U.S. Lawmakers Launch Push To Repeal NAFTA

[Purveyor]

Source: REUTERS

Thu Mar 4, 2010 12:44pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A small group of U.S. lawmakers planned to offer legislation Thursday to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement in the latest sign of congressional disillusionment with free-trade deals.

The bill spearheaded by Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat, would require President Barack Obama to give Mexico and Canada six months notice that the United States will no longer be part of 16-year-old trade pact.

The move comes as Obama says he wants to resolve problems blocking congressional approval of long-delayed trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. The strongest opposition to those agreements comes from Obama's fellow Democrats.

The United States also will begin talks later this month with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam and Brunei on a regional free-trade agreement in Asia Pacific.

Taylor blames NAFTA for a loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs that he believes threatens national security, a spokesman for the conservative 10-term congressman said.

Obama criticized NAFTA during the 2008 presidential election campaign but has not followed through on threats to withdraw from the agreement if Canada and Mexico did not agree to revamp the pact's labor and environmental provisions.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6233MS20100304?type=politicsNews

[Rapier09]

1. NAFTA needs to be fixed

Eliminating it would be overkill.

[DJ13]

2. Theres no fix

Its broken.

[Taverner]

8. Sure there is: put health care in it, environmental and workers protections

IT could be a very powerful tool for progressive reform, if done right. Make it like the EU

[Oregone]

12. No, its broken

The fact that both capital and the means of production can be mobile completely nullifies any ability of free trade agreements to work. They essentially allow corporations to set up shop where labor is the cheapest (even with all those standards included--as if they would ever be followed). It is truly a race to the bottom, and Americans are suppossed to compete against those that still live in huts. Its absurd

[Taverner]

15. Everyone does not live in huts in Mexico...

The economies are supposed to converge, that is, if you are willing to sink capital into environmental protections, workers protections, etc.

They didn't and if they did, we wouldn't be where we are now

[Oregone]

17. Im talking about free trade in general

The reality is that global standard of living is not homogenous. It follows, the cost of labor is therefore not homogenous. As long as capital is mobile, production will always be moved where the cost of production is the cheapest (due to the cost of labor, supplies, shipping, etc).

Its a losing game, and its one the US workers are consistently losing at. The longer they muck around and try and "fix" a broken concept that may of looked good on paper, the more suffering their citizens will see. Heh, sorta like health care

[Taverner]

27. Now that's a bad idea - trade without tarriffs

Which is what "free" trade really is

Within a continental unit (US, Mexico and Canada) it can be very benificial to the American worker

However, expand NAFTA to the world, and you get what you get now.

The funny this is that as bad as NAFTA is, its nowhere near as dangerous as IMF and WTO restrictions. "Free" trade indeed.

[Lasher]

87. NAFTA does not benefit the US worker.

A net result of these agreements is, standards of living equalize. Split the difference amongst Mexico, Canada, and the USA and workers in all 3 nations get to live in a hut with a TV.

NAFTA sucks. And expanding it to the world is just an extrapolation of something that sucks. IMF and WTO restrictions suck. That doesn't mean NAFTA does not.

[Taverner]

157. NAFTA does not...yet

The EU does (rather, it protects the European Worker)

That's all I'm saying

And before you say it doesn't, take note Greece isn't going into a huge crash, massive bankruptcy and liquidization of banks BECAUSE of the EU

[Lasher]

170. NAFTA has none of the middle class protections of the EU.

Greece got in trouble when they took on more debt than EU guidelines permitted. Too bad the US is not subject to those guidelines because we would be more seriously in voilation of them. And universal health care is not a feature of trade agreements other than those of the EU. Without such protections for the middle class a race to the bottom is inevitable.

I don't see how NAFTA or any other US 'free' trade agreement will ever evolve into anything positive. Hell, the best we can do for ourselves with health care is to force individuals to buy shitty policies they can't afford to use. But we'll call it universal health care just to feel better about it.

But I digress. I agree with you about the EU. But we in the US were better off without NAFTA or any other of our 'free' trade agreements. And they are not going to get any better over time.

[Taverner]

171. That's where it fails

And that's the kind of thing we can change in a Democratic administration.

And should!

[The Green Manalishi]

130. let's tax the living crap out of any company

that does not have most of it's workers in America.

Serious tariffs, if it engenders a trade war so be it.

Two classes of entity:

"American Company = headquarters in USA, *ALL* workers subject to American rights and protections, all facilities (even overseas!) subject to American environmental standards, majority or plurality of employees American citizens, all financials transparent and subject to appropriate governmental scrutiny.

"Foreign Company"= not meeting one or more of above criteria. Tax rate set high enough that it will be feasible, if not a no-brainer, for an American company to come into existence; automatically disqualified for bidding on or selling to any governmental entity.

Tariff on all goods from any other country set to the highest tariff said country applies to American goods exported to it.

[Heywood J]

164. You mean the same non-existent rights and protections?

Like the non-right to unionize, being forced to work 24/7/365 (legal in Ohio), fired on a whim, etc? American corporations can be some of the worst when it comes to standards and treating workers. Also, please bear in mind that American quality and workmanship suffered well before NAFTA and other trade agreements - that would have to be fixed as well. You would need to establish national quality standards and testing associations first.

Try to be selective in where you partner, rather than withdrawing into a shell at the slightest sign of a problem. There are many countries out there that have equal or higher standards in many areas - they can be your friends, you know.

[fasttense]

142. Capital is mobile but people are not.

Capital may move anywhere it wants to. But try and get a visa to work in Canada, it is very difficult. The same thing applies to Europe. Try and get a worker's visa if you are middle class or poor. If you are not associated with a huge multinational corporation, you can not easily move from country to country. You can visit but you can not stay.

So, because most poor and middle class people are bound to their locations and capital is not, they can pick and choose where they will set up shop but you can NOT pick and choose what country you will work in.

[rapturedbyrobots]

34. i grew up on the border

and yes. people who worked in NAFTA's maquiladoras in mexico very often live in huts.

the economies are supposed to converge? are you crazy?

there is no middle class in mexico. and we're killing off what is left of the middle class in the u.s. if this is the convergence you were hoping for...then you are truly nuts.

and you claim putting in environmental protections will make nafta progressive. upper-middle class white progressivism maybe.

[Taverner]

50. Well it wasn't the plan but the execution that caused that

Unfortunately it turned our sorry little drug war into an actual war

I can think of a million ways NAFTA was fucked up

But the plan itself, if implemented like the European Union was, is sound

[Demeter]

53. EU Is Sound? Tell It To the Greeks or the Germans

[Taverner]

55. Oh yeah, this is a threat. But one the EU can handle

10 years, the EU will be fine, as will be Greece. Pooled resources make for insurance.

NAFTA on the other hand, because it's merely a shitty policy at this point, will not. And Europe will recover quicker than we will.

It's simple Keyensian Economics - stockpile during good times (and lift tarriffs, etc.) and then use your resources during bad times.

[Oregone]

54. America is not to Mexico, as France is to Germany

But hell, NAFTA is mildly flawed compared to Asian trade agreements

[Taverner]

56. ASEAN is horribly planned

Look - when you talk about NAFTA being a failure - you're absolutely right

But the EU was a comprimise - we'll trade tarriffs for guarantees of health care (universal health care is a requirement of EU membership)

That's how NAFTA should have been implemented

[Oregone]

60. Bullshit. It wouldn't magically make Americans able to compete against cheap labor

Take away their job and give them health care? What the hell kind of solution is that.

You don't get it. Regardless of ANY standards you impose, it will almost always be cheaper to have Mexicans do a variety of factory work. Because corporations can go anywhere, Americans lose jobs and Mexico gains them. Its not something a technocrat can adjust away with smoke and mirrors. This is the way the economy works

[Taverner]

63. Agree to disagree. However, see 'Peron' and 'Argentina'

[PreacherCasey]

148. "Its not something a technocrat can adjust away with smoke and mirrors. This is the way the economy"

You're correct, but they'll sure try. And they'll convince a whole bunch of corporate types and ivy league grads. All the working people I know and grew up with know this implicitly.

[pampango]

96. You realize that per capita income in Mexico is higher than in some of Eastern European countries

that joined the EU.

While the France and Germany comparison is roughly to the US and Canada, Mexico compares favorably to Romania and Bulgaria which were admitted to the EU.

We don't have any trade agreements Asian countries. Here's all of them we do have:

* Israel (incl. Palestinian Authority; 1985)
* North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (incl. Canada and Mexico; 1994)
* Jordan (2001)
* Australia (2004)
* Chile (2004)
* Singapore (2004)
* Bahrain (2006)
* Morocco (2006)
* Oman (2006)
* Peru (2007)
* Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA; 2005)

[provis99]

100. pre capita GDP is a useless measure.

It takes no account of Purchasing Power Parity, nor does it account for distributions of income, as the GINI coefficient does.

Its a straw man to compare Mexico with Romania and Bulgaria, where the median citizen is remarkably wealthier than the median Mexican.

[pampango]

106. The PPP figures for Mexico exceed those of Bulgaria and Romania.

In terms of the Human Development Index Mexico (0.854) ranks better than Bulgaria (0.840) and Romania (0.837).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

In terms of the GINI coefficient Romania and Bulgaria rank better than Mexico.

Your contention that the median citizen is "remarkably wealthier" in Romania and Bulgaria than in Mexico is not backed up by the facts. Mexicans have a higher per capita income (using PPP) and a higher Human Development Index.

All in all, Mexico ranks better in some respects and Bulgaria and Romania rank better in other respects. To say that the three countries are not comparable is to rely on the assumption that European countries must be better off than a Latin American one.

[Fool Count]

101. While per capita income in Mexico (~ $9000 in PPP) is indeed slightly

higher than in Bulgaria and Romania, income inequality in Mexico is also much higher than in any of those two countries.
You will never find that kind of poverty and destitution that you see in Mexico in any East European country - not
even in Russia or Ukraine, forget the EU members.

[pampango]

108. Actually income inequality in Mexico is almost identical to that of the US.

The GINI for Mexico is 46.1 and for the US 45.

Income inequality if indeed much better in Bulgaria (29.2) and Romania (31) which makes them typical European countries in that respect. The EU comes in at 30.7. So while Bulgaria and Romania are much poorer than the rest of the EU their income inequality is quite similar.

Similarly, while Mexico is much poorer than the US, its degree of income inequality is quite similar. While the EU doesn't seem to be afraid to admit into their free trade zone countries that are poorer, but similar in terms of income inequality, the US is petrified to do the same with Mexico which is much poorer than us but quite similar in terms of income inequality.

[Fool Count]

117. There is a big difference between EU and NAFTA in terms of labor mobility.

Bulgarians and Romanians will soon be free to find employment in all other EU countries
(and already can work freely in some of them). That is what makes "free trade" truly free -
free movement of labor. That was always a benchmark of EU, and was not even contemplated
within NAFTA. Neither is it even a part of the agenda of any free trade negotiations in
context of WTO or the multiple bilateral US "free trade" treaties now being discussed.
When business leaders talk about "globalization" and "free trade" they always mean "free"
only for the capital, never for labor. They want to keep labor where it is cheap, and they
want to keep it cheap. EU, on the other hand, is not a purely business enterprise, as NAFTA is.
It has a non-monetary value attached to it - only because state governance in European
countries is more autonomous from the financial and business establishment than it is
in the US has EU become possible.

[pampango]

137. I agree with you, but I doubt you'll get much support here for EU style free movement for labor

across national borders. It has worked in Europe, but most Americans, even progressive ones, view poor foreigners as a potential threat, not the way they view poor Americans. If the French, Germans, English, Danes and others had viewed poor Eastern Europeans the same way, they never would have expanded the EU beyond richer Western Europe.

[pipoman]

140. There is that fabulous designation,

'most favored trade status' awarded to that pentacle of human rights and fair trade, China. MFTS is a quasi trade agreement, one sided, but allows China to do as they please economically and from a worker's rights perspective while allowing unfettered access to US markets. So, I disagree that we do not have trade agreements with Asian countries.

[pampango]

146. "In United States federal law, MFN is termed permanent normal trade relations."

"After World War II, tariff and trade agreements were negotiated simultaneously by all interested parties through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which ultimately resulted in the World Trade Organization in 1995. The World Trade Organization requires members to grant one another most favoured nation status."

"In the United States, "most favored nation status" has been renamed "permanent normal trade relations" (NTR) in 1998 (Clinton administration) as all but a handful of countries had this status already, making it a misnomer. MFN/NTR status for China, a non-market economy, which had been originally suspended in 1951, was restored in 1980 (Carter administration) and was continued in effect through subsequent annual Presidential extensions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation

We could have kept China out of the WTO by refusing to grant NTR. China would still trade. They would just have to agree on trade terms with each separate country instead of joining one international organization. That's what Russia does (and about a dozen other countries), since it doesn't belong to the WTO.

[AlbertCat]

147. We don't have any trade agreements Asian countries

Singapore's in South America now?



(Still.... I get your point)

[pampango]

150. Good point.

I was thinking of the big eastern and south asian countries and forgot about Singapore. On second thought, Jordan, Israel, Oman and Bahrain (?) are really part of western Asia. Though I know the Middle East is actually a part of Asia, I often forget that. Thanks for the clarification. :)

[amborin]

124. there is a middle class in Mexico!

most definitely

[rapturedbyrobots]

129. really?

please explain this. because my family is ALL from mexico. half the family is STILL in mexico. and we've never seen anything like the middle class. there is a CASH driven economy in mexico. you either have the cash to buy stuff ( car, house, etc...) or you don't. the middle class, as defined in the western economies, is driven by easy access to credit (aka debt). that does not exist in mexico (or much of latin america). it is the haves and the have nots. there is no pretend to have middle.

so please...explain to this mexican how there is a middle class in mexico.

[Taverner]

162. Look, they didn't say they had a big middle class

But its there.

I've been all over Mexico (I speak Spanish) and there is a small, but growing minority of Mexicans who make what we would call middle class wages. Of course their existence is tenuous at best, and they may be back to shrinking at this point...

But they are there.

Granted, like most Middle Class groups in South and Latin America, they tend to be very close to urban centers

[rapturedbyrobots]

173. yes.

you're right. speaking english and touring around mexico makes you an expert on my country. thanks for the enlightenment.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/20-being-an-expert-on-your-culture/

you obviously don't understand what middle class means. its not a few people (or even a lot of people) making decent wages.

[Taverner]

174. Note I did not say 'big' middle class

Why is everything so black and white with you?

[Enthusiast]

65. Clinton claimed there

would be labor/worker's rights and environmental provisions in NAFTA.

These claims were never borne out. Maybe the provisions were there, but like Bush Administration malfeasance, if there is no prosecution the provisions might as well be non existent.

So...fuck NAFTA!

[Oregone]

67. Regardless, those provisions just put lipstick on a pig

The cost of labor will still be less where the standard of living is lower. Americans will still lose jobs because corporations will relocate their capital and the means of production to cheap labor areas. It was a bad bill of goods. Complete bullshit fallacious system. The lack of those provisiosn only made it worse.

[Enthusiast]

83. I agree, complete bullshit.

No more trade agreements!

[pundaint]

28. Yeah, maybe Mexico and Canada will Force us to upgrade to their levels!

[Taverner]

61. I'll take Canadian Health Care

[Ken Burch]

58. Uh...like Al Gore's mighty "side agreements"?

Face it, NAFTA can only work for the rich.

We need a NEW trade policy, one that works from the bottom up.

[Taverner]

62. Gore was trying to make it into an American EU

He was defeated by Bush in 2000, so that stopped that

[Oregone]

64. Seems like shipping materials to locations with "competative advantages" has a major carbon footprin

Not to mention, any deforestation and development in cheap labor areas.

Hey, no biggie. Beavers are back in Michigan. Its turning around a corner!

Side effect of Gore's push isn't environmentally pretty. Materials, capital and tools are shipped to poor areas that need development, and goods are shipped to rich services economies

[Uncle Joe]

89. When nations develop, their populations stabilize.

The population explosion is a major contributor to global warming climate change.

We didn't develop in an environmentally friendly way, but that doesn't mean the process can't be improved upon, humanity has learned and technologies improved upon, potentially making the task easier so long as competent leadership is in place, that wasn't case from 2001 on.

[duhneece]

86. That's what I was hoping for, initially

I think it COULD be a force for the good.

[warm regards]

93. Like the EU...? And come crashing down like they are?

Do you think that we should make Mexicans that are still in Mexico eligible for US tax payer provided health care?

[truedelphi]

116. How would that ever happen?

NAFTA is proof that the IMF and the other New World Order types are running the governemnts of the world.

People are not running anything, except maybe the local bingo halls.

I mean, Santa Claus is not going to take over the major situations andproblems at hand any time soon.

And the environmental movement is now so sold out and "owned" by the Corporations, that I no longer use that word as a concept that I agree with. New mantras are disgusting to me: Poor people driving big old cars (the only ones they can afford) are bad. The rich who deforest every other state in the Union for the sake of their precious grape vineyards are "good."

Bah humbug on that.

[reggie the dog]

26. Here is my fix

Free trade with Canada, fine. They have comparable labor and pollution standards

Free trade with Mexico, horrible. Their labor and pollution standards are shit.

[Taverner]

57. Change it and make it a requirement

That was the plan in the Clinton years, but Bush dropped all of them

There's the problem

[Oregone]

69. Is this the same NCLB argument: that only the conservatives fucked it?

The Afghanistan war too? :)

Do Democrats have anything better than "The Republicans fucked it up"?

Some things are just bad ideas, regardless what one wing of the corporatocracy has dressed it up as

[defendandprotect]

75. The trade agreements are about "harvesting slave labor" -----

[grahamhgreen]

33. REPEAL NOT FIXED - My family and friends need jobs. nt

[midnight]

120. I agree with repealing it, because this trade agreement has created a unstable

work force, and is a safety threat to families... And for our families we need to repeal this trade agreement.

[salguine]

46. If by "fixing it" you mean

driving it out to the desert and making it dig its own grave at gunpoint, shooting it in the back of the head and burying it, then yes, I agree it needs to be fixed.

[Taverner]

59. So do you want protectionism? Peron tried that. It didn't work

[defendandprotect]

76. It was working BEFORE the trade agreements . . . !!!

[notesdev]

94. Seems to work quite well for China

it ain't an on/off switch anyway

It's a pretty simple principle though - if having the economic activity within your own country means something (and I personally think it does), then we have the obligation to advantage that behavior, even if it does cause prices to rise somewhat.

Myself, I hunt around to buy made-in-the-USA only items where that is possible, where it is not I favor Canada and other western nations over others. It does matter to me, not just for patriotic reasons but also because the US manufactures excellent quality products, and the same cannot be said of your typical export nation.

[rhett o rick]

95. Good god man. Protectionism cant be worse than what we have. nt

[Taverner]

156. Google "Smoot Hawley" and then "Peron"

Then get back to me

[pampango]

115. Hell, we tried it with Smoot/Hawley. FDR campaigned against it and spent his presidency

getting around it by signing trade deals with other countries in order to override S/H. Smoot, Hawley and Hoover (who signed it) were all republicans, of course.

He and Truman were the driving force behind GATT (which led to the WTO) because they wanted to promote international trade rather than suffer through the tariff battles of the 1930's which were not good for anyone.

[Taverner]

155. Exactly

[grahamhgreen]

149. Protectionism PROTECTS OUR JOBS! NT

[pampango]

151. Not according to FDR. He fought Smoot/Hawley & pushed the creation of the organizations that promote

international trade. Really progressive countries, like Canada, Australia and the EU countries, have much more international trade than we do. We can better protect our jobs through progressive government and policies, not by trying to make the world go away.

[grahamhgreen]

168. We have no jobs, because they've all gone overseas. Until we protect our industries, we will starve

[Taverner]

154. Yes, but when those jobs are gone due to runaway inflation, its kind of useless, no?

[grahamhgreen]

167. The jobs are gone because the facotry is in China.

[rhett o rick]

175. We are losing factories and jobs at an alarming rate. The Chinese us tariffs to protect their

industries. Explain why we shouldnt fight their tariffs with our own? How do you propose we stop the bleeding? Or are you an Ayn Rand follower and believe that the poor should just die and get out of the way?

[laughingliberal]

121. +1 nt

[liberalmike27]

85. By Fixed

You mean instituting tariffs on products coming into America, to make the cost of production the same here, as there, then I'm in, and I say It's about time, in near 20 percent unemployment, and huge deficits, that we bring back jobs, tax paying jobs, to America!!!!!!

[Jax]

134. Why would it be overkill to eliminate it Rapier09?

How would Rapier09 fix NAFTA?

Alyce

[avaistheone1]

3. Wow!

I hope this happens.

:kick:

[Phlem]

4. About F-ing time

Sometimes fixing things (especially in Washington) means taking a pile of shit and turning into a shiny turd. Getting rid of it all together and re-evaluating our countries issues seems like a better path.

-p

[Left Coast2020]

21. Double about F'ing time!!!

:bounce:

[emilyg]

131. Make that a triple.

[Stumbler]

113. My thoughts exactly

[timo]

5. about time

nafta = a bad idea, poorly executed!!!!


nafta is aslo a shining example of never trust a politician when they say, just pass the bill as it is and we will fix it later, because it never happens!!

[bvar22]

6. Sign me up for some of this.

*

[Taverner]

7. Mend it, don't end it

For example, what if NAFTA was more like the EU, and ensured health care for all those living in NAFTA countries? What if Environmental protections were put into it?

It's a good tool being misused

[Oregone]

13. So what...give Mexicans health care. They'll still be able to build cars cheaper than Americans

And factories will still be packed up and sent to Mexico. It doesn't matter what you do to it, as long as capital and the means of production are not confined within a specific border. The fallacy of the "competitive advantage" is quite revealed when one realized that it isn't the countries specifically competing, but the corporations, who are not bound by borders. They can go anywhere, and they will lower the cost of production by seeking the cheapest labor costs globally

[Taverner]

16. That's why workers protections come in handy...

You want a merged economy, eventually

[Oregone]

18. So the suffering of the American worker is a necessary Means to a greater End?

To take the middle class down a few notches so that the entire world is on the same playing field in some fantasy "merged economy" is worth it?

There will never be and "merged economy". Capital and power have been amassed by the few, and those few know that producing in a cheaper environment and selling in a richer one will lead to greater profits. Its in the interests of the wealthy to make sure that some countries/people/economies stay "down". Its foolish to live in this current world and deny what big money can do globally.

If the countries in NAFTA got anywhere near a "merged economy", the owners of production will pack up shop and send the factories to some CAFTA country, and sell the products to the ex-workes in the NAFTA countries on their credit (which the owners of production are extending to them anyway).

Its a big fuckfest, and the people on the bottom are always assuming the position.

[Taverner]

24. No because the IDEA behind NAFTA was that

Mexico's buying power goes up, and we want them to buy American. This of course predicates on there being American manufacturing to buy.

So the middle class rises alongside Mexico. That's what happened to Spain and Portugal under the EU.

However, we are missing many things that would make this work. Single currency, workers protections, American industry, and a GNP other than just moving capital around

[Oregone]

37. And its a naive, bad idea

Its not even good on paper. Its pretends everyone will rise up, while neglecting the concept of multi-national corporations moving production centers on a race to the bottom. In the end, it does, no matter what you do, cause specific job losses to high labor costs areas (America). So rather than raising everyone up to a certain standard, it just bulldozes everyone on down. Thats the reality. Experts were saying it then too.

And the ironic thing...you know, since Gore promoted it so much...well all that shipping of finished goods around the globe and deforestation due to development in low labor costs areas...well it did a number on the environment. Go figure.

[Taverner]

48. No - its a good idea if implemented as planned

It wasn't though - and even the EU, with Greece and all, is better off if they were independent nations.

[Oregone]

52. And it cannot be implemented as planned

Capital is mobile and the average cost of labor is not homogenous

The plan was fallacious. It sounds good, but thats about it

[Enthusiast]

72. +1!

Besides, Gore was stupid enough to pick LIEberman as a running mate.

[Enthusiast]

68. I have an idea about the idea behind NAFTA

NAFTA was a failure. And all these trade agreements have been harmful to the American worker.

Trade agreements might work in Europe where governments do not allow corporations to run roughshod over the people. But they don't work in a fascist nation like the U.S.

[Oregone]

71. They only work for EVERYONE in a magical world where...

competitive advantages cancel eachother out, standard of living is homogenous on average, and capital is not mobile.

Fantasy, over-simplistic, good idea on paper world.

[rhett o rick]

97. The problem is that the middle class in Mexico isnt developing. Funny thing but the wealthy

in Mexico are getting all the money. Nice idea but a fucking fantasy. NAFTA is a failure.

[Fool Count]

104. If that was the idea, the big business would never had supported it and

it would never had become law and been implemented. Yeah, sure, the idea was
to make all those Mexicans get paid better wages, and not to force the Americans
to accept less. Give me a break. Just look at the dynamics of American wages since
NAFTA was implemented. That was exactly THE idea.

[reggie the dog]

29. sorry, but fuck mexico

I am not willing to sell out the american people so that our american companies can build fords, chevys in mexico and sell them in the USA. Unitl mexico has similar wage, worker rights, and pollution standards, they, like china, do not deserve free trade. I have no problem with free trade between France and a country like Denmark, or Sweden, but France and fucking Romania???? you have to be kidding me, and Romania in in the EU.....

[fascisthunter]

44. exactly... this isn't about people, it's about Corporations

taking advantage of low wage workers.

[Oregone]

66. And don't think that Mexicans haven't also suffered

Their inability to tariff subsidized staple crops have devastated much of their agricultural base (sending some of them north looking for work). Only the corporations profit from this crap.

[Enthusiast]

74. Ed Zackery! nt

[pampango]

136. "but France and fucking Romania???? you have to be kidding me, and Romania in in the EU....."

And there's the difference between American progressives and European progressives.

From the EU website:

"One of the Union’s first post-enlargement priorities is to raise the living standards of the countries which joined in 2004 (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) – plus Bulgaria and Romania – to EU levels.

At present, the economies of the countries which have become members since 2004 are growing more strongly than those of the others. This is bringing more prosperity to the newcomers, creating new jobs there while offering new markets for goods and services from the rest of the EU. The gap between living standards across the Union is narrowing, with per capita GDP (a standard measure of wealth) in countries like Cyprus and Slovenia rising closer to the EU average."

http://europa.eu/pol/enlarg/index_en.htm

The EU's goal is to raise the living standards of the whole continent, not to maximize the living standards of France, Germany, the UK, or any other rich European country, while walling off Eastern Europe, if necessary. Is spreading and sharing the wealth a progressive goal? Or should spreading and sharing the wealth stop at national borders? Would keeping poor countries out of the EU in an effort to protect the rich countries be more progressive?

[Taverner]

158. I got mine and f the rest

Americanism at its core

[reggie the dog]

163. our car factories

are delocalized to romania, it pisses me off

[closeupready]

20. In light of the domestic HCR fight, just how the hell do you think that would happen???

I could get behind mending it if mending it guaranteed all those living in NAFTA countries unicorns and rainbows, but how likely is that to happen, as well?

[Taverner]

25. Well now there's the rub

And unfortunately, its a bad one

[Duval]

78. Taverner, just want to say

I followed your comments with interest. Thank you for helping make sense of what happened with NAFTA. Perot always come into my mind..."that giant sucking sound". That is what happened.

[Chulanowa]

132. Knock it off with the "if NAFTA were like the EU!" stuff

It's not. It won't be. it actually can't be. it would require throwing away the deal, and coming up with a new one entirely.

[EFerrari]

9. Somehow, we have to support these people.

:kick:

[FLAprogressive]

10. this may be the only decent thing the usually putrid Gene Taylor will do this year

[LuvNewcastle]

49. Probably the only thing at all.

He has a few challengers this year and one of their criticisms is how ineffectual he is. I like this idea, but I think it's born of desperation.

[Dr.Phool]

11. Go for it!

[Mari333]

14. repeal it!! knr

[closeupready]

19. End it. It's completely unworkable.

n/t

[Love Bug]

22. How may jobs have we lost to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc?

Instead of repealing it, why don't we alter it so we have agreements with countries that don't steal our jobs?

[reggie the dog]

30. I would support free trade between

the USA and the European Union, as all in all our living standards, when averaged out between wealthy and poor states, are comparable.

[pampango]

138. Canada is negotiating a free trade deal with the EU. So far the US is not. n/t

[Love Bug]

159. Yes, that is my point

All else being the same, why not have free trade with nations that are comparable? In fact, that would be an incentive for other nations to achieve, instead of the current imbalance, which has done nothing but hurt us.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

32. The US should have a free trade agreement with the entire European Union

For example Korea has a free trade deal with the EU, but that just makes too much sense.

[Heywood J]

165. Not many.

The countries you listed are primarily importers/exporters of goods, not jobs. When was the last time you read about factories closing and moving to those three countries, versus hearing about production moving to China, India, or Mexico?

[paparush]

23. My breathe, its what I'm not holding. nt

[pundaint]

31. This is obviously too good for American People, the President will start by taking

any job implication off the table.

[AlphaCentauri]

35. Why it wasn't repealed when most latin american presidents were right wingers?

[SlingBlade]

36. Yea Right !

[robcon]

38. NAFTA is a triumph...

Free trade is the best hope for the world - for economic growth and for peace.

[Enthusiast]

77. If it's the best hope

we are lost.

NAFTA and free trade agreements are a complete failure.

Maybe "economic growth" doesn't always result in an improvement. Ever consider that?

[onpatrol98]

39. Free Trade???

NAFTA's idea of free trade wasn't fair trade. The US worker got the short end of the stick in that deal. I see nothing worth mending. Kill it and create something more equitable. As for Gene Taylor, I wish him the best of luck on killing this...I've never agreed with Pat Buchanan, but even that hack said NAFTA was a job killer. I didn't believe him then. But, I can definitely see the aftermath of it, now.

No one should be forced to agree with Pat Buchanan. Kill it and kill it quickly. Make the pain go away.

[RoccoR5955]

40. About freakin' time, BUT

I'll believe it when I see it.

[madrchsod]

41. well over a thousand workers in indiana won`t be making refrigerators because of nafta

ya this nafta thing has been really great for the american middle class!

remember that plant received "stimulus money"

[Goldstein1984]

42. "Obama criticized NAFTA..."

"...during the 2008 presidential election campaign but has not followed through..."

One more thing.

[Enthusiast]

80. Just one more lie.

Now watch someone pop up to say "Obama didn't say he would renegotiate NAFTA."

[harun]

110. I remember the debate on NAFTA with the other primary candidates.

I don't remember if he talked about renegotiating or not but it was very obvious he wasn't going to repeal it, even though it was obvious that is what the crowd wanted people to say.

There isn't a chance in hell this administration is going to repeal let alone renegotiate NAFTA. We'd see super NAFTA 2.0 before we'd see a renegotiation that favored workers.

[Enthusiast]

135. Obama the candidate did

suggest he would renegotiate NAFTA as it was hurting the American worker. That was his reasoning behind renegotiating NAFTA.

[PSPS]

43. "Obama ... has not followed through..."

Obama criticized NAFTA during the 2008 presidential election campaign but has not followed through on threats to withdraw from the agreement if Canada and Mexico did not agree to revamp the pact's labor and environmental provisions.

That's the classic U-bama M.O. and it can apply to a very long list of things.

Obama criticized (fill in blank) during the 2008 presidential election campaign but has not followed through.

What immediately comes to mind:

Gitmo
Iraq
Illegal wiretapping
Rendition
Habeas Corpus
Torture
Indefinite detention

But he did sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, so I guess nothing else matters. At least, I think that's what they say these days.

[Triana]

45. GOOD! Repeal CAFTA too. n/t

[Edweird]

47. 'Bout damn time. But, I'll believe it when I see it.

[alp227]

51. I hope this becomes the sequel to the health care reform saga

Taking back our jobs will be the next priority after passing health care. I think this could be a legit concern for those "They took our jobs" types and many working-class Americans alongside healthcare.

Meanwhile, anyone using Firefox notice that when you click into this thread you get a tiny Inside Edition screencap? And for my English class I'm doing a research paper about outsourcing and am interested to see the effects of NAFTA on American job loss to foreign countries.

[NM_hemilover]

70. This would be a score in the win column,

I just got all goose pimply thinking about NAFTA, and then CAFTA going away.

I can't wait to be able to take "get a dog" off the list of promises kept.

[defendandprotect]

73. We need a president who will overturn the trade agreements . . . which put workers

in a position of competing with slave labor --

It is also insane and outrageous that de-regulating capitalism led to the immense

near depression like conditions were suffering - and yet the Democrats and Obama

haven't moved in the slightest to RE-REGULATE capitalism . . . especially to

reinstitute Glass-Steagall --

In fact, Sen. Byron Dorgan seemed to have had Glass-Steagall in mind as a next step

after his attempt to permit importation of drugs for Medicare . . . . and we recall

what happened there and the aftermath -- Democrats voting against him -- and his

decision to leave the Congress!!

Someone better start getting honest with somebody here re the Democrats cause as far

as I can see they're not working for us --

No corporate Democrats -- pre-BRIBED and pre-OWNED with corporate funding -- will ever

be working for us!!

[Enthusiast]

82. +1!

[ozone_man]

123. +2!

[lib2DaBone]

79. DUMP NAFTA.. not fix. Let's have a race-to-the-top (for a change)

How about some tariffs to protect American workers? American steel, American Parts and American Labor.

Screw China and their cheap rotten dry wall and their poison pet food! Who needs it? At any price?

I say we off-shore the Republicans.....

NAFTA gave us the SHAFTA

[chrisa]

105. Yup. Trade restrictions, tariffs, and penalties

to companies that want to send jobs overseas.

It raises prices, but I would have to imagine the quality of things would go up too. The only reason free trade makes things cheaper is because they're made poorly (with underpaid workers).

[DailyGrind51]

81. And GAT too, while they're at it!

[FarPoint]

84. Where do I sign up

to volunteer to help this desperately needed legislation?

[Freddie Stubbs]

88. Sounds almost as a good idea as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

[Jester Messiah]

90. Good idea.

I think we could do with some protectionism, personally. Not too much, but enough to get our manufacturing industry back. Anything that can get Americans spending their money on American products, putting those dollars back into American industry, is ok by me.

[jgraz]

91. Hmm... I wonder what side our Fierce Advocate in Chief will come down on...

:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

103. Both sides?

[jgraz]

109. An excellent guess

[ms liberty]

92. I remember when Democrats were against NAFTA...K&R. n/t

[lovuian]

98. its about TIME

worst thing Clinton ever did to this country

[sulphurdunn]

99. Cui bono?

Not the American working class. You can bet your pension and possibly your life on that. At least in the NAFTA era it was necessary to sucker the public. Those were the good ole' days.

[True_Blue]

102. I think NAFTA should be repealed...

And time to renegotiate trade with China too.

[Jefferson23]

107. K&R

[hollowdweller]

111. Dems will never do it. Like the public option it's too popular.

Obama and the Dems seem to be dead set about implementing any liberal or populist legislation that polls well with the voters.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. Free trade with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and other places

with high standards of living? No problem!

"Free" trade with Vietnam? No way!

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

118. The same type of language one would expect to hear from one of those other sites.

Surely you can do better than that. :shrug:

[TheFarseer]

119. FUCKING FINALLY!!!!!!

Now just need to pull out of WTO - you know the place where we let other countries take turns gang raping us and then they bitch at us about our unfair trade practices. It's absolutely astonishing that we put up with this.

I have no problem with trading with countries that are close to us in per capita income - Canada, Japan, Singapore, UAE, Australia, Western Europe or countries where we really need their product (Saudi Arabia), but third world hell holes that only take our jobs and sell us crap we could easily make ourselves (T-shirts, computers, toasters) and then wouldn't buy a single damn thing from us if their lives depended on it absolutely pisses me off. We should absolutely only buy things from countries that will buy a roughly equal amount of stuff from us.

[pampango]

139. Yeah, when FDR was pushing GATT (which led to the WTO) he should have excluded poor countries

(otherwise known as "third world hell holes"), but he didn't. After WWII South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and others were all poor and got out of "hell hole" status largely through trade. If we could have kept them out of GATT (then, WTO now), they would still be poor and we would be much better off, right?

Should we kick the poor African, South American and Asian countries out of the WTO now? Lots of them are "third world hell holes" after all.

[TheFarseer]

141. sending our jobs over there doesn't help their working people

The tin shack cities that pop up around GM plants in Mexico are welll documented. They pay them just enough that they don't starve to death. This is exactly what the factory owners did in the guilded age circa 1890 in the USA. The only problem is this time, if they unionize, the factories will be gone very quickly. We have sent jobs to Honduras, Lesotho, Laos - none of those countries are better off. You can be sure that when US companies put up factories in poor countries, they are just using them.

[pampango]

152. I think that South Koreans, Singaporeans, Japanese and other would disagree.

Lots of countries used trade with the US to recover from WWII (and in South Korea's case from the devastation of the Korean War as well). When Europe was recovering from the war, their countries were still materially poor and their workers poor and ill-paid. They, too, used trade with the US to help their economies. Now they, along with the Japanese, Singaporeans, and South Koreans, are rich enough that they have a consumer society. They still export but much of their economies are now focused on their domestic markets. It's hard to focus on your domestic market, though, when your citizens have no money.

That said, I think the key is that the benefits of trade for a poor country can only be realized if there is a government that is smart and/or compassionate enough to ensure that the average citizens benefit. Without that trade doesn't help local people much. (Of course, with corrupt government nothing is going to help local people much.)

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

122. Kick and Rec.

NAFTA was presented as being Fair, but it was not. This Nation has been ass fucked since.
I want FAIR trade, not FREE to fuck trade.

[amborin]

125. K&R

[lonestarnot]

126. Yesssss!

:applause:

[yourout]

127. In the immortal words of John Shaft......"Ya Damn Right"

[NYC_SKP]

128. K & R! nt

[JDPriestly]

133. Our "free trade" policies have cost us dearly.

Those policies transformed us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation.

"Free trade" has failed America. We need "rational trade," not "free trade." There is nothing free about "free trade." It is enslaving us -- all those of us who are not filthy rich.

[harun]

161. It failed main street America but was a windfall for Corpo America

And being that Corpo America is the boss of this country we will be getting more free trade, not less:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100305/BUSINESS/303050013/1004/NEWS01/Top-U.S.-trade-official-says-state-nation-need-to-embrace-free-trade

Some disaster capitalism from HRC -
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-04/clinton-urges-latin-america-to-cut-tariffs-invest-in-haiti.html

[DisgustedInMN]

143. K & R

[Little Star]

144. We need to support these Reps with our voice, praise and donations!

Free trade is good for the wealthy and the Corporations. It offers nothing to the rest of us, in fact it is killing the middle class in this country. And please point me to a country where free trade has helped the poor of that country. What the hell good does free trade do in this world? Who benefits?

[DisgustedInMN]

145. I can do the praise..

... but unfortunately, with no job, no prospects, and no Unemployment Benefit, the donation thing isn't quite feasible. Sorry.

[pampango]

160. Who benefits? In Canada and Europe, progressive governments make sure that the people benefit.

They make trade work for them and trade much more with the rest of the world than we do. Without a progressive society Americans don't benefit like Canadians and Europeans do from trade.

Of course, without a progressive society we aren't going to benefit from anything - "free trade", protectionism, "make the world go away" or anything in between - because the power elites will siphon off the benefits and leave the costs with the rest of us. If we imposed tariffs unilaterally, some companies would benefit and some would be hurt. Those that would be hurt would seek to pass that pain on to taxpayers, as we have seen plenty of in the past couple of years. The companies that benefit are going to be no more likely to share their largess with their workers or communities than they are now, since nothing will have changed in terms of who has the power in our society.

Progressive countries like Canada, Australia and European countries trade with the rest of the world much more than we do, and still provide effective national health care, a strong social safety net, strong labor unions and protections for workers' rights, better regulation of the finance industry and corporations in general, progressive taxation, among other things. Enacting unilateral tariffs, so that we trade even less with the world than we do now, isn't going to magically turn us into a progressive country. Quite the opposite. Russia, and about a dozen other countries don't belong to the WTO, has lower levels of trade than we do, but it and the others are hardly models of progressive governance.

There's a frustration with our long term inability get our own government to do the things that progressive societies get from their governments, e.g. national health care, progressive taxation, etc.. One recourse then is to say, "Well, if I can't get my own government to do what it should for me, at least let's get the foreigners to stop sending us their stuff." It may not lead to a progressive government, but at least it's doing something. Globally, in bad economic times imports and immigrants are the first targets. Power elites are quite happy for the populace to go after imports and immigrants as long as they leave the spoils of the system in the hands of the elites.

[Captain Hilts]

153. China's Most Favored Nation status?

[Ter]

166. Don't get excited

Obama would not support a total repeal, he would veto the bill.

[Omaha Steve]

169. It's about time

K&R!

[CHIMO]

172. Yes

Kill it please. Get rid of it!

Please invoke tariffs. Please....