• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

more NAFTA debate...

PrairieQueen

Well-known member
I have a question for you all as I value your opinions the most being at the producer level :) (I got into this debate on another forum and really got me to thinking)

First - should NAFTA be renegotiated or done away with all together? Has it hurt or help your respective countries and/or yourself? Will it continue to hurt or help?

Second - how important is this to you in your life/future and the upcoming US Presidential election?

Third - do you know where your "choosen" candidate stands on this issue?
If it is opposite of your opinion - will it be an important enough issue to cause you to vote for another candidate that may have other serious issues you disagree with?

It was put forth to me that trade issues should be at the top of my priority list when choosing a candidate to vote for, because this would have the greatest impact on me and my families future (being a rancher).

So what do you all think?
 

PrairieQueen

Well-known member
I might also add as far as I can tell here is how the candidates stand:

Obama - yes it should be renogotiated (unless you are talking to Canada :D )

Hillary - well, not really sure, depends on where she is at :D

McCain - no it shouldn't b/c it could potentially loose are support of Canada in the war on terror :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Our trade deficit is crippling our economy, both short and long term, and every Free Trade agreement we've gotten in has resulted in a trade deficit.

On top of that is the lowering of standards that come with these agreements and the priority trade then takes over safety, the environment, regional preferences, and even the ability for duly elected legislative bodies to legislate per their duties.

On top of that are the enforcement commissions that are given unconstitutional powers that trump even Congress.

I'm not against trade nor against trade agreements, but I'm vehemently anti-Free Trade. The agreements are illegal, embrace the wrong priorities, and have proven themselves to be failures. What other reasons does a guy need?

I think it is a critically important issue. Unfortunately, Duncan Hunter was my man and I can't support any of the other clowns that are left. Hillary and Obama are compulsive liars, who knows how they really stand, and McCain is an avowed Free Trader.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
If the playing field was level, NAFTA would be the best thing since sliced bread.

Not much more than the expanding base the United States achieved all the way up until 1959 when they took in Alaska and Hawaii as states. More consumers, more resources (incuding raw), more innovation, more capital, and yes - more labor.

The playing field is not level. When you annex states they fall under the same regulations (for the most part) as all the other states. Under the current plan, it is not fair to labor as the Mexican's don't earn anything near our minimum wage and they therefore do not have the consumer spending base to buy our products. They are closer to slavery than minimum wage.

Those of us here in this country who earn decent salaries, are inventing/innovative and productive, are punished by having to fork over much of our capital in taxes. Property taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes and income taxes wipe out significant spending into local economies. We need another Henry Ford to emerge in Mexico. But, of course, Henry Ford emerged before we closed our borders and before the U.S. tax burden existed.
 

PrairieQueen

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I think it is a critically important issue.

but Obama is the only one even talking about renegotiating. Only problem is I disagree with him on pretty much every other issue. I am pretty sure someone would have to hold a gun to my head (no pun intended) to get me to vote for him.

Ohh, this sucks. I really cannot decide how to vote this election. :(

Are you not afraid that by not voting, or being a write-in, that you will in essence had the presidency to a democrat? Thus ending up with someone who may or may not act in your best interest on NAFTA but also potential swing things towards more socialism?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Are you not afraid that by not voting, or being a write-in, that you will in essence hand the presidency to a democrat? Thus ending up with someone who may or may not act in your best interest on NAFTA but also potential swing things towards more socialism?

You nailed it PQ!!!!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
PrairieQueen said:
Sandhusker said:
I think it is a critically important issue.

but Obama is the only one even talking about renegotiating. Only problem is I disagree with him on pretty much every other issue. I am pretty sure someone would have to hold a gun to my head (no pun intended) to get me to vote for him.

Ohh, this sucks. I really cannot decide how to vote this election. :(

Are you not afraid that by not voting, or being a write-in, that you will in essence had the presidency to a democrat? Thus ending up with someone who may or may not act in your best interest on NAFTA but also potential swing things towards more socialism?

If there was a gun to my head and I had to choose, McCain would be my choice simply because I can find no redeeming quality at all in the other two. However, even though I understand what you're saying, I've had enough of choosing between the lesser of the evils. I refuse to vote for somebody that I don't feel is an acceptable leader simply because the other candidate is a waste of skin. Enough is enough.
 

Steve

Well-known member
PrairieQueen
Obama is the only one even talking about renegotiating.

that depends on if you believe Obama's speeches or Obama's top economic policy adviser..


the Associated Press released a memo from a Canadian Consulate official in Chicago saying that in a Feb. 8 meeting, Obama's senior economic policy adviser told him, Obama's tough NAFTA stance was "more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans."
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I think all 3 of them are doing a lot of "political posturing" just to get votes..... I think its time to look at some of the others and maybe not vote republican/democratic.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MoGal said:
I think all 3 of them are doing a lot of "political posturing" just to get votes..... I think its time to look at some of the others and maybe not vote republican/democratic.



Could Bob Barr’s Run as Libertarian Doom McCain?

Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr is seen as the Libertarian Party’s most likely presidential candidate — and he could wind up torpedoing John McCain’s White House hopes.

“Given the recent fundraising prowess of a kindred spirit — Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination siphoned up $35 million, mostly off the Internet — libertarians are feeling their oats,” political analyst George F. Will writes in Newsweek.

“Come November, Barr conceivably could be to John McCain what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000 — ruinous.”

Nader was a weak third-party candidate and won only 2,882,955 popular votes nationwide, but 97,488 of them were in Florida — where, because of Nader, George W. Bush won by 537 votes, Will notes.

Shane Cory, the Libertarian Party's executive director, “thinks his party is upwardly mobile,” Will writes.

“In 2004, its presidential candidate received just 397,265 votes, a mere .32 percent of the national popular vote…

“But in no state was the Libertarian vote larger than the winning candidate's margin of victory. This year, however, Cory thinks the party can far surpass its best national performance — 921,299 votes in 1980.”

Cory and Barr say the party almost certainly will be on the ballot in at least 48 states.

Republican consultant Craig Shirley recently wrote: “This Libertarian thing may be bigger than anyone is foreseeing right now.”

Barr left the GOP in 2006 over what he called bloated spending and civil liberties intrusions by the Bush administration.

A former U.S. attorney in Atlanta, Barr served eight years as a Republican congressman from Georgia before losing his seat in 2002 after a redistricting.

A Barr run for the White House would be handicapped by “John McCain's handiwork,” Will added.

“One wealthy libertarian would give $1 million if the McCain-Feingold law regulating political participation did not ban contributions of more than $28,500 to national parties.

But Will concludes: “If libertarian voters cost McCain the presidency, that will be condign punishment.”
 

mrj

Well-known member
MORE LIKELY.........Barr left the Republican party because of perks offered him by Tom Daschle and other Dem leaders to entice Barr to jump ship on the voters who put him into office, thus giving the Dems more power!!!!!

mrj
 

don

Well-known member
i hope he means it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080422.wamigos23/BNStory/International/home
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
don said:
i hope he means it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080422.wamigos23/BNStory/International/home

Of course he doesn't want anything to happen to NAFTA, it's a big money maker for Canada. He likes that trade surplus position.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
don said:
i hope he means it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080422.wamigos23/BNStory/International/home

Of course he doesn't want anything to happen to NAFTA, it's a big money maker for Canada. He likes that trade surplus position.

GW: “People who say let's get rid of NAFTA as a throwaway political line must understand this has been good for America.”

Bingo. VERY GOOD.

SH, maybe your not aware that if you take energy out of the equation Canada is in a trade deficit position with the US. Personally I would be ecstatic if the deal were renegotiated. It's very difficult to compete with your lower minimum wages et al.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
don said:
i hope he means it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080422.wamigos23/BNStory/International/home

Of course he doesn't want anything to happen to NAFTA, it's a big money maker for Canada. He likes that trade surplus position.

GW: “People who say let's get rid of NAFTA as a throwaway political line must understand this has been good for America.”

Bingo. VERY GOOD.

SH, maybe your not aware that if you take energy out of the equation Canada is in a trade deficit position with the US. Personally I would be ecstatic if the deal were renegotiated. It's very difficult to compete with your lower minimum wages et al.

Bush is a Free Trader gone wild. Of course he would say it is good for America. I'd like him to explain how trade deficits (what every flipping Free Trade deal has gotten us) are good for us.
 

Texan

Well-known member
An energy elephant?

Terence Corcoran, National Post Published: Thursday, April 24, 2008


Canada, the mouse that sleeps next to the U.S. elephant, seems to be feeling a bit elephantine itself these days. "PM Plays Energy Card," said the big headline on the front page of the National Post yesterday. The story said Prime Minister Stephen Harper had "issued a direct warning" to the United States over the prospect of reopening NAFTA.

Canada will drive a tough bargain on any future post-NAFTA negotiations, said another report, picking up on Mr. Harper's muscle-flexing tone during the Canada-Mexico-United States summit in New Orleans. Noting that Canada is the No. 1 supplier of energy to the United States, Mr. Harper said that if Canada did have to look at re-opening NAFTA "we would be in an even stronger position now than we were 20 years ago. And we will be in a stronger position in the future."

Sounds tough-- although it's not clear from Mr. Harper's remarks exactly what game he's trying to win by playing the energy card. Is he in favour of re-opening NAFTA and using energy to knock the American's down as an opening gambit? Or is he actually opposed to the idea and is trying to spook Americans, especially the Democratic leadership demagogues, into backing down from their threats to walk away from NAFTA?

While it's hard to tell what Mr. Harper's motives are, even less clear is the trade and economic strategy behind the chest-thumping swagger and arrogance that's been creeping into Canadian policy circles in recent months. Ever since the Democratic leaders began competing over who will get out of NAFTA first, former Canadian mice have been pressed up against the border, rattling their energy swords as if free trade were a battle of might and brawn and stockpiles of energy resources.

"You want to renegotiate NAFTA? This Canadian internationalist says: "Bring it on!" So declared former Liberal foreign minister John Manley, establishing the new elephantine swagger in Canadian trade circles.

Toronto trade lawyer and Osgood Hall Law professor J. Michael Robinson said energy is "the ace in the hole for Canada" in any new NAFTA talks. Trade Minister David Emerson said that if the United States wanted to reopen NAFTA, Canada would have its list of "priorities" -- i.e. demands -- on the table, and woe the hapless Americans on the other side. "Knowledgeable observers would have to take note of the fact the we are the largest supplier of energy to the United States," said Mr. Emerson.

The Prime Minister actually raised the energy flag over NAFTA earlier in the year, adding a tricky bit about carbon emissions and Kyoto. Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the United States, but the United States doesn't have as firm a commitment to carbon emissions reductions as Canada. Implying what, exactly?

The National Post's editorial board has been beating the energy drum, as if free trade were a war. American dependence on Canadian energy gives Canada an "oil card" and a "trump card" and a "very big club," but one that should be used only when the time is right. "It is not yet time, though, to play hardball. For now, Ottawa should concentrate on gently making American legislators aware that good ole reliable, stable, friendly Canada is their #1 energy partner."

It's worth reviewing this buildup of trade sabre-rattling, this escalating sense of national potency, if only to draw attention to the unstated, unacknowledged and unexplained strangeness of it all. Exactly what is Canada proposing to do in any self-important confrontation with the United States over energy?

The implication running through the steamy bring-it-on rhetoric is that Canada plans to be the first nation in the history of global free trade negotiations to enter talks with an open-ended blanket threat to cut off its main export products.

Somewhere in world trade deals there is likely a clause the prevents such action, short of circumstances such as war. Otherwise, what kind of negotiating position does Canada plan to take? Give us free access to your farm sector or we cut off gas through to Chicago? Open up national security contracts to Canadian tech firms or we prevent Exxon from shipping oilsands output across the border?

By setting oil and gas and tar sands on the table as bargaining chips and trade threats, the Harper Tories are also implying that the energy resources across Canada belong to the federal government. Mr. Harper has, for trade purposes, essentially nationalized Alberta and Newfoundland resources and announced he would play them, as a threatening move, in a trade deal.

This is trade talk turned into trade war. Under the current NAFTA agreement, Canada has a deal that protects the ability of Canadian resource owners (provinces and private players) to trade freely in energy products. That free trade flow could be disrupted under certain conditions, sanctioned under international law. But the principle is one of free trade upheld, not of trade denied. The new Canadian power play, under the new bloated sense of control and power, is to threaten to block free trade and withhold exports to achieve some other objective.

As part of this game, another idea is that Canada could threaten to ship oil to China rather than the United States. Are such decisions national ones made by Ottawa, or private commercial decisions made by industry players? Or maybe this is part of the Harper Tories' occasionally stated objective of becoming an "energy superpower," with Ottawa controlling the business in the same way as Moscow controls Russia's energy assets.

We clearly need more information on the plan to play the energy card. Meanwhile, the only conclusion is that the plan is dangerous and silly, or a bluff by a self-inflated elephant.



http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=f2433c69-2aff-4557-bf1a-c78f63291eb5&k=482&p=2
 

Silver

Well-known member
.......or it could be that the mouse finally discovers it really isn't a mouse at all and is in fact the 5th largest economy in the world, capable of dealing in it's own self interests.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Silver said:
.......or it could be that the mouse finally discovers it really isn't a mouse at all and is in fact the 5th largest economy in the world, capable of dealing in it's own self interests.
AND our Conservative Prime Minister is man enough to stand up for our Country,not like the Liberals that bow down and say "Yes mam no mam"
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Everybody seems to think that if we don't have a FTA, we can't trade. FTA's are comparitively new to the scene. We can still trade away without a FTA, folks. We've done it for a looooooong time before FTAs.

Can any of you Canadians explain to me how a trade deficit is good for any economy? If you can't (and believe me, you can't), explain why any country should remain in a detrimental agreement?
 
Top