Now is not the time to renegotiate or cancel NAFTA - Bush

[Shogun]

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - President Bush has replied to criticism from Democratic presidential candidates and says that now is not the time to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or to walk away from the accord.

Bush told a joint news conference Tuesday with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that now is the time to make the trade agreement work better and to reduce trade barriers world wide.

Bush also used the opportunity to renew his call for Congress to pass a free trade pact with Colombia.



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9071E2O6&show_article=1






good job, conservatives!

 

[AllieBaba]

Does this mean we're going to start taxing the narcotics that they send us?

 

[manifold]

Does this mean we're going to start taxing the narcotics that they send us?

Not if you buy them over the internet.

 

[Dogger]

Given Bush's horrendous track record with predictions, I've taken to calling him Nostradumbass.

Wrong on the economy,
Wrong on the war,
Wrong on everything,
And stupid to the core.

 

[manifold]

Given Bush's horrendous track record with predictions, I've taken to calling him Nostradumbass.

In other words, you've taken to insulting dumb people and an old dead guy.

 

[Ravi]

Well, it did stop illegal immigration as promised.

Whoops.

 

[Shogun]

Nafta is a fulcrum to be used in correcting the ridiculous burden that has been thrust onto the US by our neighboring third world nations. it's absolutely retarded to defend nafta while mexico continues to not give a damn about the exodus of their poor into this country.

 

[Gunny]

Given Bush's horrendous track record with predictions, I've taken to calling him Nostradumbass.

Wrong on the economy,
Wrong on the war,
Wrong on everything,
And stupid to the core.

Y'all are identical twins, huh?

I don't agree with Bush on NAFTA. Just another globalist idea to pull us down to Third World status.

 

[Dogger]

In other words, you've taken to insulting dumb people and an old dead guy.

I don't care about the dummy, and the dead guy doesn't care about me (though he probably saw it coming).

 

[Dogger]

Y'all are identical twins, huh?

I don't agree with Bush on NAFTA. Just another globalist idea to pull us down to Third World status.

I've had one bad prediction since the Bush nightmare began. I though it would take 2 to 4 weeks longer to get our troops into Baghdad.

 

[Toro]

Bush is dead right.

There will be no renegotiations, nor should there be.

And sign the FTA with Colombia already.

 

[Ravi]

Why?

 

[Toro]

Why should there be re-negotiations? Based on what?

It ain't trade that is causing job losses.

 

[Gunny]

I've had one bad prediction since the Bush nightmare began. I though it would take 2 to 4 weeks longer to get our troops into Baghdad.

Me too. Even though I disagree with what is now considered the liberal POV, I didn't believe liberals would stoop as low as they have, as evidenced by your BS post.

It's been just one, 7 year long sad moment of watching what was once an honorable political ideal and those who have twisted into the extreme hatemongering it is slide further and further into the cesspool.

The people who were Democrats when I was wouldn't know you and your kind.

 

[Ravi]

Why should there be re-negotiations? Based on what?

It ain't trade that is causing job losses.

No? I'm not so sure it isn't contributing. How do you see NAFTA as helpful?

 

[Gunny]

Why should there be re-negotiations? Based on what?

It ain't trade that is causing job losses.

Really? You don't think flooding our markets with cheap junk with no import tariffs doesn't cause job loss?

 

[Toro]

Really? You don't think flooding our markets with cheap junk with no import tariffs doesn't cause job loss?

No, not net job losses.

Some people are going to lose their jobs because someone makes things cheaper somewhere else, but that means consumers now have more to spend elsewhere, which generates more jobs.

If you think that trade destroys jobs in balance, then you must agree that the proper response would have been for the northern states to slap tariffs on the southern states when the manufacturing base of this country started to move southwards. Surely, cheap stuff made in Alabama shouldn't be let into Michigan if you go by this logic.

 

[Gunny]

No, not net job losses.

Some people are going to lose their jobs because someone makes things cheaper somewhere else, but that means consumers now have more to spend elsewhere, which generates more jobs.

If you think that trade destroys jobs in balance, then you must agree that the proper response would have been for the northern states to slap tariffs on the southern states when the manufacturing base of this country started to move southwards. Surely, cheap stuff made in Alabama shouldn't be let into Michigan if you go by this logic.

The North tried. THAT's what led to the Civil War. However, that topic is being discussed currently in two threads on this board and we don't need to make it three.

It might not be the sole reason, but it's a reason, and where it creates other jobs is in Mexico, not the US.

I'm all for mentarily penalizing the Hell out of US corporations that move jobs outside this country, and I'm for cutting out all this free trade agreement crap and making it cost others to do business with us.

When do we start looking out for own asses instead of trying to appease the world?

 

[Toro]

The North tried. THAT's what led to the Civil War. However, that topic is being discussed currently in two threads on this board and we don't need to make it three.

It might not be the sole reason, but it's a reason, and where it creates other jobs is in Mexico, not the US.

I'm all for mentarily penalizing the Hell out of US corporations that move jobs outside this country, and I'm for cutting out all this free trade agreement crap and making it cost others to do business with us.

When do we start looking out for own asses instead of trying to appease the world?

I didn't realize you were for tax increases, Gunny, especially tax increases on consumer. That surprises me. I always thought you leaned to the right. But tax increases are exactly what you are proposing.

Not just tax increases, but the worst type of tax increases - those that distort resource allocation. What you are saying is that you should take money out of consumers pockets and give it to industries that are in decline. Raising the prices for everybody - which is what protectionism does - destroys jobs because it raises the costs of doing business. That is poor economic policy.

Trade protectionism results in a deadweight loss to the economy. It doesn't help Americans. It hurts them.

 

[Shogun]

but.. wasn't alabama still AMERICA? you say that cheap shit will let people buy more (cheap) shit that is supposed to generate jobs. In practice, it's created the means to sell the cheap shit rather than the means to create American shit. This lowers the American standard of living. We don't owe mexico that.