Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Harry Reid: Hillary Clinton Would 'Handle Things Probably Even Better' Than Bill Clinton [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)41. "...if we can't get NAFTA and GATT scrapped..." You are half-way there. GATT died in 1994.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade
"...social benefits, workers' rights protections and easier access to education and healthcare in other countries were a "subsidy" to the corporations based in those countries ..."
Where did this come from? We have had 'free trade' with Canada since before NAFTA. So much of Canada's economy is devoted to trade with the US that all of its "social benefits, workers' rights protections and easier access to education and healthcare" should no longer exist, having been eliminated as subsidies to Canadian corporations. I still hear complaints that it is hard for American companies to compete with Canadian ones because of the government "subsidies" ("social benefits and easier access to education and healthcare" the latter receive, but which do not count as illegal subsidies under NAFTA rules.
And international trading rules specifically allow European and other countries to exclude the VAT (used to largely fund their "social benefits, workers' rights protections and easier access to education and healthcare" from being ruled as a subsidy to their companies. This has stirred up some anger here since those rules make it more difficult for American exports to compete with European-made goods.
"It is not a business subsidy for a people to have a more humane social regimen or for workers to have more ability to defend themselves from exploitation by corporate power."
I agree wholeheartedly.
"...social benefits, workers' rights protections and easier access to education and healthcare in other countries were a "subsidy" to the corporations based in those countries ..."
Where did this come from? We have had 'free trade' with Canada since before NAFTA. So much of Canada's economy is devoted to trade with the US that all of its "social benefits, workers' rights protections and easier access to education and healthcare" should no longer exist, having been eliminated as subsidies to Canadian corporations. I still hear complaints that it is hard for American companies to compete with Canadian ones because of the government "subsidies" ("social benefits and easier access to education and healthcare" the latter receive, but which do not count as illegal subsidies under NAFTA rules.
And international trading rules specifically allow European and other countries to exclude the VAT (used to largely fund their "social benefits, workers' rights protections and easier access to education and healthcare" from being ruled as a subsidy to their companies. This has stirred up some anger here since those rules make it more difficult for American exports to compete with European-made goods.
"It is not a business subsidy for a people to have a more humane social regimen or for workers to have more ability to defend themselves from exploitation by corporate power."
I agree wholeheartedly.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Harry Reid: Hillary Clinton Would 'Handle Things Probably Even Better' Than Bill Clinton [View all]
onehandle
Jul 2013
OP
Better? In what way? He only signed NAFTA while she's been negotiating TPP, the NAFTA on steroids?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#2
HRC reportedly drafted and negotiated TPP provisions on behalf of Obama.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#5
Not exactly. 1) Slavery ended with the Civil War. 2) Negotiating TPP was not in her job description.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#9
HRC, plus Republicans and others in his Administration set policy, as well as Goldman Sachs, et al.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#20
She'll likely make an even better president than Obama, but we'll see. nt
AllINeedIsCoffee
Jul 2013
#6
Hillary who? Thought she retired as I've heard damn little from her on the current topics of late.
Purveyor
Jul 2013
#13
Well she did finally come out in support of gay marriage back in March...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2013
#15
I doubt that but if you can produce polling to indicate otherwise, I will stand 'corrected'...eom
Purveyor
Jul 2013
#25
You said: "I feel Obama's black skin is at the bottom of a huge amount of the Republicans..."
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jul 2013
#42
She COULDN'T be more anti-poor than Bill was signing the "Death to Jobless Moms" welfare bill.
Ken Burch
Jul 2013
#29
Since the 1880's Democrats have been "pro-trade". republicans were the "high tariff" party until
pampango
Jul 2013
#34
Trade does not force down wages. If it did, progressive countries would trade less than the US.
pampango
Jul 2013
#39
In and of itself, trade doesn't force down wages. NAFTA and deals like it have, though.
Ken Burch
Jul 2013
#40
"...if we can't get NAFTA and GATT scrapped..." You are half-way there. GATT died in 1994.
pampango
Jul 2013
#41
U.S. corporations have repeatedly used the "no subsidy" language to go after social benefits
Ken Burch
Jul 2013
#43
Well, hopefully she wouldn't lie under oath about having sex with an intern.
MotherPetrie
Jul 2013
#31