"NAFTA has been good for the U.S." The Fuck it has.

[cali]

or at least it wasn't all that bad. FTAs are good for the other countries involved. Don't we want to see wages raised in countries like Vietnam?

Actually, NAFTA has decidedly NOT been good for most people in this country. It's been horrendous for us and worse for Mexico.

No, sorry FTAs over the past 20 years have objectively been far more damaging to the middle class and working poor than beneficial.

I know what the answer is, but it doesn't seem to be the FTA template we've been employing over the past 2 decades.

Nafta Lowered Wages, as It Was Supposed to Do
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/nafta-lowered-wages-as-it-was-supposed-to-do

Nafta Successfully Undermined Regulations
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/nafta-successfully-undermined-regulations

http://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/under-nafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain

[orpupilofnature57]

1. After Ronnie assaulting Unions and the planet, this was 2nd, I dread what will be 1st.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. "NAFTA has been good for us" (the 1%)

[n2doc]

3. "Trust us, we'll get it right this time!" n/t

[cali]

4. How much of a factor has NAFTA been in the degradation of Unions?

Ask Bob King, the UAW's current president, about NAFTA at 20 and you'll get a blunt answer. "It's been a disaster to me," he says.

"Unions like the UAW, like the steelworkers, like the Teamsters, were really undermined in our collective bargaining power by NAFTA," he says. "Because now, we go in and we bargain with [car] parts supplier companies and they say, 'Well, we can go to Mexico and make this cheaper.' "

And King has a response for those who point to millions of jobs added to the U.S. economy since NAFTA:

"We are not growing good, middle-class jobs in America," he says. "I'd like to know, where are the jobs? What are they talking about, Wal-Mart? They're talking about all these temporary, part-time jobs?"

snip

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/251945882/what-has-nafta-meant-for-workers-that-debates-still-raging

[daleanime]

5. K&R.....

[pampango]

6. Progressive countries trade with poor countries more than we do. Their workers are paid more

than American workers are paid and their unions are stronger than out unions.

Poor countries are not the cause of our problems. We are the cause of our problems with our 'right-to-work' laws weakening unions, our regressive taxes and weak minimum wage laws, terrible safety nets, etc. (All of which republican politicians tend to be quite proud of.) Mexico is not forcing us to do any of those things.

the answer ... doesn't seem to be the FTA template we've been employing over the past 2 decades.

Obama might agree. If he thought the previous 'FTA template' was working, he should have left NAFTA and the FTA's with Australia, Chile, Peru and Singapore alone and just new, similar FTA's with new countries like Japan, New Zealand, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc.

[cali]

7. I think it's absurd to compare small countries with the U.S.

but I'm not saying NAFTA or other FTAs are the sole culprit behind such things as weakened unions, job loss and poor paying service jobs.

[pampango]

14. Germany has 80+ million people. That is not 'small' to me. n/t

[cali]

15. Germany doesn't have close to the economic clout the U.S. does

but I don't know enough about this to comment intelligently. In any case, I'm not suggesting that NAFTA is the sole factor. I am saying, that it's clearly a factor. Read the articles at link. This is an interesting review:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf

[TreasonousBastard]

8. And that's the point-- blaming NAFTA for our own...

failings doesn't help anyone.

Mexico was making cheap stuff long before NAFTA.

[cali]

10. NAFTA is certainly partly responsible.

at least read the articles I linked to and then comment on the claims in them.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. I read them and they are all opinion pieces, not...

analytical. Much opinion, but very little data.

Every agreement is going to have a downside, some will have many downsides, but trade agreements don't initialize the downward spiral of world wages. That will happen with or without agreements, and if there are no agreements controlling worker conditions it will be much worse than it is.

[rhett o rick]

70. Those that pushed NAFTA pushed the idea that it would raise wages in Mexico and build a market

for our goods. In fact the loses to American workers didn't go to Mexican workers, it went directly into the pockets of the 1%. Frack NAFTA and those that brought it.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. "Trade" between countries is a canard

The real value of "free trade" is that it allows American companies to ship jobs to low wage countries with no costly safety or environmental regulations and then ship the goods back here without penalty. It's funny that you try to use Germany as an example (of what I'm not exactly sure). Germany has some of the highest tariffs in the world. Google "import turnover tax" or "TARIC". Germany companies have far less incentive to ship jobs to the third world, because they can't then simply ship their cheap labor produced goods back without penalty. Stop kidding yourself. Free trade has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with cheap labor and pollution.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Well ...

The US' Negotiating Objectives include establishing enhanced wage (and workplace) protections (And the right to collective bargaining) and environmental regulation.

[DefenseLawyer]

30. You will agree that NAFTA has such provisions as well, right?

Oh wait, this time it's different because they really mean it this time. No kidding around. We're series!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. No ...

NAFTA did NOT contain such provisions.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric “race to the bottom” in wages and environmental quality.

http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

Speaking it, even with authority or wit, doth not make it so.

[DefenseLawyer]

33. "no protections were contained in the core of the agreement"

There were such protections promised, it was called “The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation" Google it. Yet at the end of the day, at the "core" of the agreement, they were unenforceable (as if anyone was seeking to enforce them in the first place). To assume that such protections will be enforced in this agreement is delusional, particularly since the agreement appears to give the authority to enforce every aspect of agreement to the corporations themselves. But hey, you may be right. Maybe this time, everybody is just going to do the right thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. So the provisions you said were in NAFTA, were not contained in NAFTA, right? n/t.

[DefenseLawyer]

35. If semantics is the best you've got

You're argument is probably not very persuasive. All of these so called protections in the TPP were part of the same bill of goods sold to us with NAFTA; if you seriously believe that simply incorporating the "side agreements" into the "core" of the agreement makes some substantial difference in the outcome, you should seriously avoid investing in wetlands real estate and historic bridges.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. Yes ...

incorporating "side agreements" into the "core" of the agreement makes a substantial difference. And it's NOT semantics, when one condemns something, (in this case, NAFTA) for not enforcing what is not in the agreement.

That's like saying that Banking regulations are ineffective because they don't prevent arson.

And, this is a strange line of argument from an (presumed, from your screen-name) attorney ... well ... not really!

[DefenseLawyer]

37. Explain the substantial difference

With particular emphasis on the enforcement provisions of the TPP. I'm eager to learn.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. Okay, counselor ...

How would you defend a client charged with arson, under Sarbanes-Oxley? Wouldn't your strategy include pointing out that arson was not contained in Sarbanes-Oxley?

It's a complete failure of logic to attempt compare the environmental/labor force results of a NAFTA that lacks the environmental/labor force provisions, with any TPP agreement (might) include such provisions.

[DefenseLawyer]

39. So you're answering a question with a question?

I'm just a caveman. I understand that have said that wage and environmental protections written into the "core" ( to use your term) of the TPP keep it from being flawed like NAFTA, which had such provisions in so called side agreements, and that this is a substantive difference. I don't see why that will be the case. I'll ask you again to explain why the difference is substantive and exactly why you think that difference will lead to actual enforcement of these "protections". I'm not asking for a critique of my logic or anything like that. If you can't that's fine, but that's what I'm asking.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. You might recognize the technique from L-1 ...

The failure of NAFTA, prevent environmental/labor disruption cannot be attributed to NAFTA, because NAFTA did not include environmental/labor provisions.

The substantive difference with including them in TPP is that it would be a part of the trade agreement, rather than a relatively unknown side agreement.

[pampango]

40. The"import turnover tax" in Germany is a "value-added tax on imports".

Since the VAT increases the cost of goods produced and sold in Germany, they impose a TARIC on imported goods equal to that of the VAT on domestically-produced goods. That way neither is favored over the other.

Import turnover tax

Goods imported into Germany from a non-European-Union country are also subject to value-added tax, but value-added tax on imports is called import turnover tax (Einfuhrumsatzsteuer).

The tax rate for imported goods is the same as it is for turnovers within the country.

http://www.steuerliches-info-center.de/EN/SteuerrechtFuerInvestoren/Unternehmen_Inland/Umsatzsteuer/Einfuhrumsatzsteuer/einfuhrumsatzsteuer_node.html

If they US wanted to impose an "import turnover tax" of say 20% on imports, all we have to do is enact a VAT of 20%. The main issue with that is that raise the cost of domestically-produced goods by the same amount as the 'tariff' (the 'import turnover tax') increases the cost of imports.

Imports represent 30% of the German economy. Imports are 14% of the US economy. That is also good evidence that Germany does not have "some of the highest tariffs in the world". They import twice as much as we do.

[brentspeak]

42. Standard corporate-sponsored bull$hit from you

Germany's TARIC tariff is one of the many things that nation has done to maintain a healthy net positive balance of trade.

The U.S.'s "free trade" deals and lack of tariffs have resulted in a devastating trade deficit.

Still persisting with the "let me parrot US Chamber of Commerce free trade talking points while hiding behind an FDR avatar", I see.

[pampango]

46. Germany's TARIC tariff on imports is equal to its VAT on domestically-produced goods.

If there were no TARIC, domestically-made goods would be at a disadvantage because they would be more expensive due to the VAT than imports. (International trading rules allow countries with a VAT to have a TARIC of an equal rate so that neither imports or domestic goods are favored.)
If there were no VAT, just a TARIC or other tariff, then imports would be at a disadvantage because they would be more expensive due to the tariff than German-made goods.
With the VAT and the TARIC being equal, neither is advantaged compared to the other.

Still persisting with the "let me parrot US Chamber of Commerce free trade talking points while hiding behind an FDR avatar", I see.

Yeah, that's me. You'd be surprised at the reaction I get at Chamber meeting when I tell them:

We are the cause of our problems with our 'right-to-work' laws weakening unions, our regressive taxes and weak minimum wage laws, terrible safety nets, etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026531095#post6

It's not the positive reception that you might expect for someone "parrot US Chamber of Commerce free trade talking points while hiding behind an FDR avatar"".

[brentspeak]

47. Since the "free trade" laws have, by default, pretty much obliterated America's unions

which, in turn, makes it completely impossible to prevent the influx of those right-to-work laws you claim to be opposed to, it makes sense to offer up a few progressive-sounding talking points to make it seem as you're an actual progressive here.

[pampango]

49. Since Germany has more 'free trade' than the US has, why are its unions so strong?

Why has 'free trade' caused the decline of American unions, but has not had that effect in Germany. Could it be that domestic legislation and popular attitudes have more to do with it than the level of trade a country engages in?

Germany has no 'right-to-work' laws. Quite the opposite. But we cannot have strong union as in Germany, despite the fact that Germany trades 3 times more than the US does? If trade kills unions, Germany's unions should be deader than American ones. They are not.

Are you contending that the devastation caused by 'right-to-work' laws, regressive taxes, low minimum wages and shredded safety nets are just "a few progressive-sounding talking points". They are not really significant progressive issues? Gotcha.

[brentspeak]

51. Unlike the U.S., Germany's trade deals have not been written by corporate lobbyists. n/t

[pampango]

54. Quite true, but their trade deals are still quite "free". n/t

[brentspeak]

55. Meaningless Heritage swill.

Germany, up to now, has not allowed its markets to be inundated with cheap imports from sweatshop nations. That is the key difference with the U.S.

And something you conveniently failed to point out on this thread: German citizens are increasingly opposed to the TPP.

[pampango]

59. Your post titles are real zingers, but you don't really back them up. With tariffs that are lower

than the US, I'm not sure how Germany "has not allowed its markets to be inundated with cheap imports from sweatshop nations."

I'm not sure if you consider China to be a 'sweatshop nation' (is that the same as a poor country? A liberal sure would not want to trade with poor people) but here's the information on imports from China:

Imports from China are 3.1% of the US economy. They are 2.9% of Germany's economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany

If that means to you that Germany "has not allowed its markets to be inundated with cheap imports fro sweatshop nations", you are welcome to your definitions.

Also the EU (including Germany, of course) has been negotiating a 'free trade' deal with India for years. Something that the US has not been doing. India and China are the 2 big poor countries (or 'sweatshop nations" if we want to use a pejorative.)

And something you conveniently failed to point out on this thread: German citizens are increasingly opposed to the TPP.

The article you linked to has nothing to do with Germans being opposed to the TPP.

[brentspeak]

71. "A liberal sure would not want to trade with poor people"

You can stop with the "liberal" and "progressive" buzzwords. You haven't fooled anyone here.

Note to Pampango's employers: Sorry, fellas, but you're not getting your money's worth!

[Enthusiast]

81. +1 an entire shit load.

[joshcryer]

83. What a nasty smear.

Shameful.

[DefenseLawyer]

43. They import more than we do because they have to.

But at a higher cost. So much for your Milton Friedman bullshit "fact" that high tariffs restrict imports. The tariffs don't restrict imports of needed goods and materials, but they do discourage companies from outsourcing to cheap labor countries those goods and materials that can be produced in Germany or the EU instead. If you are seriously arguing that tariffs in Germany are on par with those in America then you are just making it up as you go along.

[pampango]

45. It is 'bullshit' that high tariffs restrict imports? You will get an argument from some here who

argue for higher tariffs for exactly that reason. Historically, countries have raised tariffs precisely to reduce and restrict imports and give an advantage to domestically produced goods.

"If you are seriously arguing that tariffs in Germany are on par with those in America then you are just making it up as you go along."

The average tariff in Germany in 2013 was 1.0%. In the US it was 1.5%.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS

Tariff rate, applied, simple mean, all products (%) in United States was 2.84 as of 2011.

Tariff rate, applied, simple mean, all products (%) in Germany was 1.53 as of 2011.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/tariff-rate#TM.TAX.MRCH.SM.AR.ZS
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/germany/tariff-rate#TM.TAX.MRCH.SM.AR.ZS

I am not making stuff up as I go along.

[DefenseLawyer]

57. Since TARIC only applies to non-EU imports

Doesn't that make your "weighted mean" a bit skewed? And no, tariffs don't hinder imports, only their profitability. If something is needed and has value it will be imported. Tariffs do prevent imports of items that are only imported because they are profitable, i.e. produced by 3rd world oppressed labor.

[pampango]

60. "And no, tariffs don't hinder imports ..." You are welcome to your beliefs. n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

62. Well to you hindering profits is the same thing.

I understand your position quite well. Anything that doesn't maximize profit is a hinderance.

[pampango]

66. Oh, it goes well beyond 'hindering profits' as I suspect you know.

If Germany or Japan is exporting a $20,000 car to the US and we put a 20% tariff on it, it will cost the American consumer $24,000. For many of us that extra $4,000 would be a deal breaker. It would not just reduce the profitability of the German or Japanese auto company of selling a $20,000 car in the US it would mean not selling it at all. Tariffs do indeed 'hinder imports'; they don't just affect profitability. As I said that is a point made by many here who favor higher US tariffs for just that reason.

[GoneFishin]

56. You nailed. It's about removing all incentives to keep the jobs here.

It is a complete sham.

[appalachiablue]

77. +1

[2banon]

32. You are supporting the Heritiage Foundation's egregious claims.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/11/em371-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement


NAFTA is, was, and will forever be a 1% NEO CON wet dream. the idea of it was hatched up and crafted by the likes of John Negreponte et. al. before and during Reagan and Poppy Bush's cadre of 1 per-centers, chief intelligentsia etc just to name a few and quite naturally supported by every right wing think tank, front group and center/organizations/foundation etc.

Seriously, isn't that fact alone enough to tell you what you need to know and understand about NAFTA/GAT TPP, etc?

[pampango]

41. Nowhere at the link you provided did the Heritage Foundation say that progressive countries pay more

to their workers and have stronger unions than in the US. Nowhere at the link does the HF say that progressive countries trade with poor countries more than the US does. Nowhere at the HF link does it say that our problems are caused by 'right-to-work' laws, regressive taxes systems and weak minimum wage laws, terrible safety nets, etc.

So ... no I am not supporting the Heritage Foundation's egregious claims.

[joshcryer]

82. Germany has a great model.

And yet I think America is a bit too wary of following it. A lot of worker protections need to be in place. And we simply don't have the votes for those protections yet.

[donnasgirl]

9. Cali

Thank you for the Post, it is spot on and just wanted to thank you for seeing the truth.

[cali]

11. aw thanks. a word about truth: I think truth is pretty subective

and that there's rarely one truth in any debate, but I do like to post things with facts and arrive at what I believe is the truth in a given debate.

[donnasgirl]

12. Thank you again

[Jesus Malverde]

13. Glbalization is the race to the bottom.

Good for few, terrible for most.

It's irrelevant to some extent the robotic revolution is gonna replace most jobs anyway.

[pampango]

16. The world's poorest 70% would disagree.

It has been good for many ... and for the few at the top. I would think we can tax and regulate the exorbitant gains of the 1% and use the proceeds to benefit the Western middle class (the 80th - 90th global income percentiles) without derailing the income benefits that the poorest 70% have received.

Global income equality is better today than it was 25 years ago. National income inequality within the US is worse. To liberals, income inequality is a bad thing. (Conservatives do not seem to share that opinion.) We should push to continue its improvement on the global level while working to reverse the growing inequality within our country.

[paleotn]

24. If I'm reading that correctly....

over that 20 year period wages have risen roughly 70% for the lowest 65% of workers. 70% on what?! Most of those people make less than $1 US per day. Oooooooo...now they're making a buck seventy per day after 20 years, while workers in the west have seen their incomes stagnate or decline and the American middle class is all but destroyed. Real progress there.

Now lets look at the other end of the spectrum. What's a 60% increase on hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per year? And lets not even mention the environmental degradation in developing countries and the fact their workers are treated as virtual slaves. But hey! Their wages have increased in the last 20 years so we should all be happy!

[pampango]

44. It almost sounds like you are belittling income gains of the poorest people as not worthy of

our consideration. They make so little that, while gains in their standard of living may be meaningful to them, they are still so poor as to not deserve our consideration in terms of how to address our own problems.

If you have a system in mind that will jump the incomes of the world's poorest people from abject poverty to, say $15/hour, overnight, I am all ears. To me it makes sense that for the poorest of the poor to eventually climb out of the direst poverty, they need to go from $1/hour to $1.70/hour then continue the journey over years and even generations.

As I say if you have a system in mind that will accelerate their ascent beyond the 70% over a generation, I am all ears. I agree that the improvement is too slow.

If we attack the outrageous income gains of the 1% there will be plenty to spend on mitigating and improving the lives of the American middle class. We don't have help our middle class by taking it out of the hides of the global poor when we could more easily take in out of the hides of the 1%.

[treestar]

52. This is why deflection is employed

When that is brought up. It would follow they are supposed to stay poor so America can be middle class. They know that's a wrong thing to think/say, so off to the next rant about the corporatists.

[Populist_Prole]

63. Deflection my ass

Paleotn nailed the issue squarely. The modest gains made to the 3rd world are NOT worth the decimation of the middle class.

Sacrifice your own self in pursuit of globalist gobbledygook instead of asking the lumpen proletariat here to.

[treestar]

64. Seriously?

So you are willing to out and out say the Third World's gains are not worth it (though I don't agree they "decimate the middle class.&quot

Ask some Third Worlders if they feel that way about it. To them the gain may not be so "modest."

[paleotn]

89. Are you willing....

...to have your own wages decline so that workers in developing countries can get paid $2 per day vs. $1? I didn't think so. In real terms, workers in the developing world are STILL in abject poverty! Just not as abject as it was before. Oooooo...progress. Can't you see it's a race towards the bottom? Their wages increase by a ridiculously little amount in real terms, while workers in the west see their wages crushed. Eventually we're all in the same economic serfdom as Vietnam and Bangladesh.

Then again, maybe you profit from such and are thus willing to defend it.

[pampango]

67. How do you know it was the "gains of the 3rd world" that 'decimated the middle class'?

The obscene gains of the 1% had nothing to do with it? Blaming the "gains of the 3rd world" for our problems rather than the global 1% seems to be letting the latter off the hook.

I would think that progressives would be better suited to find common cause with the poorest in the world in order to fight the richest rather than pitting our middle class against the global poor. Pitting our middle class against the global poor seems to be a 1%'s dream with the rest of us blaming each other for our problems.

[paleotn]

91. wage gains in the third world are only a byproduct....

...of multinational corporations searching for the lowest wages possible. No one's blaming workers in developing countries. And the pittance they're getting may make them happy, but is in real terms pathetic beyond words compared to the profits multinationals receive by manufacturing in ultra low wage countries.

[Enthusiast]

84. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Who is being quoted in your header?

Nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. I'm wondering that, too. n/t

[cui bono]

75. I can't give you a name but I've seen that sentiment posted right here on DU.

If you peruse the TPP threads I'm sure you will find a post that says something to that effect.

[zeemike]

20. What's good for General Bullmose...

Is what's good for the USA.

[PADemD]

21. American made goods

In his speech about TTP, President Obama mentioned selling American made goods (autos, in particular) to other countries. What is manufactured in America anymore? Certainly not textiles, clothing, or appliances.

[paleotn]

26. Complex, technologically advanced materials and equipment.....

...that developing countries don't posses the expertise to produce. They're importing those things from us anyways, so no big win there. Unless TPP eliminates both explicit, but more importantly implicit trade restrictions in places like South Korea, there will be no win at all for US workers. Though many Asian nation's trade laws look liberal on paper, they are most certainly NOT in practice. And THAT Is what's killing US manufacturing. Implicit trade restrictions slapped on US companies every single day.

Now Chinese companies are reversing engineering much of the technology coming from the US, Canada and Europe, so that won't be much of an advantage in the very near future.

[Populist_Prole]

65. Bingo

The "export" meme, and the ridiculous notion they'll increase to the point we'll reverse the trade deficit is just a bait & switch to pacify. The real goal, was/is/will be rent seeking by US multinational corporations.

[Thespian2]

22. Good post

"The result is one thing that almost everybody who studies trade now agrees upon. Whatever else they have wrought—more jobs, fewer jobs, more or less poverty—globalized trade and production coincide with greater inequality both within and between countries. The reasons for this are complex—globalization weakens unions, strengthens multinationals, and increases competition and insecurity all around—but the data are clear. Markets do not distribute wealth equitably."

Ellen Frank teaches economics at Emmanuel College and is a member of the Dollars & Sense collective.


Another thought from someone who studies trade agreements.

[valerief]

23. Us = 1%. nt

[PatrynXX]

25. always weird how it works too

So DVD's and Blu Rays are made in Mexico but discs sold in Canada are made in the USA WTF?

[fadedrose]

27. I could rec this one at least 50 times...

Without links. All you have to do is travel along Rt. 30 in PA and see all the places closed that manufactured all kinds of quality stuff now coming in from China. Multiply that with all the other main routes in the US and what they've lost. And even poor Mexico has suffered.

This was a Republican bill that Clinton signed. If this is Clintons' example of crossing the aisle to make friends, screw that. Best to stop making enemies because of personal blunders causing pain, and then using the balm of giveaway programs to ease the pain.

This is another example of not expecting the "perfect" in bills that are signed. Why in the hell not?

[appalachiablue]

78. +1

[Enthusiast]

85. Ohio is similar.

Not good.

[fredamae]

28. BS and Reality (our experience) Collides! n/t

[nationalize the fed]

50. Ironically both Obama and Hillary agree (in 2007/8)

Skip to 18:18

Hillary: "NAFTA WAS A MISTAKE"

Remember NAFTA-GATE?

[cui bono]

76. And then Obama made a trade agreement with Korea and has been secretly pushing the TPP.

I do not believe Hillary has come out against the TPP, has she? What does she have to say about the Korean trade agreement?

[Enthusiast]

86. I remember watching the first one live. Dennis gave the best answer.

Every single candidate admitted that NAFTA did terrible damage and needed a major rework, at the very least.

Answers by HRC and BO in that film damage the assertions by poster pampango. All of these candidates acknowledge the problems in these trade deals.

[Cleita]

53. There seems to be a renewed effort to tell the Big Lie over and over again

to entice the disillusioned and skeptical to come back and drink more of the Kool Aid these trade agreement cheerleaders are serving up. The fact is that only a little light Googling is needed to disprove all those claims.

[Elwood P Dowd]

68. Yep, just look at the corporate talking points above. The corporate scum have their own operatives

even here on DU. Some of these pro TPP people here sound identical to CATO and Heritage hacks.

[Enthusiast]

88. Paid operatives.

I suppose it's a nice full time job if you are not concerned about ethics.

[Enthusiast]

87. PLUS ONE!

[hrmjustin]

61. No question that NAFTA has hurt American workers.

[hifiguy]

69. As nutty as he could be sometimes, Ross Perot

was absolutely and totally right about NAFTA.

[Jack Rabbit]

72. Who said that?

A liar or a fool?

[midnight]

73. kick

[cui bono]

74. Don't worry cali...

"The TPP is going to fix what NAFTA did wrong."

Yes I've seen those words posted on DU.

[Populist_Prole]

79. You're 100 percent correct. What further complicates matters

Is that the same group that pushed the meme "The TPP is going to fix what NAFTA did wrong." are the same mooks that, when pressed, will claim NAFTA was a positive.

Such glibness.

[Enthusiast]

80. Kicked and recommended a brazillion times.

[Douglas Carpenter]

90. thanks Cali, KNR