I suppose you’re right, plotting is technically planning… I meant something more constructive or helpful, something that would improve the country in any arbitrary measurement.
The world is under going radical changes with commodified AI, regardless of how anyone feels about it, and US society is woefully unprepared because we’re being sabotaged by a party of fascist demagogues.
The goal never was to help the American people. It was just easy to make the average man live comfortably when your country is one of the only ones not set to rubble mode after WW2. Now that our means to an end have reached the end we are all starting to get uncomfortable enough to tell the Emperor he is naked.
They will literally turn to fascism, and just take your shit and throw you in a grinder. They don’t care about the planet, the people, or anything other than their stock portfolios.
Why are they blaming the republicans for banning UBI? Obama had a super majority, and the dems didn’t pass a UBI or even an abortion bill, so obviously the Dems dont want it either.
tl;dr: the actual length of the supermajority was a few months, which they spent working on reform for the healthcare industry, where an estimated $2.4 trillion was spent in 2008.
Also, even the Green Party didn’t add UBI to their platform until 2010.
I don’t see where I said the length was 2 years? I said Obama had a super majority, and when he had it he “abortion wasn’t a priority,” and neither was UBI. I don’t give a shit about what republicans think.
UBI became broadly well known as a policy in the US in 2020 with Andrew Yang’s campaign. It was on the Green Party’s radar as of their 2010 platform. Neither of those things had happened when the Dems had a roughly 6 month supermajority in 2009.
There are plenty of legitimate concerns to have about Democratic policies without expecting time travel from them.
You may not care what Republicans think, but you’re doing their job for them.
No need to change history to protect your best friends, the blue capitalist party. In 2008 they had a super majority for a few months, specifically July and August. Now I should specify, that 60 votes isn’t necessary at all, it’s just another one of those convenient rules that only seems to matter if it’s legislation democrats don’t want to pass in the first place.
President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.
He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken’s election in Minnesota and he didn’t get seated for seven months.
The President’s cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
That gave the President 59 votes – still a vote shy of the super majority.
But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.
So while the President’s number on paper was 59 Senators – he was really working with just 58 Senators.
Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 – but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.
In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy’s seat in September.
Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.
Take you and your Mitt Romney talking point and shove it, you soggy bucket bad faith hack.
You need to read a lot more closely. You missed some important details.
One thing that was not mentioned in that was the fact that Joe Lieberman was an independent that leaned very much Republican. So he does not count towards the majority. So that’s even one less.
Oh! How convenient. Democrats, that ran as Democrats, are referred to as Democrats, and are funded by various “Democrat” funding orgs such as the DNC or the DCCC, are suddenly not Democrats when it comes to actions in congress that might matter.
Maybe we shouldn’t vote for people just because they have a D next to their name?
So youre point is because the dems didnt make any UBI plans, it should now be forever banned? Even if they don’t want it now, there’s no reason to ban it unless youre a tyrant.
It won’t be forever banned as soon as the dems decide they want it. The ban literally does nothing except signal to the republican base, but that law had no power to stop the federal government from providing UBI. Much like all the dumb bullshit states are doing with abortion could be simply and easily undone as soon as dems decide they actually cared about abortion beyond a fundraising opportunity.
But I’m sure Dems in Arizona are going to use the existence of a law, that does nothing, to send out thousands of emails urging you to donate to whatever dem candidate that has never cared about UBI, will never pass UBI and has no intention of passing a UBI.
What does it even matter? Even if they ban it, it changes nothing because it’s not like they would ever implement it anyway. And if the dems would want to implement UBI someday couldn’t they just repeal the ban?
Republicans don’t have a plan, outside of hurting ‘the other.’ Having a plan would mean having to defend something from scrutiny, and it’s way easier to tear shit down than to build or refine.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why prices won’t rise to include the UBI so people are effectively as poor as ever, meanwhile the money still goes to the companies gouging us for necessities, just with an extra stop along the way.
Edit: yeah, no, this is a dumb take because that exact fucking thing has never happened with anything else like college tuition 🙄
College tuition is a weird bird. Some colleges allegedly have attempted to lower prices for tuition and found that they had less students, claiming something about perceived value and standards.
I’m pretty sure it’s all bullshit, but I’m definitely not running a study on pricing.