Clinton offers job creation policies in new book

October 10, 2000

President Clinton will close years of political and economic debate Tuesday and seal a major achievement of his administration by signing off on normalized trade with China. Clinton will sign the measure, approved by Congress this year, in a White House ceremony Tuesday afternoon. The president has invited key lawmakers to the South Lawn to witness his signing of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000.The bill's passage by the Senate on September 19 capped years of negotiations with Beijing and intense lobbying by the Clinton administration, business and labor interests. The move is designed to open China's mammoth market to U.S. businesses and pave the way for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, ending a 20-year-old U.S. ritual of annually reviewing China's trade status. The bill survived a bruising battle in the House of Representatives in May, and Clinton has hailed the measure as a turning point in relations between the world's richest and most populous nations. Granting permanent, normal trade relations to China is considered the most important U.S. trade legislation since passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. But it faced a long campaign of opposition from labor, human rights and conservative groups who wanted to retain the annual review of trade relations with China.
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-10-10/politics/c...

---

Could it be because of Bill Clinton...that the US no longer has jobs for Americans...because the jobs have mainly gone over to China?!

People voted for Obama the first time because they were deceived. If they vote for him again, they are stupid.

When President Bill Clinton signed off on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs in 1993, otherwise known as NAFTA/GATT, he quite literally slashed the economic throat of the United States. We've been hemorrhaging jobs to foreign nations like Communist China ever since.

Until 1993, the United States of America was the world's economic king, and our people enjoyed the highest standard of living in recorded history. But NAFTA/GATT changed all that by virtually removing all trade protections that ensured our general prosperity.

Compared to the United States, labor costs in China, Indonesia and similar nations were substantially lower than what U.S. workers earned. NAFTA/GATT allowed our corporations and U.S. entrepreneurs to move their manufacturing technology overseas and take advantage of the reduced costs of doing business, while avoiding our former trade protections that made such a move prior to NAFTA/GATT unprofitable. For those enterprises that made the move overseas right away, there was nothing but exorbitant profits to be made....

What could be better for a typical American manufacturer? You get to avoid all U.S. payroll taxes, worker's compensation costs and environmental regulations and hurdles. You no longer have to deal with unions and provide employee benefits like health insurance and retirement plans. You get to manufacture in China, Indonesia and similar foreign nations to your heart's content, and you still get to sell your products to the U.S. consumer at the same or nearly the same cost as before.

Those who benefited are the stockholders of these firms and their top CEOs and CFOs. If you had money to invest before NAFTA/GATT, your returns on the investments spiked. But if you are just the typical middle-class American family with an average $9,000.00 per month credit card balance and little or no savings except what's in your 401k, you didn't have the chance to participate in that gold rush. You were blind-sided and left behind, and the immediate effect of NAFTA/GATT was for around five million people who had high-paying, family wage paying manufacturing jobs to lose them to low-wage workers overseas.

One of the major points I tried to drive home was that the standard of living in the United States would be drawn down by NAFTA/GATT, while the nations that now host those manufacturing jobs will see a modest gain. Where China is concerned, everything is relative, and relative to the standard of living China had before NAFTA/GATT, the Chinese people are experiencing a surge on par with the typical American family of the 50s, with a modest home and one car, but it represents a vast improvement over what they had before.

What does that tell you? Now, service employers domiciled in the United States, who have no union entanglements, are embarking on a quest to force American wages down to increase corporate profits. So again we see the only beneficiaries will be those who can still make investments, and those employed at the top of the corporate ladders ­ the very wealthiest Americans. The rest make up those often referred to now as, "The Shrinking Middle Class", but that's a misnomer. Considering a burgeoning debt level and a lack of personal savings not seen since the Great Depression, these people are the "New Poor"....
http://www.rense.com/general76/cclle.htm

By Carl F. Worden

.

During his 1992 presidential campaign, Texan Ross Perot was maligned for his warning that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would cause many American jobs to be outsourced. But it turns out he was right about that “giant sucking sound.” NAFTA went into effect January 1, 1994, and the resultant suction of American jobs to points south — and ultimately west — has seemed almost audible.

According to the analysis of Global Economic Intersection (GEI), the goods balance of trade for the U.S. with Mexico has been negative and growing since the adoption of NAFTA. GEI, an economics-based website, focuses on the effects of economics on finance, investing, social interactions, politics, and public policy, and also features analysis of economic indicators.

GEI reported that in 2010, the negative balance of trade for the U.S. was $61.6 billion, 9.5 percent of the total goods trade deficit last year. The group’s analysis also noted that almost 29 million American jobs had been lost between 1992 and the end of 2010.

The “expanded free trade” that Perot’s 1992 opponents George Bush and Bill Clinton argued would create U.S. jobs has backfired. Cheap labor markets in Mexico, and ultimately China, have resulted in many American manufacturers opting to outsource jobs and factories. Just as Perot opined, the “free trade” would not be a two-way street....

GEI noted that the U.S. job loss has accelerated since 2000, but attributed some loss to improved efficiency and productivity, as well as other factors. It added that if just half of the exported jobs had been retained in the United States, there would be about 13 million more employed Americans, resulting in a 4.4 percent unemployment rate and subsequent labor shortages. GEI continued:

If only some, even less than half, of the manufacturing that has been outsourced had been retained in the U.S., it is likely that there would still be an emerging market boom, but there would not be the severe structural unemployment problem that exists today in the U.S. It seems, looking at these numbers, that where we are is not the result of doing a fundamentally bad thing. It could be argued that it is actually the result of taking a good thing too far. It seems we missed the sweet spot and simply botched a beautiful shot.

Free Trade is a very good thing, but free trade taken too far is destructive.

Taken too far, free trade is destructive? GEI missed the mark on that one, especially by not reporting on the political agenda of NAFTA. From the beginning, the goal had nothing to do with free trade. NAFTA's real purpose was to facilitate a North American economic community, similar to the European Union, as outlined by the extensive investigative reporting of The New American.

The intended merger of Canada, Mexico, and the United States into a regional government requires an economic mechanism (NAFTA) to facilitate regional control over the markets. In his article Another Step Toward a North American Union? Dave Bohon wrote:

The process began with the implementation in 1993 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a mechanism that veteran internationalist Henry Kissinger referred to as part of the “architecture of a new international system."

So the “giant sucking sound” of lost jobs is translated into solid data and Perot is vindicated. But without policy change at all levels, the maelstrom created by the trade agreements has not yet finished its destruction.
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/markets-mai...

Nasty NAFTA
Free trade isn't all its cracked up to be
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/...

Study says NAFTA free-trade pacts cost jobs
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/may...

1st Mexican truck to enter US interior within days
http://news.yahoo.com/1st-mexican-truck-enter...

Cigar tube man speaks.

Anyone who believes that the democRATS actually want to -- much less intend to -- pay down the deficit......would be better off spending their time shopping for bridges.

Ocommie's budgets call for $1+ TRILLION ANNUAL deficits for each of the next 10 years. And that excludes the $2+ TRILLION that will be incurred from Obamacare.
________

Debt-to-GDP has SKYROCKETED under the kenyan communist fraud's ahem, "leadership". Just imagine a chart showing projected ratios -- his budgets call for ANNUAL $1+ trillion budget deficits for the next 10 years.

When Democrats have controlled congress (thereby the appropriations), debt as a percentage of GDP has gone up each time over the last 30 years. With Republicans in control, it happened only once, right after 9/11 and the 2001 recession.

US debt as percentage of GDP
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart...

Bill helped get the interns fired at the White House along with Weiner and David Wu. Democrats are like perverted socialists. They think they are above the "uncleansed masses".

Ol' Bill he created a few jobs during his stay in the White House. They were of the hand and blow variety.

BandMaster wrote:

Cigar tube man speaks.

Clinton had 4 women accuse him of sexual acts, including rape, and he had less questions and articles written in 6 months than Herman Cain has had in 3 days. If you take a liberal paper stop, if you watch a liberal outlet stop. They can not exist without advertisers or government money. They are no longer the free press.

Hey Conservatives , pay attention to the gist of Clinton's book.

" Obama doesn't lead ."

Obama basically defers to Reid and Pelosi and his base to make the timing of issues that fits " Inside the Beltway " gaming.

He comments on the failure to resolve the spending cap issue between last Nov-Dec as a major lack of leadership on Obama's part as a let Reid save it for a future partisan fight instead of taking the opportunity to clear it up when the Dems were fully in control.

x-nutmegger wrote:

Hey Conservatives , pay attention to the gist of Clinton's book.
" Obama doesn't lead ."
Obama basically defers to Reid and Pelosi and his base to make the timing of issues that fits " Inside the Beltway " gaming.
He comments on the failure to resolve the spending cap issue between last Nov-Dec as a major lack of leadership on Obama's part as a let Reid save it for a future partisan fight instead of taking the opportunity to clear it up when the Dems were fully in control.

We didn't need a book by slick who lied to the nation about sexual encounters and fabricated a surplus to tell us that obama doesn't lead.

Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:

<quoted text>
We didn't need a book by slick who lied to the nation about sexual encounters and fabricated a surplus to tell us that obama doesn't lead.

Hint , the book was written by a powerful Dem not Sean Hannity.

x-nutmegger wrote:

Hey Conservatives , pay attention to the gist of Clinton's book.
" Obama doesn't lead ."
Obama basically defers to Reid and Pelosi and his base to make the timing of issues that fits " Inside the Beltway " gaming.
He comments on the failure to resolve the spending cap issue between last Nov-Dec as a major lack of leadership on Obama's part as a let Reid save it for a future partisan fight instead of taking the opportunity to clear it up when the Dems were fully in control.

we new that but..........

BRAINWASHING: the only bath liberals get regularly.

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>Clinton had 4 women accuse him of sexual acts, including rape, and he had less questions and articles written in 6 months than Herman Cain has had in 3 days. If you take a liberal paper stop, if you watch a liberal outlet stop. They can not exist without advertisers or government money. They are no longer the free press.

When's the last time you had a slick willy? And I'm not talking about your pet gerbil or that guy named Lester.

Ughb

George W. Bush gave us 8 years of the second Greatest Depression our country has ever seen. Thank-you President Clinton, for always doing so much better! As for President Obama, he needs to learn to exercise the rights of the Executive Branch, and bury the Olive Branch. I can't believe at this juncture, he's still waiting for the Republicans to come around. What a waste of good Presidential clout.

Clinton ought to know. There were 23 million jobs created during his presidency. Eight million lost when Bush was president.