Okay, I get what you're saying, but to call the Affordable Care Act "Universal Healthcare" is like calling one of those meal boxes from Taco Bell an all-you-can-eat buffet
If he is to be believed (and that is certainly up to debate), Obama's goal was universal healthcare, and his compromise was the ACA.
Personally I think as soon as the public option was gutted this compromise failed to meet what was sought out by the goal, so I don't think it should be counted at all as achieving that goal, but I don't think it's inherently disingenuous to make the claim that Obama wanted universal healthcare... I guess he just didn't want it enough.
While I do agree with what you say, the post is about goals, not achievements. It's an important distinction, and Obama did have universal healthcare as a goal.
Per usual - it was Biden, rushing to the aid of republicans to assist with their agenda. Which in this case was watering down their own healthcare proposal in order to remove the public option. In fact, he conceded this portion of the bill before any negotiations had even begun, as a “show of good faith” toward his Republican colleagues. Thanks Biden.
Obama also campaigned that he would codify abortion into law, got elected, and then said it was not a priority. Then didn't do anything to protect reproductive rights.
Really stupid that we beat down the people on the left that demand a better candidate than the one who said he would be a one term president. A man who is further left than Nixon in most aspects. Yet, we have all these people who will die on the hill of Biden and we continue to ratchet to the right.
The meme here overstates Biden, but that's not where you were originally poking.
It's totally fine to want a better candidate, but I don't get down with cutting off your nose to spite your face: "Haha allowing authoritarianism and the erosion of democracy by non participation or durden voting will sure teach the Dems to pick a better candidate! Got em!"
Biden never actually said that, but the fact that you think he did tells me all I need to know about how little you pay attention and what news sources you follow.
Obama supported the public option which would have been a form of universal healthcare. It was axed because Joe Lieberman spent months grandstanding and then Ted Kennedy died.
Lieberman threatened to join Republicans in filibuster to kill the public option and Obama's response was "Okay, we'll just pull that piece for you, no problem."
To be fair, I don't believe Trump's goal is more money for rich people.
I believe it's more money for himself but to do that he works towards more money for rich people because those rich people will in turn support and fund him further.
He's too damn selfish to actually consider people, rich or not.
It's funny to read this about self defense because I just wrote a letter to my representatives and NASA about funding for the Chandra X-ray telescope and pretty much used those terms too. We trade improvements to our shared existence in favor of "self defense" that just happens to bring us to other countries to bomb them all the time...
Democrats aren't for more money for rich people? News to me. Nice job leaving off things like welfare reform, the crime bill, and the repeal of glass-steagall (which led to the 2008 global financial crisis) from under clinton. You left off obama continuing the policy of bailouts for the rich after the 2008 global financial crisis, his support for the surveillance state (and going after Snowden after claiming to protect whistleblowers), and bombing so many more countries (like Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria). Of course there's the glaring absence of supporting genocide under biden, but I think you get the picture.
Both sides aren't the same in all things, but they are definitely the same in supporting the rich first and foremost. Democrats are better than republicans, but you're not making a strong point by pretending democrats only do good things.
In this system money is speech. Not literally, like the Supreme court has codified but in practice. No matter the party the only chance you have in getting elected is fund raising. It's a shit system and no democrats aren't a victim but their is no other credible option.
Infrastructure was done under every president but Trump and is normal functioning governance.
Corporate subsidy and monopolization of EV market
Corporate subsidy for MIC
Not actually loan Reform, college is more expensive than ever
Drug pricing might be the only novel and just good thing going on this list. But it's certainly not stacking up to ACA and Zero Deficit Budgeting.
Yet another bad faith meme trying to make Biden look more friendly to the average American than he is.
In other news today we found out he never meant for Palestine to have it's own state. That was all lies. We know this because the cables leaked showing the US trying their damnedest to get other countries to vote against Palestinian Statehood. This couldn't possibly be a distraction from that, right guys?
Even though I agree with the sentiment, and being a very extreme leftist myself, this is cartoonishly lopsided.
This will not convince anyone. Have fun preaching to the choir I guess, it is a pointless endeavor 🤷🏻♀️
If we want to turn people away from them, it will take more than pointing out that they’re evil, however true it may be. (And don’t misunderstand me, it is very true)
TBF they literally won a total war against the greatest military powers back to back and built the foundation for one of the rising stars of the region today.
Something like 90% home ownership rates, a HOT labor market, low cost of living, incredible food, a friendly and honest culture, 4.4% poverty rate, a serious effort to improve development metrics (universal healthcare, literacy rate, maternal care, etc)…
Sure sounds like the fight was worth it compared to how the US-aligned developing countries turned out.
Sure sounds like the fight was worth it compared to how the US-aligned developing countries turned out.
Yeah, who would want to be a shithole like South Korea or Taiwan? /s
The fight of Vietnam against American occupation was correct on its own merits - namely, that of the morality of national self-determination. Trying to bring in other criteria doesn't strengthen the point, and can very well weaken it.
Bush: More money for rich People, killing a bunch of brown people, try to be be even more of a global disaster as dear old dad (was close but too incompetent to do it)
Obama: More money for rich people, killing a bunch of brown people
Trump: More money for rich people, killing a bunch of brown people, destroying democracy, treason, try to be even more of a global disaster as Reagan (was close but too incompetent to do it, there's always next time)
Biden: More money for rich people, killing a bunch of brown people
Well... Why not? How is it different? Deregulation generally refers to smaller loosenings(and smaller legalizations) rather than outright legalization- but that's a kinda arbitrary distinction
But how does deregulation happen? By legalizing subsets of the already legal thing. Think- legalizing operating a car without a license, vs deregulating driving.
