Hopefully these services can be restored in 3.5 years. One of the greatest things to happen to aging infrastructure of this country in the last 10 years as a lot of our systems are based on aging military systems.
We just need it, there’s no question of the benefits and there were no negatives to speak about.
Thank you President Barack Obama! A true leader and patriot.
ronbenton 18 hours ago [-]
>Hopefully these services can be restored in 3.5 years
I am not sure it works like that. Destruction is easy, building is hard.
zbentley 8 hours ago [-]
True, but software is slightly easier to restore service to than a razed physical building, for example. The support/staff/operations part still takes time and resources, but it is a little easier.
AStonesThrow 14 hours ago [-]
The Doge of Venice never liked swarthy people; George Bush din't like White People, and now the Orange Man is always trying to keep us down!!1
I mean, I liked what they made but its kinda sad that greatest thing to happen to our nation's infrastructure was some nice websites.
Meanwhile, healthcare housing and education got way more expensive and taxes for the wealthy went down.
itsdrewmiller 15 hours ago [-]
USDS was borne out of the healthcare.gov debacle, which resulted in providing affordable healthcare to millions of uninsured people. They may not have had an equivalent sized win yet but they have tremendous accomplishments for a tiny organization.
nemomarx 21 hours ago [-]
And a lot of bridges fell into disrepair, roads get worse, etc. Gridlock has made funding anything pretty hard in the last decade, and certain parties are so anti spending they won't try to fix it
pstuart 12 minutes ago [-]
> and certain parties are so anti spending they won't try to fix it
It's one certain party, and the situation is worse than that -- they don't want any of the opposing party's legislation succeed that would be recognized by the people as a good thing and make that party look good.
This is why partisan politics is a pox on the people -- loyalty to party over country is literally treason but is celebrated by party members.
Hikikomori 20 hours ago [-]
Anti spending? The deficit has increased under every republican president almost back to ww2. Their two Santa strategy seems to work well confusing people though.
nemomarx 20 hours ago [-]
Yeah but mostly tax cuts and MIC contributions, they're not paying for local development or education or so on
> The deficit is the difference between the money that the government makes and the money it spends. If the government spends more than it collects in revenues, then it’s running a deficit.
> The federal debt is the running total of the accumulated deficits. [Or surpluses]
Lol anti spending but they're about to pass a bill adding 2 trillion to the deficit
kubb 20 hours ago [-]
Isn’t that just to cut taxes for the rich?
amanaplanacanal 20 hours ago [-]
Yep. The only real cuts I see are cutting medical care for the poorest of the poor.
caycep 21 hours ago [-]
and when Biden/Obama admins did actually fix a bunch of infrastructure, half the voting public didn't give a shit
xp84 13 hours ago [-]
That's what happens when parties govern by executive fiat instead of relying on legislation for things like that. Things rammed through by flimsy executive action are fragile and easy for the next administration to cancel.
We could have higher taxes on the wealthy and good healthcare. But to do that, the side that claims they want that and that they believe in "democracy" would have to not only post on Bluesky about it, they'd have to (A) vote, and (B) convince (rather than demonize) the moderates who are skeptical of them. We'll see in a while if they learned that lesson from 2024.
pstuart 10 minutes ago [-]
In a two party system voting is very simple: one must vote for the least bad candidate or suffer the consequences of the worse candidate taking office.
It stinks and we should change it, but until then one needs to do a simple weighing of options and cast a best effort ballot.
sneak 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
woodruffw 21 hours ago [-]
Inter alia, the USDS was notable for streamlining and fixing portions of the VA, Medicaid, and refugee processing systems. Those changes improved (and probably outright saved) large numbers of lives; it seems extremely callous to cast that aside.
tomrod 21 hours ago [-]
Aye. Digital services aren't websites only, though websites can be involved. They are software that improves process and operational efficiency while ideally making the process more transparent.
The IRS site in general is massively better now than 5 years ago, for example.
sneak 18 hours ago [-]
Many people would rather see the VA and Medicaid shut down, rather than spending even more money on them to improve them.
The point is that the idea that this organization existing was an unqualified good thing is a matter of opinion, not fact.
You’re allowed to have that opinion, but presenting it as fact is the part that I have an issue with.
woodruffw 18 hours ago [-]
Nobody appears to be presenting "the VA is good" as an unalloyed fact.
sneak 17 hours ago [-]
By “this organization” I meant the USDS, the topic of this thread.
From TFA:
> After all, having a government that functions and delivers on its promises to the public shouldn’t be divisive.
MOARDONGZPLZ 20 hours ago [-]
Very sad to me that people in my peer group actually think like this. The immense human suffering that would be caused by this reckless, fatalistic path is just depressing.
tombert 17 hours ago [-]
I fundamentally think that fatalism and cynicism are kind of lazy positions to have.
"Oh everything is terrible and it's only going to be terrible so I don't have to do anything to improve anything and actually it's a good thing that things are terrible". It's just a justification to do nothing and wrap it with some pseudo-intellectual clothing.
I've become a grumpy cynical (and sometimes fatalistic) man as I approach middle-age, but I think a lot of that is just trying to justify my laziness most of the time.
It requires effort to care about stuff even after bad shit has happened to you. It requires effort to look for the best in situations. It requires effort to think that maybe tomorrow could be better. It's easy to just say "fuck it, I don't care".
I find it funny, because so many people proclaim these edgy fatalistic takes, and I think that they think it makes them look cool, but fundamentally it has the absolute opposite effect for me. When I see an older person who still seems to actively care about things (even though I'm sure they've been fucked over by life like the rest of us) that is cool to me.
blooalien 16 hours ago [-]
> It requires effort to care about stuff even after bad shit has happened to you. It requires effort to look for the best in situations. It requires effort to think that maybe tomorrow could be better. It's easy to just say "fuck it, I don't care".
All of this is 100% true, but it's also incredibly draining after literal decades of being on the wrong end of abuse and hatred purely for daring to care, and hope, and try desperately to make anything even the tiniest bit better. After a point, it eventually becomes just too much effort for zero (or negative) return.
tombert 15 hours ago [-]
I don’t disagree, as I said I am often a cynical and fatalistic person as I have gotten older.
This is why I respect old people who seem to still manage to be stay optimistic and trusting of people in the world. I don’t think that’s “natural”, I think it’s an effort that these people put into seeing the world as a potentially good place.
blooalien 8 hours ago [-]
> I think it’s an effort that these people put into seeing the world as a potentially good place.
Oh, the world is an absolutely amazing place. It's just a shame that only a handful of humans really seem to notice and / or care. The rest either take it for granted or want to strip-mine it for profit at any cost. :(
sneak 18 hours ago [-]
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the point is the objective fact that there is not consensus on the topic.
The website seems to indicate that the government functioning well is not divisive, when in fact it is divisive as not everyone agrees with that being a good thing.
tomrod 21 hours ago [-]
Yes, yes, but sometimes people peddle factually bad ideas in the trappings of alternative opinions, unwilling to have their ugly philosophical babies challenged under the guise of rhetorical bearings.
soulofmischief 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
righthand 21 hours ago [-]
Yikes, you sound jaded. I’m not going to pretend Obama was a saint but he cared about his country and the people as he worked to give people rights. And my entire praise is for the comparison of where we are today. Now we have people actively trying to take rights away for no reason other than some rotted pride. Just my opinion in my 36 years.
The only POTUS who wasn’t a “wolf in sheep's clothing” was George Washington.
soulofmischief 15 hours ago [-]
You're damn right I'm jaded. Grown men bomb women and children, foster international violence in exchange for dominance through the war on drugs, destabilize countries to extract labor and wealth, and we call them patriots to democracy because they also signed off on a few good social programs.
spencerflem 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
pnut 21 hours ago [-]
That sounds like a bunch of second guessing tactical decisions after the fact. Sorry he's not the second coming. Where's the rest of the political will in the USA?
Looks like what the country actually wants is authoritarianism, so maybe he was just the right politician in the wrong country.
spencerflem 21 hours ago [-]
No I'm saying he's about as left wing Reagan.
He ran on a "change" platform but failed to deliver change. He propped up the rich and shot down any sort of possible ideas that would meaningfully change anything despite being given once in a generation mandate.
It dissolutioned a lot of voters, and lead to where we are now where people are desperate enough to want a strongman outsider who promises to really shake things up.
If we had gotten an actual progressive instead of a textbook neoliberal things might have been different.
Hikikomori 20 hours ago [-]
For how long did they control congress under Obama?
lern_too_spel 6 hours ago [-]
There are multiple historical inaccuracies in your post.
> expanded warrantless NSA surveillance
This is exactly the opposite of what he did. According to Snowden's leaks, he had shut down email metadata collection soon after he took office. After Snowden's leaks, he limited and then shut down mass phone metadata collection.
> routinely interfered with other countries
You'll have to be specific. Did you disagree with him getting Osama bin Laden from under Pakistan's protection? He put an end to America's pasttime of installing and propping up dictators in Latin America and even criticized America's past actions in that regard, resulting in the "apology tour" attacks in conservative media.
The more typical criticism is that he was too light a touch, that he didn't help Libya set up a stable government after the 2011 NATO intervention in its civil war, that he didn't sufficiently sanction Russia for its actions in Georgia and Ukraine, and that he allowed Iran to assert dominance over Iraq.
> He shut down Occupy Wall Street hard,
Obama didn't control local police. That's Bloomberg's jurisdiction.
> bailed out the banks at our expense
Putting aside that EESA was passed by GWB instead of Obama, that's like complaining that somebody educated the kids at our expense. What would have happened otherwise? Obama passed Dodd-Frank banking regulation to try to prevent this from happening again.
> wasted the biggest wave of progressive energy on a Republican's healthcare plan
Clinton decided to run herself. She ran against Obama in 2008 and only barely lost, so it was no surprise that she ran in 2016. Obama famously stayed out of the 2016 primary until Clinton was the presumptive nominee in June.
The dems are in a weird place because they have to both give lip service to their base while also doing the exact opposite.
The alternative to bailing out the banks is bailing out the people who had money in the banks. I'm mad they got away with their crimes then and I'm mad again that Biden saved Silicon Valley Bank. The execs should have gone to jail or worse and instead they got a cool trillion dollars.
Certainly Obama didn't give in to any of OWS's demands. The income gap got wider under his presidency too. The rich kept getting richer. And money sure didn't get out of politics. I'm happy to blame all the dems for being corporate stooges not just Obama.
and ofc he pushed hard for the TPP- which even the senate seemed to think was too corporate.
The plan was bit for bit Romney's. Even with the public option which he floundered on it wouldn't have brought us up to Europe. And I can't think of any other accomplishments he had with his supermajority. We didn't even codify Roe. "Change" seems to be one tolerable healthcare plan over eight years. If Trump can restructure the whole government with barely a majority I'm happy to blame Obama and the rest of the feckless do do-nothing dems for changing basically nothing with a supermajority.
& The story I heard is Biden wanted to run but Obama talked him out of it because he thought Biden was too far left.
stefan_ 21 hours ago [-]
Do we add "kicked off the largest land war in Europe since WW2 when, faced with Russian occupation of Crimea, decided to equivocate and do nothing"? Not one to put the blame anywhere else than Russia of course, but that's truly the moment that told Putin it's all made up, nice speeches.
cyberax 21 hours ago [-]
> He shut down Occupy Wall Street hard
LOL, no.
> bailed out the banks at our expense
TARP was passed during Bush's administration.
fisherjeff 18 hours ago [-]
TARP also… made money for taxpayers?
krapp 21 hours ago [-]
In hindsight, the sheer panic and hyperbole among the right around Obama does seem ridiculous.
tomrod 21 hours ago [-]
Hindsight, foresight, and watching-the-news-in-real-time sight.
spencerflem 21 hours ago [-]
Preach <3
octo888 22 hours ago [-]
> Just over a year old, GDS would serve as critical inspiration for the founding of USDS [0]
Really appreciate the 14 mentions of GDS and acknowledgment of the inspiration.
(The older but poorer cousin gets ahead of the younger, richer cousin for a change ;)
Kudos to everyone involved in this, it made a huge difference for this country, your service will be remembered.
zbentley 8 hours ago [-]
The example they set, and the systems and processes they put in place, are still alive.
In peril? Sure, frequently.
But the USDS, and the work they started, goes on, even today.
Interestingly, the executive order which changed USDS's name seems to consider that work important: it tasks the renamed United States DOGE Service (which is separate from the DOGE temporary organization or the DOGE agency teams, created with separate charters in the same executive order) with:
> a Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems.
Whatever else you might think about DOGE or that executive order, it's interesting to note that the government tech improvement goal of the original USDS appears to have been underlined/re-emphasized, rather than crossed out, in this case.
krainboltgreene 32 minutes ago [-]
The whole reason this website exists is because it won't be remembered.
dr_dshiv 22 hours ago [-]
I really wish these people the best. It’s humble, meaningful, high-impact, high-integrity work.
stefan_ 21 hours ago [-]
Truly humble. Makes sense to record some museum pieces thou, put it next to the Ruby On Rails section.
ForHackernews 22 hours ago [-]
This is sweet. The USDS and 18F did a lot of good before they were gutted.
i80and 20 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure which group was behind it, but login.gov is a genuine delight and I'm always chuffed to run into a government website that uses it.
EDIT: It was a joint effort between the two!
ronbenton 18 hours ago [-]
I thought it was mostly 18F. Interesting to hear USDS was involved in that one as well.
adfm 19 hours ago [-]
Since we’re celebrating an obviously positive advancement in infrastructure attributed to one side, I’d like to know about the obviously positive advancements from the other side (in all fairness).
That was generations ago. What about in this century?
krainboltgreene 22 hours ago [-]
I was a big fan of the USDSO at the origin, definitely it's previous iterations, but man was it so bad at getting their improvements any publicity. Then and now they (and Democrats) made the fatal mistake that the slow march of government would be enough for public support. This website too is from that same strategy: "If we simply show Americans the machine they'll understand what they've thrown away!" It's very Aaron Sorkin's West Wing.
The reality is that the average american doesn't give a shit about the machines. They want better lives and they haven't gotten that for a long time. Talk to some old guy at a diner about why they were a Democratic voter and you won't hear "The Social Security Administation got my checks on time." You'll hear about the New Deal, wage increases, and how they can retire.
pakyr 22 hours ago [-]
DirectFile was a material product that had a 94% satisfaction rate.[0] Within the remit of this organization, if making filing taxes free and easy doesn't count as making people's lives better, then I'm not sure what does.
I'm not sure how much control the USDS that developed DirectFile (or whatever was left of it) had over that given the reasons that article cites for the confusion
> The IRS deemphasized the program on its website, the report said, and the media coverage this filing season focused on the question of if the tool existed or would continue to in the future.
> Billionaire Elon Musk caused confusion in early February when he posted on X that the team powering Direct File was “deleted,” leading to headlines like “Elon Musk says he 'deleted' IRS Direct File. Can taxpayers still use the free service?” Direct File saw a drop in use after that.
To be honest, I'm impressed there was even a 16% traffic increase this year at all.
krainboltgreene 35 minutes ago [-]
Ask yourself: Could this website have been written anytime in the last 8 years? If so, why wasn't it? Given where we are now, the stat I gave, and that only a small number of people are mourning something important speak to my point?
afavour 19 hours ago [-]
> It's very Aaron Sorkin's West Wing.
My completely unfounded theory is that the West Wing broke the brains of an entire generation of center left leaning Americans. Led them to believe that being noble and earnest brings you electoral rewards, that you should break bread with your opposition, who are fundamentally reasonable people capable of compromise.
I think Trump 2.0 might have finally finished that mindset off but good lord did it take a long time.
xp84 12 hours ago [-]
> that you should break bread with your opposition
I was agreeing with you completely until I hit this phrase.
What Democrats have you seen "breaking bread with" their opposition? Most Democratic politicians and pundits (not saying voters) spend most of their effort on demonizing those they disagree with, on intentionally imputing the worst motives for their every opinion. If you don't support the most maximal definitions of every ideal they have, you're a bigot. If you didn't vote for Harris, you're a monster who must love Trump. etc.
The West Wing Dems could actually bring themselves to hold their noses and cut a deal with their Republicans that gave each side something important to them. To be fair, both parties now consider that practice to be basically treason.
It's the parties that are killing us.
afavour 3 hours ago [-]
> “ The thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House. Not a joke,” Biden told reporters at a diner in Concord, New Hampshire. “You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends.”
> When it happens, I am hopeful that our Republican colleagues will resume working with us. And I talk to them. One of the places is in the gym. When you’re on that bike in your shorts, panting away next to a Republican, a lot of the inhibitions come off.
You seem to be making the common mistake of conflating online discourse with the reality in DC. Senior Democratic politicians have openly stated time and time again that they believe their Republican friends are going to come around, that they’re going to be sane and that this is all a fever that’s going to break.
> The West Wing Dems could actually bring themselves to hold their noses and cut a deal with their Republicans
They keep doing this? Look at the Senate approvals for Trump’s appointees. Democrats voted in favor of a ton of them thinking it was the bipartisan thing to do and got absolutely nothing in return for it. It’s only a recent phenomenon that Democratic voters are actually punishing them for it.
saagarjha 7 hours ago [-]
Democratic politicians. Their voters mostly hate them for it
ChrisArchitect 21 hours ago [-]
This wasn't that long ago. And it was very active in public ways over the Obama administrations etc. Sure you can find numerous discussions about various site launches and initiatives around here over the years. Definitely were discussions and fervent attention over in the Design community as things progressed. Why is everyone treating it like some forgotten Atlantis project?
The example they set, and the systems and processes they put in place, are still alive.
In peril? Sure, frequently.
But the USDS, and the work they started, goes on, even today.
eddieroger 16 hours ago [-]
Don't underestimate how quickly things end up in the memory hole - it's better to preserve stuff while it's recent than try to recreate it when it's stale.
> The only reason your agency came into existence is because the government completely failed to deliver on it's promises in an exceptionally divisive way.
So...you're mad that the government tried to fix a problem it had?
pakyr 21 hours ago [-]
> this just looks like a federal power grab
A federal power grab from . . . the federal government?
timewizard 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
pakyr 21 hours ago [-]
So (if we take your interpretation at face value) you could call it a 'presidential power grab', or maybe even an 'executive power grab' (if we stretch things and assume power is being transferred away from executive departments subject to greater oversight), but 'federal power grab' still doesn't make sense. No power is being grabbed from or by the federal government as an entity.
amanaplanacanal 21 hours ago [-]
For that matter, those agencies report to the president anyway. So this is more of a reorganization than a power grab.
amanaplanacanal 21 hours ago [-]
There could very well be a better way. See if you can get it through Congress. Good luck!
snickerbockers 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
itsdrewmiller 15 hours ago [-]
Quite the opposite - they exist as a reaction to how bad that experience was.
Or pay slightly more in tax & actually spend less in healthcare per capita like UK/Canada/Au/NZ, and you just go to the doctor and don't worry about ambulance bills. But neither political party wants that, so we don't do it.
BurningFrog 15 hours ago [-]
You don't get any bills in those systems, but you also don't get treatments that are deemed too expensive for the government system.
ascorbic 9 hours ago [-]
Just as well nobody ever has treatment denied in the US system, right?
We just need it, there’s no question of the benefits and there were no negatives to speak about.
Thank you President Barack Obama! A true leader and patriot.
I am not sure it works like that. Destruction is easy, building is hard.
This is not an official US government website.
This one down below is, tho
https://www.usds.gov/
Meanwhile, healthcare housing and education got way more expensive and taxes for the wealthy went down.
It's one certain party, and the situation is worse than that -- they don't want any of the opposing party's legislation succeed that would be recognized by the people as a good thing and make that party look good.
This is why partisan politics is a pox on the people -- loyalty to party over country is literally treason but is celebrated by party members.
- History of the United States public debt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_p...
- https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/29/tweets/rep... (2019) :
> The deficit is the difference between the money that the government makes and the money it spends. If the government spends more than it collects in revenues, then it’s running a deficit.
> The federal debt is the running total of the accumulated deficits. [Or surpluses]
"Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] (FYFSD)" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD#
"Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFSGDA188S)" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
We could have higher taxes on the wealthy and good healthcare. But to do that, the side that claims they want that and that they believe in "democracy" would have to not only post on Bluesky about it, they'd have to (A) vote, and (B) convince (rather than demonize) the moderates who are skeptical of them. We'll see in a while if they learned that lesson from 2024.
It stinks and we should change it, but until then one needs to do a simple weighing of options and cast a best effort ballot.
The IRS site in general is massively better now than 5 years ago, for example.
The point is that the idea that this organization existing was an unqualified good thing is a matter of opinion, not fact.
You’re allowed to have that opinion, but presenting it as fact is the part that I have an issue with.
From TFA:
> After all, having a government that functions and delivers on its promises to the public shouldn’t be divisive.
"Oh everything is terrible and it's only going to be terrible so I don't have to do anything to improve anything and actually it's a good thing that things are terrible". It's just a justification to do nothing and wrap it with some pseudo-intellectual clothing.
I've become a grumpy cynical (and sometimes fatalistic) man as I approach middle-age, but I think a lot of that is just trying to justify my laziness most of the time.
It requires effort to care about stuff even after bad shit has happened to you. It requires effort to look for the best in situations. It requires effort to think that maybe tomorrow could be better. It's easy to just say "fuck it, I don't care".
I find it funny, because so many people proclaim these edgy fatalistic takes, and I think that they think it makes them look cool, but fundamentally it has the absolute opposite effect for me. When I see an older person who still seems to actively care about things (even though I'm sure they've been fucked over by life like the rest of us) that is cool to me.
All of this is 100% true, but it's also incredibly draining after literal decades of being on the wrong end of abuse and hatred purely for daring to care, and hope, and try desperately to make anything even the tiniest bit better. After a point, it eventually becomes just too much effort for zero (or negative) return.
This is why I respect old people who seem to still manage to be stay optimistic and trusting of people in the world. I don’t think that’s “natural”, I think it’s an effort that these people put into seeing the world as a potentially good place.
Oh, the world is an absolutely amazing place. It's just a shame that only a handful of humans really seem to notice and / or care. The rest either take it for granted or want to strip-mine it for profit at any cost. :(
The website seems to indicate that the government functioning well is not divisive, when in fact it is divisive as not everyone agrees with that being a good thing.
The only POTUS who wasn’t a “wolf in sheep's clothing” was George Washington.
Looks like what the country actually wants is authoritarianism, so maybe he was just the right politician in the wrong country.
He ran on a "change" platform but failed to deliver change. He propped up the rich and shot down any sort of possible ideas that would meaningfully change anything despite being given once in a generation mandate.
It dissolutioned a lot of voters, and lead to where we are now where people are desperate enough to want a strongman outsider who promises to really shake things up.
If we had gotten an actual progressive instead of a textbook neoliberal things might have been different.
> expanded warrantless NSA surveillance
This is exactly the opposite of what he did. According to Snowden's leaks, he had shut down email metadata collection soon after he took office. After Snowden's leaks, he limited and then shut down mass phone metadata collection.
> routinely interfered with other countries
You'll have to be specific. Did you disagree with him getting Osama bin Laden from under Pakistan's protection? He put an end to America's pasttime of installing and propping up dictators in Latin America and even criticized America's past actions in that regard, resulting in the "apology tour" attacks in conservative media.
The more typical criticism is that he was too light a touch, that he didn't help Libya set up a stable government after the 2011 NATO intervention in its civil war, that he didn't sufficiently sanction Russia for its actions in Georgia and Ukraine, and that he allowed Iran to assert dominance over Iraq.
> He shut down Occupy Wall Street hard,
Obama didn't control local police. That's Bloomberg's jurisdiction.
> bailed out the banks at our expense
Putting aside that EESA was passed by GWB instead of Obama, that's like complaining that somebody educated the kids at our expense. What would have happened otherwise? Obama passed Dodd-Frank banking regulation to try to prevent this from happening again.
> wasted the biggest wave of progressive energy on a Republican's healthcare plan
The public option couldn't go through because people like you were fooled into not voting in the midterms. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/11/4852289...
> successfully pushing for Hillary Clinton to run
Clinton decided to run herself. She ran against Obama in 2008 and only barely lost, so it was no surprise that she ran in 2016. Obama famously stayed out of the 2016 primary until Clinton was the presumptive nominee in June.
The dems are in a weird place because they have to both give lip service to their base while also doing the exact opposite.
The alternative to bailing out the banks is bailing out the people who had money in the banks. I'm mad they got away with their crimes then and I'm mad again that Biden saved Silicon Valley Bank. The execs should have gone to jail or worse and instead they got a cool trillion dollars.
Certainly Obama didn't give in to any of OWS's demands. The income gap got wider under his presidency too. The rich kept getting richer. And money sure didn't get out of politics. I'm happy to blame all the dems for being corporate stooges not just Obama.
and ofc he pushed hard for the TPP- which even the senate seemed to think was too corporate.
The plan was bit for bit Romney's. Even with the public option which he floundered on it wouldn't have brought us up to Europe. And I can't think of any other accomplishments he had with his supermajority. We didn't even codify Roe. "Change" seems to be one tolerable healthcare plan over eight years. If Trump can restructure the whole government with barely a majority I'm happy to blame Obama and the rest of the feckless do do-nothing dems for changing basically nothing with a supermajority.
& The story I heard is Biden wanted to run but Obama talked him out of it because he thought Biden was too far left.
LOL, no.
> bailed out the banks at our expense
TARP was passed during Bush's administration.
Really appreciate the 14 mentions of GDS and acknowledgment of the inspiration.
(The older but poorer cousin gets ahead of the younger, richer cousin for a change ;)
[0] https://usdigitalserviceorigins.org/timeline/
In peril? Sure, frequently.
But the USDS, and the work they started, goes on, even today.
Interestingly, the executive order which changed USDS's name seems to consider that work important: it tasks the renamed United States DOGE Service (which is separate from the DOGE temporary organization or the DOGE agency teams, created with separate charters in the same executive order) with:
> a Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/esta...
Whatever else you might think about DOGE or that executive order, it's interesting to note that the government tech improvement goal of the original USDS appears to have been underlined/re-emphasized, rather than crossed out, in this case.
EDIT: It was a joint effort between the two!
The reality is that the average american doesn't give a shit about the machines. They want better lives and they haven't gotten that for a long time. Talk to some old guy at a diner about why they were a Democratic voter and you won't hear "The Social Security Administation got my checks on time." You'll hear about the New Deal, wage increases, and how they can retire.
[0]https://www.nextgov.com/digital-government/2025/06/direct-fi...
> The IRS deemphasized the program on its website, the report said, and the media coverage this filing season focused on the question of if the tool existed or would continue to in the future.
> Billionaire Elon Musk caused confusion in early February when he posted on X that the team powering Direct File was “deleted,” leading to headlines like “Elon Musk says he 'deleted' IRS Direct File. Can taxpayers still use the free service?” Direct File saw a drop in use after that.
To be honest, I'm impressed there was even a 16% traffic increase this year at all.
My completely unfounded theory is that the West Wing broke the brains of an entire generation of center left leaning Americans. Led them to believe that being noble and earnest brings you electoral rewards, that you should break bread with your opposition, who are fundamentally reasonable people capable of compromise.
I think Trump 2.0 might have finally finished that mindset off but good lord did it take a long time.
I was agreeing with you completely until I hit this phrase.
What Democrats have you seen "breaking bread with" their opposition? Most Democratic politicians and pundits (not saying voters) spend most of their effort on demonizing those they disagree with, on intentionally imputing the worst motives for their every opinion. If you don't support the most maximal definitions of every ideal they have, you're a bigot. If you didn't vote for Harris, you're a monster who must love Trump. etc.
The West Wing Dems could actually bring themselves to hold their noses and cut a deal with their Republicans that gave each side something important to them. To be fair, both parties now consider that practice to be basically treason.
It's the parties that are killing us.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/joe-biden-republican...
And Schumer:
> When it happens, I am hopeful that our Republican colleagues will resume working with us. And I talk to them. One of the places is in the gym. When you’re on that bike in your shorts, panting away next to a Republican, a lot of the inhibitions come off.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/schumer-resign-bi...
You seem to be making the common mistake of conflating online discourse with the reality in DC. Senior Democratic politicians have openly stated time and time again that they believe their Republican friends are going to come around, that they’re going to be sane and that this is all a fever that’s going to break.
> The West Wing Dems could actually bring themselves to hold their noses and cut a deal with their Republicans
They keep doing this? Look at the Senate approvals for Trump’s appointees. Democrats voted in favor of a ton of them thinking it was the bipartisan thing to do and got absolutely nothing in return for it. It’s only a recent phenomenon that Democratic voters are actually punishing them for it.
Copied from my adjacent comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44208596):
The example they set, and the systems and processes they put in place, are still alive.
In peril? Sure, frequently.
But the USDS, and the work they started, goes on, even today.
https://youtu.be/_rzQeDOGDxI?si=7tO2yhAlvoYsGqu6
So...you're mad that the government tried to fix a problem it had?
A federal power grab from . . . the federal government?
Or pay slightly more in tax & actually spend less in healthcare per capita like UK/Canada/Au/NZ, and you just go to the doctor and don't worry about ambulance bills. But neither political party wants that, so we don't do it.