Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
You All Screwed Yourselves!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BrownShark2" data-source="post: 264382"><p>Cole,</p><p></p><p>No disrespect intended, but your recollections about carter and NAFTA are incorrect. Do a google search on NAFTA and the primary writers of the bill.</p><p></p><p>NO DEMOCRAT would encourage ANY American company to leave the country and outsource its operations and cost the American labor force it livelyhood of employment.</p><p></p><p>This has and always will be the capitalist mentality of those who support the Republican party and its "trickle down theories" on how money is generated.</p><p></p><p>FACTS:</p><p>NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[5] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[6]</p><p></p><p>**</p><p>Cole, clearly I have established the truth to what i originally posted in response to CHARS assertions that the Democrats were resonsible for NAFTA.. Its the propaganda of people like Rush Limbaugh who make false statements on a daily basis that get individuals such as CHAR to repeat this disinformation.</p><p></p><p>Unlike Reagan and Bush1, they did all they could to import all the foreign vehicles to our shores causing the US domestic automakers to crumble up to and including the fall of chrysler. Yes I know, quality was horrible, but no one in these administrations were mandating that they do anything about it. FACT, prior to Reagan, the US domestic automakers held 74% of market share. After Reagan, the Japanese held 77% of market share here in the US.</p><p></p><p>During Bush1, the japanese and european importers held 83% of market share.</p><p></p><p>When Clinton took office, one of the very first pieces of trade actions he took was to LIMIT the amount of imported cars that came to our country. He made agreements with the japanese companies that said if they wanted to sell more cars in the USA, then they had to build them here. Otherwise, they couldnt import them by the millions like during Reagan and Bush1.</p><p></p><p>This had led to thousands of jobs created. During his 8 years in office, the Domestic automakers regained market share here and rose to 76%.</p><p></p><p>Today, like his father and his mentor Reagan, Bush2 has driven the US automakers to the brink of disaster and market share is now plunging to near 60%.</p><p></p><p>Once again, the foreign car makers are dominating the auto industry here in the states and with the high cost of fuel nearing 100 dollars a barrel as we speak and gas per gallon going to $4.00 by december1 2008, we shall see our big three driven out of business.</p><p></p><p>Cole, fact check my friend. Its a good tool. And CHAR, lighten up on the Rush Limbaugh man, your viewpoints on IRAQ are laughable.</p><p></p><p>Peace.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BrownShark2, post: 264382"] Cole, No disrespect intended, but your recollections about carter and NAFTA are incorrect. Do a google search on NAFTA and the primary writers of the bill. NO DEMOCRAT would encourage ANY American company to leave the country and outsource its operations and cost the American labor force it livelyhood of employment. This has and always will be the capitalist mentality of those who support the Republican party and its "trickle down theories" on how money is generated. FACTS: NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[5] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[6] ** Cole, clearly I have established the truth to what i originally posted in response to CHARS assertions that the Democrats were resonsible for NAFTA.. Its the propaganda of people like Rush Limbaugh who make false statements on a daily basis that get individuals such as CHAR to repeat this disinformation. Unlike Reagan and Bush1, they did all they could to import all the foreign vehicles to our shores causing the US domestic automakers to crumble up to and including the fall of chrysler. Yes I know, quality was horrible, but no one in these administrations were mandating that they do anything about it. FACT, prior to Reagan, the US domestic automakers held 74% of market share. After Reagan, the Japanese held 77% of market share here in the US. During Bush1, the japanese and european importers held 83% of market share. When Clinton took office, one of the very first pieces of trade actions he took was to LIMIT the amount of imported cars that came to our country. He made agreements with the japanese companies that said if they wanted to sell more cars in the USA, then they had to build them here. Otherwise, they couldnt import them by the millions like during Reagan and Bush1. This had led to thousands of jobs created. During his 8 years in office, the Domestic automakers regained market share here and rose to 76%. Today, like his father and his mentor Reagan, Bush2 has driven the US automakers to the brink of disaster and market share is now plunging to near 60%. Once again, the foreign car makers are dominating the auto industry here in the states and with the high cost of fuel nearing 100 dollars a barrel as we speak and gas per gallon going to $4.00 by december1 2008, we shall see our big three driven out of business. Cole, fact check my friend. Its a good tool. And CHAR, lighten up on the Rush Limbaugh man, your viewpoints on IRAQ are laughable. Peace. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
You All Screwed Yourselves!!
Top