Edwards Condemns NAFTA

[Stop Cornyn]

Edwards Condemns NAFTA:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says he wants to replace the empty promise that NAFTA would create millions of jobs with his own promise to be a tough negotiator on trade deals.

On the 14th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Edwards planned to condemn the deal that lowered trade barriers between the United States and Canada and Mexico, arguing that it has paved the way for a series of deals that put the interests of multninational corporations ahead of working families.

"NAFTA was sold to the American people with promises that it would grow the economy and create millions of new jobs. But today, we know those promises were empty," he said in remarks prepared for delivery at a town hall forum in Derry. "In all three countries, it has hurt workers and families while helping corporate insiders."

The former North Carolina senator said more than 5 million American jobs have gone overseas since President Bush took office, and that up to 30 million more could follow in the next decade.

"The folks in Washington say that trade is good for the economy, even if it hurts a few 'losers,'" he said. "That's the word they use, losers, and it tells you something about how they see regular American workers and families who are struggling to compete."

The former North Carolina senator said the effects of NAFTA and other trade deals is evident in New Hampshire's north country, where several paper mills have closed in recent years. As president, he said he would pursue trade deals that leave most families better off and that include strong labor and environmental standards.

Edwards also has said he would make enforcing trade laws a greater priority and eliminate tax incentives that encourage U.S. companies to move overseas.

[saracat]

1. Vote Edwards for caring for the real Americans!

[Benhurst]

2. Great! Hillary? Obama? It's to stand up and be counted. Our

nominee should be one who comes out against NAFTA and other such trade agreements and for single-payer universal national health.

[balantz]

3. Edwards is substance and REAL change, not hype.

[DaLittle Kitty]

48. NAFTA is why over 20% of voters in '92 selected Ross Perot

We need to nominate the candidate that will stand up for working people, rather than bend to the will of money and the corporation.

John Edwards is that candidate. :woohoo:

[Kurovski]

4. K&R # 5.

What are Sen. Clinton's views on NAFTA? I keep forgetting. I know Ross Perot gives her a larf.

Seriously.

[asdjrocky]

5. Great post!

K&R

[Kurovski]

6. Try hitting recommend again.

I think you might have forgot. Maybe. :hi:

[asdjrocky]

10. oops...Ty nt

[polichick]

7. Edwards is the one - maybe the only one - who would take on corporate America...

...of the top three, that is.

[OhioChick]

21. Agreed.

I like what John stands for....."We the People."

[NorthCarolina]

38. You're Living in a Dream World if you think that.

As our glorious Senator here in NC he was anything but a populist, and spent almost his entire term on the campaign trail while disregarding his duties in DC. He would never have been elected to a second term had he chosen to run again as he was VERY unpopular here.

As for his comments on NAFTA, I guess he noticed Kucinich was making some headway on that issue and so decided to attempt and usurp that message.

If you take the time to REALLY look at voting records, and compare the record of Kucinich vs the infrequent legislative votes cast by John Edwards you will clearly see who the real populist is, and who is the opportunistic phony.

Sorry if this rubs some folks the wrong way, but you know what they say...the truth always hurts the worst.

My vote solidly goes to Kucinich for all the right reasons.

[Plucketeer]

46. The last "perfect" person was

crucified at age 33 - or so the story goes. I'll take someone who's learned from experience - experience which involved making mistakes and adjusting course accordingly.
Someone who's portrayed as having "gotten it right every single time"???? - I'd be cringing - waiting for the odds to catch up with them!

[polichick]

47. Coming from NC, you're a good one to ask...

Since it's pretty obvious that Edwards' Senate record doesn't match his current positions, in your opinion is he completely ego-driven and just faking it to get elected; or could he actually be taking his cues from the people because he wants to serve? I could see it more the first way if his wife wasn't sick ~ the fact that they've chosen this difficult path makes me think it might be more the second.

(My post was about the top three only ~ Kucinich is more a match with my positions, and would get rid of NAFTA.)

[NorthCarolina]

49. I Honestly Believe

that he is not truly believable. He has always worked hard to be a DC insider and many of us here in NC feel that he abandoned us to do just that. I can all but guarantee you he would not have been reelected to a second term in the Senate had he run again. Also, don't forget that it was Edwards that helped to bring legislation like The Patriot Act to America, and was even a cosponsor of it I believe. That in itself speaks volumes to me personally as far as "character" goes. Like you say, his Senate Record simply doesn't match his positions. Could he have had some "epiphany"? Sure, I suppose, but ask yourself what YOU believe.... Epiphany or Election Doublespeak......for me though, Republican lite voting record, history of being a better campaigner than a legislator, beginning to photo-ops with Labor Unions only after deciding to run for President, and (this one is a dead give away) the corporate media likes him enough to give him some air time as #3 in their chosen "Top Three".

So yes, something smells a bit rotten to me, at least enough to keep me away which is really no big deal anyway because there already is another candidate who envisions the world as I do, who speaks from Populist life experience and who has a long voting record to back it up. One who speaks of compassion for a fast disappearing middle class, who openly advocates Not for Profit Health Care reform (no interim baby steps needed to placate the for-profit Insurance man), who is against war as an instrument of policy, who respects the environment, who has a LONG TRACK RECORD of support for Union Labor (not just a convenient one), who will cancel NAFTA (not amend it), who will exit the WTO, and rescind the Patriot Act in his first few days in office, who will protect the privacy, independence, and freedom of our Internet, who will create works projects here in America creating millions of new jobs in rebuilding our infrastructure the likes of which have not been proposed since the late 1930's, who see's GLBT Americans as human beings entitled to the same pursuit of happiness that every other American enjoys, and who is a proven uniter. To me talk is cheap...but show me a long and consistent track record of standing up for the little guy AS A LEGISLATOR in any capacity and I'll listen. Kucinich has my vote.


I don't really have any intent or desire to convince you, or anyone else for that matter, whether to be "for" or "against" any candidate really, because you and only you can make such decisions of course. I do periodically interject my thoughts based on my own personal experiences, and gut feelings..... kind of an opinion I guess, and we all know what opinions are like....and yep, everyone has one.

[earth mom]

8. You bet I'll K & R this.

:kick:

[frogmarch]

9. Edwards is my #1 choice, mainly because

he stands for the working class.

Go Edwards!

:kick: and Recommended

[cuke]

11. But John, your position is the same as the other candidates

At one of the debates, they were asked about NAFTA, and every one of the candidates except Kucinich said the same thing you just said - tougher enforcement, eliminate the subsidies, and tougher negotiations.

[jillan]

12. I was just thinking the same thing.

[1corona4u]

23. Exactly my thoughts too.

[Stop Cornyn]

13. Actually, there is a huge difference between fair traders Kucinich and Edwards and the rest

Council on Foreign Relations Evaluation of the Candidates on Trade Issues

Dennis Kucinich

Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) has been one of the most adamant congressional critics of free trade, saying it is responsible for lost jobs in the United States and abusive working conditions abroad. He voted against the creation of FTAs with Oman, Singapore, and Chile, and against the Trade Act of 2002. He says if elected, he will withdraw the United States from NAFTA immediately. In November 2007, Kucinich voted against legislation authorizing an FTA with Peru. That FTA passed in the House, however.

Kucinich also voted against the CAFTA Implementation Bill in 2005, saying, “trade agreements are seeking cheaper labor where they can go to countries where the labor is cheap, but they are not selling American goods there. So we are seeing that we are not finding new markets for our goods; yet, we are finding markets for cheap labor. That is what these trade agreements do.”

Kucinich voted in favor of a 2005 House resolution proposing U.S. withdrawal from the WTO. Although that resolution failed, he continues to advocate withdrawal. He also voted against the Africa Free Trade bill. Kucinich has generally voted against any bills that extend normal trade relations treatment to China. He voted against the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2002, which authorized the extension of normalized trade relations between the U.S. and China, as long as China agreed to join the World Trade Organization.

John Edwards

Sen. Edwards (D-NC) has been increasingly critical of free trade policies, arguing that they have diminished protections for labor and the environment. In October 2007, Edwards spoke against the FTA with Peru, which he says is simply an attempt to expand NAFTA. Upon that FTA's November 2007 passage in the House, Edwards said he was "disappointed," and criticized Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) for supporting the legislation. He also pledged to oppose efforts to create similar trade deals (FT) with Colombia and Panama.

Edwards has also criticized the Bush administration’s push for a trade agreement with South Korea. Edwards said in a February 2007 statement that “Bush should shut down all trade negotiations with South Korea until they prove their willingness to open their market to American automobiles and other U.S. products and agree to trade fairly.” As a senator, Edwards voted against the implementation of the FTA with Chile in 2003, and against the Africa Free Trade bill in 1999. But he voted in favor of the U.S.-China Relations Act in 2000. Edwards is critical of NAFTA, but he was not in Senate at the time of its passage in 1993. Forbes magazine, in an index examining candidate positions on critical campaign issues, ranks Edwards at the most liberal end of the Democratic spectrum on trade issues.

Barack Obama

Sen. Obama (D-IL) generally supports free trade policies, though like many of his fellow Democratic candidates, he has expressed concern about free trade agreements that do not include labor and environmental protections. Obama voted to approve the 2006 FTA with Oman. He opposed CAFTA, however, explaining in 2005, “It does less to protect labor than previous trade agreements, and does little to address enforcement of basic environmental standards in the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic.” In an August 2007 Democratic debate, Obama said he would meet with the Canadian and Mexican heads of state to “try to amend NAFTA,” saying the agreement “should reflect the principle that our trade should not just be good for Wall Street, but should also be good for Main Street”.

Hillary Clinton

In general a supporter of free trade, Sen. Clinton (D-NY) voted in support of the creation of FTAs with Chile, Singapore, and Oman. But like Biden, she criticized the FTAs with Chile and Singapore for what she said was their weak enforcement of International Labor Organization (ILO) standards. She said “the labor provisions in the Chile and Singapore agreements should not be used as a model for future trade agreements.” Clinton voted against CAFTA and the Trade Act of 2002. In 2004, Clinton voted for the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, which she said “offers greater access to Australian markets for U.S. manufacturers.” Most recently, Clinton spoke out against the pending FTA with South Korea (Reuters), which she called "inherently unfair," particularly for the U.S. auto industry. She has also criticized FTAs with Colombia and Panama. Clinton expressed support, on the other hand, for the FTA with Peru, which passed in the House in November 2007.

Clinton has parted ways with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, on several trade-related issues. She has expressed skepticism about aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which he supported, and has taken less enthusiastic positions on the benefits of globalization more generally. Clinton also expresses concerns over U.S. trade practices with China. “We just can't keep doing what we did in the 20th century,” she said in a recent interview (Bloomberg).

Also Ran

Gov. Richardson (D-NM) has called himself a “free trader” (Albuquerque Journal), though he has called for increased enforcement of labor standards and environmental protection in free trade agreements. As U.S. ambassador to the UN, Richardson praised free trade and the International Monetary Fund. He has particularly promoted free trade between the U.S. and Latin America, and was a leading voice in the push to create NAFTA in 1993. In a 1998 speech, Richardson called for legislation toward “creating a hemispheric-wide free trade agreement that will establish a $12 trillion market of 850 million people. This free trade zone will create jobs, open new markets and raise living standards from Ecuador to East Los Angeles.”

Sen. Biden (D-DE) in general espouses free trade policies but has been a recent critic of Bush administration bilateral and regional agreements on opening markets. He voted against the creation of FTAs with Oman in 2006 and with Singapore and Chile in 2003. He also voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2005. ... Biden also voted against the Trade Act of 2002, which reauthorized the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), granting certain trade benefits to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. In 1999, Biden voted in favor of the Africa Free Trade bill, which authorized a “new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara Africa” and the granting of trade benefits to Caribbean countries. ... Biden also voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993....

A self-described "free trader," Sen. Dodd (D-CT) nonetheless expressed mixed feelings on the negative effects of free trade in a speech on the CAFTA-DR Act of 2005. He voted against that act, citing the problems presented by globalization for countries like Nicaragua and Guatemala where poverty remains widespread. “With CAFTA-DR, we are stepping backwards in a region of the world that needs a commitment to lift up the quality of life for its citizens," he said. Dodd also voted against FTAs with Chile, Singapore and Oman, and against the Trade Act of 2002. He voted in favor of the Africa Free Trade bill of 2002 and NAFTA.

[cuke]

14. Not much difference on policy

Peru FT seems to be the only significant difference. The rest is one of tone, and that's somewhat recent for Edwards. Hillary has been consistent on the issue and still her record is very similar to Edwards. In addition, Edwards spoke out about NAFTA specifically, and his position is identical to most of the others.

[maximusveritas]

25. I'll agree on Kucinich

but Edwards is just pandering in order to get union support. It's pathetic.

“Senator Edwards knew seven years ago that people would be hurt, so why did he vote for China trade?”Kucinich asked. “How credible is his newfound consumer protectionism and his campaign advocacy for trade reform to save American jobs?”

Here's Edwards' answer to the first question: “it does us no good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will not be hurt.”

As far as the second question, I think the first one answered it.

[robbedvoter]

35. Another "oops!" - please don't pay attention to what I did, just to what I say"

Another: "yeah! he keeps running from his lousy record - farther and farther! Good for him!

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. And actually, He was for NAFTA in 2004...he said it needed work, but he would keep it.

So, is his change of positions genuine? That is the question for me. He has been consistently voting for corporations. And now he talks of helping the little guy. That would be awesome, if it were true.

[maxanne]

32. Johnny

has never taken a position he couldn't change and apologize for later.

He has no compunctions about borrowing from Dennis Kucinich - and trying to make himself look original.

[NorthCarolina]

39. He is the same opportunistic campaigner he has always been.

Vote for a real American who doesn't feed you a continual line of BS, vote for Kucinich.

[Kurovski]

15. Kick. (nt)

[Stop Cornyn]

16. Thanks for the kick!

[asdjrocky]

18. And another.... nt

[Stop Cornyn]

20. It's almost like a soccer game with all kicking around here.

[surfermaw]

19. Run John Run, we will win in Iowa,

Oprah, is a nice person, but she will be suprised at the back lash she has kicked up, her apperance with Oaboma, is going to bring out ever redneck bigot in Iowa and South Carolina.

[cali]

22. yeah? how do you know, genius?

I hate this not so subtle shit that we shouldn't nominate Obama cuz he's black. Makes me want to :puke:

For all you know her appearance will mobilize far more votes for him in Iowa and SC than it will bring out bigots.

[Kurovski]

24. Kick. (nt)

[Triana]

26. That's my man! And I JUST posted NAFTA as one reason...

...I cannot support Hillary.

[nealmhughes]

27. We in Alabama still have a while to wait for all the candidates to make their spiels.

I am glad to know JE has come out against NAFTA, although being from NC, I am surprised he didn't realize what it would bring: destruction of the southern textile industry. Complete and utter aathema to the free traders! Free trade makes absolute sense when the playing field is level or a nation can't produce a product: oranges from North Africa and Israel for the EU, for example, but not when it does nothing but make a new generation of wage slaves in the lowest market. One is surprised not to find shallow draft boats going up the Amazon's backwaters to drop off bolts of fabric for the jeans or shirt factory there.

[RadioactiveCarrot]

28. Hrm.

That's nice and all but glancing through....
Did he say he'll work to repeal it or just condemn it?
I've heard words of condemnation before and yet it still sits there peeking over our shoulders.

[AdHocSolver]

29. A little Econ 101: "Free Trade" is an oxymoron.

The term "free trade" assumes "free markets". A free market is one in which no single buyer, or group of buyers, and no single seller, or group of sellers, has the ability to dominate negotiations over quantity or price of goods bought and sold within that market.

Since most economic activity within the US, and most trade between the US and other countries, is dominated by a handful of huge multinational corporations, there are extremely few "free" markets in existence. Therefore, "free trade", for all intents and purposes, does not exist.

Trade agreements like NAFTA are rules set up by, and for the exclusive benefit of, the multinational corporations that dominate international commerce. Any corporate executive, or politician, who claims to be for free trade is like a bar owner who claims to be for total abstinence.

The only economic activity that produces wealth for a country is manufacturing. If you buy goods from other countries, and you have nothing to sell to other countries in return, then you can only obtain the products you need by going into debt. A country with a lot of debt eventually sees the value of its currency drop, which means that imported goods become more expensive, and the value of the goods it produces come to be worth less. This is called inflation. At some point, the producers who sell this country its goods, will stop providing a line of credit to the US. If not corrected before we reach such a position of no more credit, this situation can only lead to economic collapse.

The cure for this problem is really straightforward. We have to renegotiate all trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO, etc.) to make it feasible for companies to be able to produce goods economically in the US to be competitive with imported goods. That is, most of the goods sold in the US must be manufactured in the US by American workers.

Moreover, the tax laws have to be changed so as not to give tax advantages to those companies that import goods. Finally, if tariffs or import quotas need to be imposed to protect American jobs, so be it. We already have import quotas and tariffs to protect corporate profits at the expense of the American people. We need to rewrite the laws to protect this country and Americans.

The corporations keep saying we have to produce goods for export to counterbalance imports. That is IMPOSSIBLE when 70 percent of the goods sold here are imported. To break even, the US has to export the same value of goods that we import. We don't even produce that much goods since so many of our factories have been shut down.

The corporations tell you that the cost of goods will go up if they are made here rather than be imported. That is nonsense for the simple reason that they have not passed along the savings in labor to the consumer. They have kept the savings in labor cost as profit, even as they offshore jobs.

Bringing manufacturing back to the US will have many economic and social benefits. First, it will create many family supporting jobs. The now underemployed and unemployed will "buy American" and support other workers to create more jobs. At the same time, more workers means more people paying taxes meaning a reduction of the federal deficit even without raising anyones taxes. This means the government can then reduce the national debt AND rebuild infrastructure, improve education, and provide affordable health insurance for everyone.

I am not exaggerating. The loss of manufacturing jobs has contributed substantially to the trade deficit and the federal deficit, beyond the tax cuts for the wealthy, because fewer people are paying less taxes on lower incomes.

John Edwards' populist approach is the best way to get across to most Americans what I have explained here. I think he would be the best candidate in the general election.

[southtpa]

31. fair trade

If you tax the man hours of production times the difference in prevailing wage you have fair trade. No, prices would not necessarily go up. If they thought they could raise revenue by going up a dollar they would already have done it. This allows recapitalization of america since higher efficiency would not hurt our manufacturers. The tax is on actual man hours of the import. Wages could rise with that efficency and still not hurt us because the tax would also rise. America does not have to be a third world nation.

[JustAnotherGen]

33. Bravo!

I'm giving it a kick for your post alone! :-)

[postulater]

34. I'll vote for that

Thanks for the analysis, and for making it easy to understand.

[AzDar]

30. Go, Johnny go!

:kick:

[ChiciB1]

36. Another KICK For A Candidate That Is Addressing a "Populist" Message

and not just talking generalities, IMO!!!

Go, Johnny, GO!

[NorthCarolina]

41. Kucinich is the REAL Populist, the rest are just Corporate Lackeys in Populist Sheepskin

Do yourselves a favor and actually compare ALL PAST VOTING RECORDS. True that Edwards voting record in the Senate is not very complete as he was always out campaigning rather than doing his job, but there is enough there to give you an idea of his hidden persona. For me, I'm voting for the REAL DEAL....I'm voting for Kucinich.

[ChiciB1]

42. Welcome To DU... Kucinich Does Indeed Have a GREAT Record...

However, since I live in Florida I have to make my decision on who "may" win the nomination. Should Kucinich get much more recognition?? OF COURSE!!! But does he?? NO!!

I'm sure you're as frustrated as I am about who and how MSM sells us THE POLITICAL product!! I just posted something at another thread written by Jackson Browne... I think it was the one about Look Out! Obama Just Won IA and several other states!

Browne's song and the words he wrote have stuck with me since I first heard them. I will repost them here a little later, but have to run to pick up a prescription right now. I fell down and went boom-boom yesterday and today I see more damage was done that I thought! Okay, but hurt my neck and back!

I'll be back!

[NorthCarolina]

43. Sorry to hear you took a tumble

and hope you recoup before the Holidays.

As for deciding who "may" win the election, well personally I think that is up to the people and NOT the media. While Kucinich and his views are continually marginalized in the media, they have no problem deluging our senses with their picks for the Top Three Dems. One might almost get an idea that they highlight the corporate friendly candidates at the expense of the populist candidates.

Well I for one will vote the way the founding fathers intended us to vote. I will vote for the candidate that I feel best reflects my personal views on the issue, and to hell with who the media tells me is viable. I say it is US who decides who is viable or not, and if we ever truly want to recapture that essence of America that has been missing for so long our only choice is to reject what some might call conventional wisdom and vote our hearts and minds.

I proudly support Kucinich because he IS that candidate for me, the only one who is not party to the Washington insider clic of corporate lackeys. If I end up being the only one casting my vote for him then so be it, at least I will have voted my conscience and I can live with that WAY more than I can live with voting for the perceived lesser of two evils just because the media tells me these are my choices.

Screw the media, Kucinich in 08.

[ChiciB1]

51. Thanks For Your Thoughts... I'm Going To Be Okay Before Christmas...

my husband has been laying brick pavers to put a Jacuzzi on that was given to us. It had been roped off to square the area all day. The heavy string had been held down by bricks, but somehow the brick got used and the string popped up! I walked across it and into a pile of remnant pavers and got cut and bruised. This morning my body said "OUCH" and fortunately I had a prescription to ease the pain.

Getting back to the subject at had though. I don't know how long you've been around here, maybe watching or just joined, but I have already made statements about why I won't vote for Hillary myself. I do realize it's a drastic step, BUT I don't really see all that much difference between what we have now. I realize there are many, but as one who DID support her once, she's left me in the dust.

If given a REAL choice I would love to see Paul Wellstone as the candidate. Obviously this is unrealistic, but Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders would also do. I'm actually to the left of most of our candidates.

Why Edwards? I feel he "may' actually be viable and want to help him get the nomination. I think he's matured and is different from before. I know his record isn't pristine, but I do feel he's learned a lot and his prospective has changed. No candidate is "pure" for sure, but since I'm up against a wall to some extent, all I can do is make my voice heard. Where I live, support for Kucinich might be around 1% because my county is the one that lost all those votes in 2006! I'm surrounded by many Democrats that are VERY DLC... so I'm like the white seed in a watermelon!!

But, I will "write in" my vote if Hillary is the nominee and many think I'm stupid and stubborn... so be it!

For sure, SCREW THE MEDIA!

[Cronopio]

37. Chalk up another good reason to support Edwards. nt

[LWolf]

40. It's good to have two candidates who do.

Will he cancel NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO if we elect him?

[NorthCarolina]

50. The answers are No and No

he has said, in a generic sort of way, he would modify portions of our Trade Agreements to make them more fair. Not absolute enough for me personally, but for some it will suffice I guess. For me though, the only message that makes sense and it QUITE clear is that of Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich has my vote.

[LWolf]

52. That's exactly my point.

DK also has my vote.

[Plucketeer]

44. Love it!

LOVE IT !!!! :woohoo:

[BearSquirrel2]

45. Edwards just became my favorite candidate ...

Electability + opposed to "free trade". That does it for me. Time for Obama to step up.

[Czolgosz]

53. Thanks for posting

[Tejanocrat]

54. Kick for those who want an explanation of what's wonderful about Edwards

[jillan]

55. Not what he said in 2004 -------------------------

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Free_Trade.htm

. I would use the Free Trade of the Americas agreement as a vehicle for renegotiating NAFTA.

[Little Star]

56. Kick!!!!