Welcome to Democrat policy

[Moonglow]

My God wrong winger...

You have the sack to even ask?

Republicrats have been all but purged from the cities, and you have the gall to imply the decline of these cities have anything to do with the political endeavors of republicrats?

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ...

Republicats indeed are the cause. The cause being NAFTA and all the other so called free trade agreements that enjoyed bipartisan support. We were warned back in the 80's when the ideas were first being discussed that they would cause American manufacturers to export high paying jobs to low wage ones in foreign countries. Then the products could then be freely exported back to the US consumers.

Now that is freaking hilarious.... BlindBoo is so ignorant of the facts, he doesn't even know that NAFTA was Bill Clintons baby, which he rammed down the throats of the American people despite significant opposition

Now who is ignorant? It was started under Bush sr and finally passed during Clinton. How about Reagan and Bush's push for "Most favored Nation" trading status. Still twisting facts to spread your disillusioned hate I see. It would kill you to see without those blinders you are so proud of.
It was actually both repubs and dems that are to blame for the loss of our industries

 

[P@triot]

Republicats indeed are the cause. The cause being NAFTA and all the other so called free trade agreements that enjoyed bipartisan support. We were warned back in the 80's when the ideas were first being discussed that they would cause American manufacturers to export high paying jobs to low wage ones in foreign countries. Then the products could then be freely exported back to the US consumers.

Now that is freaking hilarious.... BlindBoo is so ignorant of the facts, he doesn't even know that NAFTA was Bill Clintons baby, which he rammed down the throats of the American people despite significant opposition

Are democrats really trying to run from NAFTA? Seriously?

September 14, 1993.

Clinton signs NAFTA into law.

President Clinton Signing NAFTA

I wish they were trying to run from it. Sadly, this is truly how deeply ignorant they are of history, policy, bills, law, etc.

 

[Katzndogz]

Bill Clinton's remarks

We will make our case as hard and as well as we can.
And, though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win.
And I'd like to tell you why. First of all, because NAFTA means jobs.
American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe
that, I wouldn't support this agreement.


As President, it is my duty to speak frankly to the
American people about the world in which we now live. Fifty years at
the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the
oceans and by our technological superiority; and, very frankly, by the
economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our
competitors. We chose, then, to try to help rebuild our former
enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions
which would facilitate it.


As a result of that effort, global trade grew from $200
billion in 1950 to $800 billion in 1980. As a result, jobs were
created and opportunity thrived all across the world. But make no
mistake about it: Our decision at the end of World War II to create a
system of global, expanded, freer trade and the supporting
institutions played a major role in creating the prosperity of the
American middle class.

And how the democrats attacked republicans for opposing it.

Anti-Trade Republicans? What a Farce! : Their opposition to NAFTA, a net bargain for us, is a political paradox--or just plain devious. - Los Angeles Times

Congressional Republicans who vote against NAFTA are purely opportunistic. How many speeches have these politicians given about the virtues of free-market capitalism, the iniquity of taxation, the importance of getting the government off people's backs? Yet here is a proposal to eliminate tariffs and quotas and let Americans buy and sell what they wish, which these Republicans oppose.

Why any politician abandons his or her alleged principles is not a mystery worth dwelling on for long. In the case of Republican NAFTA opponents, one explanation is fear of being caught on the wrong side of Ross Perot's demagoguery. An even less admirable explanation is the wish to hand Bill Clinton a defeat, no matter what the subject. NAFTA was negotiated by the Bush Administration. It is inconceivable that dozens of Republicans in Congress would be voting against it if George Bush had been reelected.

The politics of trade are a paradigm of America's general political dilemma. They illustrate why "change," though we all claim to want it, is so hard to come by. There is no doubt that free trade is a net benefit for the country as a whole. But there is also no doubt that it hurts certain individuals. Unfortunately, the benefits are spread among the general population and often hard to identify specifically, while the harm is concentrated on a few identifiable--and politically organized--interests.

The person who will get a job because of NAFTA isn't even aware of it yet; the person who may lose a job because of NAFTA is all too aware. The millions who will enjoy cheaper food and clothing thanks to NAFTA aren't lobbying for it; but the farming and textile interests that will face new competition are lobbying against it.

NAFTA will benefit Americans in two ways. Yes, it will create jobs--more jobs than it eliminates--by building a bigger market in Mexico for American products

Now democrats are running from NAFTA as fast as they can, but they can't change history.

 

[Moonglow]

stupid is as stupid does.

As of January 1, 2008, all tariffs between the three countries were eliminated. Between 1993-2009, trade tripled from $297 billion to $1.6 trillion. (Source: USTR, NAFTA)

NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and entered force January 1, 1994. Although it was signed by President Bush, it was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: History.com, NAFTA Signed into Law, December 8, 1993)

The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA. (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)

History and Purpose of NAFTA - What Are the Facts

 

[Moonglow]

Now. Who is running?

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, Clinton went along and it would have worked , but the training and education programs that Clinton wanted, the Pubs stopped, so we didn't prepare for global manufacturing- like Germany and Korea and China, etc.. Stupid greedy myopic hypocrite (cowardly!) twits...

 

[Moonglow]

You blind hate full, spite filled posters here really don't care about facts do you?

 

[JoeB131]

Except that "infrastructure" isn't the problem (and you know it). Those houses aren't abandoned and collapsing because of "infrastructure". Their abandoned and collapsing because liberal "Poverty Up" policy taxed businesses out of business, causing everyone to lose their jobs (and you know it).

Watching you guys flop around wildly like a fish out of water as you desperately try to explain away how 60 years of strict liberal control has ended in collapse is COMICAL!

So let me get this straight.

Detroit lost its share of the international car market to Germany and Japan.

Places where they have strong unions, universal, single-payer Health Care, massive government spending on infrastructure and high taxes on the wealthy.

German and Japanese CEO do not make 8 figures, even when their companies fail.

Hmmmmm....

Of course, Detroit's problems were that car plants were scattered out all over the country rather than concentrated in one city. That automation replaced labor. The free trade made it too easy to move factories overseas.

None of these were liberal policies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You blind hate full, spite filled posters here really don't care about facts do you?

When was the last time YOU cared about facts, Moonblow?

 

[JoeB131]

You blind hate full, spite filled posters here really don't care about facts do you?

When was the last time YOU cared about facts, Moonblow?

hey, this must be more of that wonderful thoughtful debate you say you engage in...

 

[TemplarKormac]

stupid is as stupid does.

As of January 1, 2008, all tariffs between the three countries were eliminated. Between 1993-2009, trade tripled from $297 billion to $1.6 trillion. (Source: USTR, NAFTA)

NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and entered force January 1, 1994. Although it was signed by President Bush, it was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: History.com, NAFTA Signed into Law, December 8, 1993)

The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA. (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)

History and Purpose of NAFTA - What Are the Facts

Can you not read?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You blind hate full, spite filled posters here really don't care about facts do you?

When was the last time YOU cared about facts, Moonblow?

hey, this must be more of that wonderful thoughtful debate you say you engage in...

Thoughtful is when you come to a debate prepared with facts, Joe. You come with your insults.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All it took was three posts and I sent you buffoons running. Enjoy your morning!

 

[JoeB131]

All it took was three posts and I sent you buffoons running. Enjoy your morning!

You're a legend in your own mind.

My days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

 

[RoadVirus]

Never missing an opportunity to use a tragedy to forward political agenda becomes transparently desperate and absurdly obvious very quickly.

You guys act like the world's never seen a ghost town:

Thurmond, W.Va., a coal town from the late 1800s, went from several hundred residents to seven by the year 2000.

Yep - thanks to liberal policy. And how is it "using a tragedy" to PROVE that liberal policy ends in poverty? That's especially comical coming from a side that celebrates every time a child is shot and killed in a school....

Capitalist rape the cty, leave it in ruin and then blame the Democrats

Capitalism didn't "rape" Detroit. The Unions did that on their own. And the Democrats in charge let them.

 

[P@triot]

Now. Who is running?

You truly are an idiot. Katz posted Bill Clintons comments on it above. It was Bill Clinton who rammed NAFTA down the throats of the American people despite massive opposition (just like Barack Obama did with Obamacare).

It's astounding how ignorant you Dumbocrats are of history & reality. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, you close you eyes, plug your fingers in your ears, and yell "nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" to avoid having to face the TRUTH.

 

[P@triot]

Yup, Clinton went along and it would have worked , but the training and education programs that Clinton wanted, the Pubs stopped, so we didn't prepare for global manufacturing- like Germany and Korea and China, etc.. Stupid greedy myopic hypocrite (cowardly!) twits...

Franco - as always you're just humiliating yourself now. How much "training" and "education" is required to stand on a fuck'n assembly line? You are such a fuck'n ignorant tool, it defies logic (after all, nature is supposed to naturally eliminate inferior mental and physical genetics such as yours)

 

[P@triot]

stupid is as stupid does.

Exactly! And it was Clinton who did NAFTA, even though you libtards are too ignorant to realize it. We already proved how profoundly ignorant you are HERE

 

[P@triot]

“Texas has zero state income tax, zero capital gains tax, and zero death tax. It is a “right to work” state where employees may choose to join a union, but are never forced to. It is a pro-business and anti-lawyer state—having passed both landmark medical lawsuit reform and America’s first “loser pays” tort reform. The results of the medical reforms? Lawsuits dropped by 70%. Twenty-five thousand doctors moved to Texas. Medical liability insurance rates dropped by as much as 50%.7

Texas is also one of the most difficult states to file class action lawsuits in.8 Quite simply, Texas treats businesspeople and taxpayers nicely. The state offers more business incentives ($19 billion) than any other state.9

On the other hand, Texas is tight-fisted with taxpayer money. It pays among the least generous welfare and entitlement benefits. California is the exact opposite. They are the welfare capital of America. California has 33% of the nation’s welfare recipients versus 12% of the nation’s population. Why? Because California pays the most generous welfare benefits in the nation—$179 per citizen compared to $32 per citizen in Texas.10

Texas is also tight-fisted with its government employees—benefits there are last in the nation.11 California has the highest-paid teachers in America, while Texas pays its teachers far less. Yet the high school graduation rate is higher in Texas than California.12

Texas runs its government far more efficiently. Texas has a balanced budget amendment. By contrast California owes an astounding $167 billion.”

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBookstore: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

 

[Pete7469]

Yup, Clinton went along and it would have worked , but the training and education programs that Clinton wanted, the Pubs stopped, so we didn't prepare for global manufacturing- like Germany and Korea and China, etc.. Stupid greedy myopic hypocrite (cowardly!) twits...

Franco - as always you're just humiliating yourself now. How much "training" and "education" is required to stand on a fuck'n assembly line? You are such a fuck'n ignorant tool, it defies logic (after all, nature is supposed to naturally eliminate inferior mental and physical genetics such as yours)

I'm glad you guys have the tolerance for the painful stupidity these bed wetters regurgiate relentlessly on this board.

As it has been pointed out, democrooks have been in charge of big labor, which rules in big cities, and has driven huge compainies out of business and out of the country. Buffalo NY used to be and industrial giant, the NE bed wetting liberals taxed them into oblivion, the unions sucked the rest away. Now it's a wasteland.

Just for the sake of arguement I would say thet Detroit isn't the end result of liberalism.

Mogadishu is.