|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Bruce Yurgil on NAFTA
Bart, if you WANT to understand NAFTA, you're
going to have to do your homework,
even if that means checking out the links.
Then I may have to remain ignorant on NAFTA, but
the point still stands that
people who are violently opposed to NAFTA should
be able to explain why.
If they can't explain it, then I say they should
throttle back on the outrage.
NAFTA is a republican policy.
To me, "free trade" is the absence of "terriers
and bariffs," to quote Der Monkey.
Substitute the word DEREGULATION for terriers
and bariffs and you'll see why.
Devil's Advocate:
Let's say McCain wins and, to help Detroit, he
slaps a $10,000 tariff on every car
made by Honda, Toyota, Nissan etc.
Would anti-NAFTA people like that?
For example, NAFTA would allow trucks from Mexico
to drive throughout America
without any regulation. The trucks would not
have to meet U.S. standards for safety and
the drivers would not have to be able to read
our road signs.
Yes, that's a legitimate outrage, one that can
be pointed at and objected to.
Who is for that? Who wants unsafe
trucks and drivers who can't read road signs?
If we fix that segment, does NAFTA then become
less of an outrage?
Currently, the UNIONS have been able to forestall
this particular aspect of NAFTA,
but the matter is in legal limbo. Extend this
entire policy to all industries and you get
job flight to foreign countries that do not have
to meet U.S. standards or labor agreements.
Bruce Yurgil
OK, so what if we prevent them from selling their
goods back to America?
Would Hershey's Chocolate move to Mexico if they
knew they'd lose the US market to Nestles?
I kinda doubt it.
Sidebar:
It's fun to debate/talk policy when both sides act like adults.
Subject: NAFTA
Nafta didn't seem to be a problem in the 90's when Clinton was stewarding the economy.
When the neocons took over in 2001 and started
removing all the manufacturing jobs
and creating service industry jobs then NAFTA
became a problem.
So this again is, of course, Clinton's fault!
NS,
Subject: NAFTA
And of course you can explain why it`s good I,
see
Dwick
That's a cheap shot and a stupid one.
I've said again and again, if you don't
know what you're talking about,
do us all a favor and don't get so goddamn
excited about shit you can't explain.
Have I ever said NAFTA was good?
Subject: NAFTA
How about some N.A.F.T.A. upsides ?
I`m setting here in clothes made in china, a pc
made in japan, and when I call
for tech support I get some dude in Calcutta
or East Jesus, someplace
ohhh nafta is fine for investors at pool
side waiting on their div checks made with profits
from sweatshop labor, and third world nations
willing to work for a cup of rice
you want more of that ?
How`s NAFTA been workin for you, Bart?
Bitter in Pennsylvania,
Don
How's NAFTA working for me?
I can't feel any effects from NAFTA, which is why I asked about the
furor.
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog