• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thatcher had more in common with Reagan era conservative politics than what the DNC wants you to believe do these days. The Dems want to tax the rich, fund social programs, and not privatizing everything. Problem is, they need functional majorities in Congress to reverse a lot of the Reaganomics / neoliberalism crap from the last 40 years.

    • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The DNC does not want to tax the rich and fund social programs, otherwise they would actually do it when they have functional majorities like a good portion of Obama’s tenure. They would whip people like Manchin and Sinema. They might campaign on some of these ideals but they do the exact opposite once in power. All they have going for them is a thin veneer of respectability. The exact point this meme is making.

      Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality.

      In the wise words of Phil Ochs Love Me, Love Me, I’m a Liberal.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The dems basically had 2 years, with a razor thin senate majority, to prevent a second Great Recession, and they passed massive healthcare reform for the uninsured.

        And yes, they did sneak in some taxes for the rich during that. They killed Bush’s tax cuts and snuck some stuff in the ACA for high earners.

        How is that hypocritical at all?

        • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Actually the “massive health care reform” only further cemented private for profit health care instead of actually moving forward with a real solution: single payer. Sure it helped some people now, but it made the problem worst in the long run. It’s shortsighted at best, and malicious at worst.

          • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Single payer was never going pass in 2008. Not enough dems to break the filibuster, and they needed 9 republicans to jump across the aisle to get to 60 votes.

            If people voted in more dems, they’d be getting the healthcare plans that the rest of the modern world has.

            • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The first person to truly float insurance reform was a republican. Romney Care. The DEMs literally went no further than Republicans. That tells you how much they truly tried. Not a lot.

              • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Insurance reform pushes are older than that. The democratic and republican healthcare reform plans from the Clinton era famously both had insurance reform as an element of the reform plans.

                The ACA does have similarities to the old Massachusetts plan, but it does go farther in a number of places. Employer mandates are a good example of that. That was an element taken from the old Clinton plan. Most in the GOP never liked that mandate.

                Given that most in the GOP moved pretty far to the right in the 15 years between the last national healthcare push, and the dems needed 9 GOP votes to get to 60 in the senate, what was the alternative? Most of the national GOP were basically for the “let the uninsured go bankrupt and die” plan.

    • I mean… the DNC is solely responsible for the rise of neoliberalism, so…

      How many RINOs out there can you count on to block GOP bullshit the way Sinema and Manchin cockblock the D caucus?

      DNC tolerates way too much conservatism. They only do it, though, in order to turn spots on the map blue. It’s about winning, not about policy.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        the DNC is solely responsible for the rise of neoliberalism

        Neoliberalism is commonly associated with conservatism and the economic policies of America’s right, not the left. Although presidents like Clinton were fairly big on neoliberal economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

        The term “neoliberalism” can be kind of confusing because it contains “liberal” in it. Socially liberal and economically liberal are pretty different things.

    • outofemailaliases@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      because of our voting system. if you vote for 3rd party you have to take away a vote for the president of choice, so there’s a chance of getting a plurality. so everyone just votes for the 2 most likely candidates and 3rd party gets no attention

      • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        what’s the problem with a plurality? in other countries this happens all the time and parties need to work together (i think this is called a coalition) to reach a majority

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because it’s widely considered “throwing your vote away”, people don’t do it, and it never happens. Plus I believe since the president is voted for as an individual, then it’s first past the post. You can’t have a coalition president. The whole system is setup to create a false dichotomy.

          Wait till you hear about the enormous number of people that don’t vote at all. I believe if “nobody” was an option, and the non-voters were considered, then nobody would’ve won at all in the last couple of elections. People know the system doesn’t care about them. It’s functionally not a democracy.

        • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemm.eeM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There’s no problem with it, but the US has been tricked into believing there is a problem with it to perpetuate the supremecy of the main two parties. That’s my POV at least ¯\_(ツ)_/¯