proud2BlibKansan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:46 PM
Original message |
CAFTA will create more jobs |
|
in Central America, thus reducing the flow of illegal immigrants into the US.
I just heard a Dem congressman on the Ed Shultz show explaining this. He seemed to think CAFTA is the right thing to do. Ed even commented on his 'moral high ground' approach.
So we are supposed to grit our teeth and do the right thing I guess. :eyes:
I am still not convinced. Anyone else?
|
demnan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:46 PM
Response to Original message |
proud2BlibKansan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Sorry - I should have checked more carefully.
|
SCDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:48 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Who cares about immigrants crossing the border in the future |
|
Because the jobs will not be here in the US to flock to... in fact the migration may be from Americans southward.
|
lvx35
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Exactly, just send them all our money, that will keep em in mexico! |
merbex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message |
3. And that would be Moran the moron, if I'm not mistaken n/t |
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:50 PM
Response to Original message |
4. They said the same thing about NAFTA |
Beaver Tail
(903 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
And the problem with Illegal Aliens from Mexico is still just as bad
|
SCDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. but this trend is really not sustainable |
|
at least not if you want to keep the "standard of living" up that America is supposed to be known for. This is unsustainable and the evidence will come forth in years to come and it will only be a shame for all of us - those that voted for it and those against it - except those that will reap from it.
|
Vinca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:53 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I swear the day will come when Mexico and Central America |
|
will have to keep Americans from sneaking across the border to get to their jobs. This is ridiculous. Weren't jobs leaving the country fast enough for them after NAFTA?
|
ibegurpard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It simply provides the means to take the jobs to a place with no worker protection and wage laws (hence cheaper labor force) thus meaning the jobs will no longer EXIST here.
|
meganmonkey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message |
9. But CAFTA doesn't provide strong labor rights for those workers |
|
so they'll get paid crap, working too many hours in unsafe, polluting factories.
Therefore, people will still come here for a 'better life'. Of course after a few more trade agreements like this, we won't be able to offer a 'better life' here...
|
proud2BlibKansan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
16. The congressman on Ed Shultz |
|
made a big deal out of the fact that Central American countries have no middle class. I was screaming at my radio: "And it is OUR reponsibility to give them a middle class??!!
What about our middle class?
|
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
18. Well, if it was going to create a middle class, I would not mind so much |
|
CAFTA. It could actually create business opportunities for American companies.
IT IS NOT. If anybody thinks it will, they can go overthere and work there on these new jobs, and I can probably sell them a bridge in London.
|
MsTryska
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 02:56 PM
Response to Original message |
11. is it the spanish guy representing somewhere in South Texas? |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 03:52 PM by MsTryska
i caught him on C-Span the other day, and if i had had more time i would have called and asked him about his comments.
he said the main reason he was supporting CAFTA was because it would be nice to open up "fair trade" with Latin American countries by lifting the tariffs they charge on American goods. He said this would be good for American workers, because then we could import as much into Latin America as we export from them. Said he had a lot of warehouses in his district and this would be good for them.
Then some wingnut called ranting about illegal aliens.
The rep then said, well the illegal alien problem will be lessened because Latin Americans will have more jobs in their own country because of Cafta.
So this made me wonder - if we're already importing far more than we export - then shouldn't the Latin Americans have a fair amount of jobs since their countries are producing? How would this solve the illegal alien problem? they'd be able to get more jobs as dock and warehouse workers what with all those American goods flooding in and all?
i smell a rat.
|
proud2BlibKansan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
17. No it was some guy from |
|
VA or WV. Sorry - hard to take notes while I am driving. :)
|
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 03:00 PM
Response to Original message |
12. So Moran is for slavery?? |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 03:03 PM by Mass
The jobs that will be created by CAFTA are jobs paid less than $1 an hour, without any labor rights (CAFTA actually reduces the existing requirements for labor rights in the CAFTA countries compared to the existing situations).
It is so nice to see that Democrats care about people so much. I cannot see the difference with Bush here.
CAFTA is a bad deal for the American Worker, but is is even a worse deal for the Central American Worker.
|
redqueen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 03:03 PM by redqueen
Read the thread first, RQ...
D'oh.
|
kenny blankenship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
15. And NAFTA stopped Mexicans from flowing into the US |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 03:05 PM by kenny blankenship
just because they tell a lie with the word "thus" in the middle of it doesn't mean you have to believe it. (Nafta put many Mexican farmers and farm workers out of business because they grew corn, which is heavily subsidized in American farm belt. The displaced workers moved towards cities to find factory work, then started coming North in droves to find anything available)
Plus, don't you love the doublebind technique? In other words: "You the voter must give in to my NEW demand in order to alleviate the already existing problem I'm supposed to stop but that I failed to stop. So reward me please for being a failure in looking out for your interests by helping me screw your interests over SOME MORE."
Man, what GULLIBILITY they must see in the American people--if we could only hear their thoughts!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:27 PM
Response to Original message |