Calor Calor

Bush: Cheap goods for the wealthy a priority

Bush: Cheap goods for the wealthy a priority

CAFTA

Those who think that the right of American politics is all about Jesus should think again. Conservatives have a religion they are much more faithful to despite far more evidence that it's a fraud. That religion is free trade.

Free trade as a concept is fine. Eliminate trade barriers between countries to allow both parties access at the other's market.  But in practice, it doesn't work so well when one party's par capita GNP is massively higher than the other. That's where you get Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound".

Permanent friend trade status with China has flooded the US with cheap Chinese products that have put thousands of Americans out of work. We're working our way up the chain to outsource our R&D and engineering jobs to China and India as well. 

"Free" trade with Mexico has seen countless American manufacturing jobs shifted south of the border where pollution controls are nil and wages tiny. 

And what has this "free" trade done for Americans? Those left with jobs get slightly cheaper goods. But American companies don't get new markets.  China buys very little from America.  Mexico even less. 

And now Bush wants to expand this wonderful policy to Central America, a land with the gross national product of a modest-sized American city.  What are these people going to buy? What are we going to export to Nicaragua other than high paying manufacturing jobs?

Bush defenders try to point out that cheaper goods helps us all. That's only true if people have jobs that can pay for adequate housing. The Bush administration's trade policies will slowly create a generation of Americans that work at two levels - the high paid managers of foreign workers and everyone else who will work in the retail retail service industry at very low wages. 

With any luck, CAFTA won't pass any time soon. But given the right's blind faith in universal free trade, I won't hold my breath. Americans desperately need a President who is President of all people, not just people who hang out at the countryclub.

28,895 views 47 replies
Reply #26 Top
it's called "supporting our president after he makes a decision, even if you disagree with it, I do not agree with many things bush says or does, but as a good american after POLICY is made I support it.


So, a president makes a decision. I think it is the wrong decision. As part of explaining this decision, a president says something. I do not agree with what is said. These words and decisions that I disagree with become policy. I have to support it or I am a bad American. Hmm. So freedom only extends to when something I disagree with becomes policy, at which point I must agree with it or be a bad American. Interesting.
Reply #27 Top


Reply By: drmilerPosted: Monday, April 04, 2005That is correct. The problem is the Republican president can not see it is not working!Ohhhh, so now it's Bush's fault that a "democrtic" president pushed through a piece of junk legislation? Why Bush? Why wasn't it squashed in the first place? Especilly since it didn't work from the get-go


but of course it's Presidents bushes fault,, so was the murder of jfk, and rfk, the war in vietnam, the first gulf war.. all poverty, all crime, it's all bush the juniors fault.

There gene feel better now that I lied with you?
Reply #28 Top
Why wasn't it squashed in the first place? Especilly since it didn't work from the get-go.


why is it being expanded? and why are you defending bush in this instance when you claim to oppose the policy? my head is on tight enuff to see you don't deserve an apology or retraction. can't we even get a 'hey he's screwing up here' from you?
Reply #29 Top
hey he {bush} ain't pefrect and screws up/ hows that? I see what is and what ain't and am not blinded by ideology.
Reply #30 Top
Me? apolologize to drmiler? In your dreams. I have nothing to apologise to you for. Nada. Zilch. I retract nothing. I do not support that dipshit asshole we have for a president, and I do not apologize for my disdain for his blindly patriotic supporters. Jingoism is dangerous, and I will not apologize to any jingoistic slob, and certainly not drmiler. Sheesh...............
Reply #31 Top

Me? apolologize to drmiler? In your dreams. I have nothing to apologise to you for. Nada. Zilch. I retract nothing. I do not support that dipshit asshole we have for a president, and I do not apologize for my disdain for his blindly patriotic supporters. Jingoism is dangerous, and I will not apologize to any jingoistic slob, and certainly not drmiler. Sheesh...............


Just consider you ignorant self lucky that this is not one of my posts. Lest I tell you what I REALLY think of you.
Reply #32 Top
After the trade policy had not worked for eight years, Bush pushed China and they now represent 1/3 of our total trade deficit. After all that, Bush now wants to expand a policy that has failed for 12 years, 4 under his watch, to Central America. What will it take for Bush to see that the policy is not working? Do we have to close ALL our industries and have everyone earning minimum wage in some service job before he understands that free trade is not working for America.
Reply #33 Top
And what will it take for YOU to see that this failed policy should have been shut down loooooong be fore Bush got into office the first time.


After the trade policy had not worked for eight years, Bush pushed China and they now represent 1/3 of our total trade deficit. After all that, Bush now wants to expand a policy that has failed for 12 years, 4 under his watch, to Central America. What will it take for Bush to see that the policy is not working? Do we have to close ALL our industries and have everyone earning minimum wage in some service job before he understands that free trade is not working for America.

Reply #34 Top
I will here the incoming rounds for this one.....

I'm a free trader. I think that an economically healthy Mexico and Allies is the best think there is. We had free trade with Japan, Germany and England for years. Two of which started from ground zero and are now vital trading partners. I would support (and have supported) presidents of both parties in this area, when it comes to free trade with Allies and Democracies.

What ticks me off is why, ohh why, are we opening trade to enemies like China? We can get cheap goods from Allies like Mexico and Taiwan. Countries that will return benefits to us in the long run. I did not agree with trading wheat with the USSR during the cold war and I don't agree with building high tech electronics factories in China now. I believe it will bite us in the ass later.

As for the title of the Article, I think the primes is wrong. Who really buys the cheap goods from Wal-mart? Not the rich. It is the middle and mostly the lower classes that flock to the Mr. Mao's slave labor markets (Wal-mart). When was the last time you seen a limo outside a Wal-mart? The Rich don't shop there and their houses are not filled with cheap goods. And if any American investing in China, thinks they own 49% of a company there (the most that China will allow foreigners to own), they need to wake up and realize they are only going to lose it all the next time the Politburo decides to nationalize everything. (We have such short memories, because they did just that in the late 1940’s)

That's My Two Cents
Reply #35 Top

I think that an economically healthy Mexico

nafta is one of the main reasons mexican farmworkers have no employment in mexico.  there's no way family farmers--especially unsubsidized family farmers--can compete with american agribiz

Reply #36 Top
drmiler

We agree that our trade policy which is not working began under Clinton. Clinton is no longer president. The issue is why hasn't Bush, who saw the failure under Clinton and sees the failure under his current administration, insisting on expanding a failed policy?
Reply #37 Top
drmiler

We agree that our trade policy which is not working began under Clinton. Clinton is no longer president. The issue is why hasn't Bush, who saw the failure under Clinton and sees the failure under his current administration, insisting on expanding a failed policy?


I do not know the anser to that since I am not part of his inner circle. However I do believe him to be a deliberate man. So somewhere in this mess is a reason for this idiocy! What I still don't understand is.... Clinton had to be able to see that it wasn't working, loong ago. Why is it that no one called for pulling the plug back then? Why didn't he have it pulled?
Reply #38 Top
I do not know the anser to that since I am not part of his inner circle. However I do believe him to be a deliberate man. So somewhere in this mess is a reason for this idiocy!


if youre not being paid by the whitehouse, you're gettin ripped off. thanks for proving my point!
Reply #39 Top
do not know the anser to that since I am not part of his inner circle. However I do believe him to be a deliberate man. So somewhere in this mess is a reason for this idiocy!


if youre not being paid by the whitehouse, you're gettin ripped off. thanks for proving my point!


And obviously you have reading comprehension problem! Let's try this again shall we?

I do not know the anser to that since I am not part of his inner circle. However I do believe him to be a deliberate man. So somewhere in this mess is a reason for this idiocy.
Reply #40 Top
Why is it that no one called for pulling the plug back then?


Ohh, but even at that time Clinton took flax for supporting it too, mostly from the Anti-Global wacko left and Isolationist right (yes, they do exist dabe). Yet, it was Bush Sr. who had done all the leg work for NAFTA, Clinton only helped push it through the last votes and signed it.

The only diffrents between those who were against it then and now, are that now those screaming are louder and professionals at it.

You guys do know that we had beaten Japan to the punch with NAFTA? If we had not opened free trade with Mexico, Japan would have. Japan was only a few months from completing the deal, before we cut them off.

I'm just glad Clinton (through China's most valuable employee VP Gore) didn't complete talks to do the same type of agreement with China.
Reply #41 Top
Sorry double post
Reply #42 Top
I'm a conservative, too(obviously), and I think NAFTA was and is the stupidest thing we did in years. It had no practical benefits, only on paper. Anyone with eyes to see with and a brain to understand with saw the present trade imbalance coming. But, though Bush might suppoort it for some odd reason, it was Clinton, that great liberal Gorgon, who signed it into law. I'm sure that's already been pointed out somewhere above, though. I just missed it.
Reply #43 Top
But, though Bush might suppoort it for some odd reason, it was Clinton, that great liberal Gorgon, who signed it into law.


No no no

It was Bush Sr who signed it in 1992, Congress approved it in 1993 and it came in effect in 1994

It was the two conservative governments in Canada and the United States of Brian Mulroney and George Bush Sr who were the architects of NAFTA. They are the ones who pushed the old agreement, the free-trade between Canada and the United States that had been signed in 1989, to expand to Mexico.
Reply #44 Top
"In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994."Link


I also remember that the Democrats had a majority in not only the House but also the Senate in the 1993 Congress. So, there is plenty of Congraz/Blame to go around.

As I said before Bush Sr. built the plan, the 1993 Senate voted for it, and Clinton signed it into Law. Bush Jr. has no authority to break the treaty. It would take an act of Congress to pass a bill to break the treaty. The only authorization that Bush Jr. has dealing with the treaty is that he can Veto a Bill to end the treaty. Which I really don't think he will do (or IMO should do).

So all you uninformed people on both sides. Read the treaty and it's history before you start making it into a "they said", "they did", or "your fault" stone throwing fight.
Reply #45 Top

And obviously you have reading comprehension problem!

i'm no longer able to read something once and then pretty much be able to reread it in my mind verbatim, but the obvious is still pretty much apparent to me

when you say:

somewhere in this mess is a reason


you're presenting an supportive assertion.  youre clearly unable to bring yourself to say--as mm did--that bush is wrong.  it's notta problem as long as you're aware of it and that's what you choose to do.  like i said, they should be paying you if theyre payin those other shills who may not actually believe the nonsense they write.

Reply #46 Top

Bush Jr. has no authority to break the treaty.

although this thread has sorta wandered away into naftaland...the point of the article is cafta, something the current president and his neoconservative bravenewworlders continue to enthusiastically champion.

Reply #47 Top
Bush 43 added China to WTO. They now represent 1/3 of our total trade deficit That is on George W. Now George W. wants to extent it further to Central America and do the same thing to Sugar that China did to clothing etc. WHY?????.