Now tracking the new emerging South Africa Omicron Variant |
Bush,Harper,Calderon Defend NAFTA Amid Backlash |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Evergreen
Admin Group Location: Washington Joined: March 30 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 770 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: April 21 2008 at 9:12am |
This idiot just doesn't quit. We'll be lucky to survive his last days in office. D
Bush, Harper, Calderon to Defend Trade Amid Backlash in U.S. By Mark Drajem and Jens Erik Gould April 21 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico will use a summit meeting today in New Orleans to defend free trade and their $930 billion in cross-border commerce against a political backlash. It won't be easy. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon have each made lowering trade barriers, cutting regulation and supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement a hallmark of their administrations, and will make the case with Bush for those policies. ``All three governments want to push back on the perception that Nafta is a disaster,'' said Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas, a business-backed group that will meet with the leaders tomorrow. ``The overriding political imperative is the support of Nafta.'' Each leader faces opposition related to Nafta, the world's largest free-trade agreement. As a result, analysts are predicting few tangible results from this fourth gathering of the three leaders dealing with a joint effort on security and commerce. ``They will have some jambalaya, eat some gumbo and send the right signals, but don't expect much,'' said Michael Hart, a political science professor at Carleton University in Ottawa. One goal is to harmonize standards in areas such as fuel efficiency and automobile testing, Dan Fisk, director for Western Hemisphere affairs on Bush's National Security Council, told reporters on April 18. The focus is on autos, because many parts are made in Canada and Mexico. Wal-Mart, Home Depot A business advisory group made up of executives from Wal- Mart Stores Inc., Ford Motor Co. and Home Depot Inc., which all have major operations in Mexico and Canada, will meet with the leaders tomorrow. Bush, Calderon and Harper will also seek greater cooperation on protecting intellectual property and seizing fake products, Fisk said. In the U.S., the loss of jobs due to international competition has become an issue in this year's presidential election campaign as Republican Bush comes to the end of his presidency. The Democratic presidential candidates are squabbling over who dislikes Nafta more, and Congress voted to delay consideration of a similar trade accord with Colombia. Clinton Versus Clinton While campaigning in Pittsburgh last week, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York renewed her pledge to renegotiate Nafta to beef up labor standards and environmental protection provisions, and took a swipe at her husband Bill Clinton for pushing the pact through Congress. ``As smart as my husband is, he does make mistakes,'' Clinton said April 14. ``We've now had 15 years of experience with Nafta, and the evidence is clear that we have to change the basic provisions.'' Her adversary, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, counters that he had always opposed Nafta, and says Clinton only became disenchanted as part of the election campaign. The opposition isn't just in the U.S. In Mexico, 150,000 farmers shut down Mexico City's main boulevard during a Jan. 31 march against cheap food imports, saying they are being put out of business by subsidized U.S. crops, especially corn. They say Nafta will push more Mexican farmers off their land, forcing them to try to enter the U.S. illegally looking for better work. Mexican Trucks In addition, the U.S. Congress has tried to block a requirement that Mexican trucks be allowed on American roads. If that happens, ``the U.S. would be breaking Nafta and we would have the possibility to take reprisals,'' Mexican Economy Minister Eduardo Sojo said April 16 at the World Economic Forum in Cancun. In Canada, which sells about 75 percent of its exports to the U.S., the attention is focused on what the next administration in the U.S. might do to weaken Nafta. The Department of Homeland Security has proposed requiring passports to travel to Canada, a move that has drawn protests from leaders in Ottawa. Congress is moving forward with legislation to require country-of-origin labeling of meat, which might destroy the cross-border coordination of hog producers. In Manitoba, hog farmers are beginning to euthanize hundreds of thousands of young pigs because U.S. farmers, scared by the proposal, are breaking contracts and refusing to buy them, the National Post reported. `Gathering Steam' ``Protectionist forces have been gathering steam for some years and they're showing no signs of abating,'' Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson said April 2. Yet when the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership began in Waco, Texas, in March 2005, Bush and his counterparts pledged to improve the flow of people across the borders, cooperate on regulatory standards and promote collaboration on transportation and other issues. Since then, the three leaders have met with business leaders each year and affirmed their support for the concept. After their last summit in Montebello, Quebec, they announced a joint plan to fight avian flu, and agreed to cooperate on energy and protect copyrights and patents. Future joint summits might end up being transformed into forums that a new U.S. president could use to seek changes to the trade accord. Instead of scrapping Nafta, the forum ``could be adapted'' to deal with the labor and environmental issues raised by Obama and Clinton, said Christopher Sands, a senior fellow at the non- partisan Hudson Institute in Washington. To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net; Jens Erik Gould in Mexico City at jgould9@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: April 21, 2008 00:01 EDT |
|
235365 - Energy follows thought. As you think, so you are.
|
|
Evergreen
Admin Group Location: Washington Joined: March 30 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 770 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
White House defends NAFTA: 'There's nothing broken'
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent Fri Apr 18, 11:45 AM ET The White House on Friday vigorously defended the 14-year-old free-trade agreement among the United States, Mexico and Canada against sharp criticism from Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. "There's nothing broken. Why fix it?" said Dan Fisk, senior director of Western hemisphere affairs for National Security Council. He acknowledged the administration must do a better job of explaining the benefits of the agreement. Both Clinton and Obama have threatened to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement to pressure Canada and Mexico to negotiate more protections for workers and the environment in the agreement. The accord has removed most barriers to trade and investment among the three countries. NAFTA will be a major topic when President Bush joins Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in New Orleans on Monday and Tuesday for his fourth and final North American Leaders' Summit. Bush has suffered a major setback on the trade front with the derailing of a proposed free-trade pact with Colombia. Bush sent the agreement to Capitol Hill earlier this month, but the House, led by Democrats, decided to eliminate a rule forcing a vote on the deal within 60 legislative days. The House's decision probably kills consideration of the agreement this year, leaving it for the next administration. "Leaders in Congress have made a serious error," Bush said in a speech. "A serious error for economics reasons. A serious error for security reasons. It's not too late, however, for them to get it right." On NAFTA, the White House contends the agreement has been a boon for the economies of all three countries. Three-way trade has swelled from roughly $290 billion in 1994 to about $1 trillion by the end of this year, Fisk said at a briefing on next week's summit. "We think NAFTA works," he said. Fisk said the criticism from the campaign trail has gotten a lot of attention from U.S. trading partners. "Some of the statements that have been made here have made bigger headlines in Canada and Mexico than they have here," he said. "We want to find ways to, frankly, convince the American people from our perspective first and foremost that this is an arrangement that has worked for us and it's also worked for our neighbors," he said. "It's been a win-win situation." |
|
235365 - Energy follows thought. As you think, so you are.
|
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I WAS EMAILED THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THIS MESS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO IMPLIMENT IT:
545 People . By Charlie Reese -- Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy', 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! - Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper |
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ignorance is bliss until its too late.
Informative posts - thanx
|
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Maxine on Relevant 'Logic'
Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in this country lately; v illegal immigration v hurricane recovery v alligators attacking people in Florida Not me. I concentrate on solutions for the problems. It's a win-win situation. 1. Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border. 2. Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levies. 3. Put the Florida alligators in the moat along the Mexican border. Any other problems you would like for me to solve today? ================= ~~~ ================== |
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Perfect Solution!!!
|
|
H2HPrep
Valued Member Joined: March 14 2008 Status: Offline Points: 325 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
"One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country."
Congratulations, now you understand a Republic.
|
|
Turboguy
Admin Group Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 6079 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Wasn't it William Jefferson Clinton and his ever so wise Democrats that enacted NAFTA despite widespread backlash? Couldn't have been, the Democrats are far too smart to do anything like *THAT!*
P.S. Both houses of congress are under Democratic leadership, if NAFTA is so widely despised wouldn't you think they in congress THAT MAKE THE LAWS would go ahead and end it? Oh wait, would that mean that the Democrats actually do what their constituents want them to?
P.P.S. George W.'s approval rating: 30% Disapprove 66%. Both Democratic controlled houses of Congress: 15%. Who's doing worse? It would seem we should be more worried about what the jackasses in Congress are doing more than we should be watching the President.
I do love how some think one person is more at fault than any other politician.
|
|
cgh18
Valued Member Joined: November 28 2006 Status: Offline Points: 142 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Nafta wouldn't have passed if it wasn't for the Republicans overwhelmingly voting for it , The Dems in the House and Congress voted against it. I do agree with the fact that NAFTA should be modified, But even if it were to get through the House and Senate , Geo. W. would veto it. It will be up to the nexy administration to do something, as anything done now is vetoed by a lame duck who's agenda is ruled by the rich.
|
|
cgh
|
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
cgh18, before you try and make the rich look bad...they are the ones who make new businesses and employ most of America.
If we gave all the money that the rich have to the poor we would now have a country with no business, no employres and no employees. What we would have are lots of poor people with big TV's, Blu-ray DVD Players, lots of jewelry and plenty of other toys. If Obama becomes President that is what we will have, take money from the "rich" to give to the poor who will waste it. So please Cgh18 don't think that the ruling rich are so bad. |
|
H2HPrep
Valued Member Joined: March 14 2008 Status: Offline Points: 325 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Pop Quiz:
__________ refers to any of the various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis.
__________ is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting unity, strength and purity.
|
|
Suzi
Admin Group Joined: September 02 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
socialism , fascism
|
|
Suzi
Admin Group Joined: September 02 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
my definition for fascism- organized selfishness
|
|
cgh18
Valued Member Joined: November 28 2006 Status: Offline Points: 142 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You'll have a hard time to convince me that there is someone that should earn more in a week, than most will earn in a lifetime.
Do you think the poor are sending the jobs overseas? It seems some are so afraid of working people making a living wage, they want most people to be poor. Middle class is just a nice word for poor. Everything has gone up except for wages, Even the new minimum wage increase doesn't cover the new cost of food and oil. So I suppose you could call it a "sub minimum wage increase." Someday lots of the "middle class " will find them selves broke and trying to get to a food bank, that's if they can afford the gas to get there. I hope they never find out what it's like . I wonder how many of the future poor ever donated to the charities that some day they will be in line for, waiting to get some food or benefits for their family. To my way of thinking middle class means you earn over 100K +, I don't think many of us fit into that income bracket. I've talked to lots of people who are struggling even with "good" jobs. And I care and worry about what is happening to them. Their savings are being eaten up by inflation, their futures disolving in the US deficits and rising costs of living. Just the interest on the national debt could make us poor people a heck of a lot richer and if we didn't have to pay interest on it, we wouldn't have to pay income tax. But it's too late for that,we let it get out of control and now we're on a downwards slide. I have a hard time to blame the poor for that.They were once proud Americans, now they struggle to make ends meet. And I just don't think it's fair. |
|
cgh
|
|
H2HPrep
Valued Member Joined: March 14 2008 Status: Offline Points: 325 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Vote the radical socialist into the white house and all your dreams will come true.
|
|
Turboguy
Admin Group Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 6079 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Oh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, and somehow, Obama, AKA an elitest, rich, socialist is somehow going to change all that! That's funny as hell! What's even funnier is that Obama doesn't even have a single position other than, "Pull the troops out now" and yet here you are talking about how you're going to vote for him.
Exactly what has he done? What does he stand for? He says he's just going to be the blank slate that everyone can pin their views on. He doesn't even take a damn stand for anything, and you are going to vote for him? Funny as hell.
Give that one a watch for the average Obama voter.
He's for handguns, and yet at the same time against them, he's against the surge, but wait, he's for it too. "Both ways Barak" is a joke. When he mans the hell up enough to actually take on McCain in a debate we're all going to see just how much of an idiot he really is. Without his teleprompter the man has the speaking skills of the average rutabaga.
Wouldn't you say that this sounds quite a lot more like the very people that are living *WAY* beyond their means? Maybe if they saved as much as they're spending, they'd be a lot better off.
And the national debt has been out of control since the 1960's. Don't act like this is a recent situation that sprang up on us. More funny oxymoron: You're screaming about the national debt, yet you're talking about voting for the one person that's going to run it up more than anyone, while at the same time raising taxes to before unheard of levels, stifling investment and driving up inflation, or creating stagflation. This begs the question: Exactly what do you want?
|
|
H2HPrep
Valued Member Joined: March 14 2008 Status: Offline Points: 325 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
His Position? "The development of Modern Industry cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."
|
|
quietprepr
V.I.P. Member Joined: May 21 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2495 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think everyone is missing the point....name ONE politician that isnt beholden to some special interest or another. If you can...congratulations, now we only need 500 more. The politicians of either party don't give a damn about any of us until the election cycle rolls around. They may support some issue that is close to your heart but overall...they could not care less about the plight of the average American.
It reminds me of something funny I read somewhere:
The Republicans say "screw the poor!"
The Democrats say "screw the poor but feel their pain!"
Whatever you think of either presidential candidate, neither of them wants to change things in any significant way. They all stay in power due to the status quo. We are the ones struggling to get enough money to feed our families and put gas in the car.
|
|
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival." - W. Edwards Deming
|
|
coyote
Admin Group Joined: April 25 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8395 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Exactly!
|
|
Long time lurker since day one to Member.
|
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You are correct quietprepr, "We are the ones struggling to get enough money to feed our families and put gas in the car."
If you want to be able to do that don't vote for NObama... vote for McCain...you will keep more of your hard earned money if you do. The Democrats always lie I know I use to vote for them...all they do is raise taxes and give it to people who WILL NOT WORK. Democrats will redistribute the wealth...the really wealthy are smart and have money overseas not here. Us poor middle class making 30K and more will be paying the the bill like we always do. I believe McCain will stop all the Pork Barrel spending and just with that money we can pay off the National Debt. Like I said it takes 545 but if the Majority is Democrat with a Democrat President we are in REAL TROUBLE! |
|
quietprepr
V.I.P. Member Joined: May 21 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2495 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
As a veteran myself, I respect McCain's service and sacrifice. As a voter I respect that he has bucked his own party on occasion. I still have no illusions that he will make us any better off than Bush, Clinton, or Obama. Party politics will prevail. Also, his comment of having to stay in Iraq for a century disturbs me. Neither of the candidates will help (or even care) about how much of my money I get to keep.
Also, the mess this country is in will not be solved easily by anyone. The spending cuts required will go FAR beyond pork barrel spending. There is no political will from any candidate in any party to truly address this. If they tried, the sheeple would immediately vote them out of office. Our representatives (both parties) have given the oil companies billions in tax breaks while they post record breaking, billion dollar quarterly profits. Where is the Republican outrage? They say offshore drilling and the ANWAR are the answer. This flies in the face of numerous experts saying it would barely dent the problem and take 10-15 years to reach market. Where is the Democratic outrage? They say renewables are the answer and continuously fail to fund the R&D to make it an affordable reality. They are all self serving, wealthy, elitists who only care about our votes....not our well being.
Also, until very recently, we had a Republican president without a Democratic majority of legislators....and yet here we are.
I respect everyone's opinion but I am a serious pessimist when it comes to believing in ANY politician. The only time they lie is when their lips are moving.
|
|
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival." - W. Edwards Deming
|
|
Turboguy
Admin Group Joined: October 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 6079 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hahaha This isn't Obama, but I'll wager it's from someone near and dear to his heart!
|
|
quietprepr
V.I.P. Member Joined: May 21 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2495 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
See what I mean? McCain is a politician.....
|
|
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival." - W. Edwards Deming
|
|
H2HPrep
Valued Member Joined: March 14 2008 Status: Offline Points: 325 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Did you see that OB chose to play basketball instead of visiting injured troops during his "visit" to Iraq?
|
|
quietprepr
V.I.P. Member Joined: May 21 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2495 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Sure did....LAME! I don't like either of the candidates. This country is in serious trouble no matter which of the talking heads gets into office.
|
|
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival." - W. Edwards Deming
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |