Bill Clinton - Corporate Democrat, death-dealer to America's blue-collar and middle classes

As the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/global/31iht-trade.html">reports this weekend, China successfully delayed removing the tariffs they placed on American-made auto parts long enough that when it finally did remove the tariffs under W.T.O. orders, it was too late: automakers like GM have simply moved their operations over to China anyway.

An entire American manufacturing sector -- gone.

And who reversed his campaign pledge not to grant China MFN status? http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N27/china.27w.html">Bill Clinton, of course.

we were going to export to china....i`d laugh if it was`t so tragic.

The OP has done a good service. Facts can be spun, but not argued.

Jimmy Carter wanted MFN for China - Under the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act, the President can grant MFN status to a Communist country only as part of a commercial trade agreement-and only if he certifies that human rights conditions are improving within that country. The waiver must be renewed annually. Congress: Lawmakers can reject the President's waiver or certification by approving a joint resolution. The measure must be signed by the President or enacted over his veto. China: It first received MFN status from the United States through a commercial trade agreement in 1980 after President Jimmy Carter waived Jackson-Vanik.

Carter's Op-Ed article in The New York Times on April 30 1991 calling for "reconcilation" and the renewal of most-favored-nation trade status for China is also an interesting read.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/opinion/renew-china-s-trade-status.html

Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China because he fears that a bill with tough restrictions proposed by Senate Democratic leaders could backfire and hurt the cause of Chinese reform.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADDF61C7197817&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

"The Massachusetts Democrat criticized President Bush's no-strings approach to China as unsatisfactory, but said he hoped to help forge a compromise."

The strings Kerry was fighting for in every trade bill were for workers rights and the environment. In 2005, Kerry had the strong backing of the AFL/CIO on an amendment (that failed 10/10 in the Republican dominated Finance committee.)

This is a pretty stupid thread attacking Bill Clinton - but Kerry has always fought for the environment.

:shrug:

Kerry was against linking Most Favored Nation status to China's human rights record. Kerry's solution for stopping job exports essentially revolved around tax penalties for companies that did it.

But these kinds of points are lost on people like the OP who either believes Bill Clinton was Satan who bent everyone to his will or is too young or to know of just ignorant of the politics of the day. Clinton was the great Satan. Everyone else who led or followed is somehow excused.

If memory serves, Ted Kennedy voted NO on repealing MFN status for China in '97.

..that's a very long commute.

I am all for criticizing presidents past and present for their mistakes, especially when those mistakes impact a lot of people.

And PLEASE don't take this wrong. I like you personally, but you post LOTS of non-GD threads IN
GD, AND I Alert on them constantly.

I have sometimes said in my Alerts, "Can somebody send this wonderful DUer a tutorial on what is GD and what is NOT?"


And, now, I am going to bed. I'm sure MANY posters will attack me for being cruel to YOU. AND, they will flame ME. Fine.

What does General mean to you? I tend to post things that are on the front page of papers, seems pretty general to me.

So what is GD to you?

I know I'm impressed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Manufacturing sector is 1/2 of what it was before NAFTA?

Or is that a "second tier" issue for you? :shrug:

So easily distracted as you are. Or, so determined on distracting.

So funny to wax philosophical about a person's motivations, when you're confused as to who you're speaking to... :rofl:

Barack Obama is treading the same fetid grounds...

How surprising. :boring:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your colorful (if stunted) vocabulary proves that you could never be one of the "dimwitted asstards" who posts "asinine bullshit", btw. :eyes: :silly:

I remember Clinton attacking Bush Sr. during the campaign by asserting that he, Clinton, was more fiscally conservative than Bush. Rather than stand up for liberal policies, he gave us an early taste of that triangulation bullshit. Just a very small, very early example of the kind of thing that eventually led to the country making jokes about how the two candidates in the 2000 race were basically identical.

In the 2000 election, the Clinton administration had extremely high favorable ratings for economic policy, so it's difficult to reconcile this fact with your **ahem** idiosyncratic view that Clinton's economic policy doomed Gore's election.

The public disliked Clinton's personal behavior (as hyped by the Republicans) and Gore made lots of really stupid mistakes in campaign strategy -- including distancing himself from the Clinton administration's successes. Moreover, the mainstream media went way overboard lying about Gore.

Then left wing wack jobs, as now, were saying that Clinton-Gore were the "same as Bush" and went for Nader. I wonder are there any people stupid enough to still believe that?

And of course, there was massive electoral fraud and the Supreme Court coup to top everything off.

:rofl:

as whack job. I stand by that definition. I realize that might hurt certain feelings because, believe it or not, there are people around here insane enough to still believe it.

Your juvenile invective is more fit for a school yard than a reasoned debate, and your argument is incoherent. If the "left wing wack jobs" didn't vote for Gore in part because of his vigorous promotion of NAFTA, WTO, and other rightwing, neoliberal economic policies, then Gore's unrepentant corporatism indeed cost him support in the election.

Your argument is really that his rightwing ideology shouldn't have cost him support. To argue that it didn't cost him support is revisionism.

Signed by Clinton in 2000 legalized the Wall Street betting parlors and bucket shops that had been banned since 1907.
This, combined with the repeal of Glass -Steagall, in 1999, are largely responsible for our current economic disaster.

Selling out to Wall Street is never a good idea.

Which made FAUX Noise, Clear Channel, and AOL's ownership of CNN possible.