Cursing the candle - Gentrification in the rust belt

[Honky Tonk]

IF anyone reads the article carefully, George H. Bush, not Clinton, deserves the credit or blame.

Who signed NAFTA? Bush or Clinton? [[Wikipedia bolding mine below

The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U. S. President Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his campaign when he announced his candidacy for the presidency in November 1979.^[14] Canada and the United States signed the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement [[FTA) in 1988, and shortly afterward Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari decided to approach US president George H.W. Bush to propose a similar agreement in an effort to bring in foreign investment following the Latin American debt crisis.^[14] As the two leaders began negotiating, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroneyfeared that the advantages Canada had gained through the Canada-US FTA would be undermined by a US-Mexican bilateral agreement, and asked to become a party to the US-Mexican talks.^[15] Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, the three leaders signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.^[16] The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

***********
Where I think are confusing is that the treaty had to be ratified by Congress and signed by the then President, Clinton.

George H. Bush originally signed it, but Clinton signed the ratified treaty.

NAFTA has two fathers...

I feel about this the same way about this as I feel about Darnell Early and the Flint water issue. If Bill Clinton, a Democrat, put in charge of the USA, had any doubts about NAFTA, then it was up to him to stall signing it until he was confident that it would really benefit the American people. ALL the American people, and not the top 1-2% that he is a part of. That, coupled with the fact that bill passed 34-27, [[60-40%?) Democrat/Republican, means it had both parties support that it was for the common good. If the reason for the Rust Belt is humans being replaced by machines, then what are these jobs being brought back from Mexico?

[Wesley Mouch]

I feel about this the same way about this as I feel about Darnell Early and the Flint water issue. If Bill Clinton, a Democrat, put in charge of the USA, had any doubts about NAFTA, then it was up to him to stall signing it until he was confident that it would really benefit the American people. ALL the American people, and not the top 1-2% that he is a part of. That, coupled with the fact that bill passed 34-27, [[60-40%?) Democrat/Republican, means it had both parties support that it was for the common good. If the reason for the Rust Belt is humans being replaced by machines, then what are these jobs being brought back from Mexico?

There is no doubt that trade is disruptive. Jobs are destroyed.

There is no doubt that trade creates improves our lives, and creates the wealth that has increased our health, our comfort, and our ever-higher standards of living across the globe.

In Michigan, its easy to see trade and NAFTA as a bad thing, because we got the short end of the stick.

There is no sensible argument against free trade between people, regardless of whether they live in the suburbs, Ohio, Florida, Germany, or Pakistan.

I will allow only embargoes against states who have billboards depicting the US Capitol being destroyed, see Kim Dynasty.