djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 14, 2014 0:52:33 GMT -5
1) $10.10/hr 2) Immigration
no chance? slim chance? 50/50? probable?
place your bets.......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 14, 2014 1:25:25 GMT -5
for those of you that don't know what a DP is, it is a parliamentary procedure that allows these matters to come to a vote without the Speaker bringing them to a vote.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 14, 2014 1:30:53 GMT -5
Duh- both fail- zero
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 14, 2014 1:33:59 GMT -5
And for us intrepid internet explorers DP means something else
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 14, 2014 2:28:52 GMT -5
$10.10/hr stands no chance. Even California only went to $10 an hour and it doesn't kick in until 2016. Current federal minimum wage is $7.25, raising it to $10.10 is a 39.4% raise. Percentage wise that's a big ass raise. Too much too soon.
I don't think immigration has a chance either.
I'm pretty pessimistic on any major piece of legislation going anywhere until Obama is out of office honestly. The Pubs have staked everything on stopping him from doing much of anything since his healthcare law got through.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 14, 2014 3:37:31 GMT -5
Not even $10 a hole- free market and al
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 14, 2014 3:38:19 GMT -5
Not to insult Al
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 14, 2014 3:49:32 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 14, 2014 10:29:52 GMT -5
And for us intrepid internet explorers DP means something else would you believe me if i told you that was intentional?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 14, 2014 10:31:25 GMT -5
It is a method for ensuring the Speaker gets thoroughly screwed from both sides, I suppose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 14, 2014 10:32:04 GMT -5
$10.10/hr stands no chance. Even California only went to $10 an hour and it doesn't kick in until 2016. Current federal minimum wage is $7.25, raising it to $10.10 is a 39.4% raise. Percentage wise that's a big ass raise. Too much too soon. they would probably do it on a 3 year timetable. and it is not a raise at all, in real terms, if you go back far enough. but i understand what you mean.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 8:04:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2014 10:37:30 GMT -5
in the spirit of my weather over the last few days
the 10.10 fmw bill has a snowballs chance in hell
the immigration bill is even less than that at this point
i think a more moderate bill concerning fmw would pass (say to 9.00 over a 3 year period)
and then an indexed increase every 3-5 years based on cpi
that i think could pass.....anything more is just spitting into the wind
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 14, 2014 10:42:36 GMT -5
The problem in the House is that most everybody there is in a safe district. There might well be a good number of Republicans who see advantage in trying to rebrand the party nationally with the Hispanic community - although there are debates among that crowd about whether softening the line on illegal immigration, and legitimizing the pandering of the Left, is the way to do it - but there are lots of border-state Republicans who got elected on a nativist ticket and can keep riding that for a while longer yet. As long as enough working-class and middle-class voters are feeling the economy is in doldrums (whether or not the macro indicators substantiate that), nativism has a strong allure. If things were booming, and all the businesses were hunting new workers hand over fist to deal with the demand explosion, the calculus would be different - here in Georgia, the policy on illegal immigration is hugely conditioned by its implicit necessity in sustaining the agrarian economic status quo, even while the rhetoric is attuned to the nativist sentiment levels in individual districts.
What this means is that there won't be the votes for immigration reform even on a discharge petition. The minimum wage hike is an even heavier lift among Congressional Republicans - one of the few things both sides agree on is that virtually nobody will be directly helped by the increase, and the vast majority of those who will be helped are in Democratic districts or are Democratic backers like the large trade unions (who use FMW as a baseline for the collective bargaining they conduct on behalf of their members). In an election year, the gettable Republican votes of people who feel either harmed or unaffected by MW increases far outweigh those from people who feel the legislation would help.
And, of course, I doubt Democrats would get even all of their own caucus to stand together on this one. Even after 2010's blowout, there are still a decent number of Dems in districts that voted for Romney in 2012, before Obamacare tarnished Brand Democrat (and the Senate polling in New Hampshire, and Michigan, and Colorado, and North Carolina, for example, shows pretty clearly that this effect was significant and widespread and not good for the Dems).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 14, 2014 10:50:30 GMT -5
The problem in the House is that most everybody there is in a safe district.
that's really not true, you know. i pointed out that the strategy of maximizing seats using gerrymandering actually makes the GOP MORE vulnerable. do you understand why, or do i need to explain that?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 14, 2014 10:51:46 GMT -5
in the spirit of my weather over the last few days the 10.10 fmw bill has a snowballs chance in hell the immigration bill is even less than that at this point i think a more moderate bill concerning fmw would pass (say to 9.00 over a 3 year period) and then an indexed increase every 3-5 years based on cpi that i think could pass.....anything more is just spitting into the wind i mostly agree with you, but i think immigration actually has a better chance than FMW.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,971
|
Post by bean29 on Feb 14, 2014 11:22:42 GMT -5
I don't like the Minimum Wage Law - in a world of Global competition, I just don't think it is realistic. I don't think it will pass.
Obama was in Milwaukee about a week ago. Milwaukee is talking about implementing the 10.10 minimum wage. The State is now trying to pass a law that no city of municipality can have a minimum wage higher than the state minimum. I think Milwaukee is wrong, but not sure the state needs to step in.
I want to see immigration reform and I am all for amnesty b/c it will benefit my DH's business. I don't think we will see any changes in the current law though.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 14, 2014 11:37:39 GMT -5
In a world of global competition I can hire workers that will work 12 hour shifts six days a week for $5/day with no overtime, no benefits, and no vacation. If that's really the standard of living we want to compete with on a level playing field, you better make sure your children don't borrow a single penny for college, don't take any loans to get cars, and avoid credit cards entirely. Getting by on $30 a week is hard enough, doing it while servicing even a little bit of debt will be impossible.
Your husband is part of the problem.
Business owners are selfish assholes that will only do the right thing for the economy if forced too by government. On a small picture level they're incentivized to make decisions that are detrimental to the communities they operate in, detrimental to their customers, and ultimately detrimental to their own long term survival. I say that as a business owner, and am only now realizing just how selfish and short sighted some of them are.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 14, 2014 11:49:01 GMT -5
This is the case because business owners are people.
Thomas Hobbes was, unfortunately, right: the reason we have a government is so that its unanswerable force can quell our human habit to tyrannize one another.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 14, 2014 12:17:10 GMT -5
This is the case because business owners are people.
Thomas Hobbes was, unfortunately, right: the reason we have a government is so that its unanswerable force can quell our human habit to tyrannize one another.
Tyranny nothing. Hobbes considered government the only reason we're not sitting around picking lice out of our air and throwing poo at each other. At least... when we're not on message boards.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 14, 2014 21:08:59 GMT -5
in the spirit of my weather over the last few days the 10.10 fmw bill has a snowballs chance in hell the immigration bill is even less than that at this point i think a more moderate bill concerning fmw would pass (say to 9.00 over a 3 year period) and then an indexed increase every 3-5 years based on cpi that i think could pass.....anything more is just spitting into the wind i mostly agree with you, but i think immigration actually has a better chance than FMW. The immigration bill could be a slam dunk if they explained how it would be better than the 1986 one. But as of yet, they haven't shown anything than being just another legalization giveaway (probably because that's all it really is). This would do nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration, and do nothing to aid the current economy (in fact, it would probably worsen things). That's a pretty tough sell, and the Dems are doing nothing to sell it besides pander to the hispanic communities.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 14, 2014 21:31:15 GMT -5
This is the case because business owners are people.
Thomas Hobbes was, unfortunately, right: the reason we have a government is so that its unanswerable force can quell our human habit to tyrannize one another.
Tyranny nothing. Hobbes considered government the only reason we're not sitting around picking lice out of our air and throwing poo at each other. At least... when we're not on message boards. I have seen poo throwing on these message boards. I hide behind the Edsel.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 14, 2014 21:34:25 GMT -5
Actually, the dems have more than once changed parliamentary procedure to stop filibusters, and ram legislation through. It has been done most notably in the Senate. If/when the Republicans regain control of the Senate, it is going to come back to haunt the dems for having done that. You can't do it when you are in power, and then cry foul when you are out of control. Bite a dog in the rear, and it will bite you back.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 14, 2014 21:57:26 GMT -5
Personally, I see it as an election year ploy. It has been suggested that there is a possibility the Repub's could pick up more seats in the Senate, and possibly regain control. To try and prevent that, any and all election year ploys can be tried. They wear different labels but to me they are all crooks.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 14, 2014 23:21:25 GMT -5
Personally, I see it as an election year ploy. It has been suggested that there is a possibility the Repub's could pick up more seats in the Senate, and possibly regain control. To try and prevent that, any and all election year ploys can be tried. They wear different labels but to me they are all crooks. Working to pass legislation that pleases a majority of the voters so they will keep you in office is one of the dirtiest tricks that elected representatives attempt to do to remain in power. I say we throw them all out and elect people who will pass legislation that few people wish to have enacted.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 9:11:59 GMT -5
We tried that in 2008 already.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 11:49:07 GMT -5
I don't like the Minimum Wage Law - in a world of Global competition, I just don't think it is realistic. I don't think it will pass. Obama was in Milwaukee about a week ago. Milwaukee is talking about implementing the 10.10 minimum wage. The State is now trying to pass a law that no city of municipality can have a minimum wage higher than the state minimum. I think Milwaukee is wrong, but not sure the state needs to step in. I want to see immigration reform and I am all for amnesty b/c it will benefit my DH's business. I don't think we will see any changes in the current law though. i love it, ftr. but i am not going to spend a lot of time explaining why, least of all to you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 11:57:13 GMT -5
Actually, the dems have more than once changed parliamentary procedure to stop filibusters, and ram legislation through. It has been done most notably in the Senate. If/when the Republicans regain control of the Senate, it is going to come back to haunt the dems for having done that. you mean that Dems won't be able to block staff and judicial appts from the majority party? boo...f-ing...hoo! imo, it is not a power ANY party should have. period. end of discussion.You can't do it when you are in power, and then cry foul when you are out of control. Bite a dog in the rear, and it will bite you back. good!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 12:07:37 GMT -5
That's an argument against political parties, not an argument against the Senate's constitutional duty to offer advice and consent to the President on appointments.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2014 12:20:02 GMT -5
That's an argument against political parties, not an argument against the Senate's constitutional duty to offer advice and consent to the President on appointments. no. it is an argument against filibuster for presidential appointments. nothing more or less. if my use of the word "party" here obscured that position, let it be clear, now.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 17, 2014 12:28:59 GMT -5
I personally think a President who in his second term has made more than half his ambassadorial appointments based on campaign donations and party-political considerations needs all the advice and consent he can get.
Ask yourself what the purpose of the Senate's duty to advise and consent must be. If it is the case that the President can, within his executive whim, appoint whoever he wishes to any office of the executive branch, then there were no need for Senate involvement in that process. If it is the case that the Senate involvement is ceremonial or tokenistic, then there were no need for the Constitution to treat recess appointments as specially limited, as it does.
The argument that a simple majority were sufficient in every case belies the democratic truth that the minority may have valid objections that deserve a hearing. Majoritarian rulemaking is always detrimental to debate and comity in a deliberative assembly, although it undeniably accelerates decisionmaking. In my opinion, very few decisions of national moment are made better in haste, so the 'advantage' of being able to treat the Senate as if it were composed entirely of Democrats, rather than mostly of Democrats, is a small one.
|
|