Why do I get the feeling they're going to try to NAFTA us again?

Remember what Bill Clinton and the DLC said about NAFTA in 1993?

"Yeah we know it sucks, but lets pass it now and we can fix it later".

16 years later and they haven't fixed it.

Do NOT let them pull that shit with health care.

It is disgusting.

And, it is not acceptable.

The democrats should take heed. They are about to split the party in two. Progressives will not stand for passage of a private insurance wet dream.

They can be adjusted, negotiated, altered for changing circumstances, but really big issues can't ever have a "right" bill.

So, yes, any bill passed will need ongoing fixing.

Heck, I didn't even know people were still bothered that much by NAFTA.

Do you have a more specific point you'd like to exchange ideas on?

NAFTA increased my employment, got me a bunch of $300/hr contract jobs, and helped drag me out of a time in my life rife with poverty.

Different people see it different ways, for different reasons. In my case, it helped the poor. In other cases, minimal/manual labor jobs living on the edge of poverty saw maquiladora work take over their industry.

But hey, if it's all black and white to you, and you only want to exchange views with people who share your opinions, I guess that's your loss.

It benefits the few and beggars the many. I want to exchange views with those who actually care - not with those who shrug off our wholesale impoverishment; they are the enemy.

This is a +120,000 year old argument, if not older.

Requiring people to use local monopolies sacrifices benefits from trade, but gains the benefits of local support.

Here's a mental exercise: For one year, imagine not buying anything that was made, modified, or invented less then 25 miles from you. That's a lifestyle many people still live. No cars, vaccines, televisions, computers, radios, telephones, none of that "foreign" crap.

Some people are very happy that way.

Myself, I'm kind of a global, one world, person.

In between the two positions is the balance of peoples, of nations, where a "rich" people who trades improves the lives of "poor" people who trade. Since I'm not much of a nationalist, I'm not real big on tariffs and trade that keeps the rich, well, rich. I'm happy to lose my imagined "right" to a plasma TV if it feeds a family of 5 for a year.

So their effect is the opposite of what you claim. As all of us know who have our eyes open.

Thanks for standing up for corporations and their tariff profits in the name of labor.

You do know that the same corporations will murder you, right?

See if it brings jobs back, or cuts jobs, while increasing profits.

Hint: the last 300 years.

You've been here just about as long as I have, and didn't know that Nafta is a problem? You must not have read much during the primaries.

I assumed it was mostly political positioning about '80's issues... and only seemed to be big in flyover, and post-labor manufacturing, states.

Maybe because I've mostly been in states that benefited from NAFTA, I didn't "get it".

Pointers are appreciated, but I tend to gloss over things like "not made in US bad!", or other nationalistic sloganeering. Is the EU also a problem, for the same reasons? Interstate commerce?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick here, I need other perspectives. I don't "get it".

A countries internal markets should be protected. I feel that import tariffs should be a prime source of govt income.

Aside from that, I do not understand what states benefited from NAFTA. I think that our ability to manufacture is, outside of moving to a much more socialist system, one of the keys to having a middle class in our country. It is also vital to our nations security. And all I have ever heard about is manufacturing jobs going to Mexico and Canada. Be it Candy bars, Autos or Textiles. That, and the whole corn thing are troubling. As well, the environmental/labor aspects of having things done in less regulated countries really bug me, and unless we are realistically bringing those countries up to our level, I see that as a direct poke in the eye

I will admit to not knowing terribly much about NAFTA. I have mostly gone on the word of those I trust. I try to know everything I can, but there is too much in this world going on for one individual to cover it all. I will also admit that I am much more concerned with the China trade status than NAFTA. But in the end, I feel that NAFTA is one more tool that companies can use to get around doing the responsible thing, opting instead for the short term purely economic benefit.

living with free trade and open borders with each other. "National security" has improved in Europe with no conflicts in recent decades after a history of invasions from one direction or another and rivalries between England, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and others. Their societies now are more prosperous than before and with national health care, effective market regulation, progressive taxation and limited military spending (since they don't need to spend a lot on the military to protect themselves from each other) are more supportive of average people.

In the US, on the other hand, we more often see national security in terms of walling out people and products (progressive approach) or maintaining a big, aggressive military (conservative approach) rather than opening ourselves up to our neighbors like Europe has done.

instead of posting your bizarre, stream of consciousness crap here. :shrug:

"I assumed it was mostly political positioning about '80's issues..."

So...you don't follow current events or politics, but you have an opinion that you feel is worthy of posting here on DU? :eyes:

Pardon me for not keeping current with a technology that died 20 years ago.

Is that where the current opinions on the topic are being posted? No wonder it can't be found.

Have they tried town criers, or maybe morse code, to vent?

You said, of NAFTA (which came into effect in 1994,) and which featured prominently in the Presidential primaries and, more recently, in the debate over the "Buy American" clause of the stimulus bill: "I assumed it was mostly political positioning about '80's issues."

You said, of reading a "newspaper" in a webbrowser: "Pardon me for not keeping current with a technology that died 20 years ago."

You might also note the distinction between "opinion" and "facts". You seem to confuse the two when you say, "Is that where the current opinions on the topic are being posted?"

We're talking about keeping abreast of current events and politics, which, while it includes opinion, still must refer to a shared set of operative facts (e.g. NAFTA's prominent role in the last Presidential primary.) :hi:

1988 (21 years ago): Free trade with border nations expanded with Canada, protectionists scream bloody murder. Negotiations with Mexico begin to have similar agreements. Canada asks to be part of it. That would be the "80's" part of my statement.

As far as NAFTA featuring "prominently", I recall protectionists screaming that it should be repealed, Obama saying that bad parts should be worked on, Canadian's snarking back, Obama saying he didn't mean repeal... tempest in a teapot, unless protectionism is important.

Web browsers don't use paper. They use screens.

Opinions are what I asked for, I can find facts easily.

Example: "NAFTA's prominent role" is an opinion, because "prominent" is wishy-washy hand waving. If one were to look for a fact, one could easily discover that Rev. Wright received more minutes of airtime than NAFTA, Ayers received more print than NAFTA, and even Hillary's tears got more coverage than NAFTA. Perhaps one could qualify the statement better, such as "for those media sources which considered tariffs and trade protection to be a major part of the primaries, NAFTA played a prominent role."

I think it's basically a done deal already.

but sadly, you're probably right. :evilfrown: