Well Congress passed CAFTA

[Left of Larry]

with a two point win. amazing huh?

[Left of Larry]

and you know...this only cements the will of US corporate conglomerates to abuse and violate workers rights and destroy the environment in poor countries..and not only that, but evade TAXES that WE have to make up for.

I fucking hate neocons...with a passion.

[Fat Pat]

No way man. FUCK! So idiotic. They're selling our country to the highest bidder, I tells ya. And not only do we suffer from loss of jobs, Central Americans are going to have their land annexed by big textile and sugar industries, AIDS patients in C.A. are going to start dying, and our environment's goign to suffer. *shakes head* Well there is one perk: it didn't pass very well. CAFTA has been the most disputed and least-supported trade agreement in history, I do believe. So it's not like it was passed easily. Hopefully the next "FTA" that comes along will get even less support and we can destroy it.

[Left of Larry]

No way man. FUCK! So idiotic. They're selling our country to the highest bidder, I tells ya. And not only do we suffer from loss of jobs, Central Americans are going to have their land annexed by big textile and sugar industries, AIDS patients in C.A. are going to start dying, and our environment's goign to suffer. *shakes head* Well there is one perk: it didn't pass very well. CAFTA has been the most disputed and least-supported trade agreement in history, I do believe. So it's not like it was passed easily. Hopefully the next "FTA" that comes along will get even less support and we can destroy it.

it was passed because of pork and barrel promises in the energy bill that and becasue rank and file republicans used intimidation tactics.....politricks as usual...fuck this is supposed to be a democracy??????? fuck this shit.

[Fat Pat]

Yeah that thing was pork to the brim. But there's also this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01195.html

"The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement this morning, delivering a hard-fought victory to President Bush while underscoring the nation's deep divisions over trade.
The 217 to 215 vote came just after midnight, in a dramatic finish that highlighted the intensity brought by both sides to the battle. When the usual 15-minute voting period expired at 11:17 p.m., the no votes outnumbered the yes votes by 180 to 175, with dozens of members undeclared. House Republican leaders kept the voting open for another 47 minutes, furiously rounding up holdouts in their own party until they had secured just enough to ensure approval."

So not only did they fill it with pork but they also let the voting go on 47 minutes beyond the usual. No wonder it passed. I gotta give props to the Republicans that voted against it, though. Like 'em or not, it would be REALLY hard to go against the cult that is the G.O.P. lately. Good for them.

[Left of Larry]

Yeah that thing was pork to the brim. But there's also this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01195.html

"The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement this morning, delivering a hard-fought victory to President Bush while underscoring the nation's deep divisions over trade.
The 217 to 215 vote came just after midnight, in a dramatic finish that highlighted the intensity brought by both sides to the battle. When the usual 15-minute voting period expired at 11:17 p.m., the no votes outnumbered the yes votes by 180 to 175, with dozens of members undeclared. House Republican leaders kept the voting open for another 47 minutes, furiously rounding up holdouts in their own party until they had secured just enough to ensure approval."

So not only did they fill it with pork but they also let the voting go on 47 minutes beyond the usual. No wonder it passed. I gotta give props to the Republicans that voted against it, though. Like 'em or not, it would be REALLY hard to go against the cult that is the G.O.P. lately. Good for them.

I agree and I am saddened to say that there were 15 dems for it..including a represtentative from my state Moran..he doesn't represent my district, but I have always respected him..he totally surprised me when he voted for it. He quoted corruption in S. America and said CAFTA will stop corruption.. I couldn't disagree with him more.. CAFTA will now allow corporations to corrupt even more..not to mention environmental degredation, evasion of taxes, ignoring labor laws...and lets not forget the Chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA which I'm sure are mirrored in CAFTA

[Fat Pat]

Yeah, one thing I brought up to my Representative (Paul Ryan R-WI) was that something like 90 or 80% of all the measures added to NAFTA that went to help it NOT be a shitty deal for American manufacturers and Mexican farmers weren't lived up to. All that pork and "arm-twisting" is just empty promises. It's how FTA's go.

And in the letter "Ryan" sent back to me, "he" spent the whole time showing how the FTA has a ton of stipulations in it that are supposed to ensure certain restrictions on trade. And it made me realize, wait.. I thought you were doing this in the name of "Free Trade". How the fuck is it free trade if there's a bunch of restrictions in it? So not only is it NOT free trade, it's doesn't have anything in it to ensure workers rights are protected. They're adding probably the worst possible restrictions they could - the ones that make it easy for Corporations to invest in the tons of cheap labor and goods in Central American countries. So it's not so much a Free Trade agreement (becuase true competition can't exist when you put a whole bunch of regulations on it), it's shifting from regulations from tariffs and quotas (which helped) to ensurances that "family farms" had access to the market. But let's face it, it's only ensuring corporate farming has access to the global market because a truely family farm hasn't the means to enter the global market. It just seems to me that things worked out much better when local farms, local textile, local manufacturers, and other local producers produced for LOCAL residents.

Plus, when you do things locally, if something goes bad (like they find out mining in that certain area is causing environmental harm), then there's FAR, FAR less bureaucracy to cut through in order to get it changed. Not to mention the people will want to end something that's giving their kids autism and cancer. But if it's going on in Honduras or Nigera its "such a shame". The global market exploits people and makes it harder to change labor and environmental violations...

But whatever, I don't have to prove my case in this instance. I think I'm preachin to the choir.

[Left of Larry]

Yeah, one thing I brought up to my Representative (Paul Ryan R-WI) was that something like 90 or 80% of all the measures added to NAFTA that went to help it NOT be a shitty deal for American manufacturers and Mexican farmers weren't lived up to. All that pork and "arm-twisting" is just empty promises. It's how FTA's go.

And in the letter "Ryan" sent back to me, "he" spent the whole time showing how the FTA has a ton of stipulations in it that are supposed to ensure certain restrictions on trade. And it made me realize, wait.. I thought you were doing this in the name of "Free Trade". How the fuck is it free trade if there's a bunch of restrictions in it? So not only is it NOT free trade, it's doesn't have anything in it to ensure workers rights are protected. They're adding probably the worst possible restrictions they could - the ones that make it easy for Corporations to invest in the tons of cheap labor and goods in Central American countries. So it's not so much a Free Trade agreement (becuase true competition can't exist when you put a whole bunch of regulations on it), it's shifting from regulations from tariffs and quotas (which helped) to ensurances that "family farms" had access to the market. But let's face it, it's only ensuring corporate farming has access to the global market because a truely family farm hasn't the means to enter the global market. It just seems to me that things worked out much better when local farms, local textile, local manufacturers, and other local producers produced for LOCAL residents.

Plus, when you do things locally, if something goes bad (like they find out mining in that certain area is causing environmental harm), then there's FAR, FAR less bureaucracy to cut through in order to get it changed. Not to mention the people will want to end something that's giving their kids autism and cancer. But if it's going on in Honduras or Nigera its "such a shame". The global market exploits people and makes it harder to change labor and environmental violations...

But whatever, I don't have to prove my case in this instance. I think I'm preachin to the choir.

yeah you are preaching to the choir, however, there are people that read this stuff that may not know this info..so it's good dialogue to have..even if we agree. check this out: btw:

Chapter 11 of NAFTA (and now probably CAFTA) gives corporations
the power to sue a government with out permission
from anywhere else, if it feels that the government is
affecting their profits in any way (even if the
government is trying to enforce environmental regs).
A canadian corporation can sue a US government, a US
corporation can sue a Mexican government... the
Corporation doesn't need permission from their home
government.

for example, a canadian company sued the local
government of a town in California because they banned
a chemical that was contaminating the water, and the
company won.. (I believe they were manufacturing part of MTBE) see the PDF file
below.

Also, a US corporation sued a local Mexican town
government because the citizens complained about the
chemical landfill the company was using.

All of this under closed, extra-judicial tribunals.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Ch11cases_chart.pdf


http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=1004

[Fat Pat]

Man that is fucking insane. I didn't know that. That's pretty much invading the soverignty of a nation. Such a legal abomination.

[Left of Larry]

welcome to free trade american style....