594
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
594 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24959 readers
2230 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Id rather see him championing a massive hike of the minimum wage to help everyone and not just specific labor groups, but I'm not saying this is bad.
You win battles where you can. Union wages puts pressure on non-union companies to raise wages and tends to attract the best workers. The greedy rich hate unions and manipulate their workers. Divided you beg. United you bargain.
Are there many battles being won here?
Minimum wage was in Biden's proposals but got defeated in the senate. Remember Sinema giving her stupid thumbs down? He can't raise the minimum wage by fiat. He did raise the minimum wage for all federal workers, which is something he can directly control. If you want a federal minimum wage increase you need democrats in control of congress, and you more conservative and corpo democrats like Sinema primaried out for actual progressives.
Spreading union sentiment will help workers across many different fields in ways beyond just pay scale, and strong support of unions will encourage more and more workers to unionize so they can reap the benefits. Beyond just encouraging more people to form unions, unions help even un-unionized workers, as now other companies need to offer similar benefits and pay to what unionized workers get to remain competitive in hiring.
Yup. She sure let us know what Democrats are all about when she did that. When do you think Democrats will try to raise the minimum wage again?
I said she demonstrated what Democrats are all about and I meant it. When Democrats have a chance to do something for poor people that they don't want to do, they find an excuse and find enough votes to go along with that excuse.
There were eight Democrats who voted that workers in this country aren't worth one penny more than $7.25/hr. So let's say some Republican who agrees with those 8 filibusters. In order to get to the 60 needed for cloture, Democrats would need 68 seats in the Senate. Do you think "shut up, be happy, vote harder" is gonna get us to 68?
And let's say by some fucking miracle we increase the majority by a whopping 18 senators. Only one of them needs to be a Sinema-style centrist to vote against workers and we'll be back to "Oh well, Guess we didn't have enough senators lol. Now let's throw half a trillion at the military to celebrate!"
Democrats will not increase the minimum wage. Too few of them want to.
She's not even a Democrat anymore. I personally think democrats need to just tank the filibuster at some point. Some democrats fear what would happen at some future hypothetical Republican senate without a filibuster, but I personally think that's silly, as Republicans will probably just get rid of it whenever they feel it's advantageous to them.
Democrats are clearly better than the alternative party (and the third party candidates haven't exactly been stellar), but we also need to be active in the primary elections and keep getting more progressives in there and boot people like Sinema out.
They should have done so already. They won't. They love their procedural excuse for inaction.
I don't buy that one bit. Politicians want to be re elected, and it's far easier to run on a record of having done something. A lot of people voting hardly even know what a filibuster is or why it would have prevented something from happening. In one Monmouth survey linked below, only 19% of people called themselves very familiar with a filibuster. It's not exactly going to help them to get re elected by failing to do anything then appealing to a vague parliamentary procedure most people are hardly aware of. Do you seriously see campaign ads going, oh look at the good things I was going to do but didn't but it's okay cause parliamentary procedure made it hard, vote for me again. Theory makes no sense.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/filibuster-polls-analysis/index.html
And again if you want the filibuster elimated, you're best bet is on the democrats. They almost managed it for the voting rights bill, with 48 democrats for making a filibuster exception, only 2 against, and every single republican against.
No, I see them being like "our opponents are fascists and you have no choice" with heavy overtones of "shut up and be happy, peasant."
If they get control of the house and retain the senate next election, as well as Biden winning again. Unfortunately Republicans are dead set against any minimum wage increas so not gonna be possible without a Democrat trifecta most likely.
At least Sinema kicked herself out of the democratic party so they didn't have to bother primarying her out. Hopefully someone more progressive will be able to replace her now.
If she had stayed in the party, the party would not primary her. The party protects incumbents from primary challengers.
The party doesn't primary her, another candidate does, and then we all vote on it. I'm not disagreeing with you here, and of course a party generally protects incumbents, they're easier to get re elected. Doesn't mean people still can't vote against them in the primary anyways and defeat a party admin preferred incumbent. I would also argue that Sinema leaving was an admission even the party admin was going to say, no fuck you. But again it's the primary election that decides, so go support progressives in the primary so you have a good candidate to vote for in the general.
The party supported an anti-choice candidate over a progressive and used incumbency as an excuse. If they have no standards at all beyond "support incumbent" then that's what I will continue expecting them to do.
The deck is already stacked against the challenger because incumbents have advantage. The party doesn't need to weigh in, but challengers tend to be progressive.
Did you laugh like an atheist in a Jack Chick tract after typing that?
Most auto workers already make more than minimum wage, so that wouldn't help them particularly.
And? He's the president for all of the people.
Yeah but humans can divide their time and attention only so much. And since he's president of everybody, he's the auto workers' president too.
I mean not necessarily, rising tide and all that, a living standard minimum wage gives non minimum wage workers much more power to buck bullshit from the owner class.
Why put up with being an overworked underappreciated office worker when flipping burgers could pay your bills just as easily?
And so here you are hauling water for the Republican Party. Seems counter productive to me.
Raising minimum wage would not help "everyone" as the pay of the vast majority of workers is not tied to minimum wage at all.