How could anyone who voted for CAFTA still be a Democrat today?

[BillZBubb]

What a party of wussies. If I was in charge every one of the traitors would be running as a (R) next time, if at all. The retribution would have been severe and immediate.

I saw where Pelosi claimed to be "very upset". Big friggin' deal. I'm not impressed. As a matter of fact it's almost comical. I might actually take her seriously if she did something about it. For now, what an impotent joke. Our party is an embarrasment if we can't stand together on something so fundamental.

[wli]

1. they aren't, they're just impersonating Democrats

[napi21]

2. I'm just as afraind of CAFTA as the rest of you, but tell me....

is there any state, group, industry, or ANYHING that might benefit from CAFTA?

The reason I'm asking is because lots of Reps vote for farming bills because they are from farm country, lots vote for oil & gas bills because that's their constiuency.

I didn't read the whole CAFTA bill, so I'm just asking if it's possible some of these Dems did what they thougt would benefit their constituents?

Please don't kill me, I'm just asking.

[barb162]

4. I think it will be just like NAFTA, the rich will benefit and more

Americans will just lose more jobs. But it will be to a lesser extent than NAFTA. Overall, the American economy will lose more than it gains, like Nafta, but again, the rich will benefit.

[jobycom]

8. That's way debatable on NAFTA

After NAFTA was passed, we had one of the longest periods of growth AND climbing wages in our nation's history. The jobs that were lost were replaced by higher paying jobs. I'm not saying that was due to NAFTA, but if NAFTA did such a bad thing, it didn't show in the overall picture.

As for constuencies that benefitted, border towns in Texas on both sides exploded economically. NAFTA was very good for Texas. Texas isn't a union/labor state, obviously, but it is an example of a constituency that benefitted. IIRC, five of the fifteen Dems in the House who voted for CAFTA were Texans.

[napi21]

10. That's exactly what I was looking for. If Texas benefits, can you

slam the Reps from TX for voting for it?

Sure, they're supposed to vote for what's best for the Country, but we all know that's not the way it works. Their prime goal is to get re-elected!

[jobycom]

14. The bigger reason some Dems support it

is global. A lot of Dems, like Carter, Clinton and Gore, believe that free trade will ultimately raise the living standards in Central America. It will make the rich richer, but so will everything. But it will pump money into badly starved economies. These economies, many liberals believe, are so starved because we have until recently practiced predatory trade--taking from others, but putting up barriers for them to take from us. CAFTA and NAFTA even out those barriers, and the idea is that it will ultimately benefit the poorest of the poor in other nations. It's Kennedy economics--a rising tide lifts all boats.

This is an issue that splits both parties. People looking at the long-term in both parties like the benefits. People looking at the immediate situation hate the costs. That's why liberal politicians oppose it, but many liberals outside of politics like it.

There are strong arguments against it, too, but those are all over DU and every other liberal site, so I won't go into them. My main point isn't to convince anyone, just to demonstrate that it's not as simple as some make it sound. Carter supported it, and Carter has never sold out--well, not since leaving office, anyway. So there is one purist in support of it.

[napi21]

16. I see their point, but I'm not sure America can afford to be that

generous right now. We could in the 90's because Americans were doing OK, but that's not the case today. I think it's wonderful to help other poorer countries, but not at the expense of our own!

[jobycom]

18. Two answers to that

The short answer is we got rich at their expense, so we morally owe it to them. That was a debate over ending slavery and segregation, too, if you think about it.

The second answer is that the long-term health of the world economy is very important to our nation's survival. Creating wealthier consumers in Central and South America will only help us, long term. There are many levels to the economy in America. The short-term level is based on how well we are all doing at the moment-- our income level, our employment level, etc. But the longer-term economy is based on our resources--not just our natural resources, but our created resources, like an educated labor base, a solid monetary policy, and a strong consumer base. By widening the American market for both labor and consumers, we improve our economic stability, and since the benefits to free trade is long-term market expansion in other markets, it means that the consumer and labor base will be expanding for a long term, giving us an increasing market. With the deficit and debt Bush has created, we will need a long, steady growth to survive the next ten years.

Supporters will talk about mercantilist mentalities, meaning that those who oppose free trade agreements believe that there is a limited amount of wealth, and that a nation has to hang on to its own. That was a flawed mentality of the age of exploration and colonialization. The nations that broke with that mentality are the ones who flourished. Like the US, with the Marshall Plan, and our support of post-war Japan. Spending our wealth on other nations improved those nations and improved our own.

I doubt that's the reason BushCo supports it, but that's what liberals who support it see.

[RoyGBiv]

28. Three, actually ...

Texas reps who voted for CAFTA:

Henry Cuellar
Ruben Hinojosa
Solomon Ortiz

Most of the others are from districts where exports of produce or other food products form a backbone of the local economy. Duties on wine, fruit, beef, milk, etc., some of which are currently extremely high in various CA countries, will be lowered or eliminated altogether either immediately or over a period of years. Milk producers in New York (2 New York Dem Reps voted for CAFTA) expect exports to increase by $3 million per year in the next 20 years.

One problem with this vote and many of the Dems who voted for it involves local constituencies and their perceptions. If all or most of your constituents are New York milk producers or rely on a milk producing economy, for example, it would be political suicide to vote against CAFTA, particularly since the Farm Bureau in that state urged its passage.

I am personally not happy about the passage of the agreement due to various provisions I think will in effect work against the supposed intent -- and I think these elements are the primary reasons Bush, et al, support it -- but on this point specifically, I am having trouble condemning all these reps for their votes on this one issue.

I am far more angry about the length of time that was eventually allowed for the vote.

[jobycom]

32. Thanks. On the issue of perception

the same can be said about districts who voted against CAFTA. Districts with strong union/labor backbones in manufacturing districts will be disproportionately against CAFTA, which, I think, is how opposition became a Democratic issue. Our normal concern for other cultures and our general concern for fairness is a bit over-ridden here because one of our strongest demographics will be adversely affected. So a lot of Dems who might have otherwise supported it know it would be political suicide to support it.

[RoyGBiv]

34. Ironic actually ...

Or at least it is to me. The whole thing reminds me somewhat of discussions I've had on historical controversies revolving around similar issues and just how important they were at the time. Some in these discussions view such issues as minor. If the current experience with CAFTA has any tangible links to these earlier debates, I think it goes some way toward suggesting the opposite.

In my view, this is an age-old debate in a modern wrapper, and the same coalitions form. Whether one is on the "correct" or "incorrect" side of the issue depends, at least in part, on one's particular interests. I think your observation about perceptions probably also had a little to do with the Republican reps who voted against it, and possibly more importantly, created a undercurrent of resistance to the agreement among many others in the majority, this being the reason all the "arm twisting" and "deal making" were necessary for the leadership to get its votes. Some of those reps knew they were going to be in hot water at home come next fall.

Like most, I'm sure, I'm inclined to hate this thing just because Shrub and the Republican leadership supports it. There is something very wrong with everything that individual touches. More tangibly, besides the interests of labor, I think there are environmental, health, and other safety concerns involved with this particular agreement that may (or may not) prove to undermine any potential benefits.

[jobycom]

35. I agree with most of that

I agree that there are environmental and safety issues, but I don't think those issues would be absent without it. They are symptoms of weak economies. I started to say corrupt governments, but as we've seen, those can happen in the best of economies and the strongest of nations.

To me, the environmental and safety issues would accompany any strong growth in the region. The fact that CAFTA encourages American-based corps to develop there gives me some hope. These corporations have some nominal basis under US law, and if we ever get a decent government again, that government can use CAFTA and American law to influence these corporations. Under Bush, nothing good will happen either way.

The whole CAFTA/NAFTA debate is the age old tariffs debate, and more fundamental, it's the old mercantilism debate. Are nations better off hording their own wealth or allowing their wealth to become part of a larger economic system? The latter never works well for very long, and the former usually works well for all involved. The latter is akin to BushCo's attempt to control the oil of the Middle East for himself, or, in a less lofty analogy, to killing the goose to get all the golden eggs at once.

[bluestateguy]

3. I am angry with the CAFTA 15 too

But in the grand scheme of things to have only 15 defections on a congressional vote is actually very impressive. Any congressional scholar will tell you the same thing. To get 100% unanimity is very rare: the reason why it was such a big deal that all Republicans voted against Bill Clinton's 1993 budget was because of how rare such developments are. Pelosi did her job, but DeLay and Hastert did their jobs too, and because they are the majority party, that means that they win the roll call. 27 Republicans voted no, but many of those anti-CAFTA Republicans were "on reserve" to vote yes in the event that their votes were needed by the White House (though their preferences and political imperatives were on the No side). If some or all of those 15 Democrats had been arm wrestled into voting No, DeLay and Hastert would have called in their reserve votes and won the vote anyway.

My point here is that this bill would have passed with or without those 15 Democrats. Blame the governing party. It's their bill.

[lonestarnot]

5. They shouldn't get off that easy!

[bluestateguy]

9. I don't know who "they" is

but I would suggest that the individual congresspersons and senators be held accountable for their votes, not the party as a whole. Don't blame the whole party because 15 out of 202 Democrats voted yes.

[lonestarnot]

11. You were correct in the first case... the 15 slobs that voted for CAFTA

[bluestateguy]

7. Please Delete

[lonestarnot]

12. Delete what?

[KharmaTrain]

37. So We Should Cede 15 Seats To Repugnicans?

Yes, I disagree with CAFTA as much as anyone. And while I encourage "party discipline" and unity, I don't expect Democrats or any politician to conform to some template or one-size-fits-all definition of what a Democrat is.

Each of those 15 voted for their own reasons. In my district it was to cater to some of the largest employers of the district (yes large corporations), but these people will now sit out the next election rather than pouring money and people into electing a Repugnican.

This is a district that hasn't had a Democratic representative and is high on the RNCC radar next year...it's one district over from Hastert...and several candidates are already trolling to run next year. This vote may have saved a Democratic vote for other issues such as health care, civil rights and other issues that have far more value for far more people.

Yes, be pissed, but also look before you judge. The ones who deserve the real scorn are the Repugnicans who had their arms twisted and did full 180s...totally sold out their constituents and did it right in their faces. We should be targeting these people and starting to find Democrats, like a Paul Hackett or Heath Schueler, who can make these goons...the real sell-outs, pay.

I've never had a candidate that I agree with 100% of the time. I'm grateful for some who I stand with 90% of the time. I'll even take 50% right now, since I've lived with Representatives that went against me 100% for most of my life.

Peace...

[Toucano]

38. A ha! There's the trouble!

"If some or all of those 15 Democrats had been arm wrestled into voting No, DeLay and Hastert would have called in their reserve votes and won the vote anyway."

That would have been preferable by far. It would have put responsibility on entirely on them. In the next election cycle, we would have had a weapon against those Republicans who voted "no" just for political convenience.

[jobycom]

6. Truth is, free trade has always been a liberal goal of some

A lot of liberals believe that the reason the US is so economically superior to the rest of the West, except Canada, is because of economic barriers that we have put into place and enforced with our military. Thus, free trade has been one of those ideas that liberals at the academic level have felt would level the playing field. Kind of Affirmative Action for the rest of the world. Like AA, it might hurt the US in the short term, but the ultimate goal is to raise the workers of the rest of the world that our colonialism in Central and South America have repressed for so long.

That's why Democrats like Carter, Clinton and Gore support free trade agreements. To be honest, I always felt, as a liberal, that we tricked the Republicans into free trade, that it is the liberal world view, not the Republican one, that has been helped.

I know all the arguments on the other side, and I'm not really trying to debate the issue. Just telling you what some Democrats think. I figure a lot of Dems voted against CAFTA because of Labor, but that they really supported it.

[lonestarnot]

13. Free trade my ass.... slave labor creation!

[jobycom]

15. As opposed to what? The slave labor reality that exists now?

[lonestarnot]

17. CAFTA is only going to make matters worse but if you read the chatter

we are not going to need to worry about CAFTA.

[jobycom]

19. Explain how it's going to make it worse.

[lonestarnot]

21. Ok

People in Central America will be inundated with corp. america seeking employees. People seeking employment with the corp thieves will still not be paid a livable wage, still overrun the boarders seeking employment here, but we don't have any either, because it was all shipped out to C.A. So we all work for $2.00 per hour while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in the "ownership society". LOL

[jobycom]

29. Flaws with that

Inundating Central America with more jobs will not drive wages down, it will drive them up, since there will be more jobs and the same number of people. Since wages will go up, not down, there will be less, not more, of a rush to the border. Also, since the corporations making stuff in CA will already have markets for said stuff in other places, the jobs created in CA won't have to wait for a market to develop in CA to fund the jobs, as has to happen when a business is home grown. So the job market will be jump started. The extra money will create more demand for goods in CA made in CA, which will benefit the businesses of CA, which will further drive up wages as the local businesses suddenly have more reason to hire.

Labor in America will suffer for a while, as companies ship some jobs to CA because labor is cheaper and the lowered restrictions will make profits large enough to justify the extra shipping costs. However, as the wages in CA go up, profitability of shipping jobs to CA falls, so an economic entropy will be reached. Then, as the economy in CA heats up and becomes a more solid market for us (over time), jobs here increase, as do wages, and we have not only improved the economy of a region we deliberately cast into poverty (thus making it morally right), but have created a larger consumer base for our economy, creating more jobs and higher wages here.

Of course, as always, these gains will ebb and flow in magnitude based on the quality of governments and corporations and laws regulating these corporations at any given time, but that's no different than now.

The rich will get richer, as you say, but the poor will get richer, too--which is the JFK ideal economy of a rising tide lifting all boats.

[Sapphire Blue]

24. CAFTA Threatens Our Forests, Water, Air and the Lives of Millions...

This was included in an email from Global Exchange prior to the vote (http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cafta/)...

CAFTA Threatens Our Forests, Water, Air and the Lives of Millions of People

by Father Jose Andrés Tamayo Cortez

The U.S. Congress is preparing to vote on the ratification of the Dominican Republic - Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). In their hands lies the destiny of the forests, the water, the air and the lives of millions of people from Alaska to Costa Rica. In Honduras, my native country, they have already ratified the agreement against the will of the people. Through marches we demanded that they listen to the opposition, but the government, instead of listening, responded with fierce repression. This agreement was approved in the same way it was written; behind closed doors, contradicting the democracy that they tell us exists in our country.

As well as a Priest, I am a representative of the “Movimiento Ambientalista de Olancho” (Olancho Environmental Movement), a coalition of various environmental groups in Honduras whose mission it is to conserve our natural resources. In spite of all our effort, no one took in to consideration our opinion that CAFTA would have disastrous consequences for our natural environment because of the lack of regulations on industry. It is clear that this Agreement was planned and created by the most dominant corporate interests. In fact, these transnational and national corporations have already spent years appropriating our resources and buying off successive governments. DR-CAFTA simply legalizes this plunder.

They tell us that CAFTA will help the economic and social development of Honduras, but by its inherently anti-democratic and exclusionary nature, it is very clear that we don't need this type of development. We have seen the devastating effects the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had on Mexico. NAFTA has restricted the Mexican government's ability to set responsible agricultural, labor and environmental regulations, leading to 1.5 million campesinos losing their land, falling wages, increasing erosion, air and water pollution. Without regulations built in to this agreement we run the risk of not being able to stop the devastating effects of the foreign corporations that are cutting down our forests, extracting our minerals, stealing our natural resources and exploiting our people in their insatiable thirst for profit.

We know the type of development that CAFTA offers; it is development that generates wealth for the largest corporations because the agreement was made by and for these very corporations. They look only for cheap labor and a flexible government that permits them to supercede labor rights and national laws in a “race to the bottom.” It might be true that CAFTA will generate employment, however these jobs, as well as being unstable, submit our people to inhuman conditions, with unjust salaries so that their products can be sold for high profits in other countries. The fruits of our sweat, labor and sacrifice will not remain in Honduras, nor will they be shared with the citizens of Honduras, but rather they will be taken by the large foreign corporations that do not respect the dignity, the rights nor the voice of our people.

In Honduras we are already seeing how this “development” is destroying the environment. In the state of Olancho, because of illegal and unregulated deforestation, erosion is spreading, the water levels are dangerously low and natural springs have completely dried up.

As was the case with NAFTA in Mexico, the chaos caused by CAFTA will increase levels of migration from Central America and the Dominican Republic towards the United States. Taking in to account the increase of the repression on the US/Mexican border and the increase of racist laws affecting immigrants, the passing of this agreement is a crime against the people of Central America & the Dominican Republic.

Without concrete laws that protect the environment, CAFTA will be terribly destructive for Honduras and Central America. With CAFTA, profits for the largest corporations are given a higher value than human, animal or plant life. But life and natural resources are human rights; therefore, to destroy God’s creation is a crime against humanity, the last recourse that we have is to defend life with our own life. Therefore we must continue to struggle so that the people of North America understand that by passing CAFTA they are threatening the lives of thousands of brothers and sisters, and their ability to live with dignity and respect, as God wants for all of “America.”

I ask the people of the United States to write, call, yell and demonstrate in order to demand that your Congressional Representatives vote against CAFTA. In solidarity and in the name of God…

[jobycom]

31. Then CAFTA needs better regulation, and better governments

but that doesn't mean the idea is flawed, nor that it will create slavery, as was stated above.

[Sapphire Blue]

25. Coalition Denounces CAFTA Approval

Coalition Denounces CAFTA Approval

Groups in Solidarity with Central American Opposition Pledge to Continue the Fight Against the Implementation of Unjust Trade Agreement

July 28th, 2005
Stop CAFTA Coalition

(excerpt)

"This vote will not be forgotten by the people of the Americas. It is another example of a policy that seeks to dominate, economically and politically, a region of people demanding democracy and self-determination," said Holly Miller of Witness for Peace. "The people of Central America will continue to resist the implementation of this agreement, and we stand in solidarity with them in the face of this injustice."

CAFTA has not passed in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic due to heavy opposition in those countries. In El Salvador, opposition parties have challenged the legality of CAFTA approval.

"The struggle is far from over. The heightened awareness built by our campaign about the negative effects of so-called "free trade" will broaden our efforts to roll back CAFTA, NAFTA, and the destructive economic system from which they stem," said Andrew de Sousa of the Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala (NISGUA). "We are inspired by the resistance of popular movements throughout the Americas, and we know that we will eventually turn the tide against this abusive system."

Said Tara Carr-Lemke of the Share Foundation, "Today we reflect on the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero: "Our world in El Salvador is not an abstraction. The poor are the ones who tell us what the world is," knowing that the organized poor of Central America will continue to guide our work and advance the cause of justice. We have walked with the poor majority of Central America as they opposed CAFTA, and we will continue to accompany them in future struggles."

more information: www.stopcafta.org

[jobycom]

30. Opinions of people

There are people in America who thought invading Iraq was a good idea. I'm sure I could find people in Costa Rica arguing the opposite. I was asking HOW CAFTA was going to cause slavery, not what some people thought of it.

[lonestarnot]

26. We're waiting....

[jobycom]

33. Calling me out? Pretty damn low.

I said nothing in this thread to deserve that.

[lonestarnot]

36. How rude.... you asked for a response, I gave one, I expected a reply!

Motion, Response, Reply, that short order.

[solinvictus]

20. Free trade..

It doesn't raise the standard of living in those nations, it only lowers ours. The corporations want a global plantation and free trade is intrumental in creating it.

[lonestarnot]

22. good, my rhetoric the same.

[idlisambar]

39. not really

That's why Democrats like Carter, Clinton and Gore support free trade agreements. To be honest, I always felt, as a liberal, that we tricked the Republicans into free trade, that it is the liberal world view, not the Republican one, that has been helped.

Noone was "tricked". The power base of the Democratic party shifted toward those who support free trade because those are the ones perceived as business-friendly. In a nutshell, Democrats shifted to free trade to get access to gain access to corporate money.

[BillZBubb]

40. Free trade WAS a liberal idea before the rise of the corporate state

Now free trade is a sham. The Dems that you mention support free trade either out of ignorance or in the case of the DLC'ers as a way to get a piece of the corporate pie.

It wasn't us who tricked the Repugs. It is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. They have played supposed liberals for suckers.

Free trade as a liberal notion was pushed by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations". His analysis was very good for that time. But one of the central tenets of his argument (and why he was right at the time) was that capital was not mobile. A British concern could not easily set up shop in France or Germany and vice-versa. So, each economy had its own self-funded local advantages in certain areas. Those could be made mutually beneficial by free trade.

Modern "Free Trade" is a sham. The only local advantage is low cost labor and lack of governmental restrictions on business labor and environmental activities. It's a race to the lowest cost of labor for everyone involved. Capital moves easily from one low cost labor region to another. It's a death spiral for the US middle class. No Democrat should support that FOR ANY REASON. If Democrats did REALLY SUPPORT it, they are DINO's.

[joe doctor]

43. No way!

No, free trade is a very evil practice. The only people that benefit are the rich.

[leftofthedial]

23. they aren't

probably never were

[LittleClarkie]

27. The same way my "liberal" newspaper could endorse it

I guess.

Apparently there are a variety of opinions about the thing.

[converted_democrat]

41. They can't, and that is why we should work hard to replace them. n/t

[Zhade]

42. Well, to be fair, both parties have been corporatist for decades.

Which is part of why I'm not a Dem anymore.