C-Span sometimes has incorrect subtitles, but it looks like the $15 min wage was voted down 42-58.

[George II]

If true, I guess we can stop bashing Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema now?

Screen shot:

[leftstreet]

1. Wonder what the net worth of those 58 is n/t

[Autumn]

2. A hell of a fucking lot more than anyone making $15 an hour. nt

[MoonlitKnight]

10. Or $2.13 an hour

Lots of people are still on the $2.13 an hour tipped wage that has not changed in 30 years.

30 years!

[gratuitous]

3. Is that 58-42 against raising the minimum wage, or 58-42 failing to limit debate?

In which case, two more votes would have allowed the Senate to proceed to a vote on the minimum wage.

[lagomorph777]

6. Good question.

[George II]

7. 42-58 to allow it in the bill, I just added a screen shot of C-Span's subtitle. I always suspected..

...that once it came to voting on the validity of it being included in the reconciliation bill more than just those two would agree that it doesn't belong.

[gratuitous]

8. So two more votes (not sayin' whose)

And the minimum wage boost would have been included in the bill.

[George II]

9. No, 18 more votes. 42 voted Yes, 58 voted No.

[NurseJackie]

12. Maths is fundamental.

[lagomorph777]

11. Thanks for the screenshot - makes it clear that the list of Conservadems needs to be expanded.

These people had better be cooperating on some kind of Plan B.

[NurseJackie]

13. Or what?

These people had better be cooperating on some kind of Plan B.

Or what?

the list of Conservadems needs to be expanded.

An enemies list?

Lord.

[lagomorph777]

14. Or we hand hand control of the country to the GQP permanently.

Not exactly an enemies list. A list of people who need a bit more persuasion to do their damned jobs.

Carrots and sticks.

[mcar]

15. That'll show 'em

[NurseJackie]

17. I'll never understand why groups like "Our Revolution" and "Justice Democrats"...

... (along with their supporters and other like-minded folks) seem so preoccupied with primarying and weakening incumbent Democrats, RATHER THAN trying to challenge/replace Republicans.

The former only increases the likelihood that a GOP challenger will defeat the Democrat (whether a wounded incumbent, or an out-of-place novice) ... and the latter serves to BENEFIT Democrats with the possibility of getting rid of a Republican.

Yet, here we go... time after time... every instance that a moderate/centrist Democrat votes contrary to Vermont-Style or Mass-Style liberals... the long knives come out.

Rather than working to INCREASE the number of Democrats, all we hear are threats and calls for payback, and punishing the party (a-la Sarandon and Moore, et al) ... and keeping an Enemies List (of our OWN DEMOCRATS, for God's sake!)

[mcar]

19. They should be attacking Republicans

instead of feeding into the "Dems in disarray" canard.

[NurseJackie]

24. Or promoting the "Dems don't care about you" LIE

... it's a temper tantrum and lashing-out that only serves to HARM their cause and WEAKEN the only party that will put them anywhere close to realizing their goal. That's what happens when people continue to cling to an "all or nothing" philosophy. (They go home with nothing, and oddly, they often seem quite proud of it.)

When something like this is a foregone conclusion, it serves no good purpose to try and tarnish the entire party by mis-characterizing it... or using it to call Democrats things like "Coastal Elites" who are "out of touch". What bullshit that is.

Why don't they create opportunities to wound the GOP instead of our own? Why is "revenge" so important. Why are people so eager to "teach the party a lesson" by giving control back to the GOP.

What the fuck kind of priority is THAT? What does THAT accomplish?!

We BARELY have a majority, and people are acting like we have a "super majority" and can just RAM THROUGH everything on our wishlist. --- I live in the real world, and such fantasies are not possible.

Rather than kicking down the sandcastle in frustration, why not build as much as possible (slowly, incrementally) before the tide comes in. That's all I'm trying to say.

[mcar]

27. Some do seem more intent on tearing down the Democratic party

than actually trying to get things done. Y'know, like authoring bills and seeking out support from their peers?

[lagomorph777]

31. It wouldn't be our choice - it would be the unfortunate consequence of dereliction of duty.

I guess I figured that would be obvious.

[George II]

23. They're not opposed to the $15 minimum wage, they're opposed to the gimmick of including it....

...in the reconciliation bill, where it doesn't belong.

I guess you're in favor of so-called "Conservadems" breaking the rules? If it WAS included, one of two things would happen:

1. The bill would fail outright, the ENTIRE bill not just the $15 minimum wage.
2. The bill would be struck down by the courts or delayed for months in the courts.

Either way, the primary purpose of the bill would be thwarted and millions of people would go months without relief.

Struggling Americans would eschew "purity" in lieu of getting urgently needed financial assistance.

[jcgoldie]

4. They always knew there is no way it would pass as a standalone

[Lucinda]

5. It was expect - but it gets them on the record opposing - there will also be a lot

of GOP a amendments today to vote through - as they try for more covid package delays

[jorgevlorgan]

16. So let me get this straight.

Moderate Dems are afraid of people getting paid more by unemployment than their actual jobs, but voted against them getting paid more in their actual jobs.

[NurseJackie]

18. That's a ridiculous interpretation. It's insulting.

[jorgevlorgan]

21. Explain

[NurseJackie]

32. No explanation is needed.

I know perfectly well that you're smarter that that... I don't need to explain anything.

I'm smarter than I'm being taken for... I was perfectly clear the first time.

Have a nice day!

[mcar]

20. No, you don't have it straight

[jorgevlorgan]

22. Oh?

[George II]

25. See my post #23.

[jorgevlorgan]

26. I think that's a cop out.

Americans hurting don't give a flying flick how it is passed, they just need the help. The same can be said about passing the stimulus as a "gimmick," but they seem in support of that just fine.

[George II]

28. It's not a cop out - if it's included outside of the normal rules and procedures of the Senate....

....the bill will most likely fail. We already know that.

And IF, by some miracle it is included and the bill and it passes, there will be suits filed before the day is out and the entire bill, all $1.9T of it, will be delayed or ruled invalid and we'll have to start over again.

It boggles my mind that the advocates for the $15 minimum wage don't introduce it and work to pass it through normal means.

[jorgevlorgan]

29. If we have 50 democratic votes who support it, it will pass if it is on the bill

The fact that 8 democrats do not support it in this bill suggest to me we will likely not have 51 votes if it were somehow able to advance in a regular bill (se would come on board but not all). These same senators are against using different procedures to pass badly needed legislation, but are against changing the rules to make it possible. That suggests to me that most of them are against the legislation altogether and are hiding behind procedures instead of fessing up to simply being opposed to the minimum wage hike as I think some have already said fifteen is too high.

[George II]

30. This has been debated for a week or so, that amendment does not belong in the reconciliation bill...

It violates the rules of reconciliation, and everyone knows it.

I just don't understand why a stand-alone bill can't be introduced, lobbied for, and voted upon. Who knows, maybe those 8 Democrats (CAPITAL "D"!) would vote for it.

BTW, it was only seven Democrats and the Independent from Maine who voted against including it in the bill. And they didn't vote against the $15 minimum wage, that wasn't nature of the vote, they rightfully voted for the integrity of Senate rules.

[NurseJackie]

33. "It violates the rules of reconciliation, and everyone knows it."

It violates the rules of reconciliation, and everyone knows it.

I just don't understand why a stand-alone bill can't be introduced, lobbied for, and voted upon. Who knows, maybe those 8 Democrats (CAPITAL "D"!) would vote for it.

BTW, it was only seven Democrats and the Independent from Maine who voted against including it in the bill. And they didn't vote against the $15 minimum wage, that wasn't nature of the vote, they rightfully voted for the integrity of Senate rules.

I'm just quoting this post so that I can add it to my DU Journal.

[jorgevlorgan]

34. The CBO already concluded it has more budgetary relevance than the gop tax bill

If the parliamentarian was really non partisan, she would have considered that. The issue of it being in the reconciliation bill isnt because everybody knew it shouldn't be there, but because we had a gop appointed parliamentarian who made her opinion clear.

[George II]

36. She was appointed Parliamentarian in 2012, when the Democrats held a 51-47 majority with....

....King and Sanders caucusing with the Democrats, making it 53-47.

[jorgevlorgan]

38. I stand corrected

[George II]

46. ....

[jorgevlorgan]

35. Also I just hope we can somehow get rid of the fillibuster to see how many of the eight would

Actually come on board a min wage vote in a stand alone bill. It isn't far fetched to say that if we keep the fillibuster, a stand alone bill to raise the min wage probably won't even make it to a vote. Any idea when the last time something like that passed? (2009 it was attached with a defense spending bill)

[George II]

37. There's only one way to find out, do the work and introduce/lobby for that standalone bill.

[jorgevlorgan]

39. Absolutely agreed.

[leftstreet]

41. +1

best description I've read

[NurseJackie]

42. It's a ridiculous description. It ignores facts.

[leftstreet]

44. No, it's succinct n/t

[NurseJackie]

47. Succinct is not a synonym for "correct." It's succinct all right... and WRONG!

[msongs]

45. agreed with jorgevlorgan. no explanation needed for my agreement nt

[onenote]

40. Here are Democratic Senators who voted against the amendment

Sen. Tester (MT)
Sen. Manchin (WVA)
Sen. Sinema (AZ)
Sen. King (ME) (Independent who caucuses with Democrats)
Sen. Shaheen (NH)
Sen. Hassan (NH)
Sen. Carper (DE)
Sen. Coons (DE)

[NurseJackie]

43. They did the right thing.

A reconciliation bill is not the right place for this. That is what they voted against.