Posted on 07/22/2005 9:42:27 AM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
"Democracy cannot be taken for granted. We must provide the foundation for democracy through smart policy. CAFTA's smart policy."
–President George W. Bush, July 21, 2005
"We need to fight with real bullets [for CAFTA]; we need to get aggressive; we need to act if we are to win. Trade is not necessarily popular."
–William Morley, former chief lobbyist, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, July 19, 2005
"...if we had a secret vote today, CAFTA would pass overwhelmingly."
–Rep. Tom DeLay (R.-Tx), House Majority Leader, July 20, 2005
Sources: "President Promotes Central America Free Trade Agreement," Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, July 21, 2005, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050721-1.html; "Andean trade negotiators meet in Miami for talks," by Jane Bussey, Miami Herald, July 20, 2005; "Stalemate over Labor, Textiles," Washington Trade Daily, July 21, 2005
"Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy."
~ Theodore Roosevelt
How CAFTA Will Quicken the Race to the Bottom for Central American Workers
CAFTA agreement would harm American economy
CAFTA undermines immigration laws
CAFTA Is the CHINESE Way
US Manufacturers urge El Presidente to withdraw support for CAFTA
CAFTA Built on Rotten Foundation of Kangaroo Courts
bttt
NAFTA has already forced the abrogation of some US laws which did not conform with the treaty.
Everytime we enter into one of these complex treaties we give up some of our sovereignty.
Mexico and Canada are not democracies like us, they are police states run by bureaucracies, why give them control over our lives?
Smaller non-tariff agreements could have done the same thing as NAFTA without the loss of control.
Dubya's vision of an "ownership society" is actually a euphemism for a Banana Republic.
As a result, CAFTA’s passage will surely increase net U.S. imports, boost the already dangerously high trade deficit, further weaken the dollar, force the continued fire sale of American assets, and reduce domestic manufacturing output, employment, and technological innovation.
Every one of those countries already exports duty free to the US, regardless of DR-CAFTA. Additionally, the writer of the letter says that the US needs to confront China economically - China is currently negotiating for similar deals with these countries and the best way to counter that is to open the trade to our own companies. I actually looked at the USBIC website and have concluded it's a sham as it does not list it's member organizations. If you actually HAD any members, you would proudly list them like the other trade associations do. So this article is a lie written by fraudsters.
I'm lookinging into the Norwood claims.
Being the bad person that I am, I am indeed looking forward to the gnashing of teeth of the unholy alliance of John Birchers and the far left.
But they restrict foreign ownership of properties within their borders.
CAFTA is about securing property rights for transnational corporations to relocate there.
These would displace the smaller, local producers while simultaneously undermining U.S. domestic industries with increased imports.
I actually looked at the USBIC website and have concluded it's a sham as it does not list it's member organizations. If you actually HAD any members, you would proudly list them like the other trade associations do. So this article is a lie written by fraudsters.
You may review the USBIC Board of Directors if you'd like to get a feel for the businesses that they represent.
It isn't as though they can't already subcontract out down there. As it is, there has to be a shell game - now the American firms who have interests down there have a better legal claim to their facilities. I don't see what the problem is with that.
"Unholy alliance"???
The globo-corporate taliban sure comes up with some harsh rhetoric to describe those of us who place America's best interests first.
How would describe the alliance? And since when does the far left look out for America's best interests first?
There is no alliance.
The far left abandoned blue collar America back in the '80s when blue-collar Americans crossed-over for Reagan.
For over 20 years, they have preferred to pander to a coalition of envirowhacknuts, Hollyweird, government and healthcare workers and globo-socicilists in the UN and NGOs.
Today, they're merely trying to fill the vacuum created by Dubya's neocon disavowal of the Gipper's America First initiatives.
Dubya handed them a legitimate issue to rant about on a silver platter.
Transnational corporations are no longer "American".
"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
--Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119
I remember the Birchers from way back when I was a college lefty. They used to be solidly opposed to welfare, taxes and big government. For some reason or other I thought they went out of business years ago, but recently I saw them on one of these threads. Now it seems they just love import tax hikes for corporate welfare and their idea of a 'protected economy'.
I guess things change.
Corporations aren't any nationality ever unless you want to consider where they have their articles of incorporation filed. What's your point?
Someone should these politicans pushing this that military coups and revolutions by the citizens are fairly common every few years in Banana Republics.
Of course a revolution might not be a bad thing...
Well now that you mention it, articles of incorporation ARE a privilege granted to investors with the expectation that the increased commerce will benefit the general populace of the issuing government. And government has the right to revoke such corporate charters when corporate actions are detrimental to its citizenry.
Well apparently YOU haven't.
They aren't a priviledge, it is a right to organize yourself as you see fit. And the corporation doesn't exist to better the general population - although it is an inevitable effect. And since when did communists take over FR? Are you sure you are on the right site, advocating that the gov'ment can take away my company if it does not benefit the population?
I think this is where it becomes apparent who the real opponent of freedom are and who the closet national socialists are.
Wrong. Through the act of incorporation, investors voluntarily yield their individual rights for the privilege of limited personal liability.
Right. The government is not involved. The governments role here is largely in the capacity of mandating a standard methodology - which is mostly superflous. Now you might say that it is the government that allows the corporation to have the liability and not the individual. Also false. It is the other people and corporations who do business with a given corporation that agree to enter into agreements that do not have personal property at stake.
Further, and finally, you really shouldn't direct your anger at corporations and try to punish them from trying to get a good deal elsewhere - it's not like these corporations are going to MeHEEco to make things for Mexicans, they are going there to make things for AMERICANS who don't personally give a damn about their fellow citizens 'entitlement' to a job.
It's like getting angry at Wal-Mart for putting lousy 'mom-n-pop' stores out of business - Wal-Mart did nothing - the consumers put 'mom-n-pop' on the street.
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.