Why isn't Barack Obama capitalizing on this? Hillary Clinton tells a WHOPPER of a lie

[Valcorie]

It's not disgusting.

It's avant garde.

There is a difference.

It's disgusting

 

[Le Jacquelope]

It's disgusting

Is not!

 

[Valcorie]

I'd like to see those plunging numbers as well.
People in Ohio think they lost their jobs to Canada and Mexico and NAFTA was to blame.
Unfortunately, they lost those jobs to overseas competition and progress. In both cases, those jobs didn't migrate. They just disappeared.

Growing trade deficits and job losses

The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2004 has caused the displacement of production that supported 1,015,291 U.S. jobs since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993. Jobs were displaced in every state and major industry in the United States. Two thirds of those lost jobs were in manufacturing industries. The proposed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) duplicates the most important elements of NAFTA, and it will only worsen conditions for workers in the United States and throughout the hemisphere (Faux, Campbell, Salas, and Scott 2001). Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs. Consequently, the growth of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada caused a net decline in U.S. production that would have supported about 1 million U.S. jobs......

In the past, NAFTA's impact in the United States was often obscured by the "boom-and-bust" cycle that drove domestic consumption, investment, and speculation in the mid- and late 1990s. Between 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the United States, causing overall unemployment to fall to low levels. But unemployment began to rise early in 2001, and 2.7 million domestic jobs were lost between February 2001 and May 2003 (BLS 2005). Employment began to recover thereafter and finally exceeded the previous peak level of employment in January 2005. Although the national labor market has begun to recover, manufacturing employment absorbed the brunt of the job losses in the recession and has continued to stagnate. Since the beginning of the 2001 recession, 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, a decline of 16.8%. Growing trade deficits are responsible for 34% to 58% of this decline in manufacturing employment (Bivens 2004). As job growth has stumbled, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade deficits have become much more apparent, especially in manufacturing.


http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib214

 

[breakwall]

Tell us again about how hybrid cars are ripping people and require 240,000 miles to pay the price difference off and how the repair costs are so astronomical.

Oh wait, you crawled out of that thread with your ass in a Chinese take-out bag... like you always do whenever you argue with me.

I told you that you can pick and choose whichever equation you want to use, none or more right than the other. You picked one of the five that I gave you.

I also told you that I got the repair costs quote from the very same website that you used to support your own arguments.

I didn't think I needed to come back and help you look worse than you already did.

However, if you want to fight me on NAFTA, let's play.

Texas vs. Ohio. That was where the Obama/Hillary debacle started.

So we can start there and we can start with this:

NAFTA is highly unpopular in Ohio, where blue-collar workers are a pivotal force. But the agreement is widely praised in Laredo and other Texas border towns for bringing new life into a once poor and struggling region.

The border area — Laredo, the Rio Grand Valley — has been one of the areas most benefited by NAFTA. "There's no doubt about it," said Andres Rivas, an economics professor at Texas A&M International University who studies trade. "It's had a big, positive impact. I really don't see any down side."

President Bush, a former Texas governor, even stepped into the political fray this week to defend NAFTA.

"Those of us who grew up in Texas remember what the border looked like when we were kids, and it was really poor. And you go down to that border today, it is prosperous on both sides of the river, to the credit of those who proposed NAFTA, and to the credit of those who got NAFTA through the Congress," he said.

And then we can move to facts:

Pre-NAFTA Mexico had the more protected economy, so it committed to larger tariff cuts than the U.S. and Canada. Average Mexican duties on U.S. goods fell from 12 percent in 1993 to 1.3 percent in 2001, while U.S. tariffs on Mexican goods declined from 2.1 percent to 0.2 percent. The effect of NAFTA on U.S.–Canada trade restraints was minimal because the two countries operated under a free-trade agreement that took effect in 1989.

Trade has increased by leaps and bounds in the NAFTA years. U.S. exports to Mexico rose from $42 billion in 1993 to $111 billion in 2004, while imports from Mexico increased from $40 billion to $156 billion. Over the same period, U.S. sales to Canada grew from $100 billion to $189 billion, while imports from Canada to the U.S. climbed from $111 billion to $256 billion.

and then we can just continue right on along:

From 1993 to 2005, trade among the NAFTA nations climbed 173 percent, from $297 billion to $810 billion. Each day the NAFTA countries conduct nearly $2.2 billion in trilateral trade.

U.S. merchandise exports to NAFTA partners grew more rapidly – at 133 percent – than exports to the rest of the world, at 77 percent.

U.S. employment rose from 112.2 million in December 1993 to 134.8 million in Feb 2006, an increase of 22.6 million jobs, or 20.1%. The average unemployment rate was 5.1% in the period 1994-2005, compared to 7.1% during the period 1982-1993.

U.S. industrial production – 78% of which is manufacturing – rose by 49% between 1993 and 2005, exceeding the 28% increase achieved between 1981 and 1993.

U.S. business sector productivity rose by 2.6% year between 1993 and 2005, or by a total of 36.2% over the full period. Between 1981 and 1993 the annual rate of productivity growth was 1.8%, or 24.3% over the full 12 year period

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Growing trade deficits and job losses

The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2004 has caused the displacement of production that supported 1,015,291 U.S. jobs since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993. Jobs were displaced in every state and major industry in the United States. Two thirds of those lost jobs were in manufacturing industries. The proposed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) duplicates the most important elements of NAFTA, and it will only worsen conditions for workers in the United States and throughout the hemisphere (Faux, Campbell, Salas, and Scott 2001). Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs. Consequently, the growth of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada caused a net decline in U.S. production that would have supported about 1 million U.S. jobs......

In the past, NAFTA's impact in the United States was often obscured by the "boom-and-bust" cycle that drove domestic consumption, investment, and speculation in the mid- and late 1990s. Between 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the United States, causing overall unemployment to fall to low levels. But unemployment began to rise early in 2001, and 2.7 million domestic jobs were lost between February 2001 and May 2003 (BLS 2005). Employment began to recover thereafter and finally exceeded the previous peak level of employment in January 2005. Although the national labor market has begun to recover, manufacturing employment absorbed the brunt of the job losses in the recession and has continued to stagnate. Since the beginning of the 2001 recession, 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, a decline of 16.8%. Growing trade deficits are responsible for 34% to 58% of this decline in manufacturing employment (Bivens 2004). As job growth has stumbled, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade deficits have become much more apparent, especially in manufacturing.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib214

Oh, Lordy. Not again.

Breakwall, do you want your ass for here or to go?

http://thegazz.com/gblogs/bloginmysoup/files/2007/07/takeout.jpg

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I told you that you can pick and choose whichever equation you want to use, none or more right than the other. You picked one of the five that I gave you.

I also told you that I got the repair costs quote from the very same website that you used to support your own arguments.

Uhm, no you didn't.

I didn't think I needed to come back and help you look worse than you already did.

You mean when you had to admit your math regarding the cost of owning a hybrid was more than 30% off the mark? Yeah, I looked real bad, making you realize my math was far closer to reality than yours.

Trade has increased by leaps and bounds in the NAFTA years. U.S. exports to Mexico rose from $42 billion in 1993 to $111 billion in 2004, while imports from Mexico increased from $40 billion to $156 billion. Over the same period, U.S. sales to Canada grew from $100 billion to $189 billion, while imports from Canada to the U.S. climbed from $111 billion to $256 billion.

Good deal. So we went from a $2 billion ($42 billion in goods exported out vs $40 billion in goods imported in) trade deficit in our favor, to a $45 billion deficit ($111 billion in goods going out vs $156 billion in goods coming in) in Mexico's favor, and a $11 billion deficit in Canada's favor that grew to $67 billion. Oh yeah, NAFTA's a real winner. For Canadian and Mexican workers, that is.

(I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, Breakwall is getting dizzy right now trying to comprehend the math I just threw at him. Way too many numbers and all that. Give him a moment while he sputters and blusters, it's just his way of rebooting from a cerebral system crash.)

 

[Ham Murabi]

Oh, Lordy. Not again.

Breakwall, do you want your ass for here or to go?

http://thegazz.com/gblogs/bloginmysoup/files/2007/07/takeout.jpg

Appears to me someone else just lost their ass based on Breakwall's post.

 

[breakwall]

(I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, Breakwall is getting dizzy right now trying to comprehend the math I just threw at him. Way too many numbers and all that. Give him a moment while he sputters and blusters, it's just his way of rebooting from a cerebral system crash.)

In fact, you've got your concepts wrong. US market share INCREASED tenfold under NAFTA, a figure that was almost stagnated during the eighties.
Also the US designed NAFTA as a means to increase it's PURCHASING power as well as it's export clout. By doing so, it imported RAW materials from cheap suppliers like Mexico and Canada (for instance, energy and softwood) so that it could increase it's bottom line in it's manufacturing base.

Now, nod along LT, because you know it's true.

 

[breakwall]

Appears to me someone else just lost their ass based on Breakwall's post.

People like LT get caught up in the trade numbers and don't get a feel for the concepts that drive them. They use straight comparison values, forgetting that Canada has a tenth of the population and Mexico, a tenth of the economy.

They also forget that NAFTA is a strategic tool that is used to strengthen an across the board economy that creates a system of equalization-to-strength economics for strong competition worldwide, NOT between NAFTA partners.

But you sort of have to work inside the system to gain insight into the concepts.

 

[breakwall]

Now, I have to go to work.
LT, some of us actually have these things called JOBS that we go to.

So, I'll check in on your nonsense when I get back.

 

[Valcorie]

Nafta

NAFTA is a broad agreement, but improved market access, including tariff
reductions on merchandise trade, was the major U.S. goal. After ten years, most tariffs
have gone to zero, except for some very sensitive (mostly agricultural) goods that have
limited protection for up to 15 years. Clearly, U.S.-Mexico trade and investment have
grown sharply over the past decade. From 1994 to 2003, U.S. exports to Mexico rose
91%, compared to 41% to the world. U.S. imports increased by 179%, compared to 89%
from the world. This surge, however, began prior to NAFTA, so the question is, how
much of the post-1994 growth can be attributed to NAFTA?
NAFTA had a modest effect on U.S.-Mexico trade growth. The CBO,
World Bank, and USITC approached the problem differently, but all found that NAFTA
had a modest effect on U.S.-Mexico trade growth. The CBO model of U.S.-Mexico trade
estimated that 85% of the U.S. export growth and 91% of U.S. import growth would have
occurred without NAFTA. Although the effect was modest, it accelerated over time,
accounting for a 2% marginal growth of U.S. exports and imports in1994 up to11% and
8% marginal growth of U.S. exports and imports in 2001. As a percentage of economic
activity, the increased trade was more pronounced for Mexico than the United States.
Separately, the World Bank makes the point that NAFTA has reinforced existing trends
in trade growth and estimates that Mexico’s global exports would have been 25% lower
without NAFTA.2

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf
This is from the CRF report prepared for congress, written to examine NAFTA after 10 years. So it is probably pretty reliable.

The report basicly stated that NAFTA is great for the economy of Mexico, but the US really hasn't gained from this policy, other than a lot of made in Mexico imports. Any increases in domestic production, were already started before NAFTA was put into effect and would have happened anyway.

But as for what Breakwall posted, well that just gives me something else to research...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

In fact, you've got your concepts wrong. US market share INCREASED tenfold under NAFTA, a figure that was almost stagnated during the eighties.
Also the US designed NAFTA as a means to increase it's PURCHASING power as well as it's export clout. By doing so, it imported RAW materials from cheap suppliers like Mexico and Canada (for instance, energy and softwood) so that it could increase it's bottom line in it's manufacturing base.

Now, nod along LT, because you know it's true.

Now nod along with this:

We lost millions of manufacturing jobs in the process.

Jobs that did not simply disappear due to technological progress.

 

[Valcorie]

Is not!

It is too! I looked at it again and vomited a little!

 

[shoulderblade]

An explanation

Hillary misspoke

 

[breakwall]

Now nod along with this:

We lost millions of manufacturing jobs in the process.

Jobs that did not simply disappear due to technological progress.

When it comes to assessing the value of NAFTA, people will point to obvious shortfalls: the decreasing profitability of the US automaker sector, the loss of textile and manufacturing bases, but these can't be blamed on NAFTA. Detroit was choking itself DESPITE and AutoPact trade agreement that was incredibly favourable to the industry.

As for the manufacturing industries, Canada and the US began an evolutionary shift from heavy manufacturing to high-end manufacturing and service based economy long before NAFTA.

That evolution caused the redistribution of the workforce within North America, and it would have happened regardless of NAFTA.

However, recognizing that, if the people who lost those jobs were left out in the cold, the unemployment rate would have been astronomical. As it was, those jobs were redistributed back into a growing and improving economy.

When NAFTA was implemented, the US unemployment rate was sitting at about 7.2%. Since then, the unemployment rate has never been higher than 6.2%, and has averaged about 4.9% (which is where it sits right now).

So the question is, where are the millions and millions and millions of unemployed people devastated by NAFTA?

Well, they must have picked up work in lower paying jobs, right? And yet, in 1992 the average US wage was $22,935.42 and by 2006, the average wage had increased to $38,651.41.


Now, was NAFTA the big economic boon that some analysts predicted it would be? Well, no it wasn't. And it was never supposed to be. It was supposed to be a trade agreement to shore up a North American export market to compete with emerging markets in the far east and strong economic challenges in Europe, India and Japan.

NAFTA was a long-term, far-reaching solution to help evolve North American trade practices and prepare them for the challenges of a new Global Market. And while the effects right now are difficult to ascertain, the results are already promising. And North America is in a better economic position globally now, then it was fifteen years ago.

 

[busybody..]

An explanation

Hillary misspoke

THE PUSSY LIED!

 

[busybody..]

Don't argue with me on NAFTA.
It's my job.

Your job is being wrong on the internet. We're both exceptional at what we do.

Did I tell you I love you this morning,
before I went to work?
I don’t remember, I was rushed.
Did I tell you last night? Yesterday at all?
Probably not, the meeting ran over.
But I’m sure I did the day before at least.
No?

Now I’m laying here in bed,
it’s a little past one.
You said you’d be home early
and I can’t reach you by phone.
I heard sirens in the distance
a little while ago and now I’m thinking
could it have been you?

My heart’s beginning to race
and nervous little butterflies are fluttering within.
My mind is starting to think
all sorts of things.
The wind’s just picked up and I can hear
strange creaks and groans I’ve never heard before.
Are they trying to tell me something?
Are they noises of impending doom?

I pull the blanket up higher and try to get you again,
No luck.
Those sirens, long gone, are echoing through my mind.
What if they were for you?
What if you’re not coming home; not tonight, not at all?
I can’t imagine not having you here,
not feeling your touch.

I wish I could remember
if I told you I loved you this morning.

 

[breakwall]

BB, you're a freak.
But your OUR freak.

 

[shoulderblade]

THE PUSSY LIED!

GO GORE!!!!!

Is it possible for Gore to become the Democratic candidate?

 

[HB1965]

BB, you're a freak.
But your OUR freak.

Isn't he though?

 

[breakwall]

GO GORE!!!!!

Is it possible for Gore to become the Democratic candidate?

Apparently.

Here's a scenario I found, and it seems very possible:

If no candidate wins a majority of the delegates in the Democratic primaries and caucuses and thus no candidate is guaranteed the nomination at the Democratic Convention, delegates who are pledged to a particular candidate are by rule released and can vote for whomever they choose. Gore is drafted, his name is placed in nomination, and rather than pick a candidate who could not garner a majority of Democratic primary voters, the Convention rallies around Gore.

 

[busybody..]

GO GORE!!!!!

Is it possible for Gore to become the Democratic candidate?

DUMMY

All you needa do is read BUSYBODY

and all your questions will be answered

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=577017

 

[busybody..]

Apparently.

Here's a scenario I found, and it seems very possible:

If no candidate wins a majority of the delegates in the Democratic primaries and caucuses and thus no candidate is guaranteed the nomination at the Democratic Convention, delegates who are pledged to a particular candidate are by rule released and can vote for whomever they choose. Gore is drafted, his name is placed in nomination, and rather than pick a candidate who could not garner a majority of Democratic primary voters, the Convention rallies around Gore.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=577017

One of the FEW assholes that will lose TWICE

 

[busybody..]

BTW, Breaky

If your "job" is to extoll the virtues of NAFTA

Then you cant ever ever see the negative of it and will skew all date for the positive

So what YOU say doesnt count

Is NAFTA the Canadian NFL

 

[breakwall]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=577017

One of the FEW assholes that will lose TWICE

Could be.
It would be another incredible development in the most interesting political race of my lifetime.