Here's the rest of the article. These discussions exist at such a base level that they are almost worthless.
...said Robert Shapiro, the undersecretary of commerce during the Clinton White House years, "she, like everybody else... not supposed to deviate from the position of the administration. There is no freedom of speech in there, and that certainly applies to a first lady."
On the 2008 campaign trail, Clinton has been free of those shackles. And, on many occasions, she has expressed misgivings about NAFTA, although usually she qualifies her statements by saying she supports the underlying idea.
"I believe in the general principles it represented," she said last February, noting that she voted against CAFTA because of a lack of environmental and labor standards. "But what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have."
Clinton ``is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,'' Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm told Bloomberg.com. ``She would absolutely do the right thing as president.''
When the European Common Market evolved into the European Community, they made a point to have retraining and investment programs so that a poorer country like Spain could develop an economy that competes well with businesses that would naturally develop there. NAFTA was devoid of those programs. Spain's wealth went up. Mexico's went down when NAFTA "destroyed" their agriculture.
Clinton's point sounds like labor leaders who say that, in dealing with China, the USA controls the marketplace, and we should dictate the terms of the trade deal.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
