Both the president and his reelection campaign are going after his coup-attempting predecessor even before the first GOP primary ballots are cast.
A full year out from the 2024 presidential election and nearly two months before Republicans cast their first primary ballots, President Joe Biden and his campaign are assuming that Donald Trump will be his opponent and have already started reminding voters why they threw him out of office in the first place.
Biden personally has stepped up criticism of his coup-attempting predecessor and is framing the likely rematch as one that will determine the survival of American democracy.
“The same man who said we should terminate the rules and regulations and articles of the Constitution — these are things he said — is now running on a plan to end democracy as we know it,” he said last week at a fundraiser in Chicago.
“This next election is different. It’s more important. There’s more at stake. And we all know why: Because our very democracy is at stake,” he told a San Francisco audience on Wednesday.
Idk it certainly seems that the top 1% had a great run 2016-2020. Not so much 2008-2016. Great run going up to 2008 though.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
Wow this is a shitty graph. What more can you expect from the religious right think tank of Pew Research.
Why the hell are they going in 9 year buckets? Why not standard decades, or president? Or, for that matter, single years and a trend line.
Why does the first bucket start conveniently after Black Monday but still partway through HWs term?
Why does the second bucket soften the blow of post 9/11 slowdowns and the dotcom burst by ranging from the the first half of Clinton’s second term up to just before the 2008 recession? And of course, includes most of the tail end of the dotcom buildup.
Why was this article published in 2020, graph normalized in 2018 dollars, and conveniently stops in 2016?
Do people not think critically about the data they ingest? This what “just asking questions” should be…why, exactly, is this graph so particular? Because it really seems to me that it is deliberately cherry-picking data to show to drive an agenda.
I choose this graph specifically because it disproves his point that the rich did not do well after 2008, which is obviously false. Wealth inequality grew under Obama, it was not some liberal magic that stopped it during that time.
It’s organized that way because it’s a section about the Great Recession.
Here’s another example for you: https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
Oh no, looks like it did get worse.
I didn’t say they didn’t do well after 2008. I said they didn’t do as great as they did in the years prior.
Reading comprehension.
The comment I posted the graph to did, that’s the whole point and it is true wealth inequality grew after 2008.