Are Mexico and Canada overseas ?

This not only insults our allies and trading partners, it signals to everyone else that America’s capricious, chest-thumping protectionist ally, Mexico, a third-world nation that is trying hard to transform itself into a first, bears the brunt of this coded jingoism.

That’s because trade pacts these days are about more than just trade ó they represent long-term strategic partnerships. But after this talk, who’ll want to sign a permanent trade deal knowing they’ll be threatened by ambitious politicians every election season?

Far from being an enemy, Mexico is a partner with whom we did $350 billion in two-way trade last year. In the process, we’ve gained millions of high-paid jobs in the U.S. The relationship has boosted U.S. incomes an average $2,000 per family since 1994. Besides buying 35% of our global exports, Mexico and Canada are also two of our biggest oil suppliers, selling us energy we’d be in huge trouble without.

Casting NAFTA nations as villains sends a chilling message to the dozen other nations that have since signed NAFTA-like agreements ó countries as friendly and diverse as Singapore, Jordan, El Salvador, Australia, Morocco and Chile.

They must be wondering when their moment will come to be blamed for poisoned toys, sick pets, bad dumplings, factory shutdowns, outsourcing and all the broader problems of globalization that have nothing to do with their pacts.

Worse still, the irresponsible talk could have a chilling effect on strategic allies waiting for free trade pacts they’ve already signed to be approved ó Colombia, Panama and South Korea. We’ve left them hanging. What a fine way to win and keep allies.

The demagoguery is particularly objectionable because it’s dishonest. First, the NAFTA pact wasn’t shoved through by fiat. It was negotiated over years by the Clinton administration, with major input from both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Everyone got his or her say at the time, and after many debates, the agreement passed both houses in late 1993.

Unlike our trade with China, which is subject to tariffs but contains no major labor or environmental demands, NAFTA did include labor and environmental standards, with the trade-off for Mexico and Canada being the permanence of the treaty.

Subsequent ones, such as 2007’s Peru free trade agreement, and the nearly identical pending Colombia pact, required even tougher labor and environmental standards to ensure passage.

Nations give up a lot to sign free trade pacts with the U.S. And some, such as Mexico, endure considerable internal opposition.

But they do it not because selling cheap toys here is such a big deal, but because embracing the trade pact’s legal infrastructure comforts investors and helps lure foreign investment.

For these countries, those investments are their future.

Threatening to renege on a permanent treaty ó as Clinton and Obama are doing through their identical vows to “opt out” of the deal ó signals loudly that America’s word is no longer its bond. A permanent pact with the U.S., it turns out, isn’t so permanent.

In addition to attacking free trade, he has proposed about $290 billion in new spending initiatives. Forget the realities that the OBM expects a $400 billion deficit in fiscal 2008 and that we already have $3.1 trillion federal budget filled with entitlements and waste. He wants to eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the caps on Social Security taxes. Of course, there is more.

This is an attack on economic freedom and liberty. The goal of government is to provide freedom and liberty for it’s citizens and NOT try to make all citizen’s equal (like our socialist and communist friends).

On a practical level, all of this will reduce incomes. Will this be good for the housing market? Employment? Tax receipts? The strength of the dollar? Investment?

Obama is a dangerous person.

I agree that Romney had to be lying when he said that: he knows too much about “the Economy” and “Business”.

However. And here I am being very very depressed: Obama really believes all that. He is really that ignorant of economic reality. He is NOT lying!

America IF AQ could back a candidate with campaing donations who would they back?

Hillary? … McCain? or.. drum roll.. Obama?

I would run that!

What would an Obama coalition look like?

AQ would love an Obama presidency. If they could AQ would give money to Obama.

The Democrats want to diss our neighbors and love up to our enemies. How strange is that?

They appease whom they fear, insult those they don’t. They’re cowards. And narcissists. And they also suck up to authoritarians because that is what they want to be.