Would be nice if they actually wanted to do it, instead of finding procedural excuses and rotating villains so it can't be done.
Or maybe those are actually obstructions getting in the way of the majority of the party that actively pushes for that stuff consistently?
You're alleging a party leadership conspiracy that would necessarily be of a size surpassing when a conspiracy will naturally collapse and be outed by its own members trying to save their own skin.
This isn't apologism, it's a mathematically proven fact of how conspiracies and secret keeping work.
Occam's razer, a big tent coalition party is naturally going to have at least one or two contrarian assholes and as a result needs to overperform winning mere simple majorities to be able to achieve the most points of their agenda.
We could turn around and call the Squad rotating villains for some of their symbolic votes against party policy, but we don't because those votes were rendered symbolic by there being a wide enough margin for those bills to pass anyways.
They didn't codify Roe vs Wade when Obama had a supermajority, they could've raised the minimum wage any time between the 90s and now, etc.
They want to keep things on the table in order to be able to run on them.
You mean that super majority that lasted only long enough to get the Affordable Care Act done and even then only after like ten Joe Manchins had to be appeased first?
The dems have had all three branches for maybe ten percent of all that time since the 90s and even then only barely.
This would not be a problem if y'all spent half the energy turning out that you do complaining about what happened because everyone else did.
You mean that super majority that lasted only long enough to get the Affordable Care Act done and even then only after like ten Joe Manchins had to be appeased first?
You say that as if they can't work on more than one piece of legislation at a time. They have aides and staffers! They have the manpower to do two things at once!
Do you actually know for a fact that that's enough manpower to work on multiple major pieces of legislation at the same time, or do you just want to say that because you wamt be amgy?
You're kidding, right?
First of all, the Affordable Care Act was mostly just cheating off of Mitt Romney's paper.
Second, Federal legislation in general is ghostwritten by lobbyists most of the time to begin with.
Third, of course they have manpower: they control their own budget and can vote themselves as much help as they want. If they choose not to do that, it's hardly an excuse for failing to get shit done!
Fourth, even if the above weren't true and they really did have to choose between the ACA and the other things mentioned upthread, prioritizing further enshrining insurance industry bureaucracy in its privileged position was absolutely the wrong choice.
You say that as if they can’t work on more than one piece of legislation at a time.
Thanks for affirming you don't know how fighting for votes on controversial legislation works.
bro you don't have to have a conspiracy when your interests converge. where is this majority that's pushing for actual change and not just talking about it for campaign purposes?
Check the vote roles every time a bill's come up?
dude you're the one making the argument. you're going to have to at least tell me what bills you're talking about
I'm not the one alleging a mass conspiracy to secretly hold back platformed legislation while appearing to support it.
bro you're replying to my comment that says there isn't a conspiracy. you can just say "I don't feel like providing sources for my claims" you don't have to try to act like you've got some moral high ground
every time a bill’s come up?
You say that as if a substantial portion of the fuckery (in general -- not about the Democrats or this issue specifically) isn't in the form of procedural machinations to stop things from coming up for a vote in the first place.
You say that as if it's not exactly what's kept happening. None of what's happening is new, just how often it keeps happening because Republicans have been taken over by the obstruction caucus completely.
Why are you so insistent on blaming the democrats for what the Republicans (and leftover Liebercrats) are doing to stop them from achieving anything?
What do you mean, "so insistent?" Check the username; that was my first reply to you in this thread.
Also, I said...
(in general – not about the Democrats or this issue specifically)
...and I meant it. I really am just pointing out the flaw in the "check the vote rolls" argument, not blaming Democrats!
The passivity of regular folks is what allows fake grassroots interests to dominate the conversation on the Democratic side. Progressive people exist in the Democratic party, they aren't all Feinsteins. It's time to get the butts of people who are trying to enact change into seats of power, and let the ones who don't retire.
The minimum wage was last raised by a Dem House, Senate, and President, all of which were arguably less progressive than the current incarnations. Why wouldn't they do it again if they had the votes?
Because then the "BOTHSIDES" narrative falls apart.
When do you think they could have done it?
If only there had been a time in the past 15 years when the Democrats had the White House, the House, and the Senate. If only that had ever happened.
So the period of a few short months when they had a knock-down drag-out fight in their own party over public healthcare?
When that happened, were all the democrats voting together lock step?
Did the person who made this consciously fuck up the grammar? It's so bad it's hard to believe otherwise. The idiocy required for any of those options is disgusting.
They had enough seats. There were democrats that voted against the damn thing, and I dont just mean Manchin and Sinema.
Yet somehow when 100% of Republicans voted against they are held blameless as they are expected to be fully servile to the corporate class, and only Democrats have the obligation to pass laws.
Republicans dont survive out in the open on places like here. If a post showed up by a republican trying to argue against minimum wage, it'd get obliterated with rebuttals.
Even when criticizing democrats, its only when theyre acting like republicans.
I support raising the minimum wage, but there should be an exemption for people living with middle class parents.
you raise the minimum wage so they dont have to live with their parents
"But what if we accidentally help too many people?"
I have no power over what republicans do because I don't vote for them and never have. There is no reason for them to acknowledge me. Therefore I can scream to the high heavens about them sucking, and they won't change a thing. Democrats I've voted for before, they actually have reason to listen to what I want to happen because it can net or cost them a vote.
Ill tell you what, you go yell at republicans and see how much progress you make, and I'll continue to raise my concerns to those that have reason to listen to them.
Living in a red state it feels like screaming into a void, as unfortunately the only discernable desires from the right wing base are "please tread on me, corporations" and "please shield my kids from new ideas," with an endless supply of pundits and politicians selling that shtick.
That's because Republicans aren't people, and they aren't really pretending to be with any particular effort. Democrats are claiming to be the good guys
Even so, it'd still require 2/3, because sole Republican shill would just filibuster it.
I dunno, for me this is more about the candidate that wants to stop the world from burning vs the one that's actively wants the world to burn for profit.
The one who follows the science versus the one who lets millions of people die because it might hurt his political image to acknowledge that he is incompetent.
people should just pick themselves up by the bootstraps and work 18 hours a day to afford rent
18 hours each in three jobs
who is this is?
This is election
Vote for that bag feels like too funny of a campaign line for the DNC to actually go through with it.
Sir, this is a Culver's
When the majority gets more money companies raise prices and you feel poor anyway. Mass wage increase sounds nice in the short term but leads to all the inflation articles you've read recently. Money feeds up. This can be prevented by reduced demand for goods and services. As in, when you obtain disposable income you... Don't dispose of it.
Energy, living costs it can't be done. Necesities. But a lot of areas you can make real change by voting with your dollar. For example, if you don't think the new iphone should cost 2 grand because that's absurd then don't validate the company's plan by buying it. Reduced demand causes reduced price until we find a balance. That's how this horrible evil capitalism is supposed to work.
One of the problems is we as consumers suck at voting. We want the new iphone. So a majority of us buy it anyway. On credit. And Apple raises the price next year becase "it worked last time"
Believes this argument, stagnates wages for decades
Prices go up anyway because corporate greed and infinite growth are the actual driving forces of inflation
Corporate greed is part of what I laid out. Inflation is complex and happens regardless. Certain things can have a larger impact on the rate of inflation. Introducing monetary supply in the form of wages or stimulus is one of those things. I'm all for higher wages. What I am trying to get across is that we also need to recognize the impact we have. Corporate greed exists. People want money. It makes sense. It is further driven by us having the money to take in the first place. If the product or service doesn't get purchased the price lowers until it does and/or the business fails. All I am saying is we as consumers could do a better job being mindful of this. We don't have very much control in this system, but we do have some. Of course we're not united in this so it probably doesn't matter. If you don't buy the 2k phone your neighbor probably will.
Employees who live with rich parents are not part of the working class.
Retail and fast food jobs should be automated out of existence. The employees who remain should get paid $30 per hour and have three day work weeks, but they should have expectations to match and be on call to come in within a few hours at any time.
A retail employee who makes $15 per hour makes over $2,000 per month after deductions. If they live with their parents, all of that is disposable income.
This certainly is one of the takes of all time
If you work (actual work, not having dinner with other companies' CEO) you are working class.
Even if you earn money through your salary, you are working class, even if that salary is 200k. There are people out there with literal billions of $. You already know the difference between a million and a billion, now watch the difference between a billion and 200k.
The problem is not your surgeon or boss or whatever, they all work 9-5 like you do, the problem is the yatch owners.
This election is about the easier to revolt against of two evils
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
