wait so long? A cynic would say he didn’t believe in what he was doing, but even a non-cynic would say that it was a bad way to campaign, because you can’t erase 3 years of incompetence with 1 year of regulation.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      That’s probably the perception. Democrats have been in power for 4 years, things didn’t get better for a lot of people and then they say to vote for them for more of the same. Surprisingly that doesn’t help with voter enthusiasm. They’ll have more chance next time with messaging things won’t get worse with them after Trump mishandled stuff.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    There are two components to this question. Did many in the working class feel that Democrats had abandoned them? And is Trump’s economic policy actually better for the working class than Harris’s? I think the answers are “yes” and “probably no”. However, voters don’t listen to economists. If they’re not happy with the status quo, they vote for disrupting the status quo even if experts tell them that that’s a bad idea.

    I suppose Sanders thinks that the working class would have supported a Democratic candidate who proposed a leftward (as opposed to Trump’s rightward) disruption. My guess is that that isn’t true and socialism is still a dirty word in America, but who knows?

    • SwizzleStick@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      However, voters don’t listen to economists. If they’re not happy with the status quo, they vote for disrupting the status quo even if experts tell them that that’s a bad idea.

      Also see: Brexit.

      Sadly it does not stop them whining about the consequences of their poor decision-making.

    • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      If you ask Americans about socialist policies without mentioning parties or ideology, then they overwhelmingly support them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Democrats didn’t campaign on their economic plans. They dove deep into MURICAN PRIDE, fighting against dictators and drug cartels, and continuing the work of the Biden Administration. They played advertisements like THIS on TV in September. They campaigned in states that they lost in by trying to appeal to Republicans.

    Less democrats total voted this year than 2020.

    But yes, you’re right to think that Republicans are worse for the economy in every way.

      • SparrowHawk@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        “We are against the big bad fsscist guy! But we still like to do fascism abroad, do not worry guys!” It’s not a particularly powerful statement to the antifascist, nor to the fascists

        • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          I lived in a small town that literally didn’t believe COVID was real. During the pandemic, rarely anyone was masked up and then they got extra racist to a poor Chinese family and their restaurant.

          These simple motherfuckers don’t see or understand fascism. They didn’t even see what they did to the restaurant as racist. These dumb hicks vote on gas prices and how much toilet paper cost.

    • Veneroso@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      And the rightwards pivot chasing the “regretful Trump voter” and that stellar Cheney endorsement.

      Republicans voted GOP just like they always did. People who wanted anything resembling change stayed home. Unfortunately they’re going to get that change…

      I voted Harris, but the Democrats need to abandon neo liberalism and embrace economic populism. People need affordable housing, healthcare, affordable healthy food, and a plan for the climate that doesn’t involve mass extinction.

      That being said, these people won’t live long enough to see the worst of it. I hope that I don’t. I don’t have children, but I imagine that if you’re under 35 right now, you’re going to live long enough to see the water wars.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        I voted Harris, but the Democrats need to abandon neo liberalism and embrace economic populism. People need affordable housing, healthcare, affordable healthy food, and a plan for the climate that doesn’t involve mass extinction.

        She did do this. It didn’t resonate. Who knows what will get through in 4 years. Because who knows where this train is going. They need the house and congress to make real moves.

  • zoostation@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I think of Sanders as like a well-meaning version of Trump. He tells people simple, good-sounding things they want to hear. I trust that he truly cares about the working class, but his ideas are probably too big and vague for there to be a path to actually implement them in any Congress of this era. He’s aware of his recent popularity and maybe a little bitter that he hasn’t gotten much out of it. He’s only a Democrat himself to the extent he can gain more from calling himself that than an independent, so with little to lose at this point in his career he’s lashing out while he can win points kicking the Democrats.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    How is this true?

    No, it’s not true. The liberals never had the working class’ backs.

    Liberalism fetishizes capitalism, remember?

    I don’t doubt Bernie Sanders though - he seems like a straight truth teller.

    He’s not consciously lying - Bernie, like all liberals, actually believes you can (somehow) represent both the interests of the working class while also representing the interests of the capitalist class that is parasitizing off their labor. As any leftist will tell you, this is pure delusion.

    • Rogue@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’m very intrigued by your definition of Liberalism. It doesn’t correlate with liberalism across the world.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        It doesn’t correlate with liberalism across the world.

        Really? Find me an anti-capitalist liberal. that should be very easy if this…

        It doesn’t correlate with liberalism across the world.

        …was the truth.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            No, Clyde. You’re not.

            You are just politically incoherent, like people who call themselves “fiscally conservative and economically progressive” (or whatever claptrap so-called “centrists” tell themselves).

            Liberalism fetishizes capitalism. If you’re anti-capitalist, you have abandoned liberalism.

            This is not complicated.

            Next you’ll be telling me you’re an anarcho-fascist.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Of course you didn’t provide your own. That’s typical, sadly enough. We all know there are varying definitions, and if you’re going to undercut someone else’s, which may be a reasonable thing to do, why not bring yours to the table? … But only if you care to continue the conversation.

  • Curious Canid@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Neither side has been willing to change, or even talk about, the shift of wealth that has left most people barely able to get by. Working people get less and less reward for their efforts and the difference all goes to the owners. I think that is at least one aspect of Bernie’s complaint about the Democrats.

  • Peppr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    As most of politics, it’s sadly less about actual plans than it is about messaging through catchy soundbites - something the Rs definitely do better. (none that they’d act on any of it) Ds have spent a whole lot of time appealing to constituencies that aren’t the working class, with messaging that doesn’t work for them.

    But it’s not just that: Ds have materially failed the working class. They can screech all the want about “the economy” having gotten better under Biden, they’re talking about the stock market, which is entirely immaterial to people who can’t even save. What is material to them is “non-core” inflation (aka food and gas - it really takes an economist to come up with such a stupid label), which has gone up real bad. And many still remember Obama as having betrayed them by bailing out the banks on their backs, and working hard to save all that rot as status quo.

    Yes, D policy would very obviously be better (long term), but a whole lot of working class voters don’t trust that to be the case.

  • Tramort@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I understood him to mean that Democrats were more interested in appealing to Liz Cheney as Republican lite, rather than advocating vigorously for the working class. They take money from corporate interests, and then pretend they don’t protect them. They didn’t do enough to address the problem of inflation, and American workers were angry.

    • Jordan117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I see this claim so much, and it’s bullshit. Harris didn’t make a single policy concession to get Cheney on board. And why would she? The entire point of having her endorse was to send the message of “Trump is so dangerous that even people who disagree with me are choosing to support me.”

      • B1naryB0t@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Harris needed to get progressives and instead they put their efforts into winning over moderate conservatives. Even if she didn’t make concessions, putting time and effort into promoting that meant she didn’t have time or effort to put into the progressive voter base

        • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          Building a broad coalition without policy concessions was a waste of time? You’re going to have a tough time convincing me of that point.

          • Andy@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            What broad coalition?

            There was no coalition. It was a campaign by and for white college educated professional women in the suburbs.

            That’s not a coalition, that’s a book club.

          • Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            Look at the numbers please:
            In 2020 Biden had 81,284,666 votes.
            In 2024 Kamala had 69,218,912 votes.

            That is a difference of around 12 Million votes or nearly 15%. Trump at the same time gained only like 750k votes. I mean yes, he somehow GAINED votes, but still…

            What is your supposed reason for those numbers?

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            I don’t think he needs to convince you of that. The results of your election are plain for all to see.

      • Tramort@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        She and Biden had four years to demonstrate policies that help the working class. They did so little that the working class supported trump.

        That’s the concession: the built in support for corporate agendas, since that’s where Democratic money comes from. You don’t need to put it in your platform when it’s obvious from your actions that “the economy”, to you, means the board room.

  • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Identity politics, gun control, immigration, lagging economic recovery for labor, inflation and a distinct lack of ability to formulate a simple message. Sank Dems with the working class.

    Policies are nice but most Americans don’t have a clue and don’t research anything.

    Kamala spouted a bunch of policies and no message of hope. Trump had a bunch of headline grabbing antics and one liners. Guess which one wins with most Americans.

    • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Identity politics? That’s a republican issue. They bring it up. The most democrats do is block, but all the punches are thrown by the right in campaigns. I didn’t even hear a gun control proposal this round.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Did you happen to visit Kamala’s website during the election. She listed who she represented…. Black males, Latino Males, no mention of working class white peoples.

        That is identity politics. If you wonder why white women voted for Trump, they did it for their sons who aren’t mentioned at all.

        Both Kamala and Biden championed another assault weapons ban.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    It’s not just the US, it’s been happening for years in other countries like the UK as well.

    Traditionally there has been one party that is for working people and another for capital and the owner class.

    The right has been getting further and further into far right authoritarianism. That posed a problem for the Dems going back to the Clinton Presidency: do they stick with being the party of working people or do they try to have their cake and eat it by tacking to the center and assuming that the working class will continue to vote for them no matter what?

    It largely worked for a time and gave Obama two terms but ever since then they have been susceptible to criticism that they’re out of touch, elitists, entitled, and that they look down their nose at working people whilst still assuming that they will get their vote, which opened the door to Republicans.

    You can’t serve two masters for very long, you can’t be the party of working people while being run by upper middle class graduates. You can’t claim to care about the people with the least while cozying up to CEOs and megadonors. Sooner or later it all falls apart, as it did with Hillary Clinton’s run, where working people disliked her elitism and she didn’t have enough support from elsewhere to make up the shortfall. That should’ve been a warning. Instead they doubled down.

    The problem in the US is that there are only two viable parties. The Dems won’t go back to being the party of working people because they wouldn’t know how to do that even if they wanted to. What happens when the Trump Presidency turns out to be a disaster?

    • lordnikon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Doesn’t matter if it’s a disaster while I agree with what you are saying I truly believe I just voted in the last American Election. After 4 years the opposition party will be jailed just like in Russia. Fox News/TMTG will become state media. They’re going to run the country like a business alright the problem is that it’s private equity and they’re selling everything off for parts and Russia just bought all of it for cheap.

  • NaN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    It’s hard to explain. A lot of it is about vibes and focus over the last several years.

    1. There’s a popular suspicion that, rather than fixing issues, Dems allowed them to persist so they could campaign on them during an election year.
    2. Dems’ platform in 2016 was: Hillary’s more competent. In 2020: Trump’s a menace. In 2024: Trump’s a menace. Meanwhile, people cared more about putting food on the table, not dying of the plague, and war crimes. Sure, welfare was part of Dems plans and platform, but it weren’t the core message.
    3. Related to #2, people felt unheard, ignored, and taken for granted. We’ve been losing faith in a 2-party system, where neither side has to be good, they just have to threaten that the other side is worse. Well, wehn people feel they have nothing to lose, they put a bull in the china shop and hope they wind up on top when the dust settles.

    Bernie’s being a bit harsh in saying Dems didn’t try. Republicans blocked their efforts. But there’s also a feeling that they didn’t care all that much. At the end of the day, they’re career politicians, padding their pockets with corporate donations while demanding starving citizens vote for them because the other guy would be somewhat less palatable. And I guess Trump’s honesty about being apathetic and money-grubbing is more appealing than Dems’ feigned innocence and solidarity.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s not hard to explain. It’s not about vibes. The DNC is pro-corporate, which means they’re anti-worker. They push few policies that benefit the average person.

      Take the housing plan, for example. Raise the limit on the tax break for first-time home owners. Is that good? Sure it’s better than nothing, but if a home that used to cost $200K now costs $800K, an extra $30K won’t make it affordable. But more money might help the banks a little bit. Or take the federal minimum wage. It should be $25, but it’s not, because the DNC just doesn’t care, and they never will.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    What you’re missing is that all those plans you mentioned, while correct, were (a) just ‘plans’ with no follow-through to back them up and (b) too little, too late even if they were implemented.

    • The “fight for $15” (minimum wage increase) has been going on for so long with zero [Federal] success that, due to inflation, it ought to be renamed “fight for $30” by now.
    • The lip service given in supporting unions was belied by how Biden fucked over the railroad workers.
    • Inequality (the gap between the working class and the 1%) is continuing to spiral out of control and the Democrats had very little to say about stopping it. It’s important to remember that “tax the rich” was only supported by the progressive subset of the Democratic Party.
    • We need zoning reform coupled with switching from property tax to land-value tax, to stop enabling the hoarding of underdeveloped property by protecting it from market forces (i.e. real reforms to make housing affordable again).
    • We also need things like vigorous enforcement of anti-trust law and consumer protection laws, so that the public feels (and is) less exploited by corporations.
    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      The “fight for $15” (minimum wage increase) has been going on for so long with zero [Federal] success that, due to inflation, it ought to be renamed “fight for $30” by now.

      And the side that won has been fighting the minimum wage hike for “so long”. Who’s the enemy of the working class again?

      The lip service given in supporting unions was belied by how Biden fucked over the railroad workers.

      This is a lie that has been repeated time and time again. He fast followed the end of the strike with helping the workers get exactly what they wanted. He aided their negotiations AND got our supply lines back on line.

      Inequality (the gap between the working class and the 1%) is continuing to spiral out of control and the Democrats had very little to say about stopping it. It’s important to remember that “tax the rich” was only supported by the progressive subset of the Democratic Party.

      Again, which party is it giving the mega wealthy tax breaks? Who is appointing billionaires to run the government? Who controlled the House and prevented tax reform from going through?

      We need zoning reform coupled with switching from property tax to land-value tax, to stop enabling the hoarding of underdeveloped property by protecting it from market forces (i.e. real reforms to make housing affordable again).

      That is state level reform. Obviously.

      We also need things like vigorous enforcement of anti-trust law and consumer protection laws, so that the public feels (and is) less exploited by corporations.

      No argument there, but which party is constantly eroding our current regulations that protect consumers and workers?

      • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Again, which party is it giving the mega wealthy tax breaks?

        But that’s rather the point here, isn’t it? So much Democrat rhetoric and support comes across as, “they’re worse so you have to like us.” Not exactly inspiring to people whose livelihoods are struggling.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        The lip service given in supporting unions was belied by how Biden fucked over the railroad workers.

        This is a lie that has been repeated time and time again. He fast followed the end of the strike with helping the workers get exactly what they wanted. He aided their negotiations AND got our supply lines back on line.

        Nope, I did my homework on that one before posting it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_railroad_labor_dispute :

        In September 2022, U.S. Senators Richard Burr and Roger Wicker introduced a bill that would have required labor unions to agree to the terms proposed by the Presidential Emergency Board, to prevent a strike. It was blocked by Senator Bernie Sanders, who noted that freight rail workers receive a “grand total of zero sick days” while railroad companies made significant profits. In the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “We’d rather see negotiations prevail so there’s no need for any actions from Congress.”

        In late November, after some unions had rejected the agreement, Biden asked Congress to pass the agreement into law. On November 30, the House of Representatives passed the existing tentative agreement along with an amended version that would require railroad employers to ensure 7 days paid sick leave. On December 1, the Senate passed the tentative agreement with only 1 day of sick leave. President Joe Biden signed the legislation into law on December 2. The Biden administration’s intervention in the dispute was condemned by over 500 labor historians in an open letter to Joe Biden and Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh.

        Biden may not have aggressively attacked and ruined the railroad workers the way Reagan did with the air traffic controllers, but he definitely forced them to take less than they would’ve gotten if they’d been allowed to strike.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Well, you failed your homework assignment, then.

          Further down your own Wikipedia article

          In February 2023, CSX announced a deal to provide four days of paid sick leave annually, plus the option of converting three personal days into additional paid sick time with two unions.

          Citation from your own linked article

          Which also clearly states that the original agreement that included 7 days was shot down by Republican senators, which is why the 1 sick day had to be the first iteration. And also includes details on how Biden’s administration continuing pressure on the railroad companies that led to 7 days paid sick leave for two unions 3 months later, and then ultimately yielded 7 sick days for the majority of railroad union workers by half a year later.

          But yeah, keep intentionally misrepresenting recent history. It helped elect the guy who is so anti worker that he habitually stiffs his own workers of overtime, or refuses to pay them at all.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            7 isn’t 15, which is what the workers were initially going to strike for (and deserved).

            More to the point, the damage to Biden’s reputation re: supporting the working class was already done. If he really wanted to show the working class he had their backs – which, again, is THE thing that’s absolutely necessary to combat fascist populism – would’ve been to respond to the Republican obstruction by saying “fuck that, if you won’t give them what they deserve I’ll support the damn strike!”

            But yeah, keep intentionally misrepresenting recent history. It helped elect the guy who is so anti worker that he habitually stiffs his own workers of overtime, or refuses to pay them at all.

            What in the time travel bullshit is this? You do understand that being honest about Biden’s fuck-ups now can’t do any more damage – and moreover, is necessary if there’s any hope to do better next time – right? If you’re going to accuse me of saying this stuff previously (when it would’ve been damaging), you’d better fucking bring receipts. Check my comment history. I’ll wait.

            And then you can fucking apologize!

            • Wrench@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 days ago

              7 isn’t 15, which is what the workers were initially going to strike for (and deserved).

              Have you ever heard of negotiating? You don’t start at the price you’d be happy with. The Unions have stated they’re happy with the result, why aren’t you?

              You do understand that being honest about Biden’s fuck-ups now can’t do any more damage

              What fuck up? Biden averted a major breakdown in supply chain, AND got the workers what they wanted. That’s a win, despite the repeated attempts at framing it as a failure.

              And no, I’m not going to spend a day digging through your history. If you’re repeating this gross misrepresentation of facts now, chances are high that you have before.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                What fuck up? Biden averted a major breakdown in supply chain, AND got the workers what they wanted. That’s a win, despite the repeated attempts at framing it as a failure.

                What part of “it, and shit like it, cost Harris the election” do you not understand?

                And no, I’m not going to spend a day digging through your history. If you’re repeating this gross misrepresentation of facts now, chances are high that you have before.

                You’re literally refusing to check your own facts and then making baseless accusations about me. Pure hypocrisy.

                • Wrench@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  Uh huh. So you do your “homework” and call out that Biden forced the workers to take 1 day of sick leave instead of the 7 that they wanted (at that stage in the negotiations).

                  I present evidence that it was downgraded from 7 to 1 in the Senate because Republicans rejected 7.

                  I then present evidence that Biden’s administration leaned on the railroad companies until they in fact gave the majority of railworkers 7 sick days. With quotes on the Union heads attributing those gains to the Biden administration.

                  And then suddenly 7 days isn’t good enough to call that a “win” in your opinion.

                  And I’m the hypocrite.

        • jj122@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          I get what you are saying but it still isn’t the complete story. Yes he didn’t let them shut down a major pillar of our economy and at that time forced them to take an agreement that was basically everything they wanted except for off time. But his admin spent the months after getting those concessions from the railroads. The IBEW even thanked the admin for their work. He supported many other labor unions right to strike without interference.

          https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago
            1. Still less than half the sick days the workers originally demanded, and deserved.
            2. The damage to Biden’s reputation re: supporting the working class was already done.