War on poverty has worked, social security reduced senior poverty for example, while the war on drugs hasn’t because they’re very different things in spite of having the word ’ war’ in name.
Nope, its railing against the idea of trying to learn things without a foundation of facts.
Do you anticipate current “progressive” efforts to attack the homeless situation by providing free housing, safe drug paraphernalia, mental health services, “'decriminalizing crimes of poverty,” etc. to work? I don’t.
I’m pretty sure free housing would fix homelessness by definition.
1 Like
Can someone explain to me why Biden hasn’t eased immigration during a labor shortage?
give us some examples of when this happened to you
He does have plans for this but it seems like he’s being blocked by Congress and the courts. Specifically it seems like a lot of his plans were tied to the BBB bill that’s dead in the Senate.
One of the biggest “LOL Democrats” things is watching them insist that everything has to come from Congress and the President has to just make suggestions then wait for bills to pass after watching Trump do whatever he wanted for 4 years and let the courts decide whether he really had the power to do it or not.
That’s a different question than ‘the War on Poverty’ is unwinnable like the War on Drugs. Unlike the US version of the War on Drugs, the war on poverty around the world has been winning in a lot of places. In some place that’s creating an environment where market income can increase. In other places that already have a good market economy the welfare state steps in and helps level incomes across populations through various methods, be it in kind transfers like public housing, child allowances, income for food, etc.
And in place that do implement those thing poverty has remarkedly decreased, the Nordics have nearly no child poverty while the US has double digits. Single mother poverty rates in the Nordic countries are far lower than the US. So you have a situation where similar ‘family breakdown’ situations, the single motherhood in the Nordic countries is similar to the US, but the effect of that breakdown isn’t poverty, it’s normalcy.
So the War on Poverty can be ‘won’ in the sense you can reduce poverty remarkedly and long term. Where The War on Drugs, doesn’t really have the same effect on drug use.
So the next question is, if the War on Poverty can be won, why hasn’t it been won in the US?
Well it has when the US implements well run programs like Social Security, but it falls when the US implements poorly run programs like TANF (food stamps) or public housing. In the US food stamps and public housing are seen as failures of the war on poverty and proof that projects to help the poor are failures, but in other countries huge amounts of the housing stock are public housing. They’re well run, well kept, affordable, etc. In the US we have public housing too that’s pretty good, we just call them state college dorm rooms. They’re public housing, but since we don’t consider them to be, they don’t get the stigma. Other countries do provide the poor with income to spend on food, but for them having as many people are as eligible get the money and then spend it is a program objective. In the US it’s not. TANF funds are given to the states who, in turn, spend it on whatever projects they want. The result is that few people who are eligible get food stamps and what they can spend it on it strongly curtailed, so more money can go to other projects.
If the big projects like a national public housing program and food for the poor at a national level are taken off the table as well as a child allowance, generous unemployment benefits, etc then whatever programs come next aren’t really going to solve poverty and/or homelessness, no matter how effective or efficient they are, though they probably will help and are worth perusing because they do some good.
Like if you were to ask the people running the safe drug paraphernalia if their program would end homelessness they’d look at you crazy. It’s not even one of the goals of the program. It’s to reduce the harm caused by drug use.
1 Like
President Joe Biden is actively looking for Republican support for his Supreme Court nominee. But he’s doing it cautiously, wary of setting expectations that end in failure.
In interviews this week, Senate Democrats suggested that they would also like to see a broad bipartisan vote. While they stressed that winning over Republicans shouldn’t be the deciding factor for Biden, they argued that it would send a signal to the public that the high court isn’t as politicized as many perceive it to be.
“For the institution, it’s important because the Supreme Court has become so polarized that a bipartisan vote might well help to begin to restore some of the credibility it has lost,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “But I don’t think that ought to be a decisive question to the president.”
Imagine losing the Supreme Court 6-3 and thinking from a strategic view that you need to restore credibility to the Supreme Court. Like if I were a Republican I’d be amazed I’m being given this complete free roll. Don’t support and you get the status quo. Do support and you get increased legitimacy for whatever insane decisions come through the Court
1 Like
Partially because Dems are terrible on immigration but also because the courts have blocked several efforts to roll back Trump’s policies.
Maybe this is extremely naive, but it seems the hope is once Trump is gone things will improve to some sort of normalcy with more normalized bipartisan efforts and coalitions.
Also, IMO FWIW AOC has no chance of being an effective president. She is too polarizing and it is too personal. IMO no one who regularly tweets out personal attacks on other politicians (including those in their own party) has any hope of being an effective president, regardless of their politics or whether they have good ideas. This obviously includes Trump.
Wow you couldn’t be more wrong. Everyone knows the only way to have an effective presidency is to tweet out attacks on other politicians. You only believe this because you get all your news from social media which tells you what you want to hear because you fail to see things from both sides because you’d rather the country fail then to ever admit you’re wrong because you hate the real America.
This makes no sense in the context of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s make up will exist far after Trump. The Supreme Court’s rulings aren’t the result of Trumps picadillos, they’re the long term goals of the conservative movement. It’d be one thing if the Court’s ruling hinged on the appointment, then maybe it’d make sense that bipartisanship would signal that the Court is going to be a consensus Court. But this replacement is just going to write 6 -3 dissents for the next 10 years in conservative victory after conservative victory.
Is that how it has worked out so far? Melk is right that I do read the DailyMail (for good or bad), and their coverage of the courts so far indicates it has been surprisingly bipartisan and non political (from their perspective at least). There are worse things in the world than a Supreme Court that generally leans conservative, but still respects the rule of law and the democratic process.
Many would argue that is exactly the role the Supreme Court is designed for.
Attempting to legitimize this Supreme Court is either:
A) A hilariously incompetent move by Democrats, an own goal of epic proportions
B) Yet another example of establishment Democrats being beholden to corporate donors who are foaming at the mouth to watch SCOTUS fuck over the working class on all sorts of below-the-radar issues for the next 20-30 years.
Hmmmm, which could it be?
They. Are. In. On. It.
I could buy a few of them are that stupid, but the whole lot of them? C’mon.
Their coverage of the courts completely sucks, then. This is not exclusively a Daily Mail problem, though; most mainstream coverage of SCOTUS sucks, either from obscuring the truth (right) or overemphasizing relatively unimportant “bipartisan” decisions (centre).
Daily Mail is a sorry excuse for a newspaper/site - absolute rag.
1 Like
I think the opposite. The only president that has a chance of making a difference under the current system is someone that’s willing to crack some eggs and upend the existing power structures. You can see how Biden is completely incapable of getting anywhere, and it’s easy to imagine a centrist conservative type like Romney having the same fate. Trump actually could have made things happen but he was far too lazy and incompetent.
1 Like
Might need a president who’s willing to do things that seem obviously unconstitutional.