The Clintons' NAFTA impoverished MILLIONS of women, children, farmers and Mexican corn growers

[Dems Will Win]

Clinton's NAFTA Wiped Out Corn Grower Families In Mexico, Many End Up Living In Garbage Dumps

Here's what the Clintons said about NAFTA when they pushed the Republican version of it in the 90s:

Hillary Clinton Said NAFTA Was A Victory For President Clinton, Would Lead To An Economic Improvement.

In 1996, on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region." In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

And just last year, Hillary still thought NAFTA was great:

And according to a Newsday issues rundown in 2006, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy."

Hillary Clinton Thought NAFTA Was A "Boon" To The Economy. According to a Newsday issues rundown, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy."

http://nyenevada.blogspot.com/2007/11/fact-check-hillary-clinton-on-nafta.html

Meanwhile NAFTA has impoverished MILLIONS of US workers including single mothers and their children, especially TEXTILE WORKERS. All the textile mills in this nation have just about closed due to NAFTA and the WTO. So if you are a middle or lower-class American woman, Hillary has done you NO FAVORS with NAFTA.

If you are a US farmer, NAFTA has really screwed you over, but has helped agribusiness.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has had a track record of broken promises for family farmers and ranchers. These broken promises were made to win support during the 1993 Congressional debate over the fate of NAFTA. While farmers were promised they could export their way to lasting economic success, consumers were promised lower food prices. The promised benefits never materialized: farm income has declined, and consumer prices have risen while some agribusinesses -- which lobbied hard for NAFTA and now are avidly promoting its expansion -- have seen record profits.

NAFTA already has had a devastating effect on U.S. farmers and ranchers. Since NAFTA, the U.S. trade surplus in agricultural products, which once was the flagship of U.S. exports, has declined significantly, and that trend is most profound with NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico. While U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico have grown modestly, imports to the United States from those countries have grown much faster. Before NAFTA (between 1991 and 1994), the U.S. agricultural trade surplus with Mexico and Canada increased by $203 million. However, since NAFTA, the surplus fell by fell by $1.498 billion. Remarkably, the NAFTA agricultural product trade surplus has declined more rapidly than the U.S. worldwide trade surplus in agricultural products, falling 70.7% from $1.6 billion in 1993 to $456 million in 2000.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/agriculture/

And if you are a Mexican corn grower, you are probably starving about now, unless you got across the border somehow and are feeding your children in America.

NAFTA is the main reason why unauthorized Mexico-US crossings rose from 130,000 per year before NAFTA to 700,000 to 800,000 per year afterwards! Cheap corn dumping by subsidized US agribusiness dropped corn prices 70% after NAFTA!

NAFTA was easily the Clintons' biggest mistake, and as late as '06 Hillary still thought it was a "boon to the economy".

Here is how bad NAFTA has been for corn-growers in Mexico, several million in farm families thrown off their land!

http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=6788

http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/US-Mexican-Oxfam27aug03.htm

http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8552

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E3DB1039F934A1575BC0A9659C8B63

NAFTA and the WTO set up all the outsourcing -- and YOU CAN'T TRUST HER TO FIX THE TRADE AGREEMENTS BECAUSE SHE'S A SOLD OUT CORPORATIST. SHE WILL TRADE AWAY YOUR JOB TOO SOMEHOW, SOMEDAY.

Please recommend so this issue can be aired.

[annie1]

1. Yeah, can anyone explain to me why he fought so hard to pass that?...

he didn't need for re-election. I never understood that. anyone?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. But Wall Street Made A Killing!

As they did from Clinton's job-obliterating permanent "free" trade status for China.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Too bad NAFTA had such an effective advocate in Al Gore

or maybe Ross Perot would have won that debate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. What Gore argued for had the environmental and labor protections

that were cut from the final (republican) version. Which Bill signed.

[Dems Will Win]

15. Glad you mentioned that. This is the critical point at which Bill and Hillary sold out the workers

the environment and the corn growers. Bill should have vetoed the Republican version, not SIGNED IT!

[annie1]

20. yeah, that was pretty sick. it makes me really hate bill for it...

which sux. i think she is to the left of bill. i certainly hope so.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. It's all Clinton's fault

good god, you been watching Hannity?

[Dems Will Win]

5. Clinton fought for the Republican version and signed it instead of vetoing it

The DEmocrats against it predicted all the horrendous things that have happened because the Act was so one-sided for corporations and AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT AND UNIONS.

Do your homework. Read some history of the 90s, for gosh sake.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. Hillary Clinton alone is responsible.

No one else in the whole wide world is responsible.

Do your own damn homework.

[Dems Will Win]

9. OK here's some more:

Hillary Clinton fields questions about the Clinton administration’s stance on labor, particularly with regards to its support of NAFTA. The First Lady, who recently met with members of UNITE (Union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Employees), says that she is confident that American workers can remain competitive in the global market. Jay Mazur, President of UNITE, disagrees with the administration on NAFTA, but sees eye-to-eye with the Clinton Aministration on several other issues such as minimum wage, OSHA, enforcing labor laws, etc.

...

Co-host Juan Gonzalez takes issue with Hillary Clinton’s statement that NAFTA has “proven its worth”, pointing out that, contrary to the administration’s promises, thus far under NAFTA more American jobs have been lost than gained, and Gonzalez feels that labor unions should hold the Clinton administration accountable for this.

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/1996/3/7

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. And here is some reading for you.

John Edwards on NAFTA in 2004:

NAFTA is “Important” and It “Should Exist.”

In a 2004 meeting with the New York Times editorial board, John Edwards said “NAFTA should exist” and declared “NAFTA is important—it is an important part of our global economy, an important part of our trade relations.” In the same meeting, Edwards also cast his trade positions as “a tick away” from the free trade championing Democratic Leadership Council. At the time, Edwards was seeking the endorsement of the paper’s editors, who had supported NAFTA in 1993.
http://www.blogowogo.com/blog_article.php?aid=1150390


Harper's Magazine syas that Obama's hiring of a former staffer for Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin makes him susceptible to policies that hurt organized labor. Harper's writes, " hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation's manufacturing sector". <[br />
Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project - a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.
http://www.credoaction.com/sirota/2007/10/breaking_obama_says_he_will_vo.html

[Dems Will Win]

11. Oh good, now you've decided to show me something to read, now you're getting the hang of it!

I'm proud of you!

What you really need to do is make your own Posts and Defend Hillary's record on NAFTA and tell us how we can trust her to fix it after she was the one that touted it and thought it was so great.

Why don't you do that?

I'll participate...

It'll be fun and everyone will learn more about NAFTA and what a swell thing it is.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. why don't you...go

oops I better edit that--I don't want to be tomb stoned because of a sarcastic poster who apparently has little idea what he is talking about.

[LostinVA]

60. Good grief, don't you remember HRC was President then?! IT''S ALL HER FAULT!!!

Oh wait... no, she wasn't...

These posts are getting crazier, eh?

[niceypoo]

73. Hillary wasnt president you imbicile

Do your own damn homework

[Webster Green]

8. The Hannity enabled by the 1996 Telecommunications Act?

Another huge Clinton blunder.

Gave us the fascist right-wing media we are stuck with today. The one that is poised to get even worse!

Bush...Clinton...Bush...Clinton...WTF?! Are we some kind of fucking monarchy?

Is Nader running?

[paulk]

40. is Nader running?

Why, you gonna vote for him?

[Webster Green]

57. Perhaps..

Wouldn't be the first time.

[vssmith]

45. Did you watch Bill Moyers today?

He was talking about media concentration, a problem I have been pissed about for quite a while now. He just got me stirred up again. The FCC has a little piss ant chairman named Kevin Martin who has every intention of allowing newspapers and TV stations to be owned by the same conglomerate in a given geographical area. He went around the country having hearings and in every place, especially in Seattle, he was was met with enormous resistance. He was in front of congress and was asked to delay this decision for 90 days—he refused. I think they want to get it done before Dems take control of the WH.

[Armstead]

22. Stop it Godamm it all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry for the overstatement, but I am so frickin sick of this shit that anyone who is critical of the Clintons is automatically spouting off right wing talking points.

If you think the Clintons are great and their critics are wrong, fine. Make your case on those terms.

But give this "have you been watching Hannity" crap a rest.

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. Look It is reasonable to talk about the problems with Nafta and to

call Clinton on her view of Nafta. But to blame her for children dying is A RIGHTWING TALKINGPOINT.

So, don't you yell at me mister, ALL CAPS. SO YOUR TIRED OF THE FRIGEN SHIT. READ NEARLY EVERY THREAD ON THIS BOARD AND I WILL SHOW YOU SOMETHING TO BE TIRED OF: CONSTANT RIGHTWING LIES ABOUT CLINTON.

YOU ARE SICK AND TIRED? YOU DON'T KNOW SICK AND TIRED.

GIVE YOUR OWN DAMN SELF A REST.

[Armstead]

26. Children dying is not a "right-wing" talking point

You would be totally fair to say it is an exageration to blame all of the poverty in poorer nations on Corporate "free trade." There is legitimate room for disagreement on that, as there is on many issues.

You also have a point to say it is unfair to blame it all on the Clintons.

However, what prompted my ALL CAPS RANT was the totally phony labelling of positions contrary to the Clinton/DLC/Centrist positions as automatically being "right wing talking points." That's just crap.

The right wing is not exactly jumping up and down pointing to dying children as examples of the failure of corporate "free trade." Quite the contrary.

At least claiming that "the left" is wrong would be an intellectually honest and consistent stance (even though I don't agree with you on that). But claiming that criticisms from the left of the Clintons are actually the same sources as from the right is just bullshit.

[Donna Zen]

44. The right-wing talking points

does not include NAFTA. They like it. The right-wing doesn't complain about Clinton's hawish policies. They agree.

A right-wing talking point about dying children would focus on abortion...not dasterdly trade policies. No one here is anti-choice...or at least no one I've read here.

NAFTA and its secret court are bad for America and bad for the poor of other countries. I don't blame everything on Clinton for this policy because the corrupt government of Mexico more than shares the shame. But the Clintons and their ideas about globalization are horrible. When the American taxpayer foots the bill, the person accepting the check should at least be looking out for them when developing trade policy. The nature of triangulation undercuts that trust. President Clinton gathered together the votes of the ever-criminal republicans and put them together with enough DLC Dems. to get this passed. It is bad.

[truedelphi]

59. But the posters aren't saying kids are dying - they are saying that

They are more impoverished than before.

And living in garbage dumps.

And if those circumstances came about because of NAFTA, and Hillary And Bill CLinton helped bring about NAFTA, then the connection is clear.

Both Perot and Buchannon deplored NAFTA. I don't recall any Democrats fighting against it in the Senate. Maybe Conyers and a few others fought against it in the House.

We can't ignore or re-write history just to make the Clintons and others look better.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[Andy823]

7. Yeah we need more of this

Like we need another 8 years of "George W. Bush"!:mad:

For all those who really think Hillary can bring us back to the "good old days" of the 90's, just remember NAFTA, and remember that Hillary voted for the "Peru" free trade agreement a few weeks ago, need I say more?

[ClarkUSA]

13. But, but, but... the Des Moines Register editors think Hillary is FDR incarnate!

Isn't that Hillaryous?

[Nedsdag]

16. It's so "Hillaryous" that I forgot to laugh.

n/t

[ClarkUSA]

17. Unfortunately, Hillaryous jokes are often on us political peons.

They are usually chuckled over by Mark Penn Clintonians.

[Rydz777]

18. NAFTA, a disaster on both sides of the border, was cooked up

by father Bush and pushed through a reluctant Democratic Congress by Bill Clinton. I have yet to decide whether its results were intended or unanticipated.

[annie1]

19. Can you help me understand why bill wanted that so badly?

I didn't understand it then, and i don't understand it now. I know he wanted to bolster big biz, i know he anticipated job loss, but why would he do that knowing what he knew. what was he hoping would even it all out? thanks.

[Armstead]

23. Bill has a corporate elite view of the world

He is among those who believe that what's good for corporations will be good for America.

It's supply-side economics with a happy face.

[sandnsea]

27. Two theories

a, he's really a Bush toadie and there's plenty of evidence to point in that direction.

b, he believes in globalization. The theory is that the only way to ever lift people permanently out of poverty is to expand capitalism everywhere. Capitalism = jobs = income = elimination of stark poverty. That would be true if we'd assisted in a bottom up economy, an entrepreneur based economy. That isn't what happened. Clinton also opened China, which the Bushies had also pushed for.

So take your pick. You can conclude that a man with a 165 IQ didn't know what would happen with these trade agreements and made a colossal mistake - that Hillary doesn't appear to be admitting. Or he actually agrees with the Republicans.

He is also responsible for the housing program that is causing NOLA apartments to be torn down. He had people working for food stamps with his Arkansas welfare program, and limited medication to 4 a month for people on Medicaid. It's Democrats like Teddy Kennedy that kept him from implementing those sorts of medicaid changes nationally.

There are very valid reasons people don't like the Clintons. It isn't just a bunch of "Hillary Haters".

[K Gardner]

29. Well stated, good insight.. thanks :-)

[LeFleur1]

77. Bill's Presidency

That's odd. I didn't realize Clinton was a dictator during his time in office. I thought he had a Republican congress to deal with...one that supported NAFTA.

Clinton is probably smarter than the average person and sees that globalization is going to happen. What he didn't do was fight hard to include worker rights and environmental protections. NAFTA is the fault of the Republican congress...but Clinton should have stood for the workers and the environment. Great damage was done to him personally, and to the party because he didn't. No quarrel there. But don't forget which party was bottom line responsible. The Republican party. NAFTA was old George's idea.

[Radical Activist]

49. There's a pattern.

Other countries in the 70's and 80's sold these bad trade deals and conservative economic reforms to the public by getting a leftist or center-left figure with popular support to implement the program. Its a lot easier to screw people when the public face on it acts like they're on the side of the workers. NAFTA did exactly what it was supposed to do.

[K Gardner]

28. I seem to remember at the time that it was touted as the greatest thing since

sliced bread. Maybe we just all drank the kool-aid. Not as much "free research" outlets back then as there are now. As for the Intention of NAFTA, I have no idea and wonder that myself. Did they know what effect it would have, a decade later? Kind of like asking if Bush/Cheney knew what the REAL result of invading Iraq would be. Did they really think we'd be greeted with hearts and flowers? Even if not, did they realize the exact extend of the horror they were unleashing? It's hard to imagine, today looking back on both events, that anyone would open the doors.. if they really knew what lay on the other side. Pandora's Box. Never more relevant than now.

[bvar22]

51. Not everybody drank the "Free Trade Kool-Aid".

There were many Liberal Democrats who opposed this disaster of a policy.

Most Unions vocally opposed it.

Ross Perot actually garnered 20% of the popular vote on a campaign based primarily on an opposition to "Free Trade", and predicted EXACTLY what would happened if such a policy was implemented.

Bill Clinton and the DLC put together a coalition of Republicans and DLC Democrats to pass this abomination.

Hillary's support of more Free Trade is one of the major reasons I oppose a her nomination.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[K Gardner]

58. Not sure how I could have fogotten Perot and the stink he raised about that..

thanks for the reminder ! And for keeping this issue front and center :-)

[annie1]

21. i'm surprised Obama didn't hit her with this.

[Dems Will Win]

37. He will be soon I hope.

[Romulox]

67. Obama supports NAFTA. nt.

[fightindonkey]

24. Hillary's Fault Always

LMAO

[Perry Logan]

30. I've got your "Clintons' NAFTA" right here. Gore was also instrumental in getting it passed.

[Romulox]

69. Yep. He's a phoney environmentalist: ship jobs to unregulated China/Mexico, raise standards here

[OhioChick]

31. Hear, Hear!

K&R
:kick:

[Skidmore]

32. But..but...HRC has experience...the right kind of experience and

Bill told us so.

[pipoman]

33. I will never forget the news conference

held after Congress sent the NAFTA to the Senate. Pat Leahy and Pat Moynahan were standing together looking like they were going to french each other right before scissoring saying how this bill must be "fast tracked" through the Senate and how it was good for America. This bill was supported by all who were paid off to support it...the money was coming from every direction. Anytime both parties are so close to orgasm with anticipation for a bill of this magnitude the peons are getting bent over hard. This wasn't a Republican bill or a Democratic bill, it was a bought and paid for bill designed to screw American workers and make the products everyone else buys cheaper. Shame on all who supported it and those who were most outspoken supporters should never be elected to any office in public trust again.

[mod mom]

34. Thank you for this information. This issue should get more attention than it is.

[ThePowerofWill]

35. Reminds me of some talking head i heard on NPR.

About a week or so ago i caught a program they were having on free trade. The talking head assured us that such deals did not hamper our job market, we are doing fine..........except those with high school or less education. That group suffers, but he more or less shrugged off this whole 1/3rd of the population. His point was us educated will be fine, but the peasants will suffer. How fuckin' gracious to just sacrifice 1/3rd of your population to poverty.

We need manufacturing jobs, have to have them. Not everyone is suited to, or wants to go to college. Remember, every other person is below average and they need decent jobs to. A $12-15hr factory job beats the hell ut of a $6-8hr service job.

What also makes me sad is listening to my Mexican buddy at work. He tell me how it's got so rough for many down there. He told me thousands are going to big cities and living in old buildings as squatters scavenging for a living, and lots of people on the move.

[Dems Will Win]

36. NAFTA destroyed the livelihood of 15 million Mexicans living in farm families

I posted the links to the reports above.

[Romulox]

70. Dude: That was *PAUL KRUGMAN* the "liberal" free-trading economist.

Also an active party in the Hillary Clinton campaign. :eyes:


edit: Link. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/26/krugman_commentary/

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Dennis Kucinich by far has the least fingerprints on N.A.F.T.A

well him and Mike Gravel possibly, I haven't researched Gravel on this. Kucinich stands out for his long sharp rejection of N.A.F.T.A. To varying, but none the less considerable degrees, our other candidates have been complicit in their actions and/or their words at various points in N.A.F.T.A.'s history for supporting it's merrits, while increasingly calling for revsions in it as the problems with N.A.F.T.A. became ever more difficult to ignore. Hillary Clinton currently calls for revisions with it as well. None of our candidates defend N.A.F.T.A. as it currently works.

[Dems Will Win]

39. Kucinich unfortunately is not viable, and never was

Obama is the only one with the ability and the money to defeat Hillary

[paulk]

41. actually, Clinton didn't push the "Republican" version

they pushed a version that had environmental and labor protections - which is how they were able to get enough Democratic support to pss it. Subsequently the Republican controlled Congress then the Bush administration did not enforce these protections.

The rise of China as a source for cheap labor and goods had a lot to do with the failure of NAFTA, that and an incompetent Mexican government .

[Morereason]

43. As if that could not be forseen, China was already a world labor force

EVERYBODY who was against it, and there were a lot who were, knew the truth of what it would bring. They just played ignorant.

[L0oniX]

42. Can we all agree that we need jobs here in the USA?

Can we all agree that we don't need a leader that facilitates the loss of jobs here?
Can we all agree that we need more low end $10 an hour jobs as well as million dollar corporate jobs?
Can we all agree that we need to take care of our own people first?
What the hell can we agree on? Lets figure it out and become a strong democratic party with integrity who is for -we the people- for a change. It's our country. It's our government.

[treestar]

54. "Taking care of our own people first" oversimplifies it and leads

to unwise decisions - we have to learn to value everyone else also, then we'll do what is best for us. By deliberately valuing oursleves over others we just get short sighted. The economy in the 21st century will not be contained within each country - international trade will just grow.

This hurt the Mexicans which may have hurt us (though not as badly as it hurt them). Considering them sub-human gets us nowhere. Other people having jobs does not hurt us, when we try to stop them from working, we wind up with fewer jobs ourselves. It's just not a zero sum game, them or us.

[Romulox]

68. Enlightened self-interest is the conceptual basis for democracy. nt

[L0oniX]

72. Wait and see who will help us when we have our economic melt down.

[Radical Activist]

46. In the '92 campaign Bill said he wouldn't sign NAFTA

unless major changes were made to protect labor and the environment. He flip flopped after the election and pushed it without changes.

Yes, this is a big reason I can't support Hillary or Richardson. Its a reason I have reservations about Gore no matter how much I like the other things he said since 2000.

[paulk]

52. that's not true

NAFTA was signed under HW Bush, under fast track authority.

It was ratified under Clinton, who pushed two side agreements, the NAAEC and NAALC, covering environmental and labor concerns.

What you have posted is false.

[Radical Activist]

56. Clinton pushed for the treaty as it was signed by Bush.

That's the exact opposite of what Clinton campaigned on. Yes, you correctly state that Clinton broke a campaign promise by pushing for ratifying the treaty as it was signed by Bush. Thank you for agreeing with my statement.

NAEEC and NAALC were not part of the treaty and had no real effect.

[paulk]

62. No.

He pushed to ratify the treaty under the condition that the side agreements (NAEEC avd NAALC) were included. Clinton would not have pushed NAFTA without the side agreements.

Clinton never promised to ratify the treaty as it was "signed by Bush". That's bullshit.

[Radical Activist]

64. "side agreements"

As in, they were not part of the treaty itself, which remained the same. No environmental or labor organization thinks the side agreements really accomplished anything.

[Forkboy]

47. It's only Mexicans for crying out loud. What's the big deal?

You'd think they were people or something from the way you carry on.

[Radical Activist]

48. Clinton gave us the Walmart economy.

People lost their good paying union jobs and were forced to take jobs for minimum wage or go on welfare, which Clinton also cut. Clinton supporters like to cite all kinds of good economic numbers for his Presidency but there's a big one they don't point out. The standard of living for the average American continued to decline under Clinton. That's his lasting legacy that hurts us far more than a few years of balancing the budget did us any good.

[paulk]

53. more untruths from you

Clinton economy circa 1999 -

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.8 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.5 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Household Income Breaks $40,000 for First Time in History. Income for median households rose $1,072, or 2.7 percent, from $39,744 in 1998 to $40,816, marking an unprecedented fifth year of significant growth in income. In 1999, the median income of African American households increased from $25,911 in 1998 to $27,910 -- an increase of $1,999, or 7.7 percent, which is the largest one-year increase ever recorded. The income of the median Hispanic household, adjusted for inflation, increased from $28,956 in 1998 to $30,735 in 1999 -- an increase of $1,779, or 6.1 percent, which is the largest one-year increase ever recorded.


Lowest Poverty Rate Since 1979. In 1999, the poverty rate dropped from 12.7 percent to 11.8 percent, the lowest rate in two decades. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore passed their Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999 - the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1964-1970). There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993, and over 2.2 million, or over 30 percent, of this decline occurred during the past year.


-----------------


The Bush administration has reversed all these gains.

[Radical Activist]

55. I have facts while you cut and paste.

Mind telling me where you cut and paste that from? Its the usual tactic of pasting a list of ecnomic statistics that were all washed away after two years of Bush. What kind of legacy does Clinton have if it can all be undone in two years? None at all.

You pasted "In the last 12 months..."
What 12 months are you talking about? Clinton was President for 8 years not one.

I wrote that the standard of living declined and yet you somehow failed to show any statistics or references about the standard of living (not to mention the continued widening of the gap between rich and poor) that happened while Clinton was President. Why is that? Maybe because I'm correct?

[paulk]

63. You didn't post any statistics.

Post them. Show that the standard of living declined under Clinton. Show that you are correct.

Show how much the Clinton economy sucked.

[pipoman]

75. ...

[Robert Oak]

50. disaster in 2008, NAFTA

When the tariffs on corn and beans will be lifted within the framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
article Mexico AG subsidy resets



NAFTA Will Boost Mexican Emigration to US

Mexico, Dec 16 (Prensa Latina) Mexican emigration to the United States will increase as of January 2008, when the tariffs on corn and beans will be lifted within the framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), expert Steve Suppan said on Saturday.


One thing that true Progressives and Populists I think can agree on with the illegal immigration crisis is the reality that these bad trade deals increase illegal immigration.

[ecstatic]

61. Gore had plenty to do with that too nt

[LWolf]

65. And who is the candidate who opposed NAFTA at the time? n/t

[redqueen]

76. Doesn't matter... he 'can't win', so most will support someone else.

*sigh*

[LWolf]

79. Many, but not all.

Can the corporate democrat win if the left wing of the party won't vote for him or her?

There has to come a time when the response is, as a block, "Maybe not, but that is not a one-way street. You won't win without us, either."

[MethuenProgressive]

66. Bill Clinton isn't running.

[Romulox]

71. Pssst. His wife is, and she's promising more of the same. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

74. Pssst. Not everything Edwabama says is true. nt

[Romulox]

78. Hillary ain't running? Has anyone told Mark Penn? nt