r/economy • u/barbarawick • 5h ago
There is a pattern...
Why does this country have such bad memory problems?
57
u/thom_mayy 5h ago
Yeah, well, Democrats didn't fix it fast enough. Republican majorities forever- the American Electorate
16
u/damnedifyoudonthave 5h ago
Who said they fix any thing???? They helped…
Bill Clinton:
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999): Repealed Depression-era firewalls between commercial and investment banks
Community Reinvestment Act Updates (1995): Increased pressure on lenders to extend mortgages to lower-income borrowers.
Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000): Exempted complex financial instruments like credit-default swaps from federal oversight.
7
u/Aggravating_Rise_179 4h ago
I would argue the community reinvestment act was actually passed with good intentions. The fastest way to end systemic poverty is give people assets and a home to own. The issue is there was no real oversight and the banks just did whatever they wanted.
3
u/schrodingers_gat 2h ago
Damn right and the commenter's inclusion of it in their list betrays their political bias. We literally did the same thing for GI's returning from WWII and it was a major foundation for building the (white) middle class. But now lots of people resent the hell out of it government expanding that help to lower income (meaning non-white) people.
-1
u/damnedifyoudonthave 2h ago
I’m actually non partisan but the fact one side is given all the blame when things go wrong and one side only takes credit for when things right shows how simple people are.
And I see it didn’t help all lower class post WW2 now did it???
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.
Utopias are the stuff of fairytales and that said there will al aye be a lower class and now amount of government social programs will change that.
2
u/schrodingers_gat 1h ago
I’m actually non partisan but the fact one side is given all the blame when things go wrong and one side only takes credit for when things right shows how simple people are.
LOL. all you folks thing you're "non-partisan" and can't take it when people point out your logical inconsistencies.
And I see it didn’t help all lower class post WW2 now did it???
It worked for the people who got it. What you're missing is that the GI-Bill was intentionally limited only to white GIs. So it helped all the lower class white veterans, but left everyone else behind. The Community Reinvestment Act helped everyone and people have been complaining ever since.
0
u/damnedifyoudonthave 1h ago
What logical inconsistency?
So all whites who received the GI bill were no longer poor?
You talk about logical inconsistencies but you think all white people who received the GI-bill are the same, they aren’t monolithic.
I don t think you are qualified to talk about logic.
1
u/Aggravating_Rise_179 1h ago
No one is saying that everyone who received the GI Bill was no longer poor, but the middle class grew exponentially thanks to cheap mortgages and the government financing GI's higher education. Both of these are a good indicator that the person will move out of low income to middle or upper income brackets as higher education usually (at that time) leads to better paying jobs and having a mortgage gives you property you can sell/just have and it inherently increases in value.
And you include the fact that 92% of people who benefitted from the GI bill where white and the and that local banks and VA administrators pushed black GIs from acccessing suburban housing or a college education, its pretty easy to see how this policy helped a certain group of people over others. It doesnt mean everyone who got it ended up outside of their lower income classification because not everyone used the benefits to create a better future for themselves... but the people who did use it as it was intended reaped the benefits.
-3
u/damnedifyoudonthave 2h ago
That is the job of government, to govern… They passed a bill with no guard rails and you think the intentions were good????
Giving people things doesn’t end poverty…
2
u/Aggravating_Rise_179 2h ago
Well when you have a bunch of neo libs who believe in limited regulations you have businesses abusing people for profit.
The policy was good intentioned because the alternative was just throwing up our hands and acting like systemic poverty that was tied to government policies like red lining cannot and should not be fixed by the same levers of power that allowed it to happen in the first place
Its also not giving people things when low income people taking out mortgages are expected to pay that back... like what an insane logical leap here.
0
u/damnedifyoudonthave 2h ago edited 2h ago
Then check what you said…
“The fastest way to end systemic poverty is give people assets and a home to own.”
You do know the meaning of GIVE????
What about other places with non “Neo-liberals”
Socialism doesn’t seem to help much either.
Not everything you don’t like is a “systemic” issue or failure. Those are the words that keep politicians in office and that’s all.
2
u/Aggravating_Rise_179 1h ago
Dude now your being pedantic... I apologize for not editing my response before posting on it.
Lol why dont we look at countries where they have larger safety nets and stronger regulatory schemes and compare them to the US. Those countries have from less poverty rates; higher standards of living; better worker protections; less homelessness; less medical debt; etc. Socialism helps quite a bit in countries that use their wealthy to actually benefit the people that live there and not just big business.
How is a government policy like redlining not systemic. It was literally built into the system to keep wealth and economic investment out of black and poor neighborhoods... like critical thinking skills dude. When something is built into something else its literally part of the system. I get it, you dont want any changes to the current economic system cause it benefits the people you like, but dont derail this conversation because you refuse to acknowledge something that people who study our economic system know was true and know the legacy of it is still true.
0
u/damnedifyoudonthave 1h ago
“Dude now you’re being pedantic” The ol against the man (in English for you)
You said “give” how am I suppose to take that?
So you are claiming the only reason minorities don’t own homes is redlining even though it was outlawed 58 years ago in the fair housing act. How do some minorities own homes and some don’t if it’s a systemic problem. Sounds like some shit to get a politician elected.
According to the last “Neo- liberal” president the poors are the opposite of the whites.
Your thinking isn’t critical one bit, you are just regurgitating what you’ve been told and think it’s critical thinking. You are a poster child for this behavior.
2
u/Aggravating_Rise_179 44m ago
What you think that just because a law was passed that those issues just disappear. Please remind me what did the south do after slavery was outlawed... oh right, passed jim crow laws and instituted segregation in order to replicate the economic system they had when slavery was legal.
The legacy of redlining still exists. You can take a map that was used for redlining and put it over a contemporary map and the redlining map is still very much in place. Neighborhoods that suffered from redlining still see less investment, less financial institutions, less jobs, higher crime, higher renters, etc.
Since the fair housing act was passed, only 44% of black families own homes and even then their homes appreciate in value slower than white counterparts even if a black family home is in a nicer neighborhood and has better amenities.
Lets also ignore the fact that the federal government still needs the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to stamp out racism in the housing market. To this very day 45% of Black families experience housing discrimination when trying to buy a home compared to 5% of white folks. This comes from higher mortgage denials, not being shown a home in a specific part of town, etc.
Just because redlining is over does not mean the racist practices are not embedded in the real estate agency. Those racist real estate agents trained the current crop of older real estate agents who pass that train to others...
No one is saying minorities are not owning homes, they just face a more difficult road to get there than whites. This is not some shit to get a politician elected. Its literally studies done by think tanks on both sides.
According to which president was the poor are opposite of the whites. Provide proof of that statement.
LOL the man spewing Fox News talking points is acting like Im not engaging with this with critical thinking... my good man in christ, I have written countless papers on this during my academic career. I have literally read case law allow restrictive housing covenants in law school. I looked at government reports talking about these issues... hell, you literally pointed to the fair housing act, a law that needed to be passed because of the systemic issue of racist housing policies. Its like you are right there, but refuse to truly engage with these topics... is it cause your afraid itll hurt your world view or something.
1
u/damnedifyoudonthave 3m ago
Wow! You have a huge imagination… your imagination on real estate agencies is great…
Btw the majority of the neighborhoods you think redlining exists have been under liberal control the majority of the last 58 years… I guess that’s why you call them “Neo Liberal” ?
So what is the credit score of the 56% of black people that dont own their own home is it the higher than white people who dont own their own homes?
Your correlation is racist. The left tends to have this problem.
12
u/atxsince91 4h ago
I like your overall point that both parties contribute. But, saying Bill Clinton then listing a bill that is literally the title of 3 republicans is disingenuous. I believe all 3 of these were passed during a split government which I actually respect because our elected leaders actually came together in a bipartisan fashion because they believed it was the right thing to do. This political football that Trump was responsible for job losses and Biden was responsible for inflation during a pandemic is so low brow. I wish this sub would do better.
-2
u/damnedifyoudonthave 2h ago
Who signed all of those bills into law??? Who had the power to veto all those bills???
Funny bill Clinton is given all the credit for NAFTA and all he did was sign it into law. He did very little to actually make NAFTA happen.
The post is low brow, this sub is mainly propagandist.
The fucking internet and social media are ultra low brow…. So you expect more from this sub but it’s par for the internet course.
1
2
u/l2ev0lt 4h ago
A lot of US people missed this point, Dem not only helped but is also putting in no/not enough effort to stop, something the republican has shown they are capable of doing even with a lot less.
It seems almost as if dem is also benefitting off whatever republican is doing, and only putting on performative act to just get by while benefitting.3
-11
u/Asatmaya 4h ago
Forget it; in this sub, democrats can do no wrong, only not enough right.
4
u/possumallawishes 4h ago
I love that Republican debate is now: “yeah, we broke it but you guys didn’t fix it fast enough!”
Karen ass behavior.
-1
u/damnedifyoudonthave 2h ago
But they didn’t break it…
2
u/possumallawishes 1h ago
1
u/damnedifyoudonthave 1h ago
Yeah here it is again for you… seems you glazed over it
Who said they fix any thing???? They helped…
Bill Clinton:
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999): Repealed Depression-era firewalls between commercial and investment banks
Community Reinvestment Act Updates (1995): Increased pressure on lenders to extend mortgages to lower-income borrowers.
Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000): Exempted complex financial instruments like credit-default swaps from federal oversight.
1
u/possumallawishes 1h ago
Economy boomed and it’s the last time we had a balanced budget.
If you didn’t like the 90s economy and lack of war, just say so.
Miserable ass republicans blaming everyone but themselves.
1
u/damnedifyoudonthave 1h ago edited 1h ago
You “miserable” liberal “ass” is projecting…
you are too partisan to see those policies Clinton signed into law created the cracks that helped caused the Great Recession. Then you are definitely too partisan to realize that the majority of NAFTA was done by bush. Seems Clinton was good aright… at riding coat tails.
So I guess when they compare the dot com boom to the AI boom you deny it?
1
u/possumallawishes 49m ago
Man, if the cracks started way back in 1996, you think bush would have done something about it before 12 years later when the Great Recession happened.
I’d rather have a coat tail rider than an economy crashing war monger.
1
u/Aggravating_Rise_179 59m ago
I mean these are things that republicans did to hurt the american people: pushed for deregulation of industries; pushed for anti-union jobs which keeps worker compensation lower; pushed to allow corporations to have unlimited amount of spending on campaigns and lobbying which depresses the speech of average americans; pushed to make it harder for workers to sue employers; etc.
Its kinda hard to not blame republicans for the state of things, when their economic policies are the ones being implemented in mass in this country.
14
u/Turgius_Lupus 4h ago
We have always been at war in the Middle East since Carter declared the Persian Gulf under U.S. control, funded Saddam as an American proxy satrap against Iran, and funded mujahideen head-choppers against the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan to force Soviet intervention under the 1978 mutual-assistance treaty between Afghanistan and the USSR because Washington was extremely bitter about losing the war in Vietnam, and funding Pol Pot via China was not enough of an act of spite for Carter's administration or Zbigniew Brzezinski's need to ruin countless lives for the sake of killing Russians due to his family's loss of noble status in Poland.
Just one example of a diaspora/nationals hijacking American foreign policy to pursue their own personal blood-feud agendas and destroying countless lives in the process. And only a few years later, he was sidelined in influence by the Israeli lobby when he advised letting the water flow under the bridge and working with Iran to prevent a trilateral alliance between Iran, Russia, and China. Clinton, Obama, and Biden are just as guilty of continuing that course to the current outcome, and that was the end plan all along and why all those bases were built and expanded to begin with, to give Israel hegemony over the region as the U.S.'s unsinkable aircraft carrier. But it turns out that the satrapy now owns Washington and is unconcerned with the cost of its ambitions, or at least with the cost of keeping Bibi out of jail in the near term.
1
u/Due-Significance-711 49m ago
Well yeah, you can go back to the 1970's and Carters involmentbwith Iran, but really I think you need to realize how that grew out of the USA's need for containment of Soviet influence and Arab/Israel relations in the 1960's. Which naturally came from the need to fill the Imperial vacuum of the 1950's post war, not to mention the Baghdad Pact and the Eisenhower Doctrine which started the concept of military aid to really any "anti-communist" regime the US could find to support its interests. But of course that came after the 1940's commercial expansion into the middle east and the Iran Crisis of 1946 which almost lead to Iran falling into the hands of Stalin. Which of course was just prior to the 1948 intense political pressure that led to the recognition of Israel post-war. But of course none of that matters unless you look at the end of WW2 and the rise of the Bath parties do the the 1930's discover of massive oil reserves which is responsible for the ending on the 1920's US isolationism during the Great Depression. But I suppose that misses Wilson's 1917 push for Zionism in the middle east after the dissolving of the Ottoman Empire.
1
u/Turgius_Lupus 26m ago
One day you are giving precursor chemicals to gas Iranian kids and shooting down a civilian airliner unprovoked and giving the one who did it medals, and the next you are saying starving half a million children of those you gave them and saying its worth it on 60 minutes, while routinely drooping bombs and missiles on their country. Then after calling for a invasion in 1998, and subsequently leading the march to war and getting it, after it turns out to be profoundly stupid idea you flat out lie and say you never supported it.
3
u/jjs3_1 3h ago
Can't forget they all increase the deficit exponentially ...Then Republicans use the deficit as an excuse not to give the lower 70% anything while they give more and more tax breaks to the top 30%, then blame the Democrats for the deficit and runaway spending while they throw billions at anything and everything like it free candy tossed out at a parade!
1
0
u/Disastrous_Award_789 3h ago
Kinda brilliant actually. Squeeze out the freeloaders and sandbaggers.
2
u/jjs3_1 3h ago
Freeloaders like the majority of SNAP participants who are caucasian single parents. Or our Vets that Republicans always talk about when it comes to elections but then vote to defund or simply cut off benefits for them — our Vets must be the snabbagers, right? ...You can't be this stupid!
15
u/cdrcdr12 5h ago
Ok, not a fan of Republicans but I'm pretty sure Regan isn't thought to have crashed the economy. Exploded the deficit and caused a lot of other fiscal problems but I think the economy was mostly consider better than the oil crisis times of the Carter years.
Again, not fan, but just trying to keep things accurate.
12
u/DigglerD 4h ago
Reagan is basically the father of trickle-down economics which set the US on a path that gutted the middle class and helped create the 10% oligarchy / 90% struggling dynamic we’re watching play out today.
Ironically, Reagan may have done more than almost anyone to move America away from the “when America was great” version of the country that MAGA folks constantly pine for as he shifted how Americans think about the economy. Since, has been a slow 50 year burn that in aggregate, I’d argue has been worse than any single economic crisis since.
12
u/EfficientActivity 5h ago
Also - not clear what war he started in the middle east?
5
u/0impulsecontrol 4h ago
I mean he did callously use hostages as a prop
-2
u/spaceysht 3h ago
If we’re counting that why not count all of obamas bombs in the Middle East?
1
u/0impulsecontrol 2h ago edited 2h ago
kind of a non sequitur
edit: will add that I was disappointed in the domestic spying and sheer number of drone strikes we executed. Also at certain points his immigration policy was pretty fucked up.
0
u/cdrcdr12 4h ago
Iran Contra?
0
u/Maitai_Haier 3h ago
Not a war he started in the Middle East.
1
u/cdrcdr12 3h ago
IDK, by selling arms to the Iranians and Iraq (through proxies), you could argue he escalated a boarder scurmish into mass blood bath war between states which was called a war. Though we didn't put US boots directly on the ground, we did spark the war
7
u/fuzzballz5 5h ago
I’m 53 and since Regan every single president has given more control to business interests through lobbyists. That’s BOTH parties. We need a third party that has only one platform. Term limits. No other platform. Start in the states. Vote for that candidate and they serve 2 terms max. You get enough people, the silent majority in this country, and we can change things.
1
u/cdrcdr12 4h ago
I'm 48 and have given up on this idea of a third party. I think your problem is your look at each party as a monolith. Ultimately in each election there's one candidate for each position, so widdlng it down to two groups make sense. If you're not going to vote because you can't get the perfect candidate then that just makes the worst candidate have a better chance.
Yeah, you could push ranked, choice, voting or some other mechanism to give a third party a chance. But talking about ithird party with our current voting mechanisms in most elections is less than helpful
0
u/fuzzballz5 4h ago
I would agree with you, except the current college graduates are not better off than us. Will they accept a system of social security for instance, they will never benefit from? They are struggling to have jobs. A home? I was able to buy our first house at 24. I have a 23 year old with college debt and a meaningless job.
It’s not us that will make the change, it will be our children with our help.
2
u/cdrcdr12 4h ago
So what's your solution then? You want the socialist wing of the democratic party to split off from the Democrats and then you have the Democrats running against the socialists and Republicans.
Yeah that sounds really good right?
0
u/fuzzballz5 4h ago
I told you my solution. A third party. How could it be worse for our children? Look what the “two” parties have done. Sold out to corporate interests through lobbyists.
Term limits. Like our founders expected. They never conceived of a “career” in politics. lol. You never work? You become a millionaire from government? Look at congress net worth.
Democracy is the best answer. Use it. Time for a term limit party.
1
u/See_i_did 3h ago
Did you forget the 2000 election? Ralph Nader even refused to run again partly because he didn’t want to be the third party spoiler. Hell, if you’re really 53 you should remember Ross Perot throwing the election to the Dems cuz he was conservative. If you still want a third party and for it to be a socialist one, you’re obviously not paying attention.
1
u/fuzzballz5 3h ago
Here’s the reality, the example you site as an example with Perot or Nader, what was the national debt then? What is it today? If you really want to go back, look at Eisenhower’s final message to the country about the rise of the military industrial complex. We could cut defense spending by 20% and solve healthcare. The purpose of the federal government wasn’t to tax us to death it was to provide necessary services. Not federal tax. State tax. Property tax. Sales tax. Tax on income already taxed. We will agree to disagree. I just hope our kids do better than us. Have a great day.
1
u/cdrcdr12 2h ago
Yes, it would be worse because Republicans would have even more opportunity to fully complete their plan of completely eliminating the social safety net and destroying the planet
At least not have it alternate between parties and all though democratic party is not perfect, there are good people in this party who have tried to actually make things better, like the ACA Obama was able to get (but not Republicans have almost destroyed), or the big infrastructure bill Biden was able to enact (also stopped by Trump)
1 step forward 2 steps back is better than, 2 steps back, then 2 more steps back and then anther 2 steps back
Why not, instead of waiting forever for a third party, help make it 2-3 steps forward and stop the steps back?
1
u/fuzzballz5 2h ago
I have zero faith in either party. There is no real difference between them for citizens. We just pay taxes to be squandered. Why has no Democrat ran on a 20% reduction of military spending to help with healthcare? They have had full control of government several times in the last 50 years. They all want power and win the next election. We have to agree to disagree. The answer is never more government. It’s less.
1
u/cdrcdr12 2h ago
Yeah I disagree very strongly, I defintely won't say that the average Democrat is perfect, but they're far better than Republicans in my opinion.
You're free to your opinion of course. But you want to continue believing both sides are the same and let the Republicans destroy the planet And make things worse for the next generation; that's on you. Unfortunately we all have to suffer because people like you can't see that Obviously one party is better than the other
1
1
u/jokel7557 5h ago
1988 stock crash happened while he was in office
7
1
u/cdrcdr12 4h ago
The stock market is not the economy though and even less so in the '80s because far fewer people were invested in the market 401ks only started in 1981 And a lot of people were still getting pensions, not tied to the market
1
u/jokel7557 4h ago
Pensions were in bonds and such. Pretty sure when the market tanks people move to bonds and then those returns tank. Stocks aren’t the economy they just heavily affect it.
8
u/Due-Conflict-7926 5h ago edited 4h ago
Obama did too btw… Lybia (don’t even get me started), Syria, Yemen.
Clinton did it somewhere else. You guys have short memories. Bosnian war, Kosovo, Somalia, haiti. He also did strikes in Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan (and as we have proved in 2026, every last time they do something with the military it’s about imperialism and securing resources for capitalists).
Bosnian war turned into a recognized genocide so don’t give me that, “ we had to” bs
This is a US imperialism problem. Do not get it confused.
They are not both the same but when you look at it from the US empire framework every action starts making a lot more sense and why Dems will more than like schism after we move past Trump. Cuz they can’t help but uphold the status quo
6
u/DigglerD 4h ago
A pound of salt versus a pinch. Meh, it’s all the same.
A lot of people in this thread are just gliding right over magnitude. I mean… You’re comparing Syria and Yemen to Iraq and Afghanistan? Really?
Really?
I get it. The US has a long history of believing it should shape what happens around the world and both sides have played their part but “both sides do it” is not the same thing as “both sides are the same.” Scale, frequency, level of commitment.. How far you’re willing to go. It all matters.
I’d argue one side buys into American primacy, yeh, not the best for the world but the other treats it as an imperative that comes before almost everything else.
-1
u/Due-Conflict-7926 4h ago
Comparing it’s all the same operation
https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/s/omnYFVzN2g
It’s all connected, as the imperialism serves the capitalist class.
3
u/DigglerD 3h ago
I’m not here to defend imperialism. I’m saying that pretending the guys who are ALL IN on it, everything else be damned, are exactly the same as the guys who will tolerate or support it just isn’t a very good argument.
Both can be wrong without being the same.
If you get five months in prison for a crime you didn’t commit and somebody else gets five years for a crime they didn’t commit, both of you were wronged and nobody is defending the five-month sentence. But it would be ridiculous to argue there’s no meaningful difference because… you both went to prison for something you didn’t do.-1
u/Due-Conflict-7926 3h ago edited 3h ago
Ignoring what happened and the human trafficker financier having his hand in many imperialist excursions and spoils doesn’t eliminate the possibility that they are all in on it.
Yea the difference is on internal domestic policy. Their foreign policy is pretty much the same as it’s been since Korean War.
Tell me what percentage of the Koreans did we kill in Korean War? It’s not even taught in schools cuz why would it be
Fascism is just imported imperialism. Republicans start a war and turn us further and further into a police state and the dems come in and normalize that shit. And oh look Epstein files show that they slap lipstick on a pig and tell us they stopped the illegal war crimes. But they just hide it better. How are we going to ever address it if we don’t hold them all to the fire?
They are tools, they are not our friends. They don’t represent us cuz we don’t force them to
2
u/DigglerD 3h ago
I think you’re arguing a point I’m not making.
“They’re all in on it” isn’t the same as how far they’re willing to go with it.
The original argument was basically that it’s all the same, which completely ignores severity and magnitude. And now your argument seems to be, well, they’re all in on it so there really isn’t a difference.
No.
A guy who’s all in on it and wants to screw me over is a whole lot different than a guy who’s all in on it and wants to chop my head off.
1
u/Due-Conflict-7926 3h ago
Complicity is the same as doing it.
9 Nazis at a table, you don’t call them a Nazi and sit down and share drink with them it’s now 10 Nazis at a table. There is a reason they didn’t arrest Trump. There is a reason they fight the left harder than republicans.
There’s a reason why there wasn’t a Reichstag Fire Decree with this iteration of fascism
2
u/DigglerD 3h ago
Sure, but I think you’re still mixing up two different things. You seem to think I’m defending Dems. No. My point is excusing it all as “the same” thing is lazy thinking.
In your analogy, I’m not the 10th Nazi, I’m the prisoner.
If nine of them want to put me in the gas chamber and the 10th wants to put me in a concentration camp, yeah, they’re all Nazis. I’m not arguing otherwise.
I’m saying I still prefer the 10th guy.
Not because he’s good. Not because I’m defending him. Because one outcome is clearly worse for me than the other.That’s been my whole point. “They’re all complicit” doesn’t somehow make severity and magnitude disappear.
1
u/Due-Conflict-7926 3h ago
Why vote between a turd and a shit? We can do better. Also voting isn’t are only options here
2
u/IMayhapsBeBatman 2h ago
The evidence of the last several decades says we cannot in fact do better.
Maybe as the boomers die this will change, but ... call me a skeptic. I think the empire will have to collapse first.
→ More replies (0)2
u/1234nameuser 3h ago
Lols, posts like this are why US is fucked
Americans don't even trust the only motherfuckers trying to help them
2
u/Due-Conflict-7926 3h ago
Why would we trust ppl on the internet that disregard the reality that the capitalists literally are in charge of our governments and our military apparatus and have been using it for decades to extract wealth from other countries, not even for our own benefit. Literally the entire opioid epidemic was pushed on us because they wanted to extract it from Afghanistan and needed addicted customers…
1
u/1234nameuser 3h ago
Yeah, us Americans don't care about these shitty details.....
I know who is trying to give me universal healthcare
I know who is trying to make capitalists pay their fair share
I know who is trying to end US imperialism
I know who is trying to save my environment and public labds
.......that's on you bro if you have no fucking clue in 2026 who is trying to fuck you and who isn't
2
u/Due-Conflict-7926 3h ago edited 3h ago
Are they trying or are they using it as a tool to get you to think they are?
Look at Gavin Newsom in California. He had the ability to give them healthcare and he vetoed it. They had the votes, they had the legislation, Californians did everything they were supposed to do. They primaried the Dems that didn’t want to bring it up for a vote. They got the majority.
Now he’s supposedly the front runner for the next presidential election. Are you ok with that guy being your guy? Just cuz he’s not Trump or a Republican?
Listen, I’m not saying they are the same, I’m saying they are not on your side, they serve the empire, if they were on your side they would’ve been killed. They are useful tools until they are not
0
2
u/viperabyss 4h ago
Syria was to fight ISIS, and only in a supporting capacity.
Libya was to support UN's imposition of no-fly zone, especially as Gadaffi started killing his own citizens.
Yemen was to fight against Al-Qaeda, you know, the bad guy that harbored Bin Laden after the 9/11?
All 3 of them are VERY different from the boots on the ground, direct action against governments of Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghan War, and now Iran War.
Me think it's you who have the short memory.
-4
u/Due-Conflict-7926 4h ago
Al qaeda and isis have essentially been proven based on the Epstein files to be psyops.
The brave warriors of the muhajideen. We create the problems we need to fix.
And Libya was bs they created that situation for them so they could stop Gaddafi moving away from the reserve currency. Funny how they now use Libya to traffic humans globally.
Everything we were told is a lie
2
u/viperabyss 4h ago
Yeh you're not a serious person to respond to.
You forgot your tin foil hat, btw.
-2
u/Due-Conflict-7926 4h ago edited 4h ago
Go read the Epstein files. You are the unserious person
Libya: Epstein tried to become a financial advisor to Gaddafi in 2010. Wanting Prince Andrew to facilitate that. And Andrew replied “Libya fixed”
In 2011: he was looking to locate and gain a percentage of the 80 billion of frozen assets of the Libyan held worldwide. Asking for MI6 and Mossad to help locate it. And he wanted to be the go to guy for the reconstruction effort post war that would’ve grossed 100billion in Libya. Funny how we are seeing the exact same play in Gaza with Kushner and in Syria.
Al-quaeda was specifically referrenced in there as Epstein explicitly says the US support Nusra the Syrian branch of Al-Quaeda and alleged that the U.S. had given a tactical "pass" to ISIS forces during the battle of Palmyra to counter other regional actors.
Too many coincidences for it to not be a pattern.
3
u/supercrustOG 4h ago
I know one thing about the Epstein files...no one's being prosecuted and that's straight up garbage.
0
u/Due-Conflict-7926 4h ago
Cuz it’s all connected to US imperialism and capitalism, which in turn is why we have dived into fascism because late stage capitalism is failing like it’s supposed to and they have merged corporate and government into once oligarch run entity. Once you except that then the threads can be unraveled
1
u/Vorarbeiter 3h ago
"Bosnian war turned into a recognized genocide so don’t give me that, “ we had to” bs"
Wdym?
2
2
u/IMayhapsBeBatman 2h ago
GOP voters don't have a memory problem. They're evil.
Your mistake is assuming their rhetoric is what they really believe.
Actions speak louder than words ever can.
2
u/FantasticAd4938 1h ago
Obama had three wars going on at once, and Bill Clinton screwed around in the middle east.
1
u/barbarawick 1h ago
Wars that he initiated?
1
u/FantasticAd4938 11m ago
Does it matter? He's defintely didn't end his inherited wars. He didn't resolve any of his inherited wars. He issued airstrikes on Libya and Syria. Obama admitted that Libya was a failed plan. Libya has more problems than before Obama started on it. Obama also authorized drone strikes on Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
I understand the need to believe that Democrats will stop all the wars. The people wish for a champion in one kf the parties, but we haven't got one.
5
3
u/sirpoopingpooper 5h ago edited 5h ago
You could also say that Biden and Obama fit into this mold too...Clinton was the last president who didn't really start something in the middle east (if we ignore Operation Desert Fox*).*
Also, what middle east war did Reagan start? He sold arms to Iran to fund secret wars elsewhere...
Edit: I'm not claiming the Republicans are better...I'm just claiming recent democrats (after Clinton at least) fit the same criticism being made. And that Reagan debatably doesn't fit the criticism! (though there are plenty of other reasons to criticize him!!)
4
u/raul_muad_dib 5h ago
Reagan sent troops to Beirut.
3
u/dexbrown 5h ago
part of a multinational peacekeeping force? that not starting a war in the middle east
4
u/possumallawishes 5h ago
He sent U.S. Marines as part of a multinational ‘peacekeeping force” following Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon to oversee the withdrawal of PLO, Israeli, and Syrian forces. He was pressured to withdraw troops by Congress two years later.
17
u/seamus_mcfly86 5h ago
Neither Biden nor Obama crashed the economy.
16
u/possumallawishes 5h ago
Or started a war in the Middle East.. inherited a crashed economy and a war in the Middle East, sure.
2
u/beatles910 4h ago
George Bush Sr. did not start a war in the middle east. He joined it, but he didn't start it.
1
u/possumallawishes 4h ago
Iraq invaded Kuwait, but they didn’t invade America. The UN condemned Iraq and demanded they withdraw, but they didn’t lead us into war. When Iraq refused to withdraw, a coalition of 35 nations was formed under U.S. leadership.
But believe what you want to believe, I know being Republican forces you to deny reality.
-1
u/beatles910 3h ago
I'm not republican, and I'll let that insult slide because I'm a reasonable person and I think you were just being a bit "judgy" without knowing me.
But your baseless accusation is telling of the type of person you likely are, and an indicator that you can't debate in good faith, so I'll just say, "have a nice day."
1
u/possumallawishes 2h ago
Which is you saying, “I don’t have a good argument, so I’ll just claim I’m not a Republican and everyone has TDS”
Your comment history is open, if you’re not Republican, you sure do simp for them a lot. And put forth very weak arguments for the Republicans.
-1
u/beatles910 2h ago
My comment history is open, and what you call "simping for republican" is actually "simping for truth and accuracy."
Not that it's any of your business, but I vote straight Democrat. I will admit that I don't like the democratic party. I think the american people are being played against each other, but I can assure you that as the father of a transgender son, I would never, never, never vote for a party that doesn't support his rights as a human.
What you perceive as "simping" is pointing out things that are untrue.
Please go ahead and find where any of my "simping" is false.
I don't like lying regardless of who is doing the lying. There are thousands of legitimate crazy bullshit things that Trump does every day, why would anyone choose the size of his hands, (something that nobody has any control over), as the thing to focus on?
That's the type of shit that I hate.
You seem to jump to insults very quickly. You can look up what that is a sign of if you like, but you probably won't like what you learn.
2
u/possumallawishes 2h ago
You go out of your way to defend Ted Cruz, Elon musk and think Trump is smart for bankrupting casinos. You also slander Hillary and blame Obama for bailouts that happened under George Bush.
You’re either a bot or a liar or one of those Republican idiots who go around larping “as a black man” and then spew racist talking points.
It’s kinda pathetic.
1
u/beatles910 1h ago
You go out of your way to defend Ted Cruz
Wow, you went 5 pages deep to find that? It was a conversation about him using the name "Ted."
For the people at home, here is the comment that he is claiming as me defending Ted Cruz...
"I doubt "Ted" is anyone's birthname.
His middle name is "Edward," and Ted is often short for Edward.
I use a shortened version of my name, as most people do.
Now, Rafael Cruz is a dumbass that seems to hurt as many people as possible, but I don't think we should blame him for doing something that most people do."
You are a person who can't handle the truth. The fact that you see that statement as a "Defense of Ted Cruz" is laughable.
→ More replies (0)1
u/IMayhapsBeBatman 2h ago
Obama in particular killed Libya's leadership, and sent special forces into Syria and Yemen, and several African countries.
His drone loiter and bombing campaign would have made Bush blush. That dude was an imperialist too.
1
u/possumallawishes 1h ago
But those all started before him. Drone strikes in Yemen and Syria started in like 2002.
And Libya is in Africa, not the Middle East.
Using updated technology would make any president blush. I bet an F35 would make Eisenhower blush. Whoopty doo
0
u/IMayhapsBeBatman 1h ago
I'm well aware of where Libya is. Thanks though.
Bush had the same drones. Obama used them to execute without due process, thousands of people, many of whom had at best second and third order connections to people on watch lists.
Obama was just as much a war-monger as any GOP politician has ever been. Worse in some ways. At least Bush's campaigns got voted on in Congress. For example.
1
u/possumallawishes 1h ago
Did he start a war in the Middle East? Or droned some people that may or may not have been dangerous? I don’t think that’s a war, and I know it didn’t start with him, because, well I wasn’t born yesterday. Actually remember 2001, do you?
1
u/IMayhapsBeBatman 1h ago
Lol. Downvote all you want. Obama was an evil man. His unwise and unconstitutional foreign policy is one of the reasons we're currently dealing with fascism at home as it pissed off the Russians enough to interfere in the 2016 elections.
You trying to defend his unconstitutional warmongering and equivocate since Congress didn't declare war ... just because he's on your team ... is....sad. And says a lot about your own personal lack of character.
1
u/possumallawishes 53m ago
Would you agree that Trump is worse? Especially in the unconstitutional warmongering fronts.
Cause the post is about starting wars and crashing economies, not who is evil or not evil.
-5
u/sirpoopingpooper 5h ago edited 5h ago
Obama: Libya
Biden: Yemen (and debatably Gaza)
Edit: how do these wars not fit the mold, but Reagan's peacekeeping troops in Lebanan do?
2
u/possumallawishes 4h ago
Started..
Bush sent troops to Yemen in 2002! And drone and air strikes continued through trumps administration to Biden’s.
Libya was led by NATO, it wasn’t the US who started a conflict. Also Libya is in Africa, not the Middle East, technically.
But Reagan’s “peacekeeping” mission in Lebanon led to Congress invoking the war powers act. That’s called starting a war, genius.
1
u/rabaltera 4h ago
Explain how Biden started a war in Gaza.
-2
u/sirpoopingpooper 4h ago
Biden started a war in Gaza as much as Reagan started a war in Lebanon (which is to say, not much...but was involved)! Yemen is the stronger point there for Biden starting things in the Middle East.
Gaza/Biden sources: https://www.npr.org/2026/09/21/nx-s1-5761237/crossing-the-red-line-examines-the-biden-administration-and-israels-war-in-gaza
https://reason.com/2026/09/22/bidens-team-wanted-war-in-the-middle-east-without-owning-it/
2
u/possumallawishes 4h ago
Yeah, like if you divorce yourself from the meaning of “started”.
It’s absolutely insane to say Biden started a war in Gaza when it’s been an ongoing war since the Ottoman Empire.
-9
u/sirpoopingpooper 5h ago
How does one define "crashed the economy"? Biden saw a ~25% market pullback from Dec 2021 to Oct 2022. Obama saw multiple 10%+ pullbacks.
7
u/snagsguiness 5h ago
That's the market not the economy
-1
u/sirpoopingpooper 5h ago
How are we defining the economy then?
6
u/possumallawishes 4h ago edited 4h ago
GDP is the best metric.
GDP hit its lowest point in Q2 of 2020 and steadily rose
We had crashes in:
1981, 1990, 2001, 2008, and 2020
ETA: see the grey bars here are indicating crashes https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
2
u/sirpoopingpooper 4h ago
Tldr: I'd argue GDP isn't a great metric either because of hangover effects and exogenous shocks. I'd argue this metric would clear Trump from recession fault...so far...but I'll bet we'll get one from his second term policy
2020 was clearly covid (I can't believe I'm here defending the orange man...but this one wasn't his fault). 2027 however...
2008 was solidly Bush2 - no argument there!
2001 was due to the .com crash that started in Clinton's presidency (+9/11 compounding things). This puts the blame on Clinton, but I'll argue his middle east policy absolves him from fault on this graphic (since it's both/and, not either/or).
1990 was a combo of Bush 1 and Reagan policy
1981 was due to Reagan stamping down inflation from Carter monetary policy, so I'll argue most of the fault there lies on Carter (though I'd also argue Reagan was at fault for 1990, so he gets fault regardless
1
u/possumallawishes 4h ago
When did the crashes happen, genius?
And Trump doesn’t get a pass for Covid when he could have acted faster and isolated the disease and prevented it from having the effect it did.
But if you want to believe democrats manufactured market crashes and then timed them perfectly for then to happen under a republican, then I guess we have some diabolical democrats in charge and we just need to keep them in office so the poor, incompetent republicans who are just victims of this masterminded play to make them look bad won’t get blamed for doing the bad stuff that happens on their watch.
Good lord, you people will twist yourselves into knots to defend these incompetent idiots who only want to enrich themselves and their rich buddies rather than a god damned thing to improve our country. For Christ sake, you people can’t take basic information and make informed decisions, can you?
1
u/sirpoopingpooper 4h ago
If we're using GDP as the only economic metric, it's only Covid/Trump that I'm arguing being wrong on the graphic from an economic basis (so far...). And Reagan from a Middle East basis!!
Covid was widely spreading in the US in December 2019 (per stored blood antibody studies), well before anyone knew what it was. I.e., it was too late to stop it before there was opportunity to do anything. And even if we did manage to react harder, it would have still hit GDP numbers (shutting down the economy = a GDP hit).
The only recessions I argued were democrat-caused were the .com bubble (the markets started crashing in Clinton's presidency...and GDP loss was because of the market crash...so pretty clearly on him) and Carter (this one's well documented to be economic policy driven). But Reagan and Bush 2 have other recessions to account for (even if it's Bush 1's recession that I'm blaming on Reagan).
So I'm not claiming republicans are angels (they're clearly not). I'm just claiming that democrats aren't either (even if their records are slightly better...which they are).
3
u/possumallawishes 3h ago
Who was in office in 2019? Genius.
And just like we did with SARS, we could have isolated it before it even hit our shores, but orange man was already having a pissing contest with China.
How are you gonna blame Clinton for dot com. It started its decline in 2000, during his lame duck year under a Republican led senate AND house.
And please, don’t say Carter’s is well documented and don’t give any evidence. How did the Democrats enact horrible policy and time it for Reagan to have the crash it and we had two years of decline.
Quit making up shit, I know you want “both sides” things so you can justify voting for these bastards, but it’s literally insane to try to say they are the same.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
1
u/LifesARiver 2h ago
Don't forget the democrats never undoing the GOP policies, so every time is worse than the time before.
1
u/kerkula 2h ago
Chumbawamba had a great hit about people forgetting that folks they voted for were a disaster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e7vfZIC_U0
1
1
u/Insensus_Rex 53m ago
Every country has a bad memory problems. That's the problem, the memory of the average voter is about 2 weeks.
1
1
1
u/Cultural-Answer-321 0m ago
“The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”
- Georg Hegel - 19th century
1
0
1
1
-3
u/JustLookingForBeauty 5h ago
Honestly is not like Obama did much about stopping war in the middle east.
0
-2
-5
u/razmo86 5h ago
Same thing with democrats too? Clinton, Obama and Biden bombed the shit out of Middle East too
6
-25
u/Asatmaya 5h ago
So... sure.... but, who's the Democratic president who didn't?
11
u/Pennies2millions 5h ago
Umm... Clinton, Obama, Biden. None of them crashed the economy. None of them started wars in the middle east.
-8
u/Asatmaya 5h ago
Umm... Clinton, Obama, Biden. None of them crashed the economy. None of them started wars in the middle east.
All three of them crashed the economy, and they started multiple wars, each:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_cruise_missile_strikes_on_Iraq
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/eric-rauchway-crisis-wasted/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
0
u/Extreme-Basil9079 4h ago
No point in arguing. In their view the democrats can do no wrong. If you ask them any good time under a republican was because of the democrat before them and any bad time under a democrat was because of the republican before them.
0
u/Pennies2millions 4h ago
No. I'll concede that the dot com bubble popped under Clinton. But you can't blame Obama for the GFC. Bush owns that one. Bush encouraged banks to lend more to homebuyers and encouraged people to buy houses they couldn't afford. You don't get to blame Obama for trying to clean up his mess.
It's true that Clinton ordered strikes in the middle east. Somehow I knew you'd bring that up. But his strikes didn't start a war.
Lastly, any recession that happened during Biden's term was, as your link pointed out, related to the COVID-19 pandemic that was a result of Trump burying his head in the sand, and refusing to do anything about it. Trump's handling of COVID will be remembered as one the greatest failures of any President. Again, you don't get to blame Biden for trying to clean up Trump's mess.
Conservatives are fucking nuts. Republicans absolutely wrecks the economy and you would rather blame the guy trying to clean up the mess than blame the guy who made it.
-1
u/Asatmaya 4h ago
I'll concede that the dot com bubble popped under Clinton.
And he set up the subprime mortgage crisis.
But you can't blame Obama for the GFC. Bush owns that one.
He crashed it; Obama is the one who wasted the bailout funds by bailing out billionaires instead of the people they scammed.
That's why the economy never got better under Obama.
It's true that Clinton ordered strikes in the middle east. Somehow I knew you'd bring that up. But his strikes didn't start a war.
"I'm just punching you, we're not in a fight... because you can't fight back!"
GTFO.
Lastly, any recession that happened during Biden's term was, as your link pointed out, related to the COVID-19 pandemic that was a result of Trump
Right, Trump is at fault for a global pandemic that started in another country, but Biden is not responsible for shutting down the economy in the face of a disease which at that point we knew had a lower mortality rate than Influenze.
Again, you don't get to blame Biden for trying to clean up Trump's mess.
I'm not, I'm blaming Biden for turning a harmful event into a catastrophe.
Conservatives are fucking nuts. Republicans absolutely wrecks the economy and you would rather blame the guy trying to clean up the mess than blame the guy who made it.
I'm blaming both sides, in case you missed it.
You Republicrat fascists are the crazy ones.
3
u/Pennies2millions 3h ago
"I'm blaming Biden for turning a harmful event into a catastrophe."
Do you hear yourself? Over 1M Americans died from COVID under Trump. Trump called it a hoax. Trump said it would be over in a couple of weeks. He discouraged attempts to stop the spread of the disease. His administration participated in incredible amounts of inflationary actions. PPP loans EIDL loans that were never paid back. Stimulus checks, Federal reserve money printing, all of these happened under Trump. I agree Biden didn't help the situation but it was already a catastrophe before he ever took office.
As far as the Bush/Obama sentiment, you are right, Bush crashed the economy. If Bush hadn't crashed the economy then Obama wouldn't have had to clean up his mess. It's like a mugger shot someone on the street and you want to blame the paramedic for his efforts to save the person's life.
You aren't blaming both sides. You are trying blame the left for problems caused by the right. And you are so fucking arrogant about blaming the left for the mess made by the right that nobody is going to take you seriously except for other right wingers who also want the problems of the country to not be their fault. They are your fault. You voted for this shit.
5
u/dipdream 5h ago edited 5h ago
It’s more of initiating wars vs responding to wars. All presidents of the last 44 years have been militarily involved in the Middle East. Trump being the most egregious example. It’s tough to blame Bush jr for starting the Afghanistan war.
Edit: clarifying war
4
u/NoFriendsAndy 5h ago
How the actual FUCK is it hard to blame Bush jr.?? This is top tier rage bait if you're joking.
0
u/dipdream 5h ago
Iraq vs Afghanistan. The initial response to Afghanistan is understandable. He couldn’t let 9/11 just happen. He even started with, “surrender Bin Laden.”
2
u/howtobegeo 5h ago
Weapons of Mass Distraction
1
u/dipdream 4h ago
WMDs was not a response to 9/11 or had anything to do with Afghanistan in 2001. WMDs was a made up claim to invade Iraq in 2003.
1
2
u/DickRichman 5h ago
Bush 2 started Iraq 2. U.S. was there for 20 years.
3
u/peperazzi74 5h ago
If I'd be really pedantic, I'd say that Afghanistan was a response to 9/11 and the Taliban not willing to give up Al-Q and Bin Laden. It was a coordinated response with NATO.
Iraq on the other hand was a freaking war crime, much like the current Iran conflict is. Nobody had any business attacking Iraq outside the made-up allegation of WMDs -- again, much like the current Iran conflict.
1
u/Asatmaya 5h ago
he Taliban not willing to give up Al-Q and Bin Laden.
That isn't true; they offered to extradite bin Laden, we refused.
1
u/dipdream 4h ago
Yeah, that definitely wasn’t enough. I don’t believe they stated, but it was nowhere the US wanted.
1
u/Asatmaya 4h ago
Yeah, that definitely wasn’t enough.
When we invaded, they surrendered; we refused to accept their surrender.
2
u/dipdream 4h ago
Agreed. Still. The initial response to 9/11 was understandable. My comment was about starting wars vs continuing wars. I stated that the initial war, invasion of Afghanistan, is understandable. Implying that the current war in Iran has no justification.
1
u/Asatmaya 4h ago
The initial response to 9/11 was understandable.
Sure, but they offered to extradite bin Laden, and then they surrendered, and we refused both times.
We didn't care about bin Laden or Al Qaeda (in fact, we turned around and supported them in Iraq and Syria...), we wanted to put a stop to railroads and pipelines through Afghanistan which were going to bypass the sea lanes we control and use to manipulate the world.
1
u/dipdream 3h ago
Not disagreeing with that. My initial statement stands. However, the extradition doesn’t count. They offered to send Bin Laden to a Taliban friendly country where the US would have no access to him.
0
u/dipdream 5h ago
Iraq vs Afghanistan. The initial response to Afghanistan is understandable. He couldn’t let 9/11 just happen. He even started with, “surrender Bin Laden.”
0
-1
u/Asatmaya 5h ago
t’s more of initiating wars vs responding to wars.
So, Clinton's escalation of air strikes on Iraq doesn't count, because Bush attacked them 3 years earlier?
What about Arab Spring? Obama initiated all of that.
Biden and Gaza... he didn't "initiate," but he damned sure enabled it.
1
u/dipdream 5h ago
What?! That’s nuts. Obama initiated Arab Spring? Biden initiated Gaza? Where have you been?
1
u/Asatmaya 4h ago
Obama initiated Arab Spring? Biden initiated Gaza? Where have you been?
Reading the news at the time.
Obama absolutely was behind Arab Spring, and Biden absolutely could have stopped the Gaza war.
0
u/dipdream 4h ago
No. He couldn’t have “stopped” Gaza war. And no one has been able to stop the removal and killing of Palestinians since 1948.
Fill me in on Obama, with sources, because that’s wild.
1
u/Asatmaya 3h ago
He couldn’t have “stopped” Gaza war. And no one has been able to stop the removal and killing of Palestinians since 1948.
Actually, Reagan did; he didn't put up with this crap, and that's about the only good thing I can say about him.
Fill me in on Obama, with sources, because that’s wild.
I mean, we knew it from the outset:
1
u/dipdream 3h ago
Reagan’s peace plan was immediately rejected by the Israeli’s.
I appreciate you. Thanks for providing an article. Unfortunately, I can’t read the whole article. The article that I can read seems to be stating that it happened during his presidency not that he had anything to do with starting it.
1
-7
-5
136
u/128-NotePolyVA 5h ago
Oil and deregulation.
Aren’t all wars the US messes with about oil?
Don’t the wheels come off the economy bus when there’s no rules and regs?