Sounds crazy, right? Unbelievable? Well, those two piles of human dung, hideous as they are, can't claim to have been http://workinglife.typepad.com/daily_blog/2006/04/robert_reich_ca.html">the Secretary of Labor who urged Bill Clinton to run full-stop ahead in granting China MFN status and to ratify NAFTA. The nation's economy, predictably,http://www.nysun.com/business/report-ny-jobs-lost-to-china/82874/">went straight to the toilet;, but Reich has http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/robert_reich/2009/05/the-future-of-manufacturing-gm.php">been trying to duck blame ever since.

We can do a hell of a lot better for "liberal" economic spokespeople than Robert Reich. Don't forget: Reich also was part of the Obama economic transition team that brought us Tim Geithner.

Throwing poo from a cage in frustration over not being able to articulate an intelligent response.

3 links do not a post make.

Interesting.

You said Reich's work led us "straight" into the toilet. Where does W. fit in your analysis? You won't say.

Was he the one who http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html">first granted China MFN status in 1994?

???

Again, interesting. NAFTA was more powerful than i thought, I guess.

What do you think has been the elephant in the room during the entire housing/cheap credit bubble? The availability of good, solid jobs??

Sounds like a whitewash in favor of Bush to me. If anyone writes a post on the reasons that led to our deep recession without mentioning Bush's policies, that person is clueless. You only mentioned Bush's policies after I prodded you. You just realized your mistake.

Since when was the topic of my post the current so-called "recession"?

Fact: For the past 15 or so years, prior to the official "recession", The United States' economy was already bleeding jobs wholesale, entire manufacturing sectors being offshored left and right. Positive GDP numbers mean zilch when there are no jobs. Does that make sense to you?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/bush-created-48-million-jobs-while-tax-and-spend-clinton-created-23-million/

It is no wonder that you provided no link to your "fact".

b) internet bubble jobs? (long, long gone) and c) financial service jobs? (recently gone)

Answer: Most.

Let's see who led us "straight to the toilet." Bush took office in 2001. These are manufacturing jobs:

http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2006.older.and.misc/Manufacturing%20Jobs,%201993-2004.gif

http://www.factcheck.org/dnc_ad_says_bush_lost_manufacturing_jobs.html

"straight to the toilet" = economy tanks after 8 years of unprecedented prosperity at which time right wing schmucks take over giving tax breaks to the rich and dragging us into a war that costs over 1 trillion dollars while ignoring crises in health care and energy...

Robert Reich was Labor Secretary.

...because he pretends to be on our side.

Ed Rendell being one of the worst of that lot?

(For the record, I have a lot of respect for Bob Reich, but none whatsoever for Rubin, Summers, or the Keebler Elf. I wish Reich and some other smart, non Wall Street, non "Federal" Reserve types were running the economy right now)

Moronic.

The sooner we get rid of NAFTA (if ever) we may see a recovery.

Just saw a post here on DU.. Whirlpool is moving 1,100 jobs to Mexico. The bleeding continues.. no one in Washington seems to have a clue? WE NEED JOBS... hello?

I must say I am not super thrilled with the re-appointment of Bernake.. the very man (along with Greenspan) who got us into this mess.

Everything has been done for the Banksters and Wall Street, nothing for Americans who are footing the bill.

Repubs care only for the haves and the have-mores; the top 1%. Dems like Clinton and Reich care for the rest of the people, and trust that the top 1% will treat them right.

That's a good thing.

With vast swathes of the nation are now in permanent depression, all the blue-collar jobs which drove their economies relocated to other parts of the globe.

Other than that, he's a swell guy.

free trade IS progressive. Does no-one remember the Corn Laws in Britain these days? Cobden and Bright? Anyone, anyone?

Or maybe, hey!, let's go back to INTERNAL tariffs! Back to the Octroi of Bourbon France, that's the ticket!

That was kind of a long time ago...in a far-away place too. Right?
Just checking.

You are pissing off the resident autarkic economic isolationists. :rofl:

Anyone who says so is totally clueless. NAFTA, GATT, WTO, MFN, CAFTA, and all the others are nothing more than outsourcing and investment scams that benefit corporate CEOs and Wall Street investors at the expense of working people.

"Our recent free trade polices ARE NOT progressive.

Anyone who says so is totally clueless. NAFTA, GATT, WTO, MFN, CAFTA, and all the others are nothing more than outsourcing and investment scams that benefit corporate CEOs and Wall Street investors at the expense of working people."

After WWII in Europeans created societies with national health care, a large role for government in regulating the economy, effective social safety nets and progressive taxation. They also established a free trade zone (and later open immigration) with neighboring countries (27) in Europe to create continent-wide peace and prosperity.

Canadians have also created a society with national health care, effective regulation of business and markets, an effective social safety net and progressive taxation, along with high levels of immigration and free trade.

In the US in the 1932 presidential campaign FDR spoke out forcefully against the Smoot(R-UT)-Hawley(R-OR) tariff law passed by the repub congress and signed by Hoover. (One good outcome was that both Smoot and Hawley were defeated in their reelection campaigns in 1932.) FDR effectively dismantled Smoot-Hawley using bilateral trade deals with other countries.

During and after WWII FDR and Truman pushed for international organizations (initially GATT) to lower tariffs and promote trade and the Marshall Plan to provide help to and reduce trade barriers within Europe. Republicans resisted such trade liberalization (reminiscent of the Smoot/Hawley/Hoover days), but most were won over because economic recovery in Europe and Japan could be portrayed as an anti-communist policy.

It is ironic that historic American Democratic presidents like FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were pro-trade, seeing increasing international trade as conducive to peace and prosperity. Modern liberals in Europe are not proposing reinstituting tariffs and border controls between European countries regardless of differing languages, cultures, development levels, and past wars.

In the US we have failed (so far) to achieve national health care, effective business and market regulation, an effective social safety net and progressive taxation (some we had and lost), so we feel more vulnerable than Europeans or Canadians to the effects of trade. This could be why American progressives have a greater fear of international trade than do progressives in other countries.

Yes, I yelled.

Got one?

:rofl:

On second thought, there's no need to bother--I Adblocked your Photobucket folder a couple of years ago.

Well fuckin a, brother.

Thanks for the information.

:eyes:

:crazy:

congratulations!

when the person in your avatar owned slaves.

But I guess anyone seeking credibility wouldn't be so methodical about posting such idiotic nonsense.

n/t

Who needs the right wing when Democrats always manage to eat each other alive?

x(

Its like the Twilight Zone.

No, I'm pretty busy at work. I'll ready those posts later.

Take care!!

:hi:

:hi:

Why else be here if not?

:shrug:



:hi:

;)

amongst people of color exploded during the Clinton administration. It's something that bill clinton has apologized for. But, it really makes my stomach turn.

For whatever reason. I agree about the mandatory minimums, crack v. cocaine sentencing, disparity in justice and near-slavery-via-prison-labor, but the "War on Drugs" madness began in the 80s (arguably Nixon's era), and Clinton's crime was doing nothing for fear of appearing "soft on drugs" or wtfever, but Reich is innocent of this association:

really over the top

But then again I bet a lot of folks on here mistake you for a piece of furniture.

FAIL!!!!

I mean if you want to criticize Robert Reich, great.
Start a cogent thread with your argument.

But to start a thread like this..like a fucking moran?
If you hate Democrats GO AWAY!

How old are you? 10? 12?

Mods - nuke this fool.

Some people have strong opinions against NAFTA. I think he exaggerates, but his opposition seems heartfelt and genuine.

Free speech? Put up a similar thread substituting Reich's name with Hillary's and see how long it last?

I mean, worse than Beck and Limbaugh? This crap doesn't belong on a board whose members are primarily Democrats.

self-deleted

http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/MediaClips.htm

Halfway down the list, the light is shed (dial-up is the faster load). Robert Reich takes the pro-free trade position; he DID take the stance that offshoring is a positive for the US overall and that the laid-off blue collar workers would move into technology/new manufacturing positions.

Trouble with that is, there are very few location-safe positions that pay a living wage anymore thanks to the Bean Counter cavalcade that run our businesses now.

Ms. Shah kind of made Bob and his neo-lib free trade parroting look silly.

He didn't do himself or Clinton's economic policies toward blue-collar workers any favors. Free Trade is a moldy bill of Reaganite goods that needs to be put to bed once and for all.

*runs*

then you are pretty delusional.