Comments on: McCain: Nafta Worthy of Support http://www.poligazette.com/2008/03/02/mccain-nafta-worthy-of-support/ News and Analysis from Different Moderate Perspectives Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:03:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Jay_C http://www.poligazette.com/2008/03/02/mccain-nafta-worthy-of-support/#comment-28620 Jay_C Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:43:17 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/03/02/mccain-nafta-worthy-of-support/#comment-28620 Two developments to make a case against NAFTA 1)  Bush’s plan to regularize the flow of Mexicans into the United States and grant a still-vague legitimacy to illegals. 2)  In 2004 news spread that General Motors was to put it nicely was “uncompetitive” versus foreign made cars, even with the huge cash rebates and other incentives it’s used to help sales, it also gave away 1000 of  its cars and trucks. Since then things have not improved.  Their sales numbers as we saw recently are getting embarrasingly worse.Almost 15 years after it went into effect, NAFTA has failed to achieve its two major objectives:1)  Improve life for the typical Mexican to slow down the flow of illegals into the U.S. 2) Strengthening U.S. industry to help it increase market share at home and abroad, and boost the living standards of American workers. In addition, NAFTA supporters talk about increased U.S.-Mexican trade and investment flows, and about the 1990s boom that followed NAFTA, forgetting that expanding trade in an economic relationship has no importance independent of the structure of trade itself and its financial sustainability. I agree that some NAFTA opponents have made up some stories as well. Just as NAFTA could not have sparked the ’90s boom, its effects are not the "root of all evil" in a U.S. economy bigger than North American trade. And Mexico had no choice but to increase exports and assimilate itself more thoroughly with the United States. That being said, a good test of NAFTA’s success, should be economic change and reforms to encourage more Mexicans to stay in Mexico.  I’m not seeing that, overall I am seeing the opposite.I agree that China (and I’ll add India) are other Countries where our jobs are being lost. According to that USA today article, 39 million jobs outside of manufacturing may have been created in that time in the USA, but where are these jobs?  More service sector jobs I presume? (You want fries with that?) Have illegals taken any of these jobs? Two developments to make a case against NAFTA
1)  Bush’s plan to regularize the flow of Mexicans into the United States and grant a still-vague legitimacy to illegals.
2)  In 2004 news spread that General Motors was to put it nicely was “uncompetitive” versus foreign made cars, even with the huge cash rebates and other incentives it’s used to help sales, it also gave away 1000 of  its cars and trucks. Since then things have not improved.  Their sales numbers as we saw recently are getting embarrasingly worse.Almost 15 years after it went into effect, NAFTA has failed to achieve its two major objectives:1)  Improve life for the typical Mexican to slow down the flow of illegals into the U.S. 2) Strengthening U.S. industry to help it increase market share at home and abroad, and boost the living standards of American workers.
In addition, NAFTA supporters talk about increased U.S.-Mexican trade and investment flows, and about the 1990s boom that followed NAFTA, forgetting that expanding trade in an economic relationship has no importance independent of the structure of trade itself and its financial sustainability. I agree that some NAFTA opponents have made up some stories as well. Just as NAFTA could not have sparked the ’90s boom, its effects are not the "root of all evil" in a U.S. economy bigger than North American trade. And Mexico had no choice but to increase exports and assimilate itself more thoroughly with the United States. That being said, a good test of NAFTA’s success, should be economic change and reforms to encourage more Mexicans to stay in Mexico.  I’m not seeing that, overall I am seeing the opposite.I agree that China (and I’ll add India) are other Countries where our jobs are being lost. According to that USA today article, 39 million jobs outside of manufacturing may have been created in that time in the USA, but where are these jobs?  More service sector jobs I presume? (You want fries with that?) Have illegals taken any of these jobs?

]]> By: Barack Obama » McCain: Nafta Worthy of Support http://www.poligazette.com/2008/03/02/mccain-nafta-worthy-of-support/#comment-28492 Barack Obama » McCain: Nafta Worthy of Support Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:26:20 +0000 http://poligazette.com/2008/03/02/mccain-nafta-worthy-of-support/#comment-28492 [...] Democratic Central wrote an interesting post today on McCain: Nafta Worthy of SupportHere’s a quick excerptSenator for Arizona John McCain reacted to Barack Obama’s constant bashing … He also blasted Obama and Hillary Clinton (who’s also critical… [...] [...] Democratic Central wrote an interesting post today on McCain: Nafta Worthy of SupportHere’s a quick excerptSenator for Arizona John McCain reacted to Barack Obama’s constant bashing … He also blasted Obama and Hillary Clinton (who’s also critical… [...]

]]> PoliGazette » McCain: Nafta Worthy of Support

McCain: Nafta Worthy of Support

March 2nd, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Senator for Arizona John McCain reacted to Barack Obama’s constant bashing of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) by saying that the trade deal is worthy of support. He also blasted Obama and Hillary Clinton (who’s also critical of NAFTA in its current shape) by saying that their anti-NAFTA rhetoric may very well “threaten Canada’s contribution to the war in Afghanistan.”

It’s interesting to see that the two candidates of the party that constantly talks about how George W. Bush has destroyed America’s image in the world, are - it seems - determined to destroy the (few) good relationships America still has.

McCain clearly understands that America can’t afford to alienate Canada and Mexico, and he’s - in turn - determined to make this clear to both countries involved.

“I want to tell our Canadian friends that I will negotiate and conclude free trade agreements and I will not, after entering into solemn agreements, go and say that I will abrogate those agreements,” McCain said. “Every time in history we have practised protectionism, we have paid a very heavy price for it.”

And that’s quite true. Obama and Clinton may call for protectionism because it’s the popular thing to do right now, but it won’t help America one bit. In fact, breaking with NAFTA is likely to cause the US considerable damage.

Perhaps Obama and Clinton should lead on this issue and not just tell certain - ignorant - voters what they want to hear.

McCain also illustrates that he understands that foreign policy isn’t about ‘helping’ someone else, it’s about helping each other. You only help a country, you only deal with a country, because doing so is in your own interest. The same goes, of course, for the other country involved.

Anyway, this means that if a country like the United States threatens to break with an important treaty (for Canada), Canada in its turn may very well threaten to break with the US on an issue that matters greatly to itself. That’s how the world works.

“One of the greatest assets we have in Afghanistan today, frankly, are our Canadian friends,” McCain said in this regard. “It’s very controversial in Canada, their commitment and suffering and the losses they have faced.… We need their continued support in Afghanistan,” he added.

At this point in time, McCain is the only candidate behaving like a (future) president.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

.
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

Warning: is_writable() [function.is-writable]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(error_log) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/p6525pol:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in /home/p6525pol/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 500