What is to become of NAFTA?
Trump's policies on immigration may get lots of headlines, and cause gratuitous beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth amoung liberals, but back in the real world immigration policies barely even register with a vast majority of Americans.
It simply isn't important on Main Street.
In fact, a slim majority support Trump's travel ban.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided.
In the real world things like jobs and paying bills matter much more. One of the leading topics (and leading target of labor unions) for two decades regarding jobs is NAFTA.
So it seems bizarre that the Democrats, the so-called Party of the Working Class, would be using their long-hoarded political "dry powder" for immigration, while saying barely a peep about Trump's policy of renegotiating NAFTA.
It's almost as if the Democrats don't give two shits about the working class and labor unions.
How the renegotiation plays out is anyone's guess.
However, Trump's proposed "border tax" would constitute a unilateral renegotiation.
The neoliberal news media is preparing us for renegotiation to happen.
Under Obama, NAFTA was a unquestionable good. Now it has flaws that could be improved.
Renegotiating NAFTA Is A Good Idea - For Mexico
So a well-paying manufacturing job in the U.S. should still be well-paying in the poorer economy of Mexico, even though the absolute wage in dollar terms would be lower. So, how would a well-paying, well-respected job in America somehow become a drudge job that barely pays enough to live on in Mexico?
Well, if Mexico’s unemployment rate were much higher than America's, companies could bid down wages to the floor, paying a basic pittance for skilled jobs that across the border would pay far higher wages. But that’s not the case. Mexico’s unemployment rate is about the same as America's. So, if companies really are paying bare subsistence for what in the U.S. would be well-paying manufacturing jobs, Mexico must have serious problems with its labor laws.
No Shit, Sherlock! It only took 30 years for you to admit that is a problem?!?
There are also two other elements that needs to be taken into account: Trump's "chaotic" method of doing things creates antagonism, and the fact that NAFTA and President Nieto are extremely unpopular in Mexico.
But what you’ll also find is that Mexicans are just as furious at their own government for letting the U.S. president push their country around. What’s more, many proclaim to be fed up with Nafta. Trump’s pledge to rewrite the trade pact doesn’t go far enough for them. It should be scrapped entirely...
“They can raise the tallest wall in the world, in fact they should. They can keep their burgers and fast food, their junk culture,” he said, peering out from behind stacks of magazines, coloring books and cigarette packets. “I think most of us feel the same way -- this is an opportunity. We are such a big country that this will help us activate our domestic economy.”Give Trump credit, he added. “This man did something right. He united us.”
Mexicans had already been pretty much on the same page about their leader, Enrique Pena Nieto, whose approval ratings are the lowest of any president ever tracked by Reforma newspaper.
So are Dems going to continue sitting out the biggest working class issue of the generation? Or will they fight to defend the status quo against labor unions?
Comments
The fact that the countries included in the "ban"
have not been linked to any terrorist acts in America, while countries not included in the list (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being the prime examples) have, makes this entire ban controversy even more ludicrous. Yes, it is bad for those affected (around 90,000 people by current estimates), but it is in reality nothing more than a sop to Trump's base of anti-immigration supporters.
For the Democrats to go "all in" on this particular outrage while failing to make much noise at all regarding the censorship and possible decimation of the EPA and all federal agencies who have resources resources allocated to investigating or alleviating environmental damage, especially climate change, shows just how cynical the Dem elites are. Yes, let's stand-up for our nation's diversity and protest Trump for a meager and primarily symbolic gesture banning people from countries on a list previously generated by Obama and a bi-partisan consensus in Congress that already impacted their ability to obtain visas, while at the same time ignoring the consequences of his other actions, such as those related to climate change, our schools, enforcement of federal housing laws and other civil right laws, and of course, trade policies.
I would find this current shitstorm by leading Dem politicians seeking to exploit disapproval of Trump over the "Ban" more convincing if so many people in the Democratic Party and other so-called liberals hadn't ignored Obama's atrocious record on detaining and deporting the most immigrants in our history.
Needless to say the hypocrisy goes both ways: most Republicans are not demanding an increased ban to include the places where the terrorists actually came from and whose governments currently fund terrorist organizations. They also attacked Obama on his weak enforcement of immigration laws despite the fact that was he was doing met with their full approval. When one considers that one of the biggest sponsors of the Dems is the Tech industry, which has benefited from visas being granted to foreign workers to take jobs that could have been filled by Americans, one begins to see why the Democrats are so keen to pour gasoline on this particular controversy while being indifferent to ones that may create far more harm to the people they supposedly represent. Kabuki theater indeed.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
A ban on the Saudis would look pretty stupid considering that
WE armed them. And it would cut off a big cash cow for the MIC:
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I know that
No one will ever ban the Saudis until they no longer control the one resource that our government, the military, Wall Street and Big Oil most desire - Oil.
We armed them because of their oil.
We looked the other way at their terrorist funding because of oil.
We're helping them commit genocide in Yemen because of oil.
That's why he picked the countries he banned that he did - the very same ones already subject to restrictions under a US law passed by the Congress and signed by Obama.
This is all a publicity stunt. If it goes south, look for Trump to end up with a report in 90 days (as required by his order) suggesting a lessening of the ban, after which he will proclaim he did what was necessary to protect American security and give us something less onerous. It's a great big distraction at the moment, however, when his billionaire cronies are getting approved for cabinet positions, he has given an order to proceed with the pipelines, he's planning to gut the EPA, social security, healthcare reform, financial reform and god knows what else.
In the end, he'll make concessions to appease Big Tech since most of their people come from countries not subject to the ban anyway. One thing Trump knows is how to manipulate the media and he's doing a great job of it, getting them to focus on this one executive order while worse things are moving forward with only token opposition by the Dems.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
@Steven D Hey, don't forget to
Hey, don't forget to give credit where credit is due. Trump's got lots of help from Dem politicians in keeping people's eyes on this issue. Now.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Steven D
But isn't the corporate media, like Clinton, Trump and, overall, both halves of the Corporate Party, merely assisting corporate interests, including their owners, in propagandizing the people as 'The Corporate 'Bam' did in 'legalizing' US government propaganda to be used against the American public which his public office and the government exists to serve? And as Bill Clinton did in warping law to allow for media concentration toward such goals?
We must never forget - it's the corporate/MIC/fascist billionaires who most need to be removed from influencing/purchasing governance and policy, because 'they built this' fatal disaster.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Right or left, they are all equally as bad
when if comes to showboating. They go for what the lowest common denominator will respond to most vociferously. That is one of the reasons why I basically hate nearly all politicians. Period.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
It may be physically impossible for Trump to deport
more people than Obama did. 3 million is the cruel number Obama deported.
Being anti-NAFTA got H. Ross Perot something like 16% of the vote( I hope that's close) and if he were to be restored to us and ran on "I told you so and I'll fix it" platform he might well win a three way race against Trump and Cory Booker or whatever the Democrats may put up. People had not suffered the loss of 70,000 factories when Perot correctly predicted the "giant sucking sound" lost factory jobs would make and people had not suffered the personal losses they've had to deal with.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
3 million is the cruel number.
Just think what that number means. How many children were separated from their mothers? How many wives were separated from their husbands? How many fathers were separated from their children? I'm all about family. I thought America was all about family. I thought the Democrats were all about family. I have learned that The Democrat Party is not about family at all.
@randtntx Yes. These people's
Yes. These people's lives were already in a state of peril or they would have stayed home but found that they could not. They came here and our government totally uprooted the destroyed the family relationships. Many were sent back to near certain death by the murderous dictatorships the USA helped install and keep in power. The situation in most of central America is all on this country including Clinton and Obama.
What the majority of voters want in the USA is sneered out by the rapacious capitalists who have near absolute control over the political economy.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
almost?
'It's almost as if the Democrats don't give two shits about the working class and labor unions.'
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Was my sarcasm too subtle?
Polling is a bit redundant these days, likely voters
barely gets more than 50% itself.
Mexico will be the target, hopefully in the last few decades they haven't burnt their bridges too much with the rest of Central and South America.
PS they can probably stop the war on drugs whose
trade only exists because of US demand for the products. Wave them on through and that would stop the carnage in Mexico somewhat. Tighter borders may also vastly reduce the flow of weapons from the US.
Given reaction to TPP by democrats.
If Trump has the US leave NAFTA, the response will be either silence or defense of NAFTA. The defense of TPP was strictly "if Trump is for it, we are against it" regardless of the issue. If and when Trump does something about NAFTA, I predict that you will see some amount of union bashing along the lines of white unions are against Mexican economic development.
Just a side note on the defense of TPP when Trump got us out, you can really see the propaganda echo chamber at work. Almost every headline on it said "open the door for China" when I searched for critiques of it. I dunno, maybe me, but it seems google searches are becoming less productive. I was trying to find out how exactly the Clinton Foundation worked, and the first number of result pages were sites just repeating press releases how good they were even when I used words like "fraud" and "corruption". It took a good number of pages to find critiques of TPP from a trade perspective.
The free trade connundrum, after ignoring pleas for
"fair trade" for decades. It'll take them time to fight their way out of the paper bag.
It's a big "if"
But if Trump 1) kills TPP (done), 2) reforms the H-1B program to prevent abuse (mostly done), and 3) guts NAFTA (????), then Trump will have done more for the working class in a few months than Obama did in 8 years.
So why would a white, blue-collar worker in the rust belt vote Dem ever again?
And now add in lower drug prices
I have not been following this development, but Trump had a meeting with Greg Walden (R-OR), to talk about how "government" can help lower drug prices.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/walden_meets_with_t...
I have no idea if the some of the proposals will work, but good god damn, how does this look compared to the democrats who lose on a lower drug prices resolution based on 13 dems voting no. I follow the flow of subjects on TOP and saw a very good attack on Booker especially, but I could tell, lackies were readying their defense of Booker and sure enough it happened, and "purity" was one of the counter attacks.
Here's the Obama history on NAFTA
From Politifact October 15th 2008
Within the Politifact article we get the solid reassurance from Sherrod Brown that he is "absolutely confident Barack Obama will reopen the negotiations on NAFTA. I have been assured by him and his top economic advisers there is no question his position is constant and will stay that way on the North American Free Trade Agreement."
But then in August, 2009 Obama Reverses Campaign Pledge to Renegoiate NAFTA
And after leaving NAFTA intact, of course he moved right along to trying to enshrine the TPP. Go Dems!
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
The Dem reaction to TPP
Dissing progressives
lame duck Obama
Sanders
never Trump
@gjohnsit Aren't we glad we kept
Aren't we glad we kept that dirty populist Bernie Sanders where he belongs? And his nasty supporters too, they're even worse than he is, they won't stop talking about all the election fraud and voter suppression we used to get Hillary her win.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Use the word SCANDAL when searching for the Clinton's
foundation. That's how I have found the best articles. Unless it's my history of looking for it.
Great essay, gj.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Thanks snoopdawg
It was me not finding that key word. I tried your suggestion and worked.
I agree about the google searches.