Kethianna@Remittancegirl Thanks for the article. It was a good read.
To the Americans whom might read this, it's not too late. Authoritarianism is still just in its infancy in the US. You can still fight it.
Tom Ritchford@Kethianna @Remittancegirl
America has been authoritarian for generations.
Don't get me wrong - Americans must the current full-on assault on the rule of law, human decency, and literally truth and logic!, by all means necessary.
But the office of the President has simply gotten stronger and stronger over the years, decades and centuries.
Nixon, Reagan and W Bush were outright authoritarian; Clinton, Obama and Biden did nothing to roll back these extra powers.
And now here we are.
1/
Now Trump has those sparkling new nuclear weapons that Obama started to build for him to terrorize the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renovation_of_the_nuclear_weapon_arsenal_of_the_United_States
----
The idea that something just recently went off the rails is entirely false. America has been sprinting toward this precipice for over fifty years.
When the Republicans ruled, the pace accelerated to a fast run; for the Democrats, it slowed to a walk; but never did America turn around and walk away from the precipice.
/2
Please remember that free speech was sharply restricted in World War 2; in the Second Red Scare (1947-1957) in the United States thousands of people had their lives destroyed simply because they had leftist beliefs; then America had a brief, o so brief period of enlightenment where civil rights were codified in law, where much pollution was made illegal, where demonstrations by Americans stopped an unjust war.
/3
@Kethianna @Remittancegirl But after just two decades, Reagan came in, and anti-authoritarian America never recovered.
While the majority of the blame is of course with the Republicans, all hope was lost when the Democrats starting with Clinton moved sharply to the right on everything except identity politics (which isn't actually left or right, anyway).
When I moved to the US around 1984, both parties were promising what was essentially socialized medicine.
/4
I left in 2016, when neither party was talking about it. In 2008, the Obama administration banned the mention of single payer from any of the discussions about the ACA, and also refused to allow any comparisons with any foreign healthcare systems, and I knew the game was up.
Why am I telling you this?
Because if we don't understanding our history, we're going to repeat our mistakes over and over again.
We've been fighting and losing for generations.
/5
We have had two brief series of wins in this century - FDR's New Deal, and the 1960s.
The New Deal came from the Democrats, the changes in the 60s had their support, but then the Democrats also came to support the tremendous generational heist of the US economy from the pockets of poorest 50% into a tiny number of rich people.
The only way for change to happen is that either the Democrats completely revolutionize themselves and become a modern leftist party
/6
@Kethianna @Remittancegirl ...offering the services that a modern government in a developed country offers, which isn't just free medical care, but things like a *right* to vote - you don't have that in the US, you know - which means free and easy to get ID, active outreach by impartial election officials to make sure people who have a right to vote have everything they need, and mandatory time off for everyone to vote;
and I'm going to stop here, because you can imagine the rest.
/7
@Kethianna @Remittancegirl Whenever Americans are asked about socialist policies but cast in a way that is politically neutral, they generally end up in favor of them.
More, this is after generations of the Democrats, the supposed leftists, refusing to go to bat for fundamental ideas like socialized medicine and all the rest.
Without fierce champions, how are people to even know that a better world is possible?
So there are three choices:
/8
Either the Fascists dominate forever.
Or the Democrats become an actual left wing party, a strong advocate for labor above all, free medicine, free post-secondary education, extremely high taxes on rich people, nationalizing or restricting key industries like Twitter which flout the law... etc.
Or conceivable a new left wing party will spring up and revitalize America. But the DNC has proven very talented at crushing anything to the left of "center right".
/9
@TomSwirly @Remittancegirl Thanks Tom for providing the wonderful and scary insight into how America has changed, from the perspective of someone having lived there for 32 years.
Besides the times I've visited back in 90's and 00's I've only read about the changes from news outlets and Facebook/Christmas letters from family living in the US (my grandfathers brother moved to the US way back before WWII) since then.
So thanks again.
NoBorg@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Tom, on the topic of high taxes on rich people, I was recently surprised to learn that in the US, in the 50's there were 7 tax brackets and the highest (for the richest people) was 91% !!! I believe that is even higher than any country en Europe! (correct me if I'm wrong).
.
jhhl@hadon @TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
"Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman" -- The Beatles' rate is 95%
@jhhl @hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl Quibble - I think it was Peter Brown's book on the Beatles where I discovered that in fact the Beatles were paying a marginal 96% tax rate, worse than the song!
But "one for you, twenty four for me" doesn't scan...
@TomSwirly @jhhl @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
You mean that was the tax rate Beatles were paying??? Where??? America or UK ?
@hadon @TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl UK! They were also paying VAT along with everyone else.
@jhhl @hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl Quibble - in that same book I learned about "brown bag money", where the Beatles would do shows and get cash in brown bags that no one would talk about - so they weren't paying *all* their taxes. 😀
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Anyhow, I fact checked and found out that even though the bracket was so high, few people paid it. That led me to believe that maybe, thanks to those same brackets, inequalities were not as marked as today...
Take a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bXOl63RSMk
Ep 1: What Was the Top Tax Rate in the 1950s?
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Wondering what you mean here: "then the Democrats also came to support the tremendous generational heist of the US economy from the pockets of poorest 50% into a tiny number of rich people."
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl In the last 40 years, tens of trillions of dollars of new wealth poured into America from technology, and none of that money made it into the pockets of that poorest 50% - indeed, they are more insecure than ever.
For example, Bill Clinton's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act was essentially the death of Main Street - of course, Walmart, who has been given huge tax breaks by both R and D was also involved.
/2
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
The rail strike during Biden's term could have been a big boost after 40 years of both sides shitting on unions - except Biden decided to unilaterally shut it down.
AI and cryptocurrencies, two more massive heists from we the people into the hands of the 0.1%, also inexplicably hands off from both R and D.
I could go on for pages, sadly.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Interesting.. I have to read and reflect on it. I mean, maybe Clinton's idea was that, if he taxed internet, the costs would end up hurting the people at the bottom (just as it happens with tariffs today).
Maybe it was not a bad idea at the beginning, when the infrastructures didn't exist yet; but somewhere along the road, things should have changed: when multinational high tech companies appeared. They definitely need to pay more taxes .
Interesting.. I have to read and reflect on it. I mean, maybe Clinton's idea was that, if he taxed internet, the costs would end up hurting the people at the bottom (just as it happens with tariffs today).
Maybe it was not a bad idea at the beginning, when the infrastructures didn't exist yet; but somewhere along the road, things should have changed: when multinational high tech companies appeared. They definitely need to pay more taxes .
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
> maybe Clinton's idea was that, if he taxed internet, the costs would end up hurting the people at the bottom
In 1998, less than half of Americans were on the Internet, and Amazon sold only books. The average internet speed was 44.3 kbps, or about 0.02% of today, so video and streaming did not exist.
The people at the bottom simply weren't on the Internet at all.
1/
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Look at what other stuff went on during Clinton's time - NAFTA, the "Defense of Marriage Act", Welfare "reform", "three strikes you're out", the repeal of Glass-Steagall (he didn't actually spearhead that last one, but he signed the bill without comment), "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
Channeling a Haïtian friend: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/haiti-and-the-failed-promise-of-us-aid
This isn't all a mistake - the Clintons are really the people their words and actions make them out to be - capitalists.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
We have to see each topic into their referential environment in order to understand it. I's not fair to judge past events (or laws) using views from the present. NAFTA back then was seen as a good thing for all countries involved, DOMA can be understood if you take in account that societies in the Americas back then were not ready yet (same sex marriage didn't even esist, 3 strikes you're out: I believe that was a state law ...
We have to see each topic into their referential environment in order to understand it. I's not fair to judge past events (or laws) using views from the present. NAFTA back then was seen as a good thing for all countries involved, DOMA can be understood if you take in account that societies in the Americas back then were not ready yet (same sex marriage didn't even esist, 3 strikes you're out: I believe that was a state law ...
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl These aren't ancient history, I was there for all of these as a politically involved adult.
For example, NAFTA was not seen as a good thing at all by US unions, who fought against it, because they didn't want to compete with Mexico for the same jobs.
> 3 strikes you're out: I believe that was a state law ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33545971
The whole world moved far to the left in the 1960s and 70s.
1/
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
In Europe, they managed to lock in these gains to the point that even the right doesn't challenge socialized medicine.
In the United States, both parties collaborated on undoing nearly all the progress.
In particular, the Democrats decided to focus mainly on identity politics and give up the idea of economic justice.
Or legal justice, for that matter. America locks up its poor at an astonishing rate, often for minuscule offenses.
2/
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Meanwhile the rich and powerful flout the law with absolutely no consequences.
After Obama was elected, he indemnified the bankers from the tens of thousands of felonies that they had committed.
For example, HSBC pled guilty to over a thousand counts of money laundering, each of which should net someone 7-14 years in jail, and yet not one person spent a day behind bars.
3/
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
And there was no inquiry into the Iraq War, a war based entirely on deliberate lies, a war which killed roughly a million people, including a lot of US soldiers, a war which personally benefited VP Cheney to the tune of a billion dollars, mostly in no-bid contracts.
If you recall, the Bush government said the war would take weeks and cost $50 billion. Instead, it lasted almost nine years and cost $2 trillion.
4/
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
There was no planning at all except for the most rosy scenario and a million people paid for this lying laziness with their lives.
And there were absolutely no consequences. Obama said, "We have to look forward not back" so the US again learned absolutely nothing at all from its failures, something that guarantees unending failure for the rest of time.
Oh, and on the climate catastrophe, by far the most important issue of all history?
5/
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Do I sound angry? Good. I am enraged.
We always expected the Fascists to oppose us. But the left being stabbed in the back by our supposed allies, over and over again, is not just enraging, it robbed America of any hope and brought it to the deplorable state it is in today.
6/
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
I can't even see Clinton or particularly, smug Obama, and not feel a flash of rage - "America's last chance, squandered on mic drops and photo ops."
It worked out for them. The Obamas are worth $70 million, the Clintons almost $400 million. Just not for America.
/thread
JEDI10@TomSwirly @hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl I liked Obama a lot. But he said drill baby drill, but just with fancier words.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl No, you didn't sound angry (maybe because I can't see your face expressions or hear the tone of your voice :D ), but after reading the articles you shared, now I am angry! (angry but laughing at the same time because the whole story is incredible). I wasn't aware of Obama's "climate" legacy ... :/ or, I should say oil legacy (pollution/climate legacy). :/ What I was aware of is his insecurity legacy (for Europe). I'll look for an article in english ...
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl I don't understand why Obama didn't make an inquiry about the Iraq war :/
The climate catastrophe? It started with the election, if Gore had been president, the climate problem would have been given attention right away.
The climate catastrophe? It started with the election, if Gore had been president, the climate problem would have been given attention right away.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Yes, that part I remember well, and I agree. It wasn't fair that after all the lies, there were no inquiries, nobody served time, nothing!
All I remember is that Bush was following the stories told by an informant they had in Iraq and later on they claimed, or it was discovered, that they had been misguided by the guy, but I don't remember the name of the guy or the subject he used to misguide them . I just recall his name started with a C.
Yes, that part I remember well, and I agree. It wasn't fair that after all the lies, there were no inquiries, nobody served time, nothing!
All I remember is that Bush was following the stories told by an informant they had in Iraq and later on they claimed, or it was discovered, that they had been misguided by the guy, but I don't remember the name of the guy or the subject he used to misguide them . I just recall his name started with a C.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Wow, I didn't know that (about Obama and bankers. I didn't follow too much on American news at the time. Some of my rep. friends were driving me crazy with false accusations on Obama about his birth, etc)
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl I don't know if we can generalize, I don't know if social programs aren't challenged in some European countries. But if they are not, it may be because Europeans understand that what's good for your neighbors, eventually is good for you too (there's better education).
Also, in Europe there's less charity. I feel that in America people (specially christian republicans) believe that helping others is a job for the church, not for the State.
Also, in Europe there's less charity. I feel that in America people (specially christian republicans) believe that helping others is a job for the church, not for the State.
Peter Brown@TomSwirly @hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl the movement since the 60s and 70s has been strongly to the right, certainly in the UK and the USA. Less so in the old dictatorships like Spain and Greece.
@peterbrown @hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl And don't Portugal! That story of how they escaped Fascism makes me cry.
Yes, all very true. I was writing from a US-focused viewpoint, a little weird because I'm a European sitting in Rouen, but once the crockery starts flying, everyone has a front seat to their neighbors' collapsing marriage...
@TomSwirly @peterbrown @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
I find your US-focused viewpoint a very enriching conversation. We learn so much by seeing the world through somebody else's eyes. We learn, we grow.
Rouen you sad? then you can read this article that points out something where we felt disappointed with the Obama Admin:
https://www.lejdd.fr/International/Entre-Obama-et-Hollande-une-relation-marquee-par-la-trahison-du-31-aout-825571
Obama-Hollande : le poids de la "trahison" du 31 août
François Hollande et Barack Obama se sont rencontrés, a priori, pour la dernière fois ce vendredi à l'occasion de la tournée d'adieu du président américain en Europe. Leurs relations auront été marquées par la reculade du chef de l'Etat américain sur le dossier syrien.
Think about ALL what we could have avoided if Obama would have cooperated with Hollande. The Syrian regime would be weaker, terrorists would not have had the time to grow and spread as much, and most of all, Russia would not have had the chance they had. :/
Le jour où Barack Obama a laissé tomber François Hollande pour une intervention en Syrie
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
About Nafta, yes you are right, it wasn't seen as a good thing by Unions. I wasn't thinking about them, I was thinking in general (more as a means of trade, it was great for Mexicans and Canadians, many new factories were created).
About Nafta, yes you are right, it wasn't seen as a good thing by Unions. I wasn't thinking about them, I was thinking in general (more as a means of trade, it was great for Mexicans and Canadians, many new factories were created).
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
About 3 strikes and you are out. OMG I realized I didn't understood the law. I may recall some other previous version: you didn't got jail 2 times and the third one you definitely had to some jail the 3rd time, but I didn't remember it was LIFE!
" "three strikes" rule that meant anyone convicted of a serious violent crime who had two or more prior convictions, including drug crimes, was given a life sentence. "
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
I was there too, but maybe I was not as involved as you at the time :/ or some things I saw from a different point of view.
I was there too, but maybe I was not as involved as you at the time :/ or some things I saw from a different point of view.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
And about Haiti.. Clinton's mistake was probably to believe commerce could fix State structural problems. Corruption has always been high, but maybe it was less evident under the dictatorship. Yet, international investors look for security, they would be unwilling to invest in such an explosive environment (with macoutes and macoute's descendants). This is a good article about how all started:
https://theconversation.com/how-haiti-became-a-failed-state-225116
And about Haiti.. Clinton's mistake was probably to believe commerce could fix State structural problems. Corruption has always been high, but maybe it was less evident under the dictatorship. Yet, international investors look for security, they would be unwilling to invest in such an explosive environment (with macoutes and macoute's descendants). This is a good article about how all started:
https://theconversation.com/how-haiti-became-a-failed-state-225116
Chris Johnson@TomSwirly @hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl Só the problem is really capitalism and neoliberalism, not é.g. Clinton (you do know that US presidents can’t introduce new laws, right?). Americans and much of the world are living in a reality distortion field which makes it hard to see things clearly, a field promoted and supported by wealthy capitalists because it greatly benefits them — even those among them who can’t see it either.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
I'm mean, he was foreseeing the need, getting legislation in place so that everybody could afford it in the future.
If there was a heavy tax on them, then the service would have remain as a luxury only few people could afford.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Tom, but I remember people arguing that they voted for Trump in 2016 because they opposed Obamacare. Wasn't Obamacare some sort of socialized medicine then?
(and I agree with you, we have to understand history to not repeat it. That's also the reason why I ask you so many questions, sorry :) Just learning new things with you.)
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
Obamacare isn't socialized medicine.
Obamacare forces you to buy US health insurance or you get a nasty fine; if you're very poor, it's subsidized.
The trouble is that a lot of US insurance is unbelievably bad - like United Healthcare - so you often get no real value out of it.
And if you're working poor, you don't get the subsidies.
Here in France (where we now live), if you're in the system, you pay zero for everything.
1/
@hadon @Kethianna @Remittancegirl A big example of the difference is insulin.
About 20% of American diabetics skip insulin doses to save money, over 25% if they're African-American: they are risking blindness and health attacks because they can't afford insulin.
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
I remember watching stories about people who had to sell their home in order to pay for cancer treatment :/
Ok, you saved your life but you may end up homeless. Terrible :/
I remember watching stories about people who had to sell their home in order to pay for cancer treatment :/
Ok, you saved your life but you may end up homeless. Terrible :/
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl
I don't know how many isurance companies exist in the US, but I believe those that give a good service become more popular, isn't it? Like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which covered federal employees.
The handicap is that people can't choose their health insurance company, it's the employer's choice. And for some employers, saving money may be more important than choosing a good health care provider for their employees :/
I don't know how many isurance companies exist in the US, but I believe those that give a good service become more popular, isn't it? Like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which covered federal employees.
The handicap is that people can't choose their health insurance company, it's the employer's choice. And for some employers, saving money may be more important than choosing a good health care provider for their employees :/
Tom, look what I just found! Brand new article from Sanders, with numbers and all. He seems to be willing to fight for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/29/america-universal-healthcare-bernie-sanders
@hadon I love Bernie. But he's not actually a Democrat, remember, but an Independent!
@TomSwirly
Oh.. I didn't know that!
Oh.. I didn't know that!
@TomSwirly @Kethianna @Remittancegirl I'm interested in learning more about what you tell us here: "around 1984, both parties were promising what was essentially socialized medicine."
It's just hard for me to imagine in which shape or form Republicans were willing to provide socialized medicine. Do you remember the names of the republicans who were proposing it?
It's just hard for me to imagine in which shape or form Republicans were willing to provide socialized medicine. Do you remember the names of the republicans who were proposing it?