Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Border Campesinos Block Bridge to Protest NAFTA
KFOX-TV ^ | Jan. 2, 2003 | Lauren Macias-Cervantes - KFOX Producer

Posted on 01/02/2003 7:28:14 AM PST by madfly

Border Campesinos Block Bridge to Protest NAFTA
Lauren Macias-Cervantes - KFOX Producer

Community organizations from El Paso will join campesino groups from across the border in an effort to better their economic crisis. The organizations blocked a border crossing Wednesday.

They're protesting the impact of the new NAFTA phase that allows open importation of agricultural products from the U.S. and Canada into Mexico as of January 1st. They say the new change will promote a new surge of immigration to the U.S. by displaced campesinos.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: immigrationsurge; mexico; nafta; protest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 01/02/2003 7:28:15 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; B4Ranch; Tancredo Fan; Marine Inspector; Ajnin; agitator; Tancred; Spiff; backhoe; ...
border protest update ping
2 posted on 01/02/2003 7:30:35 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Too bad more Americans don't join them in these protests.
3 posted on 01/02/2003 7:38:04 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madfly
It could get interesting ---the campesinos now are saying they'll protest for 3 days but the governments intend to open the bridges. I hope it doesn't get violent.
4 posted on 01/02/2003 7:40:56 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
I agree. It would be helpful to all that are affected by the current rate of immigration and show that Americans who are concerned are not all racists. These poor people have jobs and history in Mexico and do not want to leave their home and culture to come to the US. I support their efforts.
5 posted on 01/02/2003 7:46:09 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Wouldn't such a protest block some of the drug shipments of Presidente Fox and his drug lord friends and employers, making expensive rerouting/rescheduling necessary?
6 posted on 01/02/2003 7:49:37 AM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Community organizations from El Paso will join campesino groups from across the border in an effort to better their economic crisis. The organizations blocked a border crossing Wednesday.
Why do I suspect they all left the protest in the same direction?

-Eric

7 posted on 01/02/2003 7:50:56 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: madfly
I remember listening to a radio program, with guests representing both Mexican and US labor unions, who together insisted that NAFTA would devastate both sides of the border.

Both were convinced thatr their industries could not compete with industry from the other side.

Since this was Pacifica radio, the emphasis was on the fact that all progressive labor leaders agreed, with no exploring of the fact that they were agreeing to an opposite and mirror-image truth.

There is some truth to both cases, of course. US farmers can outfarm anyone. But still we buy an enormous amount of produce from Mexico, simply because of the longer growing season, and from Chile, due to the reversed growing seasons. This is why we have fresh produce year-round.

Some US industries have moved south to take advantage of lower labor costs. Some have moved back, because they discovered that there are other operating costs in Mexico that are higher. Remember, when a country is poor, there are ususally systemic problems that go beyond the simple lack of money. Mexico is a major oil producer and industrial country. If they are poor, it is not due to a lack of money.

In general terms, its not a zero-sum game, NAFTA has shifted some jobs north, some jobs south, but with a net increase in overall employment on both sides. NAFTA was originally brought about for two reasons; one, to offer a better alternative to the Chinese solution, which many companies have opted for, and also to counteract growing Japanese and Korean investment in Mexico. There is a large and growing Japanese and Korean presence in Mexico. Both countries have invested heavily in our "back yard", and NAFTA was intended to counteract that (although it has had the additional feature of attracting even more foreign investment in Mexico, as Japanese and EU investors take advantage of NAFTA to help their own products).

NAFTA was also expected to slow down illegal migration to the north, and I would say it has had an effect. I worked there for a while, and all of my techs had lived and worked in the US, and all had returned home to work in their chosen trades, once work was available in their home town. Of course the border remains fully open, US industry continues to prefer illegal workers to legal ones, and industrial development has yet to come to all of Mexico, so another half million go north anyway every year.

As an aside, the original motive for Chavez' coup in Venezuela back in '92 was the effort underway to establish a NAFTA agreement between Venezuela and the US. Venexuelans were convinced that it would destroy their economy. He lost the coup, but the free trade agreement was put on hold. He has since been elected, and has done for his economy what "free trade" could never have done, which is to run it completely into the ground. Different subject, though.
9 posted on 01/02/2003 7:54:39 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Keep us posted with your Mexican links. In google news, this FoxTV affiliate was the only one to have this story. All other stories were saying how Fox had promised talks and the campesinos called off the protests.
10 posted on 01/02/2003 7:55:29 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marron
No, it's not a different subject. NAFTA preceeds FTAA. Plans are for Hemispheric trade in the "Americas". The people in Venezuela are against NAFTA. Here is something from the Border Governors' Conference in 1997, when Dubya participated. If you go to the link and click on Govenors, they have linked every years page to show the current governors. They are very secretive and have been having conferences for the last 20 years.

http://www.bordergovernors.com/declarations/1999_english.html

11 posted on 01/02/2003 8:27:50 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marron
Although I can see you know more about this than I do, I will post this:

http://www.citizen.org/trade/ftaa/index.cfm

Free Trade Area of the Americas

 

 Information:  Quito Ministerial
 New: Peoples Of The Americas - Quito Declaration

 
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), currently being negotiated by 34 countries of the Americas, is intended to be the most far-reaching trade agreement in history. Although it is based on the model of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it goes far beyond NAFTA in its scope and power. The FTAA, as it now stands, would introduce into the Western Hemisphere all the disciplines of the proposed services agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) - the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) - with the powers of the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), to create a new trade powerhouse with sweeping new authority over every aspect of life in Canada and the Americas. 
 

12 posted on 01/02/2003 8:32:59 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: madfly
toogoodreports.com: The Threat To American Life

Pulled on 01/02/2003 7:02 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason: Article is replete with bigotry.

Article's conclusion:


13 posted on 01/02/2003 9:55:23 AM PST by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: madfly
These poor people have jobs and history in Mexico and do not want to leave their home and culture to come to the US. I support their efforts.

So here we are ..all the "beneficiaries  " of NAFTA are being hurt..so who is it REALLY for? ..Not American workers and not the poor people of mexico that have seen no real improvement in their lives....ahhh but the rich have gotten richer..I ~think~ that was THE plan all along

14 posted on 01/02/2003 10:01:15 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marron
NAFTA was also expected to slow down illegal migration to the north, and I would say it has had an effect.

20 million desperate Mexicans recently sneaking into the US might hint otherwise.

15 posted on 01/02/2003 10:08:25 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
making expensive rerouting/rescheduling necessary?

That's why I fear things could get violent ---Fox isn't going to be very happy that his campesinos are doing this ---they aren't exactly loved by that government, and they are supposed to leave Mexico and work in the USA according to Fox's plans for them. Some just might not want to leave their homes and become meek day laborers begging for work in some Home Depot parking lot ----they'll be considered trouble-makers if they don't "cooperate".

16 posted on 01/02/2003 10:12:12 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: flamefront
I am not against limited legal immigration from Mexico. Limited because of the numbers we have here now. Here's how I feel:

From Tom Tancredo -

Now the question is, what can be done?

The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Barbara Jordan, the late Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights hero, recommended substantially reducing the number of immigrants admitted each year.  The Jordan Commission proposed setting an immediate limit of about 450,000 per year, and then phasing down the level to about half that.  Had Congress implemented the recommendations of the Jordan Commission in 1996, we would be well on our way to addressing the immigration-driven crisis in traffic, sprawl, schools, and jobs.  Unfortunately, Congress failed and the crisis has gotten worse.

For the reasons mentioned above, I created and chair the Immigration Reform Caucus in Congress to evaluate and critique current immigration policy and offer new suggestions to combat the negative effects of immigration and highlight the benefits.   As a direct descendant of Italian immigrants, it is my hope that Congress will take an objective look at immigration policy and include all angles to create new policies.  It is clear that the United States is reaching its capacity to become a home for the world's immigrants.  We must never forget that this nation was built on the backs of immigrants, but we must also seek to protect the interests of our nation and recognize that our nation's resources, both economically and ecologically, have limits.  If we continue with current immigration policy we will jeopardize what this nation of immigrants has created.


Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.  I hope you will continue to inform me of your concerns.  In the meantime, I urge you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/tancredo where you can sign up for the Capitol Update, my weekly E-mail newsletter.

Sincerely,

Thomas Tancredo
Member of Congress

The article in question wrapped up with what I consider a racist comment IMHO, and I am sorry that I pinged anyone.

It said: "Mexicans must go!"

17 posted on 01/02/2003 10:15:00 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

I also apologize to those that I pinged to that thread.
18 posted on 01/02/2003 10:22:15 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marron
The "giant sucking sound" has only become a small one because it's Mexico, not China. No moral argument intended, but if it were Chi.snese next door, we'd be toast. Well, that is, everyone except the globalist (dismantle-ist) profiteers.
19 posted on 01/02/2003 11:02:32 AM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Thank you for the quick response ... our battle has NEVER been against ANY race of people.

We are rising up to defend our borders, our American Culture and National Sovereignty against a flood of ILLEGALS who have invaded our Nation ... stealing jobs and opportunity from legal U.S. Citizens, and manipulating and in many cases overwheming good-will programs intended for our own deserving poor.

20 posted on 01/02/2003 11:21:19 AM PST by CIBvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
So here we are ..all the "beneficiaries " of NAFTA are being hurt..so who is it REALLY for?

But, But, But, George Bush Sr. was just on TV the other day telling us what a great success NAFTA has been!

21 posted on 01/02/2003 12:15:49 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
. . . ahhh but the rich have gotten richer..I ~think~ that was THE plan all along.

Don't you think your class-warfare rhetoric would be more appropriate elsewhere, like maybe DU?

22 posted on 01/02/2003 12:23:14 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Don't you think your class-warfare rhetoric would be more appropriate elsewhere, like maybe DU?

So if anyone states an obvious fact that NAFTA has done nothing to help anyone but the very wealthy that makes them candidates for DU?

Conservatism is more than just looking out for the extreme rich, there's more to it than that. It's an ideology that wants to see everyone succeed.

23 posted on 01/02/2003 12:49:34 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
LOL honey I was voting conservative when you were messing your diapers..In spite of all the denial we are not a classless society..and the only ones that benefit from NAFTA are the corrupt Mexican leaders..the drug dealers and the Multi Nationals.....doubt that? Talk to the guy that once thought he was a man because he could support his family ...his hands may have been dirty ..but he had dignity

The powerful have ripped his dignity away as they slay the middle class..

I am conservative enough that I believe in every man having an opportunity to make it..not have it given to him..but the rules have changed now..and it is one man against the financial and political intrest of a handful of folks...They will decide his future ..

24 posted on 01/02/2003 1:03:05 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marron
Good post. Rare logic on these threads.
25 posted on 01/02/2003 1:09:10 PM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Conservatism is more than just looking out for the extreme rich, there's more to it than that. It's an ideology that wants to see everyone succeed.

Well Said. I've always found it a bit strange to hear a CINO who goes along with and defends George Bush's big government adventures of co-opting the liberal agenda talk about Class Warfare. When it is precisely such agenda that is the essence of Class Warfare, i.e. Affirmative Action, New Entitlements, reckless immigration policies, NAFTA, GATT, etc.

26 posted on 01/02/2003 1:36:24 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Sorry to bug ya'. After all, if you take things as a matter of faith (i.e., NAFTA only benefits the wealthy), instead of looking to the facts, then perhaps you would be a good candidate for DU as well.
27 posted on 01/02/2003 1:37:11 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
So the term "class-warfare" bothers you? How about "socialism?" Please explain how having the government determine what jobs should be high-paying, and what companies should produce, is "conservative?" C'mon, make my day.
28 posted on 01/02/2003 1:41:29 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
Bush wants to extend free trade into Central America now to increase prosperity in those countries. I wonder if he's noticed there's no prosperity in Mexico yet from NAFTA? Or maybe it's what I suspect, the Central American countries offer even cheaper labor than Mexico. Better the companies go there than China I guess.
29 posted on 01/02/2003 1:55:48 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Sorry to bug ya'...

Lol. You're not bugging me, you are just confirming your namesake is accurate, again.

Mass immigration including the H1-B program is nothing but corporate welfare at the expense of working Americans. Same with NAFTA. The proof that NAFTA is a failure is the fact illegal aliens keep coming by the millions. And they are doing so because big-business corporations were just using them in Mexico for cheap slave labor, and they know it. Those are the facts, and you're the one who's not looking at them.

30 posted on 01/02/2003 1:59:40 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Mass immigration including the H1-B program is nothing but corporate welfare at the expense of working Americans. Same with NAFTA. The proof that NAFTA is a failure is the fact illegal aliens keep coming by the millions. And they are doing so because big-business corporations were just using them in Mexico for cheap slave labor, and they know it. Those are the facts, and you're the one who's not looking at them.

Ping to that

Do you remember the old saying "It is a recession if your neighbor is out of work, it is a drepression if you are"? When the boy realizes that the governemt is actively acting against the best interest of its citizens and it hits him...he will get it

31 posted on 01/02/2003 2:12:12 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Conservatism is more than just looking out for the extreme rich, there's more to it than that. It's an ideology that wants to see everyone [except legal immigrants] succeed.

I surmise that's your position.

32 posted on 01/02/2003 2:14:55 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I'll get it? LOL You're the one trapped in the 1920's. How long will you make we wait?
33 posted on 01/02/2003 2:17:02 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
One can only imagine what boy does for a living. Must be he works for the government, immune from what is going in the real world to real Americans.
34 posted on 01/02/2003 2:19:51 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Just remember the depression boy... history has a way of repeating itself
35 posted on 01/02/2003 2:21:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
One can only imagine what boy does for a living. Must be he works for the government, immune from what is going in the real world to real Americans.

He thinks..LOL he is paid with tax dollars..now how do you suppose that they will pay him as the tax base shrinks..look for pay backs and give backs and unemployment..no one will be untouched..

36 posted on 01/02/2003 2:22:41 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: madfly
I recall hearing that NAFTA was a first step of our responding to the dreaded Eurpean Union [back then called the European Common Market]. So far, the EU is "Peeyoo".
37 posted on 01/02/2003 2:23:18 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Of course I'll keep the Depression in mind, just as I'll keep in mind the Smoot-Hawley Act.
38 posted on 01/02/2003 2:25:02 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
. . . what is going in the real world to real Americans.

Oh, here we go. Why don't you regale us with the story of your brother-in-law's second cousin, who lost his high-paying manufacturing job sewing Fruit-of-the-Loom labels onto men's underwear to someone in China (after first losing it to a H1-B).

39 posted on 01/02/2003 2:28:29 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
A little internet education


Please ask David L. Richter (Letters, 2-9-2000 "Depression’s Villian") how, exactly, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act could have caused the Great Depression, et al, when the Great Depression began with the stock market crash of October 1929, and the Smoot-Hawley Act became law in 1930? And if tariffs caused the Depression, why did the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922 in which customs levels were increased to the highest levels in US history instead act as part of the greatest boom of prosperity the nation had ever seen, the Roaring Twenties?

No, the real cause of the great depression was the policies of the Federal Reserve and Benjamin Strong, head of the New York Reserve Bank. Few western and southern banks had elected to become members of the Fed, so Strong enacted a plan to force them. The plan was to lure the farmers and tycoons of the west and south into easy credit loans, and then call them in en masse to cause a recession and the failure of the non-Fed banks. This contraction of credit was the first of several too many straws for the economy.

Another manipulation was the promotion of banker’s acceptances. The Fed set the discount rate artificially low and pledged to buy any unsold acceptances that were offered. Banks came in as buyers, knowing they could sell to the Fed. This unstable scheme was the second straw.

By 1920, Congress was getting suspicious of the Fed’s actions, but the expansion of the money supply by this time was so great that there would have been a popular uproar had the money supply been contracted, so Congress could do nothing. The roaring twenties ensued.

The last straw was the war bonds issued for WWI, which the government did not pay off. They couldn’t, actually - and here a short lesson might be in order. The Fed creates money out of thin air and loans it to the US government at interest - that is the where the whole concept of bonds come from. Bonds are debt the US owes to the holders of the bonds. The treasury receives the amount from the Fed and prints the Federal Reserve Notes (i.e. US dollars) and puts them into circulation. (This is why I am so amused when people think we can pay off the US debt. We can’t. If we did, US dollars would disappear into the void from which they sprang. And since all of the US dollars are created as debt, where do the interest payments come from? They don’t exist! - but that’s another letter.) By making it possible to borrow American dollars at one rate and invest them elsewhere at a higher rate, the Fed was deliberately moving money out of the US, with the gold reserves following. This was the contraction of the money supply that Congress had wished to avoid. Also, by the end of WWI, Congress had figured out they could use the Fed to obtain revenue without raising taxes, so the number of treasury bonds increased dramatically.

Now, the consequences of purchasing treasury bonds and other securities is that they end up in commercial banks and are used to expand bank credit. In 1910, consumer credit was only 10% of the nation’s retail sales - by 1929 credit transactions were 50%. The artificially low interest rates set by the Fed to push the acceptances fueled this trend.

Also from 1920 to 1929 there were three separate major business cycles, and several minor ones. In 1926, the Florida land boom collapsed. Real estate investment plummeted and stock investment soared. In 1928, the Fed, alarmed, tried to pull the plug by shifting their reserves to Time Deposits. In August 1929, the Fed decided to completely reverse its expansionist policy by selling Treasury Bonds on the open market and raising interest rates. The money supply contracted violently, and the bubble burst.

Unfortunately, Banks themselves had become great speculators in the market by this time, confident that "the permanently high plateau" had been reached. Previously, on February 6th 1929, the Federal Reserve issued a statement to its member banks that they should liquidate their holdings in the stock market. Analysis showed the likely result of the Fed’s policies, but many big banks did not listen and almost no smaller ones did.

So when August 1929 rolled around and the selling of Treasury Bonds began, most banks were unprepared, and the man-on-the-street had never had any clue at all. The crash wiped out banks and fortunes across the country.

Had the Fed reacted by easing the money crunch at this point, the Great Depression would never have occurred. Everything else that happened subsequently could have been avoided if the Federal Reserve had acted properly and loosened credit. Instead, it did just the opposite of these things, and millions of hapless loan holders lost everything as commercial banks, desperate for cash, called in loans on anything and everything all over the country. The years it took for these small businesses and families to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and start all over again were the Great Depression. There was no money available for them, and no means of obtaining loans. The Fed caused this - not trade. Instead of doing the right things, the Fed launched a series of "banking reforms" designed to force every bank to become a member and further entrench its control over the money supply. The government, seeing tax revenues disappear, forced more companies and families into bankruptcy through taxes and regulatory agencies. Unemployment began to spread, and the Great Depression didn’t end until WWII came along to put people back to work, expand credit, and infuse cash into the economy (through government deficit spending) - the very things the Fed should have done in the first place.

This is the true story of the Great Depression. This information is available to any objective researcher in any public library. As previously mentioned, in the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922 customs levels were increased to the highest levels in US history, yet this helped lead to the economic success of the Roaring Twenties. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 did not and could not have caused the Great Depression. It played no part whatsoever in the credit crunch and scarcity of money that were the true factors.



40 posted on 01/02/2003 2:30:28 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Conservatism is more than just looking out for the extreme rich, there's more to it than that. It's an ideology that wants to see everyone [except legal immigrants] succeed.

Yes I want to see every citizen legally here succeed, including immigrants. But I also want to see this government change immigration policy so it works once again in our interests and not everyone elses. They can start by killing the H1-B scam until all those unemployed Americans in the tech industry are back at work. And they can lower the legal immigrant numbers so communities aren't so overwhelmed.

What we have going on now is nothing less than a policy of greed, flooding the market with cheap labor to enrich the pockets of campaign contributors.

41 posted on 01/02/2003 2:37:03 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
I recall hearing that NAFTA was a first step of our responding to the dreaded Eurpean Union [back then called the European Common Market]. So far, the EU is "Peeyoo".

A unified market and free trade make excellent sense IF the parties are economically some what comparable (as the EU is and we would be with Canada ) ..but we have been paired in unfair competition..Americans asked to compete against $3 a day workers..

As I pointed out to another poster that complained the real issue was taxes and government regulations ..he is right..If the government stops collecting corporate taxes and drops all regulations and drops the minimun wage to 10 cents and hour business will return to America..

If you want a future open a school that teaches toilet washing and floor polishing..that is the future of America's middle class

42 posted on 01/02/2003 2:42:18 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
LOL. The EU is a disaster.
43 posted on 01/02/2003 2:45:04 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
As for low wages, plants have shut down in Mexico and moved to China. At the same time, China has been suffering from massive layoffs. Low wages aren't everything. Two big problems the US has is a bad attitude toward manufacturing and the rich.
44 posted on 01/02/2003 2:47:59 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Why don't you regale us with the story of your brother-in-law's second cousin, who lost his high-paying manufacturing job sewing Fruit-of-the-Loom labels onto men's underwear to someone in China (after first losing it to a H1-B).

You don't think that's really going on? It is, get online and talk to people in the Carolinas. It may not have been the best job in the world, but it put food on the table and supported their families. The companies moved to Mexico thanks to NAFTA in order to pay slave labor without lowering the cost of the product one cent in the US.

Someone is getting rich, and they're doing it both off the backs of Americans and those south of the border. And your total lack of sensitivity to it tells me you most likely do work in government.

45 posted on 01/02/2003 2:49:26 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I wasn't suggesting that Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression. However, a good number of economists argue that it exacerbated the Depression.
46 posted on 01/02/2003 2:52:14 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
"It may not have been the best job in the world, but it put food on the table and supported their families."

Amen Brother! It's very wrong to put down ANYONE in manufacturing. Now only 10% of the labor pool, we contribute to FICA, to the income tax, and we generate several more jobs in our local communities with our pay checks. If manufacturing labor were to go up to just 15%, we would be roaring right now.
47 posted on 01/02/2003 3:05:09 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
If manufacturing labor were to go up to just 15%, we would be roaring right now.

The response by the NAFTA supporters was those that were dislocated could be retrained. To what- computer programmers? Maybe, but the problem with that idea is they exploded the H1-B program and now American tech workers have to compete with cheaper labor from India and China. And when those Mexican rustbuckets start barreling down the highways, how many trucking jobs will be lost to cheap labor?

No good paying jobs, no middle class. That's where we're headed.

48 posted on 01/02/2003 3:25:48 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Mexico is suffering from the hunt for ever lower wages..the reason for the layoffs in China has NOTHING to do with their slave labor directly..it has to do with.....Da daaaaaaa the loss of a market..unemployed or under employed people do not have money to spend..So they are simply adjusting their production to the new 2nd world reality.They will continue to be the free trade magnet

The EU does not work well (but could) because they are too protective..

49 posted on 01/02/2003 4:23:45 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I wasn't suggesting that Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression. However, a good number of economists argue that it exacerbated the Depression.

Yes you were....you were trying to imply protectionism caused the great depression..well ...the next crash will be the direct result of the free trade policies you seem to love so much

50 posted on 01/02/2003 4:26:09 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson