Hillary falsely claims she never supported NAFTA
As Obama points out to rust-belt voters that Hillary supported NAFTA, she’s crying that it’s just not true. Why would she bother lying in the internet age?
DavidSirota: Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.” Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.
On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that 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.”
The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that “the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
Yes, we are all expected to just forget that, so that Hillary Clinton’s campaign can manufacture supposed “outrage” that anyone would say she supported NAFTA – all at a time her chief strategist, Mark Penn, simultaneously heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America.
What a total insult to America’s intelligence.
I am afraid Hillary is going to see a lot more of her “previous statements” hauled out on a daily basis.
I think you’re confusing the two Clintons. One was president, the other was giving support.
David
I thought Hillary was running on her husbands years in the White House?
Which is it?
Because the word “fascist” is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that “Liberal Fascism” begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.
The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and “rigidly secular” schools.
Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.
They were for “industrial policy,” long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.
Thomas Sowell:Who Is “Fascist”?
We are in an interesting time. We have two parties, both of which are bad for America and both of which have their “vote for us, we aren’t as bad as the other party” advocates. When do we find a party that is actually “good” for America, the nation.
Remember that the promises being made are often for the “people” who vote and are bad for the nation’s viability to remain fiscally strong. By promising things we can’t pay for, we are eventually going to end up not having the funding needed for the very promises being made.
At that point, when people are demanding promises be kept and possibly rioting because the government is no longer meeting their needs, what kind of government power will be used to “restore order?”
Trying to give people things we can’t pay for is killing this nation. Trying to pay for the promises we make will also kill this nation’s ability to survive in a very competitive world.
Read the book by Jim Rogers, “A Bull in China” to see what America will have to compete with. Good intentions are going to destroy our ability to remain a nation with a high standard of living.
Jan
I think Gorbachev talked about somehow comhing Communism and Capitalism. What do you think this formula entails and is this what’s going on today?
Yes, some say that, however, China is more capitalist that Russia but, they have done many things to get people to risk labor and savings for higher returns.
Capitalism can take place in a totalitarian society as well as in one like we used to have and still have to some degree.
quote:
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
A totalitarian state that protects your rights to property and the return from your business operations or investments can function quite well. It may “nationalize” some keep industries, like power or it may privatize but regulate heavily to ensure the nation’s health prospers at the same time the individual does.
Some segment in Russia will be heavily regulated if Russia feels “greed” has usurped national interest. At the same time, we see in China privatization of many things they used to control but still hang on to heavy regulation in some.
China, for example, has huge reserves built up in their Central bank. Thus as we go into recession, they may spend some of their surplus to keep GDP growth at 5-8% by building more of roads, power dams, rail and pipe lines, etc. In other words, instead of laying people off, they have the wealth to keep hiring more and then during the next “boom” build up surpluses again.
With their 35% saving rate, they can also whether periods of downturns better. We, instead, borrow during booms and then borrow even more during downturns.
Mr Konop,
Which is it?
Which ever one you think can best be used to attack her, of course.
David
That would be checkmate!