The Great NAFTA Debate of 1993: Al Gore vs. Ross Perot

[NormanYorkstein]

While the entire debate was broadcast, you can see how the corporate media covered it - as a personality contest between Gore and Perot. My favorite part is when Perot shows a picture of how Mexican workers live - in a shanty town outside of the factory gates - Gore responded with - wait for it - a picture of Smoot and Harley :eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8PJ2KT0RVI

The result of NAFTA is clear - you can still hear the giant sucking sound. You can visit the offshored factories just over the Mexican border where babies are born without brains (anencephaly), since the whole point was to cross the border so they could pollute easier. In Mexico complaining about pollution or corruption might get you assassinated.

This is Al Gore's legacy. What did we say about Tom Delay's and Jack Abramoff's sweatshops in Saipan?





Want to see the truth about NAFTA? Do a google image search for anencephaly but be warned it isn't pretty.

[jody]

1. Why do you bother us with facts like that?

:sarcasm:

[Sapere aude]

2. All Gore is solely responsible for NAFTA?

Damn, what a guy, first he invents the internet, then global warming and now he is responsible for NAFTA.

[Tom Joad]

7. clinton (and his wifey) deserve credit too!

[Greyhound]

9. Yes, as VPOTUS he cast the deciding vote in a deadlocked Senate to pass this travesty.

This in spite of the considerable evidence and predictions that what has happened is what would happen. Kind of like all those lunatic fringe nut-bars back in the 70's that claimed we were effecting the ocean currents by changing the atmosphere and dumping our shit in the water.

This and GATT were the administration's "great victories" and contributions to our economy, along with the Telecommunications Act, Welfare "reform", and expansion of the H-1(b) and L-1 visa programs, all of which have yielded exactly what we said they would.:grr:

[NormanYorkstein]

18. Gore voted WITH the Republicans and AGAINST the Democrats

But Gore was hardly the only Democrat to switch sides, this is from wikipedia:

The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor).<3> and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38<4> Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification on November 1993.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LSK]

75. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395

[NormanYorkstein]

78. Still you can't deny Gore was the major pusher of NAFTA

and FTAs throughout his *entire* career. Gore was made the point man of NAFTA by Clinton because that was Gore's *main* issue throughout his entire career.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NormanYorkstein]

101. oh you nicknamed me "fraudstein" because of my name Yorkstein

That was very clever. As for a link, sorry. If you aren't already aware of the issue of Nafta, free trade, and US economic policy of the last 20 years, you need to either educate yourself or learn to use google. I'm not going to help you, sorry :shrug:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chemical Bill]

110. FWIW...

The other poster was rude to use a nickname for you, but he was correct (and not unusual) to ask for a link to back up your assertions. If I post a comment I either make clear that it is my opinion, or I prepare to back it up.

Bill

[JNelson6563]

109. And you can't deny what you said was false

Cast the deciding vote indeed!

That aside, yep, Gore was on the wrong side of this issue. No doubt about it. I wonder how he feels a bout NAFTA now.

Considering the speeches he's made since 2000 I'd wager big he realizes it was a mistake.

As to his "legacy", yeah, I'm good with some anonymous poster on the internets with an obvious anti-Gore agenda deciding what this great man's legacy will be.

Oy.

Julie

[NormanYorkstein]

117. No I did not say that, sorry

you responded to the wrong post. Anyone who claims that Gore wasn't the major pusher of NAFTA is uninformed or dishonest.

Gore has continued to support NAFTA, and he never said it was a mistake.

[Freddie Stubbs]

90. That is a lie

NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. No tie breaking vote was needed:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395

[Greyhound]

115. Apparently I was mistaken, I've read it several times and it was "news"

at the time. Perhaps it was a one of the negotiations, or maybe it didn't happen at all, can't find anything on snopes. In those days the only voice heard was the reich-wing, so it wouldn't surprise me. My apologies.

In any case, you can't deny that he was a big supporter of this travesty and everything that we said would happen, has happened, and more.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flarney]

3. What are his current views on NAFTA and otherwise (un)Free Trade? nt

[NormanYorkstein]

11. Gore was the number on Free Trade proponent his entire career

Gore was a founding member of the DLC, and was known as *the* main Democratic champion of the early free trade agreements. If you watch Gore's early presidential primary debates, he was pretty much the only Democrats pushing for it.

It's ironic that he now wants to "save the planet" after all the damage to the earth caused by his free trade policies.

[Kolesar]

17. He is not "saving the planet" after "all the damage" caused by NAFTA

Al should have listened to the environmental movement who did not want NAFTA. That does not mean that his climate activism is about undoing NAFTA's problems.

[kimmerspixelated]

34. I think by now, we get it NormanYorkstein!

You love to bash Gore. I would say welcome to DU, but you gotta know you're probably going to get flamed.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

4. The sucking sound has now turned to a gurgle as the jobs and pollution we sent down there

are leaving to even cheaper and more compliant locations. Those bastard Mexicans had the temerity to object to their treatment and began to get all uppity, demanding decent living conditions and luxuries like clean water and daily electric power.(:sarcasm: included for the obtuse)

This is the sole reason I don't support Al Gore (well, aside from his not running). I've yet to hear an explanation nor apology from him for doing this. Like the slaughter in Iraq, the old "we never could have predicted this" BS, just doesn't hold up as there were plenty of us that predicted just this.

Thank you for keeping this in our faces.:kick: & R

[Sapere aude]

12. I have a question, so we sent jobs to Mexico and they send workers here right?

It seems to me that we are saying that Mexicans come here do the work that Americans won't do because the pay is too low but they will stay in Mexico to do the jobs Americans use to do at a lower wage because our jobs went to Mexico. Right?

[Hippo_Tron]

16. It's because Mexico hasn't built up a middle class

I'm not an opponent of NAFTA, but those who thought that it would improve Mexico's economy by itself are delusional. NAFTA has resulted in an increase in wealth for the rich in Mexico but not for the poor. However, people assume that's a flaw with NAFTA and that's not the case. The flaw is with Mexico's own internal income distribution, something that they have to fix by themselves.

[GirlinContempt]

49. Stupid foreigners.

Don't they see how great and sustainable the USes economy is?! They should switch over RIGHT NOW.
:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

54. What exactly do you disagree about?

I'm arguing that Mexico needs to invest in education, social welfare programs, and enact labor laws that include protections for unions and a real minimum wage.

And while the US system has problems, conditions are certainly better than they are in Mexico. If that were not the case, people would be immigrating the other way.

[GirlinContempt]

55. The US system is not sustainable.

It's also not a goal to reach for, frankly. Just because it's 'better' for some people doesn't mean it's good or right, and it doesn't mean it doesn't depend on the enslavement of others to exist.

Mostly, I disagree with the idea that other countries and peoples should continue to try to bend their societies and cultures to fit an American way of life. America grew out of a very specific set of circumstances, circumstances that should not and probably can not be repeated. It doesn't WORK other places, and if it did, it would collapse because it isn't sustainable to increase the 'poor' countries to be on par. I object strongly to the idea that others should change so they can be further subjugated. I'd rather people figure it out for their own fucking selves, REALLY for their own selves, because I don't think it can be any worse.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. I'm not suggesting Americanization

I'm suggesting education, social welfare programs, and labor laws that allow unions and provide a minimum wage and labor standards. These aren't American ideas by any means. I used the Gilded Age, Progressive Era, New Deal analogy because it's a comparison that's easy for people to understand.

[GirlinContempt]

111. You''re suggesting that if Mexico had a middle class

this stuff wouldn't be a problem.
I'd suggest that a middle class is nothing but a buffer between the rich and the poor. It subdivides the poor so they are less of a threat. I'm technically middle class, I don't want to encourage more of me :P

[piedmont]

126. So you want... MORE poverty?

:crazy:

[GirlinContempt]

127. That's what I said!! Thank you for clearing that up!!

Sarcasm aside: No. I want a system that isn't divided up and relying upon the poverty of others. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[ghostsofgiants]

129. Not to mention...

The middle class' working and living conditions tend to erode to that of the lower class (while the occasional middle class entrepreneur will get sucked up into the upper class) thus expanding the gap between rich and poor. (Hell, it's even happening here in Canada.)

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[originalpckelly]

35. Yes, just as workers are coming to the US, there is also an exporting of our industrial capacity.

Multiple bad things can happen at the same time, and that's what's happening to us. The consistent element is that people who own businesses, even small businesses that hire illegal immigrants, are becoming empowered, while workers and businesses that use ethical hiring practices are getting screwed.

It's about the worst possible thing to happen to the economy in the USA.

[hang a left]

95. I am on the show me program

SO SHOW ME!

Then I will be as belligerent as you.

[Bluebear]

5. So NAFTA is Gore's legacy? Nothing about global warming in there?

Just askin'.

[NormanYorkstein]

8. Gore's border factories sure pumped out a lot of greehouse gases

So yeah global warming is part of his legacy too.

[HereSince1628]

6. 'Scuse me. Scuse Please...wasn't that treaty ratified?

Hmm.

[Larkspur]

10. Didn't Gore also expose Perot's hypocrisy?

I thought Gore showed that Perot's company benefited from free trade.

[NormanYorkstein]

13. one of the reasons Perot was against NAFTA

was because he had seen first hand what was going on with his own factories. Perot had companies in "free trade zones" which were an early form of NAFTA limited to specific towns.

[Larkspur]

15. Al Gore On The Issues (2000)...

... spotted a magazine photograph of the protectionist authors of the 1930 Smoots-Hawley tariff act, widely believed to have worsened the Depression, and during the debate Gore presented it to an irritated Perot. Gore also asked Perot about the free trade zone operated by Perot’s son at his Texas airport, which was promoted as a gateway to business in Mexico. “If it’s good enough for him, why isn’t it good enough for the rest of the country?” Gore asked. Gore’s strong performance and Perot’s meltdown changed the dynamic of the NAFTA debate. The pact passed the House 234-200.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Free_Trade.htm

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Mexico's conditions are due to their internal problems, not NAFTA

Mexico and other developing nations that we trade with are basically where we were during the Gilded Age. NAFTA and other trade agreements are making countries like Mexico wealthier as a whole, but the poor don't see it because of the income gap. There's little that we can do about Mexico's income gap, that is a problem that they have to solve by themselves.

As far as jobs being sucked out of the country, there have been disputes about protectionism since the beginning of the country and Smoot Harley is a great example of failed protectionism. The arguments from some Democrats that we need to protect manufacturing jobs resonate just as little with me as the arguments from Republicans that we need to protect and subsidize agriculture.

[Kolesar]

20. NAFTA screwed the Mexican corn farmers and forced them to leave their farms

Some are right here in your country! Further, Smoot harley did not "cause" the depression as some free traders like to say. There is no causal relationship. The time line is not even correct.

I recommend "Myths of Free Trade" by Sherrod Brown, 2004 :)

[NormanYorkstein]

23. Sherrod Brown is one of the BEST and GREATEST Dems in Congress

Sherrod Brown is a hero.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. I never claimed that Smoot Harley caused the depression

I said that it was an example of failed protectionism. And the problem is that Mexico did not protect its corn, while it allowed the US to continue to subsidize its corn in the agreement. The solution is not to repeal NAFTA, it's to end US corn subsidies most of which don't go to the no longer existent family farms like the GOP claims, but to big agricultural businesses.

And I do have a great amount of respect for Senator Brown and will consider picking up his book when I get a chance.

[Ignacio Upton]

79. Monsanto, ADM and Cargill

are dumping their agribusiness food into those countries with the backing of both Bush, Clinton and the GOP Congress during the '90s and '00s. Free trade in and of itself isn't bad (I love being able to have a choice in buying more products, and overall it does help consumers in that sense) but our government has been hypocritical when it comes to following the rules. Rent the movie "Life and Debt." It goes into detail about how unfair American practices within free trade pacts have hurt Jamaica. For example, dairy farmers and banana farmers were driven into bankruptcy because he kept dumping our products. American powdered milk was even cheaper than milk from Jamaica!

[Hippo_Tron]

82. You are at least the 5th person on this thread who has responded with comments about agriculture

And for the 5th time I am going to respond that I agree that US trade practices regarding agriculture are unfair, largely due to agriculture subsidies which are a form of corporate welfare. Sorry if I seem frustrated but I am so tired of re-stating that again and again.

The initial point that I was trying to make is that while the US economy having to adjust to the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs is difficult, it is worth it to reap the benefits of the global economy. Making our trade practices more fair, especially in regards to agriculture isn't going to bring back manufacturing jobs and thus I don't think the OP or anyone else that I'm arguing with, except for you, would support NAFTA even if it was more fair.

[hang a left]

97. Just curious as to your response to how the US is going to adjust to the

absence of manufacturing jobs is going to work out???

"while the US economy having to adjust to the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs is difficult, it is worth it to reap the benefits of the global economy."

Which benefits are we going to "reap" in the global economy?? Hmmm?

[RB TexLa]

21. shhhhhh ... only the "corporatists" are to blame

[NormanYorkstein]

36. let's blame poor Mexicans instead!

They should have sold more dirt and invested in high tech Asian companies!

[Greyhound]

37. Nobody said only, but look at this way, both the US and Mexican workers are worse off

after NAFTA, and the corporations are much better off. This would not have happened without NAFTA. Maybe there would be some other problems, maybe there wouldn't, we'll never know, but we do know who benefits and who pays with these treaties.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Goods are also much cheaper for consumers because of trade

Workers aren't benefiting because the government in Mexico hasn't instituted the proper social welfare programs needed to build a middle class. Mexico is like where we were during the Gilded Age. They haven't gone through the Progressive Era and the haven't had a New Deal and that's what they need.

In the United States' case, we neglected our education system and we also have yet to unionize much of the service sector of the economy which is where we are shifting. We need to bring unions to the service sector and we need to improve education. Taxing some of that increased wealth that the corporations get from trade would also be helpful.

[Greyhound]

48. I just can't agree. Prices may have gone down at the wholesale

level but in typical corporate fashion it has only translated to greater profits as the saving are not passed on. Our agricultural subsidies have only increased, but not to the small family farmers (the few that are left after 30 years of raygunomics), only for the ADMs and DeKalbs. The price of food has steadily increased ever since NAFTA passed. Automobiles, appliances, furniture, you name it, have only gotten more expensive while wages have stagnated or declined.

It is like health care in this country, the professionals at all levels are worked harder in worse conditions and endlessly frustrated by the ever growing bureaucracy that makes it more difficult to deliver care, the patients receive substandard, or even no treatment after ever increasing wait times, and the health care corporations post quarter after quarter of record profits.

Mexico has always (in my life anyway) been a oligarchical kleptocracy and that hasn't changed, but the people are far worse off than before.

So when all the players are worse off, and the corporations are taking more money than ever before, what do you think the problem is? It was a bad deal, poorly implemented, to the benefit of only one faction.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. I don't agree with agriculture subsidies

They're a form of Republican corporate welfare that we need to do away with. Food prices would go down from trade if we didn't subsidize our agriculture so that other countries could compete with it.

And while I agree with you about Mexico's government, I think the fact that Obrador would be President if not for the shenanigans that they pulled is a great sign that things are going to change. I wouldn't mind seeing some provisions of NAFTA re-negotiated when someone like Obrador comes to power like the one that allows US to continue to subsidize agriculture.

[GirlinContempt]

50. "that's what they need."

That is what "they" need to WHAT?

[Hippo_Tron]

56. I'm not blaming the people of Mexico

That would be akin to blaming the American people for the Iraq War. Considering that the legitimacy of Calderon's election in 2006 is as sketchy as Bush's in 2000 and that even with fraud Obrador only lost by a point suggests that the Mexican people are ready for the types of changes that I'm proposing.

[GirlinContempt]

57. The types of changes you're proposing

are a story that has already been told. And it's turned out pretty badly so far. They also can't happen with free trade agreements in place. Those things are a really interesting read, once you slog through them. All sorts of impediments to trade that prevent poorer countries from changing things to their own benefit.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Whatever you say...

Personally I'd like to see someone like Obrador get a chance to govern before declaring that it's all a lost cause.

[GirlinContempt]

112. If only it was what ever I say.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mabus]

19. Gore talked about this when he was on Larry King last year. In his own words:

The transcript from http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html (near the bottom. Search for "nafta").

KING: We're back with Al Gore. Before we talk about immigration, a look back at then Vice President Al Gore debating Ross Perot in 1993. The most viewed regularly scheduled cable show ever happened right here. Well, it happened in Washington. The subject is how NAFTA would improve our relationship with Mexico. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORE: The best way to eliminate our influence down there is to defeat NAFTA. The best way to preserve it is to enter into this bargain, continue the lowering of the barriers. We've got a commitment that they're going to raise their minimum wage with productivity. We've got an agreement for the first time in history to use trade sanctions to compel the enforcement of their environmental standards. As they begin to develop and locate better jobs farther south, we cut down on illegal immigration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Has that happened?

GORE: Well, it's hard to say that illegal immigration got any better. It obviously got a lot worse. But it might have been worse still without the effort to try to boost the economy in Mexico.

You know, during the Clinton-Gore administration, we faced a couple of big challenges on that front. There was a financial crisis in Mexico and we took the bold step of shoring them up. And then when it came to this agreement to try to strengthen their economy and get more good jobs down there to slow down the flow of immigration, I think we did the right thing.

I think other developments in the aftermath of those years, principally the rise of China and the movement of jobs from Mexico to China and to other Asian countries, made the situation worse than it would have otherwise been. But without the agreement that was made and without the shoring up of their economy back then, it could have been much worse still.

KING: Was that night fun for you?

GORE: The debate? Well, it was like a prize fight or something in the debating arena. And thank you for hosting it. And of course, he had -- Ross Perot had been on your show so many times. I called you up out of the blue, and everybody was against it in the White House except for me and Bill Clinton. Everybody else said, oh, it was a terrible mistake.

Would things be better if Gore had been inaugurated? Not with the GOP and its minions in Congress looking out for their corporate sponsors and their personal stock portfolios.

Quite honestly to place the entirety of sins of NAFTA on Gore's shoulders is disingenuous.

While you're at it, why don't you blame him for Katrina and the aftermath. He obviously didn't do enough about global warming when he had the chance to. :sarcasm:

[Kolesar]

24. better than I could google up

I think Gore is off base when saying that NAFTA addressed immigration.

[Mabus]

125. I don't honestly remember hearing much about immigration in those days

Then again, I was taking almost 20 hours and working two parttime jobs while I finished up my undergrad degree. Then it was off to law school. There are a few years there when I'm not sure what was going on outside my studies.

[NormanYorkstein]

25. ah yes, the "Mexico" bailout - ie the Wall Street Bailout

I had almost forgotten about that fraud - billions in corporate welfare to Wall Street investors who were losing money in Mexico. That "bailout" didn't do a thing for anyone except for American and Mexican billionaires.

And he's now blaming his own NAFTA's failure on everything except his free trade baby.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Yes, I'm sure things would've been much better for poor Mexico if their currency collapsed

Only the rich were hurt when the Weimar Republic's currency became nearly worthless.

:sarcasm:

[NormanYorkstein]

45. Well the bailout sure was good for Wall Street firms

You know what's hilarious? Talking about how you support a "free global market" while having your losing bets covered by the taxpayers.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Your logic of "Good for Wall Street Firms = Bad for People" is not always valid

There are cases where big corporations benefit at the expense of people. There are also cases where both can benefit at the same time. If you want to argue that the Mexico bail out was solely to the benefit of Wall Street Firms and did not also benefit the people of Mexico then you need to prove it.

And yes I do support bailing out a country so that they don't have to face the horrors of having their entire economy collapse and I also support global trade. I don't see a problem.

[NormanYorkstein]

47. can you prove the bailout helped most Mexicans?

You suggest their "entire economy would fall apart"? There are a number of ways of dealing with a currency crisis, and giving tax money to Wall Street companies who made BAD business decisions is not necessarily a good one. How did the currency crisis happen anyway?

How about capital controls, or the Tobin tax? Those would all work - but would interfere with profits and go against free trade ideology.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. The Tobin Tax and Capital Controls aren't solutions to the imminent crisis that Mexico was facing

And again, when we bailed out the corporations we also bailed out Mexico's economy and prevented it from collapsing. If Mexico's income distribution was more equitable, the people would have benefited more. Had we allowed the economy to collapse, the little money that the people had would have become worthless.

As I said, this happened to the Weimar Republic in the early 1920's and the results were not pretty. Paramilitary groups like the Nazi SA were allowed to run rampant and largely unchecked. Fortunately, Hitler's coup attempt failed and The Weimar Republic fixed their currency largely due to loans from the United States and other countries under the Dawes Plan. Thing remained stable until the Great Depression in 1930.

I certainly wouldn't want Mexico to have faced the chaos that the Weimar Republic did in the early 1920's

[NormanYorkstein]

71. yep - and spent years making sure that Mexico's economy

was reliant on Wall Street companies. "If it's good for Wall Street it's good for Mexico"

Curious what you think about the new "Bank of the South"?

[Hippo_Tron]

81. Given the current circumstances, I'm not inherently opposed to it

The Bush Administration's handling of foreign policy has been such a joke that it doesn't surprise me in any way that nations of South America would want to take steps to become financially independent of the United States.

As I've already stated, the Mexico bailout like NAFTA would've been more beneficial to the Mexican people if they had a more populist government that was interested in building a middle class. Before I join you in your determination that trade only benefits corporations, I'd like to see someone like Obrador get a chance to govern in Mexico and see if they can distribute their wealth that they've gained from trade more evenly.

Before I say anymore, since you've asked me a question, I'd like to ask you one.

My proposal is that countries like Mexico should do a better job distributing the wealth that they have gained from trading with the United States.

Your proposal as far as I can tell is that the United States needs to not enter trade agreements and keep large tariffs and quotas on manufactured goods so that we will just manufacture everything ourselves. My question is, what does that proposal do for anyone except for manufacturing workers here in the United States? Does it in any way help the people of Mexico?

[Elwood P Dowd]

83. NAFTA was not about helping the people in Mexico.

"Your proposal as far as I can tell is that the United States needs to not enter trade agreements and keep large tariffs and quotas on manufactured goods so that we will just manufacture everything ourselves. My question is, what does that proposal do for anyone except for manufacturing workers here in the United States? Does it in any way help the people of Mexico?"

These fake trade deals like NAFTA are not about helping anyone other than the wealthy CEOs and their major financial backers. It's an investment/outsourcing scam that has hijacked Ricardo's Free Trade policy to make themselves a ton of money. Looks like you have fallen for the scam.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. Thanks but I wasn't asking you

And since you've just repeating what Norman said 10 posts ago, I'm not going to even bother arguing with you.

[Elwood P Dowd]

85. With every NAFTA promise, the opposite has happened.

From reducing the current account deficit to reducing illegal immigration to creating millions of jobs to reducing poverty in Mexico. You are defending a policy that makes a fortune for a few at the expense of many. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Telling me that I should be ashamed of myself...

Isn't going to change the fact that I'm currently arguing this extensively with someone else and don't feel like repeating everything twice. Sorry, I'm still not going to argue with you.

[NormanYorkstein]

87. sure, here's a response

This is just off the top of my head:

Protectionism works. It's the only thing that works. Every economically powerful country in the world got that way through protective tariffs and subsidizing key industries. When the US started promoting free trade, all the countries that followed their advice - like in Latin America - turned out worse than before. All the countries that ignored their advice - like in Asia - grew like gangbusters, the so-called "Asian Tigers".

Now I understand that goes against your economic theories, but your economic theories are incorrect; at least, they are not useful in describing the real world and your economic theory makes incorrect predictions. History shows this time and time again.

What Mexico needs *is* a more populist government, and they do need to build a middle class. When they do that, the US should open up trade for them as much as possible. Also, an important and related point, the job of our government is to help American citizens - NOT Mexicans.

Lastly, I don't think they people pushing free trade "believe" in it nor do they care. It's "fake" in the sense it's just a bunch of corporations getting together and negotiating for their own benefit. It has shown time and time again to do little good for the population.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. Alright, here's what I see that we agree on and disagree on

Protectionism in my view is important for vital industries as well as industries in their infancy that have the potential to become competitive on the global scale. Such policies in a limited capacity may have been important in the development of powerful nations, but trade certainly was as well. Certainly China's rise in recent years has been largely due to its access to US markets.

So while you would argue that my economic theories are incorrect, I would argue that yours are incorrect. That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you that corporations are looking out for their own interests and that they do have too much influence in trade, especially provisions that allow the US to continue subsidizing agriculture. I didn't support CAFTA because I thought there was too much corporate influence and also because our history with Central America is much more complicated than our history with Mexico.

We agree that Mexico should develop a middle class and that ideally it would be an equal trading partner with the United States. I would argue that the overall increase in Mexico's wealth from NAFTA gives them potential to distribute this wealth and help build up their middle class if someone like Obrador gets a chance to govern and make some serious reforms. You argue that as long as NAFTA is in place, the corporations will be able to hold on to all of the wealth. If Mexico ever gets a populist government, I believe that my theory will be vindicated. Until then, we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't believe that free trade is only about corporate interest. I believe that people like Bill Clinton and Al Gore did see the potential benefits that trade with Mexico could have if Mexico had a more populist government and I think that they hoped NAFTA would steer them in this direction. Sure, there was corporate influence but as long as there is money in politics there will be corporate influence.

I do agree that the rhetoric from the administration that it would magically solve problems like illegal immigration was pure bullshit, but that's what I've come to expect in an era where political debates are 30 second sound bites.

Lastly, I believe that many people who argue how unfair NAFTA is to Mexico could care less about Mexico and are only concerned about the fact that it's not the 1950's anymore and people can't go work at the local factory after high school until retirement with no college education. I don't think that it's possible to make trade fair enough toward Mexico to satisfy people whose primary concern is the loss of US manufacturing jobs.

[NormanYorkstein]

100. you make some very good points, thank you

I disagree with your last paragraph completely in every way. It's ridiculous.

I think we agree on Mexico, I wish Obrador had become President, he seemed like the best option by far. The problem with Mexico is their corrupt - beyond corrupt - ruling class and their organized crime, drug dealing, murdering cronies. It's a nightmare. It's shameful that Bush was able to shill for Fox like he did. This is Colombia level. We should build a high fence on the border and shut off all trade until these drug gangs and terrorists are taken down. Mexicans who try to get a decent government are murdered in broad daylight and so-called "American" companies support the politicians that order it to happen.

It's like collaborating with Nazis or Communists. I'm not exaggerating. It's shameful.

We can disagree on economic theories, again, all my point was that my economic theory can make accurate predictions, while the free trade economic theory makes inaccurate predictions.

As for what Al Gore and Clinton "really believe" it's irrelevant. As public figures their record is clear, and their rosy promises about Nafta were as wrong as Bush's rosy promises about invading Iraq. Major historical mistakes.

And I completely agree with you about China - their growth has been largely due to their access to the US market - and their own subsidies of their key industries. Japan has been doing this for 50 years. China didn't swallow any of the "free trade" economic theories because they aren't stupid - and look how successful they have been.

Economic theories can be judged on results. The "free trade" theory is bunk, and has been proven to be so. The Asian model is the future.

It's a pleasure to have a reasonable conversation with you :)

[GirlinContempt]

53. Ignore the man behind the curtain!

You're clearly the good guys. Bail those poor Mexicans out! You keep dumping buckets out the front while the other guys keep dumping buckets back in. We've seen how far this gets us. The bullshit sanctimonious cry to 'help' (read: Americanize) others is pretty sickening.

[Mabus]

124. NAFTA was not "Gore's baby"

The agreement was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor).<3> and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38<4> Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification on November 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafta#History_of_the_implementation

Gore was the VP candidate and then the VP, his job, like his predecessors before him, was to help the President with his agenda. To say that NAFTA and all its consequences should be laid at Gore's door is being intellectually dishonest. Also to blame were the business-backed Dems who voted for NAFTA and the corporate-friendly DNC.

[bbgrunt]

28. ..aaaah, but you forget how many dems also have corporate masters.

edit: sorry this was in response to op.

[Mabus]

123. Especially when McAuliffe was in charge at the DNC

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I had to say something about McAuliffe and the DNC culture at the time. They were actively courting corporate money.

[dysfunctional press]

130. enough time has passed that we can evaluate the effects of nafta and see who was right...

Gore wasn't.

[WI_DEM]

22. As VP Gore had to defend administration policy--it's a bitch being VP just ask

Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale both of whom opposed some of their presidents policies but as VP had to give a united front. I'm not saying that Gore didn't favor NAFTA himself.

[NormanYorkstein]

26. Gore was a lifelong promoter of "free trade"

He was the point man on NAFTA because he had been laying the groundwork for it his entire career. He wasn't forced into it.

[AX10]

27. See how the media suddenly loved Al Gore, only because...

he was for pro-corporate policies and Ross P. wasn't. But when it came to Al's turn to run, he ran on a populist platform and got smeared right/left/up/down.

With that said, the Clinton administration was not perfect, but a hell of alot better than the current one. At least they balanced trade and the domestic economy. Mr. Bush has sold this country to the money men of the world.

I do not believe that NAFTA is completly bad though. I am a fair trader who looks at each trade agreement on an individual basis. I oppose CAFTA.

[NormanYorkstein]

29. Gore's populism was fake and they admitted it

Gore gave his "populist speech" then Lieberman does interviews with the business press saying don't worry it's only "rhetorical flourishes".

I know it's more fun to blame it on Lieberman but it was Gore who was calling the shots.

[AX10]

30. That's why Wes Clark is still my first choice.

On the other hand, Gore also chose LIEberman instead of just say, Jim Hunt. So.......

[NYCGirl]

32. Yes, we all know

what a true blue, up-front guy that Joe Lieberman is.

:eyes:

[buddinganarchist]

31. Yea, it made Gore look like a right wing thug.

Gore looked like a shill for corporate America. He sure has changed..lol

[NormanYorkstein]

33. Gore is still shilling for corporations - now worse than ever

I'm going to write on this later but Gore's big global warming pitch has a side that most people don't know about. Gore wants to use "market forces" to reduce greenhouse gases.

The basic scam is that if GE has been emitting some amount of carbon, they get "pollution credits" that they can then SELL on the market to other companies who want to pollute.

That's Gore corporate magic - he wants to turn a LIABILITY - money corporations owe to use for polluting our environment - into a CREDIT for corporations who can then cash out.

It's a scam.

[Kolesar]

113. Ok, you are "on" to something there about CO2 trading

The idea needs some more development. Do you have a more in-depth development on the topic or a good link?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catshrink]

39. "The only thing Clinton did was sign NAFTA and get a blow job."

Or so said the saleswoman at a department store to me over the weekend. We were chatting, she had recently moved here from Indiana because her factory closed and the jobs went to Mexico. All 280 people were out of work.

She was mad at the Big Dawg for signing the bill. It's all his fault.

Guess I wonder what he was thinking. It's hard to say that because I love the Big Dawg. Sigh.

[JanMichael]

41. I argued against NAFTA from the moment it appeared.

Same with the FTAA.

Personally I blame Clinton more than Gore.

[Greyhound]

51. It was definitely Clinton's deal. Someone here posted a fascinating piece about a month ago

that described how Hillary's health care plan was sacrificed along with several other policies to get this POS through strong Democratic objections.

I'll try to find it tomorrow if you're interested, but basically Newt & Co. knew that if Clinton was allowed to get real health care reform through, it would doom the republik party to irrelevance for decades.

[NormanYorkstein]

60. It was most certainly GORE's deal

Sure Clinton was for it to, but Gore was the front man, and has spent his *entire career* pushing "free trade".

Okay? His "entire career"! Does anyone remember when Al Gore ran for President in the 1980s? He was considered the "New DLC Democrat" - the alternative to the "old" Democratic party of unions.

[loudsue]

42. Gore must be about ready to announce his run....this is 2 threads today trashing him.

Like clockwork!

:kick::kick::kick:

[Puregonzo1188]

44. Anyone have a link to the actual debate and not just ABC news coverage of it? (n/t)

[NormanYorkstein]

88. I've looked but could not find a transcript

I have read it on the internet years ago, and I am sure it's floating around somewhere. I actually watched the debate when it was first broadcast - it was one of the first issues I paid close attention to.

If I find it again I will post it, it well worth reading.

[LSK]

61. does The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation mean anything to you?

Th North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) was a response to environmentalists' concerns that companies would relocate to Mexico or the United States would lower its standards if the three countries did not achieve consistent environmental regulation. The NAAEC, in an aim to be more than a set of environmental regulations, established the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NACEC), a mechanism for addressing trade and environmental issues, the North American Development Bank (NADBank) for assisting and financing investments in pollution reduction, and the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). The NADBank and the BECC have provided economic benefits to Mexico by financing 36 projects, mostly in the water sector<1>. By complementing NAFTA with the NAAEC, it has been labeled the "greenest" trade agreement; though being a pioneer in this area, it was not hard for the agreement to be labeled "green".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

http://www.cec.org/pubs_info_resources/law_treat_agree/naaec/index.cfm?varlan=english

[LSK]

62. oh and what do you have to say about this?

The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor).<3> and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38<4> Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification on November 1993.

[NormanYorkstein]

63. so how did that work out?

A lot of nice words on paper that never get enforced. Gore also made sure that the environment was NOT addressed in NAFTA itself, but in your "side agreement" - so it could be easily ignored. Which it was.

Now babies are born without brains in the shanty towns on the border, due to the pollution that your "side agreement" was supposed to prevent.

So how did that work out?

[LSK]

66. I dont know, like A LOT OF THINGS you posted today

I am 1st hearing about them FROM YOU.

Got any links to these brainless babies??? (Let me save you some time and recommend that you do not post stories from before 1992 as that would be irrelevant.)

[Elwood P Dowd]

68. Why are you defending that god-awful piece of shit NAFTA crap?

Even my repuke friends gave up on defending that shit years ago.

[NormanYorkstein]

69. sure here's a link about the babies without brains

http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/05/12/4207/

It's sad that you are hearing so much new from me tonight, because all this stuff has been discussed and debated for 15 years. I mean really - how can people who pay attention to politics not know about the environmental catastrophe on our border caused by polluting NAFTA factories? This is news how?

[LSK]

73. ummm thats a link about CAFTA

And does nothing to prove or disprove that NAFTA is responsible for babies born with no brains.

Try again.

[NormanYorkstein]

76. Ah, I see you didn't read it

go ahead and get back to me when you actually take the time to research and understand the issue.

Also, your fellow proponents of NAFTA - the Wall Street Journal editorial page, has said that "Nafta" can be used for free trade agreements in general. Since you support NAFTA, perhaps you might want to read what America's number one newspaper and major NAFTA supporters at the WSJ have to say?

Here's another link - it's long, it might take a while to get through it all, but from the abstract:

http://www.american.edu/TED/maquila.htm

NAFTA side agreements have done little to stop pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border. That pollution has in turn lead to the continued clustering of birth
defects on both sides of the border, mainly anencephaly, where
babies are born without fully developed brains.

Do you need anything else? Again, this has been discussed openly for 15 years now, it's hardly news to anyone who's been paying attention.

[LSK]

67. also, tell me if Mr "Free Market" Gore supports Kyoto???

If he does, doesnt that kinda blow your theory out of the water?

[NormanYorkstein]

70. Tell us about Gore's "carbon credits"

I'm curious to know if Gore pushers have any idea what his policies actually are? Or is him being a "rock star" somehow enough?

[LSK]

72. Green Power Switch

http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch

TVA and participating local public power companies, working with input from the environmental community, have created a program called Green Power Switch® to produce electricity from renewable sources and add it to the Tennessee Valley’s power mix.

http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm

What is Green Power Switch?

Like any revolutionary idea, the idea behind Green Power Switch is simple: harness the natural power of the wind, the sun, and the earth to create an energy source that's usable in our everyday lives. TVA and local public power companies, working in cooperation with the environmental community, developed Green Power Switch as a way to bring green power — electricity that’s generated by renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas — to Valley consumers.
How much does Green Power Switch cost?

Green Power Switch is sold to residential consumers in 150-kilowatt-hour blocks (about 12 percent of a typical household’s monthly energy use). Each block adds $4 to the customer’s monthly power bills. Consumers may buy as many blocks as they like. In other parts of the country, residential consumers who participate in green power programs pay an extra $2 to $10 per month for green power. Green Power Switch is also marketed to commercial and industrial consumers, who are asked to buy blocks based on the amount of energy they use.
How does green power benefit the environment?

The environmental effects of traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power can be significant. Although no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution. In fact, an investment of an additional $8 per month on your power bill buys enough Green Power Switch to equal the environmental benefits of planting an acre of trees in the Tennessee Valley.

[Elwood P Dowd]

74. Other key co-conspirators among the democrats included

Dan Rostenkowski, Tom Foley, Bill Richardson, Robert Matsui, Mickey Kantor, Bill Bradley, and John Mitchell. There were others, but those were all over CSPAN and CNN promoting an agreement THEY KNEW would only benefit a few wealthy elites.

[NormanYorkstein]

77. Bill Bradley? That's a major disappointment

He was so good on so many issues, I support him in the primary against Gore.

[Elwood P Dowd]

80. He was a huge NAFTA supporter.

We were royally screwed in November of 1993. We controlled The White House, The Senate, and The House. Look what it got us. I will never forget it.

[Terri S]

98. This was a major failure of Clinton..and Gore

These people and their contributions to the world/country should be taken as a whole, not simpley focusing on one or two failures, that may, or may not, have had the best intentions behind them. But when they have failed, they need to be called out for it. This was a failure in no uncertain terms.

I'm terribly disappointed that too many people here find honest criticism of Democrats somehow disloyal. Seems it's ok to criticise Repubs for their blind faith in party regardless of obvious mistakes. Remember, patriotism is not a defense of politicians but of the country. We are better than lock-step neocons, or should be.

Taken as a whole, both Clinton and Gore so far exceed anthing the Republican Party has or will offer, that in spite of mis-steps, exhibit still the best of our leadership. I doubt anyone with half a brain could argue the exact opposite in Republican offerings. I am not loyal to party. I belong to this party because they represent a better choice for leadership of this country. They are not perfect by a long shot, but at least their hearts are in the right place and I think for the most part, they truly live and learn and want the best for the country and the world.

[B Calm]

107. NAFTA was still a REPUBLICAN introduced bill. Passed by a republican

congress and signed into law by a democrat president. The OP is wanting NAFTA to be Al Gore's legacy??? Sounds like a RW talking point! Republicans have been doing this for 100 years. They create a big fucking mess and wait for the democrats to clean it up, then they point their shit stained fingers at the democrats!

[NormanYorkstein]

108. I wish NAFTA was not Gore's legacy

Unfortunately Gore spend his entire political career pushing for "free trade" and Nafta is his actual crowning achievement - it's what he actually accomplished. Eh what are you gonna do? :shrug:

[B Calm]

116. whatever.... Got the proof ?

[NormanYorkstein]

118. sure here - next time do some homework

I don't think anyone here actually WANTS any proof - it's not even in dispute, it's just a way to try to try to avoid the issue. If you really don't know anything about Al Gore's 30 year career in politics, then you are uninformed and should probably get educated before having an opinion, maybe? You think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA
http://www.ontheissues.org/Al_Gore.htm

[B Calm]

119. He supported the republican introduced NAFTA bill, but only with labor and

enviro protections. Your point is?????????????

[NormanYorkstein]

120. wrong - NO labor or evironmental protections in NAFTA

that was the "side agreements" which of course get ignored.

And Gore still hasn't apologized, and is still shilling for MORE free trade.

[B Calm]

121. Something tells me you have an agenda to be spewing right wing

talking points. Al Gore has no reason to apologize for the REPUBLICAN INTRODUCED NAFTA bill. Al Gore didn't vote for it, so quit pretending he did!

[NormanYorkstein]

122. Al Gore is the one spewing right wing talking points

So far none of the Gore apologists here can explain Gore's lifelong commitment to "free trade", and you can try to blame Republicans for NAFTA all you want - it would never have passed without Gore stabbing Democrats and unions in the back to side with the GOP.

So - what's Gore excuse for pushing "Republican" Nafta?

[nomatrix]

114. NAFTA was Reagan idea

http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/chronologie.asp?langue=eng&menu=integ

November 13, 1979

While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”


December 17, 1992

Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.

[AtomicKitten]

128. 1993? Ah, okay.

I would be fascinated to know why you have made it your mission to attack Al Gore in particular.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.