Comments on: Dems on Wrong Side of NAFTA Debate

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:51:59 +0000

Part of the NAFTA agreement stipulates that any reduction of oil to the US has to be equaled by a reduction in Canada’s own supply. I don’t think Canada would have made the same deal with China, France or any other trading partner. Just sayin’.

By: David W. Lincoln

David W. Lincoln — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:22:45 +0000

Whoops, one mistake. It should say: …as long as there is a huge swath of Americans who mistakenly conclude that the largest supplier isn’t Canada – the negligent will be lead down the garden path yet again by the devious.

By: David W. Lincoln

David W. Lincoln — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:46:53 +0000

It seems not that long ago when Canada and the United States signed the Free Trade Agreement (To give a timeline, Reagan was in the White House, Gorbachev was in the Kremlin, Thatcher was Britain’s Prime Minister and Al Gore was a Senator).

One example of free trade saw a Canadian paint company go out of business. Why? Because it did not spend time modernizing its business so that it could produce as much paint as at least one competitor in the United States.

When that is combined with people who have more confidence in natural phenomena still being in the driver’s seat regarding climate change – if the United States does not want oil from Alberta’s oil sands which has a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, then that oil would be sold to those less fussy about the blather which comes from Al Gore and the rest of the watermelons who are more interested in a command style economy rather than a free market economy.

Trade has increased, and as long as there are a huge swath of Americans who mistakenly conclude that the largest supplier of oil to the United States is Canada – the negligent will be lead down the garden path yet again by the devious.

By: Don

Don — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:58:27 +0000

Good point: that walking away from NAFTA “would set a great precedent for all sorts of future agreements that we might sign with other countries”. Another point: Canada is the US´s #1 supplier of oil and natural gas, and Mexico, its #2 supplier of oil. Why would anyone, let alone two presidential candidates, threaten to put to risk their most secure energy supply?
Don

By: bour3

bour3 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:01:35 +0000

Have all the kids in school watch Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose in their classrooms as often as they’ve been made to watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

By: Skip

Skip — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:50:52 +0000

While there are things in NAFTA that can stand tweaking, unilateral abandonment isn’t one of them. Canadian small industry paid heavily for NAFTA. Many US suppliers of goods to Canada went from maintaining a Canadian presence to support their sales in Canada, to operating out of the back of a semi. The Canadian Niagara peninsula and the New York Niagara frontier was devastated by NAFTA. It hasn’t recovered, especially the American side. This was due to the practices of American companies, BTW.
The US record on adherence to NAFTA has never been exemplary, in any case. The US already has a history of protectionism in NAFTA.
A key point – pull NAFTA apart, and jobs will flow not only to Mexico, but way offshore in any case. NAFTA keeps some at least in North America.
Prime Minister Harper has already advised Clinton and Obama that unilaterally pulling apart NAFTA may result in the unilateral Canadian review of the US-Canada oil supply deal. Its instructive to remember the oil is on the Canadian side of the border…

By: Heather Noggle

Heather Noggle — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:02:06 +0000

Is NAFTA the hot button just because the average American knows about it? If you remove Mexico from NAFTA, is it still a hot button? To be fair, we do import more from these two countries than we export, but that’s the case with most countries. The US is a heavy importer. Stats here. As you can see, though, it’s also a heavy exporter.

The US also has free trade agreements with a large portion of Central America (CAFTA, which, from memory, covers the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc.). There’s an agreement with Peru in the works. There’s also an agreement with Australia of all places. Oh, and there’s Chile. US – Chile Free Trade Agreement.

hln

By: memomachine

memomachine — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:00:17 +0000

Hmmmmm.

I’m a conservative and I have yet to see where the benefit of NAFTA and other such trade agreements is TO *Americans*.

How is it a good thing to move jobs overseas in order to buy cheaper crap here? America is largely a service oriented economy. What nobody has proven, to me or anyone else, is how long a country can have such a non-manufacturing economy.

Frankly I think we’re going to find out in the next couple years.

By: rosignol

rosignol — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:03:08 +0000

Why should the United States – which represents such a small percentage of the world’s population – control so much of its wealth?

Because we invested a huge amount of time, effort, and money in generating that wealth. It’s ours. We earned it. And we’re happy to have mutually beneficial trade with others. What we aren’t interested in is giving handouts to people who will only ask for more handouts.

Why should people that do not make the effort enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labor?

By: Dogwood

Dogwood — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 01:34:42 +0000

Keep in mind that a large number of people in the midwest were once union members. The unions are basically socialist organizations that try to protect members from competition and the evil free enterprise system.

If the union can’t protect them, then it is the government’s responsibility to do so.

The whole ideology promoted by unions and their political sycophants for the last 100 years has been one of entitlement and paternalism.

The people have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into complacency and finger pointing. It will take decades for attitudes to change.

Michigan, on the other hand, may never recover.