"Helloooo?" Did Dennis catch Dean again?

[wheresthemind]

"Helloooo?"

Is Dennis correct when he says NAFTA cannot be modified as some of the other candidates have suggested? Are all the other candidates "just talk" when it comes to trade?

(from labor day materials)

" "Fixing" NAFTA

Some candidates promise to "fix" NAFTA and the WTO.

These promises show either a poor understanding of the system or a lack of real commitment human rights and the environment.

NAFTA and all U.S. trade agreements must comply with WTO rules, which all too often make it illegal to include strong worker and environmental standards in trade agreements.

What do WTO rules have the power to do?

• Prevent governments from setting environmental or labor standards if the affect trade.

• Prevent governments from passing laws about how foreign goods are produces (WTO riles permit "no child labor" or "no sweatshop" import laws).

• Prevent governments from setting purchasing policies that favor goods from local goods or workers."

Comments?

[John_H]

1. I love DK but

he's going to have to increase his share of dem voters by a factor of thirt before he catches Dean.

[wheresthemind]

2. well if this is the second time....

he has caught Dean with a wrong answer on a very important issue I think that says a lot about the Democrat's current frontrunner.... However I could be wrong in my understanding of NAFTA etc.

[JohnKleeb]

4. realize it

Believe me this man knows the value of hard work. Besides traditionally and yes I know that technically Lieberman was the fronrunner but frontrunners dont typically win. You know where Jimmy Carter was this time '75, nowhere, btw my dad has supported him since June and he had heard of him

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. Kucinich called Dean on his BS

Dean could have been on our side, but he chose to side with Lieberman and Kerry on corporate trade, NAFTA, and the WTO. It's too bad, really.

[John_H]

35. NAFTA was, IMHO, TBD's only major policy mistake

but how the hell can it be just "undone" with the stoke of a pen? The problem is NAFTA has burrowed it's way into our economy and cant be untangles by decree.

Many businesses, including many Latino owned small businesses, have spent millions adapting to the NAFTA environment. NAFTA also forced other countries to forged their own trade agreements, and since they have no intention of ending them, we'll suffer some significan withdrawl pains while we negotiate new bilateral trade agreements.

i guess my emotional response is the same as y'alls--Fuck the greedy fuckers. Let 'em all go broke. I don't think DK's proposal gets past the righteous indignation phase. Maybe he believes it. Maybe he knows it will score points with his main block of support. Maybe a little of both.

I'm all for undoing NAFTA. But that coil's gotta be untangled slowly and carefully.

[Maple]

3. Of course

NAFTA is fixable or can be modified...you can open negotiations again.

Canada for one would be delighted to discuss labor and environmental issues, and come up with a solution.

The WTO is a group of 146 countries, and they have been slowly...VERY slowly...coming to agreements over the years.

This latest round of talks, with hopefully, an agreement is meant specifically to help poor countries.

[wheresthemind]

5. Is the system quick enough?

Could reform happen quickly enough?

We have people with no Jobs, an economy destroyed, could the WTO snails pace make the reforms quick enough to help America? And all those being exploited around the world along with the environment?

[Maple]

7. There are 146 countries

in the WTO...wadda YOU think?

It's not there to provide a quick fix for the US, it involves the trade structure all over the world...getting rid of agricultual subsidies for example. A touchy subject all by itself.

[regnaD kciN]

91. The NAFTA paradox

When NAFTA passed, it was pointed out that it could be changed, or we could simply withdraw from it.

While that remains true, WTO is the wild-card. It is possible that, should we try to amend or dump NAFTA, some other country might take us to the WTO's "star chamber," which could, if they chose, rule the modification in violation of the WTO agreement and issue huge and ongoing fines against us until we danced to their tune.

Whether they would do so or not is impossible to tell at this point.

[Mairead]

128. So the right move is to exit the anti-democratic WTO first!

Both have a get-out clause.

[twilight]

8. DK is right!

We need to DUMP NAFTA! Fixing it won't work and would take forever if possible. In the meantime, America melts away into the sunset .........

:kick:

[paulsbc]

11. NAFTA has been around for 10 years

and Clinton oversaw the largest job creation period in history under the same NAFTA we have today...

So, why the outcry now? Was this going on under Clinton and other factors hid it, or is this just a recent Bush policy phenom??

[wheresthemind]

18. More NAFTA facts

From 1994-2000, under NAFTA and the WTO:

• Trade deficits eliminated over 3 million U.S. jobs, including 31,770 jobs in Iowa.

• The U.S. agricultural trade surplus declined 47%, while corn and soybean prices all declined at least 15%.

• Canada lost more jobs then it gained, and Mexican workers' real wages declined 20%.

In the US, in all three NAFTA countries, and in nearly every country under the WTO, inequalities increased: corporations got richer and workers and farmers got poorer.

Sources: Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA at Seven (2001), Public Citizen, Down on the Farm (2001); Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief #184 (2002).

-From labor day hand out

[Maple]

22. Sorry, but none of that is true

Canada, Mexico and the US boomed.

Please stop mistaking hocus pocus for truth.

[Terwilliger]

33. hey maple

anything to disclaim what wheresthemind posted?

[Maple]

37. Hey Terwilliger

Read the other posts.

Then go read about NAFTA on it's own site...not a propaganda one.

You can look at trade stats too

The US has benefitted enormously from it.

You sure didn't complain about it all the years since 1988, when Clinton was in and the US prospered.

Bush is the problem...not NAFTA.

[Terwilliger]

40. why can X company move their $5.75/hr jobs to Mexico

where they get $2.85/hr (if lucky) Who does that benefit?

I dont the US exports nearly as many to Canada, where you make sure about trading rights and fair labor practices.

The US boomed in the 90's because of the computer boom. That's it.

[Maple]

44. Some jobs go to Mexico

Some to Canada.

Some to the US.

It depends on what they are.

And no, you didn't have a 'computer boom'

Your economy doesn't depend solely on dotcom companies for heavens sakes.

Here...go read something useful.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-02-03.html

And if you don't like that one or the institute...there are scads of others.

Nice clear objective trade figures

[Terwilliger]

54. CATO?

oh, THERE we go...

Thanks Maple! See ya

[Maple]

66. Apparently you missed the next line in the post

"And if you don't like that one or the institute...there are scads of others.

Nice clear objective trade figures"

Perhaps you just don't like having your illusions shattered?

[Terwilliger]

88. you've convinced of nothing but the weakness of your position

[Maple]

92. LOLOL Riiiiiight

.

[Terwilliger]

97. still nothing

I was hoping for some factual backup...ANY

You're all over this thread with nothing but your assertions.

[Maple]

99. I think you just like being silly

because if you've read the thread...you'd know about typing 'US trade figures' into your little keyboard...all by your widdle self.

[Terwilliger]

111. the assertion in #18 is made

you counter it saying "I'm right! I'm right! Look it up!"

No, YOU look it up...you STILL can't defend your position.

[w4rma]

57. Why should any buisness open up in America

if the same buisness can open up in Mexico and pay %0.50/hour wages instead of ~$6.00/hour wages in America?

Give me *one* reason why any manufacturer should open and run a factory in America or even Canada for that matter.

[Maple]

70. If you're making shoes or items like that

nobody would.

Manufacturing of items like that is dead in all western countries...has been for some time. Without NAFTA.

They can do it better than you elsewhere.

Do something they can't do.

Comparative advantage.

[w4rma]

74. "Do something they can't do" What might that be?

Or do you think that Mexicans don't have the brainpower?

[Maple]

79. People work on the line in the US

do you think THEY don't have the brainpower?

Cheap labor is an advantage elsewhere.

You don't have cheap labor.

So do something that doesn't require it.

Don't try making this into some racism thing...it's about economics.

[w4rma]

86. People work on the line in factory jobs. Factory jobs are going, going...

going, and will be totally gone if "free" trade agreements are kept. the same for engineering, accounting and telemarketing/teleservice.

You didn't answer my question. What can Americans or Canadians do that Mexicans can't do? Or the Indians? Or the Chinese? Or the Koreans?

Big buisness is training our future overseas competitors.

[Maple]

90. Yes, they're going

and that's globalization, not 'free trade'

People don't need a lot of training to work on a line.

Gee, I dunno...what do you currently have the trained people and the resources to do? Biotech, robotics, energy, telemedicine, microfluidics, holography....all those things and more.

Many fields need people, and there is a massive retirement coming up.

But no, it isn't the old days where people worked on the line and in steel plants.

Times change.

What did blacksmiths and buggy whip makers do?

[w4rma]

107. service jobs will be all that will be left

And the pay rates of all jobs will drop to become even with the pay rates of those jobs in Mexico.

And the folks who end up with the resources, in the end, will be the folks among the top 1% wealthy Americans. Aristocracy. A new world order. Corporations that serve the unelected Kings and Barons. Robber Barons. The same circumstances that the Revolutionary War was fought over.

[Terwilliger]

114. "do you want fries with your WTO?"

McDonald's: soylent green is two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, on a sesame seed bun.

Interesting way you say it, though... "the folks who end up with the resources." True enough. Socialism is government owned means of production, right? The US? We the people are the government. The resources belong to the people, and the corporations can do what they want. Feed, clothe, house every person, and still have a mass of wealth left over for art, culture, and science.

[paulsbc]

58. if the US boomed

only because of the computer boom, then how does one think that the Dem policies are going to bring us back to that? do you not think that the Dem model in the 90s was responsible for the job growth?

[Ein]

65. I think it was majorly b/c of the .com boom

just like we went into recession after the .com bubble burst.

[Maple]

75. You're not in that bad a situation yet

and your entire economy didn't rest on a few dotcom companies.

Spending trillions on war causes problems though.

Especially when you have to borrow it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

117. Maple isn't American, so why would he want to preserve US jobs?

We have a lot of people on DU that want the US to lower our living standards and export our jobs to them.

[DemBones DemBones]

59. "read about NAFTA on it's own site...not a propaganda one" -- LOL

Yeah, I'm sure NAFTA wouldn't have any propaganda on its site, just the facts, ma'am.

:eyes:

It's not Bush* who is sending American jobs overseas, it's the corporations that see a way to make a bigger profit by abandoning their American employees and hiring cheap labor in India and other poor countries. It's cheap labor conservatism at work, even if Clinton did put it into practice. Clinton took a lot of right wing actions.

We need to elect Kucinich, who's a real progressive, not another cheap labor conservative in a donkey suit.

[Maple]

61. Apparently you don't read other posts hmmm?

There are trade figures available from your own govt...figures that business decisions are made on every day by people all over the world.

But if YOU don't trust them...oh well, stop the presses.

You are confusing about ten different things.

And those countries know you're using their supposed poverty to your own advantage.

'Globalization when it benefits us, self interest when it doesn't' is what you're telling them.

Or as they say 'American job protection disguised as helping the poor'

[DemBones DemBones]

68. Apparently you really have nothing to say, hmmm?

[Maple]

72. Apparently you're simply campaigning

and not discussing any issues.

[loyalsister]

112. 'American job protection disguised as helping the poor'

I've noticed this too. It's a propagandistic way of uniting labor and people who have humanistic concerns. They are told about these low wages without the presentation of context. For a person who has been living in poverty starting off earning some money could be an improvement. Cost of living is not presented with the issue, either. There are a wide range of factors that I never see considered when people raise humanitarian objections to WTO and NAFTA.
It's quite possible that the facts have not been properly presented and these groups have united behind an issue that really is exclusively about job preservation for labor.

[Terwilliger]

113. ok...the WTO...NAFTA

all leading us to the capitalist utopia, is that right?

Is that what Kerry keeps talking about?

If the US is the richest and most consuming culture on the planet (and it is), and we have SOO many problems with fiscal inequity, class division, and homeless people...why do we think a plan to spread that same failed system around the world will change anything?

It's like Soviet expansionism, but there was no Soviet expansionsm. The US has never not been about controlling its fate by subjugating the rest of the planet.

[Zuni]

115. No soviet expansionism

the soviet union never invaded most of central asia (during and after the civil war, from Armenia to Kazakhstan), poland (1939), latvia, lithuania, estonia,(1940) finland (1939) and annexed territory?
I could go on and on about Soviet expansionism and foreign policies 1917-1990 but that would take a long time.

[loyalsister]

129. You drew that conclusion from what I said?

I'm very very well aware of the fact that there is considerable inequity that needs to be corrected.
However, that doesn't change the fact that $1 is a hell of a lot more money in a third world country than it is here, and the people spreading the propaganda don't let people in on that truth.
The fact is that globalization is inevitible. It's going to happen, if for no other reason, then because people want to know more about the rest of the world. It's not just about the US pursueing it's self interests. It's about people worldwide wanting to learn from each other. Obviously business interests have decided to try to take advantage of it and it has had some negative consequences. The thing is it is now being recognized and people are calling for reforms. Lessons have been learned. It can be renegotiated.

[hedgetrimmer]

36. you have what for facts? where is your sources? you ramble rhetoric...

and expect that to have people follow your logic, whatever that is...

hocus pocus is really lame and really irresponsible ...

it is a shallow corporate view of the true human suffering and envirionmental impact of nafta and the wto right along with gatt....

these "treaties" are really great and made the us, canada and mexico boom; then why would canada like to revamp it if it is such a good thing?

[Maple]

41. I work with it every day

and all you have to do is google it

There is no 'human suffering' from it.

Gag me with a spoon....you guys know zik about economics.

PS...GATT and the WTO are the same thing...the name was changed some years ago.

Canada doesn't want to 'revamp' it...it can simply be upgraded after 16 years. Everything should be looked at after 10 years. New trade items added.

What, you haven't developed anything new in 16 years?

[Lars39]

126. "No human suffering"? I know of many people who are suffering

because their jobs went south of the border, their unemployment benefits have disappeared. Their town is dying, and there are not any comparable replacement jobs to be had within 30-40 miles.

[cosmicdot]

78. not to mention the flood of Mexicans entering the US

... if there is a correlation between the socio-political things with economic "improvement" ... something's not quite right ...

I'm pleased as punch that Canada has infrastructure - it probably, also, has corporate management that actually do good things for the company, in which, in turn, helps the Canadian standard of living ...

... unfortunately, American companies are for the most part ran by a bunch of good ol'boys who only care about making their pie higher and no one elses at the expense of screwing the company in the end through their mismanagement ... many companies just now have a few good ol'boys calling the shots and a handful of worker bees to work 70 hour weeks as exempt employees - no quality time - no weekend time - it's just a rat race full time

so many Americans in the 90s saw their high paying jobs give way to having to take a job at substantially lowered wages ... if not taking on extra jobs, etc. -- that's a standard of living decline ...

of course, many of us saw that big ol' D- our infrastructure got

[hedgetrimmer]

28. which bush?

papa bush who wrote the nafta treaty? or junior bush who just f'ed up?

clinton pushed nafta through with the help of new mexico governor richardson... under ch. 11 of nafta laws on the books at local, state and federal levels are over ridden for the benefit of business.

the wto which was, correct me if i am wrong, introduced by papa bush also has a clause that overrides local, state and federal laws to benefit business.

the wto and nafta in all rights would be better named free trade for business, for if business is impeded by laws we'll just get rid of the laws....

[Maple]

31. You ARE

wrong...on all of it.

[hedgetrimmer]

39. prove it.

[Maple]

45. Look it up

Lotsa figures right under your finger tips on your wee keyboard.

Start here... http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-02-03.html

And if you don't like that one...there are lots of others

I'm sure you know where the govt websites are for trade figures?

[DemBones DemBones]

64. If you "work with it every day," why are your comments so

generalized and vague and why can't you cite a source other than Cato?

Exactly what sort of work do you do? Are you an economist? A worker who ships materials to Mexico to be machined? What?

[Maple]

73. I told you before

to look on your own govt's trade sites.

Surely you can find that by yourself?

If I have to even explain what NAFTA is and isn't on here, you won't believe any facts anyway.

So check them out for yourself.

[DemBones DemBones]

85. And what did you say your job is???

[Maple]

101. Economist

Someone familiar with financial matters and on a global scale.

Someone not campaigning for a specific candidate in the US.

[hedgetrimmer]

80. wow maple that is such biased perspective.... if we all looked there

we could find almost any conservative perspective....

if this is your proof you've lost.

since you work with it everday it is no problem for you to pull up some legitimate information ?

ps... gatt was a different entity which transformed into the wto, more than name changes it was policy changes too... which did not improve things only worsenes them and furtheer ant "improvements" to nafta could be seen the same way, for example: nafta, now nap... new allegiance for prosperity, making it more impressive for multi-national corporations to crush local, state and federal laws, implementing serfdom and reaping in more prosperity for multi-national corporations... words are killer dude...

enjoy your healthcare!

[Maple]

84. If you don't trust your own business figures

then you have no ability to understand trade or other deals.

Gatt changed it's name for a reason yes...it now has 146 countries and spans the world. It's not just a 'general agreement' anymore.

Oh kee-ripes, listen to it...serfdom, crushing the people...pul-eeze.

Is this the 60's?

Off the pigs and all that drivel?

Different century dude...upgrade yourself ol timer.

[regnaD kciN]

93. If there are "lots of others"...

...why is the only one you seem to present the one from the Cato Institute?

:wtf:

[Maple]

96. I didn't

It's at the top of the first google page I went to

There were many others all down the page

Can you spell 'US govt trade figures?'

Then go google it if you don't like CATO

[cosmicdot]

42. in all due respect ... Pres. Clinton benefitted from some things ... like

... the boom in the computer/software business ... many companies were ramping up ... getting online, etc. ... toward the end of the 2nd term, the Y2K scare created a lot of business, too ...

During the 90s ... downsizing was the trend ... mergers, buyouts, etc. kept American workers on the edge ... some people may have benefitted, but I know of too many who were effected ... often more than once or twice ... losing jobs left and right ...

In less than a 4 year period, the company I worked for saw a merger and a buyout ... and 5 layoffs between 1991/2-1994 ... the company went from about 850 to 1500 to 100 ...

Many of the technical types went into independent contracting.

As much as love being a Democrat ... I really never understood ... and, certainly didn't benefit ... from whatever it was that apparently 'was' ...

when one studies the trends of one of the leading economic indicators, the Purchasing Manager's Index, from 1992 - 2000 ... there were some high points, but others indicate hardly anything better than now - 1994 was a good'un ...

didn't making products south of the border, i.e., at cheaper labor, yet the price were just as high, if not higher than before when they came back across the border??

------J----F----M----A----M----J----J---A-----S---O----N----D
1992 47.3 52.7 54.6 52.6 55.7 53.6 53.9 53.4 49.7 50.3 53.6 54.2
1993 55.8 55.2 53.5 50.2 51.2 49.6 50.2 50.7 50.8 53.4 53.8 55.6
1994 56.0 56.5 56.9 57.4 58.2 58.8 58.5 58.0 59.0 59.4 59.2 56.1
1995 57.4 55.1 52.1 51.5 46.7 45.9 50.7 47.1 48.1 46.7 45.9 46.2
1996 45.5 45.9 46.9 49.3 49.1 53.6 49.7 51.6 51.1 50.5 53.0 55.2
1997 53.8 53.1 53.8 53.7 56.1 54.9 57.7 56.3 53.9 56.4 55.7 54.5
1998 53.8 52.9 52.9 52.2 50.9 48.9 49.2 49.3 48.7 48.7 48.2 46.8
1999 50.6 51.7 52.4 52.3 54.3 55.8 53.6 54.8 57.0 57.2 58.1 57.8
2000 57.0 56.2 54.6 54.4 52.9 51.1 52.0 49.9 49.6 48.8 48.9 44.6
http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/PMIndex.cfm

[Maple]

60. Sorry, didn't see yours earlier

Good and bad things happened in Clinton's time, and they all had some effect.

But overall the job market was good and it was a prosperous era for the majority of people.

Was it ALL due to free trade? Of course not.

It wasn't all due to computers either.

However, when Bush came in promising massive tax cuts and talking about hard times...well that's what you got. That's what it produces.

And ramping up debt, and warfare made it worse.

THAT kind of money and debt...now THAT makes a difference.

Makes a few mergers or dotcom failures look like kids play

[cosmicdot]

89. what else did America produce? selling arms to Iran?

I voted Clinton twice ... but, I maintained that our "economy" wasn't the great picture being portrayed ... having worked in corporate
America for almost 18 years ... I saw a lot and I saw the decline of so much ... the personal tragedies were widespread ... and, much of that doesn't end up in the news ... especially, with a Faux media world ...

now, if Canada would share our defense expenses ... that sure would be nice :)

send some of that healthcare this way

[Maple]

94. America produces lots more than arms

although that's certainly big business.

But no, Canada won't be re-arming anytime soon.

If you cut back on your defence spending, you could have healthcare.
:D

[cosmicdot]

109. "produces lots more than arms" - fast food?

like what?

what is it that we produce/manufacture on large scale besides software licenses for one to buy use of but not own -

computers (are they 100% American? )which tend to be obsolete when one buys them and our ability to keep replacing them faces a no more credit bind ...

and weapons?

airplane engines?

some clothing maybe ...

cabling?

be specific ... cite several examples

... this is a big country to sustain ...

yes ...
if we cut back on our defense spending, we could have better healthcare - for sure, it would help ... it's part of the American problem which Canada doesn't have ...

of course, you have companies like Nortel which uses slave-wage cheap Korean labor (yes, I use to deal with Nortel)

[stickdog]

16. Great Dump NAFTA.

What the hell good is that without WTO reform? Jobs just to Asia and India.

[ibegurpard]

9. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct

And that the other candidates are wrong. That leaves Kucinich's position. Realistically, can the President just cancel NAFTA? And how much influence does he have with WTO? I don't think Kucinich's position, although it sounds good, is very realistic.

[wheresthemind]

14. He addressed this in St. Paul when he was here...

He said he figured it out while filing a lawsuit against the Bush Administration because of their withdrawn from the ACBM (I get that right? its getting late) Treaty.

He saw there was a clause in each of these, the same kinda that was in the ACBM, that allows the President of the US to provide so many months notice before full withdrawal.


I can't remember the timeline exactly, but if he canceled them right off the bat we'd have them gone in couple a months with the new system in production.

[Maple]

17. No president in his right mind

would withdraw from either one.

It would send your economy into such a tailspin that the Great Depression would look like a walk in the park.

Stop blaming your current problems on NAFTA....it's done you enormous benefit...or the WTO,which doesn't do anything to you one way or the other.

The state your economy is in, is due to Bush and his constant borrowing and warfare. Nothing else.

As someone else has noted, NAFTA has been in effect since 1988...and the 90s were a boom time. With a surplus.

Cancel Bush's presidency...not NAFTA.

[ibegurpard]

19. It needs to be revisited

We have no business entering into trade agreements with countries with no labor or wage standards. There's no way we can compete fairly in that framework.

[Maple]

21. I beg your pardon???

Who is it you think you're in NAFTA with??

It's us...right here in Canada....with unions, free health care, paid vacations, safety laws etc.

I don't mind revisiting NAFTA...many things have come up in the 16 years since it was signed, and of course it should be updated.

But you must have all this stuff confused with something entirely different.

The US has benefitted enormously from NAFTA

[ibegurpard]

23. Umm, Mexico?

You DO know they're a part of it as well?

[Maple]

24. Yes, Mexico

Look it up...Mexico has done well too...as have you.

[ibegurpard]

30. Okay, I'm going to spell this out sloooowly

because you're pissing me off by picking a fight where there should be none:
No country should enter into a free trade agreement with another country unless they have similar labor standards and protections. Canada and the U.S. do... Mexico does not but is improving. I DO NOT think NAFTA should be cancelled but it needs to be revisited and for god's sake should not be expanded unless we can guarantee a fair playing field for all countries involved.

[Maple]

34. Don't spell at all

Go and read the damn treaties and trade deals you sign, and find out what you're talking about first.

Everyone harmonized their labor standards and protections...to the highest level of the three countries.

Of course Mexico will take longer to move up...but 'up' is where it's going.

A 'level playing field' is exactly what it's all about.

No expansion?? Do you have any idea of the number of countries you trade with now?? And with free trade?

NAFTA is only one of many trade deals.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Maple]

46. I'm not the one being dense

DK and all the ones who agree with him are suggesting exactly that

Don't you read threads before you hop into them?

[ibegurpard]

48. Please read my initial post in this thread

where I expressed dubiousness that, even if it was the right thing to do, that Kucinich could even do something like that. Do YOU read post histories before you start knee-jerk responses?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=279346&mesg_id=279402&page=

[Maple]

52. Since I"m answering several people at once

it's hardly likely your name stands out.

And knowledge of a subject is not a knee jerk response.

[ibegurpard]

56. Bah!

I'm through with trying to talk to you. You're insulting someone who is basically taking the same viewpoint as you and then rather than saying "oops, sorry for the mistake" you just dig your heels in deeper. You, sir or madam, are the first person to go on my ignore list.

[Maple]

62. Bah?

If I mistook you for someone else then I apologize.

I am however answering several other people who oppose something they know nothing about.

If you are that thin skinned though, the ignore list would be best.

[terryg11]

25. NAFTA is between the US, Canada and Mexico

I believe those are the only three countries involved and Canada does have some labor and wage standards

[Maple]

27. You guys need to get out more often

SOME standards indeed.

You think we all live in igloos as well?

We have free health care, workmen's compensation for injuries, overtime, unions, safety laws.....sheesh!

[ibegurpard]

32. And you need to knock the typical Canadian chip off your shoulder

I say this as one Canadian to another. No one is saying that Canada has substandard ANYTHING to the U.S. I was talking about MEXICO and the possibility of it being expanded further into Latin America.

[Maple]

47. I think you've been posting

to American sites too long if you think Canadians have chips on their shoulders.

And if you were paying attention at home, you'd know it already has been expanded further into Latin America.

[ibegurpard]

51. Actually, I've lived here for 20 years

And Canadians with an air of smug superiority who think that Americans are all ignorant of anything Canadian are just as obnoxious (and just as numerous) as the ignorant Americans they deride. I did not know it had expanded further into Latin America and that is an even better reason to revisit and rework it.

[Maple]

53. That explains it

Call home more often.

[Gingersnap]

67. just curious

you said you've never heard of human suffering re; NAFTA. Have you ever lived in Mexico? Have you ever met anyone who has worked in a Mexican sweatshop? Um, excuse me but I have. I have lived in southern Mexico and I respectfully think that you have your blinders on about this one.

[paulsbc]

69. how is that NAFTA?

those conditions weren't caused by NAFTA. They weren't helped either, but they weren't caused by it...

[Gingersnap]

77. no they weren't caused but exacerbated

by NAFTA. Sweatshops are the more visible sign of suffering. What about poor rural Mayan farmers who can no longer make a livelihood farming because US agribusiness corn--now freely imported due to NAFTA--is readily available. Don't tell me these people can go out and go to college or train for some skill. That's just not an option. When they can no longer make money farming, they migrate to the US or they migrate to cities and work in sweatshops. It's complicated, but NAFTA is definitely making things much much worse.

[paulsbc]

81. so Perot was right?

I had always poo-poo'd him during the election cycle as a crazy old man, guess not...

[Mairead]

130. 6 months' notice

That's all it takes, for both NAFTA and WTO: declare your intent and 6 months later you're free.

[terryg11]

10. Dennis looked real good

I thought he addressed the issues well and just did a good job setting the tone and answers for the forum.

[JI7]

12. dean on "defense" budget

he had a problem with dean's support for a large military budget. said in order to sustain that level, cuts in other programs would have to be made if he wants a balanced budget also. i put "defense" in quotes, because i don't think all of it actually goes to defending us or anyone.

[JohnKleeb]

13. I know what you mean

He(DK) is all for increasing their pay and benefits but he thinks a lot of the weapons are very wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

15. Kucinich is right

Kucinich gave numerous examples of how NAFTA and WTO are anti-labor ... workers in other countries may have no health care, they may not be able to unionize, there may not be collective bargaining, they may not have the right to strike or to earn overtime, or to work in healthy and safe environments ...

This exploits workers in third world countries and provides ripe labor markets for American companies to exploit ... and all of this causes a loss of American jobs ... the recent Bill Moyers show said the U.S. was likely to lose more than 3 million (that's another 3 million) jobs in the next few years to foreign workers ...

what we have here is another battle in the war of class warfare ... large american multi-nationals are exploiting the working classes ... and NAFTA and the WTO contribute to it ... Kucinich isn't opposed to trade ... we need to trade ... but he argues for bi-lateral trade negotiations that would allow the U.S. to act in the best interests of its own labor force ... and that works just fine for me ...

[Maple]

20. Rubbish

where do you get this junk from?

The US is in NAFTA with Canada and Mexico...and I assure you we have unions, health care, overtime, safe work environments and so on.

[cosmicdot]

95. you we have unions, health care, overtime, safe work environments

last I saw, this is trending downward in the USA

ergonmics - repealed
overtime - being taking away
healthcare - you've got to be kidding

[Maple]

105. That may well be

but it isn't because of NAFTA

How about the deficit and the debt and the war?

[cosmicdot]

26. when do we get to elect representatives to these parallel gov'ts?

is that how NAFTA and WTO can be "fixed" ... these people, whomever they are, are making strategic decisions, compromises, deals, etc., much like corporations do daily as they do their thing ... often above the law of our and others' land, and frequently leaving a bad reputation and damage - in our name - corporate America seems to block true global progress


Kucinich on Trade:

"The restoration of the rights of workers in America and throughout the North American continent will begin when we repeal NAFTA. NAFTA has spurred a $360 billion trade deficit, costing 363,000 high-paying jobs, most in manufacturing. This is called free trade. But where is freedom when jobs are lost? Where is freedom when industries threaten to move out of the country unless wages are cut? Where is freedom when the right to bargain collectively is crushed? Where is freedom when a union is broken? Where is freedom when you can't make a mortgage payment? Where is freedom when you can't send your children to college? An economic democracy is a precondition of a political democracy. Where is freedom?

"NAFTA has attacked federal laws meant to protect worker rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. It is time to repeal NAFTA.

It is time to reclaim state and local sovereignty which NAFTA has usurped. No NAFTA, no Fast Track. No more back track on democracy. No more back track on workers' rights. No more back track on human rights. No back track on the bill of rights.

"I oppose fast track. I represent Cleveland, Ohio, a steel producing community, which is fighting valiantly to save 3200 steelworker jobs and to protect the benefits of tens of thousands of retirees.

Fast track is a barrier. Fast track brought us NAFTA. It prohibits amending trade agreements. We could not amend NAFTA Chapter 11, which grants corporate investors in all NAFTA countries the right to challenge any local, state, or federal regulations, which, those corporations say, hurt their profits.

"The sovereign authority of all governments is at stake. Taxpayer dollars are at stake. A NAFTA case brought by a foreign owned steel fabrication company is trying to overturn "Buy America" laws that require using American steel in highway projects. NAFTA allows foreign owned companies to challenge our Constitution, our Congress, and our rights to enact American laws.

"This would have a catastrophic impact on steelworkers; causing loss of US jobs. American taxpayers are financing the fight for democracy all over the world while our trade laws undermine our democracy here at home.

"I oppose fast track, to protect democracy and to protect American jobs."

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_trade.htm

[Maple]

29. It's a trade deal....like you've had for centuries

not a parallel govt.

And you send people the govt hires...trained people in trade negotiations.

And it has to be passed by Congress anyway!

None of this is new...trade deals are routine stuff for any country.

[hedgetrimmer]

38. maple, what is nafta? do you know? what about ch. 11? the wto?

[Maple]

50. As I said

I work with the economy everyday.

I'd say people on this thread have no idea what any of those things are.

I repeat...use your keyboard and google them.

They're not not hard to find.

They are,however, nothing like you imagine.

[DemBones DemBones]

82. Yes, we know you "work with the economy every day" but what

the fuck do you DO with it? What makes you an expert? What gives you the right to tell us we're stupid, should get out more, and should just look stuff up? If you know all about the economy, why don't you share a bit of your knowledge? I'm sure we know a lot of things you don't know -- we all have our specialized educations and careers -- but we would answer your questions because we aren't arrogant know-it-alls.

But perhaps your real purpose is to convince us all not to move to Canada by showing us an example of Canadian inhospitality?

[Maple]

103. Already answered

.

[WillyT]

49. Hey Maple, I've Got My Own Problems With NAFTA, But...

Telling everybody to go check out the supporting info at NAFTA's website to get the real scoop, is a bit like telling people to go to the petroleum industry's website to get the lowdown on drilling in ANWAR, no???

:shrug:

[Maple]

55. Then check your own

trade figures on govt sites...or do you distrust everyone?

Business decisions all over the world are made every day on those figures.

But you'd rather believe a labor pamphlet, or a special interest site?

[Gingersnap]

83. Maple, you should start teaching economics

All of us who oppose NAFTA are wrong and crazy and ignorant. Why? Because you "work with this everyday" and just cause you're right. You're right because?

Hey, it's great you can give us one Canadian's perspective, but there are other perspectives also.

[Maple]

87. I do...

and all you have to do is look up your very own business figures.

The only perspective you are interested in is electing a candidate.

To that end, you'll deny everything.

Reality isn't optional though.

[Gingersnap]

100. no, speaking for

myself at least, "all I am interested in" is NOT electing a candidate. I've been against NAFTA since it started, when I was living in Mexico (and I go back to Mexico frequently and work with some of these corn farmers that you seem to know nothing about). I'm interested in working out trade agreements so that they don't get screwed. My opinion has nothing to do with Kucinich. Yeah, I'm supporting him, but I'm also coming to the realization that most people really don't like him and that he may not get the nomination. But even if he doesn't, it's great because he is getting people to talk about some important issues and going on recording and saying things that most politicians wouldn't say--because it might hurt them in the polls. Yes, those things will probably lose him the nomination.

If you are suggesting that he is saying he's anti-NAFTA just to cater to voters, I think you are full of shit. Check out the Kucinich site--whether you agree with his stances or not--read his bio and see that he is not in this for the game. I wish I could say that I frequently run across politicians who I think stand for real principles first, their careers second.

[Maple]

102. I didn't say

he was anti NAFTA because he was catering to voters.

I said he was wrong to tell people he'd just cancel it, and imply that would make things better.

It wouldn't.

[Gingersnap]

108. so you meant that I'm the one

who willfully ignores the "facts" in order to prop up my candidate.

Whatever. I was trying to bring my perspective--as someone who has lived in Mexico and Central American and worked with some of the people affected by NAFTA--to the discussion. I don't think any of my posts have started in this thread by praising Kucinich. I've been trying to talk about Mexico, from a perspective that you can't google in a chart of trade figures.

You're obviously a smart person and you're entirely entitled to your opinion. Some of us are also smart people who offer unique perspectives and just because we do not agree with you does not make us oblivious to reality.

[cosmicdot]

104. "centuries" makes us sound so old :-(

oh, and, corruption is knee high to a tadpole in the USA - stealing us blind and destroying our fabric at every turn - Corporate America treats its fellow citizens with abuse - that doesn't build the community we need

Canada has its Barrick - but, we've got 100s of 'em

[Maple]

106. LOL what's wrong with being old?

'With age comes wisdom they say'

And the US still is a kid compared to places like Greece or China if that makes you feel better. :D

Well what can I say about your system...you guys apparently want it.

It's not the system I'd choose, but the US usually insists that's what it wants...and that it's the only right system.

I wish it were different, but I can't change it.

[depakid]

63. Dean actually came out looking pretty reasonable on Trade

Attacked on the right by Lieberman for advocating "American" style labor and environmental standards- and attacked on the left by Kuchinich on the left for supporting any form of NAFTA or WTO trade agreements at all.

Obviously, we can't just dump NAFTA, GATT and the WTO on the first day of a Kucinich presidency- these trade issues are damn complicated and unfortunately they're become interwoven into many sectors of the economy. On the other hand, certain provisions- a prime example being NAFTA Chapter 11, need to be extensively revised or eliminated completely at the first opportunity.

The smart approach would be to have experts (honest experts- not corporate lobbiests) examine every provision, line by line and come up with a set of interrim recommendations, which would then be subject to public comment for 90 days or so, after which the panel would reconvene to finalize the rules.

Personally, I wish we could go back to the days of bilateral trade agreements that took into account the specific circumstances of each individual country and the nature of our relationship with them, but I'm not certain that's possible anymore.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

71. I smell a freeper

But he's got 1000+ posts. hmmmmm Weird post.

[JohnKleeb]

76. actually I think

there are many in favor of NAFTA, one of the few we are rare birds imho.

[Maple]

98. No you don't

and I have close to 3000 posts

also I'm female

[wheresthemind]

137. maple

I think the big problem is that I laid out the cited facts I had above for all to study. You have yet to post cited stats that contradict mine.

It only seems fair that you tell us why ours our wrong without just linking us away since we laid out our argument.

[sujan]

110. dude

you need to take a shower.

[wheresthemind]

116. wow... thats amazing

most posts ever in a thread of mine... Interesting also...

[CWebster]

118. unfortunately

Kucinich is not up to the task of presenting the issues effectively. As the polar opposite of Lieberman, he comes across in a similar way - bitter, juvenile barbs -but in Kucinich's case, delivered with a sullen pout. The messenger is doing the message a disservice in his lack of maturity.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

119. Kucinich did quite well

I realize all the Dean supporters think Dean did the best, when he obviously didn't I know all the Kerry supporters think he did the best, when he obviously didn't. I know everyone wants to think Lieberman did very poorly, when he actually did quite well on TV.

Kucinich wasn't the best at the debate, but he held his own and presented his ideas effectively. That's why he got wild applause for saying we should get out of NAFTA and GATT.

[CWebster]

120. No I don't think Dean performed the best

I think it was Gephardt's night.

Kucinich's appeal was to who? Valley girls? Teenagers? He represents the Left as not being quite ready to sit at the grown-ups table.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

122. Dean appeals to Valley girls and teenagers, that rock star him!

Kucinich sure got a lot of applause for his opposition to NAFTA and GATT didn't he? Was that applause from teenagers or valley girls? I doubt there were that many of them in the audience. Perhaps he got his applause from workers and union members?

[CWebster]

123. it isn't his platform

it is his delivery and his sullen pout when sniping like a brat.

[Terwilliger]

131. heh

same old Dem wanker that you started off complaining about CWeb...way to go :eyes:

[Mairead]

133. What have you done with the REAL CW, fella?

:(

[TLM]

121. I have a good job because of NAFTA....

I work for a company that sells products to both mexico and canada... and NAFTA has made that process a lot easier. That meant more sales, and that means a job for me.

Without NAFTA, I'd likely lose my job.


Why does Kucinich want to take my job?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

124. really? what do you do?

"I work for a company that sells products to both mexico and canada... and NAFTA has made that process a lot easier. "

Really? How has that "process" been made easier? I've worked for companies that sell products to Mexico and Canada, and NAFTA didn't make anything easier for me.

"That meant more sales, and that means a job for me."

Because of the "process"? What process is that exactly?

[Terwilliger]

132. maybe he doesnt think you should have a job at the expense of other people

too bad some of you can't get to that

[unfrigginreal]

125. Dennis is unelectable...

Helloooo!

[diamondsoul]

127. The discussion on this thread is, well

freakish!

I can't get over this assertion that withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO would "throw your economy into a tailspin". Someone care to tell me the last time the stroke of a pen brought about the absolute end of all trade in the United States or any other country? Seriously, you've got to be joking, right?

Do some of you actually believe that withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO would end all trade with the US? Please! That's just insane.

Yes, I agree with Congressman Kucinich, NAFTA and the WTO are useless to the end of securing workers rights and environmental protections in the countries that most need thse things. Amending, adjusting or any other "improvement" effort is going to take years, meanwhile the conditions we want to address will not be affected even slightly. It's a foolish undertaking and the only man with the guts to stand up and say so is Congressman Kucinich.

A candidate who truly wants to improve conditions for workers on a global scale and do so fast is going to step up and say withdraw from those agreements and implement new, better agreements. That's Dennis Kucinich. Half-measures are no longer acceptable.

Maple asked "do you trust anyone?". My response is no, I don't trust anyone except myself and Dennis Kucinich, and there are limits to my trust in him. I don't trust numbers spit out by a bean-counter in Washington, or Goverment paid for "studies", or 99% of what I find on a Google search. I don't trust because it's too risky. I trust my eyes, my ears, my own senses and my own ability to separate wheat from chaff. The notion that withdrawal from faulty trade agreements will destroy the US economy is chaff.

[Mairead]

134. Well, y'know Di, to some folk any change--even a rewinding--represents

The End Of Civilisation As We Know It.

They spend their lives with their noses buried somewhere. Under the covers, in their wallets, up their bums, up someone else's bum,....

It's quite sad.

[diamondsoul]

135. You know, I was thinking about when NAFTA was

first proposed and not yet fleshed out. It seems to me I recall some hubub at that time about how no countries were going to trade with the US under NAFTA because the US was imposing its agenda on them. That Canada and Mexico would never accept an agreement with terms mainly set by the USA.

Huh, funny how things change, isn't it?

[wheresthemind]

136. progress...

imagine that?

I wonder why people can't believe in progress...

[tameszu]

139. It's funny, because Canadians realized that NAFTA stopped American pols

from being mean to us.

It's true. Without NAFTA, the U.S. could use its economic bargaining power to hit Canada and Mexico hard on EVERY trade decision. On NAFTA, yeah, some of the terms are skewed toward the U.S., but a lot of them had to be fair because they're written down on paper.

A lot of moderate liberal Canadians were suspicious because, yes, NAFTA was negotiated mainly by powerful ministers and because it's so technical, we were worried that we were getting screwed by the U.S. rolling us.

But in actuality, Canada has gained a ton from it, because American politicians can't just be protectionist and benefit their people by unfairly slapping punishing tariffs on Canadian products to gain votes in particular industry sectors. It turns out that those NAFTA tribunals decide cases rather evenly (if you really the evidence for this one, I can go dig up the poli sci paper that counted the decisions), whereas if we didn't have NAFTA and just a bilateral agreement without an external enforcement mechanism, we'd just get into a trade war, and of course the U.S. would always win because they are bigger and more economically powerful than we out. They would just lean on us an squish us. Something similar happens with regard to Mexico.

Mexico had sweatshops and so forth well before NAFTA. It is unclear that NAFTA makes it worse. One could argue that NAFTA improves the situation of maquiadora workers, if only because it gives American and Canadian progressives a reason to make their compatriots pay attention to them and feel responsibility for their situation. Chapter 11 is a problem, although I believe there have only been 3 bad suits under it, 1 by a U.S. company and 2 by Canadian companies. It should definitely be amended. So far as I know, no significant piece of genuine environmental legislation has ever been struck down by a WTO ruling.

Anyway, the bottom line is that to repeal NAFTA and the WTO would leave the rest of the world open to U.S. economic unilateralism again, which would suck pretty hard, considering the kind of leverage they can bring to bear.

Listen, if the alternative were some sort of global redistributive socialism run by competent people able to administer the mechanisms properly, I'll take that any day over the WTO. But the reality is, the most powerful economic force on the planet is the U.S., and in the near future its government is just as likely to be controlled by asshat isolationist-screw-the-rest-of-the world Republicans as by compassionate Democrats from the Democratic wing of the party. As such, the rest of the world (which at some point included me and most people I know) would much rather see the massive force that is the U.S. at least partially constrained by a generalized trade agreement. This is why a surprising number of moderate progressives in other countries would much, much, much rather work through the WTO and for fair trade, rather than get rid of it and risk getting smacked in the head by a rogue U.S. The worst situation I could imagine is if Kucinich got elected, repealed the WTO and NAFTA, and then got defeated by a Republican.

Fair trade, in practice, requires something like the WTO to set those fair conditions of trade. That's why it's horribly irresponsible, at least from a global justice point of view, to abolish it. Abolishing it would probably help some American workers who would cheer the thought of the U.S. flexing its economic muscles to bend other countries to its will in an unconstrained manner, but this would occur at an unfair cost of workers in other (mostly poorer) countries.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

138. CW, how dare you

You think that being a teenager and interested in politics and in a truly progressive Dem is a bad thing? Who the hell do you think is going to vote after you are long gone? I am 16 and enjoy doing research every day to keep up to date on what is going on in this crazy world. Granted many people my age are more interested in marijuana than stopping * the murderer, there are many people my age who truly do care. Just look at DU. I guarantee that a good percentage of the people on this are teenagers. Most other people have jobs like my parents that prevent them from posting often. I just can't stand when adults treat youth like crap. We are the next generation WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT


"Without the new school, there's no one to carry the torch" Mike Ness