If you could go back in time to stop NAFTA, would you act to stop it?

[Sapphire Blue]

Well, of course we can't do that, but we can...

***STOP CAFTA!*** House vote tentatively scheduled for Wed., July 27:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4185695


Call your Representative now! Capitol toll-free numbers:

1-877-SOB-U-SOB

1-866-340-9281

1-800-718-1008

And please tell your representative to stop CAFTA @ http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/NOCAFTA

Thank you.

[converted_democrat]

1. I called my Republican Rep. and her "person on the phone" acted as if

she was going to vote against it. I don't trust her though, because she's a Repub.

[Sapphire Blue]

3. My rep (DLC) is voting against it.

His intern said that the House vote is undecided at this point... not a clear indication of which way this vote is going. We need to call them!

[davsand]

2. NAFTA was an abomination.

A lot of our national unemployment numbers are due to that particular POS legislation. Time to STOP feeding corporate greed and repeal it.

Laura

[sadiesworld]

4. We are not only giving up our employment to the corporate

globalizers, we are giving up our freedom and democracy (the REAL kind). :cry:

[Sapphire Blue]

5. Need a pro-labor Congress for that... good goal for the 2007 Congress

In the meantime... STOP CAFTA

[Sapphire Blue]

6. kick

[wli]

7. absolutely

NAFTA's part of the (large) unemployment problem

[Sapphire Blue]

8. Please act now to stop CAFTA

[Armstead]

9. Kick

Even that GOP guy Dana Roherbacher is against this.

If enough fence sitters in both parties can be swung, it might be defeated.

[Sapphire Blue]

10. Just called my rep's office again... the vote is really close...

Probably won't be decided until the day of the vote. 4 Dem's may be voting for CAFTA (the intern didn't remember which ones)... several Repubs voting against, many votes undecided.

Everybody... CALL YOUR REP!

[converted_democrat]

11. kick.....n/t

[Sapphire Blue]

27. And another kick

[DistressedAmerican]

12. I Have A Lot Of Mexican Friends Whos Lives Were Improved By NAFTA

Mind pointing out what is so bad about it?

[Sapphire Blue]

14. Pointing it out... courtesy of the Economic Policy Institute...

NAFTA AT SEVEN
Its impact on workers in all three nations

Introduction

Each year since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on January 1, 1994, officials in Canada, Mexico, and the United States have regularly declared the agreement to be an unqualified success. It has been promoted as an economic free lunch-a "win-win-win" for all three countries that should now be extended to the rest of the hemisphere in a Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement.

For some people, NAFTA clearly has been a success. This should not be a surprise inasmuch as it was designed to bring extraordinary government protections to a specific set of interests-investors and financiers in all three countries who search for cheaper labor and production costs. From that perspective, increased gross volumes of trade and financial flows in themselves testify to NAFTA's achievements.

But most citizens of North America do not support themselves on their investments. They work for a living. The overwhelming majority has less than a college education, has little leverage in bargaining with employers, and requires a certain degree of job security in order to achieve a minimal, decent level of living. NAFTA, while extending protections for investors, explicitly excluded any protections for working people in the form of labor standards, worker rights, and the maintenance of social investments. This imbalance inevitably undercut the hard-won social contract in all three nations.

As the three reports in this paper indicate, from the point of view of North American working people, NAFTA has thus far largely failed.

Continued @ http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_index

NAFTA's Hidden Costs
Trade agreement results in job losses, growing inequality, and wage suppression for the United States

by Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) eliminated 766,030 actual and potential U.S. jobs between 1994 and 2000 because of the rapid growth in the net U.S. export deficit with Mexico and Canada. The loss of these real and potential jobs1 is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA's impact in the U.S., however, often has been obscured by the boom and bust cycle that has driven domestic consumption, investment, and speculation in the mid- and late 1990s. Between 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the U.S., causing overall unemployment to fall to record low levels. Unemployment, however, began to rise early in 2001, and, if job growth dries up in the near future, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade patterns will become much more apparent, especially in the manufacturing sector. The U.S. manufacturing sector has already lost 759,000 jobs since April 1998 (Bernstein 2001). If, as expected, U.S. trade deficits continue to rise with Mexico and Canada while job creation slows, then the job losses suffered by U.S. workers will be much larger and more apparent than if U.S. NAFTA trade were balanced or in surplus.

Growing trade deficits and job losses
NAFTA supporters have frequently touted the benefits of exports while remaining silent on the impacts of rapid import growth (Scott 2000). But any evaluation of the impact of trade on the domestic economy must include both imports and exports. If the United States exports 1,000 cars to Mexico, many American workers are employed in their production. If, however, the U.S. imports 1,000 foreign-made cars rather than building them domestically, then a similar number of Americans who would have otherwise been employed in the auto industry will have to find other work. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like trying to balance a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals.

Continued @ http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us

The impact of NAFTA on wages and incomes in Mexico

The decline in real wages and the lack of access to stable, well-paid jobs are critical problems confronting Mexico's workforce. While NAFTA has benefited a few sectors of the economy, mostly maquiladora industries and the very wealthy, it has also increased inequality and reduced incomes and job quality for the vast majority of workers in Mexico. In many ways (such as the stagnation of the manufacturing share of employment), the entire process of development has been halted, and in some cases it even may have been reversed. NAFTA has created some of the most important challenges for Mexico's development in the 21st century. The question that remains is whether Mexico can, under NAFTA, restart its stalled development and find a way to redistribute the benefits of the resulting growth.

More @ http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_mx

[Lost4words]

17. I guess you still have a way to earn a living, many of us dont!

I am all for helping others but not at the expence of families here in the USA. I worked hard all my life to see US companies send my job out of the country. If it comes down to my survival or your survival who do you think I am rooting for?

To hell with NAFTA to hell with CAFTA.

[Sapphire Blue]

18. I understand & agree w/your frustration concerning NAFTA & CAFTA

I would add that the only 'others' being helped by NAFTA are the rich.

Edited to add:

Love your DU name & sig line!

[Lost4words]

19. Thanks Sapphire Blue :-)

your sig line is Great and focuses on positive and good.

:hi:

[Sapphire Blue]

21. 86ing 43 is positive & good, too!

:hi:

[Robbien]

20. CAFTA does not help Central America. It forces privatization

of natural resources and it forces them to give up their generic drugs and replace them with patented US drugs.

Plus sweatshops will open up all over the place.

The only people it helps are global corporatists. That is why corporate lobbyists are pushing Bush so hard on passing it.

[Sapphire Blue]

22. The real 'us' vs 'them' is workers vs the rich/corporatists... we need to

... remember, focus, and unite on this.

[Deja Q]

24. How very human of you!

Which proves a far greater point about how true to our ideals we may or may not be given a certain point...

But you're right. We've all worked hard. Damn hard. And to see our jobs go elsewhere SOLELY because the workers 10,000 miles away get paid 1/15th what we do - and on top of that the same corporate filth saying how American workers are stupid?

You're damn right when I'm hoping things collapse. Our own countrymen betraying the rest of us is sickening beyond belief. I sure as hell will unite with nobody until they prove themselves worthy. I am worthy. You are worthy. Our corporate execs and politicians that cater to them give nary a damn about us. I will not unite for them. And I sure as hell will not die for them.

[barb162]

34. I am with you; Cafta and Nafta basically benefit the rich the most

I would love to rescind Nafta and never hear of another trade agreement again unless it benefits US workers first and foremost

[Deja Q]

23. Lose your job to offshoring and let us know.

Can't have it both ways.

Though the corporate execs seem to be able to. And if you think they're loyal to you...

[area51]

13. You betcha. (n/t)

[Stirk]

15. THANK YOU for this.

And thank you for the numbers. I'm calling mine now.

[Sapphire Blue]

16. Thank YOU for calling!

:hi:

[Matariki]

25. I think ultimately globalization is inevitable

and we therefore need to be working for a fair (dare i say equal?) standard of living globally. we need to be putting money into education and health care and not excessive military spending.

[Sapphire Blue]

26. Agreed... I'd like to see a worldwide workers' revolution

... instead of this current race to the bottom.

[Sapphire Blue]

28. Resident DU beggar here, begging again... please sign & call

How's your rep voting?

[Sapphire Blue]

29. ...

[Sapphire Blue]

30. White House Pushes Trade Deal on Hill - 5 more pro-CAFTA votes

Will you speak up & tell your representative to stop CAFTA @ http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/NOCAFTA

... and take a minute to call your Representative?

Capitol toll-free numbers:

1-877-SOB-U-SOB

1-866-340-9281

1-800-718-1008

... or will you be bitching about the effects of CAFTA if/when it goes through... just like all the bitching about NAFTA?

Don't let that happen. We have a chance to defeat CAFTA. Please sign & call your rep.

White House Pushes Trade Deal on Hill
By Warren Vieth and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON -- With a congressional showdown looming on a high-profile trade pact, Bush administration officials scrambled today to negotiate side deals that might get them the two dozen or so additional votes needed to ensure passage.

By day's end, they appeared to have nailed down at least five.

"I told them this is what they needed to do to get my vote," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), who joined with four House colleagues to seek concessions for home-state textile plants. "The bottom line is they have done everything I asked for."

Gingrey said the five Southern lawmakers were now "95%" certain to support the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and were only waiting for final signatures on agreements to protect makers of denim cloth and trouser pockets.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cafta26jul26,0,7353017.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Armstead]

31. Tough and ugly

http://bizneworleans.com/109+M5932d7298d4.html


The Senate voted to approve CAFTA on June 30, with Louisiana Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter both opposing the measure.

In a release today, Vitter called the battle over CAFTA “tough and ugly.” He said he is lobbying friends in the House not to pass the bill, but the pressure being put on the lawmakers by the Bush administration is “enormous — really unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”

Vitter said that funding for specific projects in the Highway Bill is being used both to buy votes for CAFTA and to punish opponents. “It’s getting ugly in terms of the use and abuse of the Highway Bill. It really is very disappointing,” he said.

[Toucano]

32. Kick! n/t

[Toucano]

33. kick n/t

[Toucano]

37. kick n/t

[barb162]

35. kick

[Eloriel]

36. Another reason to oppose it -- it'll affect YOUR health quite directly

or your ability to acquire food supplements. This is something the big pharma companies have been after since the early 80s if not before, and it looks like they're about to win. Some people here think this isn't true, but the people who have been following it DAILY since at least the early 80s think not:

Coalition for Health Freedom
http://www.coalitionforhealthfreedom.org/