CAFTA Passes House

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: TheLiberalTruth

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Yeah NAFTA was so bad, remember the terrible economy of the late 90s....

I dont think we can survive another period of record job growth, economic growth, record home purchases, income growth, etc., etc.

And yet, since b*sh has been in office, there has been nothing even in the league of the amount of growth we had with clinton. Immagine that.

So does your changing the subject mean you can't dispute that NAFTA was a huge benefit to our economy?

The great economy in the late '90s was largely due to the tech boom, which was a combination of the newness of the Internet and overzealous venture capitalists. If it wasn't for that boom, we would have felt the affects of NAFTA a lot sooner.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Yeah NAFTA was so bad, remember the terrible economy of the late 90s....

I dont think we can survive another period of record job growth, economic growth, record home purchases, income growth, etc., etc.

Heh. These hypocritical liberals want to moan and cry about how bad Free Trade is, when in fact it's the best thing can happen both here and for Central America. $2/hr. is about 3 times what those poor people there are making now, but OH NO we can't have that! :roll:

Proof positive that the entirety of the liberal agenda is about making sure that poor people STAY poor.

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe the Dems should stop being a party of obstruction and allow voting and democracy to proceed.

Liberal Socialists like to fool themselves into believing that it is possible to have a democracy without a democratic economic system.

Originally posted by: EatSpam
The great economy in the late '90s was largely due to the tech boom, which was a combination of the newness of the Internet and overzealous venture capitalists. If it wasn't for that boom, we would have felt the affects of NAFTA a lot sooner.

And just where did those "overzealous venture capitalists" get the capital to lend and invest? Thin air? Money grows on trees? :roll:

 

[Drift3r]

Yes now all those illegal immigrants are going to rush back home because of CAFTA and look for all those new jobs just like they did because of NAFTA. Wait why go home when you can now get a guest worker visa for digging ditches and working at McDonalds, Walmart, etc... :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our corporations, not Costa Rica.

Fixed

I forget, who employs offshore people people while laying off US workers again?

I know, terrible we do what is best for our "corporations", stockholders and CEO's.

This is terrible, i think we should tear down walls and release ourselves. Dont let our US workers compete for jobs because they get paid too much!

Fixed for the Republican point of view.

Even the drafting Senator of NAFTA has come out against CAFTA (and NAFTA too for that matter). The promises of more markerts for our products has lead to cheap labor, little or no economic improvement in the countries (Mexico) and a loss of manufacting jobs in this country at a pace never before seen.

Oh well, would you like fries with that? I guess Walmart and McDonads needs engineers too (not just low quality production jobs lost when the manufacturing leaves).

Is it terrible we shed inefficienies in our economy?
I dont think it is. With your train of thought we should have put up barriers for people to move off the farms and into the factory. We could be like China with forward thinkers like you 100 years ago.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: TheLiberalTruth

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Yeah NAFTA was so bad, remember the terrible economy of the late 90s....

I dont think we can survive another period of record job growth, economic growth, record home purchases, income growth, etc., etc.

And yet, since b*sh has been in office, there has been nothing even in the league of the amount of growth we had with clinton. Immagine that.

So does your changing the subject mean you can't dispute that NAFTA was a huge benefit to our economy?

The great economy in the late '90s was largely due to the tech boom, which was a combination of the newness of the Internet and overzealous venture capitalists. If it wasn't for that boom, we would have felt the affects of NAFTA a lot sooner.

THANK YOU !

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur
Manufacturing jobs pay a helluva lot more in the States than do the service industry jobs.

Trade deficits are irrelevant? :roll:

I doubt that, what is the avg factory workers wage?

You will see higher margins on service related jobs than manufacturing.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our country, not Costa Rica.

Complete this sentence: "Free trade with countries that pay their workers $2/day is good for the American worker because"

it increases competition and lowers prices worldwide. This is only bad if you hold Marxist ideals about competition and class struggle.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our corporations, not Costa Rica.

Fixed

I forget, who employs offshore people people while laying off US workers again?

I know, terrible we do what is best for our "corporations", stockholders and CEO's.

This is terrible, i think we should tear down walls and release ourselves. Dont let our US workers compete for jobs because they get paid too much!

Fixed for the Republican point of view.

Even the drafting Senator of NAFTA has come out against CAFTA (and NAFTA too for that matter). The promises of more markerts for our products has lead to cheap labor, little or no economic improvement in the countries (Mexico) and a loss of manufacting jobs in this country at a pace never before seen.

Oh well, would you like fries with that? I guess Walmart and McDonads needs engineers too (not just low quality production jobs lost when the manufacturing leaves).

Is it terrible we shed inefficienies in our economy?
I dont think it is. With your train of thought we should have put up barriers for people to move off the farms and into the factory. We could be like China with forward thinkers like you 100 years ago.

Ah, so working US people, including plant managers, professionals and engineers are inefficienies?

I would rather have one good operator running an automated robot cell with an open plant in the US with maintenance people and engineers than 1000 people running the stuff in Mexico. If you call that inefficient, then so be it. There are far more people other than just "lowly (as you people describe it)" production workers losing their jobs here.

I could care less if the rest of the world moves up in standard of living because "WE" have to lift them out. They need to lift themselves. :|

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our corporations, not Costa Rica.

Fixed

I forget, who employs offshore people people while laying off US workers again?

I know, terrible we do what is best for our "corporations", stockholders and CEO's.

This is terrible, i think we should tear down walls and release ourselves. Dont let our US workers compete for jobs because they get paid too much!

Fixed for the Republican point of view.

Even the drafting Senator of NAFTA has come out against CAFTA (and NAFTA too for that matter). The promises of more markerts for our products has lead to cheap labor, little or no economic improvement in the countries (Mexico) and a loss of manufacting jobs in this country at a pace never before seen.

Oh well, would you like fries with that? I guess Walmart and McDonads needs engineers too (not just low quality production jobs lost when the manufacturing leaves).

Is it terrible we shed inefficienies in our economy?
I dont think it is. With your train of thought we should have put up barriers for people to move off the farms and into the factory. We could be like China with forward thinkers like you 100 years ago.

Ah, so working US people, including plant managers, professionals and engineers are inefficienies?

I would rather have one good operator with an open plant in the US with maintenance people and engineers than 1000 people running the stuff in Mexico. If you call that inefficient, then so be it. There are far more people other than just "lowly (as you people describe it)" production workers losing their jobs here.

I could care less if the rest of the world moves up in standard of living because "WE" have to lift them out. They need to lift themselves. :|

So how do you feel about welfare?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our corporations, not Costa Rica.

Fixed

I forget, who employs offshore people people while laying off US workers again?

I know, terrible we do what is best for our "corporations", stockholders and CEO's.

This is terrible, i think we should tear down walls and release ourselves. Dont let our US workers compete for jobs because they get paid too much!

Fixed for the Republican point of view.

Even the drafting Senator of NAFTA has come out against CAFTA (and NAFTA too for that matter). The promises of more markerts for our products has lead to cheap labor, little or no economic improvement in the countries (Mexico) and a loss of manufacting jobs in this country at a pace never before seen.

Oh well, would you like fries with that? I guess Walmart and McDonads needs engineers too (not just low quality production jobs lost when the manufacturing leaves).

Is it terrible we shed inefficienies in our economy?
I dont think it is. With your train of thought we should have put up barriers for people to move off the farms and into the factory. We could be like China with forward thinkers like you 100 years ago.

Ah, so working US people, including plant managers, professionals and engineers are inefficienies?

I would rather have one good operator with an open plant in the US with maintenance people and engineers than 1000 people running the stuff in Mexico. If you call that inefficient, then so be it. There are far more people other than just "lowly (as you people describe it)" production workers losing their jobs here.

I could care less if the rest of the world moves up in standard of living because "WE" have to lift them out. They need to lift themselves. :|

Yes when you have to pay a worker 5x as much as somebody else in a different country that just introduced costs to your product. If that product costs more it will demand a higher premium. That means a company who has a a lower wage worker making that same product will undercut you and run your out of business.

It is terrible to mark jobs in this country and the people who work them as inefficient. But the simple fact is we dont livein a vacuum where the same business models that worked 40 years ago work today. This is a global market and global markets create more competition and thus more efficiency.

And I agree on the surface what I just said sounds horrible. But we can either acknlowedge it or stick our head in the sand, put up barriers, and 20 years from now wonder why our economy is stagnant and China, Japan, and India have surpassed us as economic powers and we have high unemployment due to corporations leaving the country or running out of business.

I prefer we keep on the bleeding edge rather than trail. Because once your trail you lose the initiative and that is tough to regain.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: EatSpam
The great economy in the late '90s was largely due to the tech boom, which was a combination of the newness of the Internet and overzealous venture capitalists. If it wasn't for that boom, we would have felt the affects of NAFTA a lot sooner.

THANK YOU !

For what are you thanking him? You'd have to be absolutely clueless about economics to believe that.

The '90s economy was created by liquidity. Banks had more money to lend and investors had more money to invest. The source of that funds was lower interest rates and an overall strong economy. And that economy is still going strong today, except now it's mostly in real estate. The post- Tech Boom / 9-11 recession lasted 3 whole quarters.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our corporations, not Costa Rica.

Fixed

I forget, who employs offshore people people while laying off US workers again?

I know, terrible we do what is best for our "corporations", stockholders and CEO's.

This is terrible, i think we should tear down walls and release ourselves. Dont let our US workers compete for jobs because they get paid too much!

Fixed for the Republican point of view.

Even the drafting Senator of NAFTA has come out against CAFTA (and NAFTA too for that matter). The promises of more markerts for our products has lead to cheap labor, little or no economic improvement in the countries (Mexico) and a loss of manufacting jobs in this country at a pace never before seen.

Oh well, would you like fries with that? I guess Walmart and McDonads needs engineers too (not just low quality production jobs lost when the manufacturing leaves).

Is it terrible we shed inefficienies in our economy?
I dont think it is. With your train of thought we should have put up barriers for people to move off the farms and into the factory. We could be like China with forward thinkers like you 100 years ago.

Ah, so working US people, including plant managers, professionals and engineers are inefficienies?

I would rather have one good operator with an open plant in the US with maintenance people and engineers than 1000 people running the stuff in Mexico. If you call that inefficient, then so be it. There are far more people other than just "lowly (as you people describe it)" production workers losing their jobs here.

I could care less if the rest of the world moves up in standard of living because "WE" have to lift them out. They need to lift themselves. :|

So how do you feel about welfare?

I'm not sure how this is revelant, but welfare, the way it is today, sucks. Too easy for people to get on the system and stay, even with new welfare reforms, on it. Too easy for people to get on lifetime SSI and lay on their ass.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: conjur
Manufacturing jobs pay a helluva lot more in the States than do the service industry jobs.

Trade deficits are irrelevant? :roll:

Oh really, lawyers and doctors make less than factory workers? That's interesting news.

Do you have some evidence that average wages went down?

And yes, they're irrelevant, why would they matter?

Doctors and lawyers are not your typical service worker and more importantly, not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer. But you're just playing dumb. When he said service worker, you knew he meant retail sales, burger flipper, sandwich artist, etc.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Again, show me a single piece of evidence that average wages declined. Yes there are service jobs that pay less than manufacturing ones, and htere are ones that pay more. Do you have any evidence that the net effect was a loss in income? Any at all?

Still no evidence that a trade deficit is harmful.

And so you can't argue that the $1 trillion figure completely off? I thought so. Well you just keep making up numbers and defending those that do.

You're a complete troll.

More money going out at the rate of (corrected) nearly 800 billion per year and rising will eventually, combined with $400 billion budget deficits will place the US economy into recession/depression.

I've already said that I should have said "NEARLY" $1 Trillion.

$650 billion is not "NEARLY" 1 trillion. Its off by 35%. That's a D.

You still haven't given any evidence that a trade deficit will harm the U.S.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: TheLiberalTruth

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Yeah NAFTA was so bad, remember the terrible economy of the late 90s....

I dont think we can survive another period of record job growth, economic growth, record home purchases, income growth, etc., etc.

And yet, since b*sh has been in office, there has been nothing even in the league of the amount of growth we had with clinton. Immagine that.

So does your changing the subject mean you can't dispute that NAFTA was a huge benefit to our economy?

The great economy in the late '90s was largely due to the tech boom, which was a combination of the newness of the Internet and overzealous venture capitalists. If it wasn't for that boom, we would have felt the affects of NAFTA a lot sooner.

So the growth in the 6 years after NAFTA had nothing to do with it. Right.

So basically you're saying you have no evidence that NAFTA hurt the U.S., and the evidence saying it helped the U.S. doesnt count because...you dont want it to? That's about all I can see.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our corporations, not Costa Rica.

Fixed

I forget, who employs offshore people people while laying off US workers again?

I know, terrible we do what is best for our "corporations", stockholders and CEO's.

This is terrible, i think we should tear down walls and release ourselves. Dont let our US workers compete for jobs because they get paid too much!

Fixed for the Republican point of view.

Even the drafting Senator of NAFTA has come out against CAFTA (and NAFTA too for that matter). The promises of more markerts for our products has lead to cheap labor, little or no economic improvement in the countries (Mexico) and a loss of manufacting jobs in this country at a pace never before seen.

Oh well, would you like fries with that? I guess Walmart and McDonads needs engineers too (not just low quality production jobs lost when the manufacturing leaves).

Is it terrible we shed inefficienies in our economy?
I dont think it is. With your train of thought we should have put up barriers for people to move off the farms and into the factory. We could be like China with forward thinkers like you 100 years ago.

Ah, so working US people, including plant managers, professionals and engineers are inefficienies?

I would rather have one good operator with an open plant in the US with maintenance people and engineers than 1000 people running the stuff in Mexico. If you call that inefficient, then so be it. There are far more people other than just "lowly (as you people describe it)" production workers losing their jobs here.

I could care less if the rest of the world moves up in standard of living because "WE" have to lift them out. They need to lift themselves. :|

So how do you feel about welfare?

I'm not sure how this is revelant, but welfare, the way it is today, sucks. Too easy for people to get on the system and stay, even with new welfare reforms, on it. Too easy for people to get on lifetime SSI and lay on their ass.

This is relevant because it is the exact same thing you're talking about. Both groups, welfare recipients and foreigners who receive jobs because of free trade, are in the exact same boat. They both have the US government to thank for their income, while contributing nothing directly to the US government. Foreigners, you say, should "lift themselves," while welfare recipients do not face the same fate (based on your beliefs).

Think of free trade as welfare for other nations.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our corporations, not Costa Rica.

Fixed

I forget, who employs offshore people people while laying off US workers again?

I know, terrible we do what is best for our "corporations", stockholders and CEO's.

This is terrible, i think we should tear down walls and release ourselves. Dont let our US workers compete for jobs because they get paid too much!

Fixed for the Republican point of view.

Even the drafting Senator of NAFTA has come out against CAFTA (and NAFTA too for that matter). The promises of more markerts for our products has lead to cheap labor, little or no economic improvement in the countries (Mexico) and a loss of manufacting jobs in this country at a pace never before seen.

Oh well, would you like fries with that? I guess Walmart and McDonads needs engineers too (not just low quality production jobs lost when the manufacturing leaves).

Is it terrible we shed inefficienies in our economy?
I dont think it is. With your train of thought we should have put up barriers for people to move off the farms and into the factory. We could be like China with forward thinkers like you 100 years ago.

Ah, so working US people, including plant managers, professionals and engineers are inefficienies?

I would rather have one good operator running an automated robot cell with an open plant in the US with maintenance people and engineers than 1000 people running the stuff in Mexico. If you call that inefficient, then so be it. There are far more people other than just "lowly (as you people describe it)" production workers losing their jobs here.

I could care less if the rest of the world moves up in standard of living because "WE" have to lift them out. They need to lift themselves. :|

Ah, and it is revealed.

Funny how letting them compete with American workers and not using unfair subsidies and trade barriers is "lifting them out." I'd call it letting them compete on an even playing field. I guess the idea of those funny brown people from down south getting jobs bothers you a little too much eh? Its okay if robots take jobs from Americans, but not Mexicans.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Ah, and it is revealed.

Funny how letting them compete with American workers and not using unfair subsidies and trade barriers is "lifting them out." I'd call it letting them compete on an even playing field. I guess the idea of those funny brown people from down south getting jobs bothers you a little too much eh? Its okay if robots take jobs from Americans, but not Mexicans.

Zing.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Again, show me a single piece of evidence that average wages declined. Yes there are service jobs that pay less than manufacturing ones, and htere are ones that pay more. Do you have any evidence that the net effect was a loss in income? Any at all?

Still no evidence that a trade deficit is harmful.

And so you can't argue that the $1 trillion figure completely off? I thought so. Well you just keep making up numbers and defending those that do.

You're a complete troll.

More money going out at the rate of (corrected) nearly 800 billion per year and rising will eventually, combined with $400 billion budget deficits will place the US economy into recession/depression.

I've already said that I should have said "NEARLY" $1 Trillion.

$650 billion is not "NEARLY" 1 trillion. Its off by 35%. That's a D.

You still haven't given any evidence that a trade deficit will harm the U.S.

672 billion for 2004.

Projected between 750 and 800 billion for 2005! (Smart@ss! I already said approaching 1 tillion in revision. Do you want me to spell all the words out for you one more time?)

It's 2005, last time I looked at the calander.

You're right. I don't have a damn bit of evidence other than there are many economist and congressmen/women who are worried about the trade deficit, budget deficit and the impact that it will have on the future US economy. I guess they don't count either.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: conjur
Manufacturing jobs pay a helluva lot more in the States than do the service industry jobs.

Trade deficits are irrelevant? :roll:

Oh really, lawyers and doctors make less than factory workers? That's interesting news.

Do you have some evidence that average wages went down?

And yes, they're irrelevant, why would they matter?

Doctors and lawyers are not your typical service worker and more importantly, not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer. But you're just playing dumb. When he said service worker, you knew he meant retail sales, burger flipper, sandwich artist, etc.

So we get to pick and choose now? I am sure there are a few factory jobs that pay 8 bucks an hour also.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: conjur
Manufacturing jobs pay a helluva lot more in the States than do the service industry jobs.

Trade deficits are irrelevant? :roll:

Oh really, lawyers and doctors make less than factory workers? That's interesting news.

Do you have some evidence that average wages went down?

And yes, they're irrelevant, why would they matter?

Doctors and lawyers are not your typical service worker and more importantly, not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer. But you're just playing dumb. When he said service worker, you knew he meant retail sales, burger flipper, sandwich artist, etc.

Of course that's what he meant, but that doesnt change the fact that service workers make up a lot more than that and no one has presented any evidence that factory workers all became burger flippers. In fact, since burger flippres are stlil the illegal and legal immigrants and teenagers that they've always been, its extremely unlikely that is a service job that factory workers moved to.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
15 Dems voted for pro-corporate raping of Central America;

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll443.xml

We do what's best for our corporations, not Costa Rica.

Fixed

I forget, who employs offshore people people while laying off US workers again?

I know, terrible we do what is best for our "corporations", stockholders and CEO's.

This is terrible, i think we should tear down walls and release ourselves. Dont let our US workers compete for jobs because they get paid too much!

Fixed for the Republican point of view.

Even the drafting Senator of NAFTA has come out against CAFTA (and NAFTA too for that matter). The promises of more markerts for our products has lead to cheap labor, little or no economic improvement in the countries (Mexico) and a loss of manufacting jobs in this country at a pace never before seen.

Oh well, would you like fries with that? I guess Walmart and McDonads needs engineers too (not just low quality production jobs lost when the manufacturing leaves).

Is it terrible we shed inefficienies in our economy?
I dont think it is. With your train of thought we should have put up barriers for people to move off the farms and into the factory. We could be like China with forward thinkers like you 100 years ago.

Ah, so working US people, including plant managers, professionals and engineers are inefficienies?

I would rather have one good operator with an open plant in the US with maintenance people and engineers than 1000 people running the stuff in Mexico. If you call that inefficient, then so be it. There are far more people other than just "lowly (as you people describe it)" production workers losing their jobs here.

I could care less if the rest of the world moves up in standard of living because "WE" have to lift them out. They need to lift themselves. :|

So how do you feel about welfare?

I'm not sure how this is revelant, but welfare, the way it is today, sucks. Too easy for people to get on the system and stay, even with new welfare reforms, on it. Too easy for people to get on lifetime SSI and lay on their ass.

This is relevant because it is the exact same thing you're talking about. Both groups, welfare recipients and foreigners who receive jobs because of free trade, are in the exact same boat. They both have the US government to thank for their income, while contributing nothing directly to the US government. Foreigners, you say, should "lift themselves," while welfare recipients do not face the same fate (based on your beliefs).

Think of free trade as welfare for other nations.

I'm not quite sure I understand you. I think welfare recipients should lift themselves out. Welfare should be an absolute last resort safety net. Not a way of life.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

This is relevant because it is the exact same thing you're talking about. Both groups, welfare recipients and foreigners who receive jobs because of free trade, are in the exact same boat. They both have the US government to thank for their income, while contributing nothing directly to the US government. Foreigners, you say, should "lift themselves," while welfare recipients do not face the same fate (based on your beliefs).

Think of free trade as welfare for other nations.

WE're not giving them money. We give them money in exchange for PRODUCTS.

Trade is not welfare by definition.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: joshsquall

This is relevant because it is the exact same thing you're talking about. Both groups, welfare recipients and foreigners who receive jobs because of free trade, are in the exact same boat. They both have the US government to thank for their income, while contributing nothing directly to the US government. Foreigners, you say, should "lift themselves," while welfare recipients do not face the same fate (based on your beliefs).

Think of free trade as welfare for other nations.

WE're not giving them money. We give them money in exchange for PRODUCTS.

Trade is not welfare by definition.

I'm not talking about the trading aspect. I'm talking about opening ourselves for free trade, which basically means outsourcing to poorer nations. Our corporations give them jobs (or even move there).

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: conjur
Manufacturing jobs pay a helluva lot more in the States than do the service industry jobs.

Trade deficits are irrelevant? :roll:

Oh really, lawyers and doctors make less than factory workers? That's interesting news.

Do you have some evidence that average wages went down?

And yes, they're irrelevant, why would they matter?

Doctors and lawyers are not your typical service worker and more importantly, not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer. But you're just playing dumb. When he said service worker, you knew he meant retail sales, burger flipper, sandwich artist, etc.

So we get to pick and choose now? I am sure there are a few factory jobs that pay 8 bucks an hour also.

8 bux an hour isn't bad money in the rural south. Too bad that's too much for Big Business...