Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is CAFTA a good thing?
Topic Started: Jul 28 2005, 07:34 AM (488 Views)
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 08:44 AM
Regardless of what the system is, a society becomes unstable when there is a wide disparity between rich and poor and especially when the middle class is small or non existant. It is in the wealthiest people's interest to grow the middle class for this reason.

In our free-market system, the wealty are generally creating the middle-class as a large poverty class does them no good.

Under communism and monarchy, the elite depended on a large, uneducated poor class of people as slaves (basically).

It is my opinion that although there are the very wealthy and elite under all three systems, capitalism is better for the regular people, as they have opportunity and self-determination for upward mobility to become one of the wealthy as well as better employment and better standards of living.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 08:57 AM
I voted NO.

How about that Bush. After coming into office and losing millions of US jobs, he's finally creating some jobs - in Central America. :rolleyes:

That comment didn't make much sense to me.

If you are implying that Bush can actually create jobs just by being President, our unemployment rate has dropped from about 8% to 5% under his term, so he has 'created' jobs.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

38957
Jul 29 2005, 10:11 AM
[A] large poverty class does the [the rich] no good.


This is my point.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 07:45 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 08:31 AM
psyfi
Jul 28 2005, 08:55 PM
Dr. Noah
Jul 28 2005, 09:13 AM
Without equivalent labor and environmental standards, several industries will leave the United States and take thousands of jobs with them in order to pay workers far less and not have to adhere to labor and environmental regulations we have put into place to protect ourselves in the U.S.

My goodness. I agree! I don't know what all of this global free trade is about other than to make the rich a whole lot richer.

Funny, though... I'm okay with that :D

Do you think that it's good for a society to have a wide disparity between rich and poor?

We don't have a wide disparity, as our "poor" have better standards of living than half of Europe. So what if Bill Gates is worth 50 billion dollars. HE EARNED IT, and yes he made a boatload of OTHER people wealthy with his business, whether employees, stockholders, contractors, or suppliers.

France had a revolution because of a built-on class system and the last vestiges of serfdom. Their gap between rich and poor was maintained by force. For that matter, the supposed equality in the former Soviet Union was a farce. The aristocracy of the Romanovs simply became those with political connections heading "the party." The Russians were still serfs and didn't know it. It took a SECOND revolution to destroy the first system.

France is heading toward another revolution, as is Russia. One is economic (a social welfare state heading for implosion) and the other is political (Putin's Russia is starting to resemble Brezhnev's).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
38957
Jul 29 2005, 09:13 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 08:57 AM
I voted NO.

How about that Bush.  After coming into office and losing millions of US jobs, he's finally creating some jobs - in Central America.  :rolleyes:

That comment didn't make much sense to me.

If you are implying that Bush can actually create jobs just by being President, our unemployment rate has dropped from about 8% to 5% under his term, so he has 'created' jobs.

Liberals do think this.

I was listening to the radio this morning on my way into Houston. Some guy called in, claiming to be a Bush 2000 voter, and then immediately took the president to task for not using federal money to make our businesses be more competitive. Once the host dissected the caller's lie ("So admit it, you never voted for Bush." "If I said I voted for Nader, you never would have let me on the show."), he proceeded to explain how the capitalist system works and spent up to the next commercial break in a civil discourse about the guy's viewpoint. After the guy hung up, Pat commented, "Does anyone think that sunk in?"

:P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Should read: North Carolina Republican, not Texas Republican. Texas Republican Switched Vote on CAFTA

Quote:
 
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - For weeks, Rep. Robin Hayes (news, bio, voting record), R-N.C., was colorfully adamant in his opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

"What does CAFTA sound like? NAFTA," Hayes declared. "It's not in the best interests of a core constituency I represent. Every time I drive through Kannapolis and I see those empty plants, I know there is no way I could vote for CAFTA."


But an hour into what is normally a 15-minute roll call — and still short the votes needed to avoid handing     President Bush an embarrassing defeat — Speaker     Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told Hayes he could promise increased GOP attention to the challenges China poses to the domestic textile industry.

Hayes switched his vote, and the agreement passed 217-215.

Democrats vow to make Hayes' change of heart an issue when he seeks a fifth House term in 2006 from a textile-heavy district in a state where many voters blame the North American Free Trade Agreement for the loss of tens of thousands of well-paid manufacturing jobs in furniture and textiles over the past decade.

"Rarely have we seen a member of Congress so adamantly speak on one side of a position in public only to support the other side on the floor," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "Call it a flip-flop or a pander or whatever you want — to most North Carolinians I know, that's what's called simply not telling the truth to your voters."

A descendant of the family that built Cannon Mills, a predecessor to now-defunct Pillowtex, Hayes has close ties to the textile industry. He's made tough trade votes before. In 2001 he drew sharp criticism after switching sides to cast the deciding vote to give Bush "fast-track" authority denying Congress the ability to amend trade agreements negotiated by the administration.

The CAFTA vote came days before the two-year anniversary of the demise of Kannapolis-based Pillowtex. The 4,800 jobs lost there constituted the largest mass layoff in state history.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Hayes said he had voted no when the clock ran out on CAFTA late Wednesday night, with the measure apparently headed to a 214-210 defeat. That's when House Speaker Dennis Hastert asked if Hayes was willing to switch.

"They came to me and said, 'Negotiations are open. Put on the table the things that your district and people need, and we'll get them,'" Hayes said.

Hayes said he didn't have a laundry list of demands. But he said he told Hastert he wants the White House to step up enforcement of existing trade regulations with China and to impose sanctions if China continues flooding the U.S. market with textile imports. That was promised, he said.

"If they don't (live up to their promises), I've got their numbers," he added.

Hayes said he spent Thursday morning calling CAFTA opponents from his district, telling them, "Give us the things that are your concerns, so we can go forward with these negotiations."

When the next election comes, Hayes won't be without supporters in the textile business. Several big employers in his district urged Hayes to support the agreement, including Tuscarora Yarns Chairman Martin Foil Jr. and President Peter Hegarty, who called him several times lobbying for CAFTA.

Foil said CAFTA rules requiring duty-free textile items constructed in Central America to be woven or knit from U.S.-manufactured yarn will help keep manufacturers like Tuscarora in business. The deal also gives Central American nations close to the United States a chance to compete with China in constructing apparel and other textiles for the U.S. market.

"Proximity is key," Foil said. "It takes months sometimes to get goods out of the Chinese."

Hayes wasn't the only North Carolina Republican voting for CAFTA. Sixth-term Rep. Sue Myrick (news, bio, voting record), who represents a safe Republican district in Charlotte, announced her support for the treaty several weeks ago.

Rep. Charles Taylor (news, bio, voting record), who represents western North Carolina, also had pledged a no vote but missed the roll call. Taylor said he voted no but that it wasn't recorded because his electronic voting card failed.

(Bold Added)

So Hastert was making promises on behalf of the White House was he? Nothing like a quid pro quo to jump start your morning.

I love that last bit about Taylor's voting card failing. Surreeeeee. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 10:20 AM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 07:45 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 08:31 AM
psyfi
Jul 28 2005, 08:55 PM
Dr. Noah
Jul 28 2005, 09:13 AM
Without equivalent labor and environmental standards, several industries will leave the United States and take thousands of jobs with them in order to pay workers far less and not have to adhere to labor and environmental regulations we have put into place to protect ourselves in the U.S.

My goodness. I agree! I don't know what all of this global free trade is about other than to make the rich a whole lot richer.

Funny, though... I'm okay with that :D

Do you think that it's good for a society to have a wide disparity between rich and poor?

We don't have a wide disparity, as our "poor" have better standards of living than half of Europe. So what if Bill Gates is worth 50 billion dollars. HE EARNED IT, and yes he made a boatload of OTHER people wealthy with his business, whether employees, stockholders, contractors, or suppliers.

France had a revolution because of a built-on class system and the last vestiges of serfdom. Their gap between rich and poor was maintained by force. For that matter, the supposed equality in the former Soviet Union was a farce. The aristocracy of the Romanovs simply became those with political connections heading "the party." The Russians were still serfs and didn't know it. It took a SECOND revolution to destroy the first system.

France is heading toward another revolution, as is Russia. One is economic (a social welfare state heading for implosion) and the other is political (Putin's Russia is starting to resemble Brezhnev's).

I don't disagree with anything you have said. My only point is that it is good for a society to have a healthy middle class for stability's sake. The rich sould want to keep it that way.

I agree that compared to other countries our middle and lower class is not in such bad shape but from a perspective of long term trends we are seeing a shrinking of the middle class and a greater disparity between the rich and the poor in the US. We're certainly not at a crisis point but I don't think it's healthy from a societal stand point to encourage that trend.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
No, we are not seeing a shrinking middle class. In fact, according to IRS.gov, we are seeing an EXPANDING middle class. We have been for decades. Just because the rich grow richer does not mean that everyone else does not. In fact, people get rich through work, and move from the middle class to the upper classes, just as the lower classes move to the middle classes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 11:12 AM
No, we are not seeing a shrinking middle class. In fact, according to IRS.gov, we are seeing an EXPANDING middle class. We have been for decades. Just because the rich grow richer does not mean that everyone else does not. In fact, people get rich through work, and move from the middle class to the upper classes, just as the lower classes move to the middle classes.

See for example:

source

Quote:
 
The Middle-Class Squeeze: An Overview


The Middle-Class Squeeze: An Overview

2004 was a challenging year for America's middle-class families. Inflation grew faster than wages, so that the same middleclass paychecks bought fewer daily necessities. The cost of everything from food to gasoline was up relative to pay, but housing prices, college tuition and the cost of prescription drugs grew especially quickly. Meanwhile, even as the pace of job creation started to pick up, a record number of jobless Americans used up their unemployment benefits, leaving them unable to support themselves or their local economies.


While the U.S. Census Bureau has no official definition of the "middle class," conventionally it has come to represent the large swath of the American people with incomes between approximately 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold and those of the nation's top five percent income earners--roughly $25,000 to $100,000 a year. But the meaning goes much deeper than that. Americans have historically associated being "middle class" with the relative comfort that comes from having a good job that allows families to own a home, send their children to the college, and save for retirement. Increasingly, however, this American Dream has been replaced by the reality of today's squeezed middle-class.

Being middle class is more than just earning a middle-class income--it's about being able to afford the American Dream: a home, family health plan, and a college education.

Roughly six in ten American families are "middle-class" based on their income and ability to afford things like a home, health insurance, and a college education for their children.
In 2003, nearly 60 percent (45.5 million) of American families earned a middle-class income--approximately $25,000 to $95,000 a year.
Sixty-eight percent of American families own a home.
Seventy percent of American adults are covered by private health insurance.
Almost three in four American families are able to save money from month to month in the hopes of sending their child to college.
Today, America's middle class is increasingly uncertain about whether they can attain the American Dream.

Only four in ten families with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000 a year-- technically "middle class"--self-identify as "middle-class" or "working class."
One in two Americans with incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 – the definition of middle class -- were "worried about their financial condition" in 2003. And, one-third of those earning over $75,000 were also worried.
Eighty-four percent of Americans worry that the middle class is living paycheck to paycheck, and being left behind in general.
The middle class is being squeezed. Since January 2001, middle-class Americans have seen their paychecks shrink, their jobs disappear, and their expenses swell.

The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 may have improved the corporate bottom line, but not that of Americans. During the first two years of the president's first term, Americans' incomes declined by more than $1,400.
Middle-class Americans are experiencing long-term unemployment. In 2003, those employed as public administrators, teachers, and retails sales workers, earning anywhere from $488 to $1,124 a week, experienced average periods of unemployment as long as eleven weeks.
Following the last recession and "jobless recovery," it is estimated that the newly created jobs of 2004 paid $8,000 less than those lost between 2001 and 2003, and were less likely to offer health insurance to their workers.
Working Americans are paying significantly more to hold onto their health insurance. In 2003, working Americans with employer-provided health insurance programs saw their premiums increase by nearly 14 percent. It's no wonder, combined with the increase in unemployment, that more than 40 percent of the 1.4 million newly uninsured in 2004 were middle class.
A college degree is widely recognized as a key to realizing the American Dream, and Americans support programs that promote access to these middle class goals. However, during the 2002-03 academic year, one third of all states lowered their appropriations to public universities by as much as 11 percent, and 49 of the 50 states raised their tuition by amounts ranging from 1.7% in Montana to 39% in Arizona, and averaging 14 percent for the year.
More middle-class families trying to live the dream are winding up in a nightmare of debt and bankruptcy

In 2003, more than 90 percent of the 1.6 million American families that filed for bankruptcy were middle-class--more than half named job loss, a health emergency, or divorce as the reason for filing.
To cover their monthly bills more American families have turned to credit cards as means of payment. In 2003, the average American family held more than $2,295 dollars in credit card debt.
More than 640,000 family homes were in the process of foreclosure in 2003, and more the 53,000 families actually lost their home.
College students are now also being crushed by the middle-class squeeze. In 2003, American college students graduated with an average of $18,000 in student debt, more than $3,000 in credit card debt.
As the middle-class squeeze becomes pronounced, it also reflects the increasing difficulty for working Americans to earn their way into the middle class, leaving the American dream even more elusive.

__
Last Updated:
April 11, 2005
| Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 09:15 AM
38957
Jul 29 2005, 10:11 AM
[A] large poverty class does the [the rich] no good.


This is my point.

So, I don't think that there is the likelihood of some 'revolution' occuring in a free-market type society (like the US) because the worker bees really have nice lifestyles and aren't cattle like they are under communism or monarchy.

I believe that reasonably regulated capitalism is the best society for humans. The only question is "what is reasonable?"
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

As I said earlier, I don't think we're anywhere near a crisis. However, the trend is a shrinking middle class (depending on how you define it) and a greater disparity between rich and poor. I don't think we should encourage this trend.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 10:17 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 11:12 AM
No, we are not seeing a shrinking middle class. In fact, according to IRS.gov, we are seeing an EXPANDING middle class. We have been for decades. Just because the rich grow richer does not mean that everyone else does not. In fact, people get rich through work, and move from the middle class to the upper classes, just as the lower classes move to the middle classes.

source



You want me to believe a so-called non-partisan site founded by lefties and writing leftie dogma... or I could go to IRS.org and see for myself.

Thanks, but I'll stick with the IRS.

Yeah, stuff like this is "non-partisan".

Quote:
 
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 may have improved the corporate bottom line, but not that of Americans.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Your middleclass. org article makes alot of assumptions, but I take for what it is: an opinion piece.

It mentions a lot bankruptcies and people's growing dependency on credit cards because they're living 'paycheck-to-paycheck'. This is not really an issue of middle-class or income disperity, but a behavioral issue.

Lawyers that make a lot of money on bankrupties have really been marketing bankruptcies as an easy way out and a lot of bankruptcies are unnecessary.

If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck, you are probably living beyond your means. I did at one time, I finally woke up and found that I was just digging a hole for myself, so I have reduced my standard of living and have filled in most of the hole. A lot of people think that they should finance everything because they have to have a new car, TV, computer, etc. Nearly every friggin' commercial for anything mentions financing. This gets people in trouble and makes them live paycheck to paycheck. It's a plague. We seem to have forgotten as a society how to just save up and pay for something, instead we want it now and incur high-risk debt to get it, meanwhile our savings rate is negative. We dig deeper and deeper and then when something happens we can't handle it and we want to declare bankruptcy. You don't have to live this way, but I think that Americans have developed culturally to live this way. I don't blame this on the economy or any of that.

We're talkin about the middle-class here, not the poor. There are a lot of people who would be in the paycheck-to-paycheck constant panic mode no matter if they got a 100% raise next week or not.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 11:45 AM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 10:17 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 29 2005, 11:12 AM
No, we are not seeing a shrinking middle class. In fact, according to IRS.gov, we are seeing an EXPANDING middle class. We have been for decades. Just because the rich grow richer does not mean that everyone else does not. In fact, people get rich through work, and move from the middle class to the upper classes, just as the lower classes move to the middle classes.

source



You want me to believe a so-called non-partisan site founded by lefties and writing leftie dogma... or I could go to IRS.org and see for myself.

Thanks, but I'll stick with the IRS.

Yeah, stuff like this is "non-partisan".

Quote:
 
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 may have improved the corporate bottom line, but not that of Americans.

(1) Can you provide me with a link to the particular page you are referencing at IRS.org?

(2) Can you specifically refute any fact presented in the article I have posted?
| Quote | ^
 
Mainiac
Lieutenant Commander
If I may digress from the "class warfare" argument for a moment...

CAFTA has very little to do with "free trade" and a whole lot to do with expanding the rights of multinational corporations to challenge sovereigh nations abilities to protect their own interests. Which are not always the same, BTW. It doesn't take 2,400 pages to say "no tariffs, no duties". With the exception of the loss of a few manufacturing jobs here and there, it will have little impact here in the US. The combined economies of the other nations amount to a statistically insignificant number - I think I read somewhere roughly equal to Providence, RI. (Economies, not population.) So all the hoo-rah about new markets for US goods is a bunch of hooey!
Not only that, but US agricultural producers are prohibited from competing for a ten year moritorium to "level the playing field". It should help serve to end the small farm and finalize the transition to an agribusiness farm economy, IMO, since only large corporations will be able to weather the enforced hold. (I know that this (Agribusiness) is inevitable, anyways, but it doesn't mean I think it's a good thing.)
And then there's the protectionism for the pharmaceutical companies. (Is there any legislation out of DC that doesn't do something for these guys?) In order to market generic drugs, you now need the permission of the original patent holder, even after the patent has expired..."Please may we market a more affordable version of your drug?"
We have taken one more step towards the real goal of the ruling business elite (subtle class warfare attack) - the Free Trade Agreement of the America's. The whole of North, Central, and South America. They will tell us we need a larger trading bloc to counter the developing trading blocks of the European Union and China/Japan/the Pacific rim. The WTO already contains provisions incorporating regional associations into it's jurisdiction, and we are in the process of creating a new global sovereign body, which answers to neither man nor nation. (When you think about all the outrage in the US about the UN, it's kind of funny, really.)
The next fights will move out of the world's legislative bodies, and into the courts, as corporations attempt to exercise the new "rights" they think they have won. I hope somebody thinks to ask Roberts his opinion on that as they waste incredible amounts of time and money on not asking about Roe v. Wade.

"The times, they are a-changing"



(We now return you to the class warfare argument)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus