78
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
78 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
22694 readers
361 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I see, so because the solution is not complete and immediate, it is meaningless.
Yeah, he either did the thing or he didn't
That's how material reality works, if I didn't get shit from him then he didn't do shit for me and there isn't a damn thing you can say to convince me otherwise
"He slowed the guillotine down by 10% I'm not sure what your headless body is even complaining about"
When the problem is complete and immediate, yes. You fucking dweeb
The last time they raised the minimum wage was 2009. That's $7.25/hr. How much pain has it been since then? How much more gap between the cost of living and $7.25/hr has it been?
12 years later.....Full-time minimum wage workers can't afford rent anywhere in the US, according to a new report (2021)
Kicking the can. Means testing. Excuses excuses excuses. But when a Republican gets in power do you hear any of this "be pragmatic" can kicking shit from them? No. They go whole hog. Yes it's horrible and dangerous. And 10 years later the Dems will not only expand on those horrible and dangerous policies, they will be wrapping their arms around these horrible and dangerous people, welcoming them into the party while chastising the left for being unreasonable.
In this case, emphatically yes. This isn't a stepping stone to the needed solution. They could've done what was complete, immediate, and needed but chose some bullshit instead. They're not trying to fix a problem, they're trying to see what they can get away with.
No, because it reduces it by about 10% its meaningless to 90% of people.
Love this logic, according to liberals I could hand them $1 (or a note that says IOU $1) and then they're never allowed to criticize me ever again because "oh what you want me tonsolve every problem at once, I did something which is deffinitly different from doing nothing"
132 billion is about 7.5% of 1.7 trillion.
Would you say 7.5 percent is a lot or very little?