You must log in or register to comment.
I like former President Obama, but his ACA was half baked. It is not even close to the healthcare system in Germany and other EU members.
Blame Republicans and a couple of Democrats. Yes, it was half-baked, but it was also almost defeated, and later almost repealed. The alternative of “nothing” is so much worse.
The ACA was essentially the republican compromise that was offered to Clinton when he tried to get universal health care. He rejected it and was unable to get any meaningful change.
It shows how much we have moved to the right that the republican plan from 10 years earlier was barely able to be passed by Democrats.
I’ll also point out that Clinton’s big goal for his time in offices was universal health care not balancing the budget. He completely failed on that but did briefly balance the budget.
Still better than the republican goals.
Romneycare
From the perspective of those who have a lot of money, what’s the problem with that? My wealthy friends always vote r because they want to pay less taxes. Thats their only motive. This selfishness needs to be manipulated.
Edit- thinking deeper. The problem is also that they’re not taking things seriously. They believe it’ll work out… by itself… in a little while. That’s not how problem solving works. This is how we got to the situation we are in today.
My family is decently wealthy but comes from a pretty impoverished background (They moved to Canada from Sri Lanka during the civil war)
They’re pretty centreist. Although in the last elections elections they voted Green (Provincial and Federal)
To compare - many of my friends are immigrants too (from the former Soviet Union) and grew up poor in the states. And they don’t understand why others who had more opportunities than them weren’t able to “make it”. They view being poor a choice and they don’t want to subsidize people who made the “wrong” choice.
I think my parents Buddhist upbringing has a lot to do with their beliefs. They always want to do good when they can. Respecting other cultures and identities etc.
fixed that for you
Much better graphic. Maybe shit head will change the us for the better in the long run. The only way the us can move forward is when the r’s start experiencing the consequences of their own actions… and it’s slowly happening.
honorable goals
“tHeY’rE tEh SaMe!!!”
in terms of their motives? absolutely. is -1 a better score than -5? yes. are they both in the negative? you better believe it. don’t go slobbering all over clinton and obama’s loafers just because there are worse people out there. they tried to enrich the wealthy and succeeded. only difference between the dems and the republicans up until the trump era was that the dems lied about being progressive to distract from their wealth transfer and the repubs committed a casual ongoing genocide to distract from theirs. but it worked- you are distracted. from clinton deregulating corporate oversight and obama kneecapping socialized health care on behalf of the insurance industry. were bush and reagan and bush junior more harmful? yeah of course, but let’s not lionize their coworkers because they used a different disingenuous strategy to launder money for their corporate masters. in the present moment, of course, it’s a bit different- the republicans are stoking the engine of an outright fascist coup and the dems are spoiling the only chance we have to stop it with weak appeals to “decorum” and “practicality”.
so no, they’re not exactly the same. one is jabba the hutt, and the other is the little shitgoblin cackling on his tail. neither will help you. get used to it.
edit: math
Now that’s an infographic
Rich people are richer than ever though, so at least the red party delivered.
I would point out that, objectively, Clinton did achieve a budget surplus, and Kennedy’s program eventually got us to the moon (though he, obviously, didn’t live to see it). Say what you will about the ACA. No matter what standard you take, that’s at least a 2/3rds success rate for the blue party by your measure.
ACA was a huge success in the millions of additional people with healthcare. This saved lives. Lots of lives.
The possibility of Universal Healthcare was dropped: this was not a goal of ACA. Most of us expected a follow up to ACA that would do that, but too many people voted for politicians fighting against it. Despite ACA being overwhelmingly popular, it hurt Dems in elections and they really haven’t had an opportunity to do much since
Which let’s be real - the only reason there was opposition to the ACA was because Obama did it. It was basically RomneyCare. Most people (on the right) opposed to the ACA didn’t actually know why they didn’t like it - it was done by that uppity guy who wore a mustard suit.
My little brother has a genetic disorder - already had multiple, intensive surgeries by his tenth birthday. He would have capped out his lifetime insurance payouts around the time the ACA passed. He would probably not be able to get any form of insurance now because of his preexisting conditions, if not for the ACA.
The ACA’s problem was that it did not have a public option. We aren’t operating under a free market - insurance companies are colluding with each other and hospitals. There is no actual competition. Even if universal healthcare wasn’t a moral imperative (how the fuck do you keep up your insurance when you’re sick? when the company you work for fires you because you miss too much work?), it’s also not even being run by the rules of the “free market.”
If I remember correctly a survey of people was done asking how they felt about “the ACA” and how they felt about “Obamacare.” They approved of the ACA and HATED Obamacare…
Fucking propaganda man…
The ACA’s problem was that it did not have a public option.
That’s still rationing healthcare by wealth. The problem with the ACA is that it was written by liberals and relies on capitalism. The best healthcare systems use central planning and are free or near free.
I mean, agreed, but at least having the public option would drive down some prices. Our health care system is a failure even by the standards of liberal capitalism.
Rolled my ankle a few weeks ago - probably fractured it, hobbled around and now I can walk on it without hurting. No medical care - I’m saving up $300 for my blood work for my routine check up and figured that even the Urgent Care would do nothing and charge me $100 for it.
The ACA gave me affordable healthcare when I was young and poor and had none.
Republicans have never even come close to doing something like that for me. Quite the opposite actually.
Oh, I agree with you. However, I wasn’t going to assume that the person to whom I was replying would agree.
I would point out that, objectively, Clinton did achieve a budget surplus,
That’s not even a worthwhile goal. The state can print money for whatever it wants. Clinton didn’t change any of that. The state still wastes endless resources on the MIC, imperialism, etc. while many people lack basic human needs: food, shelter, healthcare, livable environment, etc.
Zero is a meaningless goal that changed absolutely nothing, especially long term.
Missed a few.
Johnson: use war to win re-election
Nixon: fight hippies and commies
Ford: pardon Nixon
Carter: attain energy independence
This is not true. Trump’s goal as president is to stay out of prison.
That was goal 1, now goal 2 is excuting the biggest grifting world tour ever seen.
I’d’ve rather that it’d never come but, at a certain point, it reaches a point where it is mesmerizing, in its scope and scale.
Well there’s two rows missing. That would be Trump 2: get trumped
That was his goal as a candidate. His goal now is to put everyone else in
prisonconcentration camps.Imagine how much he would snitch. He’ll never be allowed to cop a deal or go to prison.
Oops, all Heritage Foundation.
The two party system is cooked.
Nothing will get better till the two party system is a thing of the past.
Gotta switch to proportional representation if you want to break up the two parties. I suggest Sequential Proportional Approval Voting for multi-winner elections, and pair it with regular Approval Voting for single-winner elections. Both can be implemented at every level in the US, and some places can do so by referendum. Lemme know if you’re interested.
And the Americans are dumb enough to fall for the red lies every time they run.
Nixon’s Southern Strategy
Winning elections for Republicans since 1968
Maybe nobody actually gives a shit about “balanced budgets”, imperialism in outer space, or sabotaged healthcare.
Yeah let me ignore all the atrocities that blue presidents committed abroad, those don’t count since its brown people
I happen to be a fan of voting for what’s best for the country I live in and the people I care about, then taking other countries into consideration after that.
Life isn’t perfect. I strive for whatever is closest. And I’m smart enough to know voting 3rd party in a presidential election is dumb as fuck because no 3rd party is viable because none have done the work to become viable.
So I’ll take the party that has a record of voting in favor of middle/lower class Americans over the party that only punishes average Americans and takes their rights away.
Pretty basic math.
Let’s make this meme more accurate, shall we?
- Kennedy: Imperialism, use the presidency to get laid
- Johnson: Imperialism and expansion of social safety net
- Nixon: Imperialism and a one-party state (But oddly gave us the EPA)
- Reagan: Make the rich wealthier, destroy unions, kill the gays
- Bush: Imperialism, making the rich wealthier and destroying unions
- Clinton: Imperialism, increase corporate power under the guise of ‘free trade’, suppress the gays
- Bush II: Imperialism, make the rich wealthier, eliminate the right to privacy, militarize the cops
- Obama: Imperialism, make the rich wealthier, make health care more expensive, militarize the cops
- Trump: Imperialism (though oddly less so), make the rich wealthier, militarize the cops
- Biden: Imperialism, make the rich wealthier, militarize the cops, ignore food becoming cost-prohibitive
- Trump II: Destroy everything, make the rich even wealthier, especially himself
You’re missing “brazen, bold-faced racketeering and sedition, stuff the judiciary” under trump 1. Also, saying that Obama’s “goal” was to make healthcare more expensive smells like bullshit. Let’s see some sources on that. Flawed and imperialistic though he may be, Obama put a good faith effort into taking the first step toward a socialized healthcare system, and was completely hamstrung by obstructionism. Finally, you need to put “subvert soviet imperialism, fuck over puerto rico, and engage in international scientific dick-sizing contests” under Kennedy. Other than that, and the fact that you skipped a few presidents in there (like “Carter: Try (and fail) to balance being a good human being with being the head of a jingoistic imperialist nation in the middle of a dick-sizing game of Connect4 where the countries of the world are the playing field and refusal to play could mean nuclear annihilation”), no further notes.
Oh, you’re right. Let’s fix that.
- Carter: Imperialism, general failure.
I will give Carter this much, though. He definitely had the best post-presidency.
Also, no. For all his pretty speeches, Obama didn’t make a good-faith effort to do anything except expand the war machine both internationally and domestically, make rich people wealthier, and expand the power of the presidency. (Hell, remember the ‘Kill List’?)
If you are an American, American economic imperialism is in your best interest.
“If you own a plantation, slavery is in your best interest.”
False equivalency.
For you to make the comment in this context, I think they are more equal than you are willing to admit.
Kennedy got to the the moon. (Posthumously)
Clinton eliminated the deficit.
Obama did not achieve universal health care.
Congress wouldn’t let him. The President doesn’t write the laws and can only ask Congress to do so.
Sadly, even if Sanders were elected, it wouldn’t have made universal healthcare a reality.
You need 218 progressives in the house and 50 progressives in the senate. So… not happening.
Yes and, they also needed to break a filibuster by the Republicans, which took 60 votes in the Senate, despite severe illness and Republican shenanigans. It was a huge lift to get what we got.
Progressives would need to down ballot vote for that to happen. Would also need to support and fund progressive candidates.
Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.
Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.
Of course not!
They’re doing something far more critical and effective!
They’re withholding votes based on purity testing and otherwise being manipulated into nullifying themselves by online manipulation by the right.
The funny thing is, americans already kinda have universal healthcare… just with a middleman. Where do they think those insurance premiums are going?
Universal Healthcare (behind a paywall)
There’s still a significant amount of people who are uninsured. So, no, Americans do not have universal healthcare.
Executive order deporting anyone in senate not voting for his agenda?
/s (but only for a few months, then headlines will explain how it’s apparently a real option)
He never seriously fought for universal healthcare. He stopped advocating for it before he even started fighting. As soon as he got a “reality check”, not a word of support for universal healthcare was ever uttered by him to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, though.
This is exactly it. Obama waged no fight a pre negotiated good healthcare plan to get us the heritage plan.
Kennedy got to the the moon. (Posthumously)
I think just a few parts of his skull made it to the moon.
Weird cuz a lot of things Clinton did seem to be more money for rich people too
That was always their secondary goal.
Reducing the deficit by cutting things that benefit the working class coincides with money for rich people.
Yeah, just skip over genocide joe. lmao.
Do you think this is the last 6 presidents?
Dems: More money for millionaires. Reps: More money for billionaires.
