NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and Gentlemen of all political stripes,

The United States Senate has just approved of the Central America Free Trade Agreement.

Links to come as they appear.

I am asking NS General what they think of it.

Excellent news. I've wanted CAFTA to pass for a while. Finally, something good from Congress.

Excellent news. I've wanted CAFTA to pass for a while. Finally, something good from Congress.

Ok so tell me why you think its good?

*Yawn* can't see any good for the folks in Hawaii... so... sorry, no good comment.

except a linky for those who don't know about CAFTA

Kafka?

does this mean Roaches will be involved?

whoopdeedoo

okay...i know this is important to me for some reason. please tell.

Ok so tell me why you think its good?

Free trade results in stronger economic growth in the hemisphere, which results in greater economic stability. This economic stability makes products cheaper for American consumers, increases demand for US products abroad, and insources technical jobs to the US.

Ladies and Gentlemen of all political stripes,

The United States Senate has just approved of the Central America Free Trade Agreement.

Links to come as they appear.

I am asking NS General what they think of it.

I think whoever comes along and devotes themselves to scrapping it immediately will take control of the democratic party without breaking a sweat. I think NAFTA has proven to be such a complete disaster that the CAFTA vote if passed is going to cost both parties a lot of seats next elections. I think neither really matter in the end because it is big business pushing this and they are subsidising your representatives who vote for it through every sort of legal and illegal method they possibly can. I also think that american businesses can now hire illegal honduran aliens for 1/3 the price they can hire mexican illegal aliens. I think we need a third party in the worst way.

It is good to know that the U.S. Senators of modern day still support free trade.

insources technical jobs to the US.

why do they have to be insourced? You save even more money setting up those technical jobs in India, Latvia, and even China in a few years.

Don't see it.

This was the first link I came across:

Senate Votes in Favor of CAFTA (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161192,00.html)

Free trade results in stronger economic growth in the hemisphere, which results in greater economic stability. This economic stability makes products cheaper for American consumers, increases demand for US products abroad, and insources technical jobs to the US.

Are you sure its going to insource? I bet its going to do more outsourcing than insourcing period. Yes, it might make for stronger economic growth in the hemisphere but what if one of those economies collapses? How do you think that's going to affect trade?

Info: CAFTA, or the Central American Free Trade Agreement, creates a free trade zone between the United States (and I assume by extension by its NAFTA partners) and the nations in Central America. It was largely opposed by the sugar industry, labor unions, and general protectionists, and supported by free-traders and manufacturers. It was the only free trade agreement the Senate had come close to defeating in its history.

I've done a bit of research on CAFTA. In general, I'm a supporter of free-trade. Certain lax environmental provisions in an environmentally sensitive region is worrisome, and the labor standards aren't quite perfect, but overall, I'd say it'll enhance the economies of all nations overall, enough to make up for losses in other sectors.

EDIT: Could someone find a vote count? Specifically, did Charles Rangel vote for or against?

figured it had something to do with that. thanks

Free trade results in stronger economic growth in the hemisphere, which results in greater economic stability. This economic stability makes products cheaper for American consumers, increases demand for US products abroad, and insources technical jobs to the US.
:rolleyes: Just like how NAFTA was supposed to be good for the US? :rolleyes:

This was the first link I came across:

Senate Votes in Favor of CAFTA (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161192,00.html)

Are you sure its going to insource? I bet its going to do more outsourcing than insourcing period. Yes, it might make for stronger economic growth in the hemisphere but what if one of those economies collapses? How do you think that's going to affect trade?

It will insource the higher level and more technical positions in to the US, as well as increase demand for shipping services in the US. Stronger economic growth will be coupled with economic stability, so the risk of collapse will decline. Trade will not be as severely affected because the market is larger and a greater deal of oversupply can be absorbed.

However, many manufacturing and low-level positions will be outsourced.

:rolleyes: Just like how NAFTA was supposed to be good for the US? :rolleyes:

NAFTA had a lot to do with the massive economic expansion of the 1990's, which was both the longest and most durable in American history. The jobs lost were replaced by better and higher paying ones, and the American economy was able to modernize faster as a result.

Are you sure its going to insource? I bet its going to do more outsourcing than insourcing period. Yes, it might make for stronger economic growth in the hemisphere but what if one of those economies collapses? How do you think that's going to affect trade?

Our founder is worth about 90 mill *coughsbastardcoughs* ;) He wants to set up another business and he has been talking to venture capitolists. He says he has not found one that hasn't told him they won't look at his plan unless outsourcing is mentioned.

:rolleyes: Just like how NAFTA was supposed to be good for the US? :rolleyes:

Well now it's only been 13 years now. Should kick in any time now! :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050701/pl_nm/trade_cafta_usa_dc;_ylt=Ar3Tdl1dhfUTxSrR67LbknWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Now an even bigger question:

Will the US House Approve of the treaty?

The outlook for the agreement was less certain in the full House, which was expected to vote on CAFTA when lawmakers returned in July from a weeklong Independence Day break.

"The real challenge is going to be on the floor," said Rep. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who joined most fellow party members on the Ways and Means panel in opposing the pact.

"It's going to be a very close vote," he said. "If the members vote the way they have expressed themselves, I think CAFTA will not be approved. Obviously, the administration is doing what they can to peel off votes" and win approval.

NAFTA had a lot to do with the massive economic expansion of the 1990's, which was both the longest and most durable in American history. The jobs lost were replaced by better and higher paying ones, and the American economy was able to modernize faster as a result.

And a bunch of those are now in India and China. Why pay high wages?

CAFTA does much the same as NAFTA (The northamerican free trade thingy), only it covers the states and south america. Haiti already has the HERO act, which I think is the same thing. I don't know a lot about Haiti tho, so please don't shoot me if I'm wrong.

Basically it's about breaking down tax barriers, so the massively subsidised corporations (especially foodstuffs) of america can dumb prices without incurring a loss from said tax berriers. This is really handy because the south american nations might be able to produce their own products at a competitive price, but the US corporations can still underbid them because of the massive subsidising. This will lead the countries to buy huge amounts of foods from America and eventually spell the death for their ability to provide for themselves.
When that happens, their economy will hopefully be so devastated they have to sell their natural resources and other strange "goods" loke water supply's and the right to offer sow seed...
America have done it lot's of places already

Ok seriously, I don't know what exactly it does yet. I haven't gotten around to read it. Past history says the above isn't all wrong, but I remember having hopes for CAFTA when I heard about it (loong time ago). So maybe it's a good thing. Just don't trust what papers write about this. Read it yourself, then judge :)

:rolleyes: Just like how NAFTA was supposed to be good for the US? :rolleyes:
Nafta was bad for us?


Oh right, that 10 year depression during the 90's. Got ya.

Aside from this minor inconvenience to my day, I can safely rest assured, predicting that CAFTA will fail. And good riddance to it. It is supported in Latin America by only the minority Bourgeoisie, and in America by the minority Bourgeoisie. The House of Representatives is far less free-trade supportive than the Senate, and anyone who votes for CAFTA will quickly see a loss of major support amongst their constituency. CAFTA will fail, and I'll be the first to bet on it.


http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-006es.html

The CATO institute also rates the Congress, but I couldn't dredge up their article.

Does anyone want to make a bet with me that CAFTA will either pass or fail? $50 says CAFTA will fail.

I've done a bit of research on CAFTA. In general, I'm a supporter of free-trade. Certain lax environmental provisions in an environmentally sensitive region is worrisome, and the labor standards aren't quite perfect, but overall, I'd say it'll enhance the economies of all nations overall, enough to make up for losses in other sectors.

EDIT: Could someone find a vote count? Specifically, did Charles Rangel vote for or against?

Alright. What jobs are you swagging here?

And a bunch of those are now in India and China. Why pay high wages?

The only major high-paying jobs that have been lost are low level programming jobs, which didn't deserve the money they were paid to begin with. (the dot-coms had a lot to do with this) The net level of outsourcing from 2000-2005 is only around 430,000 jobs. Paying 60k a year to a low-level programmer when it can be done for $20k is ridiculous, so it's easy to see why the positions were outsourced.

The only major high-paying jobs that have been lost are low level programming jobs, which didn't deserve the money they were paid to begin with. (the dot-coms had a lot to do with this) The net level of outsourcing from 2000-2005 is only around 430,000 jobs. Paying 60k a year to a low-level programmer when it can be done for $20k is ridiculous, so it's easy to see why the positions were outsourced.
And more have come in the country then come out.


Outsourcing is a myth buddy.

NAFTA had a lot to do with the massive economic expansion of the 1990's, which was both the longest and most durable in American history. The jobs lost were replaced by better and higher paying ones, and the American economy was able to modernize faster as a result.

No it didn't. That was driven almost entirely by tech, communications and internet growth. Most of NAFTA was not even phased in till that was well under way.

Yay!

*look at my location to see why I said, "Yay!"*

The only major high-paying jobs that have been lost are low level programming jobs, which didn't deserve the money they were paid to begin with. (the dot-coms had a lot to do with this) The net level of outsourcing from 2000-2005 is only around 430,000 jobs. Paying 60k a year to a low-level programmer when it can be done for $20k is ridiculous, so it's easy to see why the positions were outsourced.

Hate to tell you this but the high levels are going there now.

For example, we are setting up 50 design postions in Bangalore. Those jobs paid about $120 US and I think they are paying about $40-60 there.

As high speed networking becomes more and more common, the need for onsite technicals are drastically reduced. The need for a WAN engineer doesn't have to be american.....

Yay!

*look at my location to see why I said, "Yay!"*

But you are already in paradise! Dont fall for it. It is a trick! :D

EDIT: Could someone find a vote count? Specifically, did Charles Rangel vote for or against?

The House hasn't voted yet and I haven't seen a list of Senators that has voted for this on their website. It basically just passed the Senate so I don't know much yet.

The House hasn't voted yet and I haven't seen a list of Senators that has voted for this on their website. It basically just passed the Senate so I don't know much yet.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

Not up yet, just look in the next 20 minutes and the list should be there under rollcall 00170.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

Not up yet, just look in the next 20 minutes and the list should be there under rollcall 00170.

I'm already there :p

I'm pleased by this. Go CAFTA! NAFTA, CAFTA, all that is left is SAFTA. And then people will name their children after them.

Liverbreath']No it didn't. That was driven almost entirely by tech, communications and internet growth. Most of NAFTA was not even phased in till that was well under way.

NAFTA allowed the boom to take off by reducing the cost of imports and exports to companies, which allowed them to meet demand almost equally in three countries as opposed to only one. More people were needed to manage such a massive expansion of the market, which created a considerable number of new jobs at the mid and higher level of salary ranges. These effects were comparatively rapid and occured before the rise of the internet. Raw material costs fell, which reduced price pressures and helped to control inflation.

I'm pleased by this. Go CAFTA! NAFTA, CAFTA, all that is left is SAFTA. And then people will name their children after them.
SAFTA is actually called FTAA, just a heads up.

Alright. What jobs are you swagging here?
Huh? I'm an American whose sorry that he don't know what "swagging" means.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00170

Its up now!

The final vote was 54-45 with Lieberman (D-CT) not voting.

From the office of the US trade representative website:

Exports of U.S. goods to Mexico grew by nearly 37 percent (or $15.2 billion) in the three years after NAFTA went into effect to a record high of $56.8 billion. This large increase came during a three-year period when Mexico experienced a three percent decline in total domestic demand. At the same time, the United States widened its lead over its trade rivals in sales into the Mexican market -- increasing its share of Mexico's imports from 69 percent in 1993 to 75 percent in 1996, and displacing imports, particularly from Asia.

Read more if interested:
http://usinfo.org/trade/nafta/chap1_1.stm.html

SAFTA is actually called FTAA, just a heads up.

Quiet, you. FTAA can't be anyone's child! It's like something out of Lovecraft. No one names their children after Cthulhu.

They should, though.

Huh? I'm an American whose sorry that he don't know what "swagging" means.

some wild assed guess ;)

Never heard of it?

Liverbreath']But you are already in paradise! Dont fall for it. It is a trick! :D

Sweet Zombie Jesus, you are right! We already have the Colon Free Trade Zone! Why do we need this st00pid treaty?

Oh yeah, I know why. I'm too lazy to drive to Colon :p.

I say that the US should have tarriffs on lots of stuff, instead of putting manufacturing out of business.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/30/congress.cafta.ap/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8424884/

Two more links on CAFTA

http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/Section_Index.html

Ok after looking around a bit, it seems it is indeed a new NAFTA. This is pretty good news for US corporations. Be happy about that if you can.

It's probably gonna destroy the environment, cause a massive amount of deaths and unemployment and a lot of civil unrest in South America. Not to mention tha it will probably force the region to live off loans and accept any corporate demands the US get's written into the loan agreements. I dunno if you can still feel good. I doubt it's a good sign if you can tho :(

I say that the US should have tarriffs on lots of stuff, instead of putting manufacturing out of business.

They tried that in the 1930's with Smoot Hawley, which severely worsened the Great Depression. Manufacturers have to compete on a global level, and I"d rather have affordable products as opposed to having to pay considerably more for products of equal or less quality.

I say that the US should have tarriffs on lots of stuff, instead of putting manufacturing out of business.

It is not the job of the government to prop up non competitive businesses. If they can't hack it then, maybe we're better off buying imports after all. You can't blame a company's inability to stay competitive on the government not artificially changing prices to favor the home team.

Quiet, you. FTAA can't be anyone's child! It's like something out of Lovecraft. No one names their children after Cthulhu.

They should, though.

You are much closer to right than you could possibly realise SB. The FTAA is not a true free trade proposal. It is a proposal that South America should open their markets to the USA in all aspects, while the USA keeps some priveleged areas of its internal markets protected.

Free trade it is not. Some nightmare invented by HPL seems a better description.

(By the way go and vote. A link to the thread is on our forum)

You free-traders are proclaiming victory much too early. The Senate is more free-trade oriented than the House, and voting for a free-trade agreement in the House is about as good for your reelection as admitting to your opponent that you fancy having sex with children, and that you have an extensive collection of pornography, in case they were interested. This will not go over well. If the member's of the House vote the way they have expressed themselves, then this stupid free trade act will come crashing down at your feet. And then someone will owe me $50.

Once again, is anybody willing to bet $50 that CAFTA will pass? I offer a written guarantee that I will pay if I'm wrong, so you know I'm at least good for it.

Come on, anyone want to bet that it'll pass?

You free-traders are proclaiming victory much too early. The Senate is more free-trade oriented than the House, and voting for a free-trade agreement in the House is about as good for your reelection as admitting to your opponent that you fancy having sex with children, and that you have an extensive collection of pornography, in case they were interested. This will not go over well. If the member's of the House vote the way they have expressed themselves, then this stupid free trade act will come crashing down at your feet. And then someone will owe me $50.

Once again, is anybody willing to bet $50 that CAFTA will pass? I offer a written guarantee that I will pay if I'm wrong, so you know I'm at least good for it.

Come on, anyone want to bet that it'll pass?

If it does pass the House, I'll be surprised. People are saying it won't. However, the vote won't happen till after the 4th of July Recess :(

some wild assed guess ;)

Never heard of it?
No, I haven't. My bad :(.

The House represents an outdated, 50's-esque mentality. Manufacturing is dying, and it is being replaced with jobs in technology, which continues to develop faster and better than even the pioneers of the late 90's imagined. Trying to protect manufacturing will only worsen the US' economic status. This is why California's economy booms while Cleveland lags.

I think it'll get passed. I'd take the bet, but it's too complicated transferring money. You'll have to imagine them instead and just gleefully mock me

If it does pass the House, I'll be surprised. People are saying it won't. However, the vote won't happen till after the 4th of July Recess :(


I'm glad you have a sense of perspective. You have been nominated for most honest conservative in NS. At least for me. It's worth a bit more respect in the leftist community, not that you necessarily want that, but eh, it's good to be popular.

If we don't have any manufacturing here, we'll be in trouble if we get into a major war.

The House represents an outdated, 50's-esque mentality. Manufacturing is dying, and it is being replaced with jobs in technology, which continues to develop faster and better than even the pioneers of the late 90's imagined. Trying to protect manufacturing will only worsen the US' economic status. This is why California's economy booms while Cleveland lags.

As a Californian right in the middle of the valley, I can tell you there is an image problem as enrollment for the CS classes has noticibly declined. In fact it's in many areas as Bill Gates himself said it's a troubling sign and he was going to start some group or something to reverse that trend.

There are many tech types around here that don't advise it as a career choice.

I'm glad you have a sense of perspective. You have been nominated for most honest conservative in NS. At least for me. It's worth a bit more respect in the leftist community, not that you necessarily want that, but eh, it's good to be popular.

I've seen what NAFTA has done for this country and its one of the reasons why we lose jobs in Manufacturing. If we just invest more money into Manufacturing (by us I mean the populace) we might have a better manufacturing base than we do now.

If we don't have any manufacturing here, we'll be in trouble if we get into a major war.

Well, some manufacturing will remain because it can't be produced as well in other countries, especially tech products. The rest will remain after it consolidates, like steel has. Many companies have gone out of business, but overall the steel industry is alive. Not booming, but alive. These small amounts will be more than enough to supply us during a war, in addition to all of the converted facilities.

If we don't have any manufacturing here, we'll be in trouble if we get into a major war.

The main equipment is still built here. The days of mass armies and tank divisions hammering it out are pretty much done.

Originally posted by Vetalia
Well, some manufacturing will remain because it can't be produced as well in other countries, especially tech products. The rest will remain after it consolidates, like steel has. Many companies have gone out of business, but overall the steel industry is alive. Not booming, but alive. These small amounts will be more than enough to supply us during a war, in addition to all of the converted facilities.

Tech products are made in China.

I've seen what NAFTA has done for this country and its one of the reasons why we lose jobs in Manufacturing. If we just invest more money into Manufacturing (by us I mean the populace) we might have a better manufacturing base than we do now.

We shouldn't, because manufacturing is being surpassed, much like agriculture was during the 1700's. We have to prime our economy for the future, and subsidizing manufacturing will not do this. The jobs gained through free trade are the kind we need for the future, the high paying, high education jobs.

Better manufacturing does not ensure a healthy economy because it is very raw material intensive, and any commodity shock could plunge us in to a recession.

The main equipment is still built here. The days of mass armies and tank divisions hammering it out are pretty much done.

Unfortunately. To bad we won't have another tank battle like at Kursk I think it was back in World War II? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

Tech products are made in China.

and Taiwan.

Unfortunately. To bad we won't have another tank battle like at Kursk I think it was back in World War II? Correct me if I'm wrong please.

You are correct sir. The Kursk pocket was on the Eastern Front.

The jobs gained through free trade are the kind we need for the future, the high paying, high education jobs.


Ok for the sake of argument. CAll me ignorant. :D

What jobs are you talking about?

You are correct sir. The Kursk pocket was on the Eastern Front.

Considering I don't do much studying of the European theater of said war, not bad! :D

I thought I was right but I wasn't sure. Thanks for confirming for me The Black Forrest!

meh.

It's all jungle and tourism and shit in central america - apart from the drugs and marxist rebels. (Well columbia is the lingerie capital of SA I suppose, but still). So I can't see any major distortions happening even if it does pass.

meh.

It's all jungle and tourism and shit in central america - apart from the drugs and marxist rebels. (Well columbia is the lingerie capital of SA I suppose, but still). So I can't see any major distortions happening even if it does pass.

That's not true!

Your forgetting the Canal and the Free Trade(well, that's only in Panama, but that's still Central America :p).

Oh, and the freak weather(I hate it, to tell the truth).

And Columbia isn't in Central America.

...

Now an even bigger question:

Will the US House Approve of the treaty?
I'd like to cavil about a minor point, having in mind our recent discussion. CAFTA is not a treaty according to the US law. It is a congressional-executive agreement.

That's not true!

Your forgetting the Canal and the Free Trade(well, that's only in Panama, but that's still Central America :p).

Oh, and the freak weather(I hate it, to tell the truth).

And Columbia isn't in Central America.

Columbia shares a border with panama. But you are right, I suppose it is not actually in central america.

As for the panama canal. meh. It's old and too small. That's why the US gave it up in the first place.

There is nothing in central america that is going to threaten the US economy in any way.

Columbia shares a border with panama. But you are right, I suppose it is not actually in central america.

As for the panama canal. meh. It's old and too small. That's why the US gave it up in the first place.

There is nothing in central america that is going to threaten the US economy in any way.

Belize. The next economic superpower. :D

Why do the US people always think in terms of threat?

Why do the US people always think in terms of threat?

perhaps people have at least an unconscious understanding of the fact that we don't actually have anything other than historical accidents keeping us on top for the moment?

Free trade results in stronger economic growth in the hemisphere, which results in greater economic stability. This economic stability makes products cheaper for American consumers, increases demand for US products abroad, and insources technical jobs to the US.

This depends on the specifics of the CAFTA. For example, say the production of wheat and grain. If the US continues to subsidies their own agricultural production while exporting to signatory nations (usually poorer too) and at the same time demanding no tariffs, that would be a bad thing. Why? Because that kind of practice usually leads to the importing nations losing out on their own domestic production as they can't compete.

So, specifics please?

And more have come in the country then come out.


Outsourcing is a myth buddy.
Yes and no. Jobs are created, but they are different. While total jobs have not been all that lost, the type of jobs available have changed, which is why people bitch cause they don't want to have to learn anything new to continue working.

This depends on the specifics of the CAFTA. For example, say the production of wheat and grain. If the US continues to subsidies their own agricultural production while exporting to signatory nations (usually poorer too) and at the same time demanding no tariffs, that would be a bad thing. Why? Because that kind of practice usually leads to the importing nations losing out on their own domestic production as they can't compete.

So, specifics please?
Actually, the people most vociferiously advocating CAFTA are those who would have no problem with trashing the farm subsidies.

Ladies and Gentlemen of all political stripes,

The United States Senate has just approved of the Central America Free Trade Agreement.

Links to come as they appear.

I am asking NS General what they think of it.

Thia may well be the final nail in the the coffin of the U.S. middle class.

Yes and no. Jobs are created, but they are different. While total jobs have not been all that lost, the type of jobs available have changed, which is why people bitch cause they don't want to have to learn anything new to continue working.

Eh? What's so hard about flipping burgers, working a coffee machine or a register?

Ladies and Gentlemen of all political stripes,

The United States Senate has just approved of the Central America Free Trade Agreement.

Links to come as they appear.

I am asking NS General what they think of it.

American right-wing style free trade.

Great.

Even more jobs being outsourced to Third World countries. All in the name of making a buck.

As far as I'm concered, the only mistake Bill Clinton made was trusting the crappy information he was given on NAFTA.

Eh? What's so hard about flipping burgers, working a coffee machine or a register?
That's not where the job shift's mainly been actually. In fact, one of the biggest areas have been various entrepreneurships.

Free trade results in stronger economic growth in the hemisphere, which results in greater economic stability. This economic stability makes products cheaper for American consumers, increases demand for US products abroad, and insources technical jobs to the US.


While this may, in some cases, be true, what worries me is that many other jobs will be sent out as well and who's to say more will be created?

That's not where the job shift's mainly been actually. In fact, one of the biggest areas have been various entrepreneurships.

Ok as in what? I keep asking what are these new jobs people should prepare for and nobody seems to have answer.

It's basically "you know new high paying jobs!"

Entrepreneurships only go so far. Not everybody is cut out for that. With the mantra of offshore jobs for low salaries; I don't know.

While this may, in some cases, be true, what worries me is that many other jobs will be sent out as well and who's to say more will be created?

They all say that and to some extent they are right.

We created 60 software design positions in India and we created 2 finance postions in the US.

NAFTA had a lot to do with the massive economic expansion of the 1990's, which was both the longest and most durable in American history. The jobs lost were replaced by better and higher paying ones, and the American economy was able to modernize faster as a result.


Oh yes the 200,000+ manufacturing jobs that Michigan has lost since the start of NAFTA sure have been replaced by better and higher paying jobs. :rolleyes:

Nafta was bad for us?


Oh right, that 10 year depression during the 90's. Got ya.


Depending on which state you live in yes. NAFTA is a fricking joke.

Actually, the people most vociferiously advocating CAFTA are those who would have no problem with trashing the farm subsidies.


"This CAFTA agreement will hurt American workers ... and force more immigration into the United States," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said. "It couldn't come at a worse time."

To win passage, the White House promised hundreds of millions of dollars to monitor CAFTA labor standards and help the region's farmers, and more aid to U.S. sugar growers. U.S. sugar producers, currently protected by import tariffs, oppose the deal.

Thia may well be the final nail in the the coffin of the U.S. middle class.


WE HAVE A BINGO! :D

Eh? What's so hard about flipping burgers, working a coffee machine or a register?


:D Thanks for the laugh. For some people it is hard. Ever go into a McDonalds and order coffee and hand the person behind the counter a $20? :D

The House represents an outdated, 50's-esque mentality. Manufacturing is dying, and it is being replaced with jobs in technology, which continues to develop faster and better than even the pioneers of the late 90's imagined. Trying to protect manufacturing will only worsen the US' economic status. This is why California's economy booms while Cleveland lags.

Only some states that didn't have a big manufacturing base to begin with can convert quickly. *This is not to say that California doesn't have a big manufacturing base. It is just that some states whole economies are based on their manufacturing bases. * What about the midwestern states that are lagging behind? Should we let those economies collapse?

I know what you are saying about improving jobs. Right now Michigan is trying to bring in more bio firms and high tech jobs but it is a slow and painful process. Another thing Michigan is doing is becoming a state with a whole lot of medical facilities. In West Branch for example. There is a new hospital and at least 10 new doctors offices and specialty clinics that have opened up. But at the same time the local manufacturers around here are struggling. What happens to those workers if those plants shut? This is also an agricultural area. *spelling* What happens to those who sell beef when cheap imported beef will now be available?

I'd like to cavil about a minor point, having in mind our recent discussion. CAFTA is not a treaty according to the US law. It is a congressional-executive agreement.

Are you serious about this? :eek: Do you have any resources or links to confirm?

Sorry everyone for having so many posts in a row. Really tired and I should get some sleep. Keep being civil everyone so this thread doesn't get locked. :)

*passes out on the floor*

Are you serious about this? :eek: Do you have any resources or links to confirm?

...
We've had recently a thread upon the kinds of international agreements.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424981

While CAFTA is undeniably a treaty according to international law, in the eyes of the US legal system it is not a treaty, but a congressional-executive agreement.

The difference lies in the manner of its adoption. Treaties are, according to the US Constitution, submitted to the Senate by the President and requre a supermajority of Senators to be adopted, CEAs need simple majorities in both the Senate and the House to pass. While we are at that, a sole execuive agreement is authorized by the President only.

We've had recently a thread upon the kinds of international agreements.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424981

While CAFTA is undeniably a treaty according to international law, in the eyes of the US legal system it is not a treaty, but a congressional-executive agreement.

The difference lies in the manner of its adoption. Treaties are, according to the US Constitution, submitted to the Senate by the President and requre a supermajority of Senators to be adopted, CEAs need simple majorities in both the Senate and the House to pass. While we are at that, a sole execuive agreement is authorized by the President only.


Thank you very much for this piece of information. :) Following the link to even more links and learning quite a bit.