• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

Do you think USA was better off Pre-NAFTA?


  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

cheybarnes

New member
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
17
Reaction score
5
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
For those of us old enough to remember, The North America Free Trade Agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. January 1, 2014 represents the 20th anniversary of NAFTA.

We also might remember some of the promises that were made in support of NAFTA when the Clinton Administration was pushing for its passage in 1993:

• NAFTA promised 170,000 jobs created per year, yet by 2004 increased trade deficits had equated to a net loss of 1 million jobs.

• Pre-NAFTA trade surplus of $2.5 billion with Mexico and deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion has morphed into a combined deficit of $181 billion. This represents an inflation-adjusted increase of 580%.

• Real wages in Mexico have fallen dramatically. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38% fewer consumer goods than pre-NAFTA. This has contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the U.S. since NAFTA's implementation.

• U.S. manufacturing workers displaced by NAFTA see a 20% drop in earnings when re-employed. The shift in employment to low-paying service jobs has contributed to wage stagnation.

More statistics on trade deficit analyses, off-shoring of jobs, "Buy America" provisions, and prevailing wages are available from this new report by Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch entitled "NAFTA at 20". http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

Of most significance in all this, is that the Obama Administration is currently pressing for an expansive new trade pact with 11 countries that will dwarf NAFTA in scope.The countries involved in the talks include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The emerging pact, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), will apply to 40 percent of the world economy. The Obama administration has been leading negotiations on this international trade accord since 2010 but appears to have almost no international support for its controversial new trade standards.

On November 13, 2013, a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights chapter was published by WikiLeaks. This and other leaks have drawn criticism and protest in large part due to the secrecy of the negotiations, the expansive scope of the agreement, and controversial clauses in the drafts leaked to the public.

One of the most controversial provisions in the talks includes language which would allow foreign companies to challenge laws or regulations in a privately run international court. Under World Trade Organization treaties, this political power to contest government law is reserved for sovereign nations.

Other provisions include further job-offshoring incentives, requirements to import food that doesn’t meet U.S. safety standards and rights for firms to get taxpayer compensation before foreign tribunals.

Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents; the extreme secrecy surrounding the process of the current negotiations surely should raise a red flag of caution.

The U.S. is also facing major resistance on bank regulation standards. The Obama administration is seeking to curtail the use of "capital controls" by foreign governments. These can include an extremely broad variety of financial tools, from restricting lending in overheated markets to denying mass international outflows of currency during a financial panic. Loss of these tools would contribute to a forfeiture of governmental sovereignty and would dramatically limit the ability of governments to prevent and stem banking crises.

We may all wonder why with the dismal track record that NAFTA has produced thus far, why our government is so gung ho to expand upon such a similar structure.

The answer lies in globalization. All of our recent administrations both democratic and republican and the bankers that control them have been promoting - subversively, a one world government. We have been slowly making inroads to this process for decades and now with the passing of TPP we can anticipate seeing even more convergences in our near future. The European Union, NAFTA, Africa, the Asia Pacific; you may expect to see them all further amalgamate under the guises of “free trade” agreements. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Sorry I should have voted YES. Obviously we're not better off and the NWO has taken control.

Guess who gets screwed in a 1 world government?
 
For those of us old enough to remember, The North America Free Trade Agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. January 1, 2014 represents the 20th anniversary of NAFTA.

We also might remember some of the promises that were made in support of NAFTA when the Clinton Administration was pushing for its passage in 1993:

• NAFTA promised 170,000 jobs created per year, yet by 2004 increased trade deficits had equated to a net loss of 1 million jobs.

• Pre-NAFTA trade surplus of $2.5 billion with Mexico and deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion has morphed into a combined deficit of $181 billion. This represents an inflation-adjusted increase of 580%.

• Real wages in Mexico have fallen dramatically. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38% fewer consumer goods than pre-NAFTA. This has contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the U.S. since NAFTA's implementation.

• U.S. manufacturing workers displaced by NAFTA see a 20% drop in earnings when re-employed. The shift in employment to low-paying service jobs has contributed to wage stagnation.

More statistics on trade deficit analyses, off-shoring of jobs, "Buy America" provisions, and prevailing wages are available from this new report by Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch entitled "NAFTA at 20". http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

Of most significance in all this, is that the Obama Administration is currently pressing for an expansive new trade pact with 11 countries that will dwarf NAFTA in scope.The countries involved in the talks include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The emerging pact, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), will apply to 40 percent of the world economy. The Obama administration has been leading negotiations on this international trade accord since 2010 but appears to have almost no international support for its controversial new trade standards.

On November 13, 2013, a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights chapter was published by WikiLeaks. This and other leaks have drawn criticism and protest in large part due to the secrecy of the negotiations, the expansive scope of the agreement, and controversial clauses in the drafts leaked to the public.

One of the most controversial provisions in the talks includes language which would allow foreign companies to challenge laws or regulations in a privately run international court. Under World Trade Organization treaties, this political power to contest government law is reserved for sovereign nations.

Other provisions include further job-offshoring incentives, requirements to import food that doesn’t meet U.S. safety standards and rights for firms to get taxpayer compensation before foreign tribunals.

Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents; the extreme secrecy surrounding the process of the current negotiations surely should raise a red flag of caution.

The U.S. is also facing major resistance on bank regulation standards. The Obama administration is seeking to curtail the use of "capital controls" by foreign governments. These can include an extremely broad variety of financial tools, from restricting lending in overheated markets to denying mass international outflows of currency during a financial panic. Loss of these tools would contribute to a forfeiture of governmental sovereignty and would dramatically limit the ability of governments to prevent and stem banking crises.

We may all wonder why with the dismal track record that NAFTA has produced thus far, why our government is so gung ho to expand upon such a similar structure.

The answer lies in globalization. All of our recent administrations both democratic and republican and the bankers that control them have been promoting - subversively, a one world government. We have been slowly making inroads to this process for decades and now with the passing of TPP we can anticipate seeing even more convergences in our near future. The European Union, NAFTA, Africa, the Asia Pacific; you may expect to see them all further amalgamate under the guises of “free trade” agreements. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I see the New World Order to be a CORPORATE World Order and that is closer to fascism. I do not approve. Let the system crash and we'll all be in the same boat and our struggles will be for our families and what we believe in and screw the NWO.
 
I see the New World Order to be a CORPORATE World Order and that is closer to fascism. I do not approve. Let the system crash and we'll all be in the same boat and our struggles will be for our families and what we believe in and screw the NWO.

Great! Funny too! Too bad Ross Perot was little and talked funny, or, perhaps I should say, too bad voters are shallow.
 
the average worker was better off. however, if it hadn't been NAFTA, it would have been China. next, it will be sweatshops somewhere else once Chinese workers decide they are tired of being treated like slaves.

and after that? tech will make everything.

there's no going back. doesn't have to be a bad thing, but if we want to keep the job : money : access to resources model, we're going to have to get creative. and by creative, i mean that the market alone isn't going to fill the gap.
 
the average worker was better off. however, if it hadn't been NAFTA, it would have been China. next, it will be sweatshops somewhere else once Chinese workers decide they are tired of being treated like slaves.

and after that? tech will make everything.

there's no going back. doesn't have to be a bad thing, but if we want to keep the job : money : access to resources model, we're going to have to get creative. and by creative, i mean that the market alone isn't going to fill the gap.

I will counter your very rational analysis with my pet peeve. If you want to create both money and jobs, the same answer has been presented since the 1970s. Convert to a 100% renewable energy economy. Creates new local jobs wherever implemented. Cuts the outflow of local cash to monopolistic energy distributors. New jobs spend new money growing local economies. New Renewable Energy facilities require local maintenance creating more local jobs and again more local spending. Simultaneously, could any of this address Global Warming and relegate Corporate mitigation policies to the scrap heap, and freeing up those same, probably gov't subsidized dollars, for local investment. Short and sweet. Too good to be true? It hurts Big Corporate Energy and if they can get profitable wars started, do you think they would have any problem preventing this scenario. They are preventing it. You get one vote, but Big Energy buys your Congressman's vote.
 
I will counter your very rational analysis with my pet peeve. If you want to create both money and jobs, the same answer has been presented since the 1970s. Convert to a 100% renewable energy economy. Creates new local jobs wherever implemented. Cuts the outflow of local cash to monopolistic energy distributors. New jobs spend new money growing local economies. New Renewable Energy facilities require local maintenance creating more local jobs and again more local spending. Simultaneously, could any of this address Global Warming and relegate Corporate mitigation policies to the scrap heap, and freeing up those same, probably gov't subsidized dollars, for local investment. Short and sweet. Too good to be true? It hurts Big Corporate Energy and if they can get profitable wars started, do you think they would have any problem preventing this scenario. They are preventing it. You get one vote, but Big Energy buys your Congressman's vote.

i'm for replacing our entire energy model via public / private partnerships. i agree that this is important, and i would support a NASA-style moonshot to achieve it.
 
Great! Funny too! Too bad Ross Perot was little and talked funny, or, perhaps I should say, too bad voters are shallow.

To many stupid voters thought that the "sucking sound" Ross Perot was referring to had something to do with free blowjobs.
 
I will counter your very rational analysis with my pet peeve. If you want to create both money and jobs, the same answer has been presented since the 1970s. Convert to a 100% renewable energy economy. Creates new local jobs wherever implemented. Cuts the outflow of local cash to monopolistic energy distributors. New jobs spend new money growing local economies. New Renewable Energy facilities require local maintenance creating more local jobs and again more local spending. Simultaneously, could any of this address Global Warming and relegate Corporate mitigation policies to the scrap heap, and freeing up those same, probably gov't subsidized dollars, for local investment. Short and sweet. Too good to be true? It hurts Big Corporate Energy and if they can get profitable wars started, do you think they would have any problem preventing this scenario. They are preventing it. You get one vote, but Big Energy buys your Congressman's vote.

Monopolistic energy distributors won't go for that, just sayin. :) But, what good ideas.
 
To many stupid voters thought that the "sucking sound" Ross Perot was referring to had something to do with free blowjobs.

Wait a minute, he would have been president then!
 
Wait a minute, he would have been president then!

Back then, most Americans weren't demanding free stuff.

But it was Ross Perot who put Clinton into the White House by running as a third party.

If G.H. Bush were have been reelected, no way would NAFTA gotten through Congress, no way. Most Democrats opposed NAFTA and there were enough Republicans who also opposed NAFTA. The vast majority of Americans opposed NAFTA back then and those today who aren't stupid oppose NAFTA today.
 
Back then, most Americans weren't demanding free stuff.

But it was Ross Perot who put Clinton into the White House by running as a third party.

If G.H. Bush were have been reelected, no way would NAFTA gotten through Congress, no way. Most Democrats opposed NAFTA and there were enough Republicans who also opposed NAFTA. The vast majority of Americans opposed NAFTA back then and those today who aren't stupid oppose NAFTA today.

No, it was Bush that put Clinton in the White House. Had he chose not to run, like Johnson, Ross Perot would have been president. As to NAFTA, no way, that's a bi-partisan deal all the way. But with more GOP support than democratic support. I can't believe you just rewrote history, now don't do that again.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement


When it did pass our legislative body, here were the numbers:


With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.
 
Last edited:
No, it was Bush that put Clinton in the White House. Had he chose not to run, like Johnson, Ross Perot would have been president. As to NAFTA, no way, that's a bi-partisan deal all the way. But with more GOP support than democratic support. I can't believe you just rewrote history, now don't do that again.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When it did pass our legislative body, here were the numbers:


With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.

In fact negotiations for NAFTA began during the Reagan administration and was signed by Bush and passed with GOP majority. Why would you try to blame NAFTA on the dem's, I mean I know why, but WHY??
 
No, it was Bush that put Clinton in the White House. Had he chose not to run, like Johnson, Ross Perot would have been president. As to NAFTA, no way, that's a bi-partisan deal all the way. But with more GOP support than democratic support. I can't believe you just rewrote history, now don't do that again.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When it did pass our legislative body, here were the numbers:


With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.

The only reason those 102 Democrats went along was because Clinton was POTUS.

If G.H. Bush were have been reelected, he never would have gotten those Democrat votes.

I was around back then and active in politics and the RNC.
 
The only reason those 102 Democrats went along was because Clinton was POTUS.

If G.H. Bush were have been reelected, he never would have gotten those Democrat votes.

I was around back then and active in politics and the RNC.

Dude! I just showed you that Reagan started NAFTA, Bush signed it and it past legislation with a majority of republicans and your trying to hang it on Clinton. THAT, really sucks.
 
Dude! I just showed you that Reagan started NAFTA, Bush signed it and it past legislation with a majority of republicans and your trying to hang it on Clinton. THAT, really sucks.

On December 17, 1992 President George H. W. Bush and others conducted a ceremonial signing, but NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993.
 
Sorry I should have voted YES. Obviously we're not better off and the NWO has taken control.

Guess who gets screwed in a 1 world government?

I see the New World Order to be a CORPORATE World Order and that is closer to fascism. I do not approve. Let the system crash and we'll all be in the same boat and our struggles will be for our families and what we believe in and screw the NWO.

Full moon tonight?
 
On December 17, 1992 President George H. W. Bush and others conducted a ceremonial signing, but NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993.

Of course Clinton signed it after Bush, that's beside the point that it was a republican agenda. But it certainly had democrat support. That's why my first post stated it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope your not saying that Bush wouldn't have signed it when he did if it had ALREADY been passed in congress with a GOP majority.
 
Anyhow, the answer to the poll is no. What is often conveniently blamed on trade, sinister foreigners and corporate entities is largely a product of technological advances and the natural flow of unskilled jobs to unskilled populaces. A wonderful example of this disconnect is China's loss of approx 25 million manufacturing jobs in the first decade of its implementation, yet most will tell you of America's great suffering at the hands of the Chinese during said period. The efficiency and downward pressure on prices as a result of trade outweighs the short term effects that so many point to as evidence of failure.
 
Of course Clinton signed it after Bush, that's beside the point that it was a republican agenda. But it certainly had democrat support. That's why my first post stated it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope your not saying that Bush wouldn't have signed it when he did if it had ALREADY been passed in congress with a GOP majority.

No, just pointing out facts. As far as Bush vs Clinton is concerned, I have found that the republicans and the democrats, in spite of their differences, often agree when it comes to selling out the American people.
 
Anyhow, the answer to the poll is no. What is often conveniently blamed on trade, sinister foreigners and corporate entities is largely a product of technological advances and the natural flow of unskilled jobs to unskilled populaces. A wonderful example of this disconnect is China's loss of approx 25 million manufacturing jobs in the first decade of its implementation, yet most will tell you of America's great suffering at the hands of the Chinese during said period. The efficiency and downward pressure on prices as a result of trade outweighs the short term effects that so many point to as evidence of failure.

Very interesting view! All of you have excellent views and opinions!
 
No, just pointing out facts. As far as Bush vs Clinton is concerned, I have found that the republicans and the democrats, in spite of their differences, often agree when it comes to selling out the American people.

It changes nothing, nothing at all. NAFTA negotiations began during Reagan's presidency, and continued through the end of Bush's when he had the ceremonial signing (because it hadn't passed congress/parliament yet. Had he won a second term he would have been the one to sign it into law. It did pass congress with a GOP majority support, and Clinton signed the bill in the first three months of his presidency.

So Reagan begins the negotiations,

Bush continues and COMPLETES negotiations, and signs it,

Congress passes it with GOP majority,

Clinton signs it into law.

And NAFTA is being blamed on democrats!!!!
 
It changes nothing, nothing at all. NAFTA negotiations began during Reagan's presidency, and continued through the end of Bush's when he had the ceremonial signing (because it hadn't passed congress/parliament yet. Had he won a second term he would have been the one to sign it into law. It did pass congress with a GOP majority support, and Clinton signed the bill in the first three months of his presidency.

So Reagan begins the negotiations,

Bush continues and COMPLETES negotiations, and signs it,

Congress passes it with GOP majority,

Clinton signs it into law.

And NAFTA is being blamed on democrats!!!!

I don't think I blamed it all on democrats, but whether or not you like it and whether or not you hold your breath until you turn blue, Clinton signed NAFTA. You must learn to embrace facts, they are your friends.
 
The extremes that the anti-free trade movement goes to has always seemed to me as a tendency towards racism, xenophobia and nationalism. :/
 
I don't think I blamed it all on democrats, but whether or not you like it and whether or not you hold your breath until you turn blue, Clinton signed NAFTA. You must learn to embrace facts, they are your friends.

Wtf are you talking about Tex. I have the first link up in this thread that tells the time line of NAFTA. And I didn't say it was you pinning it on Dem's, it was another fellow that said that. So when I pointed out to him that despite the fact that Clinton signed it into law, it was born in the GOP, negotiated by the GOP, signed in ceremony by the GOP, passed in congress by a GOP majority, and then Clinton walks into the White House and signs it. Hardly his legislation.

Btw, you quoted me above where I state Clinton's signing and then begin to accuse me of denying that Clinton signed it? WUWT.
 
Back
Top Bottom