can somebody explain to me

[thebigmansentme]

how is kerry's position is different from bush's on nafta and wto?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigmansentme]

3. it's a trick question

bubba....

the point i am trying to make it's not different at all. instead of going for someone with substance, like john edwards, we went for an 'electable' candidate in the primaries...

[punpirate]

2. Ummm, broadly...

... I don't think it is much different. Both are in favor of big trade agreements. Kerry voted for NAFTA and GATT, and is a supporter of the WTO. He has said, however that he wants a 120-day review of trade agreements and won't sign any new treaties until the review is done (this might be political, since the FTAA is up for consideration soon, and many of the affected nations are Spanish-speaking). Says that he wants to use the "full force of the WTO" to force our "competitors" to live up wage and environmental standards. Says that he will not support any legislation making it easier for US multinationals to outsource jobs.

But, truthfully, I don't think Kerry will ever come up with a "big picture" plan to revamp free trade treaties into fair trade treaties. The major corporations would have a shitfit over something like that, and the fallout on Clinton for Monica Lewinsky would be miniscule compared to what the right would do to Kerry if he did.

Bush is a lot more open about his support for trade agreements, most of which predominately favor industrial nations, of which the US is foremost.

But, there's going to be no end to the trouble US multinational corporations will cause us until politicians figure out that corporate practices overseas fuel a lot of the ill will in the world toward the US, and that US militarism backs up US corporations.

Maybe that's the difference between Kerry and Bush on trade--Bush revels in the sort of "send in the guns and privatize `em all" routine, ala Iraq, and Kerry won't do anything about the underlying problem.

[Bridget Burke]

4. Please explain how another 4 years for Bush will make things better.

And who is thebigman?

[thebigmansentme]

5. is it a trick question

cause 4 more years of bush would be a lot worse than 4 years of kerry....

i think nader should come out really strong, critisize kerry on things like that, where he is not dirrerent from bush, get his 7% of the popular vote in the polls, and then drop out right before election and support kerry.

[Redleg]

6. Nice try.

F
R
E
E
P
E
R

[thebigmansentme]

7. ok, sure

and you are a nazi

?..

[Redleg]

11. It takes one to know one! Just kidding ;)

[TexasSissy]

8. The positions are different. Check out johnkerry.com. All of

his policies are listed and explained there, in detail.

One HUGE difference: Kerry believes that environmental regulations and wage requirements should be part of the treaties, so that the relationship will be fair (America requires environmental regulations and has wage requirements). Huge difference.

The environmental regulations cost companies $$$$, so they save that money when going to a country (like Mexico) that does not have environmental regulations. This encourages them to go there more than if it were a level playing field.

All these things, plus the tax incentives the American government gives companies for moving out of country (which Kerry is against), means that companies are fleeing America in record numbers. Which is not free trade. It's trade giveaway.

Capishe?

[thebigmansentme]

10. yeah

it's better, i am not sure how effective those policies would be, but it would be great if kerry got a chance to try

[westsidexview]

9. well bush sucks for sure

give kerry a chance. he might be better.