Do you support NAFTA?

[LSdemocrat]

I've been wondering about this issue for a while on DU. Some people seem to be strongly against it and appear to be basing their primary vote on the issue of free trade, while others seem to be more supportive.

I just wanted to get a more accurate feel of what people feel about the issue.

[LSdemocrat]

1. I think NAFTA's a good idea, but

It needs some revision to allow for more environmental and labor protections.

[SahaleArm]

3. Senate Fast Track to avoid...

environmental and labor protections.

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/vote/VC107S6

My Vote: I support NAFTA with some reservations.

[Mountainman]

2. If NAFTA had a living wage agreement it would be better for us

NAFTA is not a win win for American workers. It creates jobs in Mexico that were at one time in the US.

NAFTA can lower the cost of goods but when you have a minimum wage income you can't buy them.

[Mattforclark]

4. Support it

Though obviously there are things that can be improved upon.

But it's not a domestic issue to me, I am more concerned about the (m/b)illions of people living on ~$1/day.

You suggest that maybe for people who are opposed to NAFTA it is more important in determining their primary vote. For me, a positive stance on fair trade (not 'free trade' without capital controls etc or protectionism) is one of the top 5 or so issues.

Joseph Stiglitz for Treas-Sec!

[Old and In the Way]

7. 15 years ago, these people were living on .10/day

I doubt there were a lot of people concerned then.

I think the issue is more complex than straight labor costs, though. Another factor for companies to move manufacturing to China is to capitalize/participate on the fastest growing consumer market in the world. Our economy is pretty mature and growth potential is where money flows to.

[LSdemocrat]

8. True

I just meant that in terms of discussions about certain candidates, I have observed that most people who list NAFTA/Free trade as an issue seem to oppose NAFTA and support anti-free trade candidates.

I agree that it is an important issue, and I would be hard pressed to support a candidate in the primaries who wholeheartedly opposed free trade agreements.

[sujan]

5. yes

I am all for economic redistribution.

[Ksec]

6. I would only trade with countries that follow the rules

for environment and workers rights . That would cut China out until they straightened up. So no I dont support it because it doesnt demand this

[SahaleArm]

9. NAFTA is only North America.

China is under GATT?

[sujan]

12. It's called WTO

[sam sarrha]

10. IT HAS BEEN A DISASTER HERE IN EL PASO,TX !! FOR BOTH

[Adjoran]

11. China was never part of GATT

They were only recently admitted to WTO.

Free trade doesn't "cost" us jobs. Manufacturing jobs are being lost worldwide: 11% disappeared between 1995 and 2002, and the US lost exactly the world average.

Certain industries will relocate, like textiles. It doesn't require a lot of skill to stand by a machine and push a button now and then. But that doesn't mean we are "losing jobs," it only means we have created better ones.

Total employment was UP, at least until Bush took office. So were personal income, wages, median household income, GDP - almost every single way of measuring progress.

Labor and environmental progress ought to included, but it is clear that the developing nations do improve in these areas in direct proportion to their economic growth. Plus, as they grow, they can afford more American goods and services.

[sasquatch]

15. 'Better Jobs' in a pigs ass there is

Overall wages in this country during the Clinton years are lower than they where when Nixon was president(UGHH!! I just had to talk about Nixon:puke:). Now even the corporations are sending those white collar jobs to Russia and India where people only work for $5,000 a year. I think you need to stop listening to that corporate whore Friedman. God I hate that guy.

[TexasMexican]

13. NAFTA isnt the problem

The real, or atleast the bigger problem, is all the trade with China.

If instead of sending those jobs to China it would have been better to atleast keep them in our hemisphere.

One would think that Mexicans would be more likely to buy our goods and services than Chinese would.

It would also pump up the Mexican economy and make it less likely that so many would come here illegally, additionally I dont think Mexico would be using its extra wealth to update its military in a manner that we in the US would find threatening.

[sasquatch]

14. Get rid of NAFTA and put something in that's better

I like what globalization could be in theory. How it's applied is just a new form of slavery. Stop all trade with China if they want our goods they'll have to democricize. Stop american company's from outsourcin there jobs to oversee's cheap labor. If they do they'll have to pay 5 times in tariffs what the good cost we'll set the BTW:evilgrin:. Tell Thom Friedman to fuck off we don't need advice from crazy people like him that have just become insane media whore sell outs(get help Thom). For christsakes if you want to stop all of this distruction then knockdown the corporations a bit. Show'em who wears the pants(that's us BTW):)

[SahaleArm]

17. Not gonna happen.

China is currently a top purchaser of US Debt. There's a reason we've been tip-toeing around the currency issue. Let the Yuan float and watch manufacturing leave China; and watch China no longer purchase US debt.

[sasquatch]

19. This is post BCF

got it

[politicat]

16. Grew up in AZ... know the maquiladoras. Nafta fubared both sides of the

border. American manufacturing went just to the other side of the border leaving people here without jobs while the Mexicans are dealing with polluted water, carcinogens, mutagens, other toxic wastes and ...

inflation.

Nafta was a huge mistake, but if the choice is getting out of our China trade deficit or getting out of NAFTA, let's get out of the China problem.

Politicat (who is pissed that she can't buy an American stud finder. You'd think women would be demanding that thing, instead of a Chinese stud finder....said with tongue firmly in cheek....)

[morgan2]

18. free trade is a good idea, but

it only works for everyone involved when the two countries are on nearly equal footing on wages. NAFTA isn't free trade, there are numerous exceptions and regulations built into NAFTA. Who lobbied for them? Multinational corporations. Who benefits? the companies. The only thing NAFTA has done is created the so called race to the bottom in wages. This is what every corporation wants, and as long as they control the terms of trade this is what will happen. People consider NAFTA as a first step, now they want the FTAA which will basically extend NAFTA through South America. This will increase the pool of labor competing for the jobs, and having to give up more and more to get them. Its all about getting lower wages.

[sandnsea]

20. Economic engagement

I support it because I think that the best way to make friends around the world, lift people out of poverty and create peace is through business and cultural exchange. I think our own country didn't have to go through this current job loss if Republicans believed in investing in science and technology and the jobs that result. So I think we can encourage trade and even have some jobs leaving the country, but only if it's done in a way that actually lifts other countries out of poverty and requires a long term commitment to those countries. It's all screwed up right now, that's for sure.

[economic justice]

21. The NAFTA Disaster

Appalling that Democrats brought this disgrace to fruition and that Democrats can still support it. Whatever happened to the ECONOMIC left? Remember Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound"??? We're still hearing it **every single day** in post-NAFTA America.

[SahaleArm]

22. Protectionism is dead.

Unless you're willing to live with a temporary or extended collapse of all financial markets, the trade agreements will not disappear, ever. Renegotiating is a different story and something more probable but neither side will like the compromise.

Ross Perot, the man who made billions off the US governement, is a giant meglomaniac who could give a rats-a** about 'that sucking sound'.

[economic justice]

23. You're right about that! (Unfortunately)...

Protectionism is indeed dead if protectionism means protecting U.S. jobs. It seems we sign on to trade agreements that "protects" the jobs of people willing to work for peanuts; and provide for traditional "protectionism" in other countries while destroying our own. All one big sellout to the multinationals that rule our government and increasingly, the governments of other nations. Yep! You're right! Protecting American jobs is dead. Protectionism should NOT be. What's good for the goose.....ah....you know.
Oh....on edit....I disagree with you about Perot. He's different and should never be president, but Ross Perot is NOT an evil man who doesn't care. I think he has proven he cares about people. I read something of his recently where he just rakes the Bush economic program over the coals for exploding the deficit. Perot is no saint, but he's certainly not the man you describe either.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. they are just straight up lying about "free trade"

I can't see why we would have tariffs on goods or services from Canada. But allowing GM to lay off workers here, move plants to Mexico, and then get a tax break for selling the cars here - that's not free trade, that's just a race to the bottom.

All this talk of "labor and environmental" protections is a lie too - labor protections are called "trade barriers" under the free trade agreements.

Everyone knows this. People who support Nafta and the rest of the trade agreements have no intention of renegotiating them, we will get boilerplate bullshit about Nafta until the elections are over.

God help us if instead of Nader, the Greens nominate a telegenic celebrity - Nafta was the beginning of the end of the Democratic party.

[SahaleArm]

25. Environment and Workers Rights

Senate Vote: http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/vote/VC107S6

[3rdParty]

26. NAFTA is great for the rich!

Why would any sane manufacturing company stay in the US and pay someone $15 an hour, medical benefits, dental, Social Security tax, 401K, quarterly tax to Fed & state, corporate taxes, following expensive environmental standards, and OSHA rules; but instead go to Mexico and pay $1 and hour and only a small percentage of the taxes to the gov’t with little/no regulations. Thus making a very cheap product with a much larger profit margin? With absolutely NO downside since people will buy the cheaper product over here no matter if child labor or even if forced labor was used?

How about fair trade instead of free trade?
How about forcing other countries to force companies to pay workers a semi-living wage, to follow environmental laws we have here, taxing the corporations to help their poor (welfare, schooling, and so on)? I have no problem helping the workers of other countries, but how about not screwing the people who matter in this country in order to do that?

Who do we have to thanks for pushing NAFTA on us?
George H.W. Bush,
Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush and
All the people on both sides of the isle.
Thanks losers!!! Way to sell out the lower income brackets!!!
I wish we had at least 1 political party that cared about the American (blue-collar) worker.