It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Clinton: "The American dream has been under assault for 30 years"

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Saw this interview posted on yahoo.
Clin ton on the American Dream

I think he hit in on the head about the corporations. They have been taking control slowly. I am not sure how I feel about anti-government rhetoric part He says the country has gone through but he really doesn't like how the corporations are influencing that rhetoric.



+3 more 
posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Yeah, with your help President Clinton.

You decided it would be a good idea to repeal the Glass Steagall act. YOU signed NAFTA and other free trade agreements that had only one effect, taking jobs from Americans and shipping them overseas.

Yes, Mr. former President, it has been under attack for 30 years. It's been under attack longer than that. And you helped fire bullets at it too.

hypocrite.
edit on 12-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
for crying outloud it has been assaulted for the past 30 years by government

they are the creators of the problems not the fixers and destroying the very last thing that made this country american will not fix a damn thing.

people for the love of god who whatever you believe in focus your attention to the place where it belongs

the us federal government the masters of us all.
edit on 12-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Yeah, with your help President Clinton.

You decided it would be a good idea to repeal the Glass Steagall act. YOU signed NAFTA and other free trade agreements that had only one effect, taking jobs from Americans and shipping them overseas.

Yes, Mr. former President, it has been under attack for 30 years. It's been under attack longer than that. And you helped fire bullets at it too.

hypocrite.
edit on 12-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Phil Grahamm (R) and Jim Leach(R) wrote it.
Clinton signed it.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


I don't care if republicans wrote it. "Free Trade" is not the same as free markets.

Republicans are no more for free markets than democrats. They're just better at giving the free market lipservice while they gut it behind closed doors.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
that is hilarious cause thats the same arguements i got for the federal reserve act and obamacare

some people on this website who i already forgot their names were blaming them on the right when the only signature that counts is the potus.

thats hilarious.

nafta screw us over and yeah put alot people out of work and who lost their america dream

my american dream is getting government to get the hell out of my business.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by narwahl
 


I don't care if republicans wrote it. "Free Trade" is not the same as free markets.

Republicans are no more for free markets than democrats. They're just better at giving the free market lipservice while they gut it behind closed doors.


I agree with you.
Still: Volcker and Marcy Kaptur (Both, by some coincidence Ds) have tried to reinstate Glass-Steagal (Which, btw, is government regulation, and not free market)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Dear Playboy in Chief,

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. I say you had your eight years and squandered an opportunity to prevent what you are now using as a reason for political pandering.

You are good at taking credit where none is due such as so called "balanced budget" using my social security funds.

Creating economic bubbles that resulted in the Dot Com crash in league with corporations you now paint as the problem.

Our troops are still to this day in Bosnia contrary to everything you've stated.

Your policies and lack of action led directly to 9/11 which has virtually bankrupted this country and led to massive violations of American citizens rights.

Please crawl back into your hole and stay there - hypocrite!



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyle
 


I can't believe the unmitigated gall of some of these former U.S. leaders. Clinton is so transparent, we should call him the Invisible Man.

I don't know which is my favorite quote of the week from an ex-president. So far, it's a tie between the one here from Clinton, and this one I saw in the paper a couple of days ago: "Bush says he misses interacting with troops."

We have elected some fine snake oil salesman in this country in the last few decades.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



"Free Trade" is not the same as free markets

What does that even mean?

How can you support not restricting trade, but at the same time support restricting trade? That is pretty contradictory and it doesn't make much sense.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


Not all regulation is anti-free market.

The notion that banks should have the right to gamble with depositor money and people's mortgages and then sticking the depositor and the homeowner with the losses should be called FRAUD.

Glass Steagall separated investment and commercial banking to prevent that sort of thing.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Free markets are all about level playing fields.

Free Trade agreements stack the deck against American workers and businesses.

Therefore Free Trade agreements are antithetical to free markets.
edit on 12-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
We are owned by the Gov via your birth certificate and social security. We are "Collateral" ever hear that on the news? The all "CAPS" of your name represents an Organization. Thats why when you do some paper work it asks for "Your Organizatonal id. Linked to the Treasury.

Ask for your Local towns "Corporation" for their C.A.F.R report.

Comprehensive Annual Finance Report.
see where they are investing your money

Ask the Mayor. He will probably try to lie to you.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Adam Smith would disagree, my friend. Free Trade is considered to be a vital component of laissez-faire capitalism and ‘free markets’. There are two options that are opposed to that capitalist concept but still support the capitalist system overall, regardless they would not be considered ‘free market’ economies. These two other options; 1) Fair Trade (i.e. required labor laws, environmental laws, etc…) and 2) Protectionism (i.e. import tariffs). Neither is compliant fundamentally with the free market system but both can work with it.

The United States prior to the 1960s was very much a protectionist oriented capitalistic country; the 1920s is a perfect example of this. Now you can be like Ron Paul and be for free-trade without agreeing to free-trade agreements, which in my opinion is not helpful, you can be like Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown in supporting Fair Trade, which helps but is more about stopping injustice against foreign workers, and finally you have Protectionism like Pat Buchanan and Calvin Coolidge, which in my opinion is ideal. American protectionism was created as a mixing of Medieval Mercantilism and Enlightenment Capitalism developed by Alexander Hamilton in his ‘Report on Manufacturers’ which formed the basis of the ‘American School of Economics’.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


If Adam Smith read NAFTA he would burn it.

And I'd light a cigarette off of it.

NAFTA's language, while good for big businesses(and Washington cronies), is not good for small and medium business. That is not a level playing field. That is stacking the deck.

Edit:

I'm not saying trading with other nations is a bad thing. But stacking the deck against our own economy is probably NOT what Adam Smith had in mind.
edit on 12-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Yep, were all screwed. So lets call each other names and belittle every one, that'll help. Nothing any of you or I have done up until this point of our entire lives makes a lick of difference, except our/your perception of yourselves. If that helps you look in the mirror, so be it. If you're as tired as I am of the BS that bombards us on a daily basis from all possible sides, then do something about it. Or at least say something to inspire or try to help someone else, you know, the most important thing, the masses. I doubt more than 10% of the people who have bothered to read this far have a clue of what I'm typing about.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
NO Sh** Mr. Clinton did
you just realize that?

We have been SAYING this for 30 years..

Can you tell us something we do not know>>?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
** takes noose from around neck**

Proj.... Mis... I LOVE YOU GUYS!! THERE IS HOPE!!


ANyhoo, nothing really to contribute due to you two other than who cares who blew him.. he sucked.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



Free markets are all about level playing fields.

How would you define a level playing field?



Free Trade agreements stack the deck against American workers and businesses.

We aren't talking about free trade agreements. We're talking about free trade.



Therefore Free Trade agreements are antithetical to free markets.

Yes, because free trade agreements are managed trade. Also, you didn't answer my question, you kinda just went around it..... ``How can you support not restricting trade, but at the same time support restricting trade?``
edit on 12-10-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Even Mercantilists believed in trading with other nations. Adam Smith’s capitalism, which arguably the free market was, believed that free-trade, i.e. non-taxed open market borders between states, was the only way for true prosperity. This argument went far as to say that we should subsidize trade with other nations, i.e. give money to encourage job creation in other countries. I am not sure if that part was directly mentioned in his works but I know it is a key part of free trade and free trade is a key part of ‘free markets’.

Would he support NAFTA? Probably not because he would argue that it should not be a decision made between two governments but rather just open the flood gates of trade with any nation whether they are manipulating their currency, suppressing labor rights, or what have you. That is why Protectionism grew up as its alternative because that was viewed as a threat to the stability of the nation, mostly by ‘aristocrats’ and the many in big business at the time. Big business leaders in developing countries preferred more protectionism while big business in developed countries preferred more free-trade.

Instead of employing, buying, and selling domestically they could do so for cheaper abroad once they were the once superior to other industrial nations. Unfortunately this kicks the little guy in the teeth and also the point at which I depart from the ‘free market’ thinking. Capitalism should work for the country and its inhabitants, imo, but free-trade does not do that. Never has and never will.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join