Another futile post in opposition to Clinton (in this case Bill):
In the New York Times there is an editorial Democrats Talk Sense to Democrats
. We read:
... a letter from a group of former Democratic leading lights from the Clinton White House and Congress [was] telling their Democratic brethren on Capitol Hill to get their act together and pass the pending free trade agreements with Peru, Panama and Colombia. At home, the trade pacts would provide opportunities for American exporters and help create jobs.
Got that? Another free trade agreement which must be good since it would "help create jobs". And it will
create jobs, but there will also be jobs lost, so the question is: On net, will it create more and better
This blogger doesn't think so. Free trade puts more workers in competition with each other, leading to less economic barganing power. And, yes, free trade is something that Bill Clinton is famous for, and something that Hillary Clinton also looks favorably on. She's in the lead and as president would likely push for more NAFTA-type policies. Is that good for the American worker? Does anybody care?
We need to stop using the term "free trade agreements" and use "free-for-all trade agreements" instead. This as opposed to "balanced trade agreements" or "fair trade agreements".
This blogger agrees with you.
Free trade is a rip-off of the consumer as well as the worker.
Hillary is the main$tream choice of corporate America, because they get to keep most of their goodies if she wins.