A split Senate (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    wardorican

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 14, 2019
    Messages
    3,861
    Reaction score
    4,374
    Age
    43
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Offline
    They still haven't worked out their rules. This is just grinding the Senate to a halt.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...19e512-5cf3-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html

    When President Biden took office last week, he promised sweeping, bipartisan legislation to solve the coronavirus pandemic, fix the economy and overhaul immigration.
    Just days later, the Senate ground to a halt, with Democrats and Republicans unable to agree on even basic rules for how the evenly divided body should operate.

    Meanwhile, key Republicans have quickly signaled discomfort with — or outright dismissal of — the cornerstone of Biden’s early legislative agenda, a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief plan that includes measures such as $1,400 stimulus checks, vaccine distribution funding and a $15 minimum wage.
    On top of that, senators are preparing for a wrenching second impeachment trial for former president Donald Trump, set to begin Feb. 9, which could mire all other Senate business and further obliterate any hopes of cross-party cooperation.


    ....

    But most of those Democrats — who watched McConnell exempt Republican nominees from filibuster rules where he saw fit under Trump, after using them to the GOP’s advantage for six years before that to block Obama’s legislation and nominees — now find his early power move to be infuriating.
     
    Hmmm.. not really. I somehow doubt your statement that 'a large portion.. designated as essential workers'. I have no doubt that some of the people earning less than $15/hour ARE 'essential workers', but I don't see how they form anything even approaching a majority.

    Sorry.. this just smacks of a social agenda being pushed into a bill intended for emergency relief ?
    Outside of what you've been told by others, it also is about economic repair.

    This pandemic has caused unique economic issues. Certain sectors of the economy have been hit harder than others. Those require focused aid, which has mostly happened (at least for the bigger corps, like airlines).

    Many low wage jobs have had hours reduced, or are 'essential workers'. Now, 'essential worker' in this county is a pretty broad term. I'm an "essential worker" and I make well over min wage.

    When we start to get out of this pandemic and on to economic recovery, history has shown us time and time again that the lower income earners (and you realize, that some degreed professionals only make 13-15/hr, which should be criminal), will be the ones left behind even further economically. Housing is running too hot, construction isn't cost effective (not sure how we fix that), there is a massive shortage of low income and low/mid income housing in this country and we have gen Y and Z coming of age where home buying would be a thing, and they're pretty large demographics. There is a huge need for cheaper housing. But that's not happening. The other side is the boost income a bit.

    So, without getting too far into the economic theory, I'd argue this isn't really just a social issue, but an economic one.

    The biggest issue we'll face during and after this pandemic is an influx of poverty. This is another tool to address poverty.

    I have a pretty long standing opinion that just about all jobs are underpaid. We know that from data. People who stay with their employer/company long term, unless moving up the ranks, are always underpaid compared to those that bounce around a bit. Jobs are much easier to move than homes and communities. On the corporate level, there has been an over reliance on the stock market, and growing the top line to give out massive bonuses, but no real rewards for maintaining strong cash flow, low debt, a strong bottom line. Even the few that do that, still often do so at the expense of their employees.

    Now, I'd also prefer a metro/rural consideration for min wage. i.e. maybe 15/hr in a town of 400 is a bit higher than demand. But, maybe that's also the cash influx that area needs to stop the slow decay.

    This plan also is a graduated plan to hit 15/hr in 2025.

    Just like a hurricane.. there is an immediate issue and there are massive long term concerns. And people get a lot less interested in helping with the long term issues, once the immediate is over. Hence why you put things like this in this type of bill.
     
    Outside of what you've been told by others, it also is about economic repair.

    This pandemic has caused unique economic issues. Certain sectors of the economy have been hit harder than others. Those require focused aid, which has mostly happened (at least for the bigger corps, like airlines).

    Many low wage jobs have had hours reduced, or are 'essential workers'. Now, 'essential worker' in this county is a pretty broad term. I'm an "essential worker" and I make well over min wage.

    When we start to get out of this pandemic and on to economic recovery, history has shown us time and time again that the lower income earners (and you realize, that some degreed professionals only make 13-15/hr, which should be criminal), will be the ones left behind even further economically. Housing is running too hot, construction isn't cost effective (not sure how we fix that), there is a massive shortage of low income and low/mid income housing in this country and we have gen Y and Z coming of age where home buying would be a thing, and they're pretty large demographics. There is a huge need for cheaper housing. But that's not happening. The other side is the boost income a bit.

    So, without getting too far into the economic theory, I'd argue this isn't really just a social issue, but an economic one.

    The biggest issue we'll face during and after this pandemic is an influx of poverty. This is another tool to address poverty.

    I have a pretty long standing opinion that just about all jobs are underpaid. We know that from data. People who stay with their employer/company long term, unless moving up the ranks, are always underpaid compared to those that bounce around a bit. Jobs are much easier to move than homes and communities. On the corporate level, there has been an over reliance on the stock market, and growing the top line to give out massive bonuses, but no real rewards for maintaining strong cash flow, low debt, a strong bottom line. Even the few that do that, still often do so at the expense of their employees.

    Now, I'd also prefer a metro/rural consideration for min wage. i.e. maybe 15/hr in a town of 400 is a bit higher than demand. But, maybe that's also the cash influx that area needs to stop the slow decay.

    This plan also is a graduated plan to hit 15/hr in 2025.

    Just like a hurricane.. there is an immediate issue and there are massive long term concerns. And people get a lot less interested in helping with the long term issues, once the immediate is over. Hence why you put things like this in this type of bill.
    Well, it may be a well-intentioned "tool to address poverty"; my point is that it seems a trifle cynical to tack this social "tool" on to a bill that is SUPPOSED to be about emergency relief for employees and businesses affected by Covid ?
     
    That's both irrelevant to the discussion - which was about using an emergency relief bill for a social agenda - and a trifle rude ?
    I think the premise that increasing minimum wage isn't part of an economic agenda but is instead only part of a social agenda is clearly inherently flawed, and the discussion is a non-starter accordingly.
     
    That's both irrelevant to the discussion - which was about using an emergency relief bill for a social agenda - and a trifle rude ?

    No, that's not my intent. What I'm saying is that it's clear to anyone paying attention here that lost jobs and wages can be directly attributed to Covid, and that Covid amplifies the impact of people being criminally underpaid. The minimum wage has long been far too low because it's never been indexed to inflation, so the purchasing power of workers has been declining for years and Covid is basically exacerbating the loss of purchasing power by workers. The increased minimum wage allows entry level employees regain their footing and start earning something of a living wage. You can't live on $15/hour in most places here.

    It's absolutely relevant. We're talking economics, not social anything.
     
    No, that's not my intent. What I'm saying is that it's clear to anyone paying attention here that lost jobs and wages can be directly attributed to Covid, and that Covid amplifies the impact of people being criminally underpaid. The minimum wage has long been far too low because it's never been indexed to inflation, so the purchasing power of workers has been declining for years and Covid is basically exacerbating the loss of purchasing power by workers. The increased minimum wage allows entry level employees regain their footing and start earning something of a living wage. You can't live on $15/hour in most places here.

    It's absolutely relevant. We're talking economics, not social anything.
    Well, I'd probably agree with most of that. But my point was that this should be its own bill, not hiding inside a Covid emergency relief bill ?

    Perhaps this is common practice in the USA, to smuggle one agenda inside a larger bill, even though they may be relating to different issues ?

    We don't do this in the UK. Well, not so overtly, anyway ?
     
    Well, it may be a well-intentioned "tool to address poverty"; my point is that it seems a trifle cynical to tack this social "tool" on to a bill that is SUPPOSED to be about emergency relief for employees and businesses affected by Covid ?
    When did wages become only a social item and not an economic one?

    Who said it can only be emergency funding? Why not think a bit long term? Many items in the CARES act were longer term.
     
    Why, because I disagree with your point? or because you won't explain 'why' you find it a trifle cynical?
    I was actually making a very simple point.
    Most of the items in this bill appear to relate directly to grants and subsidies to help businesses that have lost revenue - and people who have lost jobs - to cope with the Covid shutdown. Or at least to ameliorate its impact.

    But the increase in the national minimum wage was NOT in this category. It was - or seems to be - a generalised social/economic policy, unrelated (except in passing) to Covid itself. So why was it in the bill ?

    That was all.
     
    I was actually making a very simple point.
    Most of the items in this bill appear to relate directly to grants and subsidies to help businesses that have lost revenue - and people who have lost jobs - to cope with the Covid shutdown. Or at least to ameliorate its impact.

    But the increase in the national minimum wage was NOT in this category. It was - or seems to be - a generalised social/economic policy, unrelated (except in passing) to Covid itself. So why was it in the bill ?

    That was all.
    And that was also explained to you. It's a part of the economic recovery going forward. And, may very well be a sacrificial lamb too.

    The reason it won't be a separate bill is that it likely wouldn't get past filibuster without some added pressure from the main bill components. This is a very common thing done; a Rider. It may very well be considered a 'Rider' to some, but it isn't completely unrelated.
     
    Well, I'd probably agree with most of that. But my point was that this should be its own bill, not hiding inside a Covid emergency relief bill ?

    Perhaps this is common practice in the USA, to smuggle one agenda inside a larger bill, even though they may be relating to different issues ?

    We don't do this in the UK. Well, not so overtly, anyway ?

    Yes, this is a common practice in the US. Republicans did it in the last big COVID bill providing a lot of relief to the oil industry that has nothing to do with COVID. The House Bill that was never voted on in the Senate was loaded with it.

    As I said, it's how the game is played in the US. It didn't used to be this way but it became common in the 90's (which is when the quote I posted originated) and has only gotten worse since then.
     
    Well, I'd probably agree with most of that. But my point was that this should be its own bill, not hiding inside a Covid emergency relief bill ?

    Perhaps this is common practice in the USA, to smuggle one agenda inside a larger bill, even though they may be relating to different issues ?

    We don't do this in the UK. Well, not so overtly, anyway ?

    Well, for one, it's not "hiding" in the bill. Every Congressman knows that's part of the bill. And as SBTB pointed out, packging numerous components into one bill has been common practice here in the States for years, even decades.
     
    Roofgardener, I get your point, and if Congress had two rational, functioning parties who could reasonably discuss and formulate policy, then minimum wage may well have been part of a different bill. But the Republicans have done nothing but obstruct and temporize for the last 12 years. They are the party of opposition who consistently fight solutions to national problems for short term political gain. They seek power for power's sake, not for doing anything constructive with it.
     
    UK resident's guide to understanding American politics: The majority of Democrats are basically Tories who don't believe in universal healthcare (excluding a small subset who trend more towards the UK's Labor Party). The Republicans are Nigel Farage on an acid trip. Although even Farage is not as obsessed with guns and religion as the average Republican official in 2021.
     
    UK resident's guide to understanding American politics: The majority of Democrats are basically Tories who don't believe in universal healthcare (excluding a small subset who trend more towards the UK's Labor Party). The Republicans are Nigel Farage on an acid trip. Although even Farage is not as obsessed with guns and religion as the average Republican official in 2021.

    Thanks for that analysis, SaulGoodManEsq.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom