Posted on 09/05/2004 5:52:32 PM PDT by backtothestreets
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would be the campaign issue of this election if either party did not endorse it. The effect of this accord will make our Constitution bow to this international body. The original deadline of May 2004 was purposely and deliberately changed to Jan 2005, after our elections.
"We direct our Ministers to ensure that negotiations of the FTAA Agreement are concluded no later than January 2005 and to seek its entry into force as soon as possible thereafter, but in any case, no later than December 2005."
SOURCE: Deadline
"We have a great vision before us: a fully democratic hemisphere, bound together by good will and free trade. That is a tall order. It is also the chance of a lifetime. And it is the responsibility we share."
President George W. Bush
April 21, 2001
"Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA): The FTAA will extend the benefits of free trade to countries throughout the Hemisphere. When completed, the FTAA will be the largest free trade area in the world, with a combined GDP of more that $10 trillion and 800 million people. The Bush Administration is committed to concluding FTAA negotiations by January 2005 and to implement the agreement no later than December 2005. The President will seek Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) from the U.S. Congress to enable his Administration to negotiate trade agreements more easily."
SOURCE: Fact Sheet President's Speech at the Summit of the Americas
"President Bush and the other Leaders welcomed recent progress made on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) at the November, 2003 FTAA Ministerial in Miami, endorsed the Miami framework, and reaffirmed the agreed timetable of completing negotiations by January 2005." January 13, 2004
SOURCE: WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET
(Excerpt) Read more at ftaa-alca.org ...
Yes and no. Not all the "constituencies" are overseas. Depending on your point of view, it can be argued that the majority of them reside here, and provide those high-paying jobs the folks at JBS claim to represent.
I believe that is called strip mining the wealth of Americans in favor of Corporations.
That is simply absurd. If there if "strip mining" going on (I tend to avoid Marxist rhetoric), it's occuring to an even greater degree in our "protected" industries.
OK, I will email my congressman and Senators now. Sounds like this needs to be defeated. Any grass-roots efforts to make sure Congress and Bush for that matter, know that this MUST NOT be passed, let me know.
The reality of NAFTA regarding food such as produce and meats is that these products are not labeled.
Hardly. If there is indeed a "race to the bottom," as folks have been claiming for years if not decades, when does the race begin?
Trade is only one element in a much bigger picture of incessant turnover in the American labor market. Furthermore, the overall trend is toward more and better jobs for American workers. While job losses are real and sometimes very painful, it is important -- indeed, for the formulation of sound public policy, it is vital -- to distinguish between the painful aspects of progress and outright decline.
Source (with specifics).
The trade laws on the books states that a nation has the right to impose a temporary tariff in order to allow an industry to retool, regroup, and make itself more competitive in a world market.
I'm not claiming that Bush does not have the authority to impose a steel tariff. But a proper understanding of the issue requires that the costs of the tariff be taken into account. Most proponents of the steel tariff (not you, specifically) "blew that off far too easily."
That may be so, but that doesn't mean that the food can legally be contaminated. The agreement requires that all food meet international requirements for safety and sanitation. At the end of the day, that's all you can do. If some farmers in Mexico don't follow the rules, it's no different than some farmers in the US not following the rules.
The fact remains that under the NAFTA, the US has the power to block imports of food and agricultural products that don't meet international standards.
So what? What does a label have to do with the fact that something might be contaminated?
And in the case of the infamous Californian/Mexican strawberries of the 90's, it was a U.S. company that fraudulently represented Mexican strawberries as home-grown in order to qualify for school food programs. There ain't no trade agreement that will prevent that sort of activity.
That will come as a shock to some of the Birchers here. [chuckle]
I remember a thread from a while back where somebody claimed the the U.S. was prevented by NAFTA from policing the safety of its food supply.
Actually, the Maastricht Treaty (currency unification) came first.
Good question. So why not label the country of origin? Especially if all the countries are playing by the rules like some would have us believe.
Yes, it was step three, after the Treaty of Rome and before the EU compact.
On my trips to the grocery store, most of the produce I see is already labeled with country-of-origin. I'm not sure what the labeling requirements actually are.
You expect corrupt Mexico to follow the rules? We have had cantaminated cantelopes, strawberries, green onions and now candy with lead in it in the US. All from NAFTA and Mexico. Mad cow disease from Canada. Tell me about these countries following the rules.
Now you are straying into logical fallacies. Are you suggesting that U.S. companies do not occasionally sell contaminated product? And if they do, is it NAFTA's fault?
18 Million Lbs. Of Contaminated Beef Recalled
At Least 18 People SickenedPOSTED: 9:32 am PDT July 19, 2002
UPDATED: 6:18 pm PDT July 19, 2002WASHINGTON -- A recall of contaminated hamburger linked to E. coli bacteria illnesses among 18 people is being expanded to 18 million pounds and 21 states, the Agriculture Department said Friday. California is among the states affected.
If I read your article correctly, there was no mention of where the meat came from. Link Please.
I recall a news headline within the past few weeks about the farm subsidies. I won't defend what I wrote. Neither will I contradict what you wrote. Either would detract from my original reason for the initial post on the FTAA.
The FTAA must be discussed openly so citizens throughout the nation can be made aware of what it is, and what changes may come as a result of it.
The discussions must not be among citizens alone. The discussions must include those that we duly elect to represent our interests.
Citizens must force the candidates to discuss government policies that may affect their lives in an adverse manner.
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.