HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A Majority of Americans B...

Mon May 11, 2015, 11:59 AM

 

A Majority of Americans Born Before 1974 are to Blame for Our Bad Trade Agreements

In 1992, I was forty years old. I worked day and night got Rich Gephart in the Democratic Primaries for President. He was 100% against NAFTA, Bill Clinton was for it. I thought at the time, that these trade agreements would destroy the American Economy. I believed then, and continue to believe, "Build American, Buy American". In the general election I voted for Ross Perot. I only agreed with him on one issue, NAFTA. I thought it was that important. I wish my candidate had won the Primaries, or the General Election. Or, I wish I was wrong about NAFTA and free trade. But, alas, neither happened.


Every American 18 years old and older, voted (or could have voted) in that election. Bill Clinton didn't lie. He said exactly where he stood, for "free trade" and he supported NAFTA. Every voting age American had the opportunity to stop free trade in its tracks, but we didn't.

Now, we are living with the consequences.

20 replies, 1273 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Majority of Americans Born Before 1974 are to Blame for Our Bad Trade Agreements (Original post)
louis c May 2015 OP
bigwillq May 2015 #1
betterdemsonly May 2015 #17
upaloopa May 2015 #2
louis c May 2015 #3
Bluenorthwest May 2015 #9
Egnever May 2015 #10
Bluenorthwest May 2015 #12
Raine1967 May 2015 #16
karynnj May 2015 #19
LanternWaste May 2015 #4
louis c May 2015 #6
pampango May 2015 #5
Egnever May 2015 #11
Bluenorthwest May 2015 #7
EL34x4 May 2015 #8
StevieM May 2015 #13
ISUGRADIA May 2015 #14
HereSince1628 May 2015 #15
betterdemsonly May 2015 #18
MohRokTah May 2015 #20

Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon May 11, 2015, 12:01 PM

1. 1996 was my first election.

 

I voted for Perot.

I just didn't like Clinton then, and I don't like Clinton (or his wife) now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #1)

Fri May 15, 2015, 08:24 PM

17. I am sorry. I just didn't know much about trade back then

 

I was a hereditary dem, and I trusted that dems were protectors of people like my family. My family are union but unfortunately many union people are kneejerk dems that assume they are like FDR, and don't pay attention to where they stand. Lets face the fact the Clinton was the first Democrat to depart from this tradition in a radical way and the unions had become lazy.

Many still are very lazy, particularly AFSME which is my Mom's union. My mom still thinks I am listening to conspiracy radio when I tell her about this TPP TTIP stuff. She will not hear a bad word about Hillary. When I talk to my Dad about Obama repeated bailouts of the banks, he thinks I am insulting Obama's manhood and saying he has not balls. Then will say despite all evidence that Obama ripped the banks a new asshole.

I know most of the critics here come from the Unions but you should admit that union tribalism has enabled the kneejerk dem movement, by encouraging their members to trust union endorsements rather than pay attention to where the candidate stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Mon May 11, 2015, 12:23 PM

2. After you vote you cannot control events so

your OP is bull shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #2)

Fri May 15, 2015, 04:05 PM

3. Nice language

 

Here's my point, which you fail to grasp. You are responsible for your vote. If all parties are truthful (and in this case, they were), then you, the voter, are responsible for the outcome of the events that were advocated by your candidate. And, I must add, that you are also responsible for the outcome if you don't vote.

The only excuse is if you are lied to or fooled. That's not the case with the trade deals. Each candidate in that election spelled out his position, and if you voted for Clinton in the Primary or that General election, you bear some of the responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #3)

Fri May 15, 2015, 05:11 PM

9. Perot was also talking about cordoning off the 'ghettos' an dealing with the 'drug problem' in

 

military style. Just say no, drugs are destroying America, longer sentences, cordon off the ghettos, send in the troops. I voted against Perot because I did not want them to send troops into Compton.
His platform was not just 'NAFTA bad'. It was chained CPI, it was 'let's get churches and business involved in the schools'. It was lots of not so nice sounding rhetoric about immigrants and immigration. Just Say No. Family Values.
He was right about NAFTA. That was not enough for me to vote for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #9)

Fri May 15, 2015, 05:20 PM

10. Well said

 

one issue voters might be responsible for that vote if that was their issue but then you have to ignore everything else the other candidates supported or did not support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #10)

Fri May 15, 2015, 05:32 PM

12. The pretense that that election was all about NAFTA is absurd.

 

It's also crazy to claim that a person's character and personal motives are irrelevant if they hold a certain position. Perot was a hypocrite who preached law and order but demanded special treatment for his own family when they fell into legal troubles, just the same as any other rich Republican.

The OP at least needs to exempt Asian Americans and those who love them from his view that voting for a man who calls accomplished Asian women 'an egg roll' over a trade agreement. I mean, that's quite a bit to ask. The OP in this thread is comparing those who voted for Clinton to those who voted for Hitler, and the OP is saying that to not 'vote for Hitler' one had to vote for a millionaire who sputtered about Asians and Mexicans and wanted to send troops to 'the ghettos'. Door to door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #9)

Fri May 15, 2015, 07:18 PM

16. Thank you. People a lot of people seem to forget this about Perot.

I thought he was awful on social issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #3)

Fri May 15, 2015, 09:15 PM

19. you might have a case in the primaries, but not the general

Election. I was not for Clinton but that was for other issues especially the environment. I was for Tsongus or Brown and was OK with Harkin.

However, in the general. Perot was very bad on other issues and was not going to win after his crazy actions.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri May 15, 2015, 04:15 PM

4. No doubt there will always be a handful of individuals placing blame on a demographic

 

No doubt there will always be a handful of individuals placing blame on a demographic. I used to blame my parent's generation for the Cold War, they blamed theirs for the Depression who in turn, blamed their grandparents for the Civil War... and, as always we hear the refrain, "we are now living with the consequences"

Quite useful and constructive this placement of blame is. Quite useful, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #4)

Fri May 15, 2015, 04:33 PM

6. Do you think the germans who voted for Hitler

 

bear any blame?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri May 15, 2015, 04:19 PM

5. Trade is 23% of our economy; 70% of Germany's.

Guess which country has better paid workers, stronger unions and a healthier middle class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #5)

Fri May 15, 2015, 05:30 PM

11. Interesting

 

some other things to consider though.

Our population is 4 times that of Germany and our GDP is also 4 times that of germany. So when it comes to actual production we are almost equal.

Does that mean that Germany is able to provide better working conditions because a larger portion of their production is traded? And if that is the conclusion then would that not be a pretty strong argument for reducing trade barriers for our production?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri May 15, 2015, 04:58 PM

7. Perot had some good points. He was also a very rich man who dropped out of that race only to

 

reenter it later on. His running mate was Admiral Stockdale, who was not a guy I wanted to see in the Veep's seat. Perot was a major Drug Warrior who talked about 'cordoning off the ghettos' and dealing with the 'drug problem' in military terms. He had called Vietnam Memorial designer an 'egg roll' in his fury that an Asian had won the commission.
Perot's campaign consisted mostly of 30 minute infomercials he bought and paid for on his own.

So if a person was willing to vote for a clearly racist, usually Republican millionaire who was running with a man who looked confused because you agreed with one issue, Perot was your guy for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri May 15, 2015, 05:05 PM

8. We needed to ship jobs overseas...

 

...to free up American workers so that we could all get filthy rich in the up and coming dotcom boom.

When Perot talked about the "giant sucking sound of American jobs going overseas" we said, "So what? We'll have newer, better jobs!"

That's what we believed, anyways. And for a while, it looked like we were right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri May 15, 2015, 05:49 PM

13. I turned 18 in 1992 and voted for the first time in the GE.

I was still 17 at the time of the primaries so I was not allowed to vote. I know that there are some states, like Washington State, that allow 17 year olds to vote in the caucuses if they will be 18 by the time of the GE. But my home state at the time had a primary, not a caucus.

I had been hoping that Tom Harkin would win the nomination and I would have voted for him if I had been allowed to vote.

I don't remember NAFTA being too big of an issue in the Democratic primaries that year. Clinton attacked Tsongas for being a Reagan Retread, since he appeared to have some trickle-down sympathies to him. And Jerry Brown was well-liked by the liberal base, especially since he limited his campaign contributions to 100 dollars per donor. But Clinton hit him hard over his flat tax proposal, as did all the other Democrats. Doug Wilder's campaign never really got off the ground. And Bob Kerry's campaign seemed a bit flakey.

After Harkin, Clinton was my first choice. And I stand by that assessment.

I did support Gephardt in 2004 (after Gary Hart decided not to run), mainly because of his health care plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri May 15, 2015, 06:58 PM

14. It would have been hard for Gephardt

It would have been hard for Gephardt to win the nomination in 1992. He never ran against Clinton and was not a candidate that year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri May 15, 2015, 07:15 PM

15. As I remember it we started seriously losing jobs to maquiladoras during the Reagan administration

The inclusion of Mexico in NAFTA, which as I remember it (and I might be mistaken) was originally to be an agreement with Canada, turned the entire country of Mexico into the equivalent of a maquiladora. After NAFTA industrial emigration took off like a rocket.

Perot's comment about the great sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico wasn't speculation

So, while your right, you also have to say that Clinton with his mockery of Perot's flip charts really worked the campaign selling free-trade snake oil. That effort now looks remarkably like a quid pro quo.

Every trade agreement with asymmetrical economies has done exactly the same thing. The economies of the less developed nations in TPP are the same sort of asymmetry and it's pretty likely to create the same suction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #15)

Fri May 15, 2015, 09:06 PM

18. Yes, this shock to the American economy started before NAFTA

 

and rust belt jobs were being lost to Japan before they went to China. So NAFTA just appeared the be a continuation of existing trends throughout the 80s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Fri May 15, 2015, 09:17 PM

20. Cinton won the nomination before I ever got to caucus.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread