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
101
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.
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
103
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.
The final bill that was ratifieed and singned into law had to be negotiated under the 100th congreess at the direction of Clinton.
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
105
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.
I don’t give a ■■■■■ the dem’s held full control in the house, it was the bill they wanted or it would never have come out of committee to start with.
Just quit, you can’t weasel your way out of your long list of failures on this topic.
