Dems: NAFTA? Yeah, we told you that was a bad idea.

[Retired Bookworm]

http://msnbc.com/news/985493.asp?0cv=CB20

And most of the Democratic presidential candidates either seem to be attacking NAFTA or backing away from it. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., recently aired an ad in Iowa proudly announcing that he “led the fight against NAFTA” in Congress. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, says that his first act as president would be to cancel the trade accord. Moreover, although he supported NAFTA when he was governor of Vermont, Howard Dean went out of his way on ABC’s “This Week” to deny he was ever a “strong” supporter of that accord, even though he actually said he was during a 1995 appearance on that show.

Meanwhile, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., says it would be disastrous to cancel NAFTA, but he argues that it needs to be fixed. And although he wasn’t in Congress when NAFTA was passed, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., recently voted against free-trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. In fact, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., appears to be the only major Democratic candidate who has loyally stood by NAFTA and free trade.

What’s going on here? Well, one obvious reason for the backlash against NAFTA is the current economic climate. Even though its supporters say that free trade with Canada and Mexico has led to cheaper products in the United States and free-market reforms in Mexico, it is also true that NAFTA has eliminated American jobs. According to Robert E. Scott, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA resulted in the loss of nearly 800,000 U.S. jobs from 1993 to 2000. Other economists, however, say the number is much smaller than that.

I am pro-NAFTA but I just find it exciting watching rats jump from a sinking ship. Especially when the ship isn't sinking.

[Harry]

Yeah, haven't we lost 3 million jobs since 2000?

[Retired Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Harry

Yeah, haven't we lost 3 million jobs since 2000?

That's what makes this article so interesting. We gained net jobs when NAFTA was supposedly taking them away. Now we lose those jobs, a NAFTA study comes out, and the Dems jump ship.

1 point for Lieberman, for not playing Chicken Little.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Mecha-Bookworm

That's what makes this article so interesting. We gained net jobs when NAFTA was supposedly taking them away. Now we lose those jobs, a NAFTA study comes out, and the Dems jump ship.

1 point for Lieberman, for not playing Chicken Little.

They're obviously playing to their base in a campaign year. It will only hurt them with Republican voters, i.e., not at all.

[Retired Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Harry

They're obviously playing to their base in a campaign year. It will only hurt them with Republican voters, i.e., not at all.

Seeing how I pulled this from msnbc.com, I don't think Republicans are the target audience. I added the spin.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Democrats run afoul of Econ 101.

Again.


Free trade hurts the economy. Tax increases will help the economy.

Where'd did these people go to school that they learned this?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Originally Posted by Shekky Tree

Democrats run afoul of Econ 101.

Again.


Free trade hurts the economy. Tax increases will help the economy.

Where'd did these people go to school that they learned this?

It's not about the economy. It's about helping out one group at the expense of the whole, i.e. politics. Nobody cares what economists say, and anyway you can always find one somewhere who will endorse whatever damn fool idea you're pushing.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

It's not about the economy. It's about helping out one group at the expense of the whole, i.e. politics. Nobody cares what economists say, and anyway you can always find one somewhere who will endorse whatever d*mn fool idea you're pushing.

Like "voo doo economics"?

[1695814]

nm

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

It's not about the economy. It's about helping out one group at the expense of the whole, i.e. politics. Nobody cares what economists say, and anyway you can always find one somewhere who will endorse whatever d*mn fool idea you're pushing.

I disagree.

The vast weight of economic academics and professionals think free trade is good for the economy as a matter of principle. I don't know of any schools of thought that think that protectionism helps improve the general welfare.

And, I have yet to find any evidence of an economist that thinks that tax increases help an economy.

Yet...there the democrats go.

My plan to help this disastrous economy (at 6% unemployment and 3% GNP growth) consists of tax increases and destroying free trade....