Skip to main content

View Diary: THE HILL: Dems Face Revolt Over Free Trade In Advance of Vote (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How do we enforce trade deals then? (0+ / 0-)

    If you want to get rid if the WTO, then how do we enforce any of our trade deals?  Presumably you recognize that free trade is good for the United States over all.

    Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

    by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:38:54 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, but they don't realize that. (0+ / 0-)

      They instead buy into the populist demagoguery, like that offered by Kucinich, to claim we should drop out of NAFTA and the WTO, notwithstanding that this would make us the greatest international pariah state in the world, and have a devastating effect on our trade position and economy.

      The thing is is osunds so appealing, if you don't actually think about it. That jingoistic, xenophobic bone -- there are plenty of Democrats who have an overgrown bone.

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

      by FischFry on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 09:24:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Careful (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There are plenty of good reasons not to buy into free-trade-is-imminent-and-good sales pitch.
        Like this for instance. If free trdae comes at the price of lowered safety,labor, and environmental standards, why on Earth would they be in our interests?

        This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

        by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:15:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you talking about the United States? (0+ / 0-)

          We have had lowered safety, labor and environmental standards in the United States since 2000, but that has everything to do with the takeover of our government by right-wing politicians.  Its not related to trade.  There have been a few high-profile cases where the WTO has struck down environmental regulations, but the vast majority are uncontroversial as trade barriers.  The real threat to our environment is our own political system.

          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

          by tmendoza on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:54:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Careful (0+ / 0-)

        and to suggest that someone is xenophobic for feeling this way borders on trollish, not to mention fucking offensive.

        This ballot is loaded, and I'm not afraid to use it.

        by BlueGenes on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:16:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You are just like the wingers... (0+ / 0-)

        That you disagree with, you turn into a bogey man, e.g., xenophobic, demagoguery.  Pariah state?  So, we have to give away our jobs so that people will like us?  Maybe if we just quit bombing them that will be enough.  I hope your job goes first.  I'd love to see you in the unemployment line trying to get a paycheck to stave off foreclosure.  

    •  You assume they are being enforced now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Your assumption is incorrect.

      Presumably you recognize that free trade

      If I remember correctly, more than sixty percent of the exports from China to the US are exports by American companies operating in China.

      I ask again, what is being 'traded'?

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 11:40:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Free trade (0+ / 0-)

      is not good for the US overall.  It needs to be fair trade heavily regulated and nations need to remain sovereign.  If there is unfair competition, we don't need permission to close our markets or imposing tariffs to fund the remedy for the problems it causes.   You want to bring your product into a country? You play but its rules or stay home.  We can't even influence Democrats to be Democrats, and you want "world" organizations telling us what to do?  Hell no.  

      NAFTA on Steroids
      had accepted industry-favored amendments to GATS Article VI.4, known as the "necessity test."

      The necessity test requires nations to prove that their regulations — from pollution control to child labor laws — are not hidden impediments to trade. Industry wants the WTO to employ a necessity test similar to the one in the North America Free Trade Agreement which has worked to reverse local environmental rules. For example, Mexico has been forced to pay $17 million to an American corporation, Metalclad, for delaying the operation of the company’s toxic waste dump and processing plant. Local Mexican officials had attempted to block the plant’s operation on the grounds that it was built without a construction permit, and would not have received one, as the plant handling toxins was placed above the area’s drinking water supply.


      The changes, as proposed, would slash regulatory controls over local businesses as well as foreign operators seeking entry to a market. For example, the State of California banned the gasoline additive MBTE because pollutes ground water. The Canadian maker of the additive has sued the United States under NAFTA on the grounds that banning the chemical was not the "least trade restrictive" choice for stopping ground water contamination. California could have, the Canadians argue, chosen to dig up and repair thousands of gas station holding tanks and established a giant new inspection system. While the cost of the alternative, running into billions of dollars, could effectively force California to back away from protecting its ground water, it would permit Canada to continue to export the contaminant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site