this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
151 points (90.8% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3491 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
151
30 Things Joe Biden Did as President You Might Have Missed (www.politico.com)
submitted 9 months ago by btaf45@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Expanded overtime guarantees for millions

First over-the-counter birth control pill to hit U.S. stores in 2024

Making airlines pay up when flights are delayed or canceled

Gun violence prevention and gun safety get a boost

Renewable power is the No. 2 source of electricity in the U.S. — and climbing

Preventing discriminatory mortgage lending

A sweeping crackdown on “junk fees” and overdraft charges

Forcing Chinese companies to open their books

Preventing another Jan. 6

Building armies of drones to counter China

The nation’s farms get big bucks to go “climate-smart”

Biden scraps Trump’s paint scheme for Air Force One (not sure this is worthy)

The Biden administration helps broker a deal to save the Colorado River

Giving smaller food producers a boost

Biden recommends loosening federal restrictions on marijuana

A penalty for college programs that trap students in debt

Biden moves to bring microchip production home

Tech firms face new international restrictions on data and privacy

Preventing a cobalt crisis in Congo

Cracking down on cyberattacks

Countering China with a new alliance between Japan and South Korea

Reinvigorating cancer research to lower death rates

Making medication more accessible through telemedicine

Union-busting gets riskier

Biden inks blueprint to fix 5G chaos

Biden empowers federal agencies to monitor AI

Fixing bridges, building tunnels and expanding broadband

The U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history

Strengthening military ties to Asian allies

A new agency to investigate cyberattacks

And I will add a few of my own:

Creating a new 15% minimum corporate tax rate

Creating the most new jobs in any 4 year period of American history.

Ending inflation without starting a recession

Reducing student loan debt

Expert handling of Putin

Ending Covid without telling people to drink bleach

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ending inflation without starting a recession is probably the most impactful on this list.

A few years ago when Covid shut down the economy and the fed printed trillions to keep the whole system from collapsing, I would have bet anything that a major recession was just around the corner.

The ‘soft landing’ was one of the most significant challenges our country/the world has ever faced.

Obviously not completely attributable to Biden, but his leadership during this time allowed us to come out of Covid stronger than we were before it started. The whole world was at risk of the dollar collapsing and it was a super close call.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

No one will ever remember it. That's what government should be like. Inflation was guaranteed, now we just need to see them start hitting companies for over charging. So step 1 is getting congress to write a bill saying over charging for a product is illegal. The question is how much is to much... So we will likely never get legislation. Maybe start with saying food cannot be resold at a cost higher than 3%. It will start bringing food costs down, and we can fix Desantis's stupid bill and change it from Chinese and make it so no one who does not live in the U.S. can buy multiple properties and companies cannot buy properties in residential areas. Then we might see housing stabilize or drop.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

We are experiencing a lot of late stage capitalism issues.

With the increasingly valid excuse of uncertainty, mega corps ‘must’ make more money now because they don’t know what kind of economic hardships they will have to be prepared to endure in the future.

That risk is built into the cost of goods, and can’t easily be quantified, so a bill capping profit margins isn’t really feasible. And let’s not forget who really crafts legislation these days.

In my state, there is a limit to the number of liquor stores one person/corporation can own. They recently increased it from one to three. This law makes a lot more sense for housing than it does for liquor stores, but unfortunately there are too many billionaires with skin in the game.

A crash in housing prices comes with its own set of problems as well, so whatever changes are necessary, they should be taken slowly so as not to cause another collapse in the housing market. Home ownership is still the primary way for the average American family to develop any meaningful wealth, good or bad as that may be.

Whatever changes need to happen, they must be gradual and sustained over a long period of time. Massive and abrupt changes create instability which will have unanticipated consequences.

We want these mega corps to be like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot. Eventually, monopolistic and racketeering like practices could be diminished while millions are lifted out of poverty. If it is to happen, it will take time.

If I were a betting man, I would say that meaningful change is unlikely. Mega corps will continue to squeeze every penny out of the people, leaving us only enough to continue buying their shit. Bernie may have been able to do it, but sadly that ship has sailed.

[–] PuddingFeeling907@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

"The U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history"

The point is meant for the republican readers :P

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Donger@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Healthcare pls

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] Numberone@startrek.website 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They've found new and exciting ways to to stuff money in insurance pockets. I may be dumb, but I don't think subsidies are a solution at all. If the Government wanted to set prices...great. if they want to run a single payer system...sploosh. all this does is obscure from people how fucking expensive their healthcare is. I get that that satisfies the need of individual healthcare consumers (sort of....40$ vs the actual monthly rates people will be paying is kind of an "oh how cute" situation), it doesn't make the system any more sustainable.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The strategy that California is pursuing is providing subsidies to more and more groups of people, giving government a greater say in prices over time. Eventually the goal is to have government pay for everyone's health care so they can negotiate prices to a fair level. Sounds feasible to me.

[–] Donger@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

2000 dollars isn't free.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Any Healthcare plan that could get through the Republican House is gonna be worse than what we already have. Vote for Democrats in 2024 if you want better laws on Healthcare.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Renewable energy as #2 source of energy.

As opposed to what? Non-renewables?

Is there even a #3?

[–] Enkrod@feddit.de 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The article says:

Electricity generation from renewable energy sources — including wind, solar and hydropower — surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time in 2022, making it the second-biggest source behind natural gas generation. Renewables also passed nuclear power generation for the first time in 2021 and widened that gap the next year.

So at least it's

  1. Fossil Gas
  2. Renewables
  3. Coal
  4. Nuclear
[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 3 points 9 months ago

Don't get me wrong, I do know what they're referring to, but to group all types of renewable (solar, hydro, wind) against a single type of non-renewable energy source is a stupid way of comparing things.

[–] digeridoo@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

I've searched (not researched) a little bit and it appears that the categories that they may be referring to are petroleum products, coal, nuclear, and then renewables.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd love to see one of these articles where the list isn't padded with non-accomplishments like painting the fucking plane, or giving Biden credit for starting preliminary inquiries into thinking about doing something like with cannabis legalization, or things that he should be ashamed of, like producing more oil than at any time in history.

[–] SeabassDan@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

In the good ol' US of A? Good luck.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (9 children)

Are they seriously trying to paint the mass production of AI powered war drones, while hinting they’d be useful in war against China, as a good thing?!

Político is written my actual morons.

[–] sab@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Not "they", but Paul McLeary, the Politico defence reporter. Each point on the list is essentially an opinion piece by one of their journalists.

And it's not necessarily saying it's a good thing: It's a thing you might have missed. You could also question whether "the U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history" is supposed to be a good thing.

Furthermore, as to McLeary's point: Some - such as anyone in the region except the Chinese - might argue it's important that the influence of China in the South China Sea is balanced out by other powerful players. It's not about going to war with China, it's about the continued independence of Taiwan and other fairly fragile balances in the region. It doesn't take a moron to see that the situation is complex.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Pandora's AI war drone box has pretty much been opened so might as well get ahead of the curve. More important than the utility in an actual war is the function of weapons as a deterrent to show that it's not worth fighting a war.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm a fan, for one. Fuck China. Fuck Russia.

[–] klemptor@startrek.website 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Respectfully - with that attitude, we'll never be at peace.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] xlash123@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd love to see a bigger focus on creating better public mass transit systems instead of focusing on producing more oil for cars. Cheaper gas addresses the symptom, not the cause.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] xlash123@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I really dislike the majority of the focus of this article on just getting more EVs. While electrification is important, it doesn't really solve any of the current transportation issues and tries to position itself as the climate fixer. Yes, EVs are technically better for the climate, but what is even better is competent public transit. EVs transport a fraction of people that trains, trams, and busses can, which makes them much less energy efficient. Remember that electricity is still generated in lots of places using non-renewable resources, and the manufacturing of batteries also contributes a significant amount of carbon emissions. Given how big cars are and how little people they tend to transport, you start to see how extremely inefficient they are. Removing cars (more specifically, the dependence on cars) is always better than replacing them one for one.

The real focus should be on building more public transportation options to compete with cars, and petitioning local government to make changes to remove car-centric zoning laws and allow for mixed-use zoning, which is greener, cheaper to maintain, and brings in more city revenue than large roads and parking lots.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Yes, EVs are technically better for the climate

Not just "technically". They're massively better for the climate.

Technically, a fully electrified transportation sector that focuses on EVs is even better for the climate than a transportation sector without cars and focused just on public transit.

But the main reason is that convincing people to switch to EVs is waaaaaaaaaaaay faster, cheaper, and more doable than convincing people to rebuild our entire transportation infrastructure.

As far as I'm concerned, yes public transit is more desirable, but the climate emergency is more pressing. Once we're fully electrified, then we can begin transitioning to mass transit options. But it's a matter of priorities: the ongoing destruction of the climate is more important than efficient transit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I don't mean to be an ass regarding these because a lot of them are really nice but, none of them aside from the broadband expansion and maybe the funding for election transition/process really seem to help the current day millennial or Gen Z, the closest might be his environmental policies, I feel he should start focusing on thr younger groups if he wants to keep regained support for the newer gens.

That being said I did learn quite a bit from this article because I wasn't aware he did most of what was listed here so it is cool

[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago

I feel like these should all establish a trajectory that very well aligns with the countries younger generation:

  • Over the counter birth control
  • Office of gun violence prevention
  • Financial fee crackdown
  • Inflation reduction act
  • Assistance to smaller food producers
  • Consequences to colleges drowning students in debt
  • Chips and sciences act
  • Access to medication without in person visits, including anti depressants, gender affirming care, and opioid addiction
  • worker protections for union busting

I’m not a blowhard but I think this country could be in a really great place if this kind of progressive push continues with another Biden administration that would hopefully open the gates for an even more progressive eight years with his successor. The continued snuffing out of regressive views and bolstering a growing progressive shift in this country is exciting to think about. As much as I would like faster progress, and I admittedly voted for Biden as a vote against trump last cycle, I will be voting for him again because he’s exceeded my expectations. He’s laying a foundation this countries youth can build on and run away with. It’s not perfect but neither is this country. The aperture is opening up though.

load more comments
view more: next ›