In Bush Win, House Narrowly Approves CAFTA

Associated Press ^ | July 27, 2005 | JIM ABRAMS

[RWR8189]

WASHINGTON - The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement early Thursday, a personal triumph for President Bush, who campaigned aggressively for the accord he said would foster prosperity and democracy in the hemisphere.

The 217-215 vote just after midnight adds six Latin American countries to the growing lists of nations with free trade agreements with the United States and averts what could have been a major political embarrassment for the Bush administration.

It was an uphill effort to win a majority, with Bush traveling to Capitol Hill earlier in the day to appeal to wavering Republicans to support a deal he said was critical to U.S. national security.

Lobbying continued right up to the vote, with Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez tracking undecided lawmakers.

The United States signed the accord, known as CAFTA, a year ago with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and the Senate approved it last month. It now goes to the president for his signature.

To capture a majority, supporters had to overcome what some have called free trade fatigue, a growing sentiment that free trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada have contributed to a loss of well-paying American jobs and the soaring trade deficit.

Democrats, who were overwhelmingly against CAFTA, also argued that its labor rights provisions were weak and would result in exploitation of workers in Central America.

But supporters pointed out that CAFTA would over time eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers that impede U.S. sales to the region, correcting the current situation in which 80 percent of Central American goods enter the United States duty-free but Americans must pay heavy tariffs.

The agreement would also strengthen intellectual property protections and make it easier for Americans to invest in the region.

"This is a test of American leadership in a changing world," said Rep. Kevin Brady (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a leading proponent of the agreement. "We cannot claim to be fighting for American jobs and yet turn our backs on 44 million new customers in Central America.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now, there is NO machine tool industry in this country. Everything is overseas.

You have a link to back up this theory of yours? Or did you hear it on Oprah?

[Proud2BAmerican]

Karl Marx believed that "free trade" would hasten his postulated revolution between the proletariat and the bourgeoise. A closer reading (even) of your selection establishes why he was in "favor" of free trade.

Now ask yourself, who on this thread is arguing much the same thing? Hint: not the "free-traders."

Ok, I thought you knew something about Marx that I was unaware of. Yes, I agree with you that his motivation for espousing free trade was because it would hasten the revolution -- it would hasten the break-up of nation-states, etc.

And yes, I would imagine that none of the free traders (on this site, anyway) would support that. However, there is the matter of "unintended consequences" -- namely, what if Marx was right? Certainly the break-up of the nation-state is something that anti-free traders fear will come out of free trade. Loss of sovereignty, and that sort of thing. They fear it because they believe that some of the consequences of free trade are pointing in that direction; and the fact that Marx was an advocate of free trade -- for THAT particular reason -- adds further fuel to the concern.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying here that it's true (free trade will lead to loss of sovereignty, break-down of the nation-state, etc.); but I do believe it's a debate worthy of respectful discussion.

[Toddsterpatriot]

However, there is the matter of "unintended consequences" -- namely, what if Marx was right?

Any of Marx's other theories you think may be right?

[hedgetrimmer]

And yes, I would imagine that none of the free traders (on this site, anyway) would support that

You shouldn't presume that. Just like NAFTA has created the North American Community (virtually no border with Mexico) the CAFTA is the stepping stone to the FTAA, it says so in its preamble. It also says in its preamble that the purpose of the FTAA is hemispheric integration. The "free traders" on this website are well aware of it.

And, although they have a fondness for calling true conservatives marxists and other names, their view, as has been pointed out, was promoted by Marx himself and "free trade" is their means to destroy nations and integrate the western hemisphere.

[1rudeboy]

Let's say Marx believed that free trade would lead to the demise of the nation-state. Are there any examples of that being the case? Simply saying that it might happen in the future is not enough.

[Age of Reason]

Or perhaps I have a different understanding of prosperity.

[Nowhere Man]

And, although they have a fondness for calling true conservatives marxists and other names, their view, as has been pointed out, was promoted by Marx himself and "free trade" is their means to destroy nations and integrate the western hemisphere.

The way I see it is where Marx was correct in his support of free trade is as someome point out that it would turn the working class against the owners. You will get that as our jobs will go away and our standard of living falls. Whether Marx had that idea on his mind, I dunno, but if he didn't, it would fall under hte "law of unintended consequences." If this goes on, at some point, you will have many people clamouring for a dictatorship, be it Communist or more likely, Fascist, two sides of the same coin actually. Unhappy people will produce that, some say thati s the plan, some sort of New World Order if you will, which I do believe that is true to quite an extent. Eventually it will fail and everything will collapse unless things fall apart before it gets to that point and civilization whithers, be it from ineptitude, inertia or if God steps in. I do believe God will put things right eventually, but that's getting off base.

Historically, Marx was a knee jerk reaction to the inequities and lack of opportunity for the average person during the robber baron days, but he went way, way too far just as on the other side of the coin, Ayn Rand and many uber capitalists was a knee jerk reaction to the other side. Both are so far off the reservation, they are equally bad.

So the way I see it, intended or not, Marx's analysis of free trade was right on in his outlook on achieving his goals yet many do not see the dangers in that.

WE need something in the middle somewhere and with common sense, in which we are seriously lacking today.

[panaxanax]

Thank you for speaking slowly for me.

It allowed me to see that you changed your quote from "....WE created 21 million jobs since NAFTA." to "THE AMERICAN ECONOMY has created 21 million new jobs since Nafta". Which is it?

Duh, who is "we"? You know as well as I do that the GOVERNMENT created those jobs through un-needed social programs. There are more people working for the government now than ever before. Our government is bigger than it has ever been.

I'll say it again, a 'created job' is just that, created. Please show us where these jobs are, if you can. And do not insult my intelligence again.

[My GOP]

What does either of those towns have to do with the fact that 21 million jobs were created since NAFTA? Or that real wages are higher since NAFTA?


This economic growth would have occured without NAFTA, probably more so. Let's remember, all these jobs were created under Clinton so that's a sign they would have been created regardless. These 20 million jobs were a result of Reaganomics kicking in, not NAFTA.

[Patriot Son]

You are in -favor- of NAFTA? Go check your figures again! NAFTA sucked hundreds of thousands of jobs down to Mexico. Jobs that will never come back. And your figure of 21 million new jobs is completely bogus!

Higher wages? Maybe in New York City and Los Angeles, but not in the rest of the country.

Our country is being sucked dry of jobs. And they're all going south of the border. When the unemployment figures here reach 30% will you then be convinced?

NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and the upcoming FTAA are simply steps to totally subject our country to the one-worlders. They're cooking the frog slowly but surely. NAFTA already imposes authority over our country. So does the WTO. Are you ready to let our country be subject to unelected one-worlders in Brussels?

WAKE UP!!!

[My GOP]

What does either of those towns have to do with the fact that 21 million jobs were created since NAFTA? Or that real wages are higher since NAFTA?


Oh I forgot, how about all those millions of manufactoring jobs lost since NAFTA. You must not live in a manufactoring state or either that you're rich and don't associate with the working class.

[Age of Reason]

Ronald Wilson Reagan's tireless . . . championing of free trade, as a bedrock conservative principle

You sure you don't mean bedrock neoconservative principle?

"Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of Trotskyists . . . .

"He sees the neoconservative concept of 'global democratic revolution' as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's 'vision of permanent revolution'.

"He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of 'the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism', which he describes as 'Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history.'"

". . . [neoconservatism] is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for beleaguered liberal democracies such as Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism."

Exsplains a lot, especially this part,

"Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history."

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

[Toddsterpatriot]

NEW! Data extracted on: July 28, 2005 (11:18:55 PM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES0000000001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector:  Total nonfarm Industry:      Total nonfarm NAICS Code:    N/A Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1994	112473	112665	113133	113490	113829	114139	114498	114801	115155	115361	115786	116056
1995	116377	116588	116808	116971	116962	117189	117260	117538	117777	117926	118070	118210
1996	118192	118627	118882	119047	119376	119647	119875	120078	120296	120534	120826	121003
1997	121232	121526	121843	122134	122396	122642	122918	122911	123417	123756	124063	124361
1998	124629	124814	124962	125240	125641	125846	125967	126322	126543	126735	127020	127364
1999	127477	127873	127997	128379	128593	128850	129145	129338	129525	129947	130242	130536
2000	130781	130901	131377	131662	131882	131839	132015	132004	132122	132110	132326	132484
2001	132454	132546	132511	132214	132187	132029	131941	131803	131549	131172	130879	130705
2002	130581	130478	130441	130335	130326	130377	130277	130295	130250	130309	130315	130161
2003	130247	130125	129907	129853	129827	129854	129857	129859	129953	130076	130172	130255
2004	130372	130466	130786	131123	131373	131479	131562	131750	131880	132162	132294	132449
2005	132573	132873	132995	133287	133391(p)	133537(p)
p : preliminary

 

Frequently Asked Questions | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey
Privacy & Security Statement | Linking to Our Site | Accessibility

BLS

You know as well as I do that the GOVERNMENT created those jobs through un-needed social programs. There are more people working for the government now than ever before. Our government is bigger than it has ever been.

The government created 21 million jobs? Right!! Could you get a source for that?

Now you see Jan 1994 112,473,000 jobs. Jun 2005 133,537,000 jobs. Looks like 21,064,000 jobs. But feel free to check my math.

And do not insult my intelligence again.

I'll leave that to you. LOL!!

[Age of Reason]

Interesting approach, attempting to "link" the positions of Ronald Wilson Reagan with those of Karl Marx.

You can go here to read about the neocons and Marxism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

[Nowhere Man]

Hey, no use in talking to them, you would have more of a productive effort by trying to bench press a '68 Buick or talking to a brick wall. That is until they lose it all (or the threat of such) and have the total smackdown on them. Sad to say but some will have to experience a huge fall before they realize that, sort of like junkies and alcoholics have to before they wake up. I have an aquaintence in Holland who said that wmany times, they just spout numbers like "a calculator without a vision." We do need a William Jennings Bryan type, I'd like Tancredo the best for the 2008 Presidential race.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go check your figures again! NAFTA sucked hundreds of thousands of jobs down to Mexico. Jobs that will never come back.

And yet, there are 21,000,000 more jobs since NAFTA.

And your figure of 21 million new jobs is completely bogus!

See post #613.

When the unemployment figures here reach 30% will you then be convinced?

Yes, then I'll be convinced. But considering the rate is now 5%, I won't be holding my breath.

WAKE UP!!!

You first!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh I forgot, how about all those millions of manufactoring jobs lost since NAFTA.

When were those jobs lost? Exactly? Maybe show me a year by year breakdown. Convince me.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Without having the familiarity of Marx that I probably should have to properly discuss this subject, off the cuff (and from memory of studying it 8+ years ago in undergrad), I recall Marx advocating removing God from the public vocabulary -- from the public mind even -- as he saw organized religion as a major impediment to his vision of the all-powerful state.

I seem to also recall though, that at his most "philosophical", Marx's theories advocated that there would be no real "government", because the utopia he envisioned would just sort of "run" without any need for formal framework, etc. Course, to GET to that point, anything/everything was permissible (the whole "omelette/breaking eggs" addage fits in here). I can recall a professor saying, with wide-eyed breathless excitement, how wonderful such a thing would be.

So, that's a theory of Marx's that I think has credibility -- removing God/religion from society removes a major road block to his grand vision.

Also, Marx's beliefs on class warfare -- that is, destroy the middle class in order to precipitate the "revolution", is fairly accurate. Without having studied it except generally, isn't that what happened basically in the Russian and French revolutions? You had the disappearance of the middle class, a lot of have-nots and a few haves? I know that's greatly oversimplifying both historical events, but generally at least, I believe that's an accurate statement.

I guess my larger point is that, generally speaking, whenever I hold an opinion and find that someone whose opinion I reject and find detestable on nearly every other subject holds the same belief, it gives me pause to consider whether or not there's more than meet's the eye on the subject in question.

I guess a person could just as easily say "Well, OK, so Marx was right on that ONE THING...but, well, a sun shines on a dog's a** some days." But it seems to me that the thoughtful person might take a moment or two to re-examine the merits of the opposite position.

[gdc61]

the cows of America rejoice.