NAFTA/CAFTA Benefits for America?

GHook93

Aristotle
Apr 22, 2007
20,150
3,524
290
Chicago
I hear the so called "capitalist" say that these agreements produce more US jobs. How does they? What jobs? What are the benefits?

(1) Jobs:
What jobs have been created. We know its not manufacturing jobs. Is it sales jobs? The competition between sales has driven sales job wages well down and creates extremely low job security.

R & D jobs. Seriously? We educate students from around the world. Many used to stay here (many illegally) and then work in America. Now they take the know-hows back to countries like Mexico and India and compete directly with American R & D jobs. Getting paid $40K annuall in India or Mexico makes you 10x richer (in terms of standard of living) than making $140K in America!

Construction jobs? Nope.

So where are the jobs created by NAFTA, CAFTA and other FTA?

(2) Lower Prices:
Food prices, gas prices and just about every price has shot up dramatically since these agreements have been put into place. People will say that its inflation, devaluation of the dollar and deficit, but that still won't make up for the fact that people are making less but playing 10x more.

The lower cost to business has not equated to the substantially lower cost to the America work to make up for the loss of all the US jobs.

(3) Increased Exports:
This is always what the Free Traders point out as the "see it works!" However, take our top ten, heck 15 trade partners and we have a deficit with all of them and its not just oil imports, its everything. Heck look at all the countries in CAFTA (Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Dominica Republic and Peru), we have a trade deficit will all of them. There is something work there!

FTA are not working for us in their current state!
 
(4) Stopping Illegal Immigration:

They said we need to build up Mexico and other Latin American countries in order to stem illegal immigration. Did it work? Hell NO! During the late 90s and from 2000-2009 illegal immigration skyrocketed! It was disgusting. The only thing that seemed to stem illegal immigration a little was poor economy! :(
 
It was/is a magnificent way for investors to make a LOT more money.
It increased profits for a WHOOOLE lot of companies.
In other words...a quite small number of people became very rich, a slightly larger group of people made a wee bit more on 401ks...a scant number of people got jobs here in America due to increased exports.
A f*cking GIANT number of people lost their jobs due to increased imports that used to be made here.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnVL0d9fwkY]YouTube - The Wonderful World of NAFTA (Part 1/2)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxQQael1ueE]YouTube - The Wonderful World of NAFTA (Part 2/2)[/ame]
 
Very silly, but it speaks the truth!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxQQael1ueE]YouTube - The Wonderful World of NAFTA (Part 2/2)[/ame]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other rich country in the western hemisphere!

Canada incomes 1998, wealthest income skyrocket, the middle class has seen their income decrease substantially, yet they put in more hours.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95PeROcswSw&feature=related]YouTube - Myths of NAFTA[/ame]
 
In 1992 we had a $5.4 billion surplus with Mexico.
In 2007 we had a $40 billion deficit with Mexico!

Is the video that JB and I posted for source!
 
It's not Trump who rightful concentrates on China. Rather its Ron Paul, who also talks against the UN and WTO!
 
Ahh, the great cornerstones of Free Trade.

You see the sharp dip from Clinton's Presidency. Two thinks happened. (1) NAFTA and (2) Removing trade barriers to China and helping get China in to the WTO.

The other sharp dip was 2004 with CAFTA!
 
Ahh, the great cornerstones of Free Trade.
You see the sharp dip from Clinton's Presidency. Two thinks happened. (1) NAFTA and (2) Removing trade barriers to China and helping get China in to the WTO. The other sharp dip was 2004 with CAFTA!

So having a drop in the 'trade deficit' is bad? Let's look at the facts.
trdblunmp.jpg

A bigger trade deficit means more jobs while a lesser trade deficit comes with higher unemployment, shattered lives, and a weaker America. That's the choice, and I favor a strong and prosperous America more than some goofy so-called 'trade deficit'.
 
Ahh, the great cornerstones of Free Trade.
You see the sharp dip from Clinton's Presidency. Two thinks happened. (1) NAFTA and (2) Removing trade barriers to China and helping get China in to the WTO. The other sharp dip was 2004 with CAFTA!

So having a drop in the 'trade deficit' is bad? Let's look at the facts.
trdblunmp.jpg

A bigger trade deficit means more jobs while a lesser trade deficit comes with higher unemployment, shattered lives, and a weaker America. That's the choice, and I favor a strong and prosperous America more than some goofy so-called 'trade deficit'.

Are you really trying to argue that importing more goods than we export is good for the economy and unemployment? :cuckoo:
 
NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992.

The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Regan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA.

History of NAFTA - Purpose of NAFTA - Facts About NAFTA

Lets have the whole story folks.
 
Last edited:
Obama said he was gonna' renegotiate NAFTA when he was running for office. Anyone hear anything about that since?
FactCheck.org: The Facts About 'NAFTA-Gate'

That was one of his attacking points on Hillary Clinton by Obama. It was one of the ways he separated himself from Clinton! He ran on this, yet he has done dick on NAFTA on his first term!

Obama: "I always opposed NAFTA!" ==> but as President you have done dick!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhh7SvDIWGk]YouTube - Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton: NAFTA - Shame on You![/ame]
 
NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992.

The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Regan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA.

History of NAFTA - Purpose of NAFTA - Facts About NAFTA

Lets have the whole story folks.

NOT TRUE! Talks on NAFTA were started by Reagan, but he ultimately and rightly decided it was bad for America and rejected it. Bush Sr had talks on it and tried to get it through, but he ran out of time. Then Clinton took office on Jan 20, 1993 and a new Canada PM took office, the negotiations restarted under Clinton, with VP Gore pushing hard for it. Perot ran back then and came out strongly against NAFTA. Clinton and Gore changed a lot of things, such as environmental protections that Mexico has ignored to this day. In 1993 NAFTA was renegotiated by Clinton/Gore. Clinton/Gore had nearly a full year of NAFTA negotiations under their belt. The final NAFTA agreement was Clinton and Gore's baby. Finally in Nov 1993 congress voted for it and in Dec 1993 Clinton signed it into law.


Pushing it onto Bush Sr is a come liberal tactic, since they don't want Clinton exposed as the worst President in US (which he was)!
 
How does one dismantle a treaty ratified by congress?


Probably unilaterially, since most of those FREE TRADE agreements we've made with our trade partners would be NUTS FOR THEM to end.

All it takes folks is the POLITICAL WILL to end them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top