2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWatching Hillary on cspan .. What a crock.
She says she cares about families, yet she will not support $15 min wage
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)With that.I mean WTF!! with all this bashing her if you don't want to vote for her don't
marym625
(17,997 posts)Just let it trickle down
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)murielm99
(30,782 posts)But I thank the OP for pointing out that the speech was happening.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)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
(17,213 posts)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
(13,218 posts)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
(20,606 posts)Get it right.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)listening to her tripe?
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)But, yawn, really, Hillary Clinton?
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)She actually supports a $16 minimum wage? Is your mind blown?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)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
(36,392 posts)Don't put words in her mouth!
840high
(17,196 posts)families - her own. She fooled me for many years. Not anymore.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)omalley and sanders hammered it.
elleng
(131,370 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)elleng
(131,370 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)elleng
(131,370 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)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
(26,549 posts)So where, exactly, are people not worth $15/hour?
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)Why is that?
$15 is no more a magic number than $12 or $20.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)two incomes, or having roommates -- or both.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)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
(45,120 posts)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
(20,138 posts)Like I said, though, $15 is not a magic number.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)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.
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
(7,768 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Show me the basis of your claim.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)When the FACT Clinton refuses to support a $15 federal minimum wage is brought up, this is what you come up with:
Why is that?
$15 is no more a magic number than $12 or $20.
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
(2,672 posts)reinstating Glass-Steagall.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)elleng
(131,370 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)strong and powerful candidate. At the end it isn't gaining anything for the other candidates.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Open debate.
Why are you trying to shut down open debate?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Too many times it becomes a smear slam.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Sorry, but this is further evidence that Clinton is losing.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)What more do you people want?!!!!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)RandySF
(59,697 posts)"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 Americas 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
(57,349 posts)Hillary Clinton on Thursday wouldnt 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 whats 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
(14,195 posts)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
(741 posts)"supporters only" under Hillary. Sanders group doesn't exclude. Says a lot .....
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Maybe it says you don't read.
the_sly_pig
(741 posts)The States group for example doesn't say "Minnesotans only". The Sanders group doesn't apply limitations either. Lotsa leotards bundling up...
Autumn
(45,120 posts)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
(741 posts)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
(84,057 posts)the_sly_pig
(741 posts)But that wasn't the point I was making...
R B Garr
(17,011 posts)So much for feeling the Bern.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)No, she is not one of the NRA voters.
kath
(10,565 posts)En Garde
(94 posts)Careful now, peacebird, you are pulling back the curtain on classic Clintonian triangulation speak.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Does he live in a tree and eat leaves?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)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
(27,821 posts)... 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
(22,871 posts)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
(22,000 posts)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.