Is this a trend or just a few random occurrences?

[dan_bgblue]

Companies moving out of the USA (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/09/14/companies-saying-goodbye-to-u-s.html)

[suncat05]

Thank you, Communista Bill Clinton! :mad0049:

[badrose]

Maybe I'm paranoid but I tend to think it's part of some grand design rather than some random circumstance.

[Doc]

Several reasons, most of which isn't a shock or anything folks don't know

1) cheap labor as indicated in the story. NAFTA is responsible for that one, hence Slick Willy. And as Trump has often touted, its a TERRIBLE deal for the USA. Free trade is one thing but when you limit barriers and allow substandard countries who pay basically nothing in labor costs, why would a company stay here? Of course RAISING the minimum wage in the US of A is going to make that differential even worse and will incentivize more manufacturing to go where labor is cheap. News flash to the left, companies are in business to make money. Making money isn't a bad thing, contrary to your talking points. And companies will spend money, like moving to Mexico, to save money. It might cost millions to move a company but when the long term payoff is tens of millions, a company owes it to their stockholders to maximize profits.

2) Other US cost such as the AHCA. Those cost to manufactures are also a consideration. If you can pay a Mexican worker $5.00 an hour plus nothing vs paying an American $10.00 plus health care plus social security plus retirement packages plus unemployment, why do it? You're likely paying 4-5 times more PER HOUR for an American made product. Any company that can cut 75 to 80 percent of their labor costs is stupid not to do so. You can thank Obama and his minions for this one.

3) NAFTA removes the tariffs used to equalize the cost of labor differential. Rather than improve the standards in Mexico as intended, it simply gave them an advantage and offered us no recourse. Also this decreased the cost of Mexican produced goods sold in the USA but did nothing to stimulate our own production.


Here (http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx) is a nice "pros and cons" of NAFTA article. Sure, its a bit dated (2012) but still is accurate.

[KeithKSR]

NAFTA was a bad deal for the US.

[bigsky]

NAFTA gutted small town America's jobs

[CitizenBBN]

It's a trend.

Free trade is fine and good, I'm a free market guy and I believe in free trade.

But what we have is NOT free trade, b/c what we've done is implement a protectionist internal economic policy complete with high minimum wages, heavy regulation and invisible tax costs and then open the border to competition from countries without those issues.

So is anyone surprised with the outcome? here we have high wages, high payroll taxes, we have to cover all kinds of insurance costs and file all kinds of paperwork, our buildings are subject to inspections and approvals and expensive environmental impact studies, etc.. In Mexico you pay off some local officials and you're done. It's a no brainer.

So we either need to let there be a free market again in the US or raise the trade barriers to match what we are doing internally, b/c what we're doing right now is the worst of both worlds.

[Doc]

It's a trend.

Free trade is fine and good, I'm a free market guy and I believe in free trade.

But what we have is NOT free trade, b/c what we've done is implement a protectionist internal economic policy complete with high minimum wages, heavy regulation and invisible tax costs and then open the border to competition from countries without those issues.

So is anyone surprised with the outcome? here we have high wages, high payroll taxes, we have to cover all kinds of insurance costs and file all kinds of paperwork, our buildings are subject to inspections and approvals and expensive environmental impact studies, etc.. In Mexico you pay off some local officials and you're done. It's a no brainer.

So we either need to let there be a free market again in the US or raise the trade barriers to match what we are doing internally, b/c what we're doing right now is the worst of both worlds.

I'm all for free trade however I have no desire to be Mexico. I've no issue with a minimum wage or certain standards. Its those standards that make America a better place than Mexico. I don't want to lower ourselves to Mexico standards. IMO what we should want is to raise the standards to ours.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm all for free trade however I have no desire to be Mexico. I've no issue with a minimum wage or certain standards. Its those standards that make America a better place than Mexico. I don't want to lower ourselves to Mexico standards. IMO what we should want is to raise the standards to ours.

I'm not for turning us into Mexico, but we've got the highest business tax rate basically of the free world when you factor in all the hidden taxes, or at least as high as any socialist country in Europe. It's made us noncompetitive.

So the only solution is to either insulate ourselves from that competition or become competitive again. Not sending 10 year olds into the mines, but maybe not where we are now either.

we opened up the border to a country with a large pool of low cost labor and little or no regulations like environmental impact stuff or retirement funding, and we're surprised they can beat us out for the work?

Either only do free trade with countries with similar cost structures, like Canada, or don't do that kind of open border trade.

[Doc]

I agree with the last part. Free trade needs to be on equal footing. I'm not for free trade when it's done at the workers expense. When labor is paid at poverty levels like you have in Mexico, that isn't free trade. That is when tariffs need to be implemented. However when labor costs are on equal grounds and workers are treated fairly, Canada being an excellent example, then free trade is good for all

[StuBleedsBlue2]

i don't know why Bill Clinton continues to,get blamed for NAFTA. George HW Bush negotiated it, signed it and it was supported by more Republicans than Democrats.

Actually, I do know why. Because Trump has conned his supporters into believing another lie. If that's not the case, then he's got a poor understanding of history. Hard to tell, though which is correct, he's the biggest liar to ever seek the office, is a total con AND has a poor understanding of history.

[dan_bgblue]

Bush started it and congress and Clinton finished the process. The treaty was ratified and signed off on by Clinton and the USA a year after Bush left office

[bigsky]

Bush started it and congress and Clinton finished the process. The treaty was ratified and signed off on by Clinton and the USA a year after Bush left office What I remember as well. NAFTA was a Ross Perot issue during that election so it had to start prior. The two traditional parties supported it.

[CitizenBBN]

i don't know why Bill Clinton continues to,get blamed for NAFTA. George HW Bush negotiated it, signed it and it was supported by more Republicans than Democrats..

Some truth there and some falsehood.

The GOP started it, but Clinton actually brought it home with the GOP and he signed it. It was a major crossover with the GOP supporting it with Clinton. Same for welfare reform and other things.

Of course Bill is a moderate, Hillary is an extreme government-only person that really isn't about anything other than power.

But Clinton was definitely part and parcel of NAFTA along with the GOP.

There's no doubt Trump is running against a number of traditional GOP positions, is that news to anyone? He's a Populist really, but since the GOP has become so warped since the Bush II years it's not like they stand for anything in particular to run against. So Trump is giving definition where the GOP is not, and thus his success.

At the same time the Democrats have become far more extreme and seem hell bent on bankrupting the nation as quickly as possible. They have utterly abandoned the "blue dog" Democrat views of someone like Bill Clinton in favor of free everything for everyone and soak this apparently endless magical pool of "fat cats" to do it.

So neither party has an actual economic policy that makes any sense, and neither seems to have a cohesive foreign policy either and yet people are surprised at Trump's popularity. Since he's the only person in the race offering to do more than just keep accumulating power and corruption in Washington I'd say that's a good part of the reason.

[CitizenBBN]

What I remember as well. NAFTA was a Ross Perot issue during that election so it had to start prior. The two traditional parties supported it.

"Giant sucking sound". Turns out he was right.

The GOP voted for it solidly but so did a number of Democrats, and Clinton touted it as one of this major successes.

[CitizenBBN]

BTW, historically this is exactly when we see the rise of Populism in American history, when the two parties reach the point that they are both the same and only focused on their own power and influence. They are that all the time, but it ebbs and flows to the degree, and when it gets beyond obvious then you see a Populist come along suggesting a mix of ideas that aren't based on a pure ideology but are focused on addressing the day to day issues and concerns of the average American.

Americans worry about jobs and the economy and terrorism this time around, and here's a guy promising to restore jobs and fight terrorism through any means necessary without regard to ideological consistency. That sounds good to a lot of people just as it did in the early 20th century when the last major Populist movement occurred.

[Doc]

i don't know why Bill Clinton continues to,get blamed for NAFTA. George HW Bush negotiated it, signed it and it was supported by more Republicans than Democrats.

Actually, I do know why. Because Trump has conned his supporters into believing another lie. If that's not the case, then he's got a poor understanding of history. Hard to tell, though which is correct, he's the biggest liar to ever seek the office, is a total con AND has a poor understanding of history.

Does it bother you that Bush gets blamed for the housing bubble bursting even though the left pushed though legislation that set it up? For some reason I doubt it, but I'll let you set the record straight

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Some truth there and some falsehood.

The GOP started it, but Clinton actually brought it home with the GOP and he signed it.

That is flat-out FALSE. NAFTA was signed on Dec 17, 1992 by George HW Bush (http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/dec-17-1992-pres-bush-signs-nafta-15205420).

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Does it bother you that Bush gets blamed for the housing bubble bursting even though the left pushed though legislation that set it up? For some reason I doubt it, but I'll let you set the record straight

I'd prefer to stay on this topic for now. We can debate that all you want in another conversation.

Let's just stick with the facts here. Bush signed NAFTA into law. Donald Trump is deceiving the American public by claiming Clinton did so. He is either an idiot, or he's lying. It's very hard for me to figure out which is the case as he is so skilled at both.

[Doc]

You are incorrect. NAFTA was singed Dec 8 1993 by Bill Clinton

[CitizenBBN]

That is flat-out FALSE. NAFTA was signed on Dec 17, 1992 by George HW Bush (http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/dec-17-1992-pres-bush-signs-nafta-15205420).

it's a CONSTITUTIONAL MIRACLE!!!! A President signed a bill into law BEFORE the CONGRESS made it a bill!!!!

Jeez, well time to go back to middle school.....

First point. This is NOT a treaty. It was passed in the US as a regular law. So now let us review how laws are made in the US and what happened with NAFTA.

In 1992 Bush signed an agreement with Canada and Mexico where he became what is best termed a "sponsor" of NAFTA. But that is NOT signing the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since he can't make law, all he was doing was pledging his administration to support and advance that law in the Congress.

See, for a President to "sign a law" it has to go to Congress first. Since NAFTA wasn't approved in the house until November 17, 1993, when Bush was out of office in January of 1993, it's a little hard for him to have "signed NAFTA". What he did, and where you are so confused, was sign a PLEDGE to GET NAFTA approved into law.

But in fact he lost the election, and was unable to get the law done before he left. So Clinton actually advanced the law in Congress, and in November of his first term the House, with largely GOP votes, passed it. The senate was controlled by the Democrats, and it passed there with 61 votes, also with some GOP help obviously.

It was then signed into LAW on December 8th, 1993, by Bill Clinton.

There's no doubt Bush Supported it as did much of the GOP, as well as much of the Democratic party (who after all controlled the Senate). it cut across party lines, but Bill Clinton absolutely is the person whose name is on that law as it sits in the National Archives.

[Doc]

The Implementation act was signed December 8, 1993 by Clinton

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, I forgot to cite my work. I do claim some advantage here as I was actually alive when this one was done, so I could go off memory other than the dates, like everyone else on here who knows Clinton signed it.

http://millercenter.org/president/about/historical-events#12_08

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/trade/stories/tr111893.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement


This may help to clear up your confusion on how it works .... :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag

[Doc]

Well I'm not as quick a typer as Chuck

[CitizenBBN]

Let's just stick with the facts here. Bush signed NAFTA into law. Donald Trump is deceiving the American public by claiming Clinton did so. He is either an idiot, or he's lying. It's very hard for me to figure out which is the case as he is so skilled at both.

Hee hee....

[CitizenBBN]

Well I'm not as quick a typer as Chuck

lol, consider yourself lucky.

[Doc]

Hee hee....

Shh, he wants us to believe he is open minded.

[CitizenBBN]

Shh, he wants us to believe he is open minded.

Maybe this will teach him to fact check MSBNC's "news".

[Doc]

But, but, but if Bush promised then wasn't Clinton Obligated? I mean just because a new president came into office doesn't he automatically honor the previous presidents promises regardless of his own political beliefs? (DWS)

[Doc]

Maybe this will teach him to fact check MSBNC's "news".

Hey, Rachel Madow said.....


But somehow it will be Fox news that is at fault

[CitizenBBN]

But, but, but if Bush promised then wasn't Clinton Obligated? I mean just because a new president came into office doesn't he automatically honor the previous presidents promises regardless of his own political beliefs? (DWS)

In fairness to him, isn't it your experience that Bush is mostly at fault for things in life? I know it's the source of most of the dumb things I've done. Sometimes it's even the former Presidential family....

[dan_bgblue]

I am pretty sure he was responsible for my last speeding ticket 14 years ago.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

OK, so I was wrong on the "into law" part of my statement, but I'm not wrong on this was negotiated and signed by Bush. It was mostly a Republican-led agreement, that was supported by Clinton. Other than a procedural signing by Clinton, NAFTA is a Bush accomplishment. It is highly deceptive to say that NAFTA was a Clinton deal.

[CitizenBBN]

OK, so I was wrong on the "into law" part of my statement, but I'm not wrong on this was negotiated and signed by Bush. It was mostly a Republican-led agreement, that was supported by Clinton. Other than a procedural signing by Clinton, NAFTA is a Bush accomplishment. It is highly deceptive to say that NAFTA was a Clinton deal.

Like I said before....

hee,hee.

You know the Senate was under Clinton's control and Reid delivered this for Clinton? Clinton supported it during the election, he worked with the House for most of the year to get the votes.

No it wasn't his baby, it was actually a pretty bi-partisan project from the start that had the support of both Bush and Clinton during the election and of the core leadership of both parties. The biggest hurdle for the Dems was concerns from big labor about how things would work out.

Clinton absolutely pushed this forward and claimed it as an accomplishment of his administration. Was it just him? No, but it absolutely included him, and your absurd spin only underscores what leftists do to twist the facts to suit their agenda.

Here's a video of his comments at the signing, where he's happily gushing about the agreement and talks about the labor and environment agreement parts that were "negotiated by this Administration". Those btw were begun largely by Clinton b/c they were needed as assurances to get the Democratic Senate votes due to labor concerns, and the environment part was largely to assure Canada.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ooMrgXido

Here's Gore debating and defending NAFTA with Perot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XEziSYRqhU



Here's Obama stating that Bill Clinton that got NAFTA passed, and HRC in her own book called NAFTA one of his biggest successes and legislative victories:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhh7SvDIWGk

[Doc]

It's funny to hear Obama talk about a bad treaty when you consider the Iranian deal he hammered out.

Also funny to hear her cackle about campaigning where the candidates meet up, or about anybody misrepresenting anything.

Got to love politics