- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Blame the Democrats for NAFTA

Published: Sun, October 4, 2009 @ 12:00 a.m.

Blame the Democrats for NAFTA


Let me remind David Betras, the Mahoning County Democratic Party chairman, that former Republican congressman John Kasich did not sign NAFTA and GATT into law. It was Bill Clinton, who at the time of the NAFTA signing had Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.

Also, if the Democrats are so opposed to “Free Trade” then why, in over eight months, haven‘t they offered a bill to restrict or end these trade policies? The president is a Democrat and they have large majorities in both the House and Senate. They could write, sponsor, and pass a bill with no real opposition if democrats are truly against these trade agreements.




1cambridge(3031 comments)posted 5 years ago

Gary....NAFTA was a trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico that was negotiated by George Bush the father. It was signed under Clinton because Bush lost the election. It was a done deal before Clinton was elected.

During the Clinton administration 22,000,000 jobs were created.

During the George W. Bush administration only 5,000,000 jobs were created and millions moved to China.

Suggest removal:

2Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

During the short period that Obama has been in office millions of jobs have been lost . Millions more will be lost if he realizes his plan to decimate the coal industry . We have gone from a downhill slide to a freefall !

Suggest removal:

3redvert(2075 comments)posted 5 years ago

cambridge, were all those jobs and the hugh surplus created because of the democratically* controlled Congress during the last 6 years of the Clinton administration? You probably forgot to mention that. Just curious.

Suggest removal:

4redvert(2075 comments)posted 5 years ago

By the way, yes NAFTA was signed during the Clinton administration but it had the approval of all the living former presidents at the time. That should of told us that we were gonna get screwed!

Suggest removal:

5cambridge(3031 comments)posted 5 years ago

Since the Clinton and Bush administrations both had six years of a Republican controlled congress I guess the difference's would be which party was in the White House, 17,000,000 jobs and we weren't on the verge of the next great depression at the end of Clinton's eight years like we were at the end of Bush's.

It's funny that because Obama hasn't fixed in eight months what it took Bush eight years to screw up he is considered a failure by some.

Suggest removal:

6DoctorGonzo(728 comments)posted 5 years ago

"We will, indeed, have much room for free debate during
this controversy. That it is in our nation's best interest to ratify
and pass this treaty cannot be left to doubt. The person who is
leading the fight and who has marshaled support in both parties is the
person it is my pleasure to introduce now. The President of the
United States, Bill Clinton. (Applause.) "

- This is an excerpt from the gathering in the East Room of the White House, September 14, 1993. Clinton had 9 months to mull over this agreement before HE signed it. HE is the one who put ink to paper, not Carter, Ford, or Bush who were all present. To argue that he is not the main one at fault for the outcomes is a loser.

- As an aside, it doen't matter how long we give Obamam to fix the financial crisis. When you double the national debt, that already stood at an all time high, in your first four months, it is over. Plain and simple. There is no feasible way the US can ever climb out of what has been done. It would take decades upon decades to get back to even, and we don't have anywhere near the steam to do it. So b*tch about what happened the previous 8 years or what has happened in the last 9 months, it doesn't matter. The economic future of the US is poor to say the least. Anybody with any sense can see that.

Suggest removal:

7redvert(2075 comments)posted 5 years ago

To Clinton's credit, he understood that he needed to work with congress to get the things he wanted and it worked very well for the American people. Always liked to have the executive and the congressional branches under different control. I think that either party with too much power is a bad thing. I think in the next three years there will be a continued abuse of power and the American taxpayers, both Republicans and Democrats (and I emphasize TAX PAYERS) will pay the price. Nothing like checks and balances. Just my opinion!

Suggest removal:

8cambridge(3031 comments)posted 5 years ago

Anyone who thinks a trade deal signed 16 years ago between the US, Canada and Mexico is responsible for today's economy is a loser.

There was nothing in that agreement that provided tax breaks for companies that moved to China. The job numbers and the outcome of each administrations economy speak for themselves.

Suggest removal:

9Search4Answers(726 comments)posted 5 years ago

I'm not defending the specifics of NAFTA (why do we have to be in agreements?) but free trade is good for society overall. Since the 2nd World War world consumption is up something like 20 times while production is only up 6 times (can't find a link, learned that way back in micro econ). Free trade is about producing more with less which benefits both sides of the aisle.

Protectionism has proven to be bad for an economy.

Suggest removal:

10Search4Answers(726 comments)posted 5 years ago

cambridge, you're completely right; NAFTA has absolutely nothing to do with today's economic issues/crisis. I know your favorite economist Krugman supports NAFTA.

The only protectionist policy I could support would be to prevent foreign companies from dumping. In the case of dumping it is anticompetitive to a market so that's a no brainer.

Anyone who is trying to push protectionism most likely has no idea what they are talking about.

Suggest removal:

11DoctorGonzo(728 comments)posted 5 years ago

You dumb sh*t. I never said anything about NAFTA causing the problems today. I simply said Clinton signed it and he is the holder of any onus that may stem from it. I said the argument against that is a loser, but you immediately call me a loser, because that is all you know. Names, like a little kid who got teased too much. What did you do marry ugly? No substance, no understanding, just links to media websites and name calling when real facts are presented.

You don't understand much about anything because you wear blinders that are so one sided you really believe your team is the best. You obviously have no understanding of government, the economy, etc.
The jobs were leaving far before any tax breaks were offered (tax breaks voted in by tour team too, you stupid sh*t) because the trade deficit has been present for decades.

Please explain to me how doubling the national debt from "largest all-time" to "What the Hell?" will help us. Tell me. No links to any "media" outlets either. Show me you understand anything you whimper about. Bush this, Bush that. The last 8 years this. Obama can do no wrong. That's it. Simple drivel from a hack. Tell me how doubling the national debt in 3 months will help us. Tell me your grandiose story about how your team is so good and everybody else is stupid, lying, dirty, cheaters who don't love one another. Make up another cute moniker for me to amuse the few synapses you have. Tell me how slick willy was your demi-god and dubya is satan.
Most of all keep believing you are better than me, and call me names, make fun of what you don't comprehend, and keep the posts coming. You stupid ass.

Suggest removal:

12Search4Answers(726 comments)posted 5 years ago

Hope, I'm refering to the fact that free trade increases consumer surplus through utilizing comparative advantages.... hence it takes less resources yet you produce more.

Our trade deficits with China are primarily caused through China overvaluing our currency (They had pegged it for years and are now letting it slowly float).

This letter was written to do nothing more than point fingers and play political games.

Suggest removal:

13cambridge(3031 comments)posted 5 years ago

Somebody needs a nap. Before you accuse anyone else of calling people names you should go back and reread some of your posts. You can start with the last one.

The reason I include a link to my post is to offer a source that helped me form my opinion. I guess I could just make things up and claim anyone that doesn't agree with me is a dumb sh*t, one sided, married ugly, no substance, no understanding, stupid ass. Then I'd be just like Doctor Bozo.

Suggest removal:

14Search4Answers(726 comments)posted 5 years ago

It's politically a lot safer to blame trade deficits on free trade when the real problem is with our currency. You won't hear a single politician talk about 3rd rail issues like the dollar.

We'll fight over whether countries can sell their goods across boards instead of realizing the problem is that our government has been destroying our dollar for too long and China played that like a fiddle.

Suggest removal:

15rocky14(710 comments)posted 5 years ago

Search4Answears---it's not free trade we need---all we need is FAIR TRADE
Why is it that South Korea can put $1300 tariff on cars coming into their country---but we can't?

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport