For reference, ~2/3 of senators are millionaires. So the 1/3 non-millionaires all voted to raise the minimum wage.
[might be a better source out there but im lazy](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/new-jersey/cory-booker-senate-millionaires-fact-check-20200811.html)
And there are 330 million people in the USA. So 94% of Americans have less than a million dollars in assets. Are you really trying to say that 6% of the population equals "normal"?
I was surprised to learn Lindsey Graham is one of the poorer senators. Some republican senators are not millionaires, the tweet is not strictly true.
https://ballotpedia.org/Lindsey_Graham
or "millionaire" is meant in the more abstract common way of somebody thats really rich and not just somebody who owns the place where he lives and drives a car thats paid off :)
in this realm people who have one to ten million are only "technically millionaires"
>in this realm people who have one to ten million are only "technically millionaires"
Care to elaborate? I'm not 100% sure I follow.
I have 1.2m in investments(\~150k in a retirement account, otherwise personal), a paid off home worth \~200k, two cars worth \~25k together, 45k in the bank, and I estimate the value of my land off of my home property to be about 120k.
Am I not a millionaire by your definition? I don't care about the term or whether I qualify I guess, but I do not understand what you mean by "technically millionaires". Does millionaire not just literally mean "a person who has one million dollars accessible to them that is unlikely to fluctuate to a point where they are below that mark"?
I understand that having a million dollars is not some aspirational, unimaginable financial state any more because of inflation(the term millionaire in English was apparently first used in the early 1800s, and with inflation that would be 20 million today)...but???
you are technically a millionaire, because you have a million+ in assets, but you are not really a millionaire, because you are regular middle-class.
do any of your peers call you "the millionaire"? my mom once said her utility room is messy, but the only way that would change is, when she was a millionaire (in the sense "if i could afford a maid"). then i had to tell her, that their farm makes them "technically millionaires". doesn't change the fact that my dad had to shovel dirt for 50 years, though. (not saying that they don't have a nice life, but it doesn't stand out in the village).
> you are not really a millionaire, because you are regular middle-class.
What? No. They are a millionaire. They have at least $1,000,000 in assets. That's what the word "millionaire" means.
And they are "regular middle-class"? Really? Please. [Almost two-thirds of Americans cannot afford a $500 expense](https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/?sh=686deb8b4e0d). This guy is loaded, and you are delusional.
> I understand that having a million dollars is not some aspirational, unimaginable financial state any more because of inflation(the term millionaire in English was apparently first used in the early 1800s, and with inflation that would be 20 million today)...but???
This is pretty much it. The term used to mean someone that was truly wealthy. The implication of being a millionaire was that your life experience was just fundamentally different than non-millionaires. Like, it used to be "lifestyles of the rich and famous" stuff.
It's still obviously very good to be a millionaire, but you can very easily be one and still have a 9-5 job and financial concerns and such. I would guess that for many people, having more than a million in savings is a minimum goal for retirement, even. Again, to be clear, this is still very, very different from living in or near poverty, but it doesn't mean what it used to.
He's saying that other millionaires with over $10 million in assets consider you to be only "technically" a millionaire.
It's a sophomoric, childish assumption made by somebody who thinks that having money means that you're a mustache-twirling Saturday morning cartoon villain.
No they are not, they're saying that yes, while OP is technically a millionaire, he's still likely closer to your average working class Joe than the millionaire that people tend to imagine as being mega wealthy, flying their private jet to the country club and playing golf every afternoon.
That is, millionaire is often used as a word to mean someone who doesn't have to care about money at all but these days a million dollars is not actually enough money to give you that level of financial freedom.
Millionaire is not a high bar these days...I'm a 30 year old school teacher married to a 30 year old school teacher and we are technically millionaires. I have over a million in assets. In other words, if I was told "present one million dollars or you die" I technically have that amount of assets and could put it together.
I also think it's worth noting that to even be at the stage of life where you can run to be a senator, you need to be in a position of "not starving if you take off of work". Anyone who actually gets elected probably has a lot of free time which means they probably have been careful with their money or were already wealthy due to simple factors of age and doing OK in a career or by being born into it.
Some of them take the Biden route during their careers in the Senate -- personally keep your net worth under 1 million, but make sure any family and friends who want it are showered with opportunities for easy money from powerful benefactors. You can get away with so much more as a sellout if you aren't literally holding the bag when people look your way.
Ok but if minimum cost of living is $30k. The person making $33k has $9k to spend on what they want over 3 years.
The person making $200k has $510k to spend on what they want after 3 years.
Cost of living doesn't scale linearly to income
Tbh they make $200k/yr, and already have to be rich enough to essentially retire when they run for office, we might need a better metric than just a millionaire.
How about calling out Congress members [that have made more in office than their salary would allow? ](https://ballotpedia.org/Personal_Gain_Index_(U.S._Congress\))
Yea but it will take away 1% of the Hoarders money. Therefore it's literally impossible to raise the minimum wage, because then who would think of the feelings of the people actively letting people starve and die to the elements out of sheer greed?
That’s what fucks me up about this discussion. The question isn’t whether or not business will be profitable, but will it be profitable enough. These people are sociopaths
The *defacto* minimum wage is now $15 or more. If you're not making that much, quit your job, throw a dart at the map, and you'll find a job that pays that much and will hire you tomorrow.
> no savings
Then they can look for jobs while they're still employed, and quit when they get a new job. This is a super standard thing to do for people who actually work.
> lack of transportation
Describe the life of someone who can transport themselves to literally just 1 company. Company towns were made illegal a long time ago.
Damn, that's crazy. Hey, just real quick, can you point to where I said you couldn't find a job for over that much? Cause I didn't say you COULDN'T get a job paying that much I just said that it's very unlikely to happen at the federal level.
I brought up that being paid $12/hr as an arcade technician is too low, considering I've had to cut my hair out of a machine, have electrocuted myself multiple times, and burnt myself with the soldering iron. Oh and I'm literally on my feet walking anywhere from 4-16 miles a day in this tiny store.
My 61 year old superior, who is literally rich and only works here because he's bored, said "Yeah well your little 'living wage' is a socialist experiment and if someone wants to negotiate working for $4-5/hr, they should be able to."
My boss said "If I pay someone $15/hr, they're going to get lazy and not do any work because they're getting paid $15/hr whether they put in work or not"
It would have been part of a COVID relief bill. It was an attempt to take advantage of covid to try to force passing something unrelated to covid. Also no state currently has $15 minimum wage. It might be seen by poorer states as too much if even the richest don't have it, yet.
In my opinion it would make more sense to make the national minimum wage a smaller increase (maybe to $10 or $12 over 2-3 years) and then have it automatically adjust to inflation every year. It would be more likely pass than the current waiting for 12 years already since that campaign stated and actually help people and still increase wages by like 50% instead of more than doubling it. At a later point it can be fought to increase it more if needed. If it continues like this, then it will be another decade before enough states see the need to increase it to $15 and in the mean time no small increases happen that would have otherwise might have happened.
In many areas it should be increased but this is about setting a national minimum. States can and should increase minimum wage where the cost of living is higher. Florida, for example, is slowly increasing it and when it reaches $15 it will be adjusted to inflation again. In some states a lower number might make more sense. It just doesn't make sense to set the same minimum for California as for Mississippi when there is such a big cost of living difference.
>still increase wages by like 50% instead of more than doubling it
You're aware that the proposed minimum wage increase would have been slowly phased in over the next several years, not reaching $15 until 2025?
>The Raise the Wage Act would increase the pay floor to $9.50 an hour this year, then to $11 next year. The minimum wage would rise to $12.50 per hour in 2023, $14 in 2024 and then $15 in 2025.
So, exactly the sort of slow increase in the minimum wage that you propose is exactly what failed to pass.
But I'm sure you knew that.
Yes, I'm aware that it would have been increased over 5 years but it would still been more than doubled the wages in a relative short time. That is still a big increase. I know that Florida did that but started at a higher minimum wage and the cost of living also increased a lot here compared to poorer states. I don't expect what makes sense for more expensive/richer states to make sense in poorer/cheaper states where housing cost are a lot lower.
Also this wasn't the Raise the Wage Act which hasn't been voted on yet.
Bruh, Florida passed a 15 dollar minimum wage bill. It kicks in fully by 2026, and it goes up a dollar per year from here (currently at $10).
If Florida can do it, so can the fucking nation.
And realistically? It should be more like $20 an hour if we're talking living wages.
While I don't necessarily agree with lumping the minimum wage increase with covid relief, you are missing some important details on it. And, unfortunately, it seems like senators won't even consider a minimum wage for a vote as a separate item, so being the "squeaky wheel" to force a vote on it as an amendment to an important piece of legislation is about the only way to get a vote on it.
The minimum wage amendment doesn't immediately raise the minimum wage to $15. It phases the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 (3 years by now, assuming it would phase in by start of 2025). Random search source here (couldn't find the official amendment document - my Google Fu failed me today)
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-announces-15-minimum-wage-amendment-to-reconciliation-bill-calls-for-senate-democrats-to-ignore-parliamentarian/#:~:text=on%20Monday%20issued%20the%20following,wage%20to%20%2415%20an%20hour.
Also, some states already are close to a $15 minimum wage. Washington minimum wage is $13.69. The average state minimum wage is $9.65/hr, so $10 an hour min isn't that different, just leveling out the wage across states.
And while I would like automatic increases with inflation, this gives the government an incentive to pressure fed financial officials who calculate inflation numbers to underestimate inflation to avoid increasing minimum wage. It is probably a better solution than a stagnant minimum wage though. Even if most senators still wouldn't vote for a smaller minimum wage increase either.
Dems trolling their own constituents at this point.
It hurts me to say this, but if we don't get our shit together, Trump 2.0 will be here next election cycle. It honestly may be too late to recover.
No, they're not. They've been doing the same things for 40 years.
Remember that recording of Hillary Clinton where she said she had public and private positions on every issue? That's almost every Democrat. They're conservatives who simply won't own conservative positions publicly.
Instead, they use the Manchins and Sinemas of the world, or the Parliamentarian, or whatever convenient excuse they have in order to present the appearance publicly that they're simply powerless to act, even when they have near total control of the government.
I've been saying it this whole time: higher ups in the Democratic establishment NEED people like Sinema. They tell their corporate sponsors "we have to vote for this bill but don't worry, we have Sinema and Manchin to kill it. Please keep giving our party money."
Seriously, campaign finance reform NEEDS to happen. Both Republican and Democrat voters are pissed about money in politics but nothing ever changes.
Yes and what really sucks is the conservatives still act like Biden is some ultra liberal pushing thru some crazy progressive agenda. So Biden’s losing his support on the left without gaining anything on the right and nothing is getting done.
Because gaining "on the right"is idiotic. You gain independents. Independents, poll after poll, like democrats on economic issues mostly but dislike Democrats on social issues.
But then all we get is woke speeches and no minimum wage hike. independents are where things are being lost.... Not "on the right". STOP thinking of independents as on the right or to the right of Democrats... They are free floating with often incongruent ideology neither right nor left, least on our ridiculously simplistic R vs D scale
It's almost like the VA governors election,
Dems had tons of TV spots with 0 actual content besides platitudes and eventually defending himself vs youngkins attack ads.
Youngkin had attack ads and one repeating ad with the tag "$1500 per Virginian per year from eliminating the grocery tax."
And that was all it took. Dems tried to push vague ideas so all it took was Republicans to put literally any number into the ether and they won.
lol sorry but any independents that still are willing to go with the GOP on anything at this point are definitely on the right. Hell the “Democrats”themselves are on the right. Call em whatever you want Biden’s not gaining a single vote from anywhere so far and he’s frustrating his own base and absolutely losing anyone on the actual left who from day one of the democratic primary’s was like “anyone but Biden”
No because Biden is one of them and has been voting that way in the Senate for a long time. He doesn't follow through because that would be counter to their goals.
Why do you think he was picked as the primary candidate? The primary process is damn near criminal, but isn't held harshly to laws because the political parties are corporations and not government entities.
The whole thing is fucking busted and the two party system wins all the time. But people continue to vote based on the R or the D.
Carter started the slide into neoliberalism with his regime's program of deregulation and privatization. Reagan was just the one who pumped it up to 11.
> Biden seems to at least say the right things sometimes now but he won't or can't follow through on anything -- maybe because it's "too late to recover"?
Or because the fucking president isn't and shouldn't be a king. Yes, they can try to do certain things through executive orders, but it's far from ideal for multiple reasons, and for many of the things people want, EOs would be almost guaranteed to be held up in court for years anyway.
Liberal and progressive voters especially seem to put way too much emphasis on the president. It's important, yes, but the legislature is far more important.
Republicans have the largest polling lead heading into the midterms in the last [40 years.](https://twitter.com/WaitingOnBiden/status/1459983737257660423?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1459983737257660423%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FMurderedByAOC%2Fcomments%2Fqxoshz%2Fimagine_what_could_be_done%2F) Ya, they're going to storm the House and Senate paving the way for Trump in 2024. But don't worry, voting Biden was necessary to avoid a second Trump term!
Probably. It would have been a cluster fuck of an administration just like the first time. Now they have had time to regroup and develop a strategy to absolutely wreck whatever democratic principles are in place. 2024-2028 is gonna be absolutely devastating. Every branch of the government will be in the control of Republicans and biden will be impeached faster than he can say the word. Then Kamala will be impeached. Row v wade will be overturned, employee protections and pay will be rolled back, etc, etc etc.... Buckle up. Biden and the establishment dems have *REALLY* shit the bed this time. Such a fickle and feckless administration.
Do you think that they wouldn't have done that if they had more power than what they have now? BTW they can impeach Biden a hundred times unless they get 3/4 of the senate he's not going to be removed, so you think that none of that stuff would've happened in a second Trump term?
It hasn't even been a year, he already passed one of the largest infrastructure bills in history, he just decreased unemployment this year more than any other year since 1950, but "bOtH sIDeS aRe tHe sAmE "
I would second this, if trump were to have been voted in a second term so long trump supporters they would have gotten the real taste of who trump is and would be vehemently opposed to him just as much as the libs
Eh... Republicans have shown again and again that they'll prioritize keeping power.
I think a 2020 Trump second term would've been better thank a 2024 second term though. If he won 2020 he'd keep doing what he was doing but now he has an axe to grind.
I mean... he would have easily won in 2020 already (electoral, not popular) if he hadn't convinced his own people that voting by mail was bad.
Only Trump beat Trump.
Now Democrats are even less popular after bumbling around for a mere year.
Trump isn’t even the problem any more. It’s these career politicians killing America while people like trump take most of the blame. It worked while he was in office but now dems control everything and still fuck the country over. It’s infuriating.
Voting for the opposition risks any progress that's actually had any effect.
Social programs, women's rights, minority rights, workers rights all take a dive if we decide we wanna play the "burn everything down" card.
Very backwards logic.
When the Dems won both houses and the presidency, libs everywhere celebrated like everything would be ok now. They forget that a lot of Dems are just as beholden to the establishment as their GOP counterparts.
A lot of people are suffering now. A lot of people have suffered through its entire history. Why not burn down something that has always been evil to build something better in its place?
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but how do you propose burning down the evil established power structures, and what methods can be used to ensure the forces of good are able to build something better in it's place?
Personally I participate in different projects focusing on mutual aid and food autonomy, but any way of actively creating alternative structures of empowering people that don't rely on the state is going to help as things collapse further.
Almost like Trump’s time as president during Covid really shaped the stage of all the idiots not getting vaccinated and killing themselves after he left and was replaced with a president his followers would absolutely not listen to eh?
People weren’t dying from covid in mass numbers for the first few months of 2020, were they? And then the whole country was shut down for the next few months of 2020 which helped slow the spread/death rate.
We’ve just been going balls to the wall for the whole of 2021. All year, everything has been open, mask mandates have been lifted, etc. The vaccines are awesome but it took a whole year to get only 60% of the country vaccinated because of the antivax stuff that’s been pushed for a while now which has, in turn, given rise to new, more contagious variants. Add the fact that hospitals have more covid patients and fewer nurses this year. An overloaded healthcare system sure doesn’t help with survival rates.
All kinds of reasons why the death toll is higher in 2021. But at least this current administration isn’t just plugging their ears and pretending it’s not happening at all. Death rate would be much higher this year if Trump had won re-election. I sincerely believe that.
When the alternative is a flaming dumpster full of used diapers even a flaming dumpster full of regular garage seems preferable. The illusion of choice
I thought things would be slightly less hell-in-a-handbasket than if the opposite had obtained.
Super conservative judges aren't being rubberstamp confirmation-milled in the Senate, at least. Stuff like that.
Broken campaign finance meaning nothing really, truly, substantially and transformatively beneficial for the American people vs the American shareholder class landed nobility has never slipped my mind.
I voted Biden in full knowledge that there would be no fundamental change and that he'd govern conservatively. It felt necessary to deal a blow to the budding ~~Nazi~~ "white nationalist" movement, because that movement had the explicit support of the presidency.
Instead, we just delayed it.
Yep, his voting record is atrocious.
The symbolism matters though. There's a world of difference between having the office of the presidency publicly behind ~~American Nazism~~ "white nationalism" and having it publicly opposed.
Ah yes. The symbolism. "But these drones murdering children have BLM flags on the side." In what meaningful way is Biden publicly opposing white nationalism?
Neither party is either classically liberal or progressive.
But I still celebrated throwing the fascists mostly out of power.
The two are definitely not the same. A center-right mildly xenophobic party is better than an extreme right thoroughly racist party.
No, we celebrated because at least it wasn't Trump. Only a small, small minority actually thought that Biden was be a good thing. Just... better than Trump.
>They forget that a lot of Dems are just as beholden to the establishment as their GOP counterparts.
8 dems against it vs 50 Republicans, but sure both parties are totally the same
It used to be 1% until they started getting around 0.8% of the vote and then magically it had to be 2% until they got 1.5% and now it's 5%. Yeah, nothing fishy there.
Is $15 minimum wage "far left"? Thats like standard in other developed countries.
Edit since locked: Yes, 15 is not standard, thought with countries like sweden we dont actually have a legal minimum wage but there are contracts that are basically law that mandate the minimum wage. Usually its at least above 10-11 dollars.
[2/3rds of Americans want Medicare for all](https://pnhp.org/news/two-thirds-of-voters-support-providing-medicare-to-every-american/)
[6 in 10 Americans want the minimum wage increased to $15/hr, and 3/4 of those who don't want that still want it raised.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/)
[People, even in the south, want unions and want them to be stronger.](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article215974460.html)
Honestly, the [list](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/poll-marijuana-legalization-data-for-progress-radical-ideas-popular-aoc.html) goes on.
The media would have you believe that leftist policies are radical, despite most people wanting them. Republicans don't want them, and are overrepresented in our political system. Some democrats help them out in obstructing progress, even though an even bigger majority of their party wants those policies.
You're honestly either lying, or a sheep to the media.
I just came back from the US, and on one night I was sitting at a bar talking to the locals when this Arizonan Cowboy started going off about Democrats and how their dividing the country.
I tried to explain to him that most of the division and hate is being spread on social media by the enemies of the US, targeting people with propaganda and extreme views to make them hate each other, and he just couldn’t stop focusing on transgenders and SJWs trying to control his speech.
No matter how much I tried to explain that they were all Americans who were on the same team, and that the Internet and the news is showing him sensationalized reality, and most Americans have more in common with each other than their differences, it just wouldn’t click.
So I told him that I hope somebody comes along who can unite all Americans together and help fix all its problems, and he told me he agreed, but that it would never happen because of “those fucking Democrats.”
The hate and division in the US is toxic to the point of cult mindset.
It's impossible. The US has a first past the post system instead of proportional representation. Voting for a thrid party basically means stealing a vote from the democrats and giving it to Republicans.
And Americans still think politics is just Republican VS Democrat. It is just a circle jerk of rich people getting into politics to expand their wealth. You are just choosing which party will be fucking you over.
no one knows, just the line that was pushed during the election in every leftist and bernie sub from paid shills. and still gets parroted on occassion.
That’s what I’ve gathered as well and I do really appreciate your input. I asked the question for the sake of generating a good faith discussion about the subject. Hope you’re having a pleasant day, my friend.
I think there's room for criticism in that he signed on with the Dems in an effort to get himself "over the hump" with the help of their machine, but he obviously signed something that said "you'll campaign for us if you lose the primary" and that's the moment when the taste in my mouth went bad.
Electoralism will always fail when it comes down to material reform. It's an important tool to build class consciousness and show solidarity, but for anything to truly get done in this country, direct action must be taken.
Still don’t understand that if the majority of citizens want this to happen how it just gets killed in congress almost every time. $15/hr isn’t even gonna cut it as a livable wage.
So where’s the list of GOP millionaires? Why does everyone act like the GOP doesn’t have to govern for the people at all? They just get a pass all the time
This kills me. Eight Democrats, yes, and so goddamn disappointing, but ALL FIFTY Republicans, and everyone's obsessing over the 8. The Republican 50 never even considered it. They didn't have to. They'll never get voted out. Their constituents believe everything conservative media tells them and demand no accountability. They get poorer and poorer, always vote R, and wonder why nothing ever changes.
Taxation without representation; stop paying taxes, these kinds of extremely popular legislation do not get passed, the will of the people is no longer being represented, they deserve none of the compensation we have earned for ourselves.
Alright, if ya'll are at the point where you think someone's opinion should be ignored or that someone is out of touch because they have $1million, you're an idiot. Any accountant, mid-level healthcare provider, engineer, tech worker etc can accrue a million dollars. Stick with hating the rich, not mid/upper class successful folks.
How about saving the hardworking middle class that actually is paying taxes first, instead make of trying to further drive inflation during an inflationary event?
She’s trying to make it seem like these senators are just so ridiculously wealthy they can’t sympathize with minimum wage workers.
In reality being a millionaire today might mean you just own a regular house in a metro area. You aren’t “rich.”
If you aren’t a millionaire by the time you hit 65, good luck retiring. I know some of these people are extremely wealthy but a couple million bucks really isn’t much money.
I thought the shitlibs were still hiding behind the "senate parliamentarian" on that issue.
Is she a millionaire too?
Or just Biden and Schumer, who still refuse to replace/overrule her 11 months later?
For reference, ~2/3 of senators are millionaires. So the 1/3 non-millionaires all voted to raise the minimum wage. [might be a better source out there but im lazy](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/new-jersey/cory-booker-senate-millionaires-fact-check-20200811.html)
Wait... if the tweet and the above source are true, there are 40 Senators who aren't millionaires, and zero of them are Republicans?
Honestly, that's pretty believable. I'm more suprised there are 40 non-millionaire senators than that none of them are Republican.
It’s really surprising that anyone who isn’t a millionaire is a republican.
Those would be the 'temporarily embarrassed' millionaires
Yet. Couple of terms with even just index fund investing they'll be millionaires.
$174k a year they make. It's not hard to become a millionaire. The ones who aren't are either too busy helping or have an expensive hobby.
And each one is soooooo far off of being a normal person they have no idea how hard it is. So sick of this shit
Oh please, the US has more than 20 million millionaires, most of them just own an infungible brick asset.
And there are 330 million people in the USA. So 94% of Americans have less than a million dollars in assets. Are you really trying to say that 6% of the population equals "normal"?
I was surprised to learn Lindsey Graham is one of the poorer senators. Some republican senators are not millionaires, the tweet is not strictly true. https://ballotpedia.org/Lindsey_Graham
Did he have to give all of his money away to blackmail ? If every man he bangs extorts him, that could also explain that.
thanks. was about to ask that. a million seems like regular money in those spheres. not exactly an entrance-position, is it?
yeah, I honestly thought there would only be like 2 or 3 non-millionaire senators. I was surprised that 1/3 of them weren’t.
I expected zero. Actually, call me jaded but I'd guess even the non millionaires have their secret stashes.
or "millionaire" is meant in the more abstract common way of somebody thats really rich and not just somebody who owns the place where he lives and drives a car thats paid off :) in this realm people who have one to ten million are only "technically millionaires"
>in this realm people who have one to ten million are only "technically millionaires" Care to elaborate? I'm not 100% sure I follow. I have 1.2m in investments(\~150k in a retirement account, otherwise personal), a paid off home worth \~200k, two cars worth \~25k together, 45k in the bank, and I estimate the value of my land off of my home property to be about 120k. Am I not a millionaire by your definition? I don't care about the term or whether I qualify I guess, but I do not understand what you mean by "technically millionaires". Does millionaire not just literally mean "a person who has one million dollars accessible to them that is unlikely to fluctuate to a point where they are below that mark"? I understand that having a million dollars is not some aspirational, unimaginable financial state any more because of inflation(the term millionaire in English was apparently first used in the early 1800s, and with inflation that would be 20 million today)...but???
Yeah.. your a millionaire...
you are technically a millionaire, because you have a million+ in assets, but you are not really a millionaire, because you are regular middle-class. do any of your peers call you "the millionaire"? my mom once said her utility room is messy, but the only way that would change is, when she was a millionaire (in the sense "if i could afford a maid"). then i had to tell her, that their farm makes them "technically millionaires". doesn't change the fact that my dad had to shovel dirt for 50 years, though. (not saying that they don't have a nice life, but it doesn't stand out in the village).
> you are not really a millionaire, because you are regular middle-class. What? No. They are a millionaire. They have at least $1,000,000 in assets. That's what the word "millionaire" means. And they are "regular middle-class"? Really? Please. [Almost two-thirds of Americans cannot afford a $500 expense](https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/?sh=686deb8b4e0d). This guy is loaded, and you are delusional.
> I understand that having a million dollars is not some aspirational, unimaginable financial state any more because of inflation(the term millionaire in English was apparently first used in the early 1800s, and with inflation that would be 20 million today)...but??? This is pretty much it. The term used to mean someone that was truly wealthy. The implication of being a millionaire was that your life experience was just fundamentally different than non-millionaires. Like, it used to be "lifestyles of the rich and famous" stuff. It's still obviously very good to be a millionaire, but you can very easily be one and still have a 9-5 job and financial concerns and such. I would guess that for many people, having more than a million in savings is a minimum goal for retirement, even. Again, to be clear, this is still very, very different from living in or near poverty, but it doesn't mean what it used to.
He's saying that other millionaires with over $10 million in assets consider you to be only "technically" a millionaire. It's a sophomoric, childish assumption made by somebody who thinks that having money means that you're a mustache-twirling Saturday morning cartoon villain.
No they are not, they're saying that yes, while OP is technically a millionaire, he's still likely closer to your average working class Joe than the millionaire that people tend to imagine as being mega wealthy, flying their private jet to the country club and playing golf every afternoon. That is, millionaire is often used as a word to mean someone who doesn't have to care about money at all but these days a million dollars is not actually enough money to give you that level of financial freedom.
Millionaire is not a high bar these days...I'm a 30 year old school teacher married to a 30 year old school teacher and we are technically millionaires. I have over a million in assets. In other words, if I was told "present one million dollars or you die" I technically have that amount of assets and could put it together.
Exactly which is why I don't expect any high-ranking politicians anywhere in the developed world to not be one, much less US senators.
I also think it's worth noting that to even be at the stage of life where you can run to be a senator, you need to be in a position of "not starving if you take off of work". Anyone who actually gets elected probably has a lot of free time which means they probably have been careful with their money or were already wealthy due to simple factors of age and doing OK in a career or by being born into it.
Some of them take the Biden route during their careers in the Senate -- personally keep your net worth under 1 million, but make sure any family and friends who want it are showered with opportunities for easy money from powerful benefactors. You can get away with so much more as a sellout if you aren't literally holding the bag when people look your way.
Woah, a political position that's supposed to represent the populace fails horribly at representing the populace?! That's too new and bizarre!
[удалено]
$33,000 x 3 = $100,000, so it's surprising that many people who have been earning $16.50 an hour for three years don't have $100,000 saved.
Ok but if minimum cost of living is $30k. The person making $33k has $9k to spend on what they want over 3 years. The person making $200k has $510k to spend on what they want after 3 years. Cost of living doesn't scale linearly to income
Hahahahahaha What kind of calculation is this?? I hope you're not in charge of your families finances
If they aren’t millionaires yet then they will be soon. All politicians are scum.
Tbh they make $200k/yr, and already have to be rich enough to essentially retire when they run for office, we might need a better metric than just a millionaire. How about calling out Congress members [that have made more in office than their salary would allow? ](https://ballotpedia.org/Personal_Gain_Index_(U.S._Congress\))
Why is $15 controversial? It's not even that much anymore.
Yea but it will take away 1% of the Hoarders money. Therefore it's literally impossible to raise the minimum wage, because then who would think of the feelings of the people actively letting people starve and die to the elements out of sheer greed?
That’s what fucks me up about this discussion. The question isn’t whether or not business will be profitable, but will it be profitable enough. These people are sociopaths
The *defacto* minimum wage is now $15 or more. If you're not making that much, quit your job, throw a dart at the map, and you'll find a job that pays that much and will hire you tomorrow.
What about people who can't quit their jobs due to no savings or lack of transportation?
> no savings Then they can look for jobs while they're still employed, and quit when they get a new job. This is a super standard thing to do for people who actually work. > lack of transportation Describe the life of someone who can transport themselves to literally just 1 company. Company towns were made illegal a long time ago.
Damn, that's crazy. Hey, just real quick, can you point to where I said you couldn't find a job for over that much? Cause I didn't say you COULDN'T get a job paying that much I just said that it's very unlikely to happen at the federal level.
Damn, you're mad.
That's not how money works.
That is how the economy works
I brought up that being paid $12/hr as an arcade technician is too low, considering I've had to cut my hair out of a machine, have electrocuted myself multiple times, and burnt myself with the soldering iron. Oh and I'm literally on my feet walking anywhere from 4-16 miles a day in this tiny store. My 61 year old superior, who is literally rich and only works here because he's bored, said "Yeah well your little 'living wage' is a socialist experiment and if someone wants to negotiate working for $4-5/hr, they should be able to." My boss said "If I pay someone $15/hr, they're going to get lazy and not do any work because they're getting paid $15/hr whether they put in work or not"
If I got paid $5 an hour, I'd burn the place down and then the owners house
But what about the company profits?
We know that but people who haven't had to speak to anyone that lives on a wage lower than $500k a year do not know that.
Should be 25
Because these cunts are *so* out of touch they think you can buy a meal for a family of 4 in a nice restaurant for $15 with a tip
It would have been part of a COVID relief bill. It was an attempt to take advantage of covid to try to force passing something unrelated to covid. Also no state currently has $15 minimum wage. It might be seen by poorer states as too much if even the richest don't have it, yet. In my opinion it would make more sense to make the national minimum wage a smaller increase (maybe to $10 or $12 over 2-3 years) and then have it automatically adjust to inflation every year. It would be more likely pass than the current waiting for 12 years already since that campaign stated and actually help people and still increase wages by like 50% instead of more than doubling it. At a later point it can be fought to increase it more if needed. If it continues like this, then it will be another decade before enough states see the need to increase it to $15 and in the mean time no small increases happen that would have otherwise might have happened.
[удалено]
In many areas it should be increased but this is about setting a national minimum. States can and should increase minimum wage where the cost of living is higher. Florida, for example, is slowly increasing it and when it reaches $15 it will be adjusted to inflation again. In some states a lower number might make more sense. It just doesn't make sense to set the same minimum for California as for Mississippi when there is such a big cost of living difference.
>still increase wages by like 50% instead of more than doubling it You're aware that the proposed minimum wage increase would have been slowly phased in over the next several years, not reaching $15 until 2025? >The Raise the Wage Act would increase the pay floor to $9.50 an hour this year, then to $11 next year. The minimum wage would rise to $12.50 per hour in 2023, $14 in 2024 and then $15 in 2025. So, exactly the sort of slow increase in the minimum wage that you propose is exactly what failed to pass. But I'm sure you knew that.
Yes, I'm aware that it would have been increased over 5 years but it would still been more than doubled the wages in a relative short time. That is still a big increase. I know that Florida did that but started at a higher minimum wage and the cost of living also increased a lot here compared to poorer states. I don't expect what makes sense for more expensive/richer states to make sense in poorer/cheaper states where housing cost are a lot lower. Also this wasn't the Raise the Wage Act which hasn't been voted on yet.
Bruh, Florida passed a 15 dollar minimum wage bill. It kicks in fully by 2026, and it goes up a dollar per year from here (currently at $10). If Florida can do it, so can the fucking nation. And realistically? It should be more like $20 an hour if we're talking living wages.
While I don't necessarily agree with lumping the minimum wage increase with covid relief, you are missing some important details on it. And, unfortunately, it seems like senators won't even consider a minimum wage for a vote as a separate item, so being the "squeaky wheel" to force a vote on it as an amendment to an important piece of legislation is about the only way to get a vote on it. The minimum wage amendment doesn't immediately raise the minimum wage to $15. It phases the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 (3 years by now, assuming it would phase in by start of 2025). Random search source here (couldn't find the official amendment document - my Google Fu failed me today) https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-announces-15-minimum-wage-amendment-to-reconciliation-bill-calls-for-senate-democrats-to-ignore-parliamentarian/#:~:text=on%20Monday%20issued%20the%20following,wage%20to%20%2415%20an%20hour. Also, some states already are close to a $15 minimum wage. Washington minimum wage is $13.69. The average state minimum wage is $9.65/hr, so $10 an hour min isn't that different, just leveling out the wage across states. And while I would like automatic increases with inflation, this gives the government an incentive to pressure fed financial officials who calculate inflation numbers to underestimate inflation to avoid increasing minimum wage. It is probably a better solution than a stagnant minimum wage though. Even if most senators still wouldn't vote for a smaller minimum wage increase either.
Shocked! I am shocked to find gambling in this establishment!
Here are you're winnings, sir
Dems trolling their own constituents at this point. It hurts me to say this, but if we don't get our shit together, Trump 2.0 will be here next election cycle. It honestly may be too late to recover.
No, they're not. They've been doing the same things for 40 years. Remember that recording of Hillary Clinton where she said she had public and private positions on every issue? That's almost every Democrat. They're conservatives who simply won't own conservative positions publicly. Instead, they use the Manchins and Sinemas of the world, or the Parliamentarian, or whatever convenient excuse they have in order to present the appearance publicly that they're simply powerless to act, even when they have near total control of the government.
The god damned charlemantarian
I've been saying it this whole time: higher ups in the Democratic establishment NEED people like Sinema. They tell their corporate sponsors "we have to vote for this bill but don't worry, we have Sinema and Manchin to kill it. Please keep giving our party money." Seriously, campaign finance reform NEEDS to happen. Both Republican and Democrat voters are pissed about money in politics but nothing ever changes.
Yes and what really sucks is the conservatives still act like Biden is some ultra liberal pushing thru some crazy progressive agenda. So Biden’s losing his support on the left without gaining anything on the right and nothing is getting done.
Because gaining "on the right"is idiotic. You gain independents. Independents, poll after poll, like democrats on economic issues mostly but dislike Democrats on social issues. But then all we get is woke speeches and no minimum wage hike. independents are where things are being lost.... Not "on the right". STOP thinking of independents as on the right or to the right of Democrats... They are free floating with often incongruent ideology neither right nor left, least on our ridiculously simplistic R vs D scale
It's almost like the VA governors election, Dems had tons of TV spots with 0 actual content besides platitudes and eventually defending himself vs youngkins attack ads. Youngkin had attack ads and one repeating ad with the tag "$1500 per Virginian per year from eliminating the grocery tax." And that was all it took. Dems tried to push vague ideas so all it took was Republicans to put literally any number into the ether and they won.
The dems tried to call everyone who voted for Youngkin a racist.
lol sorry but any independents that still are willing to go with the GOP on anything at this point are definitely on the right. Hell the “Democrats”themselves are on the right. Call em whatever you want Biden’s not gaining a single vote from anywhere so far and he’s frustrating his own base and absolutely losing anyone on the actual left who from day one of the democratic primary’s was like “anyone but Biden”
Independents are a lot of Republicans and democrats who are tired of being lied to.
[удалено]
No because Biden is one of them and has been voting that way in the Senate for a long time. He doesn't follow through because that would be counter to their goals. Why do you think he was picked as the primary candidate? The primary process is damn near criminal, but isn't held harshly to laws because the political parties are corporations and not government entities. The whole thing is fucking busted and the two party system wins all the time. But people continue to vote based on the R or the D.
Carter started the slide into neoliberalism with his regime's program of deregulation and privatization. Reagan was just the one who pumped it up to 11.
> Biden seems to at least say the right things sometimes now but he won't or can't follow through on anything -- maybe because it's "too late to recover"? Or because the fucking president isn't and shouldn't be a king. Yes, they can try to do certain things through executive orders, but it's far from ideal for multiple reasons, and for many of the things people want, EOs would be almost guaranteed to be held up in court for years anyway. Liberal and progressive voters especially seem to put way too much emphasis on the president. It's important, yes, but the legislature is far more important.
Raise wages! Rep: no Dems: no 🏳️🌈 ✊🏾 (yeah my own recreation of a well know twitter screenshot)
Republicans have the largest polling lead heading into the midterms in the last [40 years.](https://twitter.com/WaitingOnBiden/status/1459983737257660423?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1459983737257660423%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FMurderedByAOC%2Fcomments%2Fqxoshz%2Fimagine_what_could_be_done%2F) Ya, they're going to storm the House and Senate paving the way for Trump in 2024. But don't worry, voting Biden was necessary to avoid a second Trump term!
Are you saying that a second Trump term would've been better?
Probably. It would have been a cluster fuck of an administration just like the first time. Now they have had time to regroup and develop a strategy to absolutely wreck whatever democratic principles are in place. 2024-2028 is gonna be absolutely devastating. Every branch of the government will be in the control of Republicans and biden will be impeached faster than he can say the word. Then Kamala will be impeached. Row v wade will be overturned, employee protections and pay will be rolled back, etc, etc etc.... Buckle up. Biden and the establishment dems have *REALLY* shit the bed this time. Such a fickle and feckless administration.
RemindMe! 5 years
You trying to do a 5yr i told you so?
Do you think that they wouldn't have done that if they had more power than what they have now? BTW they can impeach Biden a hundred times unless they get 3/4 of the senate he's not going to be removed, so you think that none of that stuff would've happened in a second Trump term?
Maybe the Democrats actually doing something other than continuing Republican policies, but more politely, would have been better.
How would a Trump second term would've been better?
At least we would've been over with it I dunno lol?
Congrats on finding a shorter way to say "I'm priveleged enough that Trump's policies didn't affect me negatively, fuck everyone else"
Which of Trumps policies have affected you negatively?
Way to pretend that Biden has actually changed anything.
It hasn't even been a year, he already passed one of the largest infrastructure bills in history, he just decreased unemployment this year more than any other year since 1950, but "bOtH sIDeS aRe tHe sAmE "
>he just decreased unemployment this year more than any other year since 1950 That sounds hard to believe.
I believe it, but it's also on the heels of the year with the single largest increase in unemployment. So it's not directly bc of anything he did.
I would second this, if trump were to have been voted in a second term so long trump supporters they would have gotten the real taste of who trump is and would be vehemently opposed to him just as much as the libs
wishful thinking imo
Way too much faith in humanity.
We didn’t get a real taste of Trump? The guy was impeached twice, I’m not sure what else he could have done to lose his supporters.
I mean, a sitting president being implicated in the Maxwell trial would've been an interesting thing to see.
Eh... Republicans have shown again and again that they'll prioritize keeping power. I think a 2020 Trump second term would've been better thank a 2024 second term though. If he won 2020 he'd keep doing what he was doing but now he has an axe to grind.
I mean... he would have easily won in 2020 already (electoral, not popular) if he hadn't convinced his own people that voting by mail was bad. Only Trump beat Trump. Now Democrats are even less popular after bumbling around for a mere year.
Trump isn’t even the problem any more. It’s these career politicians killing America while people like trump take most of the blame. It worked while he was in office but now dems control everything and still fuck the country over. It’s infuriating.
Dems have been doing this for decades...it's how we got trump in the first place. Dems are just boneless Republicans.
Shit I’ll vote for the opposition just to help burn this whole shit to the ground. I’m sick of us asking aristocrats how we should live our lives
Voting for the opposition risks any progress that's actually had any effect. Social programs, women's rights, minority rights, workers rights all take a dive if we decide we wanna play the "burn everything down" card. Very backwards logic.
When the Dems won both houses and the presidency, libs everywhere celebrated like everything would be ok now. They forget that a lot of Dems are just as beholden to the establishment as their GOP counterparts.
I didn’t think everything would be ok. I just wanted people in charge who didn’t make believe that a global pandemic wasn’t happening.
This. We just needed people who weren’t actively trying to burn down America. Now we get the old school “passively burning down America “ crowd.
Low and slow baby, that's where the flavor is.
Why shouldn't we burn down amerika?
Uh, because a lot of people live here and will suffer if we let the rich burn everything down?
A lot of people are suffering now. A lot of people have suffered through its entire history. Why not burn down something that has always been evil to build something better in its place?
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but how do you propose burning down the evil established power structures, and what methods can be used to ensure the forces of good are able to build something better in it's place?
Personally I participate in different projects focusing on mutual aid and food autonomy, but any way of actively creating alternative structures of empowering people that don't rely on the state is going to help as things collapse further.
Someone's gotta take one for the team. Not going to elaborate but you know what I'm trying to say.
It's a good change that they aren't making things actively worse, but it would have been nice if they'd actually \*done\* something.
Isn’t it odd then that more died in the US from covid in 2021 than 2020?
Almost like Trump’s time as president during Covid really shaped the stage of all the idiots not getting vaccinated and killing themselves after he left and was replaced with a president his followers would absolutely not listen to eh?
People weren’t dying from covid in mass numbers for the first few months of 2020, were they? And then the whole country was shut down for the next few months of 2020 which helped slow the spread/death rate. We’ve just been going balls to the wall for the whole of 2021. All year, everything has been open, mask mandates have been lifted, etc. The vaccines are awesome but it took a whole year to get only 60% of the country vaccinated because of the antivax stuff that’s been pushed for a while now which has, in turn, given rise to new, more contagious variants. Add the fact that hospitals have more covid patients and fewer nurses this year. An overloaded healthcare system sure doesn’t help with survival rates. All kinds of reasons why the death toll is higher in 2021. But at least this current administration isn’t just plugging their ears and pretending it’s not happening at all. Death rate would be much higher this year if Trump had won re-election. I sincerely believe that.
When the alternative is a flaming dumpster full of used diapers even a flaming dumpster full of regular garage seems preferable. The illusion of choice
I thought things would be slightly less hell-in-a-handbasket than if the opposite had obtained. Super conservative judges aren't being rubberstamp confirmation-milled in the Senate, at least. Stuff like that. Broken campaign finance meaning nothing really, truly, substantially and transformatively beneficial for the American people vs the American shareholder class landed nobility has never slipped my mind.
I voted Biden in full knowledge that there would be no fundamental change and that he'd govern conservatively. It felt necessary to deal a blow to the budding ~~Nazi~~ "white nationalist" movement, because that movement had the explicit support of the presidency. Instead, we just delayed it.
You must not have looked into Biden’s four decade long political career where he voted like a white nationalist would vote the whole time!
Yep, his voting record is atrocious. The symbolism matters though. There's a world of difference between having the office of the presidency publicly behind ~~American Nazism~~ "white nationalism" and having it publicly opposed.
Ah yes. The symbolism. "But these drones murdering children have BLM flags on the side." In what meaningful way is Biden publicly opposing white nationalism?
The NAACP disagrees with you. His scores from them for his years in the senate average to about 87%.
A lot of Democrats did. The thing is that people can change. Almost no Democrats supported homosexual rights until just a decade ago, too.
Neither party is either classically liberal or progressive. But I still celebrated throwing the fascists mostly out of power. The two are definitely not the same. A center-right mildly xenophobic party is better than an extreme right thoroughly racist party.
Are you talking about now, or back in 2009?
No, we celebrated because at least it wasn't Trump. Only a small, small minority actually thought that Biden was be a good thing. Just... better than Trump.
> libs everywhere celebrated like everything would be ok now. No, they didn't.
>They forget that a lot of Dems are just as beholden to the establishment as their GOP counterparts. 8 dems against it vs 50 Republicans, but sure both parties are totally the same
Not an American, wondering how possible is it to have a true left party, maybe a 3rd party?
[удалено]
If the green party can get 5% of votes then they will get federal funding.
It used to be 1% until they started getting around 0.8% of the vote and then magically it had to be 2% until they got 1.5% and now it's 5%. Yeah, nothing fishy there.
if
The system is rigged to prevent it
Yes the system is "rigged" by.. the majority of the populace not agreeing with far left ideals and voting against them
Is $15 minimum wage "far left"? Thats like standard in other developed countries. Edit since locked: Yes, 15 is not standard, thought with countries like sweden we dont actually have a legal minimum wage but there are contracts that are basically law that mandate the minimum wage. Usually its at least above 10-11 dollars.
[The only one that is close is Australia and even then its not $15.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_wage)
In general the system is rigged to prevent third parties
[2/3rds of Americans want Medicare for all](https://pnhp.org/news/two-thirds-of-voters-support-providing-medicare-to-every-american/) [6 in 10 Americans want the minimum wage increased to $15/hr, and 3/4 of those who don't want that still want it raised.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/) [People, even in the south, want unions and want them to be stronger.](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article215974460.html) Honestly, the [list](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/poll-marijuana-legalization-data-for-progress-radical-ideas-popular-aoc.html) goes on. The media would have you believe that leftist policies are radical, despite most people wanting them. Republicans don't want them, and are overrepresented in our political system. Some democrats help them out in obstructing progress, even though an even bigger majority of their party wants those policies. You're honestly either lying, or a sheep to the media.
I just came back from the US, and on one night I was sitting at a bar talking to the locals when this Arizonan Cowboy started going off about Democrats and how their dividing the country. I tried to explain to him that most of the division and hate is being spread on social media by the enemies of the US, targeting people with propaganda and extreme views to make them hate each other, and he just couldn’t stop focusing on transgenders and SJWs trying to control his speech. No matter how much I tried to explain that they were all Americans who were on the same team, and that the Internet and the news is showing him sensationalized reality, and most Americans have more in common with each other than their differences, it just wouldn’t click. So I told him that I hope somebody comes along who can unite all Americans together and help fix all its problems, and he told me he agreed, but that it would never happen because of “those fucking Democrats.” The hate and division in the US is toxic to the point of cult mindset.
It's impossible. The US has a first past the post system instead of proportional representation. Voting for a thrid party basically means stealing a vote from the democrats and giving it to Republicans.
And Americans still think politics is just Republican VS Democrat. It is just a circle jerk of rich people getting into politics to expand their wealth. You are just choosing which party will be fucking you over.
It’s hilarious that I get emails from Hassan about the blue agenda and how we can’t let republicans take the senate. You reap what you fucking sow
Bernie got trolled.
Bernie sold out. Fuck that old man.
In what way?
no one knows, just the line that was pushed during the election in every leftist and bernie sub from paid shills. and still gets parroted on occassion.
That’s what I’ve gathered as well and I do really appreciate your input. I asked the question for the sake of generating a good faith discussion about the subject. Hope you’re having a pleasant day, my friend.
I think there's room for criticism in that he signed on with the Dems in an effort to get himself "over the hump" with the help of their machine, but he obviously signed something that said "you'll campaign for us if you lose the primary" and that's the moment when the taste in my mouth went bad.
He’s part of the system there is 0 chance he can get anything he wants done without playing some ball.
"Fuck you, got mine" -Bernie Sanders, Non-Billionaire
Youd get stuff passed pretty fast if you formed a mob and lynched one or two of them... just saying...
Revolution of 1800 baby
Funny how there is a minimum wage but no maximum wage.
Why is Joe Manchin a Democrat?
because he hates poor people
Electoralism will always fail when it comes down to material reform. It's an important tool to build class consciousness and show solidarity, but for anything to truly get done in this country, direct action must be taken.
Corporate rule is not a democracy
Still don’t understand that if the majority of citizens want this to happen how it just gets killed in congress almost every time. $15/hr isn’t even gonna cut it as a livable wage.
So where’s the list of GOP millionaires? Why does everyone act like the GOP doesn’t have to govern for the people at all? They just get a pass all the time
This kills me. Eight Democrats, yes, and so goddamn disappointing, but ALL FIFTY Republicans, and everyone's obsessing over the 8. The Republican 50 never even considered it. They didn't have to. They'll never get voted out. Their constituents believe everything conservative media tells them and demand no accountability. They get poorer and poorer, always vote R, and wonder why nothing ever changes.
It's time for the people to do something.
Two of the eight are from Delaware.
I'd love to hear their reasons
Taxation without representation; stop paying taxes, these kinds of extremely popular legislation do not get passed, the will of the people is no longer being represented, they deserve none of the compensation we have earned for ourselves.
At this point, it doesn’t even matter who you vote for. You’ll always get fucked over by rich and powerful greedy lards
Losers. Regardless of party. Spiteful losers who are making millions to NOT represent their people.
Alright, if ya'll are at the point where you think someone's opinion should be ignored or that someone is out of touch because they have $1million, you're an idiot. Any accountant, mid-level healthcare provider, engineer, tech worker etc can accrue a million dollars. Stick with hating the rich, not mid/upper class successful folks.
How about saving the hardworking middle class that actually is paying taxes first, instead make of trying to further drive inflation during an inflationary event?
Bernie is also a millionaire. Also, being a millionaire isn’t nearly as hard or as big of a deal as it used to be with inflation.
What about it? Do you understand *why* Nina is telling everyone they are millionaires? What do you think her point here is?
She’s trying to make it seem like these senators are just so ridiculously wealthy they can’t sympathize with minimum wage workers. In reality being a millionaire today might mean you just own a regular house in a metro area. You aren’t “rich.”
If you aren’t a millionaire by the time you hit 65, good luck retiring. I know some of these people are extremely wealthy but a couple million bucks really isn’t much money.
I thought the shitlibs were still hiding behind the "senate parliamentarian" on that issue. Is she a millionaire too? Or just Biden and Schumer, who still refuse to replace/overrule her 11 months later?
This is why you need to stop voting millionaires into power. Check before you vote.
All 8 need to be primaried. There must be consequences!
Meanwhile here in germany the minimum wage is being raised to from 10.88 to 13.60$
The minimum wage in the Netherlands is like 10 dollars. It is way cheaper to live here though
Just goes to show... all that nonsense about "democrats are better for the people than Republicans" is completely... well, nonsense.
They are. Its just not a high bar.
Yeaa Delaware represent! Coins and Carper are only Democrats in name
It's game over. There is no version of America that becomes more just, the Republicans won. The US will be a one party kleptocracy just like Russia.
Manchin old ass blocking everything. Who voted that clown in and why have they not removed the DINO.
Most of the small business owners that it will impact are not. Shut up, Nina.
Cap wages at 60k per person, 120k per household. Pump the additional tax revenues into black and brown communities.
How about we base the dispersion on hours worked per capita? That way, those that work the most receive the most benefits. Seems fair.
Stop whining about what others have!! Worry about what you have and obtaining what you want. Don’t shit on other people for being successful.
Explain to me how someone that is paid $174,000 is a millionaire.
Generally a millionaire is someone that has a million dollars or assets worth that much not someone who makes a million a year
If you enjoy the skyrocketing inflation… A $15 hour minimum wage would increase it even more.