Who's the "we?" Businesses would be hiring. Do you think the only reason Bush wants to open Cuba up is to exploit a work force? Dodd just wants to keep Castro in power and a thorn in the side of a free market economy. The best way to do that is to use U.S. taxpayers' money to purchase goods from districts with farm interests. The side benefit is shoring up the Democrat vote.
Why should the consciences of business be an issue? If the workers begin to move up the economic ladder and are free to choose their employer, vote for their government, read freely and travel freely, who are you to find that offensive? In time they will be starting businesses and hiring and all that comes with capitalism and a free market ecomony.
This is the same scenario we see in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Mexico and others. Why would Cuba be any different ??
These countries are still struggling with corruption and need to get out of the mind-set of pay-offs and bribes being part of the cost of doing business. It will be the same in Cuba, as it has been in Russia. After having to deal in an underground economy and stealing goods from the all powerful government in order to barter and make ends meet, it takes time to adjust.
And, politically, it'll be much more palatable for Wal-Mart to do business with a "democratic" Cuba than sending all those U.S. dollars to Chinese communists.
Hey, competition never hurts!!
I'll tell you what, we can solve Dodd's argument with a compromise. Let's end the trade embargo. Americans can buy anything Cuba has to offer and sell Cubans anything they have the dollars to exchange. But, U.S. law will continue to prohibit direct American investment in the Cuban economy.
Interesting proposal but it leaves Castro in place as the go-between. Besides, at the present time Castro can buy from the U.S. - the part that sticks in his commie throat is that it be cash on the barrel head. Of course some items are off limits but that's what he should expect being a terrorist. Now this part, about investing in the Cuban economy, leaves me with the response that the CEO is Castro and we should not trade with someone who stated goal is to bring us to our knees. That includes investing or buying to help finance our own destruction.
Do you think Dodd and his side of the aisle would agree with that approach ?? If humanitarian trade is his real objective -- then he ought to support trade -- but, direct investment is a different issue.
I've already given my view of Christopher "I never met a commie I couldn't love" Dodd. His side of the aisle, and some on the other side, are socialists or politicians in farm districts who want to do their constituents' bidding. Personally, I don't want to keep Castro afloat or be billed for subsidized government loans to free up Castro's capital and enable him more freedom to support terrorism.
Maybe, we should go ahead and "trade" with Cuba today -- when they install a democratically elected government, then we'll consider allowing direct investment in the Cuban infrastructure??
If we grant subsidized loans to Castro he will not allow elections, or free speech, etc. he will continue as he has, which includes exporting his miserable ideology. Look at Venezuela and his protégé, Hugo Chavez. There's oil in that country and Castro has a willing pupil.
What do you think about that ?? If we really "care" about Cuba's economic future and prosperity, give 'em the opportunity to home-grow their own capitalists !!
The only way they will be free to become capitalists is when they are free. When the Soviet Union's ecomony collapsed, Castro's regime became a dead man walking. He's been transfused by Canadian, Italian and German tourism money but he's hurting and needs us to bail him out. Why would we be so insane as to do that?
I believe in democracy, I would like to see democratic institutions implemented in Cuba, I despise Castro, I want to see him deposed, I want the Cubans to have the freedom to seek whatever self-determination they choose, collectively as a nation, but more importantly as individuals, I am a capitalist, I believe in free enterprise, I believe economic success in Cuba would benefit the entire hemisphere, I support a COMPLETE economic/trade embargo of Cuba so long as Castro stays in power, I support every word Dubya said in his Miami speech, I think Carter and Dodd are completely wrong.
I am thoroughly confused at some of your responses -- for example, who in the world said anything about loaning money to Castro, or his regime ?? What has "loaning" money got to do with trade with Cuba, now or in the future ??
TRADE means we exchange goods or services for money. It IS NOT "trade" if we loan them money, and then they use it to "buy" something from us. That's not trade -- that's charity and that's not what I'm talking about at all. And, that's not what I mean by investment.
And, I'm not talking about competition with China -- we should not be sustaining that evil, communistic empire with our dollars, period.
My point was, in the future, Americans would rather trade with a new democracy in Cuba, just 90 miles off our shores, than to send dollars to China where children and prisoners toil in sweat shops supporting a state that intends ultimately to destroy us.
You have so thoroughly misunderstood my position that I am at a loss how to proceed except to return to my original argument.
Today, if Cuba wants to buy a new John Deere tractor, they send us $30,000 (cash on the barrelhead, as you say) and we ship them back a tractor. That is an example of trade. That is not what Dodd wants. He wants Sara Lee to go down there, build a Hanes underware facility and let Cuban workers sew tee-shirts and briefs for a $1 an hour, ship 'em back to the U.S. and we'll consume them for $9.95 a 3-pack. That's Dodd's idea of trade.
What are YOU talking about ??