Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Free slave labor and pollution for sale!

Both [Rep.] Smith and [Rep.]Tauscher accused House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) of supporting the weak labor and environmental provisions in CAFTA in an effort to build the case with business donors that they should abandon the Democratic Party altogether. "There is no question Tom DeLay and other Republicans are saying 'Don't give to Democrats,' " Smith said.

Dan Allen, a spokesman for DeLay, countered: "These groups can decide for themselves, and, sadly for the Democrats, the record proves that House Republicans have consistently supported efforts to expand our economy as well as expand foreign markets for American goods and services."

The high-tech industry has been one of the most outspoken supporters of free-trade pacts, and its leaders contend the Dominican Republic and Central American countries offer substantial export and investment opportunities.

These "free-trade pacts" are not free trade agreements at all. The pacts intend to facilitate trade in some areas, but they end up increasing protectionism in areas like copyrights and patents, and they do nothing to remove barriers that protect highly paid professionals, like doctors and lawyers, from foreign competition. These things only exist to fill the campaign purses of morally bankrupt gops.

While CAFTA is a good idea and a necessary pact that benefits all but a few sugar corporations that mouch off farm subsidies, the form of CAFTA that the Democrats oppose is one with little protection for workers. Dems aren't against free trade in principle; they are against trade which enslaves workers in the name of "growth".

Despite the beliefs of the market worshippers, growth is only good if it does not hinder or worsen the quality of life. After all, aren't we all working so we can better our lives?


  1. Note: the title is the title for a reason. free contridicts both for sale and slave. you figure out the rest. :)

  2. are workers who feel exploited "allowed" to quit in your world?

  3. My world? You mean the real world? In central and south america, they don't always have the option.

  4. oh, i see. they are forced to work at gunpoint? some story you have there.

    why is the "wake-up wal-mart" site so misleading and non-transparent? i wonder if it has anything to do with being run by union thugs ........

  5. Wake up Walmart is very transparent. That's why there was a front page article online in the Post today with all the names you want. The people that are doing it are former political directors for Dean, Kerry, and Clark.

  6. No one is forced to work at gun point but some people dont have a choice... they work to fill their stomachs, please dont talk stuff that doesnt make sense anonymous

  7. no choice? no choice at all? give me a break.

    this is not a situation unique to these countries. if you do not work in the US, EU, Asia, (anywhere) chances are you end up with an empty stomach.

    from the phony wal- mart site:

    The staff of the House Committee on Education and Workforce estimates that because of the low wages of Wal-Mart, a Wal-Mart employee may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of around $2,103 in the form of federal public assistance programs. With approximately 1.3 million US employees and growing, this amounts to a total of $2.7 billion a year.

    correction, the Democratic Staff of the Cmte. produced the "report" cited. what do you expect from a socialistic/neo-communist party bought and paid for by union thugs? the truth? HA!

  8. leftists are so tedious:


    God. get a grip you socialist parasites..

  9. "if you do not work in the US, EU, Asia, (anywhere) chances are you end up with an empty stomach."

    EXACTLY MY POINT! These people don't have a choice where they work. They don't have the skills nor the means to the skills that we have in the US. CAFTA has few provisions for the protection of workers, like minimum wages, for instance. US companies can go into a CAFTA company and set up virtual sweatshops (like WALFART!) and the countries are not obliged to do a damn thing. The people ARE forced to work at a certain level.

    I am not against free trade, nor am I against outsourcing, but they have to be done responsibly and morally, something that corporations tend not to have.

  10. they do not have the skills? how very arrogant of the left.

    why don't you get these other countries to implement a minimum wage?

    you must believe in the social-humanist economic model which is designed to shackle the entre. spirit .....

  11. I am glad that you can distinguish between being pro-free trade and the current trade agreements that the Bush Administration and the GOP congressional leadership wants. There is a difference between being pro-business and being pro-growth (in the real sense of the word, not as code for tax cuts).

    Ideally, we could lower the costs of goods to consumers while simultainously improving labor and environmental conditions around the world. I think it is at least possible, whereas the current GOP leadership see it as factually impossible to have less trade restrictions and better living conditions for everyone.

    Either that, or they just don't care about anything but money...or maybe it is a little of both.

  12. i forget who backed and signed NAFTA into law?

    when it comes to environmental standards, start with the EU. they are so woefully over the limits of kyoto it is pathetic. usual socialist schtick, all talk - no action.

  13. Clinton signed NAFTA. Clinton is pro-business, not pro-growth-at-the-expense-of-quality-of- life.

    What is your point? The post said I was pro-free trade as long as it did not create a culture of indentured servitude.

    You are a typical righty, just insulting to insult without thinking about what was actually written.