BBill Clinton's out on the stump telling voters he warned Trump years ago that American consumers, not foreign producers, pay tariffs.
BA post on X from Mad Milker is already tearing into him, saying Clinton forgot he signed NAFTA years ago.
BThe post's argument is basically: how dare the guy who helped ship jobs overseas lecture anyone about trade now.
BExactly! Clinton sold free trade as the future for eight years. Now he's at a Mississippi rally warning about tariffs.
BBut the economic part is true. A tariff is paid by the importer, and that cost lands on the buyer at the checkout.
BI know the textbook, Bella. My problem is the messenger. Clinton's the architect of NAFTA, and factory towns paid for it.
BYou don't have to like the messenger. If the claim is that tariffs raise consumer costs, that's accurate.
BYes, prices can tick up. But the point of a tariff is to make American goods competitive again, and that can bring work back.
BIt can also trigger retaliation. Other countries tax our exports, and our farmers lose buyers.
BA minute ago you said Clinton's right. Now you sound like a free-trader.
BI said the fact is right. Tariffs are paid by consumers. Whether they're worth it is a different fight.
BThen let's have it. I think some tariffs are worth it, especially when the other side is cheating.
BSure, a targeted one. But blanket tariffs hit washers, dryers, lumber. Those costs land on families.
BWhat about steel? Protecting steel capacity is a national security question. You don't want to depend on China in a crisis.
BA targeted tariff on steel might make sense. A general one is a tax on your own voters.
BSo you admit tariffs can be useful, but you're still defending Clinton's lecture. Come on.
BI never said I like the lecture. I said the post's attack is weak. Clinton can be smug and right about the mechanics.
BThat's my point. He is smug. And Mad Milker's not wrong that NAFTA helped make people angry at global trade.
BNAFTA was a different era. The China problem we have now wasn't the same fight. Throwing it in his face is politics, not a fact-check.
BI'll take the politics. Clinton and NAFTA helped create the conditions that made Trump's tariffs popular in the first place.
BNow that's fair. But it doesn't make Clinton's warning false. The post framed it as a contradiction, not a debate.
BFine. He's right on the basics. But if he's going to parachute into a rally and warn about tariffs, he should answer for NAFTA first.
BThat's a reasonable ask. And I'll give him the economics. Not the halo.
BFair. No halos.
BFor the record, this is Clinton's own account from a Mississippi rally. No response from Trump's team so far.
BSo the former president gets to take a victory lap on costs, while the current one is trying to win on jobs. Classic.
BAnd both can be telling part of the truth. That's why this is a real argument, not a gotcha.
BThe gotcha in the post is lazy. But the underlying grudge about NAFTA? That's real.
BIt's real, but it's also old. The economy moved on from NAFTA, and voters are now worried about high prices today.
BAnd tariffs can make high prices worse. I'm not blind to that. But if you never push back on unfair trade, you get hollowed out, and then you can't afford anything anyway.
BThat's the core of the trade debate: who pays now and who gets the jobs later. I think the post missed both.
BThe post didn't miss it. It was just nasty about it. It used Clinton's record to question his credibility.
BWhich is legitimate in politics. But if we're fact-checking the claim, Clinton said tariffs tax consumers. That holds.
BOkay, I'll give you the claim. But the credibility question is connected.
BMaybe. But a warning can be true even if the messenger has a record. That's why fact-checking and punditry are different jobs.
BAnd you love pointing that out.
BSomebody has to.
BSo we agree: Clinton's right on the tax, but he doesn't get to be the working-class hero.
BI can live with that.
BIt just annoys me that he drops in from the nineties and pretends he wasn't part of the problem.
BThat's a fair opinion. I'd say his party's current leaders are doing the same, and voters notice.
BVoters notice everything when the grocery bill goes up.
BAnd that's exactly why this post is getting attention even though it's from a small account.
BIt's not about the account. It's about the nerve.
BThe nerve, and the economics. Both.
BFine, we'll split it. You take the textbook, I'll take the nerve.