Help Preserve Jobs and National Security & Independence:Defeat the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement

The New American ^

[Dog Gone]

If these free trade agreements threaten US jobs, then please explain why unemployment is LOWER than when we first signed them.

Thank you in advance.

[Strategerist]

You know what the answer will be - we're all working in McDonald's, blah blah blah blah

[Dog Gone]

I know, but I like to hear it. And then I ask them how that can be, when illegal aliens have all the McDonald's jobs.

[phoenix0468]

Just because some sectors of the economy are creating jobs does not mean that others are losing them to deals like this. Just as lowering taxes can and often will increase revenue due to a healthier economy. It's fairly simple economics actually.

[1rudeboy]

Here is an excellent synopsis of the port security provisions in the Oman FTA.

[Dog Gone]

What American jobs will be lost to Oman? What can they do better there than we can do here?

[Nowhere Man]

Ping

[gotribe]

What's Oman shipping us - hashish? That and oil seems to be the coin of the terrorist states.

[gcruse]

"We have a golden opportunity to derail the NAFTA/CAFTA series of "free trade" agreements "

Well, I always said, when you come to a fork in the road, take it. Just do the opposite of what big labor advocates, and you'll usually come out okay.

[Clintonfatigued]

Another year, another free trade agreement.

This nation has had NAFTA, GATT, and membership in the World Trade Organization. The results do not give supporters of free trade cause to congratulate themselves.

So it's only logical to be suspicious of this one.

[Dog Gone]

Big Labor and the John Birch Society (the source of this thread) are in virtual lockstep. The difference is that the JBS wraps it up in a neat conspiracy theory and pretends to be rightwing.

Pretty cool.

[gcruse]

"The results ..."

The results have been just described by the Fed as a Goldilocks economy, low inflation, low unemployment, 3-4% annual productivity gains that should last for a while.

The only people I know who hate this have Bush Derangement Syndrome, which you surely don't.

[gcruse]

Heh. You're right. The JBS's creed should be, "We may be crazy as hell, but we ain't stupid."

[phoenix0468]

You obviously didn't read the post did you? It will impact the textile industry, which is already in trouble as it is. If your not familiar with what textiles are, basically it's the cloths on your back, and other fabrics that are used for things such as furniture covers, etc. There are a few companies that are doing well in the industry, but an agreement such as this could negatively affect them.

[phoenix0468]

By the way, DG, your profile is a hoot.

[1rudeboy]

If I recall correctly, textile manufacturers are usually in favor of free trade agreements than not. It's the garment industries that usually find themselves on the bubble.

[Dog Gone]

I did read the article, but there is nothing new there that hasn't been raised and discussed here many times before.

None of the arguments are winners, which is why the legislation always passes. Fortunately, slightly more than 50% of the country aren't total dopes.

[phoenix0468]

I thought garment and textiles were pretty much the same thing. If not, my apologies. Yet again, are the garment and textiles industries similar to siamese twins?

[Dog Gone]

I'm still working on that moon thing, despite my mom's advice. ;-)