[Candidate] believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. [Candidate] has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for 15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15. [Candidate] also supports the Obama Administration’s expansion of overtime rules to millions more workers.
Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020.
Which one is more achievable? Realistic? Vague?
Fine I'll stop. I guess I like to be on the side of things that are closer to achievable than absolutely impossible.
Besides I am usually scared of going against benji because you never know when he might drop an improbable Howard Taft trivia and defeat you.
Here's the thing. Hillary's plan only seems "achievable" because it's a standard white paper stacked full of endless policy proposals. Her 2008 site is even worse with them. And that's what you expect from a "serious" politician.
A 60 page list of goals and funds and programs and promises is just as valuable as a 60 word one.
Obama was handed the most favorable position for an incoming President since LBJ in 1964, he still couldn't pass his health care plan, let alone anything else in his campaign promises. That's not a criticism, it's just a fact. (LBJ couldn't pass half the Great Society either and he didn't bunch Congress' panties.)
Nowhere in those pages does Hillary outline any actual political strategy, she says she'll turn the global climate around in ten years no matter what the CLIMATE DENIERS IN CONGRESS say. In 2008, she promised to drop emissions below 30% of 1995. Now it's 30% of 2005. Both pages promise 80% by 2050. She's more likely to be dead by then than any of her executive orders to be the primary environmental or energy policy of the United States government.
There's nothing wrong with a candidate stating what they find a semi-realistic ideal in order to outline their principles. (Or even an unrealistic one like Obama did in 2008.) But only fools and knaves mistake it for legislation or even an executive order ready to be signed.
You can turn around all these criticisms easily, Clinton spent basically six years in the Senate as a stepping stone to the Presidency, Sanders has far more legislative experience for legislative sake so he knows how the system works. But that's okay, because Clinton can do things with executive orders and regulations...but apparently Sanders can't? Like he won't be able to find anybody to tell him how to do that? But Hillary can because she was a first lady? Or Secretary of State where she followed the orders of the President?
If you're going to support the Democratic Party no matter what, then only reason to argue against Sanders
positions are if you disagree with them. It's not wrong to disagree with ideological positions of candidates just because your party hasn't had to really do it but once in nearly 30 years.
