Jump to content

Hillary and mininum wage.


Recommended Posts

The minimum wage is commonly used to distinguish the two candidates, the premise being that Trump opposes raising the wage, or even its existence, most of the time, and Clinton supports raising it, depending on what’s popular. As Secretary of State, however, she fought a minimum wage raise in Haiti from $0.22 per hour to $0.61 per hour.

Haitian workers had long been fighting for wage hikes; it was estimated in 2008 that daily basic living expenses for a three-person family add up to $13.75. In 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a measure raising the wage to 62 cents per hour, $5 per day. But textile factory owners refused, conceding only a 9 cent raise to $0.31 cents per hour, $3 per day. After all, these were the factories in which American brands like Dockers, Nautica, and Hanes are made, and free trade deals are supposed to keep costs down. (Yes, your underwear was made by someone, likely a woman, whose daily pay might be less than what you spent on a gallon of gas.)

With American business costs at stake, the US Embassy, a branch of the State Department, backed the factory owners in this struggle and pressured the Haitian President, René Préval, who eventually negotiated the $5 per day wage for all industries except textile which maintained the $3 per day wage. A majority of private sector businesses in Haiti supported the $5 wage, but the American Embassy remained dissatisfied. Aside from managing the principle force suppressing the Haiti wage hike, the State Department, Secretary Clinton and her husband also run a “charitable organization,” whose donors include Walton Family Foundation, Inc., The Walmart Foundation, and Walmart, a business which?—?in case you didn’t connect the dots?—?has a stake in keeping Hanes’s costs down.

This wasn’t even meant to be about corruption, nor was it very heavily researched. The Clinton Foundation also boasts generous donations from Bank of America, Gap, Exxonmobil, Saudi Arabia, Humana Inc., Goldman Sachs (obviously), even Hewlett-Packard; and it’s all in plain sight. Is that the genius of it all? This is what we mean when we say her ties to Wall Street, the Fossil Fuel industry, and other lobbying groups are troubling?—?whether there’s a direct contribution to her campaigns or not, Mrs. Clinton and her husband don’t know anything other than corporatism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

WTF?

Its got some teeth.  Decisions come from the top MC.   Reality is if politifact and snoops are not flatly claiming this as false there is plenty of truth to it.  

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/apr/21/lee-camp/did-hillary-clintons-state-department-help-suppres/

Camp said, "In 2009 ... Hillary Clinton was at the State Dept working with U.S. corporations to pressure Haiti not to raise the minimum wage to 61 cents an hour from 24 cents."

Leaked cables show that the U.S. Embassy in Haiti opposed the minimum wage hike that the Haitian parliament passed in 2009, and discussed the issue with business groups.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-suppressed-haitis-minimum-wage/

So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests).  It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Yes I have said many times Clinton is a shill for Corporate America.

 

Yet you beleive she's for getting corporate money out of politics? :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mainecat said:

Yes I have said many times Clinton is a shill for Corporate America.

 

 

2 minutes ago, GGNHL said:

Yet you beleive she's for getting corporate money out of politics? :dunno:

Yet, he will still vote for her.  Ethics and morals be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 hour ago, GGNHL said:

Yet you beleive she's for getting corporate money out of politics? :dunno:

 

8 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

She said she would so lets see. I wont hold my breath

She supports overturning CU.. How many R's is Junior and the rest of the Mouthbreathers gonna support that will filibuster the legislation to do so?  Then blame Hillary who will never have a chance to sign it?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

 

She supports overturning CU.. How many R's is Junior and the rest of the Mouthbreathers gonna support that will filibuster the legislation to do so?  Then blame Hillary who will never have a chance to sign it?  

Imagine that, a democrat that hates free speech.  DNC emails!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, racer254 said:

Imagine that, a democrat that hates free speech.  DNC emails!

Do you want an oligarchy or not?  Is money speech and are corporations people?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Do you want an oligarchy or not?  Is money speech and are corporations people?  

We already have an oligarchy and that cunt you support is part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, snoughnut said:

We already have an oligarchy and that cunt you support is part of it.

Plays by the rules.  Now answer the question and think about the scenario you support along with the rest of the Mouth breathers  She wants CU overturned - are you going to support her with electing like minded reps to do so.....or:

You're dumb, dishonest, or both :bc: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
59 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

 

She supports overturning CU.. How many R's is Junior and the rest of the Mouthbreathers gonna support that will filibuster the legislation to do so?  Then blame Hillary who will never have a chance to sign it?  

If she get's elected and there's only one thing she accomplishes, I hope this is it. But you, MC and I all know this to be more about votes then anything. Let's be honest here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

The real proof is if the legislation can make it to a presidents desk....and she will sign it if it does....now how many of you are going to support Congressional candidates who vouch to support legislation to overturn it?  What's Rump's position of CU and is he taking donations? :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

wtf is cu?

Supreme court case between a citizens group who made a anti Hillary film and the FEC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Allows groups to pool money together for elections.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

:news:

The 2016 Republican platform, released last week, asked for five new constitutional amendments: a right to life amendment, a balanced budget amendment, a congressional term-limits amendment, an amendment to let states define marriage, and an amendment to allow parents to direct their children’s education.

The Democrats’ platform, which was drafted earlier in the month in Florida, requests two new constitutional amendments.

The first request is a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo rulings on campaign financing.

“We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency—by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders,” the platform reads.

The other request is an amendment that was actually first proposed at a political convention by the Republican Party in 1940: the Equal Rights Amendment.

“After 240 years, we will 19 finally enshrine the rights of women in the Constitution by passing the Equal Rights Amendment. And we will urge U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,” the platform reads.

The Democratic platform also opposes the Republican proposed right to live amendment.

“We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, and will protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion …,” it reads.

It also advocates statehood for the District of Columbia, which the Republicans believe should not be achieved through a constitutional amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

oh :bc:

Lots of people on here misinterpret what that case was about.   Ron Paul has it right.

Commenting on the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, in 2010 Paul said, "You should never restrict lobbying because the Constitution is rather clear about the people being allowed to petition Congress, and whether you're an individual or you belong to a [special interest group] ... you should be allowed to do that."[108] He argues that corporations should be able to spend their money in any way that they want.[108] He also opposes taxpayer-funded public campaign financing.[109]

Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[110][111] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."[109]

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Lots of people on here misinterpret what that case was about.   Ron Paul has it right.

Commenting on the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, in 2010 Paul said, "You should never restrict lobbying because the Constitution is rather clear about the people being allowed to petition Congress, and whether you're an individual or you belong to a [special interest group] ... you should be allowed to do that."[108] He argues that corporations should be able to spend their money in any way that they want.[108] He also opposes taxpayer-funded public campaign financing.[109]

Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[110][111] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."[109]

Yes sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...