CAFTA vote story

I think that you are correct, James. It is a small deal that benefits the US to the extent that we will no longer have to pay tariffs. There will a slight increase in the export of American goods. As you say, this could sidestep Mexico to aid those who are much worse off than Mexico and help preserve the democracies that Reagan fought to keep.

 

That is a canard. If it was a true argument then we would not be continuing to lose jobs as companies move to a foreign country. ExxonMobil is currently in the process of moving its accounting work from the U.S. to Argentina.

 

Yes, service sector jobs are leaving. However, these aren't the type of jobs we're talking about. Those jobs are going to South America, India, China, and other poor nations. However, CAFTA or not, these jobs are free to leave. It is the manufacturing jobs that are in question here. The manual labor jobs that used to feed families. But, they're gone for the most part. The ones that are still here are here for a reason. Either the people that own the companies do not believe that others can do the job as well as the workforce they have, the owners feel a sense of committment to their employees, or some other reason. The jobs we would lose are already gone.

Now, if you all want to talk about getting rid of NAFTA, I will be on board. THEN there would be a reason to oppose CAFTA.

 

www.americas.org/item_20029

 

I think that the Democrats' abuse of the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate has been shameful. </font>[/QUOTE]Good for you. At least you are consistent.

 

The Democrats are way worse on social issues to me than are the Republicans; although with Senator Frist's bombshell announcement today on unborn baby stem cell research that gap may be rapidly narrowing.

 

Service jobs feed families, too. I should know since I have an accounting job.

 

Ken, I am not arguing that it is terrible that our jobs are leaving. But, the service sector jobs don't need trade agreements to leave us. They are doing it quite easily now, and to places we haven't even considered making these type of agreements with.

As for the post about Frist and stem cells; it is true that he made a terrible decision on this one. However, there are still many good men and women that will stop this from going through. Even if it does pass the Senate, Bush is sure to finally veto something. I doubt that they could get anywhere close to 2/3 of the votes to override.

On another note, try and read what Senator Coburn (a doctor that still practices) is saying. I haven't found a news story about it yet, but I heard sound bites and he is attacking Frist as a scientist for wanting to go forward with research that has proven to be unprofitable.

 

www.stemcellresearch.org

 

"The Castle-DeGette bill that is being praised in the Senate is full of hype and false promises. Private research dollars are not following destructive embryonic research because that research, unlike adult stem cell research, has not produced any tangible results. Not since 'cold fusion' has a scientific story received so much attention without the science to support the claims.

"Promoting destructive embryonic stem cell research will also cause Congress to cross an ethical threshold from which it will not be able to return. If Congress decides that is ethical to conduct destructive research on human beings because 'they will be thrown away anyway' we will enter a brave new world in which all human life will be cheapened, and endangered." - Senator Coburn

- www.earnedmedia.org/coburn0729.htm

 

Thanks Ken. I must have just missed it. I am seeing more on google now.

 

If CAFTA had failed, someone noted, then we would have known that President Bush is a lame duck. As it is, the Republican Party held a slight majority together and got a minor trade deal passed to help Central America and the USA trade more freely in continuation of the Reagan policy of bringing political freedom to our neighbors.

 

This agreement will create a trade-governing mechanism in the Western hemisphere similar to the European Common Market, and its subsequent European Union. The sales pitch in the United States claimed the agreement will open new markets for U.S. products. In reality, it opens new opportunities for American industry to move to countries where labor costs are a fraction of U.S. labor costs, and where environmental and regulatory compliance costs are almost non-existent.

These agreements open U.S. markets to products produced without the safety and environmental standards – and the attendant costs – that U.S. products must include. That's why an America flag made in America costs twice as much as a flag made in Mexico, or China. That's why the Florida tomato industry evaporated when NAFTA went into force. That's why the American economy is losing its capacity to produce the products Americans need. Each new agreement makes the United States more and more dependent upon other nations for the products it requires.

Once the capacity to produce is lost, the possibility of rebuilding that capacity is remote. Consider what it would take to rebuild the steel industry to the level that it could supply American demand. Not only is the cost prohibitive, but the regulatory climate is also prohibitive. It is the regulatory climate that has prevented the energy industry from keeping up with demand. That's why our dependence on foreign sources of energy has continued to rise, from decade to decade.

Congress, and the American people, should realize that the ultimate goal of these trade agreements has nothing to do with what is best for the United States, or its people. It has everything to do with benefiting everyone else. Congress, and the American people, should realize that the prosperity this nation has built is the result of self-reliance, which we should not allow to be traded away.

Finally, there is the matter of national sovereignty. Proponents of these trade agreements praise the dispute resolution process that forces compliance by all participants. They claim this provides a degree of predictability on which business can depend. It also forces Americans to submit to a force of law that was not enacted by elected representatives. This grinds underfoot the whole concept of "... government empowered by the consent of the governed."

When Americans are forced to comply with a ruling of an appointed international tribunal, the idea of national sovereignty goes out the window. This, of course, is prerequisite to the emergence of global governance. NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO are more than nourishment for the one-worlders. They are vitamin-packed, steroid-enriched injections of global governance

SOURCE

 

At the end of the day the choice is actually simple and definitive. Supporting the treasonous trade policies of any administration that promotes Free Trade as good for America is akin to selling out your children’s birthrights. The slogan - ‘What’s good for General Motors is good for America’ never really rang true. Today only an illiterate buffoon denies the stark facts of the destructive nature from global state/capitalist consolidation. Nevertheless, our society of ignorant indentured servants has signed up for perpetual servitude under the boot of their ruling masters. No wonder there is no national outrage over the passage of CAFTA, the dumb are too stupid to face the truth.

The historic transfer of wealth from a creditor nation into the largest debtor in history is a direct result from the ultimate master plan. Yes, the architects of America’s demise constructed a superstructure that destroys the very foundation of the free enterprise economy. Their slick marketing became the palatable means to achieve the same end ambition of the totalitarians. What the fascist and communists failed to accomplish through warfare, the transnational capitalists attained through financial manipulation. Global dominance under the deception of democratic consent has been the objective throughout all the chaos of the last century.

Top down = controlled populations. That’s the lesson of the actual history that you are supposed to close your eyes to and continue on your merry journey into further debt, imminent poverty and absolute slavery. Politics that focus on playing by fabricated arbitrary legal rules, electing reliable government advocate office holders and wasting time on disinformation issues are all part of the design to steal your ability to earn a decent and honest living.

Until a true nationwide and independent economy becomes the primary objective of the industrious masses, only further fiscal indignations will erode national sovereignty. Trade is good business when our fellow neighbor benefits from the transactions. Our fellow citizens are Americans; not foreign or shadowy enigmatic corporate financiers.

SOURCE

 

Charlie Wilson was the best Secretary of Defense that we ever had and he was right that the fate of capitalistic companies such as General Motors were tied to the fate of America.

The Republicans are for fair and free trade because they saw that the tariffs of the Great Depression actually made the depression worse. I refer to Smoot Hawley.

 

Fair and free trade are great. CAFTA is the opposite...a huge beaurocracy to regulate it, and take it out of the hands of our own government and into the hands of others.

 

Yeah, right. It is a minor deal with some small countries that Reagan tried to save. It is fair and free trade.

CAFTA was a good idea!

 

Folks seem to have forgotten about the problems of the American farmer--most of which were caused by FDR. A Hoosier farmer told me that without exports, farmers could not survive.

Nevertheless, at last there is some support for the opposition to CAFTA!

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez criticized a trade deal that eliminates barriers between the United States and Central American countries, calling it a misguided deal that will harm the region's small economies.

Chavez, a frequent critic of the U.S. government, also said he had read reports of President Bush "putting money in circulation to buy votes and to blackmail, through the so-called (U.S.) intelligence agencies, to approve an initiative which is perverse."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050731/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us_cafta_2

 

CMG, you're in denial.
The people of Central America already grow the crops they consume. Exactly what are the "hoosier farmers" going to sell in Central America that the Central American farmers aren't already growing?

Regards,
BiR

 

We can grow corn, wheat, and soybeans cheap. Mike Pence, R--Muncie, said it would bring Indiana $41,000,000 a year.