Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

The minimum wage in West Virginia is $8.75. Let him vote no.

---

SAY HIS NAME

dajo9 said:

---

SAY HIS NAME

---

*All Rights Reserved to B.A. Bearacus

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

The minimum wage in West Virginia is $8.75. Let him vote no.

---

So let's unpack this. Your theory is that Manchin will vote for it anyway, even though he's already very publicly said he wouldn't support at $15 minimum wage?

---

He'll vote for something in between, better than nothing

---

So if the Democrats had lowered the amount to $11 to appease Manchin, you definitely would not have accused them of being weak and watering down their own policy, right?

---

Instead, they've given up without a fight so it stays $7.75. But you and Dajo can wear "I stand with the Parliamentarian" tshirts

---

Joe Manchin stands with the Parliamentarian.

SAY HIS NAME

Manchin has made it clear he will not vote for ANYTHING that doesn't follow the rules of the Parliamentarian. I'll keep repeating it for you

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

The minimum wage in West Virginia is $8.75. Let him vote no.

---

So let's unpack this. Your theory is that Manchin will vote for it anyway, even though he's already very publicly said he wouldn't support at $15 minimum wage?

---

He'll vote for something in between, better than nothing

---

So if the Democrats had lowered the amount to $11 to appease Manchin, you definitely would not have accused them of being weak and watering down their own policy, right?

---

Instead, they've given up without a fight so it stays $7.75. But you and Dajo can wear "I stand with the Parliamentarian" tshirts

---

Joe Manchin stands with the Parliamentarian.

SAY HIS NAME

Manchin has made it clear he will not vote for ANYTHING that doesn't follow the rules of the Parliamentarian. I'll keep repeating it for you

---

I believe Sinema also said she wouldn't support going against the Parliamentarian's rules. So we are back to the issue that Democrats don't actually have enough votes in their own party to pull off this scheme.

I will concede that Sinema may be movable on this, but I don't see how Manchin is.

Hope Rides Again said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

The minimum wage in West Virginia is $8.75. Let him vote no.

---

So let's unpack this. Your theory is that Manchin will vote for it anyway, even though he's already very publicly said he wouldn't support at $15 minimum wage?

---

He'll vote for something in between, better than nothing

---

So if the Democrats had lowered the amount to $11 to appease Manchin, you definitely would not have accused them of being weak and watering down their own policy, right?

---

The Democrats are weak. That debate is over.

---

Who is strong?

Anarchistbear said:

---

His name is Joe Manchin and he is head of the Democratic Party

---

Well done. He does have power unwarranted by the 290,000 votes he received.

Hope Rides Again said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

The minimum wage in West Virginia is $8.75. Let him vote no.

---

SAY HIS NAME

---

---

Medicare passed in the Senate 70-24 and after the 1964 landslide 486 - 52 victory for LBJ.

SFBear92 said:

---

Hope Rides Again said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Hope Rides Again said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

The minimum wage in West Virginia is $8.75. Let him vote no.

---

SAY HIS NAME

---

---

Medicare passed in the Senate 70-24 and after the 1964 landslide 486 - 52 victory for LBJ.

---

I'm sorry to hear about your reading disability.
https://newrepublic.com/article/122393/how-medicare-was-lost-year

Quote:

---

The membership of the conference committee was unfavorable to Medicare. Of the seven Senate members, only Anderson, and Gore of Tennessee, had voted for the amendment. Of the five-man House delegation, which Mills naturally dominated, only two members favored Medicare. It was a surprise when Long of Louisiana and Smathers of Florida decided to support the Senate version of the bill. Then Mills declared himself willing to discuss a reasonable compromise, and for the first time the Medicare forces believed they might get a program, though a limited one, and began to issue optimistic reports.

---

---

---

You posted quite the self-own with that article.

Your article is dated October 17, 1964 and is titled "How Medicare Was Lost This Year". It tells the story of how the 88th Congress did NOT pass Medicare. It ends by saying LBJ's new strategy is an election day mandate - which he obviously received with the 1964 landslide. Democrats picked up 37 seats in the House, steamrolling the real opposition, coming from Wilbur Mills, the House Ways and Means Chair.

Thanks for sharing the article. Very informative.

Hope Never Dies said:

---

---

Hope Never Dies said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Hope Rides Again said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Hope Rides Again said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

The minimum wage in West Virginia is $8.75. Let him vote no.

---

SAY HIS NAME

---

---

Medicare passed in the Senate 70-24 and after the 1964 landslide 486 - 52 victory for LBJ.

---

I'm sorry to hear about your reading disability.
https://newrepublic.com/article/122393/how-medicare-was-lost-year

Quote:

---

The membership of the conference committee was unfavorable to Medicare. Of the seven Senate members, only Anderson, and Gore of Tennessee, had voted for the amendment. Of the five-man House delegation, which Mills naturally dominated, only two members favored Medicare. It was a surprise when Long of Louisiana and Smathers of Florida decided to support the Senate version of the bill. Then Mills declared himself willing to discuss a reasonable compromise, and for the first time the Medicare forces believed they might get a program, though a limited one, and began to issue optimistic reports.

---

---

---

You posted quite the self-own with that article.

Your article is dated October 17, 1964 and is titled "How Medicare Was Lost This Year". It tells the story of how the 88th Congress did NOT pass Medicare. It ends by saying LBJ's new strategy is an election day mandate - which he obviously received with the 1964 landslide. Democrats picked up 37 seats in the House, steamrolling the real opposition, coming from Wilbur Mills, the House Ways and Means Chair.

Thanks for sharing the article. Very informative.

---

Again, just truly amazing how bad your reading disability is.

---

So I think it's pretty clear at this point that Democrats did not have enough votes for a $15 minimum wage. This is not just about bowing to the Parliamentarian.

Thanks for the update. It's a shame.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Hope Never Dies said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

We debate this with anarchistbear, but it is really useless. He just wants to see the demise of the Democratic Party. Same as Yogi. There's no good faith coming from him on topics like this. Just criticisms of the Democratic Party.

---

Speaking of the Democratic Party

May it rot in hell.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

It's good a vote was forced. Let them be counted and it also gets rid of the false narrative Joe Manchin is the only thing between us and the will of the people. The fix was in from Biden down. Oh and about those small red states holding up progress against the will of the people- add Maine, New Hampshire and Delaware

---

I keep hearing that this was the will of the people. How was a national minimum wage of $15 will of the people? If it were the will of the people, it should be passed at the state level instead of the Federal government trying to force something completely unrelated to COVID-19 relief into a bundle that ignores the huge difference in cost of living in the different states.

CA, NY, etc. will always pass something like this. In fact, minimum wage should be a city specific measure. No ****ing way $15 an hour is enough in places like San Francisco or Manhattan Beach but probably more than enough in places like Fresno. Places like San Francisco and New York City should have much higher than $15 dollar. Places like backwaters Kentucky, $15 hour is probably more than necessary to survive at a "minimum" without government help.

And the places that keep sending leaders who will vote down $15 are places where they will reject it from local and national level but probably have the lowest state minimum wage. How is it the will of the people in places like Alabama where the average wealth is low, there are more people on average making less than most other states and yet they keep voting for leaders who are against higher wages locally and nationally? Why are they not voting for leaders who will support this if that is their "will"?

Not buying it.

The people in red states and places like Maine (which is one of the whitest and most rural places I have ever visited) don't want it, and that is why they keep voting for these representatives. If these people were going against the will of the people in their jurisdiction, they wouldn't keep winning over and over again The politicians from those states that voted this down will do just fine because they represent the will of the people from their state. Not sure why the poorest states keep being against things like this but it is what it is.

sycasey said:

---

So I think it's pretty clear at this point that Democrats did not have enough votes for a $15 minimum wage. This is not just about bowing to the Parliamentarian.

---

I could be wrong on some specifics on this, but don't the parameters of a bill being passed under budget reconciliation require that all provisions have some sort of relation to the federal budget? If so, what is the purported justification for including the minimum wage law in a reconciliation bill?

I really want to know what those possible justifications are, because as far as I can tell for now, many progressives seem to want the $15 minimum wage provision in the reconciliation bill simply because reconciliation is the most prominent end-around to the filibuster rule. That just seems like a slippery slope to me.

JeffBear07 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

So I think it's pretty clear at this point that Democrats did not have enough votes for a $15 minimum wage. This is not just about bowing to the Parliamentarian.

---

I could be wrong on some specifics on this, but don't the parameters of a bill being passed under budget reconciliation require that all provisions have some sort of relation to the federal budget? If so, what is the purported justification for including the minimum wage law in a reconciliation bill?

I really want to know what those possible justifications are, because as far as I can tell for now, many progressives seem to want the $15 minimum wage provision in the reconciliation bill simply because reconciliation is the most prominent end-around to the filibuster rule. That just seems like a slippery slope to me.

---

Yes, that's precisely why they wanted it in the reconciliation bill: so it can get around the filibuster rules. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these Senators are also voting against this in part because of the procedural issue; perhaps some of them would support it if the vote came in open session, but don't support attaching it to the COVID relief package. I think Sinema said as much in some of her public comments. (And if they don't support this, it's also very likely they wouldn't support overriding the parliamentarian.)

I don't think it's an accident that most of the Democratic Senators who voted this down were from largely smaller states with lower costs of living: WV, ME, NH, DE. Those last three are not "red" states either, they reliably vote blue in Presidential elections.

Look, I'm in favor of raising the national minimum wage and would have voted for this if I were in the Senate. But it's pretty clear there are structural issues here beyond Democrats just lacking the courage to push something through.

I'm thinking people do keep voting for representatives who don't work for a minimum wage increase, even if said voters are for an increase. The socialism/communism boogeyman and other wedge issues can be used to manipulate plenty of people.

chazzed said:

---

I'm thinking people do keep voting for representatives who don't work for a minimum wage increase, even if said voters are for an increase. The socialism/communism boogeyman and other wedge issues can be used to manipulate plenty of people.

---

If $15 an hour is essential for me to survive, I damn well will support candidates who will vote for it and I won't vote for a candidate that is openly against it. Not just on a federal level but also at the local level. Cities can do this. It may seem like corporations run national elections, but they do not run small city elections where this is probably the most needed. Big urban cities are so left now that conservatives are not the ones holding this up in big cities. And if the voters in small cities cannot get motivated or prioritize $15 an hour in their city, I cannot get all worked up from across the country for them.

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Hope Never Dies said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The rules are just an excuse. The rules have a work around. The presiding officer can ignore them as has been done in the past.

And the authoritarianism on display here is the leadership. The minimum wage is a crucial plank of the party; the minimum wage was a major reason they won in Georgia. So now the leadership ignores their campaign, their voters the country and the majority of minority voters who would benefit from this because of some parliamentary opinion by an unelected official. It's the authoritarianism and cowardice of the Democrats who ignore the will of the people and sacrifice this issue because they don't really care about it enough to take a stand

---

You can work around the parliamentarian but then you still have Manchin voting no. So what have you accomplished then?

---

We debate this with anarchistbear, but it is really useless. He just wants to see the demise of the Democratic Party. Same as Yogi. There's no good faith coming from him on topics like this. Just criticisms of the Democratic Party.

---

Speaking of the Democratic Party

May it rot in hell.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

It's good a vote was forced. Let them be counted and it also gets rid of the false narrative Joe Manchin is the only thing between us and the will of the people. The fix was in from Biden down. Oh and about those small red states holding up progress against the will of the people- add Maine, New Hampshire and Delaware

---

I keep hearing that this was the will of the people. How was a national minimum wage of $15 will of the people? If it were the will of the people, it should be passed at the state level instead of the Federal government trying to force something completely unrelated to COVID-19 relief into a bundle that ignores the huge difference in cost of living in the different states.

CA, NY, etc. will always pass something like this. In fact, minimum wage should be a city specific measure. No ****ing way $15 an hour is enough in places like San Francisco or Manhattan Beach but probably more than enough in places like Fresno. Places like San Francisco and New York City should have much higher than $15 dollar. Places like backwaters Kentucky, $15 hour is probably more than necessary to survive at a "minimum" without government help.

And the places that keep sending leaders who will vote down $15 are places where they will reject it from local and national level but probably have the lowest state minimum wage. How is it the will of the people in places like Alabama where the average wealth is low, there are more people on average making less than most other states and yet they keep voting for leaders who are against higher wages locally and nationally? Why are they not voting for leaders who will support this if that is their "will"?

Not buying it.

The people in red states and places like Maine (which is one of the whitest and most rural places I have ever visited) don't want it, and that is why they keep voting for these representatives. If these people were going against the will of the people in their jurisdiction, they wouldn't keep winning over and over again The politicians from those states that voted this down will do just fine because they represent the will of the people from their state. Not sure why the poorest states keep being against things like this but it is what it is.

---

Because it's almost always done by referendum . Florida just increased to $15 which got more votes than Biden or Trump. Maine voted to increase theirs to
$12. From 1996-2020 there were 27 minimum wage initiatives, 25 were approved by an average vote of 60%, many in red states, Arkansas, Missouri, Alaska, Nebraska, etc But initiatives take money and organizers. Why aren't their representatives voting advancing it? Simple, Republicans back business not workers and blue state democrats are anemic. The Red Southern states not only have the lowest wages but the poorest record of worker safety. And who are most at risk from this in red Southern states? Black people. And it's by design It's a good thing for Democrats that Republicans in DC never discover what would guarantee them national victories

---

So, if this is such a big issue for the people, and if this is so much easier to pass on a local level, why are they attaching this to a COVID-19 bill at the national level where there is no discernment for differences in cities and states on the right minimum wage? Clearly it is easy to pass on a local level when it is brought up. Why not use resources to promote it at a local level and not at a national level? This constant overreach of state and local matters are not very useful on matters where there are clear differences by location, and local governments are better able to calibrate.

Anarchistbear said:

---

chazzed said:

---

I'm thinking people do keep voting for representatives who don't work for a minimum wage increase, even if said voters are for an increase. The socialism/communism boogeyman and other wedge issues can be used to manipulate plenty of people.

---

Who are they supposed to vote for when both parties represent business interests?

---

Start with local government. Local government impact people's lives much more on a day to day basis than media coverage and people's attention would indicate. Local elections and platform are not limited by two parties or national party platform.

sycasey said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

So I think it's pretty clear at this point that Democrats did not have enough votes for a $15 minimum wage. This is not just about bowing to the Parliamentarian.

---

I could be wrong on some specifics on this, but don't the parameters of a bill being passed under budget reconciliation require that all provisions have some sort of relation to the federal budget? If so, what is the purported justification for including the minimum wage law in a reconciliation bill?

I really want to know what those possible justifications are, because as far as I can tell for now, many progressives seem to want the $15 minimum wage provision in the reconciliation bill simply because reconciliation is the most prominent end-around to the filibuster rule. That just seems like a slippery slope to me.

---

Yes, that's precisely why they wanted it in the reconciliation bill: so it can get around the filibuster rules. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these Senators are also voting against this in part because of the procedural issue; perhaps some of them would support it if the vote came in open session, but don't support attaching it to the COVID relief package. I think Sinema said as much in some of her public comments. (And if they don't support this, it's also very likely they wouldn't support overriding the parliamentarian.)

---

Yeah it was Sinema's comments about separating the minimum wage question from the COVID relief bill that really underscored for me that it's not so simplistic a question of wanting a $15 minimum wage or not as many progressives are trying to frame it, and it's pretty unfortunate that that is how they've chosen to frame it because it fools their supporters into thinking the decision is so black and white. But again, maybe we're just missing something in justifying why a minimum wage provision belongs in a budgetary bill.