This message was self-deleted by its author

[Ken Burch]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Ken Burch) on Sat Jun 25, 2016, 10:29 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[elleng]

1. Right,

but I'm not betting.

[randome]

2. WHY did the Platform Committee reject $15?

[rhett o rick]

15. That's an easy one. Pressure from their corporate sponsors. nm

[Hortensis]

163. Except you're 100% wrong. $15 MW is IN!

[rhett o rick]

167. In a discussion, wouldn't you say that it's a little audacious to tell the other person that

they are 100% wrong?

Big Corporations spend billions on lobbying, giving money to politicians personal fortunes and campaigns. The politicians in turn vote to kill unions and keep wages down which leads to higher corporate profits.

[w4rma]

30. Check out how awkward their vote against the $15 minimum wage was.

Only a single Clinton/DWS appointee voted for the $15 minimum wage. And 8 of them voted against it, while 1 abstained.

[George Eliot]

51. Sound poor- what did Lewis vote? Which C supporter? Thanks.

My computer wasn't cooperative. Do you mind specifying?

[w4rma]

55. There are only 5 Bernie nominees and only 6 voted for the $15, while 8 voted against.

We already know that Bernie's choices would have voted for the $15. That leaves 6 Hillary nominees and 4 DWS nominees, of whom only 1 voted *for* the $15 minimum wage.

[George Eliot]

83. So we can assume Lewis voted against it? That's news IMO.

[w4rma]

92. Lewis isn't on the platform draft comittee. (nt)

[TwilightZone]

96. Lewis isn't on the committee.

Edit: the post I responded to was edited, in case anyone wonders why I replied as I did.

[Ken Burch]

157. It's possible the poster saw a shot of Elijah Cummings and thought it was John Lewis.

There is a bit of a resemblance between the two men:

[Scootaloo]

90. Lewis isn't on the platform draft comittee

The man in the video is Rep. Elijah Cummings.

[George Eliot]

101. Oh! My faux pas...I knew that. But was Frank ejected? Does chair vote?

Or does chair vote to break tie? Don't know the protocols. I wonder if votes are documented by voter? I see a CEO on the committee.

[Vote2016]

188. Because the platform committee was stacked against those who favor a $15/hr. minimum wage

[TwilightZone]

3. Most of the platform is "our" stuff, not his or hers.

They're not building a platform from scratch. They're working from one that is already decades in the making.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

As far as not winning in November based on the platform, the platform is meaningless to most voters. They're not voting for a platform.

"Doing that wouldn't hurt anyone in the historically powerless groups that preferred HRC."

Did you really just write that?

[Ken Burch]

7. Yes, because there is still this assumption that the Sanders campaign

was in some way a threat to the interests those communities-when it never was at all.

And there aren't any significant issues on which the Sanders positions would actually be bad for those communities.

[TwilightZone]

12. In the real world, most of us are on the same side already.

In the real world, everyone is focusing on Donald Trump and ways to defeat the GOP in November. They're focusing on real issues like gun control and not whether or not "my side" gets what he or she wants on a platform that is almost entirely symbolic.

Meanwhile, you're talking about "historically powerless groups" as if they're somehow to blame for something. What, I'm not quite sure.

If you're really as interested in moving on as you keep insisting, you might want to...you know...move on.

Just a thought.

[Ken Burch]

26. Economic justice is just as real an issue as gun control and choice.

It affects all of us.

I'm not blaming "historically powerless groups" for anything. I'm simply challenging the idea that the things Bernie wants in the platform are going to harm them. It has never been Bernie VS. those communities.

OK?

[TwilightZone]

37. And yet you keep talking about them.

[Ken Burch]

43. Only to prove I had no offensive intent, despite your implications

Will you now accept that?

[rhett o rick]

16. Maybe you have an idea as to why the $15 min wage was rejected. nm

[Ken Burch]

36. Corporate donor pressure. That's pretty much it.

They want a platform that is only progressive on issues that won't affect them.

[George Eliot]

73. The power of the establishment. We voted it so accept it.

It is status quo. I didn't vote Clinton but I have to accept the votes of her majority. What else?

[rhett o rick]

21. The bitterness of this primary proves that the Democratic Party

has split. This issue is a great example. The Progressives what a livable min wage starting at $15 per hour. However, other Democrats think it should be much lower.

[TwilightZone]

35. Actually, it means nothing of the sort.

The same people who think there's some huge chasm in the party are the same ones who insist that Elizabeth Warren can't work will Hillary Clinton because they hate each other and are polar opposites politically.

In the real world, neither is true.

[rhett o rick]

41. Millions of Democrats stepped forward to support the Progressive side of our party.

They have been disparaged bitterly by the non-progressives and visa versa. And you say there is no chasm? The progressives and non-progressives are miles and miles apart on almost all issues. How about fracking, the TPP, medical marijuana, Prisons For Profits, foreign wars for corporate profits, Super Pacs, Citizens United, helping college students, shutting down pay-day loan sharks, and many more.

[rhett o rick]

58. Well the two sides are fighting over the platform. The Progressives want a livable min wage

and want to oppose job killing Free Trade and the other side disagree.

[still_one]

42. Let me educate you, 15 dollars is NOT a livable wage

[rhett o rick]

57. I agree completely, it's much higher but we can't even get some Democrats to even work towards

$15.

[still_one]

76. Does the question come down to this, what is the highest minimum wage a person can receive, and

the employer's business still stay afloat?

A company such as a McDonalds or Walmart, would be more able to pay a 15/hour minimum wage or more, than perhaps a mom and pop business. Outside of the Democratic platform, that would have to be taken into consideration.

I get it, we should set a minimum standard, and go from there, perhaps with exceptions for smaller employers that bring in less revenue, and can show that in order to be viable they would have to adjust the minimum wage up or down accordingly.

[rhett o rick]

85. That is what Seattle has tried to do. nm

[still_one]

89. Were they able to come up with something that worked for smaller businesses that do not take in as

much revenue?

[hollowdweller]

117. Hey lets drop it to a dollar a day.

Would make a lot more businesses viable. Bring a lot of jobs home from foreign countries.

Is the goal to keep businesses going or provide a fair wage and keep the gov't from spending all this money on programs to make up for inadequate pay??

[MadDAsHell]

134. You bankrupt businesses, and there are no jobs to pay a living wage FOR.

Unless your ultimate goal is to wipe out the private sector anyway?

[rhett o rick]

141. We are one hell of a long way from "bankrupting" businesses. For big companies like McDonalds

wages are but a small fraction of the cost of their food.

[Sgent]

144. About 30-35%

and profit margins for a mcdonald's usually runs 5-8%.

In my area, fast food starts at ~$9 / hr -- about a dollar higher than many other jobs.

[rhett o rick]

166. "It's true that increasing wages on companies like McDonald's would likely lead to higher costs and

prices, but labor is less than a quarter of the cost of what you pay for at the fast food giant, so the impact may not be as big as you think."
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/08/what-will-a-higher-minimum-wage-cost-you-at-mcdona.aspx

$9 per hour is slave wages. The people trying to live and/or raise a family on 30 hour weeks at $9 have to turn to safety nets. I'd rather pay more, wouldn't you? And McDonalds can live with a little less profits.

[libdem4life]

178. If I ever ate there, I'd be willing to pay an extra dollar for a "meal".

It's twice as much and about 1/4 as healthy as a simple home-cooked meal.

I now live in a Midwestern state and 75% are overweight to very overweight and diabetes is rampant. When I went for my checkup, she was shocked (at my age although she didn't say it) that I did not have diabetes. There must be 100 fast food places to each normal food market...and they aren't like Safeway or Ralphs...they are pretty small and I live in a Metro area.

[rhett o rick]

180. I also don't eat fast foods and almost zero beef. nm

[libdem4life]

181. I even went Vegan for a few years, but having a son,

brought back dairy products, then some meat as flavoring for formerly vegetarian beans, rice and lentils dishes, etc ...almost never beef.

Healthy as a horse, as they in these parts.

[George Eliot]

70. In some places it is a livable wage. And it beats what we've got..

Why argue to argue? My city has become one of the highest-rent cities in the country and no, it is not a livable wage here. So, because it doesn't work for every city, nobody should get it? I don't think that's what you meant, is it?

[still_one]

87. It is actually more complicated than that. I was also referring to the bay area, where generally it

isn't a livable wage.

So you are right, a minimum wage in California is not the same as a minimum wage in Iowa. Homes, food, energy, are all different depending where one lives.

The problem also becomes more complicated with one size fits all when dealing with smaller companies who do not bring in enough revenue to support a 15 dollar minimum wage. As unfair as it would be to underpay someone for services rendered, it would also be unfair to require a business to pay a certain minimum wage, by which they could not afford to stay in business.

I don't oppose the idea of having a set minimum wage, but exceptions have to be provided.

[George Eliot]

94. No, I basically disagree. We must pay for goods a price that will enable

all employees to live. And those employees will in turn spend the money back into the businesses. I do agree that whatever that minimum is, it does have to be minimal. It is entry level and it must provide the minimum necessary to live. That's not asking a lot. It means I might have to pay more for groceries which is the product that has a very small profit margin. And certain jobs can be excepted - kids, adults who carry out groceries.

But in the main, $15 is fair and livable if you consider two $15 an hour wage earners can probably afford rent. It may mean doubling up but that is nothing new.

A business model that can't pay a livable wage is unsustainable anyway. It is not honorable to expect employees to subsidize what we buy. We have to pay full price so that all wage earners are paid what they are worth. If a business needs them, they are worth a livable wage.

[still_one]

111. You brought in several issues. Let me take the last first. A business model that cannot pay a

livable wage is unsustainable, and you define in the main that 15 dollars is fair and livable.

Are you saying a small business with 2 or 3 employees, who can only afford a 12 dollar minimum wage, their business model is unsustainable, and they should not be in business? I don't think it is that simple. That model would suggest that only a large corporations, who can under price a smaller business for goods, deserve to exist. That is the Walmart and Amazon model, under price everyone else, and then they are the only game in town. There has to be a middle road some where.

A 15 dollar minimum wage in the San Francisco bay area means a lot less than a 15 dollar minimum wage in a small Mississippi town. Would the argument in that case be that if you cannot afford to live on 15/hour wage in a certain geographical area, then you should move to another geographical area where you can afford, or perhaps a city should subsidize housing if a person or family makes under a certain amount. That would mean higher taxes. I wouldn't mind that.

My point being there has to be a middle road. That is easier said than done

[George Eliot]

121. A business that cannot pay $15 an hour is unsustainable.

It is being subsidized by the employees whether two or twenty. Small businesses should not exist if they have to be subsidized by their employees. Simple really.

Of course cost of living is different from place to place. That's why $15 is a minimum. We need trade unions to demand more where it can be negotiated. I cannot think of a business that should exist on the backs of low pay for workers. I'm including migrant work which subsidizes our low food costs - although even food costs are growing at a rapid rate. Every worker deserves a minimum wage that is or tries to be fair. Twice what we paid fifty-five years ago is just. Probably not enough but people are so needy they'll take it and smile.

[Sgent]

145. $15 minimum wage

working 40 hrs / wk means rent should be no more than $750 / month (30% of income). That's almost twice what I can rent a one bedroom apartment for in Mississippi, and can get a two bedroom and a roommate for probably $600-$650.

30k / yr in Mississippi puts you well above "living wage" and some of the highest wages around.

[still_one]

155. in the SF bay area it would be a lot more

[still_one]

156. You are bringing up some good points

[CrowCityDem]

108. Sounds like you're agreeing with Hillary's position.

[hollowdweller]

119. So you are arguing for Trumps idea?

That each state should decide???

[Ken Burch]

77. It's closer to liveable than $12.

And the reality is, the only way to GET $12 would be to propose $15.

If we introduce a proposal for $12, it would get cut to $10 or $9 or maybe $8.50 by the time Congress let it through.

You have to start with a high bid to get what you want.

[George Eliot]

62. Then why spend time on it? I've referred to the fifties Repub platform

because it is an historical document showing how far right we've moved. To me, it is not meaningless. It is a mission statement of our values and goals - not that establishment democrats seem to care much these days. A return to those values is Bernie's contribution. Are you against a livable minimum wage?

[TwilightZone]

69. I didn't suggest that they shouldn't spend time on it.

I pointed out that there's a platform from 2012 that they're using as a template. Many people don't seem to realize that it exists or that it's the basis for what's being worked on now.

[George Eliot]

78. You implied the template governs building the current platform.

Otherwise, I missed your point entirely.

[TwilightZone]

86. The 2012 platform is the natural starting point.

Creating an entirely new platform from scratch would be a waste of time, since a lot of underlying Democratic principles carry over from election to election. Many of the items they're discussing are updates, changes, and additions to the existing platform.

[Old Codger]

4. Do you really

seriously think they care a hoot about us??

[Ken Burch]

6. If they want to win, they need to.

That's the point I'm trying to make to them-that they can't win without us-especially if they actually WANT to flip the Senate and possibly the House.

[TwilightZone]

8. It depends on how you define "us".

If you mean the Sanders supporters who will ultimately stay home, vote for Trump, or vote third-party, you could very well be wrong.

A solid chunk of them are already factored into the polls (various polls show up to 20% of Sanders supporters voting for Trump), and she's well ahead without them.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

In the end, most Sanders supporters will vote for her. The platform is going to be the least of most people's concerns.

[riversedge]

18. Thanks for the post.

[still_one]

60. Interesting how some feel the need to characterize anyone who doesn't agree on something as "waste"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2217091

There is rarely a discussion on the pros or cons of an issue, Just the implied "threat" that if you don't agree with something, "you'll be sorry in November"

Is that the way to convince someone?

As I see it there are to lines of thoughts regarding minimum wage. One group believes that 15 dollars should be the fixed standard for minimum wage. Another group believes that minimum wage should depend on which area in the country.

There are a lot of issues actually involved:

That a discussion, and heaven forbid a compromise be arrived at, makes me wonder if people actually listen to each other

Living expenses in the Bay Area, are not the same as living expenses in a small town in Iowa.

Is 15 dollars even a livable wage in the bay area?

The question really comes down to this, what is the highest minimum wage a person can receive, and the employer's business still stay afloat?

[Ken Burch]

146. I think it was the decision being compared to "waste", not those who made it. n/t.

[still_one]

148. Why wasn't the second option stated as: "I disagree with this position" used?

It would have followed the format of the first option: :I agree with this position"

I think if you are really objective you know what the reason was, and it was to refer to those who voted on it as "3rd way waste"

[Ken Burch]

149. Don't know. Wasn't the way I'd have worded it.

The OP did add something that pretty much said "I disagree with this position" later.

[still_one]

150. I know you would not have worded it that way. We are not going to be in agreement on

this, so we will leave it at that

[Ken Burch]

151. I do agree with you that it was a stupid bit of phraseology on the OP's part. n/t.

[still_one]

153. Now I am confused. There are threads out there saying the 15 min wage is in the platform

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141500250#post3

[Ken Burch]

154. I'm confused, too. Hope they get this cleared up. n/t.

[still_one]

159. I am sure it will get cleared up one way or another. Actually, if this was an issue with

the platform, it really should not have been.

It isn't that controversial from my perspective

[hollowdweller]

120. That's my fear

They are polling way ahead of Trump so there is no reason to cater to the economic populists.

[rhett o rick]

22. They think we are like them and will fall in line no matter how we are treated.

They think they can demand we support their leaders. They don't know us.

[swhisper1]

63. never again will I settle and i wont be bullied. If this country goes down, I won't go with it

thank god there are options

[George Eliot]

88. I'm with you. I, too, have options.

Feels good. I can vote my values.

[Old Codger]

39. Sadly

It is in our best interests that they win and they know that too, we can't have another 4-8-16 years like we have just been through...the only way we get anything at all is to take control of both houses and hope they actually throw us a bone now and then...

[George Eliot]

80. Perfectly put. I'm smiling. Thanks. Still so much angst and emotion.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Except that platforms usually mean very little to the voters...

but can mean a lot to party rank-and-file workers. The $15 wage scares a lot of party members who would have to pay it, and even more who think they'll get no wage at all if it passes. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant to calculations and deals made for party planks.

It's not done yet, so there's plenty of room for "economic parity" talk, whatever that means.

[swhisper1]

66. usually, true, but this year we are watching to see if we get 45% of the attention. so far,

it is looking bleak

[Bonhomme Richard]

9. I am afraid that the party will learn nothing from the Brexit results and...

continue with business as usual.
Big mistake...maybe not for this upcoming election but continuing the "business as usual" approach is going to come back and bite all of us in the Ass.

[rhett o rick]

17. Neo-liberal capitalism is headed over the cliff. They can't stop it because their greed is

too powerful. None of the neo-liberals wants to be the first to stop beating the goose laying the golden eggs.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

64. YES - "their greed"

There is a loud mouth from New York that lives in a 2 or 3 million dollar house that said today that 15 an hour is giving too much to to many.

lol

got to laugh

[sheshe2]

138. Are you referring to Hillary Clinton?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

142. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

her house is worth way more than that - I think

lol

just keep pushing

want to play 100 questions?

ha ha ha ha ha ha

[yourpaljoey]

10. Eight bones an hour

It's a good honest wage.
But you gotta call them bones, not Ayatollahs...
8 Ayatollahs an hour ain't gonna pass muster.

[CrowCityDem]

11. Her positions ARE progressive. There's nothing conservative about $12 w/ option for more.

[TwilightZone]

13. Certainly not when the other side wants to get rid of the minimum wage entirely.

[Human101948]

44. The old "good cop, bad cop" routine...

Yeah, been there, done that.

[Ken Burch]

28. It can't be a progressive platform it if is nothing but her positions.

There needs to be some significant things in it that send the message to young voters that the Sanders campaign was worth it..
It would be a tragedy if her platform people were to say no to everything the Sanders campaign proposes.

It can't be no to $15, AND no to free college(at least as a goal)AND no to any serious constraints on corporate power.

[CrowCityDem]

31. Are you saying progressive isn't progressive unless it comes from Bernie?

[Ken Burch]

34. No. But at least SOME of it needs to be Sanders stuff.

That is crucial to showing the young that the Sanders campaign was even worth doing.

They'll all just go away forever and never come back if they don't get ANYTHING in the platform.

We have to show them that what they did over the last year made a difference.

[DemonGoddess]

59. No, it really doesn't

HRC IS progressive. As to the minimum wage, with the MIT link, it shows what is a living wage per state. Not all states can afford $15 for minimum to start at. In point of fact, most cannot do that immediately. My state, for example, on that chart shows $9.17 as a livable minimum for one adult. Other states show higher.

[Hydra]

75. *lmao*

Now we're shooting for $9.17 an hour? Wow.

[DemonGoddess]

79. That's not at all what I said

I said the data in the linked to table showed that as the living minimum in my state at present. But, think what you will. My POINT was that $15 an hour, while a nice number is not at all feasible in many areas, whereas $12 an hour is not only feasible, but easier to get to. PARTICULARLY when you factor in R opposition.

[Hydra]

95. $12 isn't feasible with Republicans. They think it should be lower than it is right now.

And if you don't set an across the board rule, many states won't go a penny above it, no matter the need. I happen to be in one of those states.

And do you think a single mother making $12 per hour with even one child is going to make it?

[hollowdweller]

124. That's what Trump says right?

That the states should decide? Dems are sounding like Trump now???

[Hortensis]

160. Right. NOTHING is "hers" or "his."

A minimum wage increase is meant to benefit the entire nation and specifically those who will be directly affected by it. It's not an item on a page to be won by a team, and it won't happen at all if we don't win the White House and at least the Senate.

[hollowdweller]

123. 15 an hour came from the people not Sanders.

[Ken Burch]

126. True. Even more reason it should have been there.

n/t.

[Ash_F]

152. The Fight for 15 is a national movement

Look it up.

[swhisper1]

67. it is not a living wage

[George Eliot]

105. Doubling a 1968 min wage is not unreasonable.

1Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation.Jul 23, 2015
5 facts about the minimum wage | Pew Research Center
www.pewresearch.org/fact.../5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/Pew Research Center

[CrowCityDem]

109. We're arguing over the size of the BIGGEST increase ever. Consider how absurd that is.

[George Eliot]

112. Who cares the size of the increase. Only because neglected in past.

Size of increase means nothing. It's called catch up and people need to survive. Your candidate is not progressive. She is our candidate but asserting stuff that is patently untrue does not help our cause. Use words accurately or you alienate true progressives. This Brexit thing is going to help Trump enormously.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/hillary-clinton-democrat-progressive/
Clinton 'pleads guilty' to being a moderate

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-05/is-hillary-clinton-a-progressive-depends-on-whos-asking
Is Hillary Clinton a Progressive? Depends on Who's Asking

[CrowCityDem]

161. Let's be accurate then.

Hillary's position is to raise the minimum wage by a larger amount (and percentage) than has ever been done before.

The conservative position is to eliminate the minimum wage.

Obvious, Hillary is a conservative. [/snark]

Her position might be a touch less progressive than Bernie's, but that doesn't make it not progressive. There isn't one single way of being progressive, and it would be nice if some of the purists here would realize that we can have genuine disagreements over how to take those step forwards.

Being inaccurate, and saying that a huge increase isn't progressive, doesn't help advance the discussion.

[bettyellen]

125. Thanks for the reality check- 12$ as a floor has support w Dems in the senate- 15$ does not.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. Clinton's platform is progressive

I am surprised at the Sander's language that he is attempting to "fix" the democratic party. It is offensive to me.

The ideas brought by Sanders are obviously being considered as the platform is created. But remember that the winner's ideas were more popular.

Regarding the minimum wage: Democrats believe it should be a living wage.

[rhett o rick]

19. This statement has be confused: "Regarding the minimum wage: Democrats believe it should be a living

wage." The Progressives certain agree but Hillary thinks $12 is ok and Obama settled for $10.10. So not all Democrats believe the min wage should be a living wage.

The Big Corporations are high-5ing tonight.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. Democrats support a raise in the min. wage to a living wage.

Hillary thinks we start with a raise to 12.00 to confirm the effect will not result in economic issues. All of America should be high-fiving it. We have someone in Hillary who may be President with a progressive agenda and a life long commitment to public service.

[rhett o rick]

25. Again, I am confused. You say, "Democrats support a raise in the min. wage to a living wage."

But Hillary wants to start negotiations at $12 per hour. That's not a living wage.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. Yes, we appear to be talking over each other.

I disagree with you.

$12 vs. $15 minimum-wage debate continues between economists, experts, politicians:
...The current federal minimum wage is about 36 percent of the median wage, said David Cooper, an economic analyst at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., where his expertise includes minimum wage and economic inequality. EPI is a nonprofit think tank that gets about a quarter of its funding from labor unions. A majority of funding comes from foundation grants and the small remaining part from individuals, corporations, and other organizations.

"That is a pretty significant gap," he said. "Back in the 1960s, (when the gap between the minimum and the median was at its smallest,) it was 54 to 55 percent of the median wage.

"Twelve dollars by 2020 would put it right back to where it was in 1968 – 54 to 55 percent of the median wage," Cooper said. "We just don't know what would happen if we push the minimum wage higher than those levels."

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/economists_experts_debate_12_v.html

[rhett o rick]

32. You seem to be saying that you agree with Hillary that $12 / hour is a living wage. Do you?

[Evergreen Emerald]

38. Of course it depends on the location. Here:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/ You can check your area to see what a "living wage" is.

[rhett o rick]

54. One adult and one child living wage here is $24.19 and yet some DEmocrats are fighting to keep it

below $12.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

45. It doesn't matter what either Rhett or Hillary think. It is congress. Unless she vetoed -which won't

happen if sentiment is that strong amongst Dems (and a few Reps).

[rhett o rick]

50. So let me see if I get this. We can only raise the min wage to the lowest livable wage for

the area? And I don't remember Hillary claiming it should be higher than $12 in those areas that need it. Raising the min wage has boosted local economies and will reduce the stress on some safety nets. Why do we have Democrats trying to hole it down?

[George Eliot]

113. 60's min wage in todays dollars over $8.00 an hour. $15 ok 2016.

Anybody that thinks cost of living hasn't doubled isn't living in the real world.

[rhett o rick]

140. In Seattle the living wage for one adult with one child is close to $25.

[swhisper1]

49. not in denver, or santa fe or any calif city, 12 is an insult.

[rhett o rick]

52. Sounds like a rationalization to keep the min wage as low as possible. Their post not your. nm

[swhisper1]

56. its frustrating that they continually fall for the "can't" decree. Not democratic at all

is it mass hypnosis? I no longer bother discussing with them because it is always a hostile conversation

[George Eliot]

114. and then call it "progressive" - unbelievable

[swhisper1]

53. alot of companies are now paying 15 and are seeing greater profits and happy employees

[George Eliot]

110. You can't just say "she's progressive." She's not. Her rhetoric is liberal.

I think she's center right. Saying something because you want it to be so doesn't make it so. What are her "progressive" ideas?

[KingFlorez]

20. The platform is ceremonial

No one is forced to vote Democratic if they don't like the platform.

[rhett o rick]

24. If so why are the non-progressives fighting so hard to keep the min wage down?

The Big Corporations are high-5ing tonight.

[Ken Burch]

29. If it is ceremonial, there is no good reason for HRC's reps to say "no" to everything Sanders wants.

It's not as though there are any votes to be gained from rejecting ALL Sanders proposals.

[rhett o rick]

33. It's very important to punish progressives. They are talking about primarying Sen Sanders

as retribution for daring to challenge for the nomination.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

46. Who is "they?" Did not hear this.

[George Eliot]

118. I'd love to see it. It would prove his value to Vermont and NH.

They know him and they love him.

[KingFlorez]

40. Arguing over a ceremonial platform is pointless

With that said, not every state has an economy to support $15 an hour as a minimum wage, which is why $12 is a better starting point. Even if the platform is ceremonial, it should reflect actual goals and not just fake them for show.

[Ken Burch]

48. HRC also rejected the position on trade SHE held in the primary on trade

Since only complete reactionaries want more trade deals, how is THAT defensible?

[TwilightZone]

72. You seem to be conflating the platform committee with HRC.

I would suggest that the rejection of the TPP plank had more to do with President Obama than Hillary Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

74. It was her people rejecting the TPP plank.

Obama shouldn't have a say in the platform at this stage of the game. He's not running for another term.

[SaschaHM]

82. He's the sitting President, the defacto head of the party, and an individual

who has endorsed and made clear his intention to campaign for the nominee. We're not going to flick him off for Sanders.

[TwilightZone]

91. lol, he's the head of the party.

Are you kidding? You can't possibly be serious.

[George Eliot]

131. Answer his point: her people reversing what she campaigned on.

[TwilightZone]

136. It's the party platform, not the Hillary platform.

The platform committee isn't going to take a swipe at the President of the United States in favor of the second-place finisher in the primaries.

[George Eliot]

137. You want it both ways: it either reflects her campaign or it doesn't

So the platform committee decides who to and who not to take swipe at? You agree it is taking a swipe at Bernie? Really.

[Ken Burch]

147. If it is "the party platform", no single candidate should have a majority on the Platform Committee.

And it's not about taking a swipe at anyone...it's about rejecting something NO Democratic presidential candidate supported this year. The Democratic platform shouldn't be expected never to deviate from the policies of the current Democratic president.

President Obama has had many good policies...his support of trade globalization on corporate terms has never been one of them.

[TwilightZone]

165. They're representing the party

and President Obama is the head of the party at the moment. Bernie Sanders isn't.

This isn't difficult. You're making it much harder than it really is.

[Ken Burch]

169. We don't have to take a position that nothing the current administration is doing

can be opposed in the platform.

The idea that the platform must support all current administration policies led to the disastrous insistence that Hubert Humphrey be nominated in 1968 on a platform of unquestioning support for continuing the war in Vietnam(Humphrey broke with that at the end of September, but by then it was too late to help.

The current administration ends Jan 20th.

[rhett o rick]

139. Yes, Democracy is so "pointless". Just let the authoritarian leaders decide.

"Arguing over a ceremonial platform is pointless"

[George Eliot]

116. Not everyone agrees...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/why_the_democrats_platform_actually_matters_this_year.html

Why the Democrats’ Platform Actually Matters This Year
It’s how Hillary and Bernie will make peace.

Also, it is like a mission statement. Bernie's endeavor is to get a platform that tells states our mission and then he wants to get it done. Is there something wrong with that?

[swhisper1]

47. this was not a hard give, I fear the DNC is going to vote 3rd way on everything, so trust is broken

yet again, Bernie is smart to hold his endorsement to the end and beyond, all the way to November to fight for democratic ideals. Meanwhile, firebrands can elect progressives downticket. We are going to be strongarmed, but that won't stop me from voting democrat, selectively.

[George Eliot]

128. She said incremental and she won with incremental. So be it.

I just don't like the way some try to make it sound progressive or make it out to be some wild idea from Bernie. These are progressive ideas for which many, many of us voted. But, whatever happens, it will be because a majority voted for it. Yes, voting progressive down ticket is the only way for those of us who supported Bernie.

[SaschaHM]

61. Losing with 43% of the vote, doesn't entitle you to 43% of the platform.

Never has. Never will. Now there can and should be some concessions, but the notion that Sanders is going to get platform posts that the candidate did not agree with or campaigned against is ludicrous. They'll reach some agreement and add in the non-contentious things. What you're seeing though, is how little leverage Sanders has at this point.

[Ken Burch]

68. "non-contentious" things would only be trivial side issues, though.

Not anything that actually makes a difference.

If the HRC campaign makes a show of putting the Sanders campaign in its place like this, of throwing its weight around for the sake of showing who's boss, it will drive the young people away.

The nominee doesn't have to do total hegemony on the platform. It should more than not be the nominee's views, but now overwhelmingly with everyone else being put in their place.

The Sanders campaign, were it in the majority, would never be acting like this.

(And no, before you bring it up, 2008 isn't a valid comparison. There were few if any differences between Obama and HRC on policy, and there were no Obama positions on the issues that were painful for HRC supporters to accept).

[SaschaHM]

81. There is not a doubt in my mind...

that Sanders wouldnt dominate the platform if he had won. You don't get major issues, when a majority of the voters rejected your campaign by double digits. This isn't putting anyone in their place, this is the democratic platform reflecting the ideas that a majority of the democrats voted for. If the Sanders side wants victories, they should try to find common ground.

[George Eliot]

129. Sanders wins amendments because he compromises. I believe he would.

He's not petty nor does he invoke personal invectives. But yes, he is for change and he would demand as much as he thought he could get.

[dflprincess]

189. During the campaign Clinton claimed to have changed her mind about the TPP

at least on that issue the platform committee is not listening to the what "a majority of the democrats voted for".

[CrowCityDem]

107. I've never heard the Sanders side propose any compromise. They would definitely insist on their way.

[Ken Burch]

130. Not true. There would be outreach on the areas of Sanders' program that POC thought were too weak

Bernie and his supporters would definitely accept Clinton language on those issues, on women's issues, on choice, where people found the HRC positions better.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

103. I agree - we shoulod crush all minority opinion

lol

[SaschaHM]

104. Or maybe you shoud just win next time...

[SoLeftIAmRight]

106. I win every time!

Life is Good!

[Lil Missy]

65. It's not a coalition - it's a winner take all system. The loser is not entitled to a percentage

equal to their votes. Technically, the platform would go along just fine without ANY of Sanders suggestions/demands. Yes, they CAN say no to everything Sanders wants. Not that they will, or want, to do that. I'm just sayin'

[hollowdweller]

127. 15 min wage didn't start with Sanders

It started with the grassroots.

[lumberjack_jeff]

143. Progressives = losers. Welcome to the new DU. n/t

[nashville_brook]

84. has that horse left the barn?

$15 min wage and TPP -- what's left? what good is it to say you're for "women" or minorities, if there's no floor on our ability to care for ourselves?

which, btw, all this talk about glass ceilings -- it's the floor regular folks are worried about. our wages are falling thru the floor. our employers have to floor on how they mistreat us. and there seems to be no sense that the floor is even missing for us. b/c everyone is so concerned with the ceiling on high-earning professionals.

[Ken Burch]

93. And it's not as though low wages and TPP don't disproportionately harm women and POC

Economic justice is just as important as social justice, and never conflicts with social justice.

[nashville_brook]

168. precisely.

[RobertEarl]

100. It's just a platform

It's a goal is all it is, the platform.

To make a milquetoast platform is ridiculous. The platform needs to reach for the stars and if all we do is land on the moon, well, we are further along and millions of poor working people are happy. What's wrong with trying to make millions of working poor people happy? What's this bullshit I'm reading on this thread about take 12 - maybe- and vote for us?

If we say 20, and get 15, or 12, or whatever, at least we can say we tried and will keep on trying. That's a damn fine goal -20- and will get lots of poor working people voting for democrats.

What the hell is wrong with these people on this thread trying to tell us to sell the working poor, more poor? That's a losing proposition, which is why we have been losing.

Do these posters really want to keep losing? I don't, and we need to support the working poor to win.

Geez, this is not rocket science?! It's just a platform!! Shoot for the stars!

[George Eliot]

133. Now that's progressive.

[hollowdweller]

115. That really makes me sad.

Just saying, but there are a HELL of a lot more people underpaid than are getting killed in mass shootings.

Not saying that keeping guns out of the crazies hands is not a noble cause, but they will never get the working class votes by being progressive only on cultural issues and selling us out on economic issues.

The platform is not something we have to enact into law it's sad that they were so afraid of offending the 1% that they could not even set a goal that was good.

Would much rather see 15 set and get 13 than 12 set and get 9.

Kaine as VP. No 15 min wage. The bowing to the wealthy elite begins. Oh and the sucking up to Israel.

I don't want Trump as president but PLEASE Democrats! Do something democratic!

[Sparkly]

122. Please tell me this is satire.

[Xyzse]

132. Very sad, looking at the party platform.

Rejection of a livable wage.
Pro Fracking
No consideration of a carbon tax

It is as if they're saying, we're not fighting for a better future.

What's the point?

My apologies, I don't even see anything that really improves education.

I guess the only difference is that republicans are worse in what they want to do?

[George Eliot]

135. Which makes Trump even more dangerous.

We need to offer something more . . . and mean it.

[still_one]

158. I am hearing different stories now, that the 15 min wage was approved

In this post it said it was the redundant wording that was rejected, not the 15 dollar minimum wage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512217625

Here is one from the Hill which says the platform contains the 15 min wage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141500250#post3

[Hortensis]

162. Good post. To underline: $15 MW is IN!

Karen Finney ‏@finneyk 7h7 hours ago
Karen Finney Retweeted
WRONG! $15 minimum wage is IN the platform! https://twitter.com/kerravan/status/746588440087564288 …

Karen Finney is spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton.

[still_one]

164. I like Karen Finney. She is a terrific spokesperson for Hillary

[w4rma]

170. Here is the working link to Karen Finney's twitter post.

Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Karen Finney ‏@finneyk 2h2 hours ago
NOT TRUE - $15 minimum wage was ALREADY in the platform, what failed was an amendment with language tweaks.
https://twitter.com/finneyk/status/746708136526913537

That said, the current platform language that Clinton/Finney supports, is weak and ineffectual:

Rep. Keith Ellison, who was appointed to the committee by Sanders, proposed an amendment to the DNC’s platform that would make support for a $15 per hour federal minimum wage absolutely unambiguous.

The platform originally simply stated that the Democratic Party hopes to “raise and index the minimum wage,” with an earlier implication that this could be $15. Ellison proposed that the language be made clearer and stronger, changed from mere support to a demand to “raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it.”

The audience attending the public hearing applauded in response to Rep. Ellison’s amendment.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/25/clinton_appointees_oppose_15_minimum_wage_amendment_in_democratic_platform_sanders_surrogates_back_it/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Hortensis]

171. Thanks, w4rma. I like Finney too, Still One.

I didn't see her all that much on MSNBC though and didn't know she was supposed to be black until she took this gig with Hillary. That's about the time I learned that a paternal ancestor was a slave belonging to a Mr. Finney and a maternal ancestor a relative of Robert E. Lee. Pretty classic American.

[w4rma]

173. That said, the current platform language that Finney/Clinton supports, is weak and ineffectual

Rep. Keith Ellison, who was appointed to the committee by Sanders, proposed an amendment to the DNC’s platform that would make support for a $15 per hour federal minimum wage absolutely unambiguous.

The platform originally simply stated that the Democratic Party hopes to “raise and index the minimum wage,” with an earlier implication that this could be $15. Ellison proposed that the language be made clearer and stronger, changed from mere support to a demand to “raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it.”

The audience attending the public hearing applauded in response to Rep. Ellison’s amendment.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/25/clinton_appointees_oppose_15_minimum_wage_amendment_in_democratic_platform_sanders_surrogates_back_it/

[Hortensis]

175. Yes, well first we have to get elected.

Many in both the Sanders and Tea-Party camps will always prefer to stand on principle, even if it means losing, rather than compromise.

For people like me, however, there is nothing merely symbolic about any of this and no principle served by losing and failing everyone.

You might want to remember that the most powerful blocks on the right intend to ELIMINATE the minimum wage altogether. Some imagine the big ideological battle here is Bernie against Hillary. For us, it's all about a truly epochal battle of Democrats fighting for America's liberal ideals against the malignant forces who have taken over the right.

[w4rma]

176. I remember when President Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a House majority.

The "New" Democrats floundered around making excuses for why they couldn't pass anything that went against their big donors' wishes. And so the majorities were lost and the only significant legislation that passed was a previous year's Republican health care reform: Obamacare.

[Hortensis]

177. Obama NEVER had a "supermajority."

Obama and the Democrats needed 60 Senate votes to override the filibusters the GOP used to shoot down almost every single piece of legislation the Democrats tried to get passed, and they never had 60 votes.

This is a myth pushed by right wingers, like Mitt Romney, to make people think the Dems could have fixed everything they were unhappy about but refused to, and now that same lie is being pushed by factions on the left who have a similar agenda. You can verify this with a quick search if you care to, or just believe me.

It is true that from 2009-2011 Dems had control of the House. BUT nothing becomes law until it is passed by the Senate. See how this works? The only bills we passed in this whole period, including the stimulus bill and the ACA, succeeded because some GOP senators felt they were too important to shoot down broke ranks and joined us.

So please don't ever make that claim again. Obama worked heroically against great opposition for every achievement. What is remarkable is there are so many of them.

Btw, it was a toss-up to take this chance to remind some of the truth about this or just request that right-wing and anti-Democratic Party and anti-Democrat statements be removed from this forum.

Characterizing the ACA as "Republican" healthcare reform is also untrue. It is a Democratic Party reform from beginning to end, even though we styled it as free market in an attempt to get more support from conservative Americans and and invited Republican representatives to work on it with us. Democratic Party's ACA actually contains over 200 amendments offered by Republicans, not something most people know, but they don't make it Republican.

[w4rma]

179. Sen. LIEberman was number 60. The New Democrats backed LIEberman in his general election over the

Democratic winner of the primary. You're right that they weren't super majorities. They were filibuster-proof majorities.

[TwilightZone]

182. Sorry, but no.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

Also, any majority of 60 that included Ben Nelson wasn't filibuster proof.

Context is important.

[w4rma]

183. So why vote for corporate Democrats, like that, in primaries? (nt)

[Hortensis]

185. The Sen. Lieberman who endorsed MCCAIN for president

in 2008 AGAINST Barack Obama and tried to recruit other Democrats to turn on the party? The Lieberman who was McCain's favorite choice for VP and spoke at the Republican convention?

The INDEPENDENT Senator Lieberman who had already left the Democratic Party in 2006?

The Lieberman who supported W and Cheney on military matters, was a war hawk all through this period, joined the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and is currently more extreme than most conservatives on security and military matters?

On and off in scraps as senators came and went in a very odd session, a total of 72 days occurred in which Democrats would have had 60 votes if you count the conservative Blue Dogs who often caucused with the Repubicans and if you count INDEPENDENT/trending-conservative Lieberman. But no one does, of course.

But what I'm wondering is why this hostile right wing propaganda is being brought to DU?

[w4rma]

186. Joe Lieberman who establishment Democrats endorsed in the primaries and unofficially supported in

the general election over the Democrat. They made weak statements of support for Lamont, while backing Lieberman behind the scenes:

Five Democratic Senators maintained their support for Lieberman, and Lieberman also received the strong support of former Senator and Democratic stalwart Bob Kerrey, who offered to stump for him. Democratic minority leader Harry Reid, while endorsing Lamont, promised Lieberman that he would retain his committee positions and seniority if he prevailed in the general election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#Primary

[TwilightZone]

172. Turns out it was never rejected after all.

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284888-dems-adopt-15-minimum-wage-in-draft-platform

The video everyone trotted out claiming that the provision was voted down was the voting down of specific language of the provision and not the provision itself.

Oops. Little late now.

[Brickbat]

174. You should probably edit your opening line, since it's wrong.

[Fla Dem]

184. Please get your news from somewhere else other than the echo chamber.Platform is reflecting Bernie's

positions. $15 minimum wage IS in platform along with other Sander's positions.An amendment to the $15 wage position ALREADY in the platform was what was voted down.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/unity-efforts-hit-snag-at-final-meeting-over-democratic-platform/2016/06/24/2919fd06-3a3d-11e6-a254-2b336e293a3c_story.html

June 24, 2016, 09:38 pm
Dems adopt $15 minimum wage in platform draft
By Evelyn Rupert

Democrats' platform drafting committee took a first step toward giving Bernie Sanders a major concession, voting to adopt language in support of a $15 minimum wage.

The committee, which will continue drafting the party's guiding document Saturday, also aligned itself with Sanders's support for progressive ideas such as abolishing the death penalty and expanding Social Security, the Associated Press reported. The minimum wage language adopted echoes a common refrain by Sanders, who has called the current federal minimum of $7.25 a "starvation wage."

The platform also tackles financial reform, calling for "an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284888-dems-adopt-15-minimum-wage-in-draft-platform

[Vote2016]

187. You may be in the wrong party. Not all Democrats favor progressive policies.