Socialist Progressives
Related: About this forumThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Cheese Sandwich) on Mon Mar 21, 2016, 02:02 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Most American's are voting for Hillary because know and trust her:
she has a history of working for all American.
angrychair
(9,689 posts)We know that HRC plans to dramatically expand H1-B visas.
"Clinton, too, supports an increase in the cap. In a 2007 talk, she made her position clear, saying: "I also want to reaffirm my commitment to the H-1B visa program and to increase the current cap."
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2909983/it-outsourcing/heres-where-clinton-and-rubio-stand-on-the-h-1b-visa-issue.html
It may be a "single issue" but one that impacts millions and dramatically lowers the prevailing wage in the IT industry and shuts many Americans out of IT jobs as they wont be hired or hired at barely above minimum wage to do a job that used to pay $60,000 or more.
So, this "single issue" is very important.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)lies
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)Gullible.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)that is why they live in the past, and fear the future.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)then goes back to the position that helps her more. Usually by getting money from big corps or banks. She has no positions, no principles.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)She is a loyal Dem: she has worked to advance the Dem party agenda:
which the Dem believe are the American people progressive agenda.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)She takes money from wall street, and was recently open to compromise on abortion. you just see what you want to see.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
All in it together
(275 posts)I've been a Democrat from the start and her late shifts in position don't make me at all satisfied that she's evolving. She gives herself so much wiggle room on everything.
The Democratic Party used to stand for the people, since FDR, and we need to get back to our principles by supporting Bernie Sanders. Clintons took the party over to the right which hasn't helped the American people, except for the .com bubble which burst.
Bettie
(16,962 posts)generally takes more than the few hours between speeches.
And it also generally only goes one direction, saying what group x wants to hear and then saying a completely different thing that group y wants to hear is not evolution.
It is something totally different.
Loki
(3,826 posts)on quite a few issues during his terms as President and even before. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Changing for the good is never a bad thing only in GOP world, and he always welcomed their "hatred".
phazed0
(745 posts)How did Franklin Roosevelt evolve? I thought that his views were held tight to the chest, and they were his views from early on.. and he stuck to them.
To what do you refer?
Loki
(3,826 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)You suspect wrong. Perhaps you should put away the clairvoyance hat, you suck at it.
OK, well.. you further strengthen my original point... FDR was ALWAYS fiscally conservative... he ran his 1932 campaign on "espousing orthodox fiscal beliefs"... it was the topic of #1 importance during the Great Depression.
He didn't flip-flop or evolve on the issue you posted... he stuck to his ideals and beliefs, albeit, changed the method in which to reach the same wanted conclusion.
It is a nice read, you should read it.
And a member since March 2016. You're not worth it.
phazed0
(745 posts)An ad hominem attack. Is it standard fair to marginalize people based on their post count on DU? I mean, I would expect a member from 2001 to have a lot more posts - shall I draw some meaningless conclusion from that?
I presented a logical argument, it still stands. You are welcome to rebut my argument... but we don't get to play revisionist history to fit your candidate.
It is repulsive and degrading to compare FDR to Hillary, IMHO. To do so, ya gotta do better than this.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Yes it is. A Sanders supporter did it to me last week.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1483386
I was then compared to "low count thugs" and called a clown by other Sanders supporters. Real classy, eh?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)to FDR is like comparing Mr. Potter to George Bailey. That might a bit over the top though: Mr. Potter never tried to sucker anyone into believing he gave a rat's ass about them.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)She is just a national politician. Trade deal=ABOVE NATIONAL LEVEL
They are basically supranational agreements that in these money matters, laws matter not, corporations are on top. Are we corporations? No. Is Hillary a corporation or a trade deal, no, she's a president. Once the deal gets signed (1995 and 1998) it goes on autopilot.
We are people, we can push the button that we want to coross the street.
But, once the deals get signed, they are designed to make us irrelevant.
we don't exist.
angrychair
(9,689 posts)That says she is going to do that.
Is this a Jedi mind trick attempt? Doesn't work over the Internet.
Look, even video:
https://m.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)angrychair
(9,689 posts)Both direct quotes and video directly from Clinton and you give hollow words and no proof.
I think I'll take you candidate's own words as the proof I need.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Now it is your turn to provide a link to a video that supports your assertion. That's the way this works.
Cobalt Violet
(9,913 posts)where has she said that?
Baobab
(4,667 posts)GATS Mode IV is not H1B its L1
And GATS begat TiSA...
Wikileaks is your friend.
xocet
(3,928 posts)
whopis01
(3,721 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)They bought Nielsen, the tv ratings company in Palm Harbor, Florida, and got all kinds of tax breaks and incentives to "create lots of jobs".
The first thing they did, was lay off all their workers, and import replacements on H1-Bs from India.
A member of our County DEC was a manager there, and a HUGE Hillary supporter. Not so much now.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)And nobody expects any workers to work for $0.50 an hour. its likely that either the higher of the two nations minimum wages would apply, or the wage would be between them and their foreign employers, in other words its per-negotiated. The US minimum wage might become the de facto wage for workers here on these trade visas.
If you look at the WTO disciplines on accountancy or similar documents- which are in various stages (there was a huge flurry of activity in 2006 on this but it slacked off when Fast track expired) Recently with the Nairobi Ministerial there seems to have been another flurry of activity.
Wages are a controversial issue with many least developed countries (LDCs) because they see what they perceive as high minimum wages as a way of keeping them and their firms out when they have been promised this payback for so long but never actually gotten it.
The problem is that these changes will likely push US skilled wages down to global norms (thats clearly the aim) because growing amounts of government procurement will be put through the international bidding system and so local SMEs will lose out unless they can subcontract the work to these low wage international staffing firms or automate all the labor intensive tasks completely. Which is I think what will happen, especially in construction and similar areas.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)most American families.
Our minimum wage has not been raised in many years. It is a subsistence or lower than subsistence wage in California and many other states.
What you are describing is a crime against American workers.
If that is what Hillary is supporting, I assure you she will have a tough time in this country.
The issue on which Hillary is most likely to lose votes to Trump if she is the nominee is trade. The vast majority of Americans are sick and tired of the trade deals that are lowering our standard of living.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)>If that is what Hillary is supporting, I assure you she will have a tough time in this country.
If you mean after she's selected, its irrelevant whatever we do. thats the whole idea of these things, removing the unpredictable people from the picture.
I highly recommend reading the achmea (a clinton donor!) anyway, achmea v slovak republic decision in the achmea II case (2014, I think- its italaw3207.pdf )
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)sovereignty. I totally oppose them.
The problem is that the multinationals have taken over our international relationships at virtually all levels.
We really need Bernie to bring sanity and democracy back to our country. I just hope it is not already too late.
And how in the world this multinationals that rely on the US military to preserve a "peace" that protects their investments when our tax base has been depleted because they refuse to pay taxes I do not understand.
I foresee a bleak future for Americans if Bernie is not elected. And even if he is elected, disaster is our outlook because of the trade policies already in place and the complete lack of understanding of what a society requires on the part of our very wealthiest and our largest businesses.
What a tragedy. The great hope of mankind being thrown away by a bunch of rich nincompoops.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)Here it from her own mouth.
Z
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)me or your lyin' eyes." The denial is deep here. That's why she must "evolve" and/or "devolve" whichever is appropriate at the time. It requires a higher level of obfuscation...she's really good at it.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)wait a year or two and pay them a fraction of that under an L1 under these new agreements with no quotas on numbers.
No necessity tests, no economic means tests,
You can find some outlines on movement of natural persons provisions from Hamid Mamdouh, Director, Trade in Services Division, WTO
This is from 2004, so a lot has changed since then..
Definition of Trade in Services:
(1) Cross border supply
(2) Consumption abroad
(3) Commercial presence
(4) Presence of natural persons
The supply of a service by:
“a service supplier of one Member, through presence of natural persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member”
MOVEMENT OF NATURAL PERSONS UNDER THE GATS
Hamid Mamdouh
Director
Trade in Services Division, WTO
Article I – Scope and Definition
Definition of Trade in Services:
(1) Cross border supply
(2) Consumption abroad
(3) Commercial presence
(4) Presence of natural persons
Mode 4 - Article I definition
The supply of a service by:
“a service supplier of one Member, through presence of natural persons of a Member in the territory of any other Member”
What natural persons?
Natural persons who are service suppliers of a Member
Self-employed
Natural persons of a Member who are employed by a service supplier of a Member and sent abroad to supply a service
For the ‘same’ company which has commercial presence in another Member’s territory (Intra-corporate Transferees)
To a consumer in the territory of another Member. The contract is made between the home and host companies (juridical contractual service supplier)
The Annex on
the Movement of Natural Persons
The GATS does NOT cover:
natural persons seeking access to the employment market
measures regarding citizenship, residence or employment on a permanent basis
Governments are free to regulate entry and temporary stay, provided these measures do not nullify or impair the commitments
footnote 1:differential visa requirements, not to be regarded as nullifying or impairing benefits under a specific commitment
A snapshot of Mode 4 commitments
Governed by horizontal commitments
Positive listing of measures:
“Unbound except ...”
Absence of full liberalization
Access mostly for those with high-level of training and expertise, often as intra-corporate transferees
Specified duration of stay: 3 months to 5 years
Main limitations scheduled
Limited Categories of workers included
Pre-employment requirements
ENTs/LMTs
Quotas
Technology Transfer
Structure of Horizontal Commitments
(110 Members, as of 2004)
Movements linked to Mode 3: ~60%
Contractual Service Suppliers (employees of juridical persons): ~13%>
Independent suppliers: ~6%>
Length of stay: 3-5 years for ICTs; shorter for CSS: 3 months - 1 year (very few with > 2 years
Possible reasons for the less liberal commitments in Mode 4
Political and Regulatory concerns profoundly affected levels of commitments under Mode Four for all Members
Enforcement concerns and the problem of temporary entry leading to permanent entry
Protection of labour markets associated with lower pay foreign services suppliers.
Negotiating Proposals
7 specific proposals
Developing economies- India, Colombia, Kenya
Developed economies - EC, US, Japan, Canada
Other sector-specific proposals relate to Mode 4, e.g., professional services
Some of the barriers identified
in the negotiating proposals
Structure and coverage of existing commitments
ENTs
Definitional problems
Administrative practices, access to information and transparency
Recognition of qualifications
Some of the solutions proposed...
More and better commitments
more categories, improved definitions, finer classification, “sector-specific” commitments
Removal of barriers
multilateral criteria for ENTs - to be more specific, transparent and non-discriminatory
Greater transparency and predictability
Model Schedule/“GATS visa”
Additional Commitments on transparency and regulation
Strengthened disciplines on MRAs
Mode 4 in Offers so far…*
Horizontal commitments: 17 of the 45 offers include changes to the horizontal section.
2 Members did not include Mode 4 commitments in their horizontal section
In addition, 122 existing sector-specific commitments 14 Members) improved, mostly in business services
Types of Improvement
Inclusion of new categories of natural persons/broadening coverage of definition
Expansion of sectoral coverage/additional sectors to which the service could be provided
Defining/extending the period of stay; providing for renewability of permits
Clarification of the application/reduction of the scope of ENTs/LMTs
Some improvements in the NT column
Some entries in the AC column
State of play of negotiations
Number and quality of offers is thus far unsatisfactory including on Mode 4
New initial offers to be submitted as soon as possible
Revised offers to be submitted by May 2005
CTS to conduct review of progress in negotiations before the 6th Ministerial
Sixth Ministerial Conference to be held in Hong Kong in December 2005.
The Mode 4 debate
Informal discussions concerning Mode 4 issues have been held within the Special Session of the Services Council in the “September cluster”
The work of other Services negotiating bodies (WPDR) is also touching upon issues of relevance to Mode 4
The Mode 4 debate
Some issues currently being discussed:
Categories of natural persons used in GATS schedules of commitments and their consistency with domestic measures
Complementarity of horizontal and sectoral commitments on Mode 4
The need to improve the transparency of Mode 4 commitments and domestic regulatory frameworks
Recognition of qualifications
Administrative procedures relating to visa and work permits
The Way Ahead
The GATS reality as a treaty among governments
Importance of pursuing liberalization of Services trade
Mode 4 – a trade concept part of a much broader picture
The need to bridge the conceptual gap between trade and migration
The need to take account of non-trade policy concerns.
Pursue negotiations on Mode 4 on multiple fronts under the GATS (commitments, additional commitments on transparency and regulatory issues, rules)
THANK YOU
I've not been able to find any recent comments about her H-1B stance. Perhaps that's what you meant -- perhaps actually she doesn't have any plan at all. Or perhaps you have a link with a quote that says she will NOT expand H-1Bs? Love to see it.
And we're told that her vast "experience" is a feature of her campaign (not a bug). So shouldn't we rely on her past "experience" on this issue, particularly since she's been silent now? And here's what she campaigned on in '08:
<snip>
She has lobbied for more “high-skill” visas
During her first campaign, Clinton threw her support behind proposals to lift the annual cap on H1-B visas.
“Let’s face the fact that foreign skilled workers contribute greatly to what we have to do to be innovators,” Clinton said at the event.
It’s worth noting that the limit was temporarily raised twice by Congress in the late 1990’s, first to 115,000 per year and then as high as 195,000. Both times, the increase was the result of legislation signed by then-President Bill Clinton.
</snip>
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/04/13/what-a-hillary-clinton-white-house-could-mean-for-businesses/
Do you honestly think that either Clinton will change, oops, evolve, on this issue? Since IT has been the one industry driving growth in the US (until the H-1Bs kicked in), this "single issue" is critically important to our future growth as a nation as well.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Please provide it because that is not what I have heard is Hillary's stance on H1-B visas.
Please provide a link to support your assertion. Thanks.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)The Fourth Mode of Supply
movement of natural persons
OhioChick
(23,218 posts)"Clinton also backed increasing the number of H-1B visas issued by the United States."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/08/hillary-clinton-on-2016-im-thinking-about-it/
gordyfl
(598 posts)It's difficult to pin down where Hillary stands on this policy. Good link.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
TheFarseer
(9,485 posts)Even the republicans are saying H1B visas are bad in the debates. Hillary is the only candidate left that supports them.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)end, that is an American job serving the American market that has been outsourced to a cheaper labor market.
That's the American standard of living sliding down.
The person on the other end of the line has not caused the injustice. The company that hired her and the politicians who allow that kind of hiring did.
It's time to protect our American standard of living.
It's great to improve the standards of living in other countries, but please not at the cost of clean water and adequate electricity and heat and municipal services in America.
No to the trade agreements.
Yes to jobs and industry in America.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)Philippines when I'm trying to solve a tech issue. "Bob" is just a guy trying to earn a living, and I respect that. But chances are excellent that thanks to corporate greed he is depriving an American of a job, and that is not ok.
Same with the H1-B folks. It isn't their fault that American companies hire them to cut costs. But it's done at the expense of Americans who've paid big money to earn degrees in technical fields only to find themselves competing in the job market against foreign born workers willing to work for less. Simply not fair. A travesty that American politicians allow this to happen at all. But getting their palms greased by greedy corrupt corporations is what politics is really all about these days, and politicians, with few exceptions, are all about the $$$$.
greymouse
(872 posts)They should be almost entirely done away with, imho. They were supposedly designed for people with unique skills, and instead they are displacing qualified U.S. workers all over the 99%.
Hillary, who has along with Bill accumulated over $100 million since they left the White House, and makes 1/4 $mil a pop for speeches to Wall Street, but thinks some workers don't deserve more than $12 an hour, is a plain disaster for working people, from blue collar to middle class.
RepubliCON-Watch
(559 posts)Is the precise reason I don't trust her in fighting to end poverty wages in the US. I don't see her as someone who is willing to push for rights for the working class.
LiberalArkie
(16,422 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)especially if she's a 'negotiating' Ninja 3-D chess master like Obama 
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)was good eough and he got a standing ovation
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)With rents at $2000 per month for a tiny apartment, the wages have to be $15 per hour at least. If you have an apartment with a rent that is grandfathered you may do better than that, and there may be areas of the city in which rents are lower. But I live in a relatively low rent area and $2000 is pretty good for an apartment -- not a large or luxury one. I find it horrifyingly high.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The minimum wage, had it risen with the inflation rates, would be $22 now according to Elizabeth Warren.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)TheFarseer
(9,485 posts)But she will be sure to make a big stink that the republicans wouldn't allow it and we need to contribute more so we can get this done.
greymouse
(872 posts)Hillary doesn't give an f*.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and triangulated and chickenshit. And a a tone deaf clueless attempt to pretend she gives a shit about the poor and middle class.
disgussting
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)
dubyadiprecession
(6,285 posts)the popular vote. 
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Seems it isn't a phenomenon limited by party affiliation.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)a longstanding American tradition, right alongside doing the same stupid thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Americans who shoot themselves in the foot in the voting booth generally get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer for their stupidity.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)to think you or anyone else would start a list of who's on which side. Not even if everyone knew Hillary and Bill were notorious for having lists of people would I suspect you of having such a list.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)But, to your point, Clinton's game plan of low voter turnout is a winning strategy for her so far.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)research about Edward Bernays, AND view "The Century of the Self." The M$M has been working diligently to insure that voters view Hi11ary as the presumptive (read "preferred"
candidate for the Dems. The corporate megalomaniacs are thrilled that so many voters are swallowing their red herrings.
The same is true of Trump. Most of the elderly people for whom I provide non-medical caregiving are completely gaga about Trump, and our local M$M continues to present him in a favorable light. Trump supporters here say he's "strong," and "fearless." They repeat the M$M meme that "he's says what we're thinking." It's disgusting.
So, I'm sure you don't think that Hi11ary is on a par with Trump, but one could say that "people must care about" Trump, he's "ahead in the popular vote."
elleng
(135,864 posts)I'd say MOST don't understand, otherwise why would so many otherwise informed and intelligent people support her? Lots of people here, lots of my friends elsewhere, who think of themselves and otherwise behave like 'liberals.' 
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)http://wikisum.com/w/Converse:_The_nature_of_belief_systems_in_mass_publics
In Brief
A great majority of people neither adhere to a full, complete set of beliefs which produces a clear ideology nor do they have a clear grasp of what ideology is. This is measured by a lack of coherence in responses to open-ended questions. Ideology of elites is not mirrored by the masses and voter revolt to a political party does not reflect ideological shifts.
Converse analyzes open-ended interview questions to measure conceptualization of ideology. He concludes that the liberal-conservative continuum is a high level abstraction not typically used by the man in the street because of response instability and lack of connections made between answers. There is no underlying belief structure for most people, just a bunch of random opinions. Even on highly controversial, well-publicized issues, large portions of the electorate do not have coherent opinions. In fact, many simply answer survey questions as though they are flipping a coin.
Though some political sophisticates do structure their opinions in a larger ideological framework, such structure is rare. This level of political sophistication (one's "level of conceptualization"
is correlated positively with the respondent's level of education, degree of political involvement, and amount of political information.
Key points: Most people do not have strong belief systems; that is, they do not think ideologically. A minority of people have fixed preferences and answer survey questions consistently, but most simply give random answers. Most people do not interpret politics through an ideological lens.
onecaliberal
(35,697 posts)The top 6% of people have done well. When cities across America can't afford clean water, or to educate our children we ALL lose. We cannot continue on this path. The most distressing thing to me is how many supposed democrats have adopted the fuck you I've mine philosophy that republicans have held for years. The media has indeed succeeded in the stupification of a large portion of society
LSparkle
(11,726 posts)I work in an office with people who are getting by OK but have relatively no empathy for those who are struggling. I have several very close friends who still can't get work and are having a hard time -- and I'm thankful for that because otherwise I might be one of those colleagues who are focused only on the next (ridiculously expensive) Apple product and how they can be the first one in the office to have it.
think
(11,641 posts)By Ryan Chittum
JUNE 3, 2011
The Nation has a scoop—or had, actually—from Wikileaks cables showing that the Obama administration pressured Haiti not to raise its minimum wage to 61 cents an hour, or five bucks a day.
The magazine posted the story the other day and has now pulled it, saying it will repost it next Wednesday “To accord with the publishing schedule of Haiti Liberté,” its partner on the piece.
But you can’t stuff the news genie back in the bottle. They already put it in my browser and many others, so I’ll summarize what it said (and I’ll link to it once The Nation republishes it).
Two years ago, Haiti unanimously passed a law sharply raising its minimum wage to 61 cents an hour. That doesn’t sound like much (and it isn’t), but it was two and a half times the then-minimum of 24 cents an hour.
This infuriated contractors for (UPDATE: I originally wrote that the companies themselves did this here, but The Nation wrote that it was contractors for the companies, so I’ve added “contractors for” here) American corporations like Hanes and Levi Strauss that pay Haitians slave wages to sew their clothes. They said they would only fork over a seven-cent-an-hour increase, and they got the State Department involved. The U.S. ambassador put pressure on Haiti’s president, who duly carved out a $3 a day minimum wage for textile companies (the U.S. minimum wage, which itself is very low, works out to $58 a day)...
Read more:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_pulled_scoop_shows_us_booste.php
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html
The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haiti’s business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.
By DEBORAH SONTAG JULY 5, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/americas/earthquake-relief-where-haiti-wasnt-broken.html
CARACOL, Haiti — On the first anniversary of the Jan. 12, 2010, earthquake, in a sleepy corner of northeast Haiti far from the disaster zone, the Haitian government began the process of evicting 366 farmers from a large, fertile tract of land to clear the way for a new industrial park.
The farmers did not understand why the authorities wanted to replace productive agricultural land with factories in a rural country that had trouble feeding itself. But, promised compensation, they did not protest a strange twist of fate that left them displaced by an earthquake that had not affected them. “We watched, voiceless,” Jean-Louis Saint Thomas, an elderly farmer, said. “The government paid us to shut us up.”
In Port-au-Prince, meanwhile, with rubble still clogging the streets, former President Bill Clinton, co-chairman of Haiti’s recovery commission, had celebrated the Caracol Industrial Park as a glimmer of hope during a ceremony cementing an agreement with the anchor tenant — Sae-A Trading, a South Korean clothing manufacturer and major supplier to American retailers like Walmart and Gap Inc.
“I know a couple places in America that would commit mayhem to get 20,000 jobs today,” Mr. Clinton said, referring to the jobs that Sae-A pledged to generate over six years. In exchange, thanks to a deal that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton helped broker, Sae-A looked forward to tax exemptions, duty-free access to the United States, abundant cheap labor, factory sheds, a power plant, a new port and an expatriate residence outfitted with special kimchi refrigerators.
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp
The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levi’s, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.
The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.
The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.
The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179
A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haiti’s garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haiti’s export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohl’s, Levi’s and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haiti’s post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haiti’s minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4
Haiti's Caracol Industrial Park—the U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investment—is systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.
Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.
Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories’ theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.
think
(11,641 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I wonder what her plans are for Cuba.
This is some seriously bad shit.
LonePirate
(13,882 posts)She's advocated for $12 which is a long ways from 50 cents. Of course, why represent facts when hyperbole is so much more effective?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)These deals force us to compete against people making pennies an hour.
That's an actual record of what she did, not a promise two months before an election.
LonePirate
(13,882 posts)Competition implies two or more parties going after the same thing. In reality, one side is not because they have been removed from the game, without any government action whatsoever. We're not competing against any foreign workers because we have no choice in the matter and neither does the government.
You're still using hyperbole and fear, though.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)LonePirate
(13,882 posts)The only thing that will keep jobs here is a complete import ban and guess what happens if we do that? Where will we get the parts for almost everything we make? Where will we obtain significant portions of our food, especially fruits and vegetables during the winter?
I am not saying these deals are even 50% good; but corporations will continue to move jobs overseas even if we repeal or negate every single deal made and refuse to sign any others.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Nobody expects PhDs and other highly skilled workers to work for $8.00 an hour. Thats why they are trying to raise the minimum wage.
But the least developed countries are suspicious of that because they see it as a way that their firms will be kept out. the negotiations have stretched on for two decades.
Paka
(2,760 posts)...that you didn't get to eat fresh in Winter because of that irritating phenomena called "seasons." Guess what, we survived rotating foods and eating seasonally for thousands of years. The stuff flown in at great expense doesn't taste right anyway when it has to be picked long before its time.
As for getting parts for making things, those businesses went overseas at the same time the plants that make them did, all for the corporate advantage of rock bottom wages. When the corporate owners of the US decide to lower costs on basic necessities like food and lodging, we might then accept a lower minimum wage, but I don't see any trend in that direction.
Corporate overlords will only move jobs so long as it is to their advantage and if we continue to make it more profitable for them, the hell with the rest of us.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)that says: Profit and helping people on the same lvl. If its bad for people, then fuck the profit part. If it hurts people to make a profit, that cant fly. IMO its as simple as that.
I've always thought the phrase "free trade" was one of those
slogans meant to make us feel good about the absolute evil
that it actually is.
Fair trade is really the only way to go if we want to retain our
humanity.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)have to allow them to bring the goods they produce at what would be slave wages in the US into our country.
The trade agreements are lowering the standard of living in the US. The Flint water crisis is just a harbinger of the devastation to come if we continue to have our trade agreements.
The Pfizer deal, it's planned merger is typical.
Pfizer wants to merge with a company outside the US in order to avoid paying US taxes.
So what is wrong with that?
Our military budget is huge. We cannot afford our military budget on the taxes that are taken out of the paychecks of America's middle class and working people. When companies like Apple, Pfizer and the many, many other tax-shirkers move or merge or produce in other countries in order to avoid paying American taxes, their fair share, then our tax revenue is reduced and we cannot maintain our current level of military expenditures.
It is amazing to me that the hawks do not understand this.
We cannot raise enough tax revenue from $15 much less $7.50 an hour wages to support our aircraft carriers much less the planes on them or the rest of our huge, bloated military.
Not going to happen.
The cost of the trade agreements in terms of American wages and tax revenues is just enormous.
Don't vote for Hillary. She just does not understand how to think from point A, cause of event A through to effect A. She gets lost somewhere along the way.
Bernie on the other hand is truly brilliant. That is why his vote against the IWR is so important. It is not just that he voted against the war but rather that he had the intelligence and the ability to ask the right questions to think through what the true risks were of voting for that and of going to war in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Bernie's intelligence, reasoning and thought was much, much better than Hillary's.
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #124)
Name removed Message auto-removed
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Is that what it's called now...
LonePirate
(13,882 posts)If that's not hyperbole, it's an outright lie. Take your pick.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Now, see, that's a word I most often associate with Hi11ary.
LonePirate
(13,882 posts)elleng
(135,864 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)The truth must be told!
jalan48
(14,348 posts)Nickel79
(81 posts)but I'm sure HRC supporters will try and spin that one, too.
mckara
(1,708 posts)She's part of the problem, not the solution!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Nickel79
(81 posts)-Pro-war? Not progressive.
-Pro-corporate? Not progressive.
-Pro-outsourcing? Not progressive.
-Pro-private prisons? Not progressive.
-Pro-death penalty? Not progressive.
-Pro-drilling? Not progressive.
-Pro-Defense of Marriage Act? Not progressive.
-Pro-War on Drugs? Not progressive.
-Pro-Citizens United? Not progressive.
-Pro-lobbyists serving as super delegates? Not progressive.
-Anti-Union? Not progressive.
-Anti-veteran? Not progressive.
-Anti-transparency? Not progressive.
-Claims she's a moderate? Not progressive.
Oh, and it's not progressive to topple democratically elected governments and murder activists so our corporations can exploit their natural resources:
"The Clinton-brokered election did indeed install and legitimate a militarized regime based on repression. In the interview, Cáceres says that Clinton’s coup-government, under pressure from Washington, passed terrorist and intelligence laws that criminalized political protest. Cáceres called it 'counterinsurgency,' carried out on behalf of 'international capital'—mostly resource extractors—that has terrorized the population, murdering political activists by the high hundreds. 'Every day,' Cáceres said elsewhere, 'people are killed.'"
http://www.thenation.com/article/chronicle-of-a-honduran-assassination-foretold/
reACTIONary
(5,990 posts)- Winner rather than loser? Not progressive...... Oh,wait!
In order to be progressive you have to make progress. In order to make progress you have to win the election. In order to win the ekection, you have to win the primary . .... HRC looks like very progressive to me.
Springslips
(533 posts)By that logic than Trump is progressive. My advice is to stop trying to be rhetorically clever, it is just not working out for you.
reACTIONary
(5,990 posts).... wining is necessary, not sufficient.
dchill
(40,403 posts)Where is the work product?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)dchill
(40,403 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)They are a danger to the general public: FDR rejected ideologues
dchill
(40,403 posts)If that's the descriptive of someone who will never support a serial liar and committed shape-shifter.
Thank you very much.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)dchill
(40,403 posts)rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)She has been paid handsomely by the big banks that fleeced the American taxpayer then got bailed out because all of their buddies claimed the sky was falling and if they failed our country would fail.
INdemo
(7,020 posts)In 2008 Hillary ran as "its may turn" and then along came Barrack Obama and said not so fast...
Her right wing, center right politics cost her the election in 2008. So along comes 2016 and her attitude "BG its my turn and nothing or no one will take this away from me"
So since 2008 she has lined up every corporate sponsor she could think of and won over most of them from the Corporate Media Networks to All the Big Banks Health Ins.Companies, pharmaceuticals and of course the Godfather of them all GoldmanSachs,Lloyd Blankfein,and every other Wall St Mafia member.
They will allow her rhetoric supporting working class,middle class and some anti-Wall St talk, but will only so far.
You will never hear her talk about too big to fail banks or any real negative statements toward any of her deep pocket donors.
......So I will challenge you to list at least 5 progressive issues that Hillary Clinton stands for and has since her campaign began.You cant and you wont because I've ask this before and you ran away from the question.
By the way her campaign advisers are anything but progressive if that tells you anything..Attack dogs, but not progressive, especially David "Doberman" Brock
mckara
(1,708 posts) Phlem
(6,323 posts)
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Nickel79
(81 posts)That's why she supports outsourcing our jobs, that's why she helped Walmart crush unions, that's why she supports private prisons, and that's why she wants to keep marijuana criminalized (which disproportionately targets minorities).
I'm a minority, my family is minorities, and we aren't buying the crap she's selling.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)out of poverty: Black peoples unemployment went down to single
digits.
Hillary raised taxes on the rich and there was mostly peace.
Sanders has accomplished nothing by just sitting and talking in the Senate:
Infact: The Clintons Adm was one of the most successful in History: FDR
didn't have the success of the Clintons until the war.
Go Hillary:
The former Clinton admin cost this country millions of manufacturing jobs, leading to our present climate of unemployment. Furthermore, monied interests don't donate to candidates who are likely to impose greater taxes and regulations. This is simply common sense.
As for raising taxes, precisely how and when did Hillary do this? Please elaborate.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Nickel79
(81 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)It's always, Clinton bad, bad, bad. It doesn't matter if you know what you're talking about or not.
lewebley3 is correct. The number of manufacturing jobs went up while Bill Clinton was President.
It went from 16.8 million jobs to 17.1 million jobs. It only took a couple minutes to find that out also.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)and the 300,000 they gained starting going down and down and down.
Nickel79
(81 posts)and demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the intricacies regarding American job losses.
I'm not interested in your little Google search, since it doesn't consider long term effects of trade deals, currency manipulation, productivity/output, etc. These issues aren't black and white--there are many variables at play.
While it's true Clinton had a net gain during his presidency, it's also true that bringing China into the WTO was the beginning of the end for American manufacturing. Since 2000 - you know, when Billy was Pres - the trade deficit with China surged by 173%. The US has lost one-third (5.6 million) of our manufacturing jobs, wages have stagnated, and we suffered an economic meltdown forcing further spending on economic stimulus packages. China is buying up product and manipulating currency, and we've done little to stop it.
But sure, just continue to be a Clinton zombie, looking at simple charts and not realizing that presidents can and DO sign agreements that take years - sometimes decades - to realize their full impact, whether positive or negative. HRC is counting on people like you, since you're gullible and easily manipulated. Bernie is right when he says Americans need more affordable access to education, and this discussion is proof positive of that claim.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)He stated that the number of manufacturing jobs went up while Clinton was President ... you stated it was "blatantly false". You were WRONG about that. Of course, you can't just admit it and move on.
He stated a fact, you called him a liar, he was correct. It really doesn't matter how you want to spin it.
Nickel79
(81 posts)and that has been demonstrated repeatedly by irrefutable statistics and studies performed by economists. The only spin here is coming from you and your uneducated pal.
Better luck next time.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)He stated manufacturing jobs increased under Clinton, they did.
You called him a liar, you were wrong.
Now you're trying to say anything to "prove" you're right anyway.
Nothing but spin, spin, spin
Buh-bye
zalinda
(5,621 posts)The Internet was exploding under his Presidency, and it wasn't because of anything he did. Really looking back at what he did while President shows he did a lot of harm to those of us struggling.
Z
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)The Clinton worked hard with their party to get things done,
and they were very successful.
GOP crashed the economy 85,000 factories went over seas under Bush:
the GOP deregulated Wall St: and pulled the cops of the beat at SEC:
and told people at IRS not to investigate people with 100,000 or more.
Nothing lucky: The Clintons made choices and so did the Dem:
When GOP people make choices they always fail (Crash economy and
have to go to war with other peoples children).
zalinda
(5,621 posts)"Finally, but again also just briefly here, we must mention what were likely the two most important actions/disasters of the Clinton administration in the economic realm, each of which has played a direct role in the continuation and indeed strengthening of Reaganomics and the increasing stranglehold that the GOP/Tea Party has over fiscal policy. First was the Repeal of the Depression era Glass-Steagall Act that had separated commercial and investment banking. That repeal of course led directly to the crash of 2008 from which millions of people on this country have never recovered and likely never will.
Then there were NAFTA and the World Trade Organization initiatives, which led to the massive export of US capital to countries with (much) cheaper labor and that "massive whooshing sound" of job outflow that Ross Perot referred to in the 1992 Presidential Election Campaign. One could write a whole column about those two, of course. Let me just say briefly here that they have led invariably to the decline of US manufacturing, the parallel decline of US trade unionism, the creation of the permanent army of the unemployed, the ever-widening gap between the poor and everyone else, the increasingly creative use of the tax code to support the use of overseas so-called "tax shelters" that enable the avoidance of the payment of billions of dollars in taxes, and so on and so forth.
Some legacy, eh? Clinton's has led to long-term negative economic policies on the domestic side, while Bush's has led to long-range disaster on the foreign policy side and in the domestic arena."
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)came to power: the GOP does what is always does crash the economy
and regulate.
When the Clintons left the White House: the country was in fantastic shape:
I know those were the best years of my own small business.
Also, Bush came to power because Sander supporter were backing
Nader: and attack Gore. ( I didn't like Gore, but was loyal Dem to
keep the GOP out) If Gore had won there wouldn't have been a huge
tax cut or war. The GOP are planning a war with Iran now!
If Had Sanders supporters not been ideologies, maybe all the Clinton's
work would have not gone down the drain under Bush.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)What I quoted was from TruthOut.com
You think Sanders supporters voted for Nader? You asked every one of them? Did you also ask why all those Democrats why they voted for Bush in Florida and cost Gore the Presidency? Yeah, more Democrats voted for Bush than Nader.
Yeah, my own small business was doing great under Clinton, until his policies started to have an effect. I started to notice a change right before the election, when companies that normally only sold wholesale started to sell retail too. Screwed up my business, big time.
As for war, especially with Iran, blame Clinton, our then SOS for killing Qaddafi and further destabilizing the middle east.
Ideologues? Sanders supporters are anything but ideologues. Bernie isn't perfect, but at least he is trying to get us more to a standard of living that isn't hand to mouth. We KNOW that Hillary won't get us there, she won't even try. Many more Bernie supporters were on board with Obama and his HOPE campaign and were really bummed out when he didn't even try to make it better for those of us living from one check to another. Hillary to us, is more of the same, and we are dying trying to make it alive another day. I am really starting to think that Hillary supporters are cold hearted fish, who don't give a damn about any one other than themselves.
Clinton gives us dread, Bernie gives us hope.
Z
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and fact-resistent...a requirement to support her.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)The collapse of the stock market was well underway under Clinton's second term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
Salaries of Americans and consumer prices had not exploded yet so it was not as obvious. But by 2007 Bush tax cuts and prices on consumers were outrageously changed. Mostly we had no banking regulations so the Neo-liberals knew that they could extract a bailout from you and me. Why? Bill Clinton had taken down Glass-Steagall in 1998. The Clinton's had learned a lesson from the Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980's. Bill could protect the bankers while Bush extracted the bailout again. Neil Bush had failed at it in the 1980's. New Democrats and Republican appointees in the Obama Administration showed America what being a third way New Democrat was really all about: Putting another Clinton in the Oval Office.
Nickel79
(81 posts)You've summed up my feelings perfectly.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)
Omaha Steve
(103,330 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Bernie supporters are finding a way to sneak threads like these to make the front page. This group should also be barred from making the front page because it attacks a presumptive Democratic nominee.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 19, 2016, 06:33 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Too much of a generalization of all Clinton supporters
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are Hillary DUers in the Socialist-Progressive group. It is not a protected group in that way. As for as the post, Hillary was for TPP before Bernie moved her yet again to the left on an issue. She watched Bill with the help of conservatives pass NAFTA over organized labor's objections. Millions of jobs lost.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm sympathetic because I think the Sanders supporters are using other forums to get their claptrap posted on the front page and greatest page. However, I think it's early to designate Hillary Clinton as the nominee, and so I don't think this can be blocked on those grounds. The OP is utter garbage, but that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is filled with unsubstantiated claims and logical fallacies galore, but I don't think it's a violation of TOS (at least not yet)
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with the alert based on Skinners' OP.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's opinion.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
ejbr
(5,869 posts)There are some supporters who are ignorant of these points of fact and might reconsider their choice with this knowledge. So, no, not every Hillary supporter is privileged and unconcerned about the disastrous trade policies she promotes, they may not be aware of reality
Nickel79
(81 posts)Why doesn't that surprise me? She is no progressive, and neither are her supporters.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)critical of Hillary without bring alerted on. The Hillary lovers apparently have an entire hit squad of alerters sitting around all day with nothing better to do than making asses out of themselves by harassing Bernie supporters with frivolous alerts -- even in the Bernie group which is supposed to be protected. They don't give a fuck because they're so entitled the rules don't apply to them.
This is causing many DUers to flee to another site, taking their monetary contributions with them, where they can freely discuss Hillary's shortcomings without interference. Well done, Hillary folk. You are alienating the opposition you cannot win without. Brilliant.
reACTIONary
(5,990 posts)... the Hillery hit squad gets paid BIG BUCKS by Wall Street ! Now, that's the way to occupy !
Nickel79
(81 posts)which is odd, since they keep swearing they're "progressive." I guess someone forgot to tell them the progressives aren't voting for the monarch. Real progressives embrace democracy, where everyone gets a voice and a vote. It's really sad to see fascism is alive and well.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The Clintons are fighting to be the ones who control the Casino Maison Blanc.
They are fighting against Trump who uses the Know Nothings as a fig leaf, but who really wants to control the Casino Maison Blanc as well.
The largesse! The ability to make wars and invade sovereign states and make fortunes while doing so!
The Clintons and Trump are in the same league, same club.
Bernie is the outlier, who has no plans to distribute money to the top. His plan is for all to benefit, here in the richest country in the history of the world. For ALL to prosper beyond austerity and starvation wages. For ALL children to be fed, and ALL seniors to have their meds, and ALL students to be educated and ALL of us to live in peace.
dchill
(40,403 posts)
SamKnause
(13,792 posts)Tragl1
(104 posts)If you want to not have the middle class die, I wouldn't really support her.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)Why don't Hillary folks understand this?
Nickel79
(81 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)And seems that a group of people on the site agree.
And to think, there will be hundreds of thousands that won't even be earning minimum, once the TPP "Gold Standard" Trade Pact kicks in and they lose the job they have!
Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)Hill says I shouldn't have it. I think all workers should have it. I hope she never gets inside the White House again!
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)is too much for me and you, according to Hill. Imagine the nerve it takes for someone so wealthy to look down their nose and tell working people who keep this country running that a measly $15/hr is too much. She wouldn't bother to pick up $15 off the hood of her limousine but she doesn't want you to have it. She and her do nothing kid Chelsea will never want for anything but she will use her clout to deny working people a decent wage. 
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)up against Trump. We have a good chance with Bernie.
reACTIONary
(5,990 posts).... isn't going to get the chance to compete against drumph-kauff. Honestly, he's not going to do well with the general electorate if he can't do well within the Democratic primary .
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)Hillary has more baggage than a symphony orchestra on a world tour, and don't think for a second Repukes aren't going to dredge up every last morsel of scandal that she's ever been associated with and place it squarely on the plate of every tv viewing, radio listening American. If it's Trump, he'll remind us all everyday that he knows she can be bought because he paid her to attend his wedding.
All they've really got on Bernie is his contention that he's a democratic socialist. And he'll patiently explain for the umpteenth time what that means -- universal healthcare, a living wage, and policies that favor the 99%. He's authentic and he's honest. He's been in the corner of the ordinary citizen for decades and is routinely reelected in Vermont by Dems and R's alike.
The Hillary supporters here are confident she'll win, so confident they don't even think they need Bernie's voters and have no problem hurling insults at us and our candidate. Good luck with that come November.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)establishments R and D. HRC represents the D establishment, there is absolutely no way around that. I've talked with some D's that say, at least now, they will vote for Trump because they want change, even if for the worse, but they want to give some change a chance. The DNC and DWS are using old dog tricks, I think they clueless about the general populace.
Locrian
(4,523 posts)Even if you're a "privileged person" she's not the candidate for you - unless by privileged you mean upper 0.1% who always seem to make out like bandits.
No, anyone that is willing to keep the ponzi / casino / wealth transfer going toward a financial cliff is not (should not) be a friend of even those with money. Peoples retirement, savings, social security, etc - they are ALL targets of the financial industry and they're all looking for laws, loopholes to suck that money out of your pockets.
They've just about finished strip mining the poor for every last $, finding ways to make money off prisons, sickness, etc. Where do people think they'll turn their attention to next?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)in fact it's closer to the original robber barons--petty river magnates with like one knight and twenty tollmasters who'd put a chain across the river and charge toll for something they didn't own, once every mile or so!--than any of the Vanderbilts
apnu
(8,790 posts)Hillary is on the side of Globalization, always has been, always will be. America is an enormous engine for Globalization, its our economy that props the beast up. We are the ones willing to buy all these cheap electronics made over seas, and we are the ones stuturating the world with cheap grain, that drowns out local farms all over the world.
reACTIONary
(5,990 posts)... as a progressive, however, i don't take as much of a negative view of it. As one of the world's most productive and technologically advanced nations, and as the leaders of the free world, globalization is in our interest. And, ultimately, over the long run, in the interest of all humankind.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Profits over sound local economies? No thanks. Real progressives will find ways to advocate for living wages for all, and wage scales that are protected across national boundaries whose economies and employment conditions enable labor exploitation to the locale of weakest regulation and most desperate labor pools.
If globalization was including string labor and environmental policies in its structure, we could have a different conversation. However, labor unions are local, not global, and removing soveriegn barriers to labor exploitation only serves the wealth.
All humankind will perish, not thrive, under this model of globalization. It worships one thing and one thing only: profits. Environmental consequences are considered "externalized", not part of any calculation, just something that randomlay happens, no accountability.
This is a system of madness, and the earth is heating up to disastrous effect because of it.
reACTIONary
(5,990 posts).... without an effectve global economic order that can set and maintain global standards and regulations we will never be able to coordinate and rationalize our economic activity across sovereign states and competing regions.
Without globalization and global leadership, every principality and potentate will view the rest of the world as it's dumping ground.
The United States, as one of the most scientificlly, technologically and economicly advanced nations on earth and the acknowledged leader of those nations, the leader of the free world, is in the unique position to advance the welfare of all humankind, including our own. Through globalization.
SDjack
(1,448 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)she has promised Wall Street she'll fix it by sending jobs to Asia.
senz
(11,945 posts)Otherwise, she's doing deals with the 1%.
That's who she is.
NNadir
(34,584 posts)...on such insane nonsense, it wouldn't be worth 50 cents.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)goes she leaves chaos behind. Dirty tricks and tall tales.. We should know better than blindly support a candidate just because Wall Street tells us to.
NNadir
(34,584 posts)...I ask myself whether the poster is in fact, a Repuke operative.
It would not be inconsistent for a mindless Trump worshiping Repuke to come and complain about "dirty tricks" when performing one.
If this is not the case, it is simply a case of mindlessness.
Serious people are not shooting at each other, but mindless thugs everywhere have never been unable to stop shooting.
I wouldn't consider anyone making such absurd statements as one of "us."
DJ13
(23,671 posts)goes she leaves chaos behind. Dirty tricks and tall tales.. We should know better than blindly support a candidate just because Wall Street tells us to.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Jesus Mary and Joseph the authoritarian thought police seem to be in full swing taking names and calling out the disloyal in a little black book.
Hillary has done NOthing, zero, Nada, for working class Americans and except send jobs overseas, vote to send our sons and daughters fight stupid racist wars and make chaos for everyone with violence and bloodshed in middle East while supporting idiotic tough on crime policies that made things twice as bad as they were for the poor.
She is a super preditor who does not deserve to be President regardless of D or R next to their name.
If you aren't outraged by the Wall Street juggernaught shoving her down our throats consider yourself part of the problem.
Befire u call me or anyine else a Republican learn to understand the seething resentment of millions of people fucked by the Hillary and Bush class and you will understand how the Democratic Party's own arrogance is creating disparity and enabling asshole facists like Trump.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)it should be at $21 an hour maybe more now. $15 is the only compromise one could get thru. And Hillary isn't even for the $15 an hour. Hope inflation stays the same because if it doesn't economy is gonna tank.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)where they'll be replaced by someone in or from India.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)(pulling the plug...)
move along, there's nothing to see here
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)I'm responsible for the contents of the post.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)"tamp, tamp, tamp, tamp...."
(wiping hands)
I think that oughta do it.
redstatebluegirl
(12,474 posts)To even suggest that I feel that way is insulting. Almost as insulting as saying I am stupid for supporting Hillary. I am not! I have supported labor unions for years, I have family members who have been in union management for years. I have a right to support the candidate I feel can do the best job for our country. Guess what, i will support Bernie if he is the nominee, happily by the way. I just feel that Hillary matches my values best. I am not a crook or anything like that, any more tan a Bernie supporter is unrealistic. we both are Democrats, I hope, and are fighting for the nomination. The proof of the pudding will be seeing how many of the supporters on either side will back the nominee whomever that is. If we don't we get Trump or Cruz. Ponder that for a moment.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)
debunction.junction
(127 posts)As my mother always said since Reagan, "If you're not outraged, you are not paying attention."
Sad thing is, a huge portion of the population does not want to know.
All of this hero worship and the facts be damned is pathetic.
debunction.junction
(127 posts)The only time Hillary gives a damn about the 99% is at election time when she blows smoke up your ass to get your vote.
You can't blame her for trying, that's who she is. How can so many swallow her crap?
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)do not worry themselves about people like you and me...they enjoy socializing with their mega-rich friends...those people who make so many millions from "trade" agreements like NAFTA...
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,932 posts)THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SINCE 1969 AND MORE THAN 20 MILLION NEW JOBS. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected President, the American economy was barely creating jobs, wages were stagnant, and the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent. His bold, three-part economic strategy focused on three objectives: fiscal discipline, investing in education, health care, science and technology, and opening foreign markets. Today’s jobs release provides more evidence that this strategy is working:
The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969. The unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in December bringing the average unemployment rate for 1999 to 4.2 percent -- the lowest since 1969. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row. It has remained below 5 percent for 30 months in a row. For women the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent -- the lowest since 1953.
African American and Hispanic Unemployment Rates Were the Lowest on Record in 1999. The unemployment rate for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 8.0 percent in 1999 – the lowest rate on record. The unemployment rate for Hispanics has fallen from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.4 percent in 1999 -- the lowest rate on record.
20.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration. Since 1993, the economy has added 20.4 million new jobs. That’s the most jobs ever created under a single Administration – and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 245,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.
92 Percent -- 18.8 Million -- of the New Jobs Have Been Created in the Private Sector. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the private sector of the economy has added 18.5 million new jobs. That is 92 percent of the 20.4 million new jobs – the highest percentage since Harry S. Truman was President and presiding over the post-World War II demobilization.
Most Rapid Growth in Construction Jobs In 50 Years. After losing 662,000 jobs in construction during the previous four years, 1.9 million new construction jobs have been added during the Clinton-Gore years -- that’s a faster annual rate (5.1 percent) than any other Administration since Harry S. Truman was President.
Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Two Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. This marks the fourth consecutive year of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the early 1970s. Under President Clinton, real wages are up 6.5 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years. Real wage growth in 1998 reached 2.6 percent -- the largest increase since 1972.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1.html
"It is a class war" Really? For many of us, the Clinton years were a big move forward. I didn't see the steel mills and factories close en masse in PA in the Clinton years -- I saw that happen under Ronald Reagan.
CaptainTruth
(7,187 posts)Have you (or anyone else here, pls chime in) been to the places in the world where workers take those 50 cent/hour jobs?
I have. I used to inspect CE factories in Asia & I had experiences in China I'll never forget. After an 8 hr boat ride up a river from Hong Kong I took a 10-hr bumpy ride on dirt roads into the heart of China. I didn't see another vehicle the whole way & I realized if we crashed we probably wouldn't be found for days. What was most profound, & what I'll never forget, is what I saw out the window for much of the ride: Thousands of people living in "lean-to" "shacks" made from scrap lumber & whatever else they could find, like corrugated metal, plywood, & cardboard. None of them had electricity, running water, sewer service or gas. But what still haunts me to this day is the children. Households threw their garbage out front (no garbage pickup here) so every "house" (aka shack made from trash) had a big garbage pile in front. And on that pile the naked toddlers (children) competed with the dogs & the pigs & the rats to pick out scraps of food to eat.
Yes. Seriously. Literally. Imagine looking out the window & watching THAT go by for 6-7 hours. I'll never forget it.
And guess what? These people were HAPPY AS HELL when a factory was built out in their corner of the jungle & they could WORK for 50 cents/hour because there were literally no other jobs available. And I bought a delicious breakfast for 2 for 58 cents US (all the dim sum you could eat plus tea) so that wage wasn't bad at all given their situation & local prices. Plus, when factories are built in these remote areas it means things like electricity, water, sewer lines, gas, & phone lines (& cell towers) come to those areas too, & dirt roads get paved, which benefits all the residents.
Now, NONE of that is Hillary's "fault." It's not Bernie's "fault." It's not the "fault" of anyone in America. It's REALITY. Go there & see for yourself. It will happen no matter what we do. The question is, what do we do in response? You imply it's bad for American workers to compete for those jobs. So you're basically saying we should allow jobs to pour overseas (to places where these conditions exist) without trying to compete for them?
How is that a position that supports the American worker? These jobs will exist no matter what we do, the question is, do we compete for them or not?
Hulk
(6,699 posts)I've been asked to be on jury duty for articles similar to this. Feelings get hurt because we aren't all going to step in line and follow behind HRC as Sanders is muffled and ignored by the media and the DNC. It's amazing to see how many comments are stiffled because of "hurtful" tone postings to her.
BEWARE! Even on DU the mufflers are alive and well.
ReRe
(10,737 posts)That's right. If we knew even a fraction of what she did for those 4 yrs as SOS we would be appalled.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Beautiful form. Nice execution. Obviously well practiced.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Nixon in her domestic agenda but still better than Trump, Cruz or Kasich.
Response to Vote2016 (Reply #175)
Name removed Message auto-removed
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Clinton is a candidate for privileged people who want American workers to compete for 50¢ an hour [View all]