Skip to comments.
Good Reasons To Reject CAFTA
The Daily Oklahoman ^
| 07-18-05
| Bill Graves
Posted on 07/18/2005 3:01:46 PM PDT by Osage Orange
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
To: A. Pole
21
posted on
07/18/2005 6:01:38 PM PDT
by
raybbr
To: RegulatorCountry
Has it ever dawned on you to question just why it is, that Life Savers, and the increasing number of candies and baked items that you mention, are now produced in Canada? Because federal price-supports for sugar make it more expensive here than in Canada? What do I win?
22
posted on
07/19/2005 10:27:07 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy; RegulatorCountry
Because federal price-supports for sugar make it more expensive here than in Canada?
Because CAFTA gives advantage to countries which have a cost-of-production advantage over the United States because they are not required to meet the same labor and environmental standards?
How big a loss must we take on our economy so you can win?
To: hedgetrimmer
CAFTA hasn't passed yet, and you're already blaming it? LOL
24
posted on
07/19/2005 10:34:43 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
"Because federal price-supports for sugar make it more expensive here than in Canada?"
And it's just one-a them there coincidences that production could just be relocated, lock stock and barrel, to Canada. Why, I wonder, were Life Savers ever produced in the US? Nothing to do with NAFTA, nope, no sireee bob, just one-a them there strange coincidences. Yep.
To: RegulatorCountry
Are you saying that LifeSavers would not have relocated in the absence of NAFTA? I'm curious on what grounds you come to this conclusion.
26
posted on
07/19/2005 10:39:52 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: kaktuskid; RegulatorCountry
Good riddance to "Big Sugar"...
Now we can get our sugar from those sugar plantations in the Dominican Republic that the US State Department says have such poor sanitation there is no sewage or running water for the workers, and where the US State Department says slave and child labor are used to cut the cost of production.
Yes, "good riddance" to the American producers who put out the highest quality, cleanest, most efficiently produced product in the world. The world doesn't need farmers like that and we certainly wouldn't want the third world to bring up their standards to match ours. Nope, bring back the 19th century plantation mentality-- sanitation, slave labor and all. Our food tastes so much better when its produced that way!
To: hedgetrimmer
"How big a loss must we take on our economy so you can win?"
These twits think they're buying world peace. That's what it all boils down to, that, plus Making The World Safe For Walmart
To: Moral Hazard
Which U.S. groups oppose CAFTA?
Organized Labor. Labor unions, including the AFL/CIO, say CAFTA will result in a net loss of U.S. jobs, and that the agreement fails to provide adequate education or job training for those left unemployed.
Council on Foreign Relations Talking Points.
To: hedgetrimmer
I thought those were AFL-CIO talking points?
30
posted on
07/19/2005 10:43:20 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
"Which U.S. groups oppose CAFTA?"
Nearly every single politician, Republican or Democrat, in the state of NC, with the odd exception of Sue Myrick. Wonder why?
To: 1rudeboy
If they had moved prior to NAFTA their product here would have been considered an import with whatever accompanying restrictions and inspections. Of course you know that.
To: 1rudeboy
Are you saying CAFTA countries don't have a cost-of-production advantage over the United States? Clearly they do.
How do you propose that advantage is turned into a "level playing field" as you internationalists like to say it will under CAFTA?
One is lower than the other, so lets think this through. If one is lower, to make them 'level', you can raise one, or you can lower the other. Do you think the cost-of-production will be raised for the CAFTA countries? I don't think you are THAT disingenous, but we'll wait for you to answer.
To: hedgetrimmer
As you likely (I hope) know that their product is an import now, with whatever accompanying restrictions and inspections.
34
posted on
07/19/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
If one is lower, to make them 'level', you can raise one, or you can lower the other. Do you think the cost-of-production will be raised for the CAFTA countries? Heck, yes! Lower the other!
35
posted on
07/19/2005 10:51:45 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Nope those came from your friends at the CFR.
To: 1rudeboy
"Are you saying that LifeSavers would not have relocated in the absence of NAFTA?"
I suppose, in your view, that it's just a miracle that any domestic manufacturing exists at all, or ever existed for that matter.
You guys are going to reduce us all to selling junk back and forth to one another on e-Bay.
To: hedgetrimmer
38
posted on
07/19/2005 10:53:42 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: RegulatorCountry
Non-answer, but a nice attempt nonetheless.
39
posted on
07/19/2005 10:54:17 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Lowering our cost of production means that property owners will see a wholesale crash of the value of their property. But it doesn't matter if the sovereign indivdual loses money on this deal, as long as the transnational corporations win.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson