Central American Free Trade Agreement Bill

[Colin]

Clearly you just oppose this because Honduras has better cheap labor than the honorable Principality of Sealand.

Sealand has a current population of two, IIRC. It is an old Royal Navy coastal defence platform in the middle of the North Sea. I would suggest that you quit being a little bitch.

[Ebowed]

Clearly you just oppose this because Honduras has better cheap labor than the honorable Principality of Sealand.

Sealand has a current population of two, IIRC. It is an old Royal Navy coastal defence platform in the middle of the North Sea. I would suggest that you quite being a little bitch.

The feeling is mutual, Mr. President pro tempore.  I will definitely consider the concept of "quite" being a little bitch.

However, I must say that if you do not wish to exploit the population of Sealand, I urge you to withdraw this bill unless you are biased in some way in favor of Central America.  Why could this be?  Because they have lower wages?  No, that could not be it.

[Colin]

Clearly you just oppose this because Honduras has better cheap labor than the honorable Principality of Sealand.

Sealand has a current population of two, IIRC. It is an old Royal Navy coastal defence platform in the middle of the North Sea. I would suggest that you quite being a little bitch.

The feeling is mutual, Mr. President pro tempore.  I will definitely consider the concept of "quite" being a little bitch.

However, I must say that if you do not wish to exploit the population of Sealand, I urge you to withdraw this bill unless you are biased in some way in favor of Central America.  Why could this be?  Because they have lower wages?  No, that could not be it.

The ruling still stands Senator. If you wish declare a formal challenge to my ruling please do so otherwise I would like to ask you to stop these childish antics and move on to either debate on this bill itself or to proposing another amendment.

[Ebowed]

Ah, I have debated the bill with my most recent serious speeches (here, here) (posted at 24-hour intervals, naturally), to which the opposition does not wish to respond.

However, I withdraw my Sealand Free Trade Agreement amendment.

If you wish declare a formal challenge to my ruling please do so otherwise I would like to ask you to stop these childish antics

I would also urge the President pro tempore to stop his childish antics, such as calling fellow Senators little bitches.  I only hope that we can get back to the real issue at hand now that I have withdrawn my amendment; that is, exploiting poor people in Central America.

[Ebowed]

Dear Senators,

Proponents of these so-called free trade agreements say that we will actually gain jobs here at home while giving corporations more countries to exploit cheap labor in.  The part about gaining jobs could not be further from the truth.  Figures saying that we have lost anywhere from 800,000+ jobs to 5.6 million jobs due to NAFTA circulate, and we can trust CAFTA will have a similar or worse effect.  To be as credible as possible, I have used data from websites saying that we lost 800,000 jobs (as opposed to 5.6 million).

NAFTA facilitated the movement of high-end manufacturing jobs in the United States to Mexico and Canada.  We lost 1,673,454 jobs due to this.  Where do the export jobs, that we were supposed to gain, come in?  We only got 794,174 new jobs out of NAFTA.  That is a total loss of 879,280 jobs.  Lost jobs due to outsourcing have ruined the lives of citizens.  People who care more about corporations than unemployment will support these agreements.  But I will not.



(Source)

Many states were particularly hard hit.  The state of Michigan lost approximately 46,000 jobs between 1993 and 2002, for example.  The state of California lost a whopping 82,354 jobs.  New York, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia also had a net loss of more than 20,000 jobs each.  Every single state and the District of Columbia had a net loss in jobs thanks to NAFTA, with Alaska's being the lowest.  (Consider that Alaska also has a low population.)



Bottom line?  We lost 1.7 million jobs, and only got 0.8 million back.

[Sam Spade]

Ebowed.

The website that you posted this graph from is just a "tad" bit biased.

[Ebowed]

Perhaps, though it was the first I've heard of the institute.  I see similar figures everywhere, except one outlier (Congressman Dennis Kucinich said we lost 5.6 millions thanks to NAFTA, which even I have a hard time believing).

[Sam Spade]

Just remember, as Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

[Ebowed]

"More than 600,000 Jobs Lost"

The 800,000 Jobs Lost Figure Again

Job Losses by State (Again From EPI)

Apparently most job losses to Mexico weren't reported, also.

One thing is for certain, Mr. Game Moderator.  Nobody seems to be talking about a net gain in jobs thanks to NAFTA, because there wasn't one.

[Ebowed]

These articles were written in the context of the events in the United States in June/July 2005, however I'm sure the intelligent members of the Senate will be able to see how these apply to Atlasia.  Not everything carries over, obviously, but keep all of this in mind:

CAFTA Is A Bad Deal for the United States - Phyllis Schlafly

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CAFTA and Dietary Supplements - Ron Paul

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul261.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/july05/psrjuly05.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/june05/psrjune05.html

[MasterJedi]

Your filibuster is pissing me off Ebowed, nobody is going to change they're mind and you're just dragging it out. -_-

[Ebowed]

Then perhaps people should consider changing their minds.   I used to be pro-free trade, until I saw how the agreements were full of crazy stuff that should never be passed (see the Ron Paul article) and how basically it was an endorsement of crummy labor laws in other countries.

[The Dowager Mod]

It sure is nice to see someone doing the right thing in the senate for a change.
That bill is nothing more than a gift to big bussiness and Senator Ebowed gets my full moral support.

[Q]

This is not a debate question, but rather a personal question I have.  If the appropriate Senators respond, then I ask that this question not have the effect of extending debate:

Does each of the Senators that supports CAFTA also support NAFTA?

[jokerman]

I would also like to note that even if you supported NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are much more likely to buy our goods than less developed nations such as those in Central America.

[Ebowed]

It's very interesting to note that every Senator who supports this bill opposes repealing the Defense of Tawain Act.

[PBrunsel]

It's very interesting to note that every Senator who supports this bill opposes repealing the Defense of Tawain Act.

Explain why it's interesting. I would like to hear why it is?

[Ebowed]

It's very interesting to note that every Senator who supports this bill opposes repealing the Defense of Tawain Act.

Explain why it's interesting. I would like to hear why it is?

The Taiwain act is slowing down trade between China and Atlasia.  Yet when I tried to gut even one clause of the bill every other Senator voted against it (final result, 1-9).  Every Senator who claims not to be a protectionist, who claims to be pro-free trade, etc., opposed even modifying that bill.  The only one who is really being ideologically consistent here is VP Emsworth.

[jokerman]

It's very interesting to note that every Senator who supports this bill opposes repealing the Defense of Tawain Act.

Explain why it's interesting. I would like to hear why it is?

The Taiwain act is slowing down trade between China and Atlasia.  Yet when I tried to gut even one clause of the bill every other Senator voted against it (final result, 1-9).  Every Senator who claims not to be a protectionist, who claims to be pro-free trade, etc., opposed even modifying that bill.  The only one who is really being ideologically consistent here is VP Emsworth.

Oh, not at all.  My and I'm sure other's opposition to that bill had nothing to do with pro-free trade or pro-fair trade.  It had to do with the ideal that we should promote democracy and freedom.

[Ebowed]

The problem was that we weren't promoting democracy and freedom, we were actively aiding an effort to overthrow a government when we are already busy with conflicts with the middle east.  We have to accept the fact that we can't just go to war with every non-democracy we find.  People opposed it because China hadn't responded, but now we see the effects; the bill is slowing down trade between China and Atlasia.

[jokerman]

but now we see the effects; the bill is slowing down trade between China and Atlasia.

I'm adressing this to the GM as well for what he reported: why is that a bad thing?

[Ebowed]

I don't think it's a bad thing.  I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of most of the people who support this agreement but don't support repealing that act.

[MasterJedi]

To Q's question: I support CAFTA and NAFTA.

[True Democrat]

This is not a debate question, but rather a personal question I have.  If the appropriate Senators respond, then I ask that this question not have the effect of extending debate:

Does each of the Senators that supports CAFTA also support NAFTA?

Yes, I support both.

[Q]

Thank you kindly, Senators MasterJedi and True Independent.

I would be gratified if PBrunsel, DanielX, and ColinW would also provide their opinions on this matter.