• garbage [none/use name,he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      i mean of course, but i'm willing to delay the checks for even that miniscule chance, cause otherwise the chance for (1) is 0.

      • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        If this gets us a 50% chance at $15, it's worth it. If it gets us a 5% chance, it isn't.

        The key question is how likely this is to work. It's probably a lot closer to 5% than 50%.

        • garbage [none/use name,he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          agree with the second part, disagree with the first.

          they could just delay legislation indefinitely if they felt like it.

          • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Indefinitely delaying stimulus checks and unemployment funding directly hurts working people. There's a real cost here.

            If we pay that cost and get at least a good shot at a $15 minimum wage, that's one thing. But if we hurt working people for some remote chance at the increase passing, that's a bad call.

            • Biggay [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              The only person who gets to inherit the failure to get the stimulus passed is Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. They are the only people anybody is seriously holding responsible for getting the checks out, as theyre the ones who promised 2K and a 15/hr wages.

              • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                ·
                4 years ago

                The only person who should have been blamed for 2016 was Hillary, but we all saw how that went.

                The only person who should have been blamed for underwhelming congressional gains in 2020 was Biden, but we all saw how that went.

            • garbage [none/use name,he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              whats the other choice though? wait until the corporations stop lobbying congress or however many decades it takes to get a fucking progressive majority and take our check for a months worth of shit and just accept that?

              • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                ·
                4 years ago

                The other choice is to recognize when you're in a losing situation and not make it worse.

                Here, that would mean not hurting (and pissing off) people who really need stimulus checks and unemployment.

                • garbage [none/use name,he/him]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 years ago

                  i don't think keeping people at just edit: complaisant enough to accept what's going on is the opposite of a losing situation.