Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The lasting "stain" (so to speak) of the Clinton administration was not his predatory sexual behavior, but the disasterous policies of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. Today, even Clinton himself has admitted that both of these policies have had severe negative "unintended" consequences on our manufacturing sector and the middle class.
Would Hillary (given that she is "for" the middle class and poor), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
The lasting "stain" (so to speak) of the Clinton administration was not his predatory sexual behavior, but the disasterous policies of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. Today, even Clinton himself has admitted that both of these policies have had severe negative "unintended" consequences on our manufacturing sector and the middle class.
Would Hillary (given that she is "for" the middle class and poor), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
If she did that the establishment would find a way to get her out of office.
The lasting "stain" (so to speak) of the Clinton administration was not his predatory sexual behavior, but the disasterous policies of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. Today, even Clinton himself has admitted that both of these policies have had severe negative "unintended" consequences on our manufacturing sector and the middle class.
Would Hillary (given that she is "for" the middle class and poor), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
We must recall that the negotiations between the US, Canada and Mexico began in 1986, with the agreement signed by President George Bush (the elder) in December 1992. Of course, it had to be approved by Congress, which President Bush hoped would occur prior to his leaving office (he tried to 'fast track' it). However, not until President Clinton came into office was the agreement (with some modifications by Mr. Clinton concerning the protection of workers and the environment) approved by Congress (bipartisan support) and sent to Mr. Clinton for his signature, which he then signed in December 1993.
I doubt that Mrs Clinton would want to try to get Congress to break the agreement.
I know little about the politics of Most Favored Nation status, although I see that China regained such in 1980 (after it had been suspended in 1951), with Mr. Clinton extending it. This article was an interesting read:
It appears that it was mainly Democrats and liberal groups who urged President Clinton to not renew the most favored nation status of China. From the link:
"Clinton had been the subject of heavy lobbying by American business interests and his economic advisers to continue China's trade privileges. With China now the world's fastest growing economy, the United States exports $8 billion a year there, which sustains up to 150,000 American jobs. Many major American businesses see even greater potential in Chinese markets, expecting China to become a massive purchaser over the next decade of the phones, electronic gadgets and thousands of other products made in America."
I imagine that our economy is so entwined with China's that the business community would again protest any such action by the next president, whoever it may turn out to be.
Absolutely not!
Democrats are NOT for the middle class and lifting the poor up.
They are for keeping people dependent on government welfare programs so they can keep
getting re-elected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
The lasting "stain" (so to speak) of the Clinton administration was not his predatory sexual behavior, but the disasterous policies of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. Today, even Clinton himself has admitted that both of these policies have had severe negative "unintended" consequences on our manufacturing sector and the middle class.
Would Hillary (given that she is "for" the middle class and poor), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
I wonder if Perot would have "leveled the playing field".. Clinton just like a politician was totally against it...until they were elected. Thing is we keep getting played by the he said she said crap.. I'm tellin ya its 2 arms of the same beast.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
