So our candidates want to keep NAFTA but just make a few changes.

[Winterblues]

What are those changes and how will they help keep jobs from going to India or elsewhere?

[liberalnurse]

1. There are area's in the US that have reaped benefits from NAFTA.

Boarder states have adapted well...... To end it would ruin their lives while we already have the Heartland in recession...Not a reasonable decision. I want a re-tooling of NAFTA first, see how that goes.

[lapfog_1]

2. A free trade agreement between equals is not a bad thing

equals would include nearly equal standard of living, nearly equal laws on environment, labor safety, etc. Two of the three partners in NAFTA meet this (more or less). One does not. Allowing US and Canadian firms to relocate to Mexico so they can exploit the workers there AND pollute to their hearts content, is simply not reasonable. The thought behind this was that it would improve the lives of the people in Mexico enough so that they wouldn't enter the US illegally to find work, but that was a dream which simply didn't happen.

[Winterblues]

3. So what are the ways we can change it?

Will the US dictate environmental standards for South America and Mexico and Labor Standards? Do you believe either of our candidates will withdraw from NAFTA?

[lapfog_1]

4. NAFTA doesn't include South America, or even Central America

We should move to repeal the other free trade agreements.

As for NAFTA, I don't know... I want Mexico to do better, but not at the expense of our own manufacturing jobs. China is a bigger target, and India for support center and high tech jobs.

All I know is that they need to be fixed. In addition, these things should come into force immediately, but be phased in over a generation (25 years) to allow time for people to retire who have been working in an industry for 30 years or more, retrain to work in some other industry, or otherwise make adjustments.

[Winterblues]

5. Sometimes I amaze myself at my ignorance...Duhh

North American Free Trade Agreement. I know what NAFTA means and always knew. Don't know why I brought in Central and South America except I believe we have some sort of agreements with that part of the world as well. I can't recall what GATT stands for but I believe it has something to do with them. Anyway we are kind of screwed either way. A very good portion of our economy relies on NAFTA. Politicians mentioned to us when they passed NAFTA that there would be some that were actually hurt by it. They made a decision at that time that more would benefit than would be hurt and so they passed it. I am not so sure that that isn't still the case. We do need to somehow lift Mexico's Labor standards and environmental efforts but it still won't rebuild factories in Michigan. Hillary hit on it when she suggested "green coller" jobs where they can't be outsourced. It is the future and we all need to get behind it "Big Time" and focus on that instead of NAFTA IMO. Those jobs lost to Mexican factories are never coming back. Neither or those lost to India or where ever. We need to create new jobs that benefit America and not just the wealthy few. There is much to be done with our water works and our electrical grid and our highways. I would like to see for instance an Interstate system solely for trucks and one just for cars and RVs. America needs to get back to the basics of looking our for America (the American people) and not Exxon..or Halliburton..or GE.

[EFerrari]

7. It wasn't a dream, it was the pitch. They knew damn well what would happen. n/t

[EFerrari]

6. Both Clinton and Obama are pretending to criticize NAFTA

WHILE they support a trade agreement with Peru that is just as bad or even worse.

I got so mad I can't even remember where I saw the story any more -- maybe on Amy's show.

Here it is. About half way down this page of headlines:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/headlines#15