"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Clinton supported NAFTA, as well as most did most economists.

Many didn't. The politicians chose their economists wisely when touting the
benefits of NAFTA. Ross Perot opposed it, but no one listened to him. And
he was right--it has benefitted Canada and Mexico, but not the US, at least
not in terms of high-paying jobs.

It's been good for the US.

Strange position from a liberal, considering it has resulted in a
substantial net loss of good US jobs and benefitted only the largest of
corporations. Are you becoming a closet capitalist, Jon?

You now claim to be anti-free trade,
except when it suits you of course?

Don't read into my posts things there are not there. I cast no aspersions
to being pro and anti-free trade. Only that the loss of jobs was not
necessarily any more W's fault than anyone elses. The reasons for job
losses are myriad, and not just happening during the Bush administration.

What's the problem with China? I don't get the connection between
China and Clinton-bashing.

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't Clinton-bashing, but only
pointing out that he cost jobs, too. China has probably taken more
manufacturing jobs than any other factor. Most of our stateside producers
(now importers) of low-tech goods, such as shoes, clothing, sporting goods,
etc., are now made by Chinese citizens, not US citizens. That's were the
largest single block of the jobs have gone.

Your, and others', tendency to blame Bush for the majority of job losses is
not only disingenuous, but in error.

Bush inherited an economy that didn't need a tax cut, that didn't needed
to be pushed into a recession.

It was already receding. Check your facts. The last year of the Clinton
admin. saw a significant downtrend, and it continued, as any downtrend will,
into the Bush administration.

Thanks Bush. The US lost millions of jobs
because of him.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. You have absolutely no evidence of this, not to
mention any cogent reason for it. Bush inherited a declining economy, and
9/11 sealed the fate of it. But go ahead and blame Bush. It's the good
liberal thing to do, albeit completely without merit.

Thanks for nothing. I don't see him reversing NAFTA
if that's what the problem was. Max, get your facts straight before slam
me for telling the truth. Bush lied about Iraq, about WMDs, and pretty
much abdicated the search for Usama. Instead of putting in 100,000
troops in Afganistan, he put in 10K. He sent the 100K to Iraq, a
country that had no WMDs and was contained.

Any attempt to respond to such liberal dogma would be pointless. You do
regurgitate the mantra well, Jon, however. Parroted, knee-jerk liberalism is
alive and well. Ever had an original thought, Jon?

Oh, I forgot. Clinton lied about a blow job, and the ensuing right-wing
fueled witchhunt cost us $70 million. Too bad because I'm sure Henry
Hyde could have paid a hooker $70 or less and got the same thing.

While Clinton gave us countless reason to bash him, that's not my intent.
That you vilify someone like Bush for completely unsubstantiated reasons,
but defend Clinton against a carved-in-stone record is amusing.

Max