Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Congress, namely the Senate would have to most of the work repealing it. However, you won't find many reps from eithjer party willing to work on it. Any hope of repealing it died when Ron Paul left the action.
Ron Paul was the only GOP candidate (and only one of two in the entire two-party field) to have an 100% fair trade voting record. Then again, he trended a tad isolationist which would probably hurt the economy.
I think it matters whose idea it was and everyone who had a hand it seeing it come to fruition.
the powers that be (Wall St and large corps) wanted NAFTA and it just so happened to pass on Clinton's watch... didn't matter who the President was it was going to pass.
If Bush 1 had been reelected, he would have signed it, given he had already done so, as ceremony.
It is impossible to judge most actions that occur or not under any President's watch because most have long term and often unforeseen, good, bad or otherwise, consequences. What looks good in the moment may not be 20+ years later and vice-versa.
Ron Paul was the only GOP candidate (and only one of two in the entire two-party field) to have an 100% fair trade voting record. Then again, he trended a tad isolationist which would probably hurt the economy.
He opposed NAFTA, which is a fact. You can't say that about many reps from either party.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 02-27-2014 at 03:07 PM..
If the US could withdraw from NAFTA or amend it for the benefit of the US, why didn't Obama do it? I mean, he's all about change isn't he? NAFTA did change this country. Huge loses to America and Americans, huge gains for other countries. We helped those countries to create a healthy economy while slowly killing our own.
If Obama wanted to be the great American job creator, it would have been wise for him to look back 5 years ago at the great American job destroyer, which was NAFTA.
True. That would be IF Obama wanted to improve the lot of the manufacturing sector and the middle class, but obviously that has never been his objective. I would not expect Obama to do anything to benefit either of those groups.
However, Hillary has taken the bridle as the protector and advocate of the middle class. Given particularly that Bill has noted that NAFTA and China trade status were both mistakes that damaged the middle class AND manufacturing, one would assume that Hillary would correc this error and help those groups. Of course, that would be if.............................................. Hillary was actually for the middle class and our manufacturing sector. One the other hand, if she opposed those groups, then we would expect her to carry on as usual, as Obama has done.
If the US could withdraw from NAFTA or amend it for the benefit of the US, why didn't Obama do it? I mean, he's all about change isn't he? NAFTA did change this country.
You would have to show that the benefits of the repeal would outweigh the harm caused by the repeal, which you probably cannot do.
Mrs. Magoo made Obama push Obamacare and has had her hand in every failed US foreign and domestic policy. Clinton shined when he was smart enough to take a hands off approach to the country. Smart enough to know you're not smart enough to make things better is still smart.
She'd just rubber stamp more damaging anti american programs, just like Bush 43 and Bush 44( Obama).
The lasting "stain" (so to speak) of the Clinton administration was not his predatory sexual behavior, but the disasterous policies of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. Today, even Clinton himself has admitted that both of these policies have had severe negative "unintended" consequences on our manufacturing sector and the middle class.
Would Hillary (given that she is "for" the middle class and poor), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
I doubt it -- she's very much a globalist herself and she helped push this cheap labor agenda when she was Bill's co-president. She is all about money and power for herself. She doesn't care about the American people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
