Watching Hillary on cspan .. What a crock.

[peacebird]

She says she cares about families, yet she will not support $15 min wage

[bigdarryl]

1. I think she's telling a compelling story about her mother what's wrong

With that.I mean WTF!! with all this bashing her if you don't want to vote for her don't

[marym625]

2. of course not

Just let it trickle down

[JaneyVee]

3. This is a superb speech.

[Snotcicles]

5. She sounds like it is being piped into her. IMO. nt

[JaneyVee]

8. Yeah this is good.

[Snotcicles]

9. Martin O'Malley sounds way more natural. IMO

[JaneyVee]

13. This is a boring speech.

[Snotcicles]

14. Substance can be boring to some. nt

[JaneyVee]

15. It got better. Now it's getting interesting..

[murielm99]

12. Great speech, lousy OP.

But I thank the OP for pointing out that the speech was happening.

[Lil Missy]

4. That obviously means she hates families, and is probably the anti-christ too.

[shenmue]

42. Also, she eats babies

[KMOD]

48. It's amazing.

She actually is campaigning on eating babies, banning families, and starting a war with Babylon, and yet, she still leading in the polls.

[Buns_of_Fire]

62. Pandering to the unwed, baby-eating Assyrian vote, obviously.

It's amazing how modern politics is able to target every segment of the population so precisely. *I* never knew that Iowa had a large population of unwed, baby-eating Assyrians. The Census Bureau must have kept that information from the rest of us. On purpose? You be the judge!

[rock]

78. But how is she on

using federally supported municipal bonds to pay for forced busing of Soviet Communists to come into your homes to kill your puppies!
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75utalkback.phtml if you don't get it.

[zappaman]

73. Kittens, not babies.

Get it right.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. Why polute your mind

listening to her tripe?

[TheProgressive]

7. Before commenting, I will wait for Senator Sanders to speak...

But, yawn, really, Hillary Clinton?

[bobbobbins01]

10. What if her reason for being silent on the issue is...

She actually supports a $16 minimum wage? Is your mind blown?

[whatchamacallit]

11. Lol!

[MisterP]

16. no! $20! $300! everyone gets a free car! and a boat!

that's the problem with neoliberalism: they promised NAFTA would create millions of jobs on both sides of the border and when they FINALLY admit it's a disaster they just go "TS"; ultimately it's utopian

[Doctor_J]

17. she means families of the billionaires coming to meet her at the fete

Don't put words in her mouth!

[shenmue]

44. Lame

[840high]

18. Of course she cares about

families - her own. She fooled me for many years. Not anymore.

[restorefreedom]

19. she did not mention tpp

omalley and sanders hammered it.

[elleng]

21. Yes indeed.

[sabrina 1]

58. Good for them, talking about actual important issues.

[NYC Liberal]

20. She has supported raising the minimum wage for years.

[elleng]

22. 'Maybe some places.'

[NYC Liberal]

24. Nope. She supports raising the federal minimum wage and has for years.

[elleng]

25. I have only heard her say 'maybe, in some places.'

[jeff47]

28. Just not to $15. And won't commit to a specific number less than $15. (nt)

[NYC Liberal]

33. In areas where $15/hour makes sense, yes.

Some areas should have a minimum wage even higher than $15 an hour.

A $15/hour minimum wage in my city (New York), for instance, is not a living wage for many people. Sanders supports $15/hour, but that doesn't go far enough here; so, does that mean he doesn't care about people in New York?

[jeff47]

34. Making the national floor $15 doesn't preclude NYC from going higher.

So where, exactly, are people not worth $15/hour?

[NYC Liberal]

35. Where are people not worth $20 an hour?

[jeff47]

37. Since you feel they aren't worth $15/hr somewhere, perhaps you could tell me. (nt)

[NYC Liberal]

40. You feel they aren't worth $20/hr somewhere, apparently.

Why is that?

$15 is no more a magic number than $12 or $20.

[artislife]

50. It is when you are paying the rent. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

52. It is when the reward you reap is the surplus value of your neighbor's hard labor.

[NYC Liberal]

64. Try paying rent on $15/hr where I live, without

two incomes, or having roommates -- or both.

[artislife]

65. We actually agree nt

[Scootaloo]

54. Where has clinton argued for a $20 federal minimum wage? Please show me.

[NYC Liberal]

63. Where has Sanders?

Or any other candidate?

As I said, $15 is not a magic number. It would not be a living wage for a lot of people.

[Autumn]

66. $15 might not be a living wage for a lot of people

but it's better than the current $9 that a lot of people get which sure as fuck isn't a living wage. Anywhere.

[NYC Liberal]

67. Right. And Hillary supports raising that.

Like I said, though, $15 is not a magic number.

[Autumn]

68. Actually Hillary supports 'them' fighting for it, that's not the same as supporting it being raised

but where did she say $15 is not a magic number? I would think anyone who is concerned about low wages would certainly realize that $15 dollars is much better everywhere than the approximately $9 that is the minimum wage everywhere and would have no problem saying so. That's the right thing to say when you are trying to convince people who are struggling that you are going to fight for them. Of course $15 dollars isn't a living wage everywhere but what the minimum wage is now isn't a living wage anywhere.

Oh and the $9 minimum wage I brought up is off.

Alabama
none

Alaska
$8.75
$9.75 eff. 1-1-16
Indexed annual increases begin Jan. 1, 2017. (2014 ballot measure)
American Samoa
varies 1

Arizona
$8.05

Rate increased annually based on cost of living. (Ballot measure 2006)
Arkansas
$7.50
$8.00 eff. 1-1-16
$8.50 eff. 1-1-17

California
$9.00
$10.00 eff. 1-1-16

Colorado
$8.23

Rate increased or decreased annually based on cost of living (Constitutional amendment 2006)
Connecticut
$9.15 2
$9.60 eff. 1-1-16
$10.10 eff. 1-1-17

Delaware
$8.25

D.C.
$10.50 3
$10.50 eff. 7-1-15
$11.50 eff. 7-1-16
Indexed increases begin July 1, 2017 (2014 legislation)
Florida
$8.05

Annual increase based cost of living. (Constitutional amendment 2004)
Georgia
$5.15
(see notes below)

Guam
$8.25

Hawaii
$7.75
$8.50 eff. 1/1/16
$9.25 eff. 1/1/17
$10.10 eff. 1/1/18

Idaho
$7.25

Illinois
$8.25

Indiana
$7.25

Iowa
$7.25

Kansas
$7.25

Kentucky
$7.25

Louisiana
none

Maine
$7.50 4

Maryland
$8.25
$8.25 eff. 7-1-15
$8.75 eff. 7-1-16
$9.25 eff. 7-1-17
$10.10 eff. 7-1-18

Massachusetts
$9.00 5
$10.00 eff. 1-1-16
$11.00 eff. 1-1-17

Michigan
$8.15
$8.50 eff. 1-1-16
$8.90 eff. 1-1-17
$9.25 eff. 1-1-18
Annual increases take effect Jan. 1, 2019, linked to the CPI. Increases not to exceed 3.5%. (2014 Legislation)
Minnesota
$8.00/$6.50 6
Large Employers:
$9.00 eff. 8-1-15
$9.50 eff. 8-1-16
Small Employers:
$7.25 eff. 8-1-15
$7.75 eff. 8-1-16
Indexed annual increases begin Jan. 1, 2018. (2014 legislation)
Mississippi
none

Missouri
$7.65 7

Minimum wage increased or decreased by cost of living starting Jan. 1, 2008. (2006 ballot measure)
Montana
$8.05/$4.00 8

Increases done annually based on the CPI and effective Jan. 1 of the following year. (2006 ballot measure)
Nebraska
$8.00
$9.00 eff. 1-1-16

Nevada
$8.25/$7.25 9

Increases subject to the federal minimum wage and consumer price index. Increases take effect July 1. (Constitutional amendment 2004/2006).
New Hampshire
repealed by HB 133 (2011)

New Jersey
$8.38

Indexed annual increases based on the CPI, effective Jan. 1, 2014. (Constitutional Amendment 2013)
New Mexico
$7.50

New York
$8.75
$9.00 eff. 12-31-15

North Carolina
$7.25

North Dakota
$7.25

Ohio
$8.10/$7.25 10

Indexed annual increases based on the CPI. (Constitutional amendment 2006)
Oklahoma
$7.25/$2.00 11

Oregon
$9.25

Indexed annual increases based on the CPI, rounded to the nearest five cents. (ballot measure 2002)
Pennsylvania
$7.25

Puerto Rico
$7.25/$5.08 12

Rhode Island
$9.00
$9.60 eff. 1-1-16

South Carolina
none

South Dakota
$8.50

Annual indexed increases begin Jan. 1, 2016. (2014 ballot measure.)
Tennessee
none

Texas
$7.25

Utah
$7.25

Vermont
$9.15
$9.60 eff. 1-1-16
$10.00 eff. 1-1-17
$10.50 eff. 1-1-18
Beginning Jan. 1, 2019, minimum wage increased annually by 5% or the CPI, whichever is smaller; it cannot decrease. Note: Vermont started indexing in 2007. (2014 legislation)
Virgin Islands
$7.25/$4.30 13

Virginia
$7.25

Washington
$9.47

Annual indexed increases began Jan. 1, 2001. (ballot measure 1998)
West Virginia
$8.00
$8.75 eff. 12-31-15

Wisconsin
$7.25

Wyoming
$5.15

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm; and state web sites.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx

With wages like that for many Americans and Hillary Clinton won't commit to a &15 dollar minimum wage. Another Hillary Clinton profile in courage

[PearliePoo2]

79. Nice work! nt.

[Scootaloo]

71. You're claiming clinton doesn't advocate a $15 minimum wage because she wants a $20 one

Show me the basis of your claim.

[NYC Liberal]

72. Not what I claimed. At all.

[Scootaloo]

75. Yes, in fact it is

When the FACT Clinton refuses to support a $15 federal minimum wage is brought up, this is what you come up with:

Some areas should have a minimum wage even higher than $15 an hour.

Where are people not worth $20 an hour?

You feel they aren't worth $20/hr somewhere, apparently.

Why is that?

$15 is no more a magic number than $12 or $20.

Try paying rent on $15/hr where I live, without two incomes, or having roommates -- or both.

You are defending clinton with the claim that she won't support a $15 federal minimum wage, because she wants a higher wage - and you cite $20 as your go-to.

[Unknown Beatle]

23. Another thing she won't support,

reinstating Glass-Steagall.

[YOHABLO]

26. I hope everyone is taking notes before the debates. We need to know where she stands on this.

[elleng]

27. Right, and that's critically important to me.

[Thinkingabout]

29. Oh, so we are now criticizing speeches? I don't think this is going to hurt a very strong powerful

strong and powerful candidate. At the end it isn't gaining anything for the other candidates.

[Fearless]

38. That is the entire point of speeches.

Open debate.

Why are you trying to shut down open debate?

[Thinkingabout]

39. I am not trying to shut down open debate, I listen with an open mind, can't say the same for others.

[shenmue]

45. Wow, jump the gun much?

[Thinkingabout]

76. If it was truly open there would not be a problem, it does not turn out to be an open debate

Too many times it becomes a smear slam.

[zappaman]

74. Wrong. The entire nation is riveted to the TV right now.

Sorry, but this is further evidence that Clinton is losing.

[Indepatriot]

30. She recently TWEETED her undying support for unions. I believe it was the day after the TPP vote.

What more do you people want?!!!!

[Thinkingabout]

77. You missed again, having a hard time relating the truth?

[RandySF]

31. From June

DETROIT, Mich. -- In one of the most explicitly union-friendly speeches of her young presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton called in to a convention of low-wage workers Sunday morning to deliver a message of support and solidarity.

"All of you should not have to march in the streets to get a living wage, but thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage," she said. "We need you out there leading the fight against those who would rip away Americans’ right to organize, to collective bargaining, to fair pay."

Clinton's new campaign has carried a populist tone throughout, but this speech -- before a ballroom full of mostly young, African American workers from across the country -- virtually echoed the language that the Service Employees International Union has used in its campaign for a $15 minimum wage. Along with the fast food workers who have been at the core of scattered protests over the past couple of years, Clinton's short speech called out home care workers and adjunct professors, who make up a substantial part of the SEIU's membership base and have joined in the call for higher wages.

"No man or woman who works hard to feed America’s families should have to be on food stamps to feed your own families," Clinton said. "It is wrong that so many people stand against you thinking that they can steal your wages with no consequences. That even stacks the deck higher for those at the top."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/07/hillary-clinton-sounds-populist-note-at-fast-food-workers-convention/

[beam me up scottie]

55. Hillary Clinton Declines To Support A National $15 Minimum Wage

Hillary Clinton Declines To Support A National $15 Minimum Wage

Hillary Clinton on Thursday wouldn’t commit to supporting a $15 national minimum wage but said she is working with Democrats in Congress who are determining how high it can be set.

“I support the local efforts that are going on that are making it possible for people working in certain localities to actually earn 15,” Clinton said in a response to a question from BuzzFeed News during a press availability in New Hampshire on Thursday.

“I think part of the reason that the Congress and very strong Democratic supporters of increasing the minimum wage are trying to debate and determine what’s the national floor is because there are different economic environments. And what you can do in L.A. or in New York may not work in other places.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/hillary-clinton-declines-to-support-a-national-15-minimum-wa#.hhrVO0VjD

[peacebird]

61. She supports LOCAL efforts to raise min wage, rather than upping Federal min wage rules

Which would affedt more people positively? Updating Federal min wage rule, or waiting til all localities update their own?

This lack of leadership on a basic issue is another reason I will not vote for her.

[the_sly_pig]

32. Democrats group...

"supporters only" under Hillary. Sanders group doesn't exclude. Says a lot .....

[shenmue]

46. No, they've blocked quite a few people.

Maybe it says you don't read.

[the_sly_pig]

56. I'm talking about the name of the group...

The States group for example doesn't say "Minnesotans only". The Sanders group doesn't apply limitations either. Lotsa leotards bundling up...

[Autumn]

69. People who aren't committed to any candidate are welcome, we have several of those.

As long as they don't bash Bernie and attack our members they are fine. We do block disrupters who troll our group, the members and those who don't adhere to our SOP.

[the_sly_pig]

80. Thank you.

I would expect to be blocked as a disrupter of specific pages or tabs. I have never posted anything obnoxious enough to get blocked. As most, I would prefer Bernie, but will vote for the top Democrat.

[sheshe2]

51. Really?

Scroll down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1280

[the_sly_pig]

57. Thanks...

But that wasn't the point I was making...

[R B Garr]

70. lol, that's hilarious! I've never really checked that out.

So much for feeling the Bern.

[whereisjustice]

36. She cares about JP Morgan's family. And Goldman Sachs' family. She's doing it for the children.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Yes, she cares for children, still waiting for the show of support of children from others.

No, she is not one of the NRA voters.

[kath]

81. What about the children killed by cluster bombs?

[En Garde]

43. However, Hillary does support $250,000 per hour speeches

Careful now, peacebird, you are pulling back the curtain on classic Clintonian triangulation speak.

[shenmue]

47. And Sanders, of course, is too holy to earn any money

Does he live in a tree and eat leaves?

[KMOD]

49. The love shack is a little old place where, we can get together,

love shack, baby.

Oh wait, my bad, it was the sugar shack.

We just sit around and dream of those old memories
Ah, but one of these days I'm gonna lay down tracks
In the direction of that sugar shack
Just me and her yes we're gonna go back
To that sugar shack,
Whoa uh ohT
o that sugar shack, yeah honey
To our sugar shack

[NanceGreggs]

53. Well, after a politically astute ...

... assessment like that, how can I argue?

The substance of your critique - full of hard-hitting facts and a clear grasp of the issues - was dazzling in its depth, and demonstrated a unique understanding of the political landscape.

It was also, gratefully, as brief as it was interesting.

[sufrommich]

59. Your jury results:

Well, after a politically astute ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=454789

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This goes far beyond sarcasm, there's no need to insult peacebird's intelligence. skinner recently said that juries need to hide the bile. I think this qualifies.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 18, 2015, 03:36 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see anything in the post that violates the TOS. While it may be sarcastic, everyone has the right to reply and give their opinion.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Has alerter been reading DU for any amount of time? This is tame compared to what passes as an insult on DU these days.I'm going to guess that this has more to do with your opinion of who you're alerting on and less on the actual post.leave.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is sarcasm. That is acceptible commentary, albeit it may be unwelcome. Use the ignore feature if a post is not to your liking. It does not rise to the level of an alert in my opinion.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post doesn't insult the OP's intelligence, but rather the intelligence of the post itself. A subtle but important distinction.

[davidpdx]

60. Ack, I always get the stupid jury alerts never the interesting ones

And this one was stupid...........


On Sat Jul 18, 2015, 03:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Well, after a politically astute ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=454789

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This goes far beyond sarcasm, there's no need to insult peacebird's intelligence. skinner recently said that juries need to hide the bile. I think this qualifies.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 18, 2015, 03:36 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see anything in the post that violates the TOS. While it may be sarcastic, everyone has the right to reply and give their opinion.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Has alerter been reading DU for any amount of time? This is tame compared to what passes as an insult on DU these days.I'm going to guess that this has more to do with your opinion of who you're alerting on and less on the actual post.leave.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is sarcasm. That is acceptible commentary, albeit it may be unwelcome. Use the ignore feature if a post is not to your liking. It does not rise to the level of an alert in my opinion.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post doesn't insult the OP's intelligence, but rather the intelligence of the post itself. A subtle but important distinction.

I don't see anything hide-able about this post.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Notice the one person who voted hide made no comment. Of course so did three that voted it leave it, but that seems more reasonable given the type of alert it was.