Media bias, two governors, same policies, completely different treatment

Guilds · 2020-05-02T05:48:14.943Z

WildRose:

it was Bush’s and Clinton had the authority to stop it and chose not to, Clinton in fact, Not Bush, Signed it into law.

And as I stated…Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama…all continued with Reaganomics.

Clinton probably had the most negative impact, with W in a close 2nd.

And once again, you are not correct.

Bush signed the NAFTA agreement in 1992, which was also signed by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Salinas. The agreement went into effect under Bush’s successor President Bill Clinton, who signed the agreement himself on Dec. 8, 1993. By January of 1994, the trade agreement was in effect

WildRose · 2020-05-02T06:41:28.671Z

And you’ve crashed head first into a Brick Wall with every post.

You should have quit long ago, you’re never going to weasel your way out of this one.

This was not Reagan’s Bill, this was not Reagan’s vision, it wasn’t even 41’s.

Sooner or later you need to figure out the wall isn’t going anywhere and neither are you.

Clinton Owns it lock, stock and barrel.

mobulis · 2020-05-02T12:38:11.701Z

WildRose:

BS, it was created between 1850-1940 before the war ever ended.

The GI bill didn’t create those skilled workers and technicians, it created doctors, lawyers, atty’s, engineers etc, professionals not line workers for Frigidaire, GM, Univac, or IBM.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). The original G.I. Bill expired in 1956, but the term “G.I. Bill” is still used to refer to programs created to assist U.S. military veterans.

It was largely designed and passed through Congress in 1944 in a bipartisan effort led by the American Legion who wanted to reward practically all wartime veterans. Since the First World War the Legion had been in the forefront of lobbying Congress for generous benefits for war veterans. Roosevelt, by contrast, wanted a much smaller program focused on poor people regardless of military service. The final bill provided immediate financial rewards for practically all World War II veterans, thereby avoiding the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that had caused political turmoil in the 1920s and 1930s. Benefits included low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business or farm, one year of unemployment compensation, and dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college, or vocational school. These benefits were available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged.

By 1956, 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program. Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to U.S. stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth. However, the G.I. Bill received criticism for directing some funds to for-profit educational institutions and for failing to benefit African Americans.

Scratch · 2020-05-02T12:43:35.693Z

Lets not forget gun control…and Cons do love themselves some guns. Funny they always overlook that one.

WuWei · 2020-05-02T13:04:05.584Z

H_Arendt:

Half the time he yells at the reporter for asking an inappropriate question

3/4ths of the time the question is inappropriate.

Scratch · 2020-05-02T13:22:21.296Z

WuWei:

in appropriate

Inappropriate…

Scratch · 2020-05-02T13:25:33.894Z

3/4 of the time Trump is inappropriate, so it stands the reason.

JayJay · 2020-05-02T13:49:43.399Z

WildRose:

The only thing that’s hurt the MC is killing off our own industrial sector one industry at a time.

We replaced 40-80.00/hr skilled labor jobs for minimum wage labor jobs a well trained monkey can do.

That’s how you cut your own throat.

You think that happened in a vacuum?

Once a truly global marketplace was established, the most efficient way to grow an economy is via trade and specialization rather than try to do everything in country.

The US became richer as a whole in this manner…but yes, certain types of industries that created certain types of jobs did not thrive.

H_Arendt · 2020-05-02T14:02:24.072Z

WuWei:

H_Arendt:

Half the time he yells at the reporter for asking an inappropriate question

3/4ths of the time the question is in appropriate.

Not at all. Trump does not want to field any question that requires he explain how his actions are always perfect.

gooddad409 · 2020-05-02T14:22:42.998Z

Ben_Natuf:

nah, i’m talking about reality, where you don’t live.

Libs for the most part live in the Twilight Zone. Just saying.

Guilds · 2020-05-02T16:48:17.432Z

WildRose:

Clinton Owns it lock, stock and barrel.

Just because you type something, does not make it true.

Facts, are immune to your attempt to change them.

41 signed the NAFTA agreement.

“As we pursue global trade negotiations,” Reagan said in November 1988, near the end of his presidency, “the United States believes that the future belongs to those who lower trade barriers.”

“These are the countries that will be in the forefront of technology. These are the countries that will see their living standards rise most quickly. And these are the countries that will lead the world in the years ahead.”

As president, Reagan focused on encouraging mutually beneficial trade, not reducing trade deficits.

“The way up and out of the trade deficit is not protectionism, not bringing down the competition,” he said in a 1987 radio address, “but instead the answer lies in improving our products and increasing our exports.”

WuWei · 2020-05-02T17:27:09.562Z

Scratch:

WuWei:

in appropriate

Inappropriate…

Thank you.

WuWei · 2020-05-02T17:27:37.138Z

Scratch:

3/4 of the time Trump is inappropriate, so it stands the reason.

7/8ths.

Guilds · 2020-05-02T23:03:40.239Z

Guilds:

Just because you type something, does not make it true.

Facts, are immune to your attempt to change them.

41 signed the NAFTA agreement.

“As we pursue global trade negotiations,” Reagan said in November 1988, near the end of his presidency, “the United States believes that the future belongs to those who lower trade barriers.”

“These are the countries that will be in the forefront of technology. These are the countries that will see their living standards rise most quickly. And these are the countries that will lead the world in the years ahead.”

As president, Reagan focused on encouraging mutually beneficial trade, not reducing trade deficits.

“The way up and out of the trade deficit is not protectionism, not bringing down the competition,” he said in a 1987 radio address, “but instead the answer lies in improving our products and increasing our exports.”

@WildRose Well?

WildRose · 2020-05-02T23:09:16.197Z

This isn’t helping you.

The purpose of lowering trade barriers was not to export millions of US manufacturing jobs.

NAFTA as signed into law by Clinton was not Reagan’s dream. His dream was that by reducing trade barriers we’d raise the standard of living for the entire Northern Hemisphere, not to raise Mexico’s standard of living at our own expense.

The Peso was in complete collapse at the time, and Reagan worked with Mexico to stabilize it for our own benefit and to reduce the flood of illegals into the US.

The hope was to create more manufacturing in Mexico to create a middle class there that would buy US goods and would grow into a nation similar to ours utilizing their own resources and creating wealth by turning them into products of value to the rest of the world.

You have crashed and burned again.

Guilds · 2020-05-03T00:22:28.379Z

WildRose:

The hope was to create more manufacturing in Mexico to create a middle class there that would buy US goods and would grow into a nation similar to ours utilizing their own resources and creating wealth by turning them into products of value to the rest of the world.

And that is what pretty much happen. Along with jobs going down there as well.

Repeating the same BS over and over does not make it any more factual.

And you still think 41 did not sign the original NAFTA agreement with the leaders of Mexico and Canada at the time…a fact that is easily verified. Why do you deny reality?

Also, you still have not provided a chart showing productivity and wages, and how since Reagan, the MC have continued to increase productivity, yet now the wealth created by that, flows to the top…vs spread around, like it had for 40 years prior to implementing Reaganomics, AKA Neo-Liberalism.

WildRose · 2020-05-03T00:26:43.175Z

Repeating the same BS over and over does not make it any more factual.

Then you really should stop.

Our standard of living fell, it didn’t increase. Illegal immigration did not end, 20-30 if not more illegals have come to the US since.

The cartels are stronger than ever and have a geater hold on power through corruption than ever. They’ve elected the last two presidents with more than 150bn in cartel money.

You haven’t gotten anything right in this thread yet so take your own advice and stop peddling BS.

This wasn’t Reagan’s vision, it isn’t even 41’s, It is that of Clinton and the Dem’s who negotiated, wrote, passed, and signed it into law.

Guilds · 2020-05-03T00:42:48.485Z

WildRose:

This wasn’t Reagan’s vision, it isn’t even 41’s, It is that of Clinton and the Dem’s who negotiated, wrote, passed, and signed it into law.

Not worth addressing your other myths.

Regarding this part…

In 1990, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari requested a free trade agreement with the U.S. In 1991, Reagan’s successor, President George H.W. Bush, began negotiations with President Salinas for a liberalized trade agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.

In 1992, NAFTA was signed by outgoing President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Earlier that year, the European Union had been created by the Treaty of Maastricht.4

Concerns about the liberalization of labor and environmental regulations led to the adoption of two addendums. NAFTA was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993 and the U.S. House of Representatives approved it 234–200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it 61–38 three days later.

President Bill Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993.7 It became active on January 1, 1994.

As far at the vote goes by party:
House
R D
AYE 132 102
NAY 43 156

Senate:
R D
AYE 34 27
NAY 10 28

R’s mostly supported it, Dems mostly voted against.

Except for Clinton of course, who I have already stated several times, also practiced Reaganomics.

WildRose · 2020-05-03T01:06:25.245Z

The final bill that was ratifieed and singned into law had to be negotiated under the 100th congreess at the direction of Clinton.

POLITICO

Clinton signs NAFTA into law, Dec. 8, 1993

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in 2017 that exiting NAFTA without a new deal in place could devastate American agriculture, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and “be an economic, political and national security disaster.

image1920×1080 187 KB

image1920×1080 187 KB

image1920×1080 147 KB

image1920×1080 164 KB

Dem’s always held the uppherhand with complete control in the house and enough seats in the Sentate to stop anything from passing with parlimentary tricks like “cloture” votes and the tradition of simply flagging things to keep them from coming out of committee.

. All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 after the addition of two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC).

Passage of NAFTA resulted in the elimination or reduction of barriers to trade and investment between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The effects of the agreement regarding issues such as employment, the environment, and economic growth have been the subject of political disputes. Most economic analyses indicated that NAFTA was beneficial to the North American economies and the average citizen,[4][5][6] but harmed a small minority of workers in industries exposed to trade competition.[7][8] Economists held that withdrawing from NAFTA or renegotiating NAFTA in a way that reestablished trade barriers would’ve adversely affected the U.S. economy and cost jobs.[9][10][11] However, Mexico would’ve been much more severely affected by job loss and reduction of economic growth in both the short term and long term.[12]

Before sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, and to also allay the concerns of many House members. The U.S. required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[ *[citation needed]

(Wikipedia:Citation needed - Wikipedia)* ]the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement’s supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38.[21] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[22][23] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.”[24] NAFTA then replaced the previous Canada-US FTA.

The buill as negotiated in 88-89 which passed under Bush left room for further negotiations and without them it was never goingn to pass in the congress. Under clinton’s direction those final points were ironed out and the agreement allowed all three countries to modify it by mutual agreement without a revote.

Only after final amendments and modifications made under Clinton’s direction were they able to get enough votes for ratification.

Yet another spectacular failure in attempting to rewrite history on your part.

Guilds · 2020-05-03T01:27:43.775Z

WildRose:

Only after final amendments and modifications made under Clinton’s direction were they able to get enough votes for ratification.

Did you miss the part that more Republicans voted for it than Democrats?

And yes I concur the Democrats could have killed it…but Clinton was practicing neo-liberalism…much like Reagan. Maybe a slightly different flavor…but more similar than different.

Bottom line, NAFTA was supported by Neo-liberalism, which is/was basically Reaganomics. Both parties are to blame. But only one ideology is to blame.