‘Too many things unaffordable:’ Biden fires up price wars as inflation cools
‘Too many things unaffordable:’ Biden fires up price wars as inflation cools
Inflation grew more slowly in November than October, according to the Fed's Consumer Price Index.
You're viewing a single thread.
He amplified his crackdown on soaring prescription drug costs, hidden fees for cable and air travel and corporate “price-gouging.” He also promised to “keep fighting to bring down costs.”
Following the links the above quote, the CNBC articles suggests we can expect progress on the first two items (prescription drug costs and hidden fees), but there's nothing I read in the linked article about dealing with price gouging other than some stern words. Maybe something is indeed in the works, but it wasn't obvious to me at the least.
Instead of taking a routine victory lap, the president doubled down on the war, pledging to do himself what the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes have not: Make things cheaper.
[…]
It is a marked tone shift from the president’s typical reactions to positive inflation data.
I do appreciate this narrative shift—transitioning from tone-deaf/gaslighting to acknowledging that key issues still aren't addressed.
He's trying to thread the needle, and to me it's kinda working. He won't be effective on most of it, I'm sure, but I've given up hope of effective government and just like it when it makes nice sounds.
I feel like the biggest reason he won’t be effective is that he’s against pure obstructionists in the GOP. They have no desire to govern and somehow won the House.
That and the biggest donors, on both political sides, have everything to lose from following through on stopping price gouging.
Time to cut the rot at its core then
Do you mean that in the second amendment way?
Do you?
If they don’t, The golden goose will disappear forever
have everything to lose
You mean they won't profit as much.
Nothing they lose will be so much that they have to change their lifestyles over it.
Unless they've taken on lots of liability with the assumption of profit
Oh yeah, it's totally the GOP's fault. 100%. Just like the last 40 something years since Reagan. Which is why I've given up hope.
Note: I am not being sarcastic. The GOP broke our government.
You are massively underestimating the role of Democrats in getting us where we are today. It's not like industry consolidation slowed down when Democrats were in power.
Anti-trust is the real answer, at least within the scope of what neoliberalism will embrace. Biden has never been good on anti-trust. He's made some noise on that front recently, but it doesn't seem to have slowed down consolidation of every single industry.
What was the reason when Biden had the House and Senate?
Manchin and Sinema?
The reason inflation and price gouging continues under Biden? Inflation got better. And 40 years of deregulation and corporate mergers that never should have happened... That's pretty difficult to tackle in a 4 year term.
You mean a super slim majority with two "moderate" democrats holding every vote hostage?
This is the same shit we heard before when Obama was president. Republicans somehow manage to pass a ton of their shitty legislation, so maybe it's just that Democrats don't really give as much of a shit about the people as they say.
Because not all Dem senators have the same electorate base whereas republicans (although lately we're seeing a shift away from this) tend to fall lock step in line. Sinema and Munchin come from very purple states so their seats were never secure. It's not enough to have a slight majority. Also, the Senate is being held hostage by republicans right now with ever more polarization. I don't have an answer but to just pin it on the president is asinine. We need to show up to local elections and midterms.
Oh man that's right...
Too bad we didn't elect the guy with decades of Senate experience who.promised he'd be able to get Republican senators to vote for the Dem platform when a Dem Senate seemed impossible....
What's that?
That guy did get elected? And then as soon as he took office he did a 180 and said as president there's nothing he could do to change their mind and immediately gave up on the bulk of his campaign promises?
Huh...
You might remember that because of the filibuster, 41 Senators can block a bill from advancing, and despite that, quite a lot of bills got passed 51-50. Mitch McConnell could have stopped any and all of those bills if he wanted. It's probably not a coincidence that those passed and that Biden and McConnell have had a generally cordial relationship for decades.
The margin was so slim that he effectively didn't. If one or two democrats held out (and there were a few specific people who always did) then the votes would fail.
That would make sense...
If Biden hasn't spent the entire primary expecting a Republican Senate and telling everyone he was the only one to get Republicans onboard and that's why he should be president...
It's four years later. He wouldn't even try to get democrats onboard, he publicly said their choice is their choice and it would be wrong to try and change their mind.
So why is he running again?
Because he's the incumbent? It doesn't matter that as soon as he was elected, he said the reason he was elected just isn't possible?
Like, maybe if he had tried I could see letting him keep trying. But he immediately gave up. Do people get nearly think he'll start trying if he gets the second term? What's the excuse for not trying now?
Let's not forget how hard Biden worked to rehabilitate the anti-Trump Republicans. He has more Republican speakers at the DNC than progressives. All the worst shit Trump did had been Republican agenda items for decades. He should have hung Trump around their necks. Instead, he nearly handed them congresss.
Democrats know all they have to do is say the right things and people will keep voting.
Biden has no intention of doing anything meaningful on inflation.
Permanently Deleted
Neither of the choices you'd vote for are viable either, unless all you care about is war spending.
I will be voting third party.
Enjoy your super principled fascism.
Your talent for projection is astonishing.
Huh? Not sure I follow, how am I projecting, exactly?
You're here criticizing me for supporting third parties.
You just spent the last three years watching more than 200 billion dollars, unbudgeted, get added to an already trillion-dollar war budget. You watched the right to bodily autonomy evaporate, and the response from the party you gave power to change that was just to fund raise. You've watched zero action as housing scarcity has escalated, and likewise zero action on wages, education, and health care costs. (Unless we're giving credit for speeches without any subsequent action.)
And you say I'm the principled fascist, watching Democrats allow it to happen or so concerned with making money off their positions that they ignore it.
You have to ignore so, so many things you make excuses for in order to come that conclusion.
So, for that to be me "projecting", all the ills you describe that haven't been solved to your liking must equal fascism to you? You either have no clue what projecting is, or no clue what fascism is, or I guess probably both. Anyway, cool theory bro, keep both sides'ing and doing your part to help literal fascists back into power, they'll surely get on solving all those things! Un-fucking-real, there are seriously still people that witnessed 2016-2020, then 2020-now and are like, yeah whatever, both sides hurr durr. I try not to hate, but damn, you fucking people, you're seriously going to fuck us all with your nonsense.
Every issue you've described is something actively fought for and put forth by Republicans. The same Republicans who hold the house and, subsequently, the ability to pass legislation to fix these things.
Democrats, or I guess in this specific case Biden, has no ability to just snap his fingers and grant: bodily autonomy, re-write the war budget, programs for housing scarcity, education, livable wages, or health care. To claim otherwise or that he is just toting people along while actively avoiding responsibility is either showing that you have literally no idea what you're talking about or is just straight misinformation.
I do not love Biden and I adamantly disagree with some of his decisions such as his response to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But he has done some serious good with his time in office. Expanding access to live saving medication for seniors, providing an actually reasonable student loan repayment plan, modernizing the internet infrastructure for millions of homes in the mid west, and shifting much of the Federal governments facilities to use green energy just to name a few.
I truly wish 3rd party candidates stood any sort of chance in a general election, I really do. But as it stands currently they do not, history has shown us that over and over and over again. So you have 3 choices: vote for the party that actually perpetrated those above issues and has made it perfectly clear they will do so again, vote for the lesser evil that while horribly flawed has actually done some serious good in addition to frankly just not promoting an authoritarian ethnostate, or toss your vote out and pray for the best.
This is ridiculous. How are Republicans able to pass all their vile legislation in the face of Democratic opposition while the opposite is not also true? How can you argue that Biden is powerless to do anything, but Trump will have the power to bring about the end-times? You're trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth all to maintain the status quo of shitty government.
Because Trump just ignores laws that aren't convenient to him.
Every issue you've described is something actively fought for and put forth by Republicans.
You and I have entirely two different perspectives on what it means to actively fight for something.
Today on Lemmy, which is dumber?
-Distilling an entire presidency to what happens in proxy wars (the RU one admittedly being an amazing deal for the US against a long term adversary).
-Voting third party in '20/'24
the RU one admittedly being an amazing deal for the US against a long term adversary
You chickenhawks say the same things about every war. I remember 2003 when Iraq was going to last six months and cost 30 billion. "Mission Accomplished". Back then you told us it was a bargain because Saddam had uranium.
Voting third party in '20/'24
What's dumb is seeing 40 years of conservative outcomes and the progression of fascism under a Democratic president and then telling us to do more of it.
Ah, "Genocide bad, unless it happens to Ukrainians, who cares about them?", a classic of "Both Sides!" fans.
Nope. Read it again.
You missed the point.
Then again, you chickenhawks just repeat what the news tells you to anyway, so maybe you shouldn't read it again. I'd hate for you to get a headache.
Then again, you chickenhawks just repeat what the news tells you to anyway, so maybe you shouldn’t read it again. I’d hate for you to get a headache.
Oh no. Not the news. How terrible, following the news. I wish I was enlightened enough to get my knowledge of world affairs through online games of Telephone rather than books and reputable news sources.
Nope. Read it again.
So what is it?
Support Ukraine in the war against Russia - or all wars are equally bad, only chickenhawks support wars?
Back then you told us it was a bargain because Saddam had uranium.
I don't remember this, care to provide some justification? The way I remember it is that Americans were tricked into being afraid of Saddam and his WMD and it was sold as a preemptive move to a bunch of people still reeling after the 9/11 attacks.
Russia is actually a major adversary, this is not secret. They are also acting like aggressive imperialists. I would be hesitant to get boots on the ground, but helping Ukraine defend itself is both a win for us, and the right thing to do.
I don't see how they're really comparable.
Holy shit I've argued with you a few times, this comment is actually something I can totally agree on.
Back then you told us it was a bargain because Saddam had uranium.
Nope, I was against that war before it ever started. Ukraine isn't even close to the same situation.
the progression of fascism under a Democratic president
Please explain your reasoning behind this statement and compare those outcomes to the alternative (voting republican)
Better savor that vote. If Trump wins, it'll be the last one you cast.
There's always going to be some Trump-like figure waiting in the wings if you demand that we continue limiting ourselves to these two parties alone.
That's not remotely true. If you look at the demographics data, we basically have to just hold on until the Boomers die. Once that happens, Republicans will be a severe minority if they don't change their politics. Then the left can go back to its usual circular firing squad without risking American democracy.
Then the left can go back to its usual circular firing squad without risking American Democracy.
Jesus fucking Christ thank you. Republicans just line up to be cucked by Trump and their worst policies. Americans, even Republicans, aren't in favor of these abortion bans, but Trump goes out on the circuit being like "you know, I got those judges in there" and that's a win for him. More benign, but Ted Cruz can have Trump call his wife ugly or whatever and just hop right back on that dick without even enough time to grab some mouthwash and wipe down with a towel.
Meanwhile, the someone anywhere sneezes, Biden doesn't say "bless you" fast enough and that's the fucking news cycle.
Which one are you voting for?
I'd like to find a viable 3rd party candidate that can win the presidential election and disrupt the 2 party system we currently have.
Do you think Trump would?
He surely wouldn't but for those of who don't belong to either mainstream party your question is annoying AF. As long as we keep electing people from the same two pools of corporate backed idiots NOTHING is going to change.
None of us like it but most of us, eventually, learn what a trap third party voting is the way the system is set up. When you're young, naive and a bit idyllic it seems like an easy choice. "I'm standing up for change!" you think to yourself. Or perhaps the old "We gotta start somewhere, let's get that 5%!" nugget.
Then you get older and the shit you used watch from the sidelines on TV actually starts to affect your lives. Health care, education, retirement and other life issues show up and that naivety falls away rapidly as you learn that A) it'll take a revolution of sorts for any meaningful change and B) our lives are too short to hope for said revolution. Do we still want that change, absolutely. However, sometimes in life, you really do need to choose between the douche and the turd sandwich.
Then you get older...
Then you get even older and realize that choosing the douche or the turd sandwich ends up with you holding a douche or a turd sandwich.
At 52 I'm done with these games. Its too important to my children, my nation, and the actual environment I live in.
I don't think these people will ever get it. It's the same mentality that keeps climate change raging on, "I can't change anything on my own, so I'll just keep doing the same thing until someone else fixes it."
Fair to be fed up, but I feel that was more a concern when the two sides of the coin were very close to being the same. I'm not much behind you on age but I can still see that only one option TODAY is trying to blatantly and openly destroy most of the progress we made in your 52 years. I'd rather hold the douche and have a chance at getting out clean than hold the turd and assuredly end up covered in shit.
...but I can still see that only one option TODAY is trying to blatantly and openly destroy most of the progress we made in your 52 years.
They both are, one is just more open about it and willing to get there a bit faster on some issues. Yes, the bulk of Conservatives are somewhere between "Awful" and "JFC this person needs to be beamed into outer space!" but the Authoritarianism and Stupidity are running just as rampant among the so-called Liberals.
I’d rather hold the douche and have a chance at getting out clean than hold the turd and assuredly end up covered in shit.
You know what a douche is for, right? That's the point of that skit, it's a Hobsons Choice. It"s amazing to me people continually bring that skit up without understanding what it really meant.
Of course I know what one is for, the point I was making is that what SEEMS to be the same to you and what may have been is no longer the case.
You've clearly already checked out and, at best, listen to mainstream media if you're still in the "they are the same" or "one hides it better" camp. Lost cause.
I tried to ask an honest question ... no snark intended.
And I happen to agree with electing the insane same old-same old expecting different results.
Someone once explained representative democracy this way: Choosing a candidate is like riding a bus. None of them are going to come directly to where you are and none of them are going to drop you off at your exact destination. The best you can do is choose the one that gets you as close as possible in the shortest amount of time. Sometimes you're not even gonna get that close and you'll still have a long walk to your destination, but at least you'll be closer than where you started. Sometimes you have to take one bus then transfer to another to get to your final destination.
When the alternatives are buses that are traveling the opposite direction, your best available choice becomes very clear.
The place where this analogy falls apart is that by not taking either bus, you may actually lose ground and get further away from your destination. So I guess when the alternative is a bus that stands less than a 5% chance of arriving, you ultimately end up being shoved onto the bus that the majority of people are riding.
This person gets it.
The 'their guy sucks too' defense doesn't inspire much confidence.
Better to at least support whichever candidate is less likely to destroy the country while we wait for a better one to come and save it.
Ah, the "just wait til next time to vote for the person you want" argument that we see repeated every two years ad nauseam. That'll surely fix things.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but if you live in a swing state there is definitely an argument to be made about pragmatic damage control. I don't judge either way, if you don't feel like someone has earned your vote it isn't your fault that they haven't earned your vote.
I also agree that voting for the slightly less shitty candidate isn't going to fix anything in the longterm, but sometimes the best choice for the well being of people is damage control. Damage control isn't a strategy, but sometimes it is the best tactic within a broader strategy. That being said, fuck all that noise when people get upset at you for voting third party. You aren't the person that created a rigged system that doesn't provide meaningful choices for you to choose from. Someone can disagree with you on how best to fix that, but getting angry at you for choosing a different approach is just people taking out their anger on you for the system being rigged and broken.
That would be the third party candidates.
The last time a third party ever got close to winning the presidency was the progressive party with the candidate being Theodore motherfucking Roosevelt a well liked president to this day. And do you know what happened? It split the vote and we got fucking Wilson a segregationist bastard who revitalized the KKK and kept us out of WW1 which probably prolonged the war.
If you want a third party start at the local, dont even think about the presidency until ypu can overthrow one of the two parties. The Rupublicans went from being an irrelevancey to win ing the presidency back in the 1800s for example.
One thing that people fail to understand when voting third party is the overall makeup of the two big parties. Republicans are very homogenous. One need look no further than a picture of all republican senators and compare it to a picture of all current democrat senators. Both pictures will have a majority of white men, but one of those pictures will have a much larger number of minorities (women, people of color, etc...).
The democrat party is really an amalgam of lots of different types of people with different cultures and different desires unified by an interest in more progressive policy. But it's much harder to keep every sub-group of people happy. If even one of those sub-groups grows weary or defects to the other side, democrats lose.
I was happy for a while to start to see some cracks in the republican party, but I underestimated their ability to stick together despite having utter contempt for their populist leader. So many republicans detested the idea of a Trump presidency right up until he won. All of a sudden, they rabidly and staunchly defended his every action. There have only been a very few number of principled Republicans that have stood their ground against Trump, and one by one they're either losing elections or declining to run again. It's sad really.