Environment and NAFTA

[citizen snips]

I have had Republicans visiting my site and site and saying that under Clinton we are giving away jobs to Mexico and NAFTA has been bad for our environment. Of course I don't belive them because Bush had done nothting good to the environment. Please comment.

[La_Serpiente]

1. :BARF:

Actually, it is a stain on both of the parties. A plurality of Democrats and a majority of Republicans advocated NAFTA, the WTO, trade relations with China, and so forth. In fact, Clinton was the one who had the better environmental record than Bush II BY FAR!!!.

This is why so many liberal Democrats left the party for the Greens. They felt that Clinton betrayed them for comprising the party's traditional and historical record of labor and possibly (although I am not sure) environmental rights.

So if they are complaining about Clinton contributing or setting up the foundation of sending jobs to China or Latin America, then they are right in my mind. However, Republicans are even bigger free traders than Clinton ever was.

So tell them if that they want to find a party for themselves, either they look to the Green or Reform parties because the two party Republican/Democrat system is not serving their interests.

[citizen snips]

2. NAFTA

Thank you.

[KT2000]

3. Bush I

Actually, I recall there was an article in Harper's during the Bush I term. I can't search for it right now but it was about how Bush and his cronies were forming their one world order, not through war, but through trade agreements, especially NAFTA.

[gkdmaths]

4. A trade off...

Under NAFTA we gain some immediate economic advantage while depressing the mean social qaulity of life in the Southern Hemisphere.

or..

we render ourselves part of the world's economic mediocrity by remaining an industrial isolationist while preserving the social fabric of the Southern Hemisphere.

it all boils down to whether or not you have a conscience - politicians, in general, do not.