Simple COOL by R-CALF

[don]

no but if america wants to be assured of canadian energy availability maybe it's only fair that other canadian goods and services be treated fairly. the usa has a preferred position to secure canadian energy that i don't think many americans would want to give up. that's a concession that should be reciprocated in other areas of an agreement.

 

[Sandhusker]

no but if america wants to be assured of canadian energy availability maybe it's only fair that other canadian goods and services be treated fairly. the usa has a preferred position to secure canadian energy that i don't think many americans would want to give up. that's a concession that should be reciprocated in other areas of an agreement.

So all other industries have to be held hostage over energy? What you're describing is blackmail. How are US citizens being treated fairly when we have to shoulder a trade deficit that has a negetive effect on our economy just so that one commodity can have a sweatheart deal? Take away NAFTA and Canada will sell the US all the energy we want if we are the highest bidder - that is the way it should be.

 

[don]

boo hoo boo hoo. the great and benevolent usa would never treat another nation unfairly would they. it's called negotiating. you want a secure supply of energy we want access to markets. gow up. you can't be that stupid or could you?

 

[don]

under the present nafta the usa has a preference i don't think you'd want to igve up. if canada were to reduce production the usa would still get the same per centage of the reduced amount as it does now. is that worth nothing?

 

[Sandhusker]

under the present nafta the usa has a preference i don't think you'd want to igve up. if canada were to reduce production the usa would still get the same per centage of the reduced amount as it does now. is that worth nothing?

I'm fine with giving it up. That preference is costing us more than it's worth - that's why your government doesn't want to get out of the deal.

Why in the world would Canada reduce production? Canada isn't going to reduce production as long as there is somebody with their checkbook open right next door.

 

[Sandhusker]

boo hoo boo hoo. the great and benevolent usa would never treat another nation unfairly would they. it's called negotiating. you want a secure supply of energy we want access to markets. gow up. you can't be that stupid or could you?

It's called a shitty deal for US citizens. Everything has a price, and the price we're paying for the energy deal is too high. Have you ever wondered why the NAFTA supporters decided not to go through the proper proceedures to make it an offical treaty? I'll tell you - it's because it wouldn't of passed. You think US citizens want to keep a deal that they didn't want in the first place - especially now that we know the promises of NAFTA didn't come true?

 

[Kato]

The Canadian Press

February 27, 2008 at 2:43 PM EST

Ottawa — Trade Minister David Emerson suggested the United States has a sweet deal over access to Canada's oil under the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying the two Democratic presidential candidates calling for renegotiations may not know just how good the U.S. has it under the deal.

Mr. Emerson said Wednesday that reopening the three-country trade deal would not be a one way street and that Canada also has its list of concessions it would seek if the continental pact was renegotiated.

"There's no doubt if NAFTA were to be reopened we would want to have our list of priorities," Mr. Emerson said.

"Knowledgeable observers would have to take note of the fact that we are the largest supplier of energy to the U.S. and NAFTA has been the foundation for integrating the North American energy market. When people get below the rhetoric and pick away at the details, they are going to find it's not such a slam dunk proposition."

...

Mr. Emerson did not say Canada would insist on putting access to Canadian oil back on the table, but that provision in the deal has been a major concern to Canadian critics who argue that Canada would not be able to claim preferential treatment in a crisis.

Under the trade agreement, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the United States if there is a worldwide shortage or supply disruption unless supplies are also rationed to Canadian consumers by the same amount.

Earlier Wednesday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama may be misinformed about NAFTA.

"NAFTA is of tremendous benefit to Americans, and perhaps the nominees have not had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the benefit to Americans and the American economy of NAFTA, because there's a tendency to say 'it favours Mexico, or it favours Canada,' rather than to recognize the mutual benefits that come out of free trade," he said after a speech in Toronto.

 

[Kato]

Here's another one. Remember as you read this, that MCOOL is a violation of NAFTA.

NEW ORLEANS -- Stephen Harper issued a direct warning Tuesday in the debate over NAFTA's future, reminding Americans who want to reopen the accord that U.S. dependence on Canadian oil gives Canada a big bargaining chip.

The Prime Minister staked out his position as he joined presidents George W. Bush of the United States and Felipe Calderon of Mexico at a joint news conference to end their three-way summit, which turned into a pep rally supporting NAFTA in the face of threats from the Democratic presidential contenders to kill or rewrite it.

Mr. Harper said the deal has been good for North America and that the Canadian government's preference is not to renegotiate it. But he made clear he was ready to go that route if need be.

"We'll be prepared for any eventuality," he said of calls by Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to re-open the agreement to toughen environmental and labour standards.

Mr. Harper took the opportunity to play what many consider Canada's trump card in any future negotiations -- U.S. dependence on Canadian oil and gas.

"Canada is the United States' No. 1 supplier of energy," he said. "We are a secure and stable supplier that is of critical importance to the future of the United States.

"If we have to look at this kind of an option [a renegotiation], I say quite frankly, you know, 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."

Mr. Bush made a similar point, stressing more than once that Mexico and Canada stand out as secure and stable suppliers of oil at a time when prices are closing in on US$120 a barrel and when other U.S. suppliers in the Middle East are unpredictable at best.

Under the free-trade agreement, Canada is committed to keeping up its energy supplies to the United States even in times of shortages at home. In effect, it says cuts to U.S. buyers can be no deeper than they would be to Canadians.

Mr. Harper said he expects the next president will come to see the importance of the pact to North America and continue to work with it.

All three leaders launched staunch defences of the pact and stressed the benefits it has delivered. Mr. Calderon said reopening it would "condemn the region to complete backwardness" while India, China and the European Union are increasing their competitiveness.

Mr. Bush argued those "who say get rid of NAFTA as a throwaway political line" are playing with fire because ditching the agreement would cost jobs and investment in all three countries.

 

[Bill]

Let's throw it all on the table there Sadhusker!

Oil, gas, hydro all enregy. Lets shut it all off for say..... what..... 3..4..
months? At least through the holidays and heavy air conditioning season. Then let's see how much squawking and whining there is then.

Record food prices staring you in the face on top of that! Mortgages being foreclosed on ......? I am pretty sure there isn't much stomach for any thinking American to renegotiate with Canada.

 

[Sandhusker]

Kato, do you believe everything a salesman tells you? That's what this guy is doing, he's selling. This is not the opinion of a third party, it is the words of somebody how has an interest in the deal. Of course he's going to try to tell US citizens how good they've got it - he's protecting a lucrative deal.

Bill, if you think shutting it off is in your best interests, go for it. You don't send us energy, we don't send you money. Why not teach us all a lesson on how that works and don't sell anything from your place for a couple years.

 

[QUESTION]

Think before you speak sandH. The US isn't the only game in town the are others willing to pay for resorces as well. I think there was something about north korea and Iran looking for enriched uranuim for power production. :wink: Currently 40% of all the oil imported into the US comes from canada i wonder what the price of feul in the US would be if production of gas was cut back by 40%? Not a problem you guys could pay more and sink your economy . Or you could use more home grown feul like ethanol oh wait no natural gas means no fertilizer and vastly reduced yeilds. And if you need more corn for feul production that means even less food. The US imports 60 percent of the natural gas used in the production of nitrogen fertilizer from canada. So now you have higher feul prices, less feul, less food and it won't hurt the US. Face it your worst nightmare isn't terrorists it is a canadian prime minister who decides it is time to stop being mister nice guy and play hard ball.

 

[Bill]

Kato, do you believe everything a salesman tells you? That's what this guy is doing, he's selling. This is not the opinion of a third party, it is the words of somebody how has an interest in the deal. Of course he's going to try to tell US citizens how good they've got it - he's protecting a lucrative deal.

Bill, if you think shutting it off is in your best interests, go for it. You don't send us energy, we don't send you money. Why not teach us all a lesson on how that works and don't sell anything from your place for a couple years.

So now Sadhusker knows how trade works??????? :lol: :lol: A couple of years? It would take about two weeks and there would be widespread panic and rioting if Canadian enrgy was elimnated from the US.

Keep chasing that tail Sadhusker and the next thing you know you will be back up that tree once again.

 

[Sandhusker]

You bozos start a trade war with us and see how far that gets you.

 

[Silver]

boo hoo boo hoo. the great and benevolent usa would never treat another nation unfairly would they. it's called negotiating. you want a secure supply of energy we want access to markets. gow up. you can't be that stupid or could you?

It's called a shitty deal for US citizens. Everything has a price, and the price we're paying for the energy deal is too high. Have you ever wondered why the NAFTA supporters decided not to go through the proper proceedures to make it an offical treaty? I'll tell you - it's because it wouldn't of passed. You think US citizens want to keep a deal that they didn't want in the first place - especially now that we know the promises of NAFTA didn't come true?

You've still never addressed this deal SH, and I'd like to hear your take on it: If you take energy out of the equation you are in a trade surplus position with Canada. Do you think the USA is using more imported energy because of NAFTA, or would it be the same without it. If your energy consumption would be where it is regardless of NAFTA, how can you say your getting a shitty deal? From what I've read over 5 million Americans owe their jobs directly to the deal.

 

[Sandhusker]

boo hoo boo hoo. the great and benevolent usa would never treat another nation unfairly would they. it's called negotiating. you want a secure supply of energy we want access to markets. gow up. you can't be that stupid or could you?

It's called a shitty deal for US citizens. Everything has a price, and the price we're paying for the energy deal is too high. Have you ever wondered why the NAFTA supporters decided not to go through the proper proceedures to make it an offical treaty? I'll tell you - it's because it wouldn't of passed. You think US citizens want to keep a deal that they didn't want in the first place - especially now that we know the promises of NAFTA didn't come true?

You've still never addressed this deal SH, and I'd like to hear your take on it: If you take energy out of the equation you are in a trade surplus position with Canada. Do you think the USA is using more imported energy because of NAFTA, or would it be the same without it. If your energy consumption would be where it is regardless of NAFTA, how can you say your getting a shitty deal? From what I've read over 5 million Americans owe their jobs directly to the deal.

I think NAFTA has very little to do with how much energy we import from Canada. That wasn't subject to a tariff before, therefore what would a tariff-eliminating deal have to offer as benefit?

You can't selectively take out one huge part of trade and say "lookee here". What if oil goes back down to $20/ barrel? Are you still going to exclude energy? Where are you getting your information about energy being the big trader. I can't find anything more recent, but in 1998, energy was only 9% of Canada's exports to the US.

If the deal sans energy is such a good deal for the US, (which would have to be detrimental to the other party in the deal, Canada) why is your leader such a cheerleader for it?

 

[Kato]

Not a cheerleader. More of a person who abides by the signatures on the agreement. It's called integrity.

Read it again.

Under the free-trade agreement, Canada is committed to keeping up its energy supplies to the United States even in times of shortages at home. In effect, it says cuts to U.S. buyers can be no deeper than they would be to Canadians.

This is called energy security. This is the only energy security that the United States has outside it's own domestic supply. Not something your government takes lightly.

There are lots of people up here who can see big money in their pockets if NAFTA is reopened, and the U.S. government knows it. We're not all happy with all of NAFTA either, but you don't throw out the whole thing over one bit the you don't like. And you don't pick and chose which parts of the agreement you will honour if you expect the agreement to stand as a whole.

MCOOL violates NAFTA. Toss out NAFTA in order to have MCOOL, and a whole new set of issues come up that will make the old NAFTA look pretty good in hindsight. All we ask is that the U.S. government live up to it's word.

 

[Sandhusker]

Kato, "MCOOL violates NAFTA. "

A perfect example that illustrates the screwed up priorities of NAFTA.

If you want to argue violations, NAFTA violates the Constitution - which is the highest law in the US.

 

[Silver]

I think NAFTA has very little to do with how much energy we import from Canada. That wasn't subject to a tariff before, therefore what would a tariff-eliminating deal have to offer as benefit?

Exactly my point. Therefore it was a natural progression that you import more energy from us. Keep in mind you would have been importing it sooner if we had discovered / developed it sooner.

You can't selectively take out one huge part of trade and say "lookee here". What if oil goes back down to $20/ barrel? Are you still going to exclude energy? Where are you getting your information about energy being the big trader. I can't find anything more recent, but in 1998, energy was only 9% of Canada's exports to the US.

Of course you can. And you need to do it because of what we just discussed. Your country and mine depend on energy. We will consume it regardless of trade agreements. If oil goes back down to $20/bbl you may find yourselves in a trade surplus position again.
My information was gleaned from sitting in a tractor bored half to death listening to CBC radio discuss economics with so called experts. I have made the assumption that they are more knowledgeable than myself.
1998 was a very long time ago in the oilpatch. 10 years of oil boom since has made quite a difference.

If the deal sans energy is such a good deal for the US, (which would have to be detrimental to the other party in the deal, Canada) why is your leader such a cheerleader for it?

Probably for the same reasons yours is. You tell me. As far as I'm concerened, it's a bad deal. It's a bad deal for both of us if for no other reason than our joint loss of sovereignty. It's a bad deal for us because it is costing us our ability to rely on ourselves. Our packers are gone, our sawmills are closing, our oil and gas is being shipped out raw, our Canadian institutions are being bought up and/or forced out just by economy of scale. Jobs go with all those things..... straight to you.

 

[Sandhusker]

If you think it is a bad deal, why are you defending it? Why aren't you speaking up on ditching it like I am?

 

[Silver]

If you think it is a bad deal, why are you defending it? Why aren't you speaking up on ditching it like I am?

I am.... I just like to point out that while we may have arrived at the same final conclusion, your line of reasoning for getting there is flawed :wink: