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

Stop NAFTA Plus by Repealing NAFTA

A

Anonymous

Guest
Stop "NAFTA Plus" by Repealing NAFTA
by John F. McManus
November 27, 2006
The New American





A growing number of Americans have already been alerted about plans to create a North American Union (NAU), merging the United States, Mexico, and Canada. While news of this monstrous betrayal has yet to reach most fellow citizens, widespread awareness about the enormous harm caused by NAFTA already exists. Closed factories, lost jobs, more open borders, even judicial panels overruling U.S. court decisions are NAFTA's legacy. Now, the newly crafted NAU, rightly dubbed "NAFTA Plus," is being steered toward enactment by some of the very same people who gave us NAFTA in the first place.
The impetus for U.S. entry into NAFTA began during the Reagan administration (1981-1989) when determined internationalist George W. Shultz served as secretary of state. In the late 1980s, with Shultz's eager concurrence, Mr. Reagan and his Canadian counterpart signed a Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement. To serve as his negotiator for trade matters, President George H.W. Bush named Carla A. Hills U.S. trade representative. In that post, she became the primary overseer and promoter of the NAFTA pact. Ms. Hills is a proud member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

During the campaign to persuade Congress to approve NAFTA, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, along with Shultz a proud internationalist and prominent CFR member, authored a newspaper column in which he resoundingly supported everything about NAFTA. "It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War," he wrote, "and the first step toward the even larger version of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." That kind of endorsement should have been enough for members of Congress to reject the idea, but they approved the measure and, in so doing, moved our nation a giant step toward immersion into regional and then global governance — government run by unelected elitists like those of the European Union — that is euphemistically known as the "new world order."

Fast forward now to 2006 when we find George Shultz and Carla Hills among numerous U.S. internationalists at a highly secret September 12-14 gathering of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican heavyweights. Their goal? To promote the creation of the North American Union. These would-be world rulers met at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Alberta, Canada. No press was allowed at what was labeled for participants the "North American Forum." The Canada West Foundation and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, a group patterned after our nation's Council on Foreign Relations, hosted the event. But Canadian author and politician Mel Hurtig happened to be invited, and he blew the whistle after discovering the group's plans for "the integration of Canada into the United States." The tight secrecy about the entire event bothered him "hugely."

Each of the participating nations sent a few dozen high-level government and corporate dignitaries. Subject matter covered during the three days included energy, security, border infrastructure, and the demographic and social dimensions of merging the three nations. Obviously, these planners haven't left much out of their designs. Defending national independence wasn't on the agenda.

In addition to Shultz and Hills, the U.S. delegation featured Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Other U.S. participants included former Energy Secretary James Schlesinger; former CIA Director James Woolsey; former Defense Secretary William Perry; Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady; the ever-present Robert Pastor whose 2002 Toward a North American Community served as a launching pad for the NAU; and Admiral Tim Keating, who leads the U.S. Northern Command.

It will now be a bit more difficult for President Bush to downplay the importance of the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico, which he says is merely to increase trade and promote national security. After attending this gathering, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon informed an Ottawa audience that the North American Forum was a "parallel structure to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."

So here we have some of the important NAFTA builders working to expand their destructive creation into a carbon copy of the European Union that is already dominant over 25 once-independent countries. Very few members of Congress have even heard about this treachery. As we have shown, it started with NAFTA, and is expected to become a North American Union, then an expanded union of the entire Western Hemisphere, and finally a union of all countries. But an outraged American public can pressure Congress to pull our nation out of NAFTA, and the whole scheme would collapse like a child's house of cards.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Proof of NAFTA's Failure

NAFTA is a failure. That comes as no surprise to some people but now the best evidence is a project promoted as the NAFTA Highway. When NAFTA was created there was debate over whether it would produce prosperity for Mexico. If it did, as its proponents argued, then it would go a long way toward solving the illegal immigration problem. Critics were dubious of such vaulted expectations. Now comes proof of the critics predictions.

The proposed NAFTA Highway would run from Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico to Kansas City. Further expansions would ultimately take it into Canada. The reason for the highway would not be to bring cheap goods into the U.S. from Mexico. If it were, then we would have to say that NAFTA had achieved a degree of success. NAFTA was created in part to make sure that the U.S., Canada, and Mexico would be competitive in the world markets with Asia. The NAFTA Highway is a concession to defeat.

The plan is to make Lazaro Cardenas into a gigantic container ship terminal to unload cargo from China. Wal-Mart has teamed up with a Chinese based company to expand the port. It is expected that the port will be necessary to accommodate the ever-increasing level of Chinese imports that ports on the west coast of the U.S. will be unable to handle. Manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S. are not going to Mexico. But the “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving will indeed go south. It will then continue on through Lazaro Cardenas to China.

Mexican laborers will still be left in poverty, beat out of their own game by even cheaper Chinese labor. Their best hope for better paying jobs will lie north, the hope looking ever brighter in contrast to their own growing impoverishment. Yes, the very proponents of NAFTA are confessing to its failure, not in words, but by their actions.



Contact The Stevenson Report by email at [email protected] or view at www.thestevensonreport.com
 

Econ101

Well-known member
ocm said:
Proof of NAFTA's Failure

NAFTA is a failure. That comes as no surprise to some people but now the best evidence is a project promoted as the NAFTA Highway. When NAFTA was created there was debate over whether it would produce prosperity for Mexico. If it did, as its proponents argued, then it would go a long way toward solving the illegal immigration problem. Critics were dubious of such vaulted expectations. Now comes proof of the critics predictions.

The proposed NAFTA Highway would run from Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico to Kansas City. Further expansions would ultimately take it into Canada. The reason for the highway would not be to bring cheap goods into the U.S. from Mexico. If it were, then we would have to say that NAFTA had achieved a degree of success. NAFTA was created in part to make sure that the U.S., Canada, and Mexico would be competitive in the world markets with Asia. The NAFTA Highway is a concession to defeat.

The plan is to make Lazaro Cardenas into a gigantic container ship terminal to unload cargo from China. Wal-Mart has teamed up with a Chinese based company to expand the port. It is expected that the port will be necessary to accommodate the ever-increasing level of Chinese imports that ports on the west coast of the U.S. will be unable to handle. Manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S. are not going to Mexico. But the “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving will indeed go south. It will then continue on through Lazaro Cardenas to China.

Mexican laborers will still be left in poverty, beat out of their own game by even cheaper Chinese labor. Their best hope for better paying jobs will lie north, the hope looking ever brighter in contrast to their own growing impoverishment. Yes, the very proponents of NAFTA are confessing to its failure, not in words, but by their actions.



Contact The Stevenson Report by email at [email protected] or view at www.thestevensonreport.com

...and all this time China capitalizes on its cheap, suppressed communist labor--trading that cheap labor for IOUs our children must pay in a currency manipulation scheme. We have sold our democracy to the communists and everyone takes part in it at Walmart or Sam's. Walmart and Sams and many other businesses have sought out to gain a competitive advantage to their peers in these cheap goods that are undoing our democracy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The plan is to make Lazaro Cardenas into a gigantic container ship terminal to unload cargo from China. Wal-Mart has teamed up with a Chinese based company to expand the port. It is expected that the port will be necessary to accommodate the ever-increasing level of Chinese imports that ports on the west coast of the U.S. will be unable to handle. Manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S. are not going to Mexico. But the “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving will indeed go south. It will then continue on through Lazaro Cardenas to China.

And folks laughed at old Ross when he talked about the "giant sucking sound" .... He's probably still "more of an American" and a better candidate than anything either the Dems or Pubs can/will put up....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Global trade: US turns around



Nevil Gibson, Editor-in-chief

National Business Review

17-Nov-2006



The shock denial by the US House of Representatives to extend normal trade relations with Vietnam - a new World Trade Organisation member - and Apec leaders' meeting host country this week ­ shows global policy is headed for a bumpy future.



The defeat was handed down by the outgoing House, which will be replaced in the new year by a majority of Democrats. More than 60 Republicans voted against because they still had misgivings about Vietnam's communist government.



The Ralph Nader-founded Public Citizen, an anti-free trade think tank, reported 44 Congressional seats (both House and Senate) were won by "fair trade" advocates opposed to policies of the WTO, Nafta (North American Free Trade Agreement) and presidential trade promotion (fast-track) authority.



The Bridges weekly trade news digest indicates there will be a strong "push back" for the president's authority to negotiate trade deals without need for approved by the Congress ­ a process that makes them virtually impossible for the other party.



A study by by the Swiss Institute for International Economics analysed the 63 new members of the Congress on their attitudes to trade policy. It found 22 "trade sceptics" would replace "trade-friendly" members. The study concluded the elections delivered a "major blow" to the Bush administration's trade strategy of "competitive liberalisation."



The president's fast-track powers are due to expire in the middle of next year. FTAs with Peru and Colombia ­ an essential; part of the Bush administration's foreign policy of linking trade with security issues ­ look doomed. New Zealand is not even on the agenda.



Analysis of the new Democrat majorities show they are also unlikely to cut subsidies in the annual Farm Bill and are likely to press for tougher restrictions on imports from China over issues such as the overvalued yuan and intellectual property protection. Few FTAs are likely to meet the Democrats' concerns on labour and environmental issues.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
For 7 years prior to bse being discovered in Canada, we exported an average of $1.3 "BILLION DOLLARS" more beef, beef variety meats, hides, and live cattle COMBINED than we imported. This amounted to about $28 per head more for our cattle. R-CULT's phony biased trade data won't tell you that.

Yup, NAFTA sure was a failure to isolationists like ocm, Conman, and OT who simply don't know any better.

"AFWAID TO TWADE"

Next they'll be bitching about imported cattle from neighboring states. Gotta bitch about something.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "NAFTA covers a few more commodities than beef."

You sure hate good news about trade don't you?

I'll bet you're just jumping for joy now with all the liberals controlling the house and senate aren't you? Now you can find a sympathetic ear from your fellow congressional blamers and really stop trade progress can't you?

Break those large evil corporations down and spread that wealth to those who feel entitled to a portion of other's success. Watch the economy get flushed right down the sh*tter by your fellow blamers.



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "NAFTA covers a few more commodities than beef."

You sure hate good news about trade don't you?

I'll bet you're just jumping for joy now with all the liberals controlling the house and senate aren't you? Now you can find a sympathetic ear from your fellow congressional blamers and really stop trade progress can't you?

Break those large evil corporations down and spread that wealth to those who feel entitled to a portion of other's success. Watch the economy get flushed right down the sh*tter by your fellow blamers.



~SH~

Leave to you to back something (NAFTA) Clinton signed into law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rhetoric vs. Reality


There is no shortage of politicians and media outlets who will tell you that free trade agreements are a "win-win" proposition, and that they will create more jobs than they will destroy.
Bush said CAFTA would boost textile and other U.S. manufacturers by eliminating tariffs on many American goods imported by Central American nations. Also, he said, the measure would help stabilize the democratic governments in the region by increasing U.S. trade, which he said would make Central American workers more prosperous. "It's a pro-jobs bill," Bush said. "It's a pro-growth bill. It is a pro-democracy bill."

But is that true?

What isn't well known is that CAFTA isn't simply a matter of dropping tarrifs.
Chief among the objections offered by NASDA and many other CAFTA critics is the fact that the supposed "free trade" agreement would impose what amounts to unilateral trade disarmament on U.S. agricultural producers. The six foreign nations included in the pact would be granted immediate access to U.S. food markets. However, U.S. producers would have to wait for years, or even decades, in order to be granted reciprocal access.
Since CAFTA was modelled after NAFTA (with today being the anniversary of the House passing it), it's fair to compare the two. How has NAFTA effected the U.S. economy in the last 16 years?
Since the passage of [NAFTA], the United States has lost half of its textile mill jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.





Despite predictions that NAFTA would create 170,000 American jobs in just the first two years, Congress set up the NAFTA-TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance) program for displaced workers. Between 1994 and the end of 2002, 525,094 specific U.S. workers were certified for assitance under this program. Since then NAFTA-TAA has merged with the general TAA, making it harder to track job losses.

The Economic Policy Institute estimated that by the year 2005, 1,015,291 U.S. jobs and job opportunities (jobs that would have existed without NAFTA's incentives to relocate factories) have vanished. Or to put it another way: "Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs."

Also worth noting is the wages of the jobs being outsourced.
The NAFTA job losses are skewed toward high-wage jobs. We divide wages into three brackets: low (paying less than the 20th percentile of the real 1979 male wage distribution, or $8.83/hour in 1996 dollars), medium (21st-74th percentiles, or $8.83-$19.08/hour), and high (above the 75th percentile, or more than $19.08/hour). Since 1979, the real wage structure of our economy has moved significantly downward, as increasingly more workers have slipped into lower income brackets. NAFTA contributes to this trend: while only 21% of jobs in the 1989 economy were in the high-wage bracket, 23% of the jobs eliminated by NAFTA trade fall in that category. In contrast, the low-wage bracket represented 36% of 1989 jobs but only 32% of NAFTA casualties.
"Should job exports continue apace, the U.S. will be a Third World country in 20 years."
- Paul Craig Roberts

Meanwhile, all those manufacturing jobs that were lost, forced previously well-paid workers, often in union jobs, into non-union service jobs that traditionally pay much less. The unionized percentage of the manufacturing workforce has dropped by 47% since 1983 (in comparison, the unionized construction percentage has dropped 33% over the same period).
Jacob Hacker argues that the pain inflicted on the middle and lower classes by globalized competition is getting sharper. He claims that when a family loses a job today it tends to lose a bigger portion of its income than it did in the 1970s.

“The typical family that stumbled [in the ’70s],” explains the USA Today report, “lost 27% of its annual income. But over the last decade as globalization moved into high gear, the income loss averaged around 40%. For a family in 2004 earning the median income of $43,200, that would mean a crippling decline of $17,280.”
This has led to income stratification. Where once in 1980 the top 1% took 8% of the national income, they now take 16%..

All this is reflected in the trade numbers. In 1993 America had a $1.8 Billion surplus in trade with Mexico. By 2004 we had a $60.4 Billion trade deficit with Mexico. Of course this would make perfect sense when you consider the hundreds of factories that used to produce goods in America, now produce goods in Mexico for export to America.

While this is terrible, you would think that NAFTA would have been great for Mexico. Surprisingly the answer is "no". Mexico has lost even more jobs because of NAFTA than America has.
"NAFTA has not helped the Mexican economy keep pace with the growing demand for jobs…The agricultural sector, where almost a fifth of Mexicans still work, has lost 1.3 million jobs" (Audley, Papademetriou, Polaski, and Vaughan 2003, 5-6).
In fact, the wages of manufacturing workers in Mexico have done nothing but go down in relative terms. In 1993, Mexican hourly compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing were 14.5% of those for their counterparts in the United States. By 2001 they had fallen to 11.5% of U.S. costs.


Basic economic theory says that any increase in trade is a "win-win" situation, but our experience with NAFTA says otherwise. This would lead to the assumption that something was flawed in the NAFTA agreement.

But then why do the pro-NAFTA people not say that? Why don't they just say, "Oops! We'll get it right next time." Instead they deny what the vast majority of working men and women in America have figured out (judging by the ballot box) despite a steady barrage of corporate and political propaganda. They deny the obvious at the risk of discrediting themselves completely. The reason is that like most economic theories, the "free trade = win-win" scenerio doesn't live up to real life experience.

Good article:

www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/4374/2/
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"The Economic Policy Institute estimated that by the year 2005, 1,015,291 U.S. jobs and job opportunities (jobs that would have existed without NAFTA's incentives to relocate factories) have vanished. Or to put it another way: "Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs." "

Dang, I hate that good news about trade. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
There is no doubt that simply dropping trade restrictions has both negative and positive economic impacts. There is also little doubt that the positive impacts are almost entirely confined to the upper classes of society, while the negative impacts are confined to the lower classes. There is reason to believe that the negative impacts overwhelm the positive impacts.

The American people haven't been fooled by the propoganda. The Democrats that they elected know this to. But corporate interests are often stronger than voter influence if the voters don't hold the politicians accountable.

The question is: will it be any different this time?
 

Mike

Well-known member
  • The six foreign nations included in the pact (CAFTA) would be granted immediate access to U.S. food markets. However, U.S. producers would have to wait for years, or even decades, in order to be granted reciprocal access.
    Haven't we been told that rising tide raises all ships?

    Well, that would be true except for the ones who are anchored.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"The Economic Policy Institute estimated that by the year 2005, 1,015,291 U.S. jobs and job opportunities (jobs that would have existed without NAFTA's incentives to relocate factories) have vanished. Or to put it another way: "Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs."

In typical liberal pipe vision style, Sandbag can only see the jobs lost instead of the jobs created due to consumers having more money to spend elsewhere from the money they saved on imported products.

Money saved by consumers shopping for imported products at Walmart, which may have cost some jobs in the US, is offset by an increase in other jobs. What consumers save from buying imported products, they spend in other areas.

All NAFTA blamers can ever see is the jobs lost NOT THE JOBS CREATED. Typical tunnel vision of a blamer.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep- SH is one of those folks that think we should all be working for $6 an hour and a free taco for lunch...

I know of a job opening for you SH in beautiful downtown Helena Mt.- if you can stand all the liberals there.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "Yep- SH is one of those folks that think we should all be working for $6 an hour and a free taco for lunch... "

Another mindless statement because you can't argue the fact that money saved in one place is spent in another. Something you shallow thinking isolationists will never understand.

Just like banning imports from Canada will eventually be subtracted from exports to Japan and Korea but you import blamers simply cannot see that far ahead.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
"The Economic Policy Institute estimated that by the year 2005, 1,015,291 U.S. jobs and job opportunities (jobs that would have existed without NAFTA's incentives to relocate factories) have vanished. Or to put it another way: "Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs."

In typical liberal pipe vision style, Sandbag can only see the jobs lost instead of the jobs created due to consumers having more money to spend elsewhere from the money they saved on imported products.

Money saved by consumers shopping for imported products at Walmart, which may have cost some jobs in the US, is offset by an increase in other jobs. What consumers save from buying imported products, they spend in other areas.

All NAFTA blamers can ever see is the jobs lost NOT THE JOBS CREATED. Typical tunnel vision of a blamer.


~SH~

You haven't figured out that the money saved buying foreign crap at Walmart is used to buy more foreign crap at Walmart, which just accelerates the problems.

The article does say NAFTA has created jobs. You didn't read the part where it also stated MORE jobs were LOST than CREATED - and to put a cherry on top, the jobs lost payed better than the jobs gained.

Always having to take the contrary view sure makes you some up with some idiotic statements, but hey, we appreciate the entertainment you provide.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
OT: "Yep- SH is one of those folks that think we should all be working for $6 an hour and a free taco for lunch... "

Another mindless statement because you can't argue the fact that money saved in one place is spent in another. Something you shallow thinking isolationists will never understand.

Just like banning imports from Canada will eventually be subtracted from exports to Japan and Korea but you import blamers simply cannot see that far ahead.


~SH~

SH- Are you a tenured State employee? With longevity/pension benefits and all? Must be costing SD $4000- $5000 a month when you add in all the perks/taxs/insurances...

I know S.D. could save a small fortune by bringing in some trappers...I've heard those pygmy Bushmen are excellent trackers and trappers...Probably contract work for a couple hundred $ a month and eat all the gophers they trapped (work incentive)....

Give you a chance to actually own cows again and make this fortune you tell everyone is out there to be had.....Or maybe Dittmer needs a Jr. partner shoveling bullsh*t...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "You haven't figured out that the money saved buying foreign crap at Walmart is used to buy more foreign crap at Walmart, which just accelerates the problems."

Then don't buy anymore crap at Walmart but don't tell others where to shop simply because you don't like large successful corporations.


Sandbag: "The article does say NAFTA has created jobs. You didn't read the part where it also stated MORE jobs were LOST than CREATED - and to put a cherry on top, the jobs lost payed better than the jobs gained."

What's obvious to anyone with any common sense is that money saved in one area will be spent in another. I suppose all those Walmart employees are being forced to work there at gunpoint huh?

PUNISH ACHIEVEMENT!
REGULATE PROSPERITY!

That's the liberal's battle cry.


Sandbag: "Always having to take the contrary view sure makes you some up with some idiotic statements, but hey, we appreciate the entertainment you provide."

Still talking for that turd you carry around in your pocket huh?


OT: "SH- Are you a tenured State employee? With longevity/pension benefits and all? Must be costing SD $4000- $5000 a month when you add in all the perks/taxs/insurances..."

DIVERSION!

Same-O, Same-O from the "FACTUALLY VOID" amongst us.


OT: "I know S.D. could save a small fortune by bringing in some trappers...I've heard those pygmy Bushmen are excellent trackers and trappers...Probably contract work for a couple hundred $ a month and eat all the gophers they trapped (work incentive)...."

I shiver at the thought of what kind of a law man you would have been. Influenced by public opinion, suppport for unenforceable laws, making up allegations you can't support. No wonder you seek solace with other blamers.


OT: "Give you a chance to actually own cows again and make this fortune you tell everyone is out there to be had.....Or maybe Dittmer needs a Jr. partner shoveling bullsh*t..."

If I wanted to own more cows than I own, I would. I never said there was a fortune to be made in cattle. That's a damn lie.

Why don't you bitch about all the big money buying up ranches and running cattle at a loss? You compete against that but your bitching won't stop that either will it?

Some guys make more money than others but most of them aren't down at the local pub crying in their beer about all the things you bitch about.

You don't like Dittmer because he tells you the truth about the stupidity of standing in front of the American consumer saying that "USDA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT FOOD SAFETY" and "CANADIAN BEEF IS CONTAMINATED DUE TO HAVING BSE IN THEIR NATIVE HERD".

Yeh, I don't suppose you'd like Dittmer too much when he points out your obvious stupidity in maintaining the integrity of the safety of our food but then if we have BSE, you can just change your story to only apply to Canada like the deceivers you are right?

Go polish your badge and tell yourself what a great lawman you were.


~SH~
 
Top