CAFTA: Good or Bad?

[A18]

Vote

[WalterMitty]

very good.

[nini2287]

What do we have to gain from economies of Central America?

[WalterMitty]

What do we have to gain from economies of Central America?

cheap labor.

[Moooooo]

Isn't Ron Paul speaking out against CAFTA?

[WalterMitty]

Isn't Ron Paul speaking out against CAFTA?

ron paul is a horrible person.

maybe slightly less horrible than most other congressmen, but horrible nonetheless.

i dont get the love affair the libertarians have with him.  he bolted yall's party for goodness sakes!

[David S]

Isn't Ron Paul speaking out against CAFTA?

Yes his concern is that it is not free trade because there are too many special interests and too much regulation which is probably true since the bill is 1500 pages long.

I am also opposed to CAFTA but for different reasons. Between high labor costs, high benefit costs, taxes, payroll taxes, OSHA regulations and EPA regulations the cost of doing business in the US is prohibitive compared to the less developed countries in the world. So manufacturers are being forced to either move their business overseas or fold up. In fact just about any job that can be done here can be done elsewhere for less. IMHO that means decent paying jobs that once existed here are disappearing. I don't think that's a good thing.

[A18]

CAFTA's Covert Opponent: China

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm778.cfm

In the Multi Fiber Arrangement world of quota-free trade in yarns, fabrics, and finished textiles, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) represents a direct threat to China’s growing power—indeed, its near-monopoly—in world textile production. If passed, CAFTA would enhance the competitiveness of Central American factories that pay higher wages than China and predominantly use U.S. cotton. But if CAFTA fails, U.S. cotton exports to Central America will come to an end, while U.S. imports of Chinese textiles—with little or no U.S. content—soar.

The debate over CAFTA encompasses geopolitical as well as trade considerations. Washington's understandable focus on the War on Terror and Iraq has led to the impression in Central America that the U.S. has no time to attend the challenges that the region faces. CAFTA’s uncertain passage deepens these worries.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger F. Noriega warned last March that China has been translating its economic success—and its search for resources to fuel its economic growth—into greater influence in Latin America and the Caribbean. The real danger that enhanced Chinese influence in Central America poses is not economic, but political and strategic. For decades, the United States has encouraged and supported forces of freedom and democracy in Central America—with considerable success. Meanwhile, China has reassured the world’s despots and tyrants that “each country has the right to choose its own path to development,” whether democratic, totalitarian, or—as in the case of Cambodia in the 1970s and Sudan today—genocidal. China’s support is the main reason that the tyrannical regimes in North Korea and Burma have not collapsed from their sheer economic incompetence. If anti-democratic juntas were ever to launch coups in the Western Hemisphere again, CAFTA would greatly enhance the power of the United States’ opposition to them, counterbalancing China’s growing influence in the region.

U.S. disengagement from Central America leaves a very real political and economic vacuum that China appears more than happy to fill. China has already elbowed its way into an observer’s chair at the Organization of American States (OAS)—despite the OAS’s stated goal of advancing democracy. Moreover, China successfully lobbied to keep Taiwan out of an OAS observer position despite the fact that it is one of the world’s most dynamic democracies. Chinese diplomatic advances in the Caribbean rim include massive trade agreements and military cooperation with Venezuela. (As one retired Venezuelan admiral recently put it, “You have to see this from a geopolitical point of view. We’re no longer a country allied to the Western Hemisphere. We’re going to be allied to China or Russia.”) China has sent about 140 Chinese policemen to join U.N. peacekeepers in Haiti and is pressuring Haiti to break ties with Taiwan to maintain the U.N. presence. China plans to add 125 new police to the peacekeeping contingent for Haiti's presidential, legislative, and municipal elections.

It is perhaps a minor footnote in the congressional debate over CAFTA that all the countries involved maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan and not with China. But this fact is remarkably important to China and partly explains China’s efforts in recent years to make inroads in Central America. China has launched a major diplomatic offensive in Central America and the Caribbean to stamp out Taiwan’s diplomatic legitimacy in the region and supplant Taiwan’s influence among these young democracies with its own.

CAFTA’s defeat, therefore, would be a double victory for China. Central America would be left with the message that the United States is simply not interested in its fledgling democracies. And Congress would do China the favor of taking out one of its few remaining competitors in the U.S. textile market.

[TheresNoMoney]

cheap labor.

An admitted Cheap Labor Republican!! Do you also favor more illegal immigration and open borders for more cheap labor?

[A18]

A guest worker program is preferable.

[opebo]

What do we have to gain from economies of Central America?

cheap labor.

Hah, you are self-destructive labour.

[MaC]

ron paul is a horrible person.

I strongly disagree.  It's one thing to criticise their vote, but you can't say he's a bad person.  Well, since we have the first amendment, I guess you can say it, but it's still not fair.

Anyways, is this really any different than NAFTA?  If not, I oppose it.  A documents that's hundreds of pages of regulation with the name "free trade" isn't really free trade.

[A18]

ron paul is a horrible person.

I strongly disagree.  It's one thing to criticise their vote, but you can't say he's a bad person.  Well, since we have the first amendment, I guess you can say it, but it's still not fair.

Anyways, is this really any different than NAFTA?  If not, I oppose it.  A documents that's hundreds of pages of regulation with the name "free trade" isn't really free trade.

It's better than what we have now.

That's like opposing income tax cuts because they don't abolish the income tax.

[socaldem]

Personally, I'm generally pro-free trade because of my concern with the poor in the developing world.  I think that the CAFTA legislation, however, is poorly composed and will do little to advance the interests of the working poor in Central America or the U.S.

--

The vote breakdown on CAFTA is very interesting, particularly because of the large number of defections on either side:

Democratic defectors (11):

Bingaman (NM), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Feinstein (CA), Jeffords (VT), Lincoln (AR), Murray (WA), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Wyden (OR)

Republican defectors (12):

Burns (R-MT), Collins (R-ME), Crapo (R-ID), Craig (R-ID), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Shelby (R-AL), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA),Thomas, (R-WY), Thune (R-SD), and Vitter (R-LA)

The regional breakdown is interesting with 5 Western Democrats and 3 Southern Democrats voting for CAFTA and 5 Western Republicans and 3 Southern Republicans opposing it.  The Democrats in these regions are likely committed to the party's long tradition of being pro-free trade because of the benefits it brings to consumers, and, more recently, because the party in the West, in particular, views immigration and internationalism as a good thing. 

I fear that the Western Republicans' vote on this legislation is more indicative of their isolationism/xenophobia than anything else.  Populist Democrats in the Midwest and Northeast, however, have made strong arguments, imo, showing how this particular legislation is harmful to the interests of the working class.  The sugar-loving Louisianans (Landrieu & Vitter) most certainly have base motives in their "no" votes, however.

The broad swath of Republican voters supporting the legislation are representing farm interests (always looking for markets) and business interests (always looking for labor to exploit), though some are just blinkered by a knee-jerk free-market/free-trade ideology.  The Northern Republican defections, however, may indicate that they, too realize that it is a crappy bill.  Or, perhaps, its just the residue of Northeastern Republicans' traditional tendency towards protectionism.

This

[WalterMitty]

cheap labor.

An admitted Cheap Labor Republican!! Do you also favor more illegal immigration and open borders for more cheap labor?

absolutely.

[Ebowed]

ron paul is a horrible person.

Why?

[MODU]

I say it's better than where we are not, but not necessarily "good." 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Free trade with democracies = good.  Most of the CAFTA countries are at least democracies-in-name-only.

What we need to do is eliminate all 'free' trade agreements with un-free countries like China.

[MODU]

Free trade with democracies = good.  Most of the CAFTA countries are at least democracies-in-name-only.

What we need to do is eliminate all 'free' trade agreements with un-free countries like China.

I wouldn't eliminate the free trade agreements with places like China, but I would definitely put a clause in them, such as "the more open your society becomes and treatment/benefits of the workers improve, so will our amount of trade."  Just something to give them an incentive.

[Bono]

ron paul is a horrible person.

I strongly disagree.  It's one thing to criticise their vote, but you can't say he's a bad person.  Well, since we have the first amendment, I guess you can say it, but it's still not fair.

Anyways, is this really any different than NAFTA?  If not, I oppose it.  A documents that's hundreds of pages of regulation with the name "free trade" isn't really free trade.

It's better than what we have now.

That's like opposing income tax cuts because they don't abolish the income tax.

Rothbard on NAFTA.

All those objections can also be raised against the CAFTA.

[WalterMitty]

ron paul is a horrible person.

Why?

Yeah, WalterMitty... splain!!

i just find him quite annoying. 

dont get me wrong, i often agree with him.  but at best, he is only slightly better than most other congressmen.  he tries to act like he is the only decent one up there.

im not a libertarian. but i dont understand why they worship paul so much.  he obviously ditche the libertarian party just to win election(s).

[A18]

Ron Paul is obnoxious. I lost all respect for the guy when he started sounding like Barbara Boxer on the war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ron Paul is obnoxious. I lost all respect for the guy when he started sounding like Barbara Boxer on the war.

I can't wait to hear your opinion of the Freedom Fries guy from NC.

[A18]

Ron Paul is obnoxious. I lost all respect for the guy when he started sounding like Barbara Boxer on the war.

I am sure he is quite worried...

Hey, tard, want to talk about departments again?

[A18]

Correct