Dems: If you repeal NAFTA, you'll win populist support and own '10 and '12.

[Union Yes]

If only Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would remove their corporate blinders and open their eyes.

If they'd open their eyes, they'd see that..


NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT are killing the middle class and have driven more Americans into poverty than perhaps any other policy decision in American history.

PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN TENT CITIES BECAUSE OF THESE HORRIBLE "FREE TRADE" POLICIES.

America's middle class is teetering on the edge of collapse. People are unemployed, starving, on the edge of homelessness or already there.

Visit Detroit Nancy and Harry. Open your eyes and take a look around.

YOU'LL SEE NAFTA IN ALL IT'S GLORY.

Crumbling urban decay. Poverty. Vacant blocks. Blight. A dieing city. The direct result of NAFTA and FT.

Step away from the corporatism for 5 seconds Nancy and Harry and look at us.


WE, THE LITTLE PEOPLE, NEED YOUR HELP!

THE POOR, THE JOBLESS NEED YOUR HELP.

PROGRESSIVE POPULISM AND UNION ACTIVISM BUILT THE MIDDLE CLASS. NAFTA IS FLUSHING IT ALL DOWN THE DRAIN. AMERICA'S DIEING MIDDLE CLASS NEEDS YOUR HELP.

Nancy and Harry, are you going to accept going down in history as the Dem leaders that allowed America's labor movement and the gains made for the working person to collapse entirely because of the NAFTA's.

You'll both go down in history as the Service Based Economy Dems. The Dems that let the middle class die.

But there is a solution.

Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Reid, and Dems could heal alot of wounds with the left, the middle class, unions, and the people in general if they would immediately push for the repeal of NAFTA and all of these disastrous trade policies.

We need jobs! It'll take your leadership Nancy and Harry.

REPEAL NAFTA NOW!

Across almost all political spectrums, the people hate NAFTA and want it repealed. Except for our corporate overlords.

Repealing NAFTA would cause a surge of populist support for Dems. Most corporapig Rethugs would oppose said repeal and make themselves even less popular, if that's possible.

A populist surge of support can be a darn fine thing for Dems nationwide at election time.

Can you see where I'm going with this Nancy and Harry?

Repeal NAFTA and watch support for Dems surge nationwide. DO Nancy and Harry even care whether Dems win in '10?

Few are impressed with the Democratic Party and this congress' achievements thus far.

Again, Democrats could quickly heal alot of wounds with the people and achieve something meaningful by repealing NAFTA.

How much more obvious can it get that it is time to repeal NAFTA?

[Craftsman]

1. I agree with you, but the same corps own the dem as the rethugs

[AllentownJake]

2. Yes but they won't get as good jobs when they retire from "public service" nt.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Those Jobs Still Won't Return...

I've long been against NAFTA and would love to see it repealed, however, the damage has been done. The corporates are spoiled by their cheap labor and ability to circumvent most environmental laws...and they pump a ton of money at the politicians. They'll just take the factories in Mexico and move them to China or a third-world country...any country that doesn't have labor laws.

We need to tax companies that off-shore...charge them the difference between the cheap/slave labor and what it would cost if a product were produced in a union factory here. For example, if a union-made car is $15gs and GM can import a car from Mexico for $12gs, GM would be taxed the 3gs difference. Take the incentive for off-shoring away from the corporates and then lets see how our balance of trade works.

[Union Yes]

11. That's why we'd also need tough laws banning reimportation. nt

[readmoreoften]

4. I voted this up but... Fat Chance.

The "State" means a marriage of government and capitalism in order to suppress labor. Part of that suppression is pretending you're looking out for the worker and doing "the best you can."

[Fading Captain]

5. The Democratic Party is a Cwhoreporate party

No fucking chance.

[Enthusiast]

6. Corporate gifts and rewards far exceed

winning any election. And you can take that to the BANK.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Why not just bring back the Smoot–Hawley Act while you are at it?

:shrug:

[anonymous171]

9. Nice False Dichotomy you got there. nt

[Union Yes]

10. It isn't the law that is the problem, it's the government in charge of enforcing said law.

We have laws that ban torture. Yet our government still does it.

NAFTA was sold to us under the lie that it would lessen the trade deficit supposedly caused by Smoot-Hawley(which is another lie in itself)

Once Nafta was signed into law and it's horrid effects upon our economy began, our trade deficit surged to new record levels.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Pff, lol.

Before or after we let banks fail?

[Elwood P Dowd]

30. Smoot-Hawley had less than a 2% effect on GDP during the Great Depression.

Why do DUers keep bringing up this bullshit republican talking point? International trade was only about 4% of GDP before Smoot-Hawley. It dropped to 2% a couple of years later, but then ALL trade was in the tank by then because nobody had any fucking money.

[pampango]

34. No ones making the point that Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression, but FDR campaigned against it.

He knew it wouldn't help the country get out of the Depression, so he got around it by signing trade deals with individual countries. During and after WWII he and Truman worked to make sure that international trade didn't return to the high tariff, "beggar thy neighbor" policies of Smoot-Hawley. They believed that the more trade and interdependence there was, the better it was for global peace and prosperity.

[Selatius]

42. Bilateral trade agreements are what should be done, but the WTO is a one-size-fits-all deal.

That's not a solution. Bilateral trade agreements work precisely because each trade agreement can be tailor made to suit the situation between two countries, but proposing a formula that all parties must abide by doesn't do that, and it certainly didn't lead to the US gutting massive swaths of its manufacturing sector in the 1940s and 1950s post-war and sending it to third world dictatorships and countries that don't give a damn about workers' rights and environmental standards.

Try finding somebody in favor of repealing NAFTA and replacing it with two bilateral trade agreements that actually takes into account what's on the ground, and you probably just found another target for the Chamber of Commerce to attack because they know a sensible trade agreement doesn't undercut American workers in favor of workers in impoverished areas who do not enjoy minimum safe protections as far as labor law and environmental law go.

[pampango]

44. FDR and Truman were main forces behind the creation of GATT (the predecessor of the WTO), because

they wanted there to be a multilateral framework for international trade. While FDR stuck to bilateral trade agreements during the Depression, he pushed for a multilateral institution to provide a framework for international trade in the post-war world, which led to GATT.

Membership in the WTO is voluntary and a country can always negotiate a bilateral deal with another country whether they both belong to the WTO or not. There are at least 11 countries that don't belong - Russia (the biggest), Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Bosnia, Syria, Laos and Belarus. They all trade with the rest of the world based on bilateral agreements. Countries are still free to trade this way if they wish to do so.

[Selatius]

40. I think the Great Depression was more the fault of fraudulent bankers on Wall Street than that.

Could it not be that fraudulent securities, reckless investment strategies, and outright theft did a lot to crash the economy in the 1930s as well? I'm just saying... :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

8. That would probably end up being politically disastrous,

as the rest of the world--especially China--would no doubt retaliate, and the resultant economic collapse would be blamed entirely on Obama.

[Union Yes]

12. Saving America is worth it. nt

[Tutankhamun]

13. Obama said, when he was running for President, that he wanted to repeal NAFTA.

I haven't heard him make even a peep about it as President. I'm starting to get the feeling that campaign promises are, to Obama, merely statements that can be changed or forgotten with time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Umm, no he didn't.

He said it never should have been signed, but he had no intention of repealing it now.

[Elwood P Dowd]

31. He claimed that he wanted to fix it,

but how do you turn chicken shit into chicken salad? You can't fix NAFTA or renegotiate it as Obama hinted at on more than one occasion. It's too fucking flawed. He could have given a 6-month notice that we were withdrawing from NAFTA, but the corporate crooks that are getting rich off these fake free trade agreements would have cranked up the propaganda machine and crucified him. These insane fake free trade deals will remain in effect until we have a major depression with 25-30 percent unemployment.

[pampango]

35. How is it that Europe can handle a 27-country free trade area (EU) and we can't handle a 3-country

one? I don't see Europe in a major depression with 25-30 percent unemployment.

[Selatius]

38. Europe isn't free of problems either. There's movement of workers cross borders, and...

it's helping to give rise to right wing nationalist parties that scapegoat these immigrant workers from poorer parts of Europe as less than human or scum. It's becoming a worrying trend, especially with respect to North Africans, Roma Gypsies, Jews, and other minority groups in Europe. While Europe is having problems integrating within itself, it's certainly practicing something akin to tariffs with trade when the EU trades with nations outside of Europe or free trade only if it benefits their side and not the other. China is the same way, especially since they have consistently levied tariffs on American imports even though they're supposedly a member of the WTO.

[pampango]

43. You're right. Right wing nationalist parties do oppose open immigration (and free trade, too).

Nonetheless, the progressives that run Europe continue to expand the EU with its free trade and open borders into more and more countries (who want to join) in Europe, in spite of the fact that right wingers resist it.

You are also right that Europe has problems. Always has, always will. Just like us and every other place. Europe's problems today do have a lot to do with too much freedom (of movement and trade). I think they are headed in the right direction, but too much change too fast is tough on any society. They probably do have to slow the pace of change without changing its direction.

[reggie the dog]

16. I agree with you all the way

[Union Yes]

17. ...

:fistbump:

[branders seine]

18. If the Dems passed Medicare for All (for real), repealed NAFTA,

broke up the financial industry (banking, credit card and insurance) monopolies and regulated the financial sector back into line, the Democrats would maintain control of the government for three generations.

So why don't they?

[Union Yes]

19. Great points, great question.

I think they fear the notion of power to the people. They are drunk on power and want to keep it that way.

[Fire1]

20. Oh that's a given! But, keep hope alive! n/t

[amborin]

21. I was against Nafta; but 100s of 1000s of those jobs are leaving Mex for China;

The jobs are not staying in Mexico.

The real threat to US jobs is not Mexico. It's China, etc......

[Union Yes]

22. I agree. Which is largely governed under GATT. Another horrid "free trade" agreement that needs to..

be scrapped.

[amborin]

24. yes

and EFCA is crucial to empowering unions to tackle these issues

[Wilms]

23. .

[anigbrowl]

25. Let's abolish the interstate commerce part of the constitution too

I mean, if abolishing NAFTA will make the US richer, allowing the individual states to levy tariffs on each other's exports can only make the individual states richer, right? We could have county-level tariffs, too! What could possibly go wrong!

sure, we export about $350 billion of goods to Canada every year and $140 billion to Mexico, but imposing tariffs and having them impose tariffs back on us can only help that, right? Yes, tariffs are the magic answer to everything, and every country that employs them is economically stable and perfectly self-sufficient. Nothing bad can happen with tariffs, because they're magic.

[Fading Captain]

27. How about a national law banning tax abatements?

So that states and cities aren't getting raped by corporations threatening to move.

[anigbrowl]

28. Now that is something I could sign on to.

These kind of subsidies are exactly the kind of economically unhealthy pablum that is sold by populist candidates to credulous voters, who end up paying for everything twice.

[reggie the dog]

33. Free trade with Canada is fine

they have the same, if not a better standard of living than we do, production costs are comparable in the two countries. Free trade with Mexico is horrible for the USA on the other hand.

[Selatius]

39. Because in Mexico, the central government gives two shits about enforcing the law.

They're too goddamn busy waging a low level civil war with drug cartels to be bothered with enforcing environmental standards or labor standards.

[pampango]

36. Just imagine how rich Ohio could be if we had tariffs on goods from other states.

What if my county could impose tariffs on goods from other counties in Ohio? Our businesses and factories would make us all rich.

You're right. I think the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution is that cause of all of our problems. ;) That damn clause is keeping me from being rich because we can't impose tariffs on goods from other states and counties.

[Fading Captain]

26. Populist? THe sophisticated Dems are smarter than that.

Let the Republicans tap into the working class fears.

[Lorien]

29. Don't forget to send a copy of this to the Dems in question

they don't read DU.

[jgraz]

32. Selling out as individuals beats staying in power as a party

And it certainly beats helping the people they represent.

[Kolesar]

37. Agribusiness wont let you

they are the ones who benefited by NAFTA.

[dysfunctional press]

41. not if they screw up healthcare and we're still in afghanistan...

and just repealing nafta won't bring the jobs back...it'll just send most of them out of north america.