Comments on: Hillary Clinton on NAFTA http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:04:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: CaptainAmerica http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-153138 CaptainAmerica Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:49:32 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-153138 Re NAFTA, with all respect to the writer and the respondents, what's the beef? Before NAFTA our companies had maquilladoras south of the border making everything from brooms to circuit boards but with no reciprocal trade privileges. So how did implementing NAFTA make things worse for U.S. workers? Re NAFTA, with all respect to the writer and the respondents, what’s the beef? Before NAFTA our companies had maquilladoras south of the border making everything from brooms to circuit boards but with no reciprocal trade privileges. So how did implementing NAFTA make things worse for U.S. workers?

]]> By: 7NoTrumpxx http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-150852 7NoTrumpxx Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:54:27 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-150852 David Gergen Confirms Clinton Didn't Back NAFTA David Gergen, former advisor to President Bill Clinton confirms to CNN that Hillary Clinton did not support NAFTA. Gergen was in the Clinton Administration as well as several Republican Administrations as an adviser. Go to youtube.com and search for "Gergen NAFTA Clinton" David Gergen Confirms Clinton Didn’t Back NAFTA

David Gergen, former advisor to President Bill Clinton confirms to CNN that Hillary Clinton did not support NAFTA.

Gergen was in the Clinton Administration as well as several Republican Administrations as an adviser.

Go to youtube.com and search for “Gergen NAFTA Clinton”

]]> By: It IS the Economy : NO QUARTER http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-140948 It IS the Economy : NO QUARTER Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:06:58 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-140948 [...] the actual policies of the two candidates, and find out who’s the best on the economy and on NAFTA (another issue that Barack Obama has lied about, including that he supports “free [...] [...] the actual policies of the two candidates, and find out who’s the best on the economy and on NAFTA (another issue that Barack Obama has lied about, including that he supports “free [...]

]]> By: Cee http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139748 Cee Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:33:15 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139748 Northwest, Care to comment on Hillary saying that the worth of NAFTA has been proven to one audience and saying something different to another? Northwest,

Care to comment on Hillary saying that the worth of NAFTA has been proven to one audience and saying something different to another?

]]> By: Cee http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139746 Cee Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:29:05 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139746 Mass, I have been clear on this after I decided to support Obama. I don't trust Hillary. She has proven over and over to be dishonest and unprincipled. Thanks to all of you for helping Hillary and the GOP. Republicans Gearing Up To Attack Obama By Eric Kleefeld - February 18, 2008, 8:58AM After spending at least the past year planning on how they'd run against Hillary Clinton in 2008, Republican operatives are now busy putting together a plan of attack against Barack Obama now that he's currently out front for the Democrats. Among their points against him, according to a plan laid out at an RNC retreat: • He is not ready to be commander in chief. • Taking a page from the Hillary Clinton campaign, he had a "pattern of voting 'present'" in the Illinois legislature. • The Republicans "can be confident in a campaign about issues," seemingly in contrast to his mere rhetoric. • He is inexperienced. "Forgetting who will be the easiest to beat," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), "I've got to tell you, a President Hillary doesn't scare me nearly as much as a President Obama." http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/repbulicans_gearing_up_to_atta.php Mass,

I have been clear on this after I decided to support Obama.
I don’t trust Hillary. She has proven over and over to be dishonest and unprincipled.

Thanks to all of you for helping Hillary and the GOP.

Republicans Gearing Up To Attack Obama
By Eric Kleefeld - February 18, 2008, 8:58AM
After spending at least the past year planning on how they’d run against Hillary Clinton in 2008, Republican operatives are now busy putting together a plan of attack against Barack Obama now that he’s currently out front for the Democrats.

Among their points against him, according to a plan laid out at an RNC retreat:

• He is not ready to be commander in chief.

• Taking a page from the Hillary Clinton campaign, he had a “pattern of voting ‘present’” in the Illinois legislature.

• The Republicans “can be confident in a campaign about issues,” seemingly in contrast to his mere rhetoric.

• He is inexperienced.

“Forgetting who will be the easiest to beat,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), “I’ve got to tell you, a President Hillary doesn’t scare me nearly as much as a President Obama.”

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/repbulicans_gearing_up_to_atta.php

]]> By: CK http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139696 CK Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:36:31 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139696 Positions on trade are about the same across the political sprectrum. There are a few isolationists who do not wish to trade with anyone. This position would make importing energy very difficult as well as exporting corn. There is the non-interventionist position, trade with anybody that wants to trade, don't trade with those who don't wish to trade with you, leave the troops at home. There is the old but waiting in the wings to return Mercantilist position. One way trade basically controlled through tariffs and import restrictions on imports and guns and power enforcing the export industries. Smoot-Hawley is the easiest google for the negatives on mercantilism. Managed trade, ( the NAFTA model ) if done right it manages to destroy the domestic industries by encouraging and subsidizing the export of jobs and capital and importing loans and consumer goods. This is the NYT Friedman model not the U of C Friedman. Absolutely free trade. Import what you can and are able to pay for, export what you can and are able to collect on. Not liked by any economist or politician or sugar grower. No really great government employment possibilities under this kind of trade regimin. Autarchy ( isolationism in trade ) was thought to be proper for the USA in the 1800's since there was so much land, so many resources and so few people. Now that the USA is wholly dependent on foreign imports to impede the decline in the standard of living here, some form of NAFTA/WTO/DAVOS model of controlled and enforced trade is necessary for the greatness of the empire. The downside of it of course is that the Japans, China, Saudi Arabia's end up with enought of American's debt to buy up with that debt the land and people of America. Positions on trade are about the same across the political sprectrum.
There are a few isolationists who do not wish to trade with anyone. This position would make importing energy very difficult as well as exporting corn.
There is the non-interventionist position, trade with anybody that wants to trade, don’t trade with those who don’t wish to trade with you, leave the troops at home.
There is the old but waiting in the wings to return Mercantilist position. One way trade basically controlled through tariffs and import restrictions on imports and guns and power enforcing the export industries. Smoot-Hawley is the easiest google for the negatives on mercantilism.
Managed trade, ( the NAFTA model ) if done right it manages to destroy the domestic industries by encouraging and subsidizing the export of jobs and capital and importing loans and consumer goods. This is the NYT Friedman model not the U of C Friedman.
Absolutely free trade. Import what you can and are able to pay for, export what you can and are able to collect on. Not liked by any economist or politician or sugar grower. No really great government employment possibilities under this kind of trade regimin.
Autarchy ( isolationism in trade ) was thought to be proper for the USA in the 1800’s since there was so much land, so many resources and so few people. Now that the USA is wholly dependent on foreign imports to impede the decline in the standard of living here, some form of NAFTA/WTO/DAVOS model of controlled and enforced trade is necessary for the greatness of the empire. The downside of it of course is that the Japans, China, Saudi Arabia’s end up with enought of American’s debt to buy up with that debt the land and people of America.

]]> By: CK http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139687 CK Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:15:59 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139687 Not a whole lot of difference between Krugman and the U of C boys in their economic prescriptions. Krugamn's basic idea is spend tax money on things he thinks the economy should want. U of C boys believe that controlling the printing presses so that inflation is kept contstant and positive is enough to allow the maximum tax returns to support whatever someone wants to spend the tax money on. In both models the primary objective is to avoid allowing the citizenry to spend their own money on the things the citizenry wants. One side substitutes an all wise pickpocket the other side substitutes an all wise printer. Neither side had much wisdom. Both sides agree that military spending is a damn fine thing. Not a whole lot of difference between Krugman and the U of C boys in their economic prescriptions.
Krugamn’s basic idea is spend tax money on things he thinks the economy should want.
U of C boys believe that controlling the printing presses so that inflation is kept contstant and positive is enough to allow the maximum tax returns to support whatever someone wants to spend the tax money on. In both models the primary objective is to avoid allowing the citizenry to spend their own money on the things the citizenry wants. One side substitutes an all wise pickpocket the other side substitutes an all wise printer.
Neither side had much wisdom. Both sides agree that military spending is a damn fine thing.

]]> By: CK http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139686 CK Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:11:08 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139686 If by "chicago boys" you mean third generation monetary economists trained by the people that were trained by Milton Friedman. That is a less than wonderful idea. Better than having Greenspan and Bernanke as advisors however. If by “chicago boys” you mean third generation monetary economists trained by the people that were trained by Milton Friedman. That is a less than wonderful idea. Better than having Greenspan and Bernanke as advisors however.

]]> By: CK http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139680 CK Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:00:18 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139680 Two next bumps: 1) Monoline insurers. Spitzer's deadline for them to recapitalize draws to an end. Currently, the thinking is that the monolines will have to split themselves. The profitable part covering and insuring muni debt will be separated from the part that insures the rest of the derivative garbage. ( This was Buffet's offer from a few days ago that the monolines rebuffed.) The problem is of course that no one wants the part that insures already defaulted crap. 2) CDS's ( $45.5 TRILLION in nominal value; no one has any idea how much this stuff would really be worth if there were a market for it.) Short explanation, insurance on the insurance on the insurance against someone somewhere defaulting on a debt. ( CDS = Credit Default Swap ) Completely unregulated, off the books, but they are legal contracts. 3) Just a little cloud on the horizon, Standard and Poors and Moodies are making noises about downgrading the ratings of United States debt instruments. Conjure for a moment what it would mean if Savings bonds or treasury notes did not carry an automatic AAA grade rating. Two next bumps:
1) Monoline insurers. Spitzer’s deadline for them to recapitalize draws to an end. Currently, the thinking is that the monolines will have to split themselves. The profitable part covering and insuring muni debt will be separated from the part that insures the rest of the derivative garbage. ( This was Buffet’s offer from a few days ago that the monolines rebuffed.) The problem is of course that no one wants the part that insures already defaulted crap.
2) CDS’s ( $45.5 TRILLION in nominal value; no one has any idea how much this stuff would really be worth if there were a market for it.) Short explanation, insurance on the insurance on the insurance against someone somewhere defaulting on a debt. ( CDS = Credit Default Swap ) Completely unregulated, off the books, but they are legal contracts.
3) Just a little cloud on the horizon, Standard and Poors and Moodies are making noises about downgrading the ratings of United States debt instruments. Conjure for a moment what it would mean if Savings bonds or treasury notes did not carry an automatic AAA grade rating.

]]> By: justsomeone http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139608 justsomeone Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:06:22 +0000 http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/17/hillary-clinton-on-nafta/#comment-139608 Daisy, "some men were talking her & she is attractive." Are you Hillarys age? Do men not talk to you? I hope you find a nice boyfriend. These lonely hearts comments are drivin' me nutz!!!!!Who cares about her hair, clothes, make up? Oh, excuse me, you ladies do. Damn, dozens of posts back Larry even said "she doesn't have fat legs" & youall think Obama is running a cult. NoQuarter started off as a security & foreign relations site, now it's morphed into a luv Hillary/hate Obama blog, perhaps eventually it can morph into a match maker.com blog. In the meantime when may I anticipate an interview with Sen. Clinton's hair stylist? Daisy, “some men were talking her & she is attractive.” Are you Hillarys age? Do men not talk to you? I hope you find a nice boyfriend. These lonely hearts comments are drivin’ me nutz!!!!!Who cares about her hair, clothes, make up? Oh, excuse me, you ladies do. Damn, dozens of posts back Larry even said “she doesn’t have fat legs” & youall think Obama is running a cult. NoQuarter started off as a security & foreign relations site, now it’s morphed into a luv Hillary/hate Obama blog, perhaps eventually it can morph into a match maker.com blog. In the meantime when may I anticipate an interview with Sen. Clinton’s hair stylist?

]]>