Kucinich- A democratic administration started NAFTA....

A democratic administration will end it.

Kucinich is the only candidate who nailed the problem of outsourcing in the PBS debates. It is beyond my comprehension why every democrat is not getting behind him.

It is going to take more then tax breaks and math and science education to bring our jobs back home. Domestically, I think outsourcing is the biggest crisis Americans are facing. Gone are the jobs that our fathers and their fathers did that paid wages that could support a family without a college education. Trust me, the people in India, Mexico, China and elsewhere do not have advanced math and science degrees to screw a widget into a gizmo, and I am tired of hearing that better education is what America needs to compete with a global economy. We have good, hard working people in THIS country and the only thing they are lacking is JOBS. They need the plants running again.

Everyone needs to ask their candidate, “What do you intend to do to get our jobs back?” Well, no need, really- You can see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/ywvf2p

we should demand this position from EVERY Democrat. Hillary won't say it and won't do it.

Does Al Gore 2.0 still support these destructive trade organizations or has he seen the light?

one way or the other. They are fine with us or without us.

What would he replace the WTO with? What principles of trade would the new international trading organization embody? The poor countries of the world are going to have some advantage in labor intensive industries, since their labor is, by definition, cheaper (they are poor). Stricter trading rules including safeguards on labor rights, working conditions, and environmental protections will reduce this advantage some, but it will still exist.

The only way to completely avoid this advantage is to wall them off with high tariffs or low quotas. That would certainly help many American workers, but the reaction to it would hurt other workers. We are the second largest exporting country in the world after Germany, so if other countries put up tariffs and quotas against us, many of our workers would suffer. Of course, politically it may still be an attractive idea, because those who are suffering now know it, while those who may only suffer in the future don't even know what might happen and don't raise their voices.

Germany exported $1.11 trillion, the US $1.04 trillion, and China $0.97 trillion. China's growth rate is much higher, though, so they either already have or will pass us very soon.

The point still is we still export a tremendous amount which could be affected by tariffs and quotas from other countries.

I see the WTO as "Corporate Global Government". It is a greedy grab for power by the world's corporate elite. It seeks to establish a super-structure of global governance that dominates the power of nation states even including the US. The result is that profits rule and people suffer. This happens in both poor and wealthy nations.

We should replace the WTO and NAFTA with bi-lateral trade negotiations that respect the values we hold or at least should hold. We need to cater to the needs of workers before shareholders. We need to seek policies that can lift up poorer third world nations without jeopardizing our own national interests. We need to respect the environment. Each trade agreement we enter into should embody these principles.

As long as we respect the needs of our workers, lift up the poorer third world nations and respect the environment, I would endorse your ideas.

the WTO grants power to corporations that will never protect the rights of people. it is dedicated to empowering CORPORATE GLOBAL GOVERNMENT where the corporations make the rules and, even in democracies, the people have no say. Pro-business good; pro-people bad. That's the WTO.

bi-lateral trade, as an alternative, will be no better at all if people around the world are not able to rid their governments of the blight of corporate control. this is especially true in the US. until human values are empowered and not greedy, profit seeking, immoral corporations, there will be no form of trade that seeks to help workers, and lift up third world nations and protect the environment. it can't happen in the current system because those who pay for the candidates' campaigns won't let it happen. when corporations set an electoral and legislative strategy that is solely dedicated to maximizing their profits, people are never part of the equation. money and profits are the only gods they worship.

if you really want to bring about human-oriented trading policies, job one is to fight for publically funded elections. no money, ZERO, should be allowed into the political process from corporations under any circumstances. once that happens, democracy dies. it's incredible that this abuse of democracy has been allowed. if you adhere to the idea of one man one vote, where each citizen can speak out for and vote for the candidate of their choice, it is unconscionable that we allow the corruption of massive corporate funding into the process. this money is not being spent for no reason. it is not being spent to make the country better. it is being spent for one reason and one reason only: to buy as much influence as possible to control public policy.

if you support people-oriented trade policies, the only path leads right through publically financed campaigns.

Please stop injecting a sense of reality into these discussions.... :eyes:

these trade agreements haven't done anything good for us either. The only ones they benefit are the big transnational corporations. The same corporations that buy off all the politicians no matter what denomination. What we all need is to take personhood from corporations and thoroughly clean house of all politicians that take any money from them.

Canada is our largest trading partner and both countries benefit enormously from the relationship we have as a result of NAFTA.

I believe the collective body of elected officials are responsible for selling out the American peoples including the legal emigrants.

The link below is interesting.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/

too bad he prefers "job retraining."

Been there, done that.

Seriously, what other jobs are there to "retrain" to?

Our fathers did not need high tech educations to support their families. Their jobs were not in Silicone Valley, but in the local furniture plant or the textile mill. These are the jobs that built this country.

They have a population of 80 million, about 30% of our population, high wages, generous social benefits and they export more than we do and have very low unemployment. They seem to have found a way to run a high-wage export-oriented economy.

Perhaps we could copy that idea from them. ;)

Retraining is only one part of the solution according to Obama. The only reason he talked about it is because he has personal experience doing it.
He has called NAFTA a "failure" and supports its renegotiation. That may not be going as far as Dennis, but it's the same thing Edwards has said and you don't attack him for some reason.

Pity. I can get behind that.

He seems to get it.

Normally I like your posts Radical Activist, but you are dead wrong here. You should read The Audacity of Hope. He really didn't want to vote against CAFTA.

and we obviously interpreted it in different ways.

“Our economy was working much better in the ‘90’s” -- Hillary

Of course this was on the topic of economic disparity. She had nothing to say about the “Bill Years” when the topic was outsourcing.

sadly, Bill Clinton pushed it through a Democratic Congress. The great irony is that NAFTA was supposed to "save" the sick Mexican economy - instead, it wrecked it and brought havoc to our own. This issue should be front and center in every debate among Democratic candidates.

That was just about as damaging as well, with the media corporatists loving the ability to consolidate more of the media properties and build bigger monopolies. Clear Channel couldn't have become what it is today without it. It also sought to put in place the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, a piece of nebulous anti-civil liberties laws that today's courts might NOT find unconstitutional in the current frame provided by the Patriot Act now.

It looked like Gravel was playing catch up to him. The audience cheered Dennis the most IMO.

He knows his shit inside and out.

His message was succinct and unique. The neo-liberals sounded all the same.

Plus he is a minority, or at least on the stage he was a minority; a member of the "vertically impaired". :evilgrin:

Most here know what will really hurt Dennis most is being in the minority of being "contibutionally impaired".

DU dems, PLEASE ask where your candidates $$$ are coming from and ask yourself WHY?

Winning at any cost has a HUGE cost.

China will surpass the US this year.


Data source: 2007 CIA World Factbook

*NOTE: European Union Exports do not include Exports of EU member states to other EU countries.

1 World $12,450,000,000,000
2 European Union $1,330,000,000,000
3 Germany $1,133,000,000,000
4 United States $1,024,000,000,000
5 China $974,000,000,000
6 Hong Kong $611,600,000,000
7 Japan $590,300,000,000
8 France $490,000,000,000
9 United Kingdom $468,800,000,000
10 Italy $450,100,000,000
11 Netherlands $413,800,000,000
12 Canada $405,000,000,000
13 Belgium $335,300,000,000
14 Korea, South $327,900,000,000
15 Russia $317,600,000,000
16 Singapore $283,600,000,000
17 Mexico $248,800,000,000
18 Spain $222,100,000,000
19 Taiwan $215,000,000,000
20 Saudi Arabia $204,500,000,000
21 Sweden $173,900,000,000
22 Switzerland $166,300,000,000
23 Malaysia $158,700,000,000
24 Austria $144,400,000,000
25 Brazil $138,000,000,000

I don’t own a thing from Germany that I can think of - aside from music.

But more to the point, what really does America really have to export anymore but our jobs? Natural resources like lumber and coal? Freedom and Democracy? Military “contractors“? Where are these numbers coming from?

It is hard to grasp being 4th in the world while production is drying up here.

Production is going up, as it always has. What IS drying up is the jobs. America today produces twice as much (in real dollars, adjusting for inflation) as it did thirty years ago using only half the workforce. That increase in productivity is a result of automation more than anything.

It was when Bush took office that they didn't enforce the trade sanctions against other countries from going overboard with their trade policies.

This is laissez faire politics at it's worst!

Kucinich is my first choice, by a long shot, over any of the other candidates.

He was the only one in the forum the other night who had me cheering -- the "front-runners" were interchangeable in what they said.

Thanks to all who K&R'ed.

It surprises me how much the progressives cheering Gore forget about his role promoting NAFTA and the WTO.

n/t

to happen.

It is the most pro-consumer, pro-employee, pro-peace, pro-economic growth policy we have, IMO.

:rofl:

to prevent trade and immigration should be the Democratic Party plank. In their view, keeping out people, products and services from other countries is the most pro-consumer, pro-employee, pro-peace, pro-economic growth policy we could have.

While "free trade" is bogus (there is no such thing), trade itself it good. Every country doesn't need to produce everything any more than each state needs to produce its own corn, cars and computers. The key is to promote trade that benefits people not money.

People who believe that prosperity can be achieved via less trade and higher tariffs are living in the past.