Pelosi admits China PNTR hurt workers, but goes silent on new NAFTAs

[antigop]

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/09/pelosi_admits_china_pntr_hurt.html

>>
Notice how she acknowledges that China PNTR was terrible for workers, terrible for our safety and a "big success for K Street" but that she then refuses to answer the question about how - if she believes that - she could be supporting the package of new NAFTAs being pushed by the Bush administration.
>>

[fenriswolf]

1. clinton responds

huge grin, pockets bulging "hay, what can I say"

[aquart]

2. Is that a real quote or a mere smear?

[fenriswolf]

4. I'm psychic so its not a verbal quote, just a thought quote

[MetalCanuck]

3. This woman stuck a knife in everyones back who supported her.

She has the audacity in this day and age to not have impeachment on the table and continue the Neo-Con attack on middle class workers. Speaking as a Canadian, NAFTA hollowed out our economy and left the middle class and the poor suffering and it destroyed what was left of the wages in Mexico...that is why they are more desperate than ever to get in to America...and soon Canada.

[Adelante]

7. China trade has hurt Mexico far more than NAFTA

In my observation. Even chile peppers in the popular markets are coming from China. Chile peppers!

[slipslidingaway]

5. Thank you and see who voted for the China PNTR...

Votes on China PNTR...Kucinich shows his strength again :) See video below.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll228.xml

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Kucinich, Do we really need money from China?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxpnAhPXp04


And from your link...

"It all comes back to cash. Environmental, health care and war policies divide moneyed interests. But nothing unites them like trade pacts crafted to drive wages and public interest laws into the ground. Every corporate campaign donor rallies around that, especially when politicians and the media morph the trade debate into a caricatured contest between anachronistic protectionism and enlightened internationalism, rather than what it really is: a choice between pragmatic reform and selling out.

Thus, as America's health care system fails, global warming intensifies and war in Iraq rages, the only initiative Congress seems willing to forge bipartisan consensus on is a new three-headed NAFTA, steamrolled "over the dead bodies" of voters.

As Yogi Berra might say, it's deja vu all over again — and if Democratic leaders continue down this path, they should not be surprised when another 1994-style backlash kicks them in the face."

[Adelante]

8. Your links are chopped

FYI :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

10. Vote links on China PNTR

Thanks! :hi:

"To authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China, and to establish a framework for relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China."

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251

YEAs 83
NAYs 15
Not Voting 2


House vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll228.xml

Ayes 237
Noes 197
NV 1

[pampango]

6. What provisions would a trade deal have to have to qualify as a "fair trade" deal

instead of a "free trade" deal?

What if a deal is called "free trade", because that's the term that Bush likes, but actually has provisions consistent with a "fair trade" deal, due to Democratic pressure? Would changing the title of a such trade deal from "free" to "fair" make a difference? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but you call it a sea gull, what is it?

Or is it unrealistic to have any kind of trade deal with a Third World country, whether it is "free" or "fair"? Should the Democratic leadership be engaged in modifying trade deals to make them consistent with "fair trade" or just oppose all trade deals with the Third World?

[Adelante]

9. Good questions

First let me say on trade I am no expert and mostly I find it confusing. But there does seem to me to have been progress made by Dems in Congress, of the kind you mention. The Panama trade deal for example or the Andes one, both earlier this year, made labor and environmental protections binding rather than simply subject to "best effort" standards, and with dispute resolution built in. Not that this makes trade critics happy, but I thought it was progress. We're going to have trade agreements, obviously, and it would be a shame to cut out doing business in the hemisphere by opposing all trade deals rather than improving them.