North American Union?

[Dzldoc]

<h1 class="red">Bush seeks to cement legacy of ties with Canada, Mexico</h1> 4/21/2008, 7:25 a.m. CDTBy BEN FELLER The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, joining the conservative leaders of Canada and Mexico for one final time, is eager to expand a trading relationship that has been lucrative for the United States and both of its neighbors. But he is up against rising anti-trade sentiment.

Bush joins Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Monday in New Orleans for his fourth and final North American Leaders' Summit. Despite its lofty name, the two-day meeting is more about technical cooperation than dramatic dealmaking.

If there is to be one prevailing issue on the agenda, it will be trade. The three countries already share the largest trading partnership in the world, totaling nearly $1 trillion a year. Heading into the meeting, Bush said he plans to talk to Harper and Calderon about expanding trade in the Western Hemisphere.

The timing comes as the United States is mired in an economic slide, and many displaced workers and labor leaders blame trade for shipping jobs overseas. A particular political target is the North American Free Trade Agreement, which turned the U.S., Mexico and Canada into a giant trade zone 14 years ago.

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have both threatened to pull the U.S. out of NAFTA as a means to pressure Canada and Mexico to negotiate more protections for workers and the environment. Bush calls the idea isolationist and reckless.

He sees trade with friendly nations as essential to economic growth and national security. He and his counterparts are expected to use the platform of the New Orleans summit to defend NAFTA. And Bush, frustrated by a stalled free-trade deal with Colombia, will again urge Congress to put it to a vote.

This year's meeting has the intended twist of giving an economic and symbolic boost to the host city.

Almost 32 months after Hurricane Katrina struck, New Orleans is recovering with uneven success from the most brutal natural disaster in U.S. history.

Most of Bush's time will be spent in a hotel and a historic former city hall in the Central Business District, out of sight from the residential areas hit hardest by Katrina. His agenda includes a few events of local flavor, but they are secondary to diplomatic talks.

Bush has no plans to tour hurricane-damaged neighborhoods on this trip, his 16th to the Gulf Coast region since Katrina hit in August 2005.

But he will discuss recovery efforts and the challenges that remain at least twice: in comments to business executives Monday night, and at a Tuesday lunch with community leaders that will include his new Gulf Coast recovery chief, retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Doug O'Dell.

Bush's pro-trade message is up against a tough audience at home. His public approval rating dipped to a new low, 28 percent, in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month. Only 27 percent are happy with his job in handling the economy.

Bush's agenda starts Monday with the reopening of the Mexican consulate in New Orleans; the Mexican government had closed it in 2002 to save money. Then come separate meetings with Calderon and Harper.

At night, the three leaders will have a dinner with an intentionally open agenda. The topics are likely to range from conditions in Cuba to the Mideast peace process.

[Pb Derigable]

When i first heard about this, i immediately thought it was wrong and was pissed it was G.O.P. led. When i found out more about this, i kinda agree with it.

1. it would allow our business to sell more stuff. It cost Cat inc. 26,000 in taxes every time they ship stuff to other countries (like columbia) which drives up our prices.

2. We both agree Illegal immigrants is hurting this country. If they can improve their country, they won't want to come to our's.

but the bad side of point 2. is when countries grow they use more oil, which drives up our prices. China growing is a big reason gas is expensive here.

There are bad sides to this, but these were the points i took from it.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Americas became one big co-op. In fact in Europe the don't teach 7 continents, they teach 5. (N. and S. America is one and Antarctica does not count)

[stonefreelee]

I just dont see the point of fattening someone else's pockets at the expense of the american worker. Business is shippng all it's jobs overseas...yeah, someone somewhere is getting rich, big fucking deal. Where do we Americans go for jobs in the mean while, Mexico? Reverse immigration

[Pb Derigable]

Yeah i would be guilty to say i agree with this because it's a bush deal, so i would read more on it. but our jobs are going no matter what we do, so i guess i rather see it stay on this side of the world. Fuck China.

[Audacity]

Fuck China.

Sure!

China Kantner, Paul and Grace Slick's daughter.

[Gainsbarre]

I just dont see the point of fattening someone else's pockets at the expense of the american worker. Business is shippng all it's jobs overseas...yeah, someone somewhere is getting rich, big fucking deal. Where do we Americans go for jobs in the mean while, Mexico? Reverse immigration

now you might be worried about losing jobs in America and all that razzamatazz...

But let me give you some very important figures:

At the moment, the USA has 37 million people who are aged 65 and over... almost all of these people would be retired. And these retired people are being supported by a work-force in the USA of 173 million people...

However:

in 2030, which is 22 years away:

The USA will have 70 million people who are 65 and over, and retired. BUT it will only have a work-force of 184 million people to support them...

The work-force will only increase by 11 million people, but the retired, elderly population will increase by 33 million...

So if you take those 70 million people out of the work-force, and only increase the work-force by 11 million, that means, technically, that there will be 22 million jobs that will need to be filled.

[SteveAJones]

now you might be worried about losing jobs in America and all that razzamatazz...

But let me give you some very important figures:

At the moment, the USA has 37 million people who are aged 65 and over... almost all of these people would be retired. And these retired people are being supported by a work-force in the USA of 173 million people...

Many are working beyond 65 because of longer life expectancy and a lack of retirement savings. 72 is becoming the new 65, but your point on the imbalance between retirees

and worker bees is noted.

[bigstickbonzo]

Because of China's one child policy that was put into effect in 1979, there are some 80 million children in China now who will have to take care of two elder parents without the help of any sibilings come the next 20-30years. What does that mean? China's workforce is gonna age tremendously by 2040 with over 1/3 of their population above the age of 65.

The only real danger I see China posing to the rest of the world has been our problem from the start: pollution.

Edited to Add: NAFTA has proved to be one the biggest disasters of the Clinton Administration. Hillary supported it early in her campaign *just like she did throughout the 90s*..until the economy collapsed and everyone wanted better answers.

[Gainsbarre]

Because of China's one child policy that was put into effect in 1979, there are some 80 million children in China now who will have to take care of two elder parents without the help of any sibilings come the next 20-30years. What does that mean? China's workforce is gonna age tremendously by 2040 with over 1/3 of their population above the age of 65.

Well yes, that's right I imagine. I haven't studied the statistics for it like I have the USA, but it's a very real danger for China.

[mos6507]

The planet already has too many people on it and this is the root cause of many of the world's ills today.

The proper way to deal with imbalanced age demographics is not to follow a population boom (like the baby boomers) with another population boom purely as a means of providing caretaking services for boomers. Then our environment will just continue to be eroded and all will suffer.

[Charles J. White]

I’m in favour of North America - borders hinder trade, limit economic growth, and reduce profit

[kipper]

Well yes, that's right I imagine. I haven't studied the statistics for it like I have the USA, but it's a very real danger for China.

i love that photo you have. i miss michael and liz so much