Not necessarily backwards.
 

I don't see it that way. Cancer and other degenerative diseases destroy citizens lives. Even if the source is within the body, it is still an attack on the body. I want the government to stop these cancer cells or other such bad genes from screwing up my body. Something does not have to be caused by a sentient human to threaten the safety and security of the citizens.

And I can't believe Penske really want to leave this to the marketplace. As I said the market place will eventually get to all of this stuff it will just take a lot longer. I don't want to be worm food when the discover the cure for Alzherimers.

CAFTA
 

Because that's not how it works. Sometimes, you have your shot and that's it. If you want to get other countries to lower NTB in exchange for lower tariffs, you have to do that when you lower tariffs. You're saying we should come back to the table later, without leverage, and say "pretty please?"

Is that the best you can do to explain why it's good for U.S. business to compete against foreign companies which don't have to meet the same labor and environmental standards?

Yes, it's looking like "all laws are compromise" was the best you can do.

Every other free-trade agreement until this one has made progress in that direction. Either you're setting your sights too low, or you're hostile to what the rest of the world thinks about when they think about free trade.

Actually, that distinction has nothing at all to do with anything I was talking about. But thanks for playing.

I agree. I was just imitating you.

CAFTA
 

You are the only one that thinks Labor and environmental rules lower NTBs. Actually you are the only one that has is backwards. Generally labor and environmental rules are considered NTBs. You are the only one that considers not having them NTBs. And cutting tariffs are good for us. Cutting tariffs are not something we give away to get something else. Cutting them is good for us. So we don't say, "there will be no cutting tariffs unless you adopt our labor and environmental standards". If we do that and they don't accept then we don't get tariff cuts. Which is the most important thing. It is like two parent agreeing to put a fence around the neighborhood because it benefits everyone (tariff cuts). But even if the fence protects your kids you then say "I won't accpet the fence unless you also build a swing set for my kids like your kids have". And you decide to vote against the fence, even though it improves the status quo because - you could have gotten a swing set.


Its all I need to come up with. The current administration does not think (along with most everyone else) that the lack of standard business regulatoins are NTBs. So you are not going to get a bill with stronger standards. So this is good as you are going to get. So if it as good as you are going to get and it improves the status quo, why not vote for it?


In my opinion it should end the discussion.


You consider it progress other people don't. Either way the labor and environmental standards having nothing to do with free trade. You may think they do by your tortured analysis of a level playing field but they are a side issue.



Actually it is right on point. Am I wrong in saying you wanted me to look into the mirror when I asked why should we push for something that supposedly helps business when business does not want it? You seem to think this level playing field (same enviro, safety and labor regulations) are so important for our businesses to be able to compete. Othewise, like you said "they would have one hand tied behind their back". I said, business doesn't seem to be concerned about this issues. They don't seem to mind having one hand tied behind their back. And you said you knew better than the businesses. Like I said, business knows what is best for business. And if they want tariff reductions and don't care about your level playing field I would tend to think that if we are trying to do what is good for business we should listen to them. Doesn't that make sense.



You seem to think that when you say what business wants and I say what business wants both our assertions have equal validity. That is absurd. When I say business wants to cut tariffs and don't care about your level playing field, that is because that is what the Chamber of Commerce and every other business seems to want. They constantly lobby for tariff cuts and free trade agreements. They never lobby for them to include the stuff you think they should think is important. When you say business is concerned about your version of a level playing field, I have never heard a business complain about a trade pact because there were no labor or environmental standards. I work a lot with the board of the California Chamber of Commerce and do joint projests with them. I think I have pretty good standing to say what American businesses want when it comes to free trade.

CAFTA
 

God help me, I'm going to try one more time. Then I will say no more about it.

Let's think of it in terms of a hypothetical. Let's assume that there is a "perfect" (defined as "including everything that Spanky wants, and nothing else") draft free trade agreement between the US and Hypoistan. Hypoistan is a Third World country that is (outside of South Carolina) the only source of Hypoicide, a chemical essential to the USAF's new B-3 Really, Really Invisible Bomber, as well as the active ingredient in a very tasty new Frito-Lay product called HypoChips. They also provide call center services for Microsoft, and make very fashionable leather bags.

Let's assume that there is a group of Spankists in Congress who agree with President Spanky, but not enough of them to pass or ratify the "perfect" agreement.

Let's assume that just to the left of the Spankists are a group who like free trade, but who think that the "perfect" agreement needs to require Hypoistan to enforce its laws on child labor so that 5 year olds actually stop spending 18 hours a day in the dangerously unsafe Hypoicide factories, and enforce the environmental laws on pumping sludge into the water. This group thinks that this non-enforcement makes Hypoistan's products cheaper than they would otherwise be, since there are significant cost savings associated with using child labor and in freely pumping sludge. They, added to the core Spankists, will equal enough votes for passage.

Let's assume that just to the right of the Spankists are a group who like free trade, but who (a) are from South Carolina, and are worried that the influx of foreign Hypoicide will cripple their local factories, or (b) are national defense hawks, and are very concerned about what will happen after cheap Hypoicide floods the market, putting US companies out of business, and forcing the DoD to rely upon a foreign source for this essential chemical. The rightists also add enough votes to the core Spankists to get a deal passed.

President Spanky (after trying to crack a few heads) is pissed to discover that he can't get a "perfect" agreement passed, so he grumbles a bit, and decides to cobble together an unpure, imperfect deal. Since the rightists are members of his political party, he goes to them for the votes. He assures the rightists that the DoD will give no-bid contracts to domestic Hypoicide producers, ensuring that South Carolina will keep its factories and that the US will not have to rely on a bunch of commies for this vital part of the national defense. The treaty, as modified into a no longer "perfect" or pure free trade agreement, is approved.

Given all that, how, exactly, are those who would vote for a free trade bill with Hypositan if it had the labor/environmental provisions any less partisan than the president who caved on pure free trade to appease his party? Or the ones who only voted for it when the subsidy was added for their benefit?

Not necessarily backwards.
 

If they were not suffering from Alzheimer's, what would Alzheimer's patients contribute to the national defense?

Let's be real here. If you're concerned health effects about national security, better to focus on prophylactic rather than therapeutic measures. Lose weight, eat right, stop smoking, drive safely, use alcohol and pot in moderation. Stem cell research, at first blush, will principally benefit a very small segment of the US population. Those cancers that kill the highest number of Americans - lung cancer, colon cancer - can be reduced by behavioral modification. Diabetes is rising because of obesity. All of these can be ameliorated by means less expensive than stem cell research, and will provide greater gains in terms of enhancing safety and security of our citizens. Neurodegenerative diseases - can't do much about those, but how many people get them and at what stages of life?

The reason why we should fund SCR, and space exploration and oceanic exploration and brain function research, is simpler than national defense. We are the USA. We are the No. 1 nation and the greatest democracy on the planet. We should fucking act like it. We should fund all the research we can, and we should fund that research because we can, and because (cue Animal House theme) Knowledge is Good, dammit. There is no knowledge that is bad - it's what people do with it. People around the world should be looking to us to lead the way in every aspect of human endeavor that is good and productive. We should not be fucking debating if intelligent design is an acceptable alternative to evolution, or if faith-based policy should trump rational analysis. The Romans were pandering to the lowest common denominator while the barbarians were climbing over the walls. The Romans forgot they were mature, rational beings.

For the record, I lost a parent to Alzheimers.

CAFTA
 

Mmmmmm............HypoChips.

Not necessarily backwards.
 

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

CAFTA
 

1) True, but they are a bargaining chip.
2) What is good for "us" is not necessarily good for the relevant organized political constituencies.

Intellectually they do not. Politically they do. The giant sucking sound is still heard in union halls throughout the US.

Yes, but it's a truism. Businesses want tariff reductions only when it helps them. Sometimes tariffs help them, which is why the anti-dumping laws continue to exist and are regularly invoked.

Not necessarily backwards.
 

Fuck Yeah.

Um .... yeah.
 

Yesterday, the Pentagon announces a massive march and country music concert celebrating our freedom. On, ah, September 11.

• "This year the Department of Defence will initiate an America Supports Your Freedom Walk," Rumsfeld said, adding that the march would remind people of "the sacrifices of this generation and of each previous generation".
  
  The march will start at the Pentagon, where nearly 200 people died on September 11, 2001, and end at the National Mall with a show by country star Clint Black.
  
  Word of the event startled some observers.
  
  "I've never heard of such a thing," said John Pike, who has been a defence analyst in Washington for 25 years and runs GlobalSecurity.org.
  
  The news also reignited debate and anger over linking September 11 with the war in Iraq.
  
  "That piece of it is disturbing since we all know now there was no connection," said Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq veteran who heads Operation Truth, an anti-administration military booster.
  
  AdvertisementRieckhoff suggested the event was an ill-conceived publicity stunt.
  
  "I think it's clear that their public opinion polls are in the toilet," he said.
  
  Rumsfeld's march had some relatives of September 11 victims fuming.
  
  "How about telling Mr Rumsfeld to leave the memories of September 11 victims to the families?" said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband in the attacks.
  
  Administration supporters insisted Rumsfeld was right to link Iraq and September 11, and hold the rally.
  
  "We are at war," said Representative Pete King, (Republican, New York).
  
  "It's essential that we support our troops."

It's certainly true that I am not a Bush supporter, and as a matter of mental exercise and fairness, I am trying to avoid a reflexive distaste for everything that this Administration does. I am also mindful that September 11 has become the third rail of American politics, such that saying ANYTHING about it will draw criticism.

All that said, is it just me, or is this in shockingly bad taste? Support the troops, yes, but using this particular date seems purposefully designed to wrap the Administration ever tighter in the American flag, an anatomical feat I presumed impossible at this point.

Can't we just have another photo op of Bush in South Dakota, where his mug appears adjacent to the other four presidents on Rushmore, and be done with it?

Gattigap

CAFTA
 

I am going to assume that the volume of all the other trade we have with Hypositan greatly outweighs the trade of Hypoicide. If the "Free Trade Agreement" actually increases the restriction on Hypoicide and the rest of the trade does not count for much I wouldn't make that deal. In other words if we buy a lot of Hypoicide from Hypoistan, but with the treaty we will buy a lot less I would have a lot of trouble pushing it through. But assuming this bill will greatly increase the volume of trade, and American companys get full access to their market then great.

1) The left wing guys that voted against the agreement because it did not have any labor or environmental provisions I would have no problem with. They are against free trade and I understand that. They are voting against the bill because they are against it, not just because I am president.

2) It is the congressman that say they are pro-business and pro-free trade when they ran for congress and then voted against this deal I would have a problem with. I would say they are choosing partisan politics over free trade policy. If you believe in free trade, lower tariffs are good no matter what else happens. That is what people think you mean when you say your are pro-free trade. That is what business expect when you say you are pro-free trade. But don't try and say you are pro-free trade and then vote against the bill because there are no environmental or labour restrictions. If they vote against the bill it is not because they are against it, it is because I put it forward.

3) If these pro-free trade congressman came to me and said that their problem with the treaty was the set aside for the Hypoicide was a problem then I would have sympathy. Especially if their consitutuents would benefit from cheaper Hypoicide. Then their complaints about the treaty not being a free trade treaty would e legitimate.

Note: In CAFTA the pro-free trade Democrats that voted against the treaty voted against it because the enforcement mechanism for the treaty for the labour and environmental protectsio were not strong enough. Not that it did not have these provisions. These pro-free trade Democrats are not really pro-free trade or they are putting partisanship over principles.

Another note is that when negotiating the treaty I would not have any problem asking that Hypostan enforce its child labour laws and to increase their environmental protection. But I would not ask for any restrictions or regulations that put such a heavy burden on their businesses that they couldn't be completitive. LIke a really high minimum wage. In addition, if they turned me down I would not sacrifice any of the pro-free trade sections in this treaty. The tariff reductions are paramount. If there is no treaty they will continue to abuse their child labour and pollute the environment. With a free trade treaty their GNP will increase which will provide a permamanent solution t these problems (it is in poor countries where the children are more exploited and the environmental degredation is the worst). The treaty will help the GNP of this country and our country. The labour restrictions and environmental regulations are a bennie but not a deal breaker.

On the other hand I would have to be extremely coerced and have to be convinced that the deal could not be passed any other way to leave any tariffs on Hypostans products or to continue subsidies on any US products. In addition, the increases in free trade made by the treaty would have to greatly outweigh these subsidies and tariffs.

Um .... yeah.
 

What do you have against country music?

CAFTA
 

Tell that to Ty. He thinks this stuff is good for us (actually it may be, but it is not worth sacrificing the treaty for).


Tell that to Ty. He thinks intellectually they do.


That is why the old saying: Busineses want free trade in every business but their own. That is why you look to business organizations. For business in general free trade is good so business organizatoins want free trade. And every business organization, or at least 99% and everyone I have heard of, is for CAFTA.

Um .... yeah.
 

I swear to god I thought that this was an Onion article. *sigh*

CAFTA
 

OK. Jesus god help me, I can't believe I'm posting on this, but whatever. What "business organizations" are there that aren't trade groups (i.e., concentrated in a single area)? Besides the Chamber of Commerce?

And, it's my understanding that the Governator is stepping up enforcement of labor laws so that businesses that obey laws on hours worked, minimum wage, working conditions etc. aren't at a disadvantage relative to businesses that don't obey these laws. This seems, to me, directly comparable to wanting the CAFTA countries to have at least some kind of labor/environmental laws, so that they aren't at a relative advantage above and beyond the lower cost of living or whatever. I don't get why you think this is not at all important.