I am voting tomorrow, and I'm voting for Elizabeth Warren. Given my ranking of the remaining candidates is Warren>Biden>Bernie>Bloomberg I suppose I could go ahead and vote Biden, since Warren isn't going to be the Dem nominee. But for now, I'm sticking with "who I think would make the best President" as my criteria. I think Warren staying in the race weakens Bernie, and I think she'd be a solid choice for VP (though I agree Kamala Harris is perhaps a better choice.) I'm guessing Warren is fine with staying in to weaken Bernie, and who knows if she isn't being encouraged to do so. Frankly, maybe she'd be an even better pick at Treasury than Veep...

But the way this is all playing out, you don't have to be a Bernie conspiracy theorist to think that there are deals being made....Are the Bros calling for her drop out on Twitter?

Augustus wrote:We have to accept that many aspects of our fabulous lifestyles are built upon exploiting labor, degrading the earth, and discriminating against people different than us. Many of us still live, or expect to live, in this hazy fever dream of post-WWII prosperity that was always built on a faulty foundation. Some people never had access to it, and our political system has worked very adroitly to keep them silenced and marginalized. Others had it, lost it, or fear losing it, and still expect it, and they’ve largely turned to the grievance based Trump faux-populism. Others are still enjoying it and haven’t woken up from the “dream,” and if you’re wringing your hands over having to pay a fair wage or over poor people having access to quality health care, you’re part of this group.

I mean nothing personal by this. Late capitalism is a hell of a drug.

:slowhandclappingguy:

pacino wrote:It's literally in every proposal that it's a gradually implemented increase. The longer we wait, the larger the first jump will have to be. It would seem you were presumptively opposed to a policy you didn't know enough about.

I prefer a more gradual process than the end date of 2024. If you go to 10 dollars on Jan 1 2022, I’d be fine with that, but I don’t want another 50% increase in just 2 years.

PTOITWCFTPP wrote:

pacino wrote:It's literally in every proposal that it's a gradually implemented increase. The longer we wait, the larger the first jump will have to be. It would seem you were presumptively opposed to a policy you didn't know enough about.

I prefer a more gradual process than the end date of 2024. If you go to 10 dollars on Jan 1 2022, I’d be fine with that, but I don’t want another 50% increase in just 2 years.

Then you should probably vote Bernie now as opposed to waiting for Biden/Trump to do nothing over the next 4 years.

CalvinBall wrote:Biden had one good day and now everyone is bowing down to him. Very odd. I do not think he can win a general. He was not raising money and has no message. Get excited.

He feels like John Kerry, but with concerning verbal gaffes.

Bucky wrote:

Augustus wrote:We have to accept that many aspects of our fabulous lifestyles are built upon exploiting labor, degrading the earth, and discriminating against people different than us. Many of us still live, or expect to live, in this hazy fever dream of post-WWII prosperity that was always built on a faulty foundation. Some people never had access to it, and our political system has worked very adroitly to keep them silenced and marginalized. Others had it, lost it, or fear losing it, and still expect it, and they’ve largely turned to the grievance based Trump faux-populism. Others are still enjoying it and haven’t woken up from the “dream,” and if you’re wringing your hands over having to pay a fair wage or over poor people having access to quality health care, you’re part of this group.

I mean nothing personal by this. Late capitalism is a hell of a drug.

:slowhandclappingguy:

+1

Werthless wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Biden had one good day and now everyone is bowing down to him. Very odd. I do not think he can win a general. He was not raising money and has no message. Get excited.

He feels like John Kerry, but with concerning verbal gaffes.

Don't vote for me then as points his finger into the chest of a man asking a simple question.

I am Joe Biden and I am running for US Senate!

Also, if you think socialism is a tasty attack line, we are going to have a whole summer and fall of Burisma this, Burisma that.

Grotewold wrote:

Stripes wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:What would President TP favor?

While my gut tells me that we should eliminate the minimum wage, it is plenty low right now, and removing it would indeed open the door for some employers to exploit some labor markets.

I'd keep it where it is, but I'd do something at the federal government level that mirrors the EIC. For all persons over age 21, federal tax dollars will be used to get you to a net (indexed for inflation) wage of $15/hr.

This is in keeping with programs that, while far from perfect, are effective in helping needy Americans - public housing, Medicaid, food stamps. Help for those who need it, not a blanket program that brings in everybody.

I'd much rather target subsidies to those that truly need it rather than paying suburban teens an above-market rate for summer jobs, or, even worse, paying everybody including Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg $1000 a month.

Why would any business pay anybody over $7.25 then, if the government is just gonna make up the rest anyway?

How about if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, commensurate with broader profitability and productivity trends in the U.S. over the last few decades, you go out of business?

Or are they *AM radio voice* entitled to it

That leaves unanswered the question of why it falls on employers to pay above-market wage rates. Why is the employer responsible but not the family, the schools, the community that failed to prepare this person for gainful employment?

More importantly, though, what it means is fewer stores and services in poor neighborhoods, more Dollar Stores and fewer bodegas, more Walmarts and fewer independent retailers. It's not very progressive to price small businesses out of business.

However, Stripes did catch the hole in my scheme, nobody would pay more than $7.25 if the government was just going to cover the difference.

CalvinBall wrote:Biden had one good day and now everyone is bowing down to him. Very odd. I do not think he can win a general. He was not raising money and has no message. Get excited.

Of course he can win the general

TomatoPie wrote:That leaves unanswered the question of why it falls on employers to pay above-market wage rates. Why is the employer responsible but not the family, the schools, the community that failed to prepare this person for gainful employment?

More importantly, though, what it means is fewer stores and services in poor neighborhoods, more Dollar Stores and fewer bodegas, more Walmarts and fewer independent retailers. It's not very progressive to price small businesses out of business.

The market wage rates themselves are the problem in the context of productivity and profitability gains over the last few decades.

And by Republican orthodoxy ... wouldn't one small pizza shop going under improve business for the one down the street? Which could, in theory, offer better wages? Why does that type of logic, those bootstraps, only apply to the worker?

sanders WILL lose pennsylvania in the general. every redneck will come out behind the shed to not vote for a communist and the african american community won't show up to vote for a jew, even a non practicing one. that's the unpolitically correct version, but that sums up the situation there.

save the party and more importantly save the country from 4 more years of trump, no sanders please. i like the guy, but it's not going to happen.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Biden had one good day and now everyone is bowing down to him. Very odd. I do not think he can win a general. He was not raising money and has no message. Get excited.

Of course he can win the general

I mean he can, but he is not strong. The establishment on either side doesn't have the best track record in these kind of things.

Black people don’t like Jews? That’s news to me.

If Biden is the nominee, I can’t wait for the inevitable “you think Trump is corrupt? What about Biden’s son getting money from Ukraine? They all do it” I’m going to hear from my older relatives for the next year/four years (depending on who wins).

Grotewold wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:That leaves unanswered the question of why it falls on employers to pay above-market wage rates. Why is the employer responsible but not the family, the schools, the community that failed to prepare this person for gainful employment?

More importantly, though, what it means is fewer stores and services in poor neighborhoods, more Dollar Stores and fewer bodegas, more Walmarts and fewer independent retailers. It's not very progressive to price small businesses out of business.

The market wage rates themselves are the problem in the context of productivity and profitability gains over the last few decades.

And by Republican orthodoxy ... wouldn't one small pizza shop going under improve business for the one down the street? Which could, in theory, offer better wages? Why does that type of logic, those bootstraps, only apply to the worker?

Whoa you strolled right into that one. The one down the street, the surviving pizza place, is Papa John's. Nobody wants to live in THAT world.

Also, I'm *not* making any bootstraps argument here, but I do think that taking the bottom rung off the ladder hurts those who most need entry-level jobs.

In my view, the very concept of a minimum wage is part of a larger problem that Americans are conditioned to look to employers for something more than wages commensurate with their work. What a horrible plan it's always been to train Americans that "somebody else" should pay for your health care. You pay for your own home, clothes, food, car, life insurance, car insurance, homeowners insurance, yet your employer is expected to provide your health care insurance.

That may have made sense in 1970 when you might reasonably expect to work for one company your whole life and then retire. With health insurance, with a pension. It makes no sense in 2020.

I agree with all the progressives on this board that every working American deserves health care and a path to a comfortable, if not prosperous, life. I just don't think it should be on the back of the employer any more than it should be on the local sports team or library to provide that.

Our government is pretty good (not great) with safety net programs. Expand them to help those who need it, and leave the rest to carry on. Same goes with health care.

Gimpy wrote:Black people don’t like Jews? That’s news to me.

its definitely a thing

Gimpy wrote:Black people don’t like Jews? That’s news to me.

yeah, was just about to share this same thought

TomatoPie wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

Stripes wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:What would President TP favor?

While my gut tells me that we should eliminate the minimum wage, it is plenty low right now, and removing it would indeed open the door for some employers to exploit some labor markets.

I'd keep it where it is, but I'd do something at the federal government level that mirrors the EIC. For all persons over age 21, federal tax dollars will be used to get you to a net (indexed for inflation) wage of $15/hr.

This is in keeping with programs that, while far from perfect, are effective in helping needy Americans - public housing, Medicaid, food stamps. Help for those who need it, not a blanket program that brings in everybody.

I'd much rather target subsidies to those that truly need it rather than paying suburban teens an above-market rate for summer jobs, or, even worse, paying everybody including Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg $1000 a month.

Why would any business pay anybody over $7.25 then, if the government is just gonna make up the rest anyway?

How about if you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, commensurate with broader profitability and productivity trends in the U.S. over the last few decades, you go out of business?

Or are they *AM radio voice* entitled to it

That leaves unanswered the question of why it falls on employers to pay above-market wage rates. Why is the employer responsible but not the family, the schools, the community that failed to prepare this person for gainful employment?

More importantly, though, what it means is fewer stores and services in poor neighborhoods, more Dollar Stores and fewer bodegas, more Walmarts and fewer independent retailers. It's not very progressive to price small businesses out of business.

However, Stripes did catch the hole in my scheme, nobody would pay more than $7.25 if the government was just going to cover the difference.

The thing is, these are jobs that need to be done. Often, there's a mentality that the employer is doing the employee a favor by hiring him.

And it's not just people working in fast food--it's home health aids, child care workers, people who clean our offices. Some of these jobs are incredibly demanding.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Biden had one good day and now everyone is bowing down to him. Very odd. I do not think he can win a general. He was not raising money and has no message. Get excited.

Of course he can win the general

I mean he can, but he is not strong. The establishment on either side doesn't have the best track record in these kind of things.

additional evidence--

https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/12 ... 2221120513

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Biden had one good day and now everyone is bowing down to him. Very odd. I do not think he can win a general. He was not raising money and has no message. Get excited.

He feels like John Kerry, but with concerning verbal gaffes.

Also, if you think socialism is a tasty attack line, we are going to have a whole summer and fall of Burisma this, Burisma that.

Hillary did endure Benghazi and then won the popular vote (I know, I know) so it's not like a similar line of attack means Joe is cooked.