GM Inside News Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Clinton Promises the UAW She Will Re-Work NAFTA

36K views 614 replies 58 participants last post by  Mr. Burns 
#1 ·
UAW Secures Promise from Clinton to Re-Work NAFTA
Detroit Bureau
Joseph Szczesny



The United Auto Workers have a commitment from Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to review provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, UAW President Dennis Williams said during a conference call with reporters.

Trade and trade agreements have been at the center of Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign, with him vowing to rip up NAFTA and other trade agreements he believes have been unfair to Americans.

One of the byproducts of the NAFTA agreement was a broad expansion of car and truck production in Mexico.

“Mexico has got eight new plants while they have closed two in Mexico,” one top official in UNIFOR, the Canadian union, which is preparing to negotiate a new labor contracts with General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobile N.V. Those three automakers have steadily expanded their Mexican operations since NAFTA was approved in 1994.

Williams told reporters that he believes Clinton will act to change NAFTA in way that will benefit workers. Trump, on the other, will not, he said.
 
See less See more
1
#21 ·
Good luck with that. It hasn't worked for the rest of us yet. :p:

On topic, this upcoming election has got to be the biggest circus I've seen in my life. Plus, I vote for a candidate, not a party. So, no Democrats or Republicans will be getting my vote.
 
#4 ·
My problem is that she will say anything for people to vote for her. This is not a presidential race, it's a popularity contest.
 
#8 · (Edited)
Good lord. One of the main reasons that Mexico is getting so many plants is it signed a number of trade agreements across the globe. That means vehicles produced there can go to the US, Canada or to the EU - which combined with other incentives and low wages, makes Mexico a very attractive place for global auto assembly.

Ironically, the US was on the cusp of signing an agreement with the EU and Asia that would have muted some of Mexico's advantage. Instead, it looks like the current candidates are determined to re-open a long standing and fairly successful trade agreement.

I've got to tell you, sitting in Canada, I don't know how open we'll be to revisiting these agreements. It makes for a heck of an arguement to signing the TPP (not exactly popular here) and finalizing the EU agreement and realigning our trade elsewhere. We've been good neighbours, so all this talk about tighter border walls, the Keystone pipeline hokey-pokey and now the 'let's make NAFTA even better for the US' probably won't play very well up here.

One observation: every party in a trade agreement seems to think the other side got a better deal. It's not like Canadians see the US as having gotten the short end of the stick on NAFTA. And Mexico, to their credit, hasn't just relied on low wages and instead has a pretty intensive strategy around attracting automotive. Getting out-competed as a jurisdiction isn't unfair.
 
#11 ·
Good lord. One of the main reasons that Mexiconos getting so many plants is it signed a number of trade agreements across the globe. That means vehicles produced there can go to thebUS, Canada or to the EU - which combine with other incentives and low wages, makes Mexico a very attractive place for global auto assembly.

Ironically, the US was on the cusp of signing an agreement with the EU and Asia that would have muted some of Mexico's advantage. Instead, it looks like the current candidates are determined to re-open a long standing and fairly successful trade agreement.

I've got to tell you, sitting in Canada, I don't know how open we'll be to revisiting these agreements. It makes for a heck of an arguement to signing the TPP (not exactly popular here) and finalizing the EU agreement and realigning our trade elsewhere. We've been good neighbours, so all this talk about tighter border walls, the Keystone pipeline hokey-pokey and now the 'let's make NAFTA even better for the US probably won't play very well up here.

One observation: every party in a trade agreement seems to think the other side got a better deal.
Yeah ... she was the most pro "global trade" but after being hammered from both left and right, she's relenting. Like UK, the tide is turning in the US .... It's quite scary, really.
 
#9 ·
Wow 5 posts and one of them heeded the admin's warning.

My read is that no, she cannot do any of this without congress, but she can try. With the congress in standstill anyone will have trouble getting things through there.

I do wonder what leeway she may have with executive action.

She (and the DNC) have also hinted that they will try to get TPP edited to be more protectionist.
 
#12 ·
A promise from a pathological liar is of what value, exactly? This is SOP for a politician. When they're behind the curtain, the laugh their asses off.

What will move the ball is a "donation" (rest assured this has already transferred out of the UAW Peasants Retirement Fund) to the Clintoon Global Get-Rich Initiative. That is what buys influence...I mean, that is what engages the interest of a politician who cares about the proletariat.
 
#28 ·
Well, to try and stay positive before the thread lock I would certainly vote for someone who cares about negotiating fair trade deals for America. I don't believe that's Hillary Clinton and I don't believe that she has the UAW's best interests at heart either. Trump should know how to negotiate better deals that our in our best interests but sometimes the whole brain-mouth thing do not appear to be on the same page.


Just follow the dead people.
Ouch! And the trail of sold American tech.

 
#30 ·
I am no great fan of some of what Trump says, but there is one thing about him that "trumps" all................... passion. Passion, which has been sorely lacking in the governing of this country in many years. Passion for this country, and not just what he can get out of it................ because he already has gotten his through his own business. Again, something that has been sorely lacking in this country............. somebody who has been in the trenches, who has dealt with the things that "we the people" deal with. Someone who obviously surrounds himself with very good people, since he is very successful.

If nothing else, I believe he would surround himself with great people......... business people............... and not politicians. I think this is why many who don't even like him, will vote for him. He is the anti-politician, where she is the epitome of everything that we hate in politicians.

I cringe to think of what "she" can "accomplish" in 4 years. :(
 
#37 ·
The curious should read up on what The Donald did with that NYC skating rink, and what he's done with the old PO building in DC. Where big gov utterly failed, he picked up the ball, ran with it, scored 10 touchdowns, and went home early.
Some people build things.
 
#49 · (Edited)
They are run by hard-nosed dictators whose personal and regime survival are Job #1.

We are currently run by uber-guilty "liberals" I use the word advisedly, whose massive guilt complex at being part of the greatest civilization the world has ever known makes them uneasy beyond belief. Their remedy is to destroy it, which will also destroy most of them. They don't understand that part. When you've had no consequence for your behavior for 55 years or so, you get numb.

Correct, what I'm getting at is you can not have a religious test as a prerequisite for denying or granting a person citizenship. The president can absolutely keep them out until they were to become citizens.



We all have a mis-step now and then. :p:

Whether constitutional or not, Trump is backing away from it.
Excluding dangerous, diseased, or otherwise hazardous non-citizens from entering the country, that is a constitutional duty. DUTY.

Watch for soaring TB rates, and other diseases that the USA had pretty much stamped out quite some time ago. Is it not a leader's duty to keep contagious people out?

Twenty years ago, very few would have argued with this. It's just the constant battering of psyches with the Big Lie that has got peoples' brains sideways. ILLEGAL is illegal. DANGEROUS is dangerous. It's quite simple.

I think GMI finally figured out how political threads can remain unlocked .... everyone with any disagreement with this one minority view of the country just leaves you kids yell at each other how much you all agree with each other and how the Dems are evil, GOP forever, and some other half-formed semi-thoughts.

So enjoy the sandbox, children. Just do not think that our decision to not argue with the group that is about to vote for a dictator sympathizer for the POTUS of the longest running democratic republic in the world, do not get confused into thinking that our absence here means there is no disagreement on that point, or that you're the only voice here.
??? You really shouldn't make assumptions based on what the mediabots tell you. They lie about 98% of the time.

And SOO glad you're the mature one in the room. A blessing.
 
#44 ·
That way more bad things happen. More bad things happening means "we the people" are distracted and not paying attention to what is really happening. Plus, it gives other bad people the ability to push their agenda, which hurts "we the people."

Well, then there is that "illegal and dead people voting" thing. Oh no, nobody would ever do that.

I am a strong woman, and I have no issue with a good strong woman as the President. That said, since there will be none of those in this election (need proof she is a woman, then proof she is not who she actually is, and is actually good), I will "just say no."
 
#46 ·
I think GMI finally figured out how political threads can remain unlocked .... everyone with any disagreement with this one minority view of the country just leaves you kids yell at each other how much you all agree with each other and how the Dems are evil, GOP forever, and some other half-formed semi-thoughts.

So enjoy the sandbox, children. Just do not think that our decision to not argue with the group that is about to vote for a dictator sympathizer for the POTUS of the longest running democratic republic in the world, do not get confused into thinking that our absence here means there is no disagreement on that point, or that you're the only voice here.
 
#47 ·
Originally Posted by NoStopN
Trump might actually have gotten my vote if he was running as an independent. But, I just can't get over him aligning with the Republicans.
People expect the president to have a strong personality and be capable of
doing more than they actually can. Trump has tapped in on that perception
and basically hijacked the GOP's presidential platform, a master stroke.
 
#111 ·
I am concerned that the GOP would get Trump to follow their party plans. If Trump wouldn't just "go along with the party", it would garner more of my support. But, I still see the GOP (or the Dems) as puppetmasters who are pulling the strings of the Pres, VP, Senators/Representatives, etc.

Wow...can't believe this thread is still open...that's my only comment.
I could tell you one reason for that, but that would be giving away the secret.

Also, Middle Eastern people are not being imported. Importing is bringing goods or services into a country for sale. SO unless you're implying there is some old fashioned slave running going on you might want to refine that.
Have we forgotten the "refugees" that Obama wanted to overnight to the US via FedEx? There may be people who need to escape an inhumane situation, but sleeper cell terrorist groups are everywhere. They will be using this scenario as a free pass to further their terrorist gameplan.

Our politicians are appealing to people who fear and know little about the world.
Politicians have become skilled enough to use the media to their advantage. Fear & ignorance are the face cards in political blackjack.

Blacks voted for Barry The Deceiver because he was black, women will vote for $Hillary because she's a woman.
I wanted to say that, but I didn't want to set a bad example. :D

A) There's only one choice if you actually value your country, your freedom, and your rights as a human being as advocated by our Declaration of Independence and promised by our Constitution.

B) Unless you want your history rewritten, unless you want your future to be run by mock elections and plutocrats, unless you want to exist in a country full of retards who know no such thing as an objective truth, you only have one choice.

C) If you actually want your country run by officials elected by its citizens, where its laws are written exclusively by those elected officials and not supranational appointees, your only choice is Trump.

D) Too many people secretly want to support Trump and what he stands for, but don't. They would rather sit home and let the chips fall as they may, because hey; at least I didn't have to commit to a position.

E) It's pretty simple, you need to appoint judges that do what they're supposed to do: uphold, and not interpret the Constitution.

F) Someone please come up with a real argument against Trump and FOR Hillary, because unless you're a complete retard you know they're the only options.
A) Sounds like a political speech. You planning to make a run in 2024 since you expect Trump to win again in 2020?
B) And you think this scenario isn't already happening?
C) Step one to the country being run by the actual voters is the dissolution of the electoral college.
D) I make it a point to vote. I can't stand idly by and watch other people vote us into hell.
E) SCOTUS has already set precedent by interpreting the Constitution, looking for the grey area. Pandora's box has already been opened. You can't just close it & everything goes back to the way it was before it opened.
F) About Hillary, I not only don't have an argument for her, I've got a few against her. And I don't really have an argument against him. But, he seems like a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of personality. That may not be the best policy for foreign relations.

And one final note. There are some comments that are beginning to aim directly at other members. Redirect the comments to the topic.
 
#50 ·
I wrote this after one of the Republican debates and it was published as an op-ed piece in a local newspaper.

-----------------------------

For those who cannot understand the popularity of Presidential candidate Donald Trump, the last Republican debate provided a great opportunity to learn. The subject of nuclear tests was raised and Trump was asked if he supported a tariff on Chinese goods. (He’d earlier suggested this as a method of ending the terror-tactics of Kim Jong-un after surmising “Without China, North Korea doesn’t even eat.”) Very quickly, the discussion moved away from military foreign policy and towards economics.

Trump mentioned millions of lost American jobs and a $505 billion trade deficit with China. Much of it is due to their own devaluation of currency, making Chinese goods artificially cheap. He reminded us “we have great power, economic power over China”. Many experts agree that China’s currency is devalued about 45%, and that was the amount Trump suggested as an additional tax on their imports.

Talk of tariffs and foreign trade appeared to awaken the establishment candidates who delivered their most enthusiastic performances that evening in defense of America’s long history sacrificing jobs on the altar of “free trade”. Jeb Bush warned us that if we impose tariffs, the Chinese might not choose American-made passenger jets! Memo to Jeb: The Chinese government already told Boeing that they need to start building aircraft in China, or risk losing more orders to Airbus, which already manufactures planes in China. Guess who announced a new factory in China a few months ago? To be fair, Jeb also mentioned retaliation against Iowa-grown soybeans; I suppose selling ice to Eskimos isn’t the only tough sales job. Marco Rubio worries that “a tie or a shirt made in China” will cost more. Funny, I thought “Always Low Prices” was a slogan, not a line from the Declaration of Independence. When Trumps calls trade negotiators “political hacks and diplomats”, he’s dead-on correct. Trade is an executive branch function and The Department of Commerce is staffed with appointees. When administrations change, former trade negotiators very frequently take jobs with the companies (or governments) they were supposed to regulate a year earlier.

You don’t start negotiations by announcing what’s off the table. Smart Americans know this but instead they see potential leaders-of-the-free-world in full panic-mode at the mere suggestion a political donor’s boat might be rocked. Of course the election isn’t just about trade. Yet how revealing is it to see the establishment candidates either completely unaware of things that have already happened, or more concerned with the price of a tie (or an iPhone, or some other widget) than they are with the welfare of the nation? I think the American people are realizing this may be our last opportunity to negotiate anything… Trade deal, nuclear deal, etc. from a position of strength and they do not want it wasted on another administration that is afraid put America first.
 
#51 ·
This one was published after Hillary's debate in Flint, MI

----------------



Remember the ol’ Days when General Motors jobs were in Flint, and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico? I saw this little metaphor today, and it was as if some piece of what’s been bothering me about the water crisis fell into place. Parting from the usual wisdom, I don’t blame the State emergency manager for disconnecting from the Detroit system in an effort to control Flint’s cash burn. Nor do I blame GM reducing its footprint, given that Americans; even Michigan residents, have increasingly said “I don’t care where this car is built.” And for the record, GM is still the largest and highest paying employer in Flint.

I place the blame squarely upon the shoulders of Federal-level politicians, both donkeys and elephants, who have negotiated give-away trade deals like NAFTA and now the “Trans-Pacific Partnership” which welcome more cheap goods into the U.S. in exchange for… Basically nothing. Almost 25-years after NAFTA was supposed to make American manufactured goods cheaper to purchase in Mexico, workers in manufacturing average $2.70 an hour. Mexican minimum wage is $4.19 a day. So while it’s good that our friends in Mexico no longer have to pay tariffs on US-made trucks, I don’t imagine many are lining up for a $35,000 Flint-built Silverado.

Although I’ve referred to GM several times, it’s just because of their historic ties to Flint. No one understands the consequences of the ultra-competitive, razor-thin margins of the auto industry better than Michiganders. For decades Americans have said they don’t care if a product is built in the US, Korea or by child labor on the planet Zod. In a world where virtually every automaker (including those from China) is investing in Mexico for easy access to the US market it’s almost quaint that GM, Ford and Chrysler continue to invest billions in our state.

That bothersome piece that fell into place is Hillary Clinton’s call for a Democratic debate in the city of Flint. The real issue is Flint’s broken budget and infrastructure as a direct result of lost manufacturing and worker/resident tax revenue. Here comes Hillary patronizing the issue, seemingly oblivious that hubby Bill pushed over one of the largest dominos to shrink American manufacturing by signing NAFTA! Perhaps these two winds of destruction will blow into town and hand out Made-In-Mexico water filters. In 1937 the UAW flexed its muscles in Flint and the nation was forced to take notice. In the process they helped create the American middle class. In 2016 they will likely inject huge amounts of cash into funding another Clinton campaign. Meanwhile, President Obama demands quick passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which will surely shrink that same middle class.

The only candidate who dares mention these rip-off trade deals is the outsider being slammed by the establishment wing of his own party for not being a “real conservative”. What does it say when the only subject these warring-factions agree upon is yet another trade deal the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor says may cost 2,600 direct auto factory jobs in the US and another 9,000 at suppliers. That’s just the auto sector. It’s impossible to know which industry and city will become the next Flint, but I suppose Michelle Obama; should she decide to follow the pattern, needn’t feel any qualms about it being the site of a future debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top