A federal judge in Texas is blocking a rule enacted by President Joe Biden earlier this year that provides overtime pay protection for roughly four million American workers.
I mean this would only have applied to salaried employees earning $20/hr or less which I can’t even imagine what type of field that covers since most hourly jobs earn more than that these days.
This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.
This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.
I’d much rather they fight some Texas federal judge over something meaningful than squander the political capital on something that benefits a tiny niche of the country and gets blocked anyway.
Just about the only meaningful thing we’ve seen over the last three Democratic presidential terms was the ACA and they decided to model that after a Republican healthcare plan rather than giving us the logical choice of single-payer in order to appease Republicans who voted against it anyway.
I never said I did? I said that it’s virtue signaling and performative at best rather than something that’s actually impactful on the average person’s life.
Democrats love to talk about how much they care for the working class, but their actual actions rarely reflect that.
This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.
This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.
The only thing the federal government can do is pardon federal crimes. That is what they did. You’ve called that action “virtue signalling and/or table scraps.”
It’s unclear whether you A) think that federal cannabis possession convictions shouldn’t have been pardoned (considering your displeasure with the fact that they were), or B) think that such convictions should have been pardoned (as they were), but also don’t like that.
Since B) is not internally consistent - you would need to not like something you think should happen - it’s not unreasonable to ask if you think that such convictions shouldn’t be pardoned. Frankly, neither position is easy to logically square, and you’ve done nothing to assist in that endeavor.
How about you learn about context and read the rest of what I wrote? My complaint with both of these actions is that they’re essentially meaningless for the majority of people and they don’t go far enough. I refer to them as table scraps and virtue signaling because they only give the appearance of taking action without actually fixing anything or improving the lives of nearly anyone. The politicians get to parade around acting like they’re working for our benefit when they’re actually doing very little to help.
So whether or not federal cannabis convictions were pardoned, or millions of people would have guarantees to overtime pay, you would have complained either way, probably about Democrats, because the actions taken weren’t perfect solutions, or if they weren’t taken, then “Democrats have done nothing!”
I call BS on millions of people getting overtime pay. The income limit is so ridiculously low that nobody would be eligible. You can fuck right off with your “because it’s not perfect” false dichotomy. It’s not that it’s not perfect, it’s that it’s quite literally nothing.
I mean this would only have applied to salaried employees earning $20/hr or less which I can’t even imagine what type of field that covers since most hourly jobs earn more than that these days.
This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.
This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.
And a judge even blocked that. What do we think would happen to more substantial changes?
We’ll probably never know because it would require them to actually make a substantial change first.
Try employing logic.
I’d much rather they fight some Texas federal judge over something meaningful than squander the political capital on something that benefits a tiny niche of the country and gets blocked anyway.
Just about the only meaningful thing we’ve seen over the last three Democratic presidential terms was the ACA and they decided to model that after a Republican healthcare plan rather than giving us the logical choice of single-payer in order to appease Republicans who voted against it anyway.
https://earthjustice.org/article/the-biggest-climate-spending-bill-ever-just-turned-two-heres-what-it-has-achieved
But you don’t actually know how many people this would have applied to… you just assume, right?
Edit: It’s right in the article: “The rule would have extended to approximately four million American workers, guaranteeing them overtime pay.”
If only this logic actually applied. Maybe they wouldn’t make anti-trans laws in that shithole state?
Not sure why you would expect the federal government to be able to do anything with state charges.
I never said I did? I said that it’s virtue signaling and performative at best rather than something that’s actually impactful on the average person’s life.
Democrats love to talk about how much they care for the working class, but their actual actions rarely reflect that.
So … they shouldn’t have pardoned federal cannabis possession convictions?
Are you not capable of responding without fabricating a complete strawman argument first?
The only thing the federal government can do is pardon federal crimes. That is what they did. You’ve called that action “virtue signalling and/or table scraps.”
It’s unclear whether you A) think that federal cannabis possession convictions shouldn’t have been pardoned (considering your displeasure with the fact that they were), or B) think that such convictions should have been pardoned (as they were), but also don’t like that.
Since B) is not internally consistent - you would need to not like something you think should happen - it’s not unreasonable to ask if you think that such convictions shouldn’t be pardoned. Frankly, neither position is easy to logically square, and you’ve done nothing to assist in that endeavor.
How about you learn about context and read the rest of what I wrote? My complaint with both of these actions is that they’re essentially meaningless for the majority of people and they don’t go far enough. I refer to them as table scraps and virtue signaling because they only give the appearance of taking action without actually fixing anything or improving the lives of nearly anyone. The politicians get to parade around acting like they’re working for our benefit when they’re actually doing very little to help.
So whether or not federal cannabis convictions were pardoned, or millions of people would have guarantees to overtime pay, you would have complained either way, probably about Democrats, because the actions taken weren’t perfect solutions, or if they weren’t taken, then “Democrats have done nothing!”
Got it.
There you go with another strawman… 🙄
I call BS on millions of people getting overtime pay. The income limit is so ridiculously low that nobody would be eligible. You can fuck right off with your “because it’s not perfect” false dichotomy. It’s not that it’s not perfect, it’s that it’s quite literally nothing.
“Meaningless for 99.9% of people”
Corrected that for you 😂
In January, it was going to jump to a minimum salary of 59k to be exempt.