Liberals seem to forget about the job-killing bill NAFTA

Aikidockd DETROIT · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:18 pm

Liberals seem to forget about the job-killing bill NAFTA which was signed back in the late '90s by Clinton. Also liberals seem to forget that Obama has increased the deficit more than any other president in U.S. history and he hasn't even finished his first term!!!

Sparky · **Joined:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:35 am **Posts:** 1100

Quote:

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Amer ... tification

Oops. :rollin

Wow.
Try not to choke on that koolaid son. :lol

Aikidockd DETROIT · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:31 pm

Funny how when the debt stabilized, there was a REPUBLICAN controlled congress, yet the democrat controlled congress seemed to increase the debt hmmmm. :lol:

Lemontin · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:37 pm

Not that I'd defend anyone on NAFTA, Clinton did sign it into LAW, and I know it's painful for conservatives to say, but say it.. who signed it first?

Just say it... it was BUSH. And personally I don't care if my brother was the one who signed it. It sucks.

Neckbeard · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:41 pm

Late 1990'? Wut?

What I don't get is that NAFTA was a conservative dream. Mostly republicans voted for it in the house and senate. Also, didn't Clinton sign welfare reform, march into Somolia, Kosovo, run bombings on Iraq? Dude's a republican dream wearing a blue cape. Other than getting a beejer, what are some of the H*** liberal policies which Clinton got through that were abject failures? Seems that him going with what republicans wanted from him were the things that really hamstrung us.

Neckbeard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:07 am

Aikidockd DETROIT wrote:

Funny how when the debt stabilized, there was a REPUBLICAN controlled congress, yet the democrat controlled congress seemed to increase the debt hmmmm. :lol:

Nice graph... now lets talk about the numbers behind it. When do we see the greatest increase? From 2000 to today we see an increase from $5.8T to about $16.2T. $11.4T is a lot of money! Especially to run up in a 12 year period. Now... How did we get there? Well... We had 2 wars off the books ($1.326T, http://costofwar.com/en/), we gave incredibly inefficient tax cuts which did the exact opposite of what they were developed to do ($2.5T, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26314.html), we had the creation of the unfunded Medicare Part D ($15B/year, est. $75B cum, http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index. ... &Itemid=66). These were all conservative plans, almost $4T from these three conservative wet dreams, and that doesn't include the new "homeland security" apparatus we have installed. Can't find figures on it but if we look at the direction of our defense spending from post-cold war to 9/11 to today I am sure we would see a number with a T in it after removing the cost centric to the gruesome twosome in the Middle East. Then we had the economic collapse brought to us in part by that AWESOME deregulation and stripping of rules from the finance industry. When you have fixed, mandatory expensesand you pursue policies which directly or indirectly effect cash inflows negatively, you must assume debt. When you have a severe recession/depression you must spend on the general welfare. Since republican policies brought us to that point, why would we not lay the cost at their feet when understanding the debt? Republican leadership harnessed us with expenses and no way to pay for them. Therefore, we have an ever increasing debt. Why would you run 2 wars and cut taxes? War's not free...

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1455

Neckbeard wrote:

Late 1990'? Wut?

What I don't get is that NAFTA was a conservative dream. Mostly republicans voted for it in the house and senate. Also, didn't Clinton sign welfare reform, march into Somolia, Kosovo, run bombings on Iraq? Dude's a republican dream wearing a blue cape. Other than getting a beejer, what are some of the H*** liberal policies which Clinton got through that were abject failures? Seems that him going with what republicans wanted from him were the things that really hamstrung us.

Wasn't the economic growth during the Clinton years a thing of beauty? Glad to see you give his willingness to go with what the conservatives wanted credit.

Neckbeard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:00 am

Are we agreeing that higher taxes on individuals and corporations, increased taxes for SS and MEDI such as what we got with the omnibus budget reconciliation act along with a technological boom is what can set us on the right track? Those sound sort of like liberal policies... You can keep Gramm-Leach-Bliley and all that dereg mess that influences boom and bust economics.

Fire Chief · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:01 am

Liberals seem to forget about the job-killing bill NAFTA??? Apparently you failed to understand that Republicans had plenty of power from 2001 to 2006 to make this go away and guess what? They didn't

1986

U.S. President George H. W. Bush

Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch. Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

The proposed Canada-U.S.trade agreement had been very controversial and divisive in Canada, and the 1988 Canadian election was fought almost exclusively on that issue. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but the split caused more seats in parliament to be won by the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and were easily able to pass the Canada-US FTA and NAFTA bills. However, Mulroney himself had become deeply unpopular and resigned on June 25, 1993. He was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell, who then led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal party under Jean Chrétien had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA but broke his promise and negotiated two supplemental agreements with the new US president.

In the US, Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term

ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required US partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included

132 Republicans

and

102 Democrats

NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were

34 Republicans

and

27 Democrats

Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994. Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."

Yeah, blame Democrats. Since the signing of the bill, the Republicans have controlled the House and had enough clout in the Senate to overturn this treaty that kills jobs, and you guys haven't done shit.

Fire Chief · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:03 am

Bryce wrote:

Wasn't the economic growth during the Clinton years a thing of beauty? Glad to see you give his willingness to go with what the conservatives wanted credit.

Worked out real good when Republicans pretty much controlled all three houses in the 2K's.

home skillet · **Joined:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:28 pm **Posts:** 20

Liberals seem to forget about the job-killing bill NAFTA

Who is online