How would you have voted on NAFTA? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 08:03:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  How would you have voted on NAFTA? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: How would you have voted on NAFTA?
#1
Yea (D)
 
#2
Nay (D)
 
#3
Yea (R)
 
#4
Nay (R)
 
#5
Yea (O)
 
#6
Nay (O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 50

Author Topic: How would you have voted on NAFTA?  (Read 3729 times)
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« on: January 31, 2006, 06:43:18 AM »

There's not much of an argument against NAFTA left after 12 years of it.

Really?  I'm sure the same arguments that were suggested at the time of its inception still apply.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2006, 05:29:07 PM »

There's not much of an argument against NAFTA left after 12 years of it.

Really?  I'm sure the same arguments that were suggested at the time of its inception still apply.

The idea that NAFTA would result in a giant sucking sound seems pretty stupid now, so no the original argument against the bill doesn't apply.  Perhaps there is some peripheral argument out there someplace, but the central argument against NAFTA was disproven.

Really?  I believe the lower working class is in quite awful shape these days, and union membership has declined.  Arguably the impoverishment of the worker has a great many causes, and even among foriegn causes China has probably had a greater effect than Mexico.  But still, there is no doubt that the NAFTA certainly harmed at least the lower half of the U.S. population.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2006, 07:23:11 PM »

There's not much of an argument against NAFTA left after 12 years of it.

Really?  I'm sure the same arguments that were suggested at the time of its inception still apply.

The idea that NAFTA would result in a giant sucking sound seems pretty stupid now, so no the original argument against the bill doesn't apply.  Perhaps there is some peripheral argument out there someplace, but the central argument against NAFTA was disproven.

Really?  I believe the lower working class is in quite awful shape these days, and union membership has declined.  Arguably the impoverishment of the worker has a great many causes, and even among foriegn causes China has probably had a greater effect than Mexico.  But still, there is no doubt that the NAFTA certainly harmed at least the lower half of the U.S. population.

Poverty hasn't risen since NAFTA was passed.

Perhaps a better way of saying this would be that many americans have gotten poorer, since the official designation of 'poverty' is absurdly low.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2006, 12:24:36 PM »

Yea, we must learn to compete in a global economy.

By 'compete' you mean the worker must be impoverished for the convenience of his owner.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 14 queries.