| NAFTA
Posted: 3/2/2008 11:00:50 AM | Okay..I'll be honest. I don't know much about NAFTA nor it's details... but I did hear Obama and Clinton say that they wanted serious changes made to it.
How does this affect Canada? And what kind of changes are we talking about? As the largest trading partner of the US I would think this is a pretty big issue.
Or is it just a ploy to get votes?
Any thoughts? | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/2/2008 12:05:08 PM | Well, it seems to be pandering to the Lou Dobbs crowd.
When the original negotiations happened, the US got a fantastic deal. We know that because the chief negotiator for the US talked about it afterward. NAFTA was a huge issue in Canada; barely a blip in the states. Mulroney had staked all his political capital on getting a deal, so the US negotiator was given instructions to just keep saying "No" and wait until Canada just kept making the deal sweeter and sweeter. Which we did.
If the US wants to renegotiate, it's not going to be so one-sided the next time. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/2/2008 12:55:36 PM | I think it's just a ploy to get votes. When it first came up for a vote the Clinton administration said that it would oppose NAFTA unless certain changes were made. Those changes were never made but Clinton used all the tools at his disposal (wheeling, dealing, and arm twisting) to get Democrats to vote for it.
I was lucky enough to read a copy of NAFTA before it was voted on. The main text of the legislation was over 1000 pages long, and had several appendices that I was not able to obtain. I sent letters to my Congressmen detailing 20 some odd major flaws in the legislation that would harm the economy and national sovereignty. The only response I got back was a form letter from Ted Kennedy saying that he was undecided on the issue. In the end he voted for it.
NAFTA was a bad deal for all parties involved and tweaking it will not change a thing. In fact it was opposed by several organizations that support free trade. It needs to be completely repealed because it's done untold damage to the US economy (and presumably the Canadian and Mexican economies as well). | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/2/2008 1:24:05 PM | "Okay..I'll be honest. I don't know much about NAFTA nor it's details... but I did hear Obama and Clinton say that they wanted serious changes made to it.
How does this affect Canada? And what kind of changes are we talking about? As the largest trading partner of the US I would think this is a pretty big issue.
Or is it just a ploy to get votes?
Any thoughts?"
Well, you could always check out the OTHER THREADS that already deal with this issue:
- Politics - "SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?"
- Current Events - "Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway"
- Current Events - "NAFTA panel gives Washington one week to cut softwood lumber duties" | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/2/2008 3:20:14 PM | Clinton and Obama both keep ragging on NAFTA to get votes from certain states like Ohio. They both say they'll end tax breaks for companies that ship US jobs outside the country, which is supposedly being encouraged by NAFTA.
Even if that tax break (not taxing companies for profits earned outside the US if those profits remain outside) were to end companies would still probably ship jobs out because of cheaper labor and fewer regulations elsewhere.
Most of what I've read has agreed that NAFTA is an overall win for the US... just that some parts of the country were hurt buy it.
So yeah, I think it's mostly just a ploy to get votes... and neither one of them is against 'free trade'. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/3/2008 8:02:03 AM | I seem to recall industries in the sectors that sees Ohio so effected now were leaving the US long before NAFTA.
I do notice the balancing act being done as you have two crucial states tomorrow that have had very different results attributed to NAFTA. You have to campaign in Ohio that NAFTA is bad, but in Texas and in particular the southern part NAFTA is not so bad so you can't campaign so negatively about it there. It's like when the candidates campaign to Ohio they point to the distance and tell Texas to "look over there" as a distraction while they talk to Ohioans and then vice versa. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/3/2008 8:10:40 AM | It is so funny it is laughable.
Obama and Clinton say they are going to get tough on NAFTA and renegotiate?
You better not weild that stick to much. Canada happens to have all the goods (OIL) that keeps us able to negotiate with the Middle East OPEC nations.
NAFTA is here to stay. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/3/2008 8:14:32 AM | There was a big article about this on page 3 of Saturdays globe. Some points:
The us, mexico and canada have all benefitted from nafta, in that order. Unemployment had dropped from 7 to 5% in the us under nafta, where 16,000,000 jobs are created and destroyed every year.
The US gets a good deal on Canadian oil because of this. Only a crazy person woud renegotiate this.
One of the campaign workes called CTV and assured them "the nafta stuff is just campagn rgetoric, just ignore it".
The people in say, Ohio they think they're screwed because of nafta are actually screwed because of the failure of the big 3 carmakers. | |
|
mj999
|
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 9 | |
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/3/2008 10:11:44 AM | | "the nafta stuff is just campagn rhetoric, just ignore it"....just heard Hillary attack Obama on this alleged statement and wasting no time to call him a liar, no doubt they are hoping for a bit of last minute controversy prior to Crucial Tuesday!. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/3/2008 5:38:58 PM | | Let me remind you Grog, NAFTA was a Clinton trade deal during his administration I don't know why you mention Bush here | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/3/2008 7:02:57 PM | I heard that one thing NAFTA did was open up huge markets for American and Canadian corn and wheat to Mexico and South America. It has cost them millions of agricultural jobs and 80% of the illegal immigrants coming to the US are agricultural workers.
I hear that NAFTA is what has fueled the invasion of immigrants to the US in the past ten years, so if and when we renegotiate it, keeping jobs there has to be a part of the equation. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/3/2008 7:05:50 PM | That was not a quote, it was an interpretation by a Canadian attending a conference.
What might have been said was that we don't like some of the effects of NAFTA and are taking a stand politically to stake it out as a campaign issue, but the actual details will be worked out and a position worked on later.
I am sure that is all that was said. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/3/2008 8:51:21 PM | How does this affect Canada?
When oil was at $20 a barrel NAFTA was a alright deal for Canadians, now that it is $100 a barrel it would be in our best interest to back out of NAFTA. We are the safest country in the world to supply Americans with oil. so in turn we should be charging a hell of allot more for our prime resource. Sure the Americans supply us with some goods but nothing compares to what we export in natural resources we would be better off buying the goods we get from the states from China or India.
Guess what i am trying to say is Americans need our goods more than we need theirs. we should be charging triple if not qua triple what we are now under NAFTA. | |
|
mj999
|
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 14 | |
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/4/2008 6:26:43 AM | Micklovin: Do you really believe we don't need America when more than 80% of our exports are destined to the US?!
Our economy depends in large part on our ability to export to the United States, if we lose that ability in our trade with our largest trading partner (in excess of $500 billion in 2007), our economy would suffer big time. It isn't wise to take this relationship for granted, China's trade with the United States has more than quadrupled in a decade and Mexico's has tripled.
Neither the US nor Canada will mess with a good thing. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 3/4/2008 6:45:30 AM |
NAFTA was a Clinton trade deal during his administration I don't know why you mention Bush here
Actually, it was conceived under Bush Sr.
NAFTA was initially pursued by corporate interest in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries.
Actually, I think the hallmark of a good deal is when all sides think they are getting screwed. That's certainly the case here. 
It does make some sense, as major trading partners, to unify our economies somewhat.
It's made some Canadian companies far stronger, because they couldn't rely on protectionist laws to ensure success.
It probably could have been done better, but I don't see the actual concept as being a bad one. At least from what I've read, there have been some productive gains for all due to it. | |
|
| NAFTA
Posted: 10/8/2009 8:35:57 AM | ^^^Yes, Nafta was conceived under Bush Sr but signed into law under Clinton. I wonder just how many jobs have actually been lost due to Nafta. My mom lost her union papermill job thanks to Nafta. And what ever happened to Obama's promise to renegotiate Nafta? Did he forget about that promise as well?
The below article is from a leftwing website that's critical of Nafta and Clinton
http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2007/06/bill-clinton-na.php
The below video is of Bill Clinton giving a speech right before the signing of Nafta
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ooMrgXido
Here is a Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate on Nafta
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZOXWNXOpjw
In this CNN video Bill Clinton describes Nafta as a 'defining moment' and that Nafta is OUR gain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9-Pf-iMPc
| |
|
Home
login 
