Bill Clinton will always be stained by NAFTA

[Jack Sprat]

along with an eager Republican congress that salivated over it. And it should. Nevertheless, Clinton did have a spine and would take a stand and defend it with vigor. I cannot see Clinton ever extending tax cuts for the wealthy, especially with the grave national deficit and debt. On the other hand, I can come closer to seeing him raise taxes on the wealthy instead of just letting their current cuts expire.

This is bizarre. All of you are aware that plans are in the making to cut Medicare and Social Security, and that those cuts are being explained as vitally necessary due to the deficit. Yet, the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will increase the deficit by billions of dollars. AND the national polling points out that the majority of Americans, regardless of party, believe the tax cuts for the wealthy should expire.

What is even more astounding is that Obama has a Democratic majority in both houses until January. WTF?

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Interesting choice of words

:(

[Zanzobar]

7. No doubt.

Apropos, but...

[bemildred]

13. Indeed.

Accidental no doubt.

[DefenseLawyer]

2. Clinton took a stand? Bill Clinton?

On what exactly? I think Clinton was an effective President, but Mr. Triangulation never took a stand on anything.

[Chulanowa]

11. Clinton was melanin-deficient, so gets a different standard than Obama

Clinton gets a "Yeah, there was nafta, and DADT, and the contract on America, and Haiti, BUT..."
Obama?

Obama gets

"Up yours, ni**er!"

[awoke_in_2003]

18. no, with me at least...

Clinton gets the same standard as Obama. Both regularly fuck the common man.

[leftstreet]

3. ...and the Telecom Bill ...and Welfare to Wage Slavery ...and

the Financial Derivatives FreeForAll Act...

[amborin]

4. Bush, Sr., Mulroney, and Salinas authored Nafta

[awoke_in_2003]

19. and Clinton did NOTHING to stop it...

don't give me the line about have a Veto-proof majority. Stand on principles, veto the damn bill, and force the legislature to override the veto. In other words- have a fucking spine (same thing goes for Glass-Stiegel)

[babylonsister]

5. Who gives a flying fuck-about Bill Clinton, and stains? Please.

It's over and done, and Dems to rehash this shit makes us look bad. Sorry, boring, and sorry I responded because it's SO boring, but I'm a big mouth! :evilgrin:

[Skip Intro]

6. Oh now, you're not a bigmouth...

:hi:

[Jack Sprat]

10. Well bigmouth, and I do mean big

I didn't give a flying fuck about a fucking stain on a fucking dress either. But, I also didn't mean any link by my choice of fucking words. But, you with your fucking skepticism, probably find that hard to believe. I'll tell you why. Because you try to find something wrong with any opinion that doesn't belong to Miss Babylon Bigmouth.

[unkachuck]

8. "...Clinton did have a spine and would take a stand and defend it..."

....this is true, but NAFTA did leave a thick, wide, heavy brown stain most bleaches couldn't touch....

[Radical Activist]

9. Get Congress to pass something decent.

I'm sure Obama will sign it.

[Alexander]

12. Eager Republican Congress? Clinton signed NAFTA when the Democrats had Congress.

He signed it on December 8, 1993. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress at the time.

[Jack Sprat]

15. I'm sure you are right. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. NAFTA was passed by a Democratic congress.

In 1993. And came into force in February 1994. 9 months before the Republicans won a Congressional majority in the '94 midterms and 11 months before the new Congress was inaugurated.

[Jack Sprat]

16. I'm sure you're right. n/t

[Elwood P Dowd]

17. The vast majority of dems voted against it.

Almost all of the repukes and a minority of dems gave it enough votes to pass.

[Sal Minella]

24. I remember an interview of Carville in which he was bragging about

depriving the Republicans of any substance in their platform because the Democrats had more-or-less co-opted all the Republicans' ideas and enacted them into law.

He seemed to think this was a good thing, somehow. I couldn't follow his line of thinking then and am still mystified.

Leaving the Republicans gape-mouthed and silent because Dems enacted everything they wanted seems a peculiarly empty "victory" to me.

[philly_bob]

20. I wonder how damaging NAFTA would have been without Bush as president. /nt

[Hugabear]

21. This is one area where Ross Perot was absolutely dead right

Guy was nutty as hell, but he was absolutely right about the effects NAFTA and other free trade agreements would have.

[hfojvt]

22. you can't see what?

:rofl: :rofl:

Wait, let me catch my breath.

:rofl: :rofl:


How soon people forget 1997.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71

http://www.cbpp.org/clinttax.htm

"Analyses by the Treasury Department indicate that when fully in effect, the Clinton plan would give the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes about the same amount in tax cuts as the bottom 60 percent combined. This is an unusual characteristic for a tax plan proposed by a Democratic President. "

"The Clinton plan would provide the child credit to at least 10 million fewer children than would receive it under the House Democratic tax bill, offered by Rep. Charles Rangel. "

"The Clinton plan would provide the child credit to several million fewer children in near-poor working families than would be the case under the Senate Democratic tax plan that Senator Tom Daschle offered last week."

"Since the Treasury tables do not reflect the effects of the estate tax cuts the Administration is proposing — and the estate tax cuts affect only the heirs of the wealthiest two percent of people who die — the tables significantly understate the degree to which high-income households benefit from the plans."

The Clinton administration proposed estate tax cuts? Something that would benefit the wealthiest 2%. How very progressive of him.



Yeah, not Clinton. Clinton would never cut taxes for the rich.

Well that would be more hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. And the DMCA. Don't forget the DMCA.

[treestar]

25. Didn't he allow for that welfare reform?

He signed some anti immigration legislation. And got us into a military adventure.

But overall he was a good President.

NAFTA is used as a boogey man around here. No one truly understands it.

[Motown_Johnny]

26. No One Around Here Truly Understands NAFTA???

Please, enlighten us

[treestar]

29. I didn't say I understood it either

It is just used as a bogeyman around here; no one really knows what its effects are/were.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. some do

start here, it is oversimplified but covers most of the basics



http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp173/



^snip^



Despite its name, the primary purpose of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was not to facilitate trade among separate sovereign societies. Rather, it was to promote an integrated continental economy and establish the rules to govern it.

As a former foreign minister of Mexico once remarked, NAFTA was "an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies." It should, therefore, be no surprise that NAFTA rules protect the interests of large corporate investors while undercutting workers' rights, environmental protections, and democratic accountability. Hence, NAFTA should be seen not as a stand-alone treaty, but as part of a long-term campaign by the conservative business interests in all three countries to rip up their respective domestic social contract.

[dkofos]

27. And that damned blue dress

[Catherina]

28. Too late to recommend n/t