Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Clinton Administration and NAFTA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 02:50 AM
Original message
The Clinton Administration and NAFTA
November 15, 1993:
WASHINGTON: Sharpening an already intensive lobbying campaign on the North American Free Trade Agreement, top aides to President Bill Clinton issued dire warnings on Sunday to reach for last-minute congressional votes.

Both sides claimed superior strength in appealing to dozens of lawmakers who remain officially undecided on the proposed accord, which would gradually lower tariffs among the United States, Canada and Mexico. But firm vote counts remained elusive.

. . .
Faced with considerable reluctance on the part of some Republicans, Mr. Clinton, a Democrat, promised to support them on the issue of NAFTA if a Democrat criticizes their votes in the 1994 election campaigns.

Mr. Gore reiterated the White House view that a defeat on NAFTA would be a blow to Mr. Clinton personally and to U.S. efforts to attain freer trade globally and in Asia.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/11/15/accord.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
guyanakoolaid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. I like the part where Hillary gave the big speech to 120 women to lobby the Senate for NAFTA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluebellbaby Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. Obvious hit piece against Hillary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. No. I am neutral between Hillary and Obama.
I just don't like NAFTA. I am pro-Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I like Hillary's health care plan. This is strictly about NAFTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
5. The NAFTA Nightmare (from 1992)
Edited on Sun Apr-27-08 07:34 AM by Breeze54
The NAFTA Nightmare

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/10/mm1092_10.html

by Bill Day


AMID A STORM OF PROTEST, the leaders of the United States , Mexico and Canada announced on August 12 the conclusion of negotiations over a free trade agreement encompassing the vastly different countries of North America. The Bush administration released a summary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but declined to release the actual text until it is translated into legal language. The agreement faces perfunctory approval in the Mexican and Canadian legislatures, which are controlled by the same parties which hold those countriesÆ executive positions. In the United States, however, the agreement must be ratified by the Democratic controlled Congress, where it is sure to be the subject of heated debate.

While the administration and industry groups boast that NAFTA will create jobs and prosperity, unions, environmental groups and consumer advocates predict it could result in increased pollution, lost jobs, lower wages and contaminated food. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader says that NAFTA was created "of the Du Ponts, for the General Motors, and by the Exxons," benefitting multinational corporations at the expense of labor, health, safety and environmental standards in all three signatory countries.

"We oppose it," says Burnie Bond, a spokesperson for the AFL-CIO. "The agreement does not have adequate protection for labor rights, worker health and safety or the environment." The AFL-CIO estimates that if Congress approves NAFTA, 73 percent of U.S. workers will suffer annual wage losses of approximately $1,000 and 500,000 to 600,000 workers will lose their jobs to lower-paid Mexican workers over 10 years.

In sharp contrast, industry representatives express enthusiasm for the proposed agreement. Howard Lewis, a spokesperson for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), says, "From what we know about it, it appears to be an impressive agreement that will be beneficial to many U.S. companies."

Costing jobs

The central element in the congressional debate over NAFTA is likely to be its effect on employment. Critics of the agreement contend it will cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, as U.S. businesses shift production from the United States to low-wage Mexico. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) concedes that some U.S. workers will be displaced as a result of the agreement, but estimates that between 600,000 and one million new jobs will be created by exports to Mexico. The Washington, D.C.- based Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in a recent report authored by Jeff Faux and Thea Lee, estimates NAFTA will cost half a million U.S. jobs.

The authors further predict that NAFTA will encourage U.S. industry to move production to Mexico to take advantage of low wage rates and lax industry regulation. As a result, the report says, U.S. workers will lose jobs, or be forced to accept lower wages to compete with cheap Mexican labor. Faux and Lee cite 1990 Department of Labor statistics which list the hourly wage for manufacturing workers as $14.83 in the United States, $15.94 in Canada and $1.85 in Mexico.

"I think that this version of NAFTA will be very hard on working class people," Lee says. She predicts that U.S. workers in several types of industry will suffer: those in industries already moving to Mexico, such as automobiles and auto parts, consumer electronics and apparel, who will be subjected to both job and wage losses; workers employed at small- and medium-sized businesses that cannot relocate and will become unable to compete with corporations in Mexico; and workers in small service businesses, like restaurants, which will undergo hardship when large plants move out of their neighborhoods. Finally, Lee argues, growers of products currently protected by high tariffs, such as winter fruits and vegetables, cotton and peanuts, will suffer when the tariffs are removed by NAFTA.

Faux and Lee point out that blue-collar workers who lose their jobs are unlikely to gain access to the high-skill, high-wage jobs that might be created by increased exports to Mexico.

snip-->

Critics of the agreement argue that corporate flight to Mexico will not benefit Mexico or Mexican workers, since corporations will be moving South precisely to take advantage of the country's low wages, worker rights, safety and environmental standards. NAFTA-induced investments will replicate the record of the string of maquiladoras (foreign-owned plants in Mexico which export to the United States) on the U.S.-Mexican border, where "there is no floor on how low you (can) push wages and no limit on how badly you (can) abuse the environment."

"NAFTA is an extension of the maquiladora production system to the entire Mexican economy," Lee says. "The point of the maquiladora is to import parts from the United States, assemble them with Mexican labor and export them to the United States." According to Lee, because goods produced in the maquiladoras are sold in the United States, corporations have no incentive to pay a living wage. "Very few firms producing in the maquiladoras have any intention of selling their goods to the workers who work there. So it doesn't matter if you pay 60 cents an hour, because you know that person isn't going to buy the automobile or refrigerator or bra that you're producing. You've ruptured the connection between production and consumption."

More.....


Looks like they (we) were right! :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Crighton Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Left and right voters need to put aside their hate of eachother to defeat this.
The Cumulative trade deficit is something like 7 trillion.

Last year the trade deficit was about 800 billion dollars, and it is exponentially rising even with the weak dollar.

-Deindustrialized US, lost high paying jobs
-Downward pressure on wages
-Higher cost of gas because of weak dollar
-Industrializing potential future enemies
-Even illegal immigration is the result of Mexicans losing their jobs in Mexico (as Ross Perot accurately predicted) Although as a Republican I could care less about the welfare of Mexicans, don't hate me because I am beautiful ahhahaahhaa. Nevermind your going to hate me anyways, shoot away.

Republican politicians sold this raw deal to Republican voters as a union buster, but now free trade is eating into non-union jobs. (Republicans hate unions, I could care less)

Both Republican and Democrat politicians sold us out for a sophomoric economic theory. Can't we stop hating each other for one second to defeat free trade?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. "Both Republican and "Democrat" politicians sold us out"
Edited on Sun Apr-27-08 08:06 AM by Breeze54
That I can agree on.... but this I can't.

"Although as a Republican I could care less about the welfare of Mexicans"

What effects them, effects us. That's a fact and NAFTA didn't help them like
we were told it would when NAFTA was forced upon us in the USA and them.

You should care .... not as a repuke but as a human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Crighton Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. "Compassionate Conservative"
"Compassionate Conservatives" cost tens of millions of Mexicans (and Americans) their jobs with free trade and that stupid "Comparative Advantage" theory. This is what created the illegal immigration problem.

Republican Party leadership such as Newt Gingrich (house Republican supporter of the NAFTA model) are "Compassionate Conservatives". Bush who also is a free trader is a "Compassionate Conservative". McCain is a "Compassionate Conservative." I am not a "Compassionate Conservative", catch my drift?

Many Republican voters, the base of the Republican Party, are very upset with many things the Republican Party leadership has done. If McCain is elected he will continue this trend as Republican Party LEADER for the next 4 years. I think you Democrats should capitalize on this and defeat McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. The term "Compassionate Conservative" is an oxymoron.
McLame doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell imho, and the faces on the right
hand side of the aisles in the senate and the house will also be shifting left.

But what brings you here anyway? Just cruising or a secret admirer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. It's DEMOCRATIC.... spell it right or leave.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Thanks for posting this.
The struggle against the injustice of NAFTA and similar agreements is a struggle against certain factions of both parties. Remember, lots of Republicans agree with those of us who want to reform or even do away with NAFTA. Of course, many of them do not. This is not a partisan issue. The movement to reform free trade crosses party lines. As of course does the movement supporting NAFTA and similar treaties and trade agreements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I was protesting NAFTA before it was enacted.
Edited on Sun Apr-27-08 12:40 PM by Breeze54
I don't need it explained to me and your welcome but I posted it
because it was a Rethug idea initially but Clinton enabled it. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-27-08 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
13. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC