Stephen F. Lynch Quotes

I fear that CAFTA will accelerate the demise of these domestic textile jobs.

Since NAFTA was put in place, Mexico has lost 1.9 million jobs and most Mexicans' real wages have fallen.

Proponents of the Central America Free Trade Agreement have conveniently ignored this fundamental fact: the effect of trade on incomes in Central America and how to alleviate the adverse consequences of trade liberalization on the poor.

I don't think we should sell out the American worker. That's why I am opposed to NAFTA.

Free trade is good for all countries but not necessarily good for all peoples in all countries.

My grandfather was the architect behind NAFTA, and that has created so much economic opportunity, not only in our country, but in Latin America.

Likewise, free trade does not, as evidenced in CAFTA, mean fair trade.

Global interdependence today means that economic disasters in developing countries could create a backlash on developed countries.

Well, we don't think for a moment that either the U.S. or Australia are out to damage the New Zealand economy, but if there were a sustained period in which they had a free-trade agreement and New Zealand didn't have that same arrangement with the States, that could be both trade- and investment-distorting.

If you're totally illiterate and living on one dollar a day, the benefits of globalization never come to you.

There's a lot of exaggerated talk about CAFTA, but it's actually a fairly routine trade agreement. Although it involves fairly small nations, they're still more important trade partners than places like Australia or many other larger nations.

The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.

It is my belief CAFTA will be beneficial for Alabama and the United States as a whole.

Unfair trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement eviscerated good-paying manufacturing jobs, putting more than 3 million U.S. workers out of work.

I like globalization; I want to say it works, but it is hard to say that when six hundred million people are slipping backwards.

NAFTA is a deal made for the elites of America, Mexico and Canada leaving out the average people of all three companies.

The peoples of the economically backward countries are poorer than the Americans because their countries lack a sufficient number of successful capitalists and entrepreneurs.

The data on worker displacement after NAFTA reads like a funeral program for the middle class.

Wild globalization has helped some people much, but has hurt most.

I am all in favor of growing the American economy and engaging in trade with the world, but not at the expense of American workers. The North American Free Trade Agreement is a perfect example of this. Ask the textile workers of North Carolina how NAFTA worked out for them - if you can find any.

The effect of Bill Clinton's NAFTA and Hillary Clinton's Colombian Free Trade Agreement has been devastating to Michigan and most of the rest of the country, and accounts for the appeal of Donald Trump.

The reason CAFTA should be enacted is not economic benefits: it is national security.

The mistake we made in the 1990s was overestimating the potential of NAFTA's positive impact.

Wild globalisation has benefited some, but it's been a catastrophe for most.

Politicians of both parties told us that free trade with Asia and Latin America would spur economic growth, and maybe it did somewhere else. In our towns, though, factories continue shutting down or moving overseas.