By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr.GameCrazy said:
Rab said:

Senate Dems have agreed to cut the Unemployment Insurance (UI) from $400 to $300 per week, it's the poor that are paying the price, were are the taxes for the Rich instead, the Dems have the interests those powerful donors covered 

Biden also limits eligibility for stimulus payments because of pressure from "moderate"/"centrist" Senate Democrats, not even Reps, but from Dems :/   

It does stink that the UI had been decreased to $300/wk and the eligibility for stimulus payments was brought down, but they needed to compromise with the moderate Senate Democrats to get it passed. If they didn't do that, the bill would've failed.

Oh, thanks for explaining that, it's good to know a compromise (don't even need the Reps to compromise with, how independent of the Dems) that reduces benefits for the struggling will help get a bill through helping the struggling :/

No point taxing the Rich to pay for it, let other poor people pay for it instead, keeps it all in the family, those moderate Dems (Rep lite) are doing a wonderful job, who needs the actual Reps :p  

Last edited by Rab - on 08 March 2021

Around the Network
Rab said:

The Problem with centrists/moderates in the Democratic Party is the hollowing out of values to cater to the Rich and Powerful, putting the burden on the working poor and middle income families, this will lead to a rapid power shift back to the Reps which will be first realised in 2 years at the midterms 

Centrists ignoring popular reforms like M4A, $15 min wage and others by catering to the Rich donor class wont be well received in future polls by the young/new voters and working poor as they see one reform/promise get ignored one after another, it's the status quo all over again for them     

 

Lol, so you are saying that people who are struggling will go and vote GOP because they know that the GOP have the policies they are looking for.  That the working poor and middle class will suddenly realize that the GOP has always had their back and revert their vote to the GOP.  What even more funny, you keep posting this talking head peice as if it has some relevance.  As if this woman opinion actually mean anything.

If M4A and 15 dollar minimum wage are so popular then they can actually stand on their own within their own bill.  Any particular progressive Dem can get those brought up within house and get it to the Senate floor.  If you truly believe these 2 issues are so popular and that the nation is ready, then it should be costly for GOP and moderate Dems to vote against them.  If not then maybe your polls does not reflect the US as a whole or more to the point is as important as you believe.



Machiavellian said:
Rab said:

The Problem with centrists/moderates in the Democratic Party is the hollowing out of values to cater to the Rich and Powerful, putting the burden on the working poor and middle income families, this will lead to a rapid power shift back to the Reps which will be first realised in 2 years at the midterms 

Centrists ignoring popular reforms like M4A, $15 min wage and others by catering to the Rich donor class wont be well received in future polls by the young/new voters and working poor as they see one reform/promise get ignored one after another, it's the status quo all over again for them     

 

Lol, so you are saying that people who are struggling will go and vote GOP because they know that the GOP have the policies they are looking for.  That the working poor and middle class will suddenly realize that the GOP has always had their back and revert their vote to the GOP.  What even more funny, you keep posting this talking head peice as if it has some relevance.  As if this woman opinion actually mean anything.

If M4A and 15 dollar minimum wage are so popular then they can actually stand on their own within their own bill.  Any particular progressive Dem can get those brought up within house and get it to the Senate floor.  If you truly believe these 2 issues are so popular and that the nation is ready, then it should be costly for GOP and moderate Dems to vote against them.  If not then maybe your polls does not reflect the US as a whole or more to the point is as important as you believe.

"LOL" all you like.. You realise much of the GOP base are the working poor, the Dems were supposed to represent the poor, but decades of failure have made them look to those in the GOP like Trump to finally be listen to, the Dems have ignored the fate of the working poor for too long and instead listened to the powerful 

But what the Dems risk the most as they always have is a poor turn out on voting day due to a lack of enthusiasm, blocking one popular reform after another, breaking promises to the young and poor wont pay well on voting day, the Dems will give back the balance of power if this continues    

Last edited by Rab - on 08 March 2021

Manchin, Sinema, Tester, they are doing what it takes to win re-election and represent their constituents. None of these three come from ultra liberal places. 2 of them come from heavy Republican states and 1 from a typically Republican state. If you're mad about how the Senate is working so far, look no further than the general election. Republicans absolutely shattered expectations, flipping numerous house seats, holding on to multiple senate seats that were practically declared for the Democrats prior to election night, up and down the board it was a fantastic night for republicans, especially on the state legislature level. The Georgia runoffs went the other way cause Trump caused hundreds of thousands of republican voters to not want to vote because they thought the system was rigged, otherwise this would be a 52-48 split in favor or Republicans (based on the initial voter turnout in November before the runoff), and that would include the 3 moderate dems. 

Progressives will never get what they want in this country unless they can get 60+ democratic senators out of 100, and the last time that happened was 1977-1979, when Democrats were a lot more moderate and therefore appealing to independents. Even if they get to 60 it will require more Manchin-like moderates to get them to that number and they would be very unlikely to vote for anything AOC wants. 



On meet the press on Sunday Joe Manchin claim even all the republican senators would support a $11 minimum wage that tied to inflation. If I was in democrats leadership I would call that bluff.

The house should pass a clean bill raising Minimum wage to $11 and tied to inflation and the senate should put it up for a vote as soon as possible. Either it will get 10 republicans and pass and we get the first Minimum Wage increase in a very long time and for the first time have automatic increases built in or it will fail and now Joe Manchin cant hide behind the republicans are willing to compromise blah blah and can put serious pressure on changing filibuster rules.

For those that on the $15 or nothing train then you got to ask your self if you can have $11 tomorrow and it tied to inflation or wait to some unknown future date that not guaranteed it will come for $15 which one you going to choose.

Plus if the Democrats ever get in a position they have votes for $15 there nothing stopping them from increasing it from 11 to 15 and the $15 purposed was phased in to begin with so it not like in short term you getting less money.



Around the Network
Cyran said:

On meet the press on Sunday Joe Manchin claim even all the republican senators would support a $11 minimum wage that tied to inflation. If I was in democrats leadership I would call that bluff.

The house should pass a clean bill raising Minimum wage to $11 and tied to inflation and the senate should put it up for a vote as soon as possible. Either it will get 10 republicans and pass and we get the first Minimum Wage increase in a very long time and for the first time have automatic increases built in or it will fail and now Joe Manchin cant hide behind the republicans are willing to compromise blah blah and can put serious pressure on changing filibuster rules.

For those that on the $15 or nothing train then you got to ask your self if you can have $11 tomorrow and it tied to inflation or wait to some unknown future date that not guaranteed it will come for $15 which one you going to choose.

Plus if the Democrats ever get in a position they have votes for $15 there nothing stopping them from increasing it from 11 to 15 and the $15 purposed was phased in to begin with so it not like in short term you getting less money.

Yeah I'm not sure if $11 would get 60 senators. That would require 3 moderate Democrats supporting the raise (2 of which are in heavy Republican states, 1 is in a purple state), and 10 moderate republicans to support it. There aren't even 10 moderate Democrats and Republicans collectively lol. I could see it getting 55 votes with a lot of pork barrels/riders (the kind progressives would probably hate), but 60 would be impossible in my opinion.



Dulfite said:
Cyran said:

On meet the press on Sunday Joe Manchin claim even all the republican senators would support a $11 minimum wage that tied to inflation. If I was in democrats leadership I would call that bluff.

The house should pass a clean bill raising Minimum wage to $11 and tied to inflation and the senate should put it up for a vote as soon as possible. Either it will get 10 republicans and pass and we get the first Minimum Wage increase in a very long time and for the first time have automatic increases built in or it will fail and now Joe Manchin cant hide behind the republicans are willing to compromise blah blah and can put serious pressure on changing filibuster rules.

For those that on the $15 or nothing train then you got to ask your self if you can have $11 tomorrow and it tied to inflation or wait to some unknown future date that not guaranteed it will come for $15 which one you going to choose.

Plus if the Democrats ever get in a position they have votes for $15 there nothing stopping them from increasing it from 11 to 15 and the $15 purposed was phased in to begin with so it not like in short term you getting less money.

Yeah I'm not sure if $11 would get 60 senators. That would require 3 moderate Democrats supporting the raise (2 of which are in heavy Republican states, 1 is in a purple state), and 10 moderate republicans to support it. There aren't even 10 moderate Democrats and Republicans collectively lol. I could see it getting 55 votes with a lot of pork barrels/riders (the kind progressives would probably hate), but 60 would be impossible in my opinion.

I think it would get all 50 Democrats.  I not heard a single one of them not support $11.  Manchin already said he supports it otherwise I would not of even brought it up.  Republicans I agree I don't think it would get 10 of them but that my point it would make every one of them on the record that they against increasing the minimum wage at all and not willing to compromise at all on the subject.  There nothing to hide behind on a clean bill at what many consider a low number of $11.  If you vote against that there no doubt you against raising the minimum wage period.



Cyran said:
Dulfite said:

Yeah I'm not sure if $11 would get 60 senators. That would require 3 moderate Democrats supporting the raise (2 of which are in heavy Republican states, 1 is in a purple state), and 10 moderate republicans to support it. There aren't even 10 moderate Democrats and Republicans collectively lol. I could see it getting 55 votes with a lot of pork barrels/riders (the kind progressives would probably hate), but 60 would be impossible in my opinion.

I think it would get all 50 Democrats.  I not heard a single one of them not support $11.  Manchin already said he supports it otherwise I would not of even brought it up.  Republicans I agree I don't think it would get 10 of them but that my point it would make every one of them on the record that they against increasing the minimum wage at all and not willing to compromise at all on the subject.  There nothing to hide behind on a clean bill at what many consider a low number of $11.  If you vote against that there no doubt you against raising the minimum wage period.

Well yeah, but that wouldn't really hurt the Republicans that vote against it. The ones that vote for it will receive MORE voters (like Collins), but the ones that vote against it know that it won't hurt their re-electability. Republicans, generally speaking, would prefer to focus on getting people into higher paying jobs through training/education/apprenticeships and solve the poverty issue that way rather than increasing the pay for someone to put cheese slices on burgers or take trash out. Ideally, EVERYONE works their way into a high-demand career that pays well because what they are producing with their work is highly valuable to society, and ideally we can automate, as much as possible, simple tasks with machinery. Then we won't even need minimum wage to be a certain amount because everyone will be making good money except for high school students who haven't figured out what profitable path to take yet (but their parents will ideally make good money so that will just be spending money).

No major party wants poverty, but there is a huge difference in getting everyone to work in areas that advance our nation and the economy and make good money from that production then there is in forcing people to make good money even though what they produce is not that valuable to economic growth.

Last edited by Dulfite - on 08 March 2021

Dulfite said:
Cyran said:

I think it would get all 50 Democrats.  I not heard a single one of them not support $11.  Manchin already said he supports it otherwise I would not of even brought it up.  Republicans I agree I don't think it would get 10 of them but that my point it would make every one of them on the record that they against increasing the minimum wage at all and not willing to compromise at all on the subject.  There nothing to hide behind on a clean bill at what many consider a low number of $11.  If you vote against that there no doubt you against raising the minimum wage period.

Well yeah, but that wouldn't really hurt the Republicans that vote against it. The ones that vote for it will receive MORE voters (like Collins), but the ones that vote against it know that it won't hurt their re-electability. Republicans, generally speaking, would prefer to focus on getting people into higher paying jobs through training/education/apprenticeships and solve the poverty issue that way rather than increasing the pay for someone to put cheese slices on burgers or take trash out. Ideally, EVERYONE works their way into a high-demand career that pays well because what they are producing with their work is highly valuable to society, and ideally we can automate, as much as possible, simple tasks with machinery. Then we won't even need minimum wage to be a certain amount because everyone will be making good money except for high school students who haven't figured out what profitable path to take yet (but their parents will ideally make good money so that will just be spending money).

No major party wants poverty, but there is a huge difference in getting everyone to work in areas that advance our nation and the economy and make good money from that production then there is in forcing people to make good money even though what they produce is not that valuable to economic growth.

What are the policies that the GOP have put into place to get people into higher paying jobs through training/education or apprenticeships.  If I actually seen a program or push to help people who are making minimum wage be able to advance through something along those lines I would be 100% behind that.  People who are making minimum wage probably are not finding themselves with a whole lot of case and some not a whole lot of time from putting cloths, food and utilities first.  I definitely agree there are a lot of trades that can pay way better than minimum wage, opportunity is the key.

As for someone flipping a bugger, taking out the trash or putting cheese on a burger, we as tax payers are still paying no matter how you see it.  If the job does not pay enough to feed their family or themselves because the pay is below poverty level, then food stamps and other assistance is still required.  The thing is those jobs still need people to work them and if that is the case, they also need to pay a wage above the poverty level.  The problem with the US is that is has become to profit centric that paying the absolute lowest amount is considered smart business.  If you can get away with paying 7 bucks an hour even if the people you employ cannot live off of that, well its their problem.  Its this mentality that keeps the status quo and the poverty level in the US exactly where its at.

I personally do not believe upping the Minimum wage is a solution but instead just one of many solutions that are needed to raise US citizens from Poverty.  I definitely like a plan that helps get people into training/education and apprenticeships to better jobs.  I believe something along those lines should also be a focus.  In the end, the culture of the US is really the biggest problem and until that change well those will just be half measures.



Dulfite said:
Cyran said:

I think it would get all 50 Democrats.  I not heard a single one of them not support $11.  Manchin already said he supports it otherwise I would not of even brought it up.  Republicans I agree I don't think it would get 10 of them but that my point it would make every one of them on the record that they against increasing the minimum wage at all and not willing to compromise at all on the subject.  There nothing to hide behind on a clean bill at what many consider a low number of $11.  If you vote against that there no doubt you against raising the minimum wage period.

Well yeah, but that wouldn't really hurt the Republicans that vote against it. The ones that vote for it will receive MORE voters (like Collins), but the ones that vote against it know that it won't hurt their re-electability. Republicans, generally speaking, would prefer to focus on getting people into higher paying jobs through training/education/apprenticeships and solve the poverty issue that way rather than increasing the pay for someone to put cheese slices on burgers or take trash out. Ideally, EVERYONE works their way into a high-demand career that pays well because what they are producing with their work is highly valuable to society, and ideally we can automate, as much as possible, simple tasks with machinery. Then we won't even need minimum wage to be a certain amount because everyone will be making good money except for high school students who haven't figured out what profitable path to take yet (but their parents will ideally make good money so that will just be spending money).

No major party wants poverty, but there is a huge difference in getting everyone to work in areas that advance our nation and the economy and make good money from that production then there is in forcing people to make good money even though what they produce is not that valuable to economic growth.

I reject the notion that there are jobs being paid minimum wage that not valuable to economic growth.  Businesses don't hire people as charity, it is because they require the labor to run there business.  Without those workers doing there jobs the economy would crash.  On the other hands there is plenty of evidence that businesses would survive just fine paying there workers who currently making minimum wage a bit more or if necessary a small increase in products costs that not going to effect demand enough to crash the business.

Also there never going to be enough high paying jobs for everyone and generally speaking when you replace low paying job with high paying job you replacing many low paying jobs with a few high paying jobs.  

Plus high paying job are high paying because that what require to get qualify people to do those job.  If the number of people capable of doing the job is way higher then the demand the salary going to go down.  You never going to get into a place where every job pays a living wage (and there enough jobs for everyone) without government involvement.  If you not going to require businesses to pay a living wage then the only other alternative is to use tax payers dollars on people who cant afford to live on there wages.  Otherwise there always going to be a percent of people living in poverty.