NAFTA not the problem. Leave Britney Alone

[mculator]

Nafta cannot be the problem, it's the lack of ethics shown by corporations and the lack of regulation. Let's be honest, an American Union may be the only way to compete with converging markets in the future. Not to mention with our declining birth rates and the fact that our founding fathers viewed America as a nation of immigrants, Mexico seems to be an inevitable annexation or merger. Spanish has been considered as a national language more than once, and I remember a teacher making a prediction of a Mexico-American-Canadian merger as happening before 2050. The Mexican culture produces strong family ties and amazing work ethic in its children, who I applaud for their open mindedness in voting for economic and social interests in view of their mostly Catholic, pro-life upbringings. Nafta can only speed up the process. It's ethics we need. Don't pay the Mexican man less than the American man, and it would be financially 'silly' to simply 'export' work to another country.

When someone like Bill Clinton goes ahead with Nafta, It's like a Hillary or an Edwards (and almost every other senators') going ahead with a post 9-11 WMD inspection vote and empowering president Bush--let's not forget, he was a lame fuck, sorry duck 'on vacation' until 9-11 happened.

In both cases, the support from these Democrats might historically be viewed as bad judgment. However, I assume the constant attack of these Democrats, the framing of them as 'enablers', is often nothing more than a scapegoating technique for people who are against a Democrat for other reasons than the so-called 'war vote'. No one seems to pay any attention to Hillary's floor statements on what her vote was NOT intended for. No one seems to remember the fact that many Americans, including the mainstream media, seemed to be on board with NAFTA at the time.

The reality is that we have to go after people who exploit the good will of these events.

Namely, George Bush in the case of his unethical continuation of the war after WMDs were not found.

In the case of NAFTA, the corporations that have exported jobs and exploited labor prices at the expense of workers.

Leave Britney and the Clintons alone.

[mculator]

1. added-

I see Obama was attacking Hillary for NAFTA support. Her attack was based on his campaigns' SAVING MONEY by irresponsibly resending a flyer that had a debunked misquote of Mrs. Clinton, not a NAFTA based argument at all. While NAFTA may have hurt Ohio, I seriously doubt they will hold Hillary responsible when she is clearly the one who actually CAN navigate the bureaucracy and make labor exporting a thing of the past. Speeches don't compare to experience here.

[dkf]

4. Is that what her going off was all about?

That is NOT what I got from it.

Her message was completely lost on me.

[mculator]

5. They knew the flyer was infactual. Nuff said. I'd be pissed too.

[Truth2Tell]

2. Lots of Democrats opposed NAFTA

including almost all of organized labor. And just because the MSM supported it doesn't mean it's a good thing. It just means corporate interests favor it.

Yes, Hillary spewed all kinds of rationalizations for her war vote. But the vote was what it was - despite the BS claims she made in her speeches. Hillary saying it doesn't make it reality.

For you to "assume" that the constant attacks on these Democrats for NAFTA and the war have something else behind them other than actual opposition to NAFTA and war is really insulting to the progressive movement. Much of the Democratic leadership has abandoned working people and the peace movement in the last 2 decades. Our party has been hijacked by corporate interests masquerading as Democrats. You could even call the phenomenon "Clintonism," although the Clintons don't own it exclusively. Many of us are pissed about it. Assume whatever you like. Maybe I'll assume that defenders of the Clintons like corporations determining U.S. foreign and trade policy for their own private profit. After all, we can all make assumptions.

[mculator]

3. Well if you care about the Proletariat

and not just the American proletariat, you'd see that NAFTA in conjunction with equal pay for workers here AND in Mexico would make NAFTA a good thing for the workers of the World.

[Truth2Tell]

6. Wrong.

NAFTA harms workers in other countries. If we held other nations to high standards of conduct in their labor practices then maybe NAFTA-like deals would be useful, but we don't. Corporations move offshore as part of deals like NAFTA precisely because they can better exploit workers without consequence.

Just ask the Columbian labor movement what they think about the pending Columbian son-of-NAFTA "free trade" deal. They are opposing it with their lives. Literally.

Most of these deals, including NAFTA aren't even actually "trade agreements." They are simply investment agreements that set the terms for how multi-national corporations can behave in foreign markets. And the terms are ugly - for the workers both here and there - for the environment - and for long term stability.

Edit to add: I realize that your post says "in conjunction with equal pay ...." etc.. But NAFTA offers no such thing and likely never will. If it did then it would defeat the purpose of those who support it.

[mculator]

9. So you're saying compaies shouldn't be able to pay the foreign worker less?

Because if you want that done, Hillary is better at doing that sort of thing, closing loopholes... she's got experience in the Office area. Her biggest weakness is not paperwork. If the companies are forced to pay foreign workers the same, it's good for us because you're right (and hopefully you get the point now), companies will have no reason to ship overseas, thereby making free trade what it was intended to be, a boon to the economy and a strengthening of our relationship with the other North American countries!!!

[Truth2Tell]

11. But NAFTA

doesn't require companies to pay foreign workers more. And Hillary has never indicated that it's part of her agenda to require them to do so. What she has done is SUPPORT and VOTE FOR a series of trade deals that DO NOT require companies to live up to modern labor and environmental standards in foreign countries. Why should we expect that she would do anything different as President?

Free trade was never intended to be "a boon to the economy and a strengthening of our relationship with the other North American countries." That's just the hokum the supporters of the agreements spread in the media to get gullible people to buy into them.

The intent of "free trade" agreements is to provide a new place to manufacture goods for American corporations that feel they are too burdened by labor and environmental regulations here in the U.S. You know, things like 40 hr work weeks and labor unions and child labor restrictions and laws preventing the dumping of toxic wastes. NAFTA-type deals get them away from all that pesky intrusion.

[mculator]

12. Like I said in the original post--your argument is against an 'enabling' in hindsight

And She's not Bill Clinton, she wasn't president.

But she does support equalizing pay rates.

She talks about it all the time, especially in regards to jobs right here-- the payment of illegal immigrants less than citizens. She's clearly on the ball, man.

[Truth2Tell]

13. Right, clearly.

:eyes:

[mculator]

14. Crystal

[ClassWarrior]

7. (unless, of course, it helps my candidate and trashes his/her opponent...)

:eyes:

NGU.

[cloudythescribbler]

8. NAFTA-type "McGlobalization" is an INVITATION to corporate abuse

Yes, it's the corporations who are doing the bad stuff directly, just as all kinds of social problems fester in a city with a completely corrupt government; the latter overall condition is what breeds the misdeeds.

Literally MILLIONS of American jobs have been lost specifically due to NAFTA and to so-called "free trade" under the WTO, and these policies stand in the way of a lot of environmental reforms.

If the shit stinks, flush it...

[mculator]

10. No

Don't Flush it, Fix it.

You don't quit your job and go job seeking when you're broke, do you?

[grantcart]

15. The overall problem is that unlike countries like Singapore and

Japan the United States has no "Industrial Policy" to try and build a long term strategy for industries that offer more higher paying envirionmentally jobs.

Its just legalized bribery with our elected officials out to help what ever industry is able to pay them the most.

[mculator]

16. Well you don't just give the factories to Mexico and dump NAFTA, do you?

You fix it! You hire someone who knows how!

[grantcart]

18. I agree. But it requires a more comprehensive long term policy

perspective than Americans seem to be willing to consider. Let me explain what I witnessed in Singapore.

One day everyone in Singapore and woke up to the fact that in 60 days the minimum wage was going to be raised from (for ex.) $1.25 an hour to $2.5 and every six months it was going to be raised $1. an hour until it got to $5.5 an hour. In 3 years they tripled the minimum wage. Their minister of commerce made a statement that all of the labor intensive low paying jobs were no longer welcomed in Singapre and provided a list of industries (not companies but entire industries) that were being asked to leave. If they stayed beyond 24 months additional taxes would be levied until they were out of the country.

In the meantime Singapore had established for many many years an additional small payroll deduction (like 25 cents for the worker and 50 cents for the employer) for a worker re-education plan (kind of like social security). As soon as you were layed of from a low skilled job, the next day, repeat the next day you were put on a temporary pension for six months and vouchers so that you could enroll in retraining. Workers were moved out of low paying jobs like tire making and into higher paying jobs in optics and micro chip manufacturing.

In the meantime the government had established incentives to attract companies that were both higher paying and more environmentally advanced.

The result was that within 20 years the average Singaporean went from being a lowly paid worker to having an annual income that is higher than many countries in Europe. Last time I checked Singapore had passed Spain in individual income.

[mculator]

24. Way to go, Singapore!

But we're a bit of a bigger problem, you know.

[SOS]

17. Which vote?

There is a vote mentioned in your OP called "a post 9-11 WMD inspection vote".

Is that your version of "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002"?

[mculator]

21. Yes

It would not carry water if not the Senate were not behind it. The "Military Force" was for forced WMD inspections, not unilateral invasion. Read it. Just because a CIA report was titles "Bin Laden determined to strike inside US", it doesn't mean that the government knew 9-11 was going down when it did. Like I said, read the floor address.

edited to remove UN misstatement

[SOS]

26. Completely false.

The word "inspections" is not even mentioned in the text of the AuMF.
A resolution "to the UN"? What is that? It's a US law.
Clinton's floor address means nothing. It's a political speech, not a law.

It seems you need to refresh your knowledge of the actual text of the AuMF:

“Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq 2002”

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

There are no conditions presented in Section 2. None. Congress only “support(ed) the efforts” of Bush to realize sections (a) and (b). What exactly were those “efforts”? The efforts did not exist. Section 2 is empty, meaningless rhetoric crafted by the White House lawyers to create the appearance of conditions. When read carefully it is clear that there were absolutely no conditions. No mention of a last resort, weapons inspectors or any legally binding demand. There were no conditions!

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

As “HE DETERMINES” to be necessary. Very simple. Very clear. Bush is given 100% sole authority to use military force as he (and he alone) determines. 3 (a) 1 and 2 are also empty phrases, since the determination rested only with Bush. Was his “determination” a surprise to anyone?

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate HIS DETERMINATION that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Bush determined that peaceful means would not achieve 3 (b) 1 and 2. Surprise! The only thing required of Bush is that he inform Congress of his attack on Iraq 48 hours before the beginning of the invasion. Bush complied. He cut and pasted 3 (b) 1 & 2 and delivered his negative determination to Congress exactly 48 hours before bombing. Bush complied with the letter of the law. In 3 (b) 2 we see that “necessary actions” against other terrorist nations are also authorized.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

The AuMF is a joint resolution, thus allowing the circumvention of the 90 day limit set by the WPA. Section 5 (b) of the WPA puts a time limit of no longer than 90 days for the use of United States Armed Forces in a foreign nation without a declaration of war or a joint resolution (AuMF is a joint resolution) of Congress otherwise authorizing the use of force. The joint resolution covers Bush again.
Bush’s never-seen progress reports every 60 days must make for some interesting reading!
Hopefully this has been helpful and will dispell some of the spin surrounding this law.

[mculator]

28. mistype

sorry i was typing fast and mixing sources on different issues. corrected.

still, a link would have been fine.

didn't edwards vote for that? didn't almost every senator? given barack's similarities, do you really think he would have been the radically different senator who would oppose it? where was his radical stance on the Peru deal?

[sandnsea]

19. Regulations need to be IN the trade agreements

and would have been if Clinton had listened to the anti-NAFTA Democrats. He bought into the whole deregulation and free rein corporatism. He and Hillary are still cozy with foreign business entities, including huge outsourcers in India. This is who they are.

[mculator]

20. Cozy?

Yeah according to Obama supporters, she practically oozes Wal Mart... garbage. She's got a point, you're just not listening.

[sandnsea]

22. Yes cozy

Google Clinton and Chatwal yourself.

[mculator]

27. Whatever

You wouldn't call land deals being "cozy" with Rezko for Barack? And there is only so much attack on Bill that applies to his wife, really. 92 and 08 are very different years with different problems facing the left. The biggest is the Economy, and that's the message of this post. You're taking it as an opportunity to call into question any connection between Bill and a link to India as somehow negating my claim that NAFTA in conjunction with a standard International minimum wage would be a good thing? I agree it should have been included in NAFTA, but hindsight is 20-20. If these hindsights are really what is stopping BO supporters from embracing the most qualified candidate, I wonder who is really looking toward the past, not the future. If you want problems fixed, you get someone who knows best what they are doing and has the best chance of getting it done. If you're hooked on a candidate for his charismatic message, you're hooked for psychological and perhaps subconcious reasons, and it'll be kinda hard to get through to you. Let me just tell you one thing, BO supporter (assumption): It's probably infatuation, not Love, that you have for your candidate. Wait till he breaks those promises. Wait, he's already retracted how many of them? I think he's cheating on you.

[sandnsea]

29. Take the blinders off

A drive way is not a cozy land deal.

Need more? Google Gupta. This is HER, not Bill. HER. She's laughing all the way to the bank. You damn right she'll be okay if she loses. She's got tens of millions of dollars by selling all of us down the river.

[mculator]

30. And is Obama clean?

Like I said, you need another reason. I think it must be love.

Did he call you yet?

[sandnsea]

31. Why are you attacking me?

:shrug:

Yes. Obama is clean. Most politicians are. My Congressman, DeFazio, is. My Dem Senator, Wyden, is. Gore is. Kerry is. Edwards is.

Bill and Hillary aren't.

[mculator]

32. He isn't clean.

KERRY IS CLEAN? He might have won the damn election yet handed it over without a fight. Obviously you want Hill to quit fighting. Wonder why, after 10 victories, you're really worried.

[sandnsea]

33. Nice talking to you

Good bye now. I suspect you won't be here in 9 days anyway.

[mculator]

34. And I suspect

You'll be wondering what happened.

[Armstead]

23. Sorry, but the flaws of both "mistakes" were glaringly obvious at the time

"Free trade" is not the same thing as encouaging international trade. The "free trade" movement is nothing but an excuse to subvert domestic politics and impose right-wing ideology on every nation in the world.

Anyone who knew anything about the Bush administration knew from the start that Bush's prime goal was to go to war with Iraq.

Hillary Clinton has been the leader of the factions that went along with both idiotic polciies.

(I don't think Britany was involved so she deserves to be left alone.)

[mculator]

25. The point of the post

is that if corporations are forced to pay everyone a minimum wage regardless of what country it's done in, NAFTA is a good thing for the globalist movement.

Edited to add: It wouldn't make any sense exporting if the labor wasn't cheap, but it would be easier to expand and trade--making better ties and a closer step to the AU (american union)

[Armstead]

35. But that is not the goal of the "free trade" movement

I agree with you that the lack of social values and morality of corporations has a lot to do with the outcome.

However, the "free trade" movement that has been promoted since Reagan --- and enthusiastically supported by the Clintons (and Obama) -- is an ideology that pushes "markets over all" with the express intent of subverting the role of governments. It is ultra-free-market conservatism.

Any talk of including wage and environmental standards is just lipstick on a pig of a philosophy that places the workings of big global capital over the will and interests of the people.

Contrary to the goals you state of such things as a global minimum wage, it actually discourages nations from following policies that their governments may believe would bolster their domestic economies and the well-being of their own populations.

That was clear to many critics while these agreements were being negotiated behind closed doors. But people like Bill Clinton did everything possible to push through these right-wing economic and political policies.

That's the fundamental flaw, and until we open up the whole debate over international trade beyond the confines of the neo-liberal (conservative) framework, we will continue to see corporations exploiting and them and continueing the race to the bottom.

[mculator]

36. we could always hand over authority to the UN

:) Like that will ever happen.