NAFTA - wtf?

[happythoughts 0]

"Who is for" and "who is against" are becoming very difficult things to figure out.

The "Co-Presidents" were the architects of NAFTA.
Running around loudly proclaiming the benefits of free trade. Reps were against it.

Now, the Dems are in Ohio and loudly protesting NAFTA to the locals. The loss of 250,000 manufacturing jobs and the slow death of Toledo.

Bush and McCain have shown support for free trade agreements.

Any argument against "free trade" by HC is bizarre, considering the original creation of NAFTA. However, acknowledging that NAFTA sucks, she is now the co-chairman of the Indian Caucus in the Senate and loudly proclaims her support for free trade with India.

In 2000, President Clinton promoted granting
Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China.
Before that, the US trade deficit with China was $85 B, last year it was $256 B.

Before NAFTA, the United States had a slight trade surplus with Mexico, but by the end of 2007, the annual trade deficit was $74 B.

So, the Rep were against it, but are now for it.
The Dems are supporting the next round of these free trade agreements, while, at the same time, screaming about the damage of the old ones that they created.

According to these figures, these agreements have been shown to increase deficits.
These programs also are bad for the environment because other countries are not being held to the same environmental standards that US companies are.

wtf?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

"Who is for" and "who is against" are becoming very difficult things to figure out.

The "Co-Presidents" were the architects of NAFTA.
Running around loudly proclaiming the benefits of free trade. Reps were against it.

wtf?

WTF indeed. NAFTA was negotiated by the G.H.W. BUSH (41) administration, signed by BUSH on Dec 17, 1992, and pushed hard by the GOP congress. House and Senate ratification came during Clinton's watch.

The House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against), and the Senate passed it on November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting).

Looks to me like the GOP were MUCH more pro-NAFTA than the Dems.


Not to let mere FACTS get in the way of your opinions, Bill.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

"

In 2000, President Clinton promoted granting
Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China.
Before that, the US trade deficit with China was $85 B, last year it was $256 B.

wtf?

More revisionist history, Bill?
"We welcome the determination you made today to recommend the renewal of MFN trade status for China, and we pledge to work with you in a bipartisan manner to preserve our longstanding policy of commercial and diplomatic engagement with the Chinese. Seeking to keep China open to the West has proven to be the most effective way to advance our democratic values in this turbulent region of the world -- a policy we are committed to maintaining." Newt Gingrich (GOP)

GWB signed NTR (MFN) status renewal for China on June1, 2001.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gene03 0]

My best guess is it might be an election year or something like that.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC.

The Clintons were great supporters of NAFTA.
The environmental and labor sections were finalized by Clinton.

The labor sections seem to have provided some value-added. Total effect unknown.

The environmental standards were just "do whatever is currently legal in your country". I don't see a point.

As mentioned earlier, the current Bush encourages free trade also. That seems consistent, but a bad idea.
Bush also supports free trade with India.

HC is now against NAFTA. At the same time, she is head of the caucus to promote free trade with India.
So, she is against her former view, which is actually her current view.

[kallend 2,150]

Lets' try again:

NAFTA, negotiated and signed by Pres. G.H.W. Bush (GOP)

Votes on NAFTA:

House
GOP for 132 GOP against 43
Dem for 102 Dem against 156

Senate
GOP for 34 GOP against 10
Dem for 27 Dem against 28


Now are you going tell us again that the Dems were in favor of NAFTA and the GOP against?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[happythoughts 0]

Clinton CNN 2000

Quote

Clinton signs China trade bill

October 10, 2000
Web posted at: 6:28 p.m. EDT (2228 GMT)

By Matt Smith/CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton closed years of political and economic debate Tuesday, and sealed a major achievement of his administration by signing a bill extending permanent, normal trade status to China.

click

This link provides the oddest ironies of the whole deal.

Quote

02/07/00 Vol. 14 No. 21

Industry Backs Clinton’s Push for Permanent Trade Status with China

The high-technology industry is rallying behind President Clinton’s recent vow to persuade Congress to grant extension of permanent normal trade relations status with China.

Quote

The push for approval in the Republican-led Congress could continue because many lawmakers are reluctant to support the move in light of China’s human rights violations and the lawmakers’ concerns about national security.

So... Clinton was leading a push for approval of Rep legislation. That was opposed by...

Quote

Democratic opponents include Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Calif.

This is the worst part.

Quote

Clinton also touted the influence of the IT industry in propelling science and engineering innovations and bolstering the nation’s prosperity.

“Information technology alone now accounts for a third of our economic growth, with jobs that pay almost 80 percent above the private-sector average,” Clinton said.

...now his wife is a supporter of outsourcing to India.
Her husband admits that IT pays almost 80% over the average.

She can apologize later for her support of this also.

Anyway, the original point is how confusing that all the support... rebuttal... non-support... denial... has become.

The Clintons seemed to support all the Rep platforms, but recant their support now... while continuing that support.

Politics.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Clinton signs China trade bill

October 10, 2000
Web posted at: 6:28 p.m. EDT (2228 GMT)

By Matt Smith/CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton closed years of political and economic debate Tuesday, and sealed a major achievement of his administration by signing a bill extending permanent, normal trade status to China.

You understand that a lame duck President in the minority party can't sign anything a month before the election that the majority party doesn't want, right?

The GOP had to pass such a bill, and in the midst of the closest election in decades, they wouldn't do it if it was something the Democrats would benefit politically from.

• Quote

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

You understand that a lame duck President in the minority party can't sign anything a month before the election that the majority party doesn't want, right?

Not even pardons?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Clinton CNN 2000

.

Bush (41) signed one, Bush (43) signed one. Anyway, since when did China belong to NAFTA (see YOUR thread title).

I think it's good when politicians admit their mistakes. If George Bush could have done it, we wouldn't imminently be approaching the 4,000th US casualty in Iraq, and we wouldn't have such a huge deficit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

NAFTA's a good thing and will continue to be a good thing...a bit of US leadership at the Doha round of the GATT would be a good thing as well. Dem's will blast NAFTA because it's something a large chunk of their ignorant voting base will be able to recognize from recent history. They might make some mileage on it - might not. They SHOULD have been screaming bloody murder about the GWB lack of interest/leadership at the DOHA round, but that wouldn't earn them points with their base, most of whom couldn't even find Doha on a map. NAFTA views from either party shouldn't affect swing voters much, I would think.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Armour666 0]

Quote

"Who is for" and "who is against" are becoming very difficult things to figure out.

The "Co-Presidents" were the architects of NAFTA.
Running around loudly proclaiming the benefits of free trade. Reps were against it.

Now, the Dems are in Ohio and loudly protesting NAFTA to the locals. The loss of 250,000 manufacturing jobs and the slow death of Toledo.

Bush and McCain have shown support for free trade agreements.

Any argument against "free trade" by HC is bizarre, considering the original creation of NAFTA. However, acknowledging that NAFTA sucks, she is now the co-chairman of the Indian Caucus in the Senate and loudly proclaims her support for free trade with India.

In 2000, President Clinton promoted granting
Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China.
Before that, the US trade deficit with China was $85 B, last year it was $256 B.

Before NAFTA, the United States had a slight trade surplus with Mexico, but by the end of 2007, the annual trade deficit was $74 B.

So, the Rep were against it, but are now for it.
The Dems are supporting the next round of these free trade agreements, while, at the same time, screaming about the damage of the old ones that they created.

According to these figures, these agreements have been shown to increase deficits.
These programs also are bad for the environment because other countries are not being held to the same environmental standards that US companies are.

wtf?

Good thing they look at the big picture as the job loss in OHIO didn't go to Mexico or Canada but over seas so NAFTA had no bearing on many of the job loss.

Now if they want to re-open or cancle NAFTA that would work extreamy well for the OIL and gas folks out west as prices would be able to be raised considerably since we export a lot to the US market. some times they need to look closer and be carefull of what they wish for.

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."