View Poll Results: Do you think USA was better off Pre-NAFTA?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 60.00%
  • No

    10 40.00%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62

Thread: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

  1. #21
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    Anyhow, the answer to the poll is no. What is often conveniently blamed on trade, sinister foreigners and corporate entities is largely a product of technological advances and the natural flow of unskilled jobs to unskilled populaces. A wonderful example of this disconnect is China's loss of approx 25 million manufacturing jobs in the first decade of its implementation, yet most will tell you of America's great suffering at the hands of the Chinese during said period. The efficiency and downward pressure on prices as a result of trade outweighs the short term effects that so many point to as evidence of failure.
    Very interesting view! All of you have excellent views and opinions!

  2. #22
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    No, just pointing out facts. As far as Bush vs Clinton is concerned, I have found that the republicans and the democrats, in spite of their differences, often agree when it comes to selling out the American people.
    It changes nothing, nothing at all. NAFTA negotiations began during Reagan's presidency, and continued through the end of Bush's when he had the ceremonial signing (because it hadn't passed congress/parliament yet. Had he won a second term he would have been the one to sign it into law. It did pass congress with a GOP majority support, and Clinton signed the bill in the first three months of his presidency.

    So Reagan begins the negotiations,

    Bush continues and COMPLETES negotiations, and signs it,

    Congress passes it with GOP majority,

    Clinton signs it into law.

    And NAFTA is being blamed on democrats!!!!

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It changes nothing, nothing at all. NAFTA negotiations began during Reagan's presidency, and continued through the end of Bush's when he had the ceremonial signing (because it hadn't passed congress/parliament yet. Had he won a second term he would have been the one to sign it into law. It did pass congress with a GOP majority support, and Clinton signed the bill in the first three months of his presidency.

    So Reagan begins the negotiations,

    Bush continues and COMPLETES negotiations, and signs it,

    Congress passes it with GOP majority,

    Clinton signs it into law.

    And NAFTA is being blamed on democrats!!!!
    I don't think I blamed it all on democrats, but whether or not you like it and whether or not you hold your breath until you turn blue, Clinton signed NAFTA. You must learn to embrace facts, they are your friends.

  4. #24
    Guru
    brothern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 01:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,175
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    The extremes that the anti-free trade movement goes to has always seemed to me as a tendency towards racism, xenophobia and nationalism. :/
    Help fight Zika, TB, HIV/AIDs and water pollution by donating your CPU's excess processing time to scientific research.
    A self-serving billionaire engaging in historically massive personal corruption #NotMyPresident

  5. #25
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    I don't think I blamed it all on democrats, but whether or not you like it and whether or not you hold your breath until you turn blue, Clinton signed NAFTA. You must learn to embrace facts, they are your friends.
    Wtf are you talking about Tex. I have the first link up in this thread that tells the time line of NAFTA. And I didn't say it was you pinning it on Dem's, it was another fellow that said that. So when I pointed out to him that despite the fact that Clinton signed it into law, it was born in the GOP, negotiated by the GOP, signed in ceremony by the GOP, passed in congress by a GOP majority, and then Clinton walks into the White House and signs it. Hardly his legislation.

    Btw, you quoted me above where I state Clinton's signing and then begin to accuse me of denying that Clinton signed it? WUWT.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by brothern View Post
    The extremes that the anti-free trade movement goes to has always seemed to me as a tendency towards racism, xenophobia and nationalism. :/
    I regret that it "seems" that way to you. It has always been an economic/jobs issue though.

  7. #27
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It changes nothing, nothing at all. NAFTA negotiations began during Reagan's presidency, and continued through the end of Bush's when he had the ceremonial signing (because it hadn't passed congress/parliament yet. Had he won a second term he would have been the one to sign it into law. It did pass congress with a GOP majority support, and Clinton signed the bill in the first three months of his presidency.

    So Reagan begins the negotiations,

    Bush continues and COMPLETES negotiations, and signs it,

    Congress passes it with GOP majority,

    Clinton signs it into law.

    And NAFTA is being blamed on democrats!!!!

    You have a good point.

  8. #28
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by cheybarnes View Post
    You have a good point.
    I'm not really blaming democrats though.

  9. #29
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I will counter your very rational analysis with my pet peeve. If you want to create both money and jobs, the same answer has been presented since the 1970s. Convert to a 100% renewable energy economy. Creates new local jobs wherever implemented. Cuts the outflow of local cash to monopolistic energy distributors. New jobs spend new money growing local economies. New Renewable Energy facilities require local maintenance creating more local jobs and again more local spending. Simultaneously, could any of this address Global Warming and relegate Corporate mitigation policies to the scrap heap, and freeing up those same, probably gov't subsidized dollars, for local investment. Short and sweet. Too good to be true? It hurts Big Corporate Energy and if they can get profitable wars started, do you think they would have any problem preventing this scenario. They are preventing it. You get one vote, but Big Energy buys your Congressman's vote.

    I'm all for local economies and national sovereignty. We must do everything in our power to see to it that U.S. jobs stay HERE.

  10. #30
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I regret that it "seems" that way to you. It has always been an economic/jobs issue though.
    Sure. And who deserves those decent jobs. Well.... you know. "us". Not.... you know.... all those foreigners....

    It's a similar story with the "overpopulation" crowd, where, conveniently, all the countries most in need of reducing their populace are always... well... you know conveniently brown....

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •