Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Panel Narrowly Endorses CAFTA
AP ^ | June 29, 2005 | JIM ABRAMS

Posted on 06/29/2005 9:44:25 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer

A Senate committee on Wednesday approved a trade agreement with Latin American nations, moving Congress a step closer to a decision on an accord that may have minimal effects on the U.S. economy but is of considerable political import to the Bush administration.

The Finance Committee approved the agreement by a voice vote, although it was closely divided on the issue. The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote as early as this week. Passage in the Senate, traditionally more sympathetic to trade agreements, could give the measure some momentum in the House, where there is stiffer opposition.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, would end trade barriers now encountered by U.S. goods in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. It also would ease investment rules, strengthen protections for intellectual property and, according to supporters, solidify economic and democratic stability in the region.

But the agreement has run into vigorous opposition from labor groups, and their Democratic allies, who say its provisions on labor rights are weak, and from the U.S. sugar industry, which claims that an increase in Central American imports, while small, could open the door to ruin.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., a key undecided vote on the Finance Committee, announced he was supporting the pact after the administration answered some of his concerns about the "serious lack of attention to the enforcement of worker rights."

He said he had pledges of an extra $40 million over four years to promote labor laws. The administration also told him it will spend $30 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.

The Bush administration has waged a relentless lobbying effort in the past month. President Bush invited all six CAFTA presidents to the White House and hailed the agreement in several recent speeches to Hispanic-American and other groups. U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns are constantly on Capitol Hill, talking to undecided lawmakers.

Johanns met Monday with senators and representatives of the sugar industry, and again on Tuesday with lawmakers, to discuss proposals to assure that CAFTA will not undermine the industry's future viability. Those plans included the government buying up increased sugar cane imports from Central America to be used in the production of ethanol.

Republican Sen. Craig Thomas (news, bio, voting record), whose state of Wyoming has a large sugar beet industry, told the Finance Committee that "it distresses me a little" that only now, when a final vote on CAFTA is looming, is the administration getting serious about the sugar issue.

But Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., suggested that there could be repercussions for the industry, always well-protected by Congress, if it succeeded in scuttling the agreement. "This could be devastating to them if not handled right," he said.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record) of sugar beet-growing Montana, opposes CAFTA, breaking with his usual support of trade agreements.

In addition to saying that the agreement was bad for the sugar industry, he criticized the administration for rejecting a proposal to help U.S. service industry workers who lose their jobs because of foreign competition and for not consulting more with Congress.

"They appear to want to win by the thinnest of margins," he said,


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bastrds; cafta; freetraitors; ftaa; hemispheric; integration; nafta; redistribution; sovereignty; thirdworldherewecome; traitors; wealth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last
The Finance Committee approved the agreement by a voice vote
1 posted on 06/29/2005 9:44:31 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Nobody wanted that to show up on record.


2 posted on 06/29/2005 9:45:57 AM PDT by cripplecreek (I zot trolls for fun and profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

This comes as no suprise.


3 posted on 06/29/2005 9:49:30 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

"Nobody wanted that to show up on record."

Good insight. Think you're right on. Can they pull the same stunt on the Senate floor?


4 posted on 06/29/2005 9:51:58 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane; Justanobody; B4Ranch; Nowhere Man; neutrino; endthematrix; investigateworld; ...

One more, just out on the wires.


5 posted on 06/29/2005 9:52:58 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer


US President George W. Bush(C) delivers a brief statement at the White House with Presidents Abel Pacheco of Costa Rica (2nd-L), Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic(R), Elias Antonio Saca of El Salvador(L), Oscar Berger of Guatemala(2nd-R), Ricardo Maduro of Honduras(3rd-R), and Enrique Bolanos (3rd-L) of Nicaragua 12 May 2005 after concluding discussions on the Central American and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement(CAFTA-DR)(AFP/File)
6 posted on 06/29/2005 9:56:24 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer


Senior members of former Democrat and Republican government administrations, including former trade representative Carla Hills (R) and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (2nd R) look on as U.S. President George W. Bush (not pictured) speaks about the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in the Old Executive Building in Washington June 23, 2005. (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Uber-globalist Henry Kissenger must be pleased today.
7 posted on 06/29/2005 9:57:43 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
I find it amazing that so much of our trade policy seems to be centered on the idea of protecting domestic sugar producers from competition. What a bunch of wusses!
8 posted on 06/29/2005 9:57:52 AM PDT by Moral Hazard (...but when push comes to shove, you've got to do what you love, even if it's not a good idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; JohnHuang2; keri; international american; Kay Soze; jpsb; hershey; TomInNJ; ...
In less than two weeks China bids for a major U.S. oil corporation, the U.S.S.C. trashes 4th and 5th Amendment Private Property rights and now our faithful representatives top it off by raping us with their endorsements for CAFTA . .

(Is it any wonder our American farmers are leaving the farming and ranching livelihoods by the droves?)

====================================

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., a key undecided vote on the Finance Committee, announced he was supporting the pact after the administration answered some of his concerns about the "serious lack of attention to the enforcement of worker rights."

He said he had pledges of an extra $40 million over four years to promote labor laws. The administration also told him it will spend $30 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.


9 posted on 06/29/2005 9:58:19 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

In other words, globalization must not be stopped! Globalization must occur no matter the cost!


10 posted on 06/29/2005 10:00:20 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Welcome to the inauguration of the North American Federation of States.


11 posted on 06/29/2005 10:00:57 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

BOHICA!


12 posted on 06/29/2005 10:01:29 AM PDT by TXBSAFH (The pursuit if life, liberty, and higher tax revenue (amended by the supreme 5).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Well, you can see it developing now. Open borders right down to Panama.


13 posted on 06/29/2005 10:02:23 AM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The administration also told him it will spend $30 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.
U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns are constantly on Capitol Hill, talking to undecided lawmakers.

Yeah, displaced Central American farmers will be offered relocation assistance to the United States, with a complete package of nanny-state welfare benefits.

Johanns and Derbez Sign Partnership to Promote USDA Rural Development Programs

14 posted on 06/29/2005 10:08:55 AM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Voice vote in a committee surely means passage on the Senate floor. I am not sure if conservatives in the House can block Hastert from pushing this through.


15 posted on 06/29/2005 10:13:09 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; hedgetrimmer
This is a keg of dynomite ready to blow sky high.

* * *

North American Plan Aims to Ease Cross-Border Movement, Enhance Security (People and Goods)
* * *

NAFTA cited as immigration factor (They are here because we are there.)

* * *

CAFTA will export U.S. farm jobs

16 posted on 06/29/2005 10:14:35 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Maybe its time for a little freeper activism?
17 posted on 06/29/2005 10:15:01 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

" Uber-globalist Henry Kissenger must be pleased today."

The guy is a reptilian plant from the planet Mongo. I'm sure of it.


18 posted on 06/29/2005 10:24:20 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

"Well, you can see it developing now. Open borders right down to Panama."

Nah, that's just tin-foil-hat talk. It's what those crazy Birchers have been talking about for 50 years.


19 posted on 06/29/2005 10:25:51 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

As far as I know... NAFTA grew jobs and our economy. I will go ahead and look up info if necessary but I remember a lot of the myths being exploded.

I also have a buddy who is in the sugar business here as a grower. We have this discussion a lot. And he agrees he wouldnt support the government supporting other business' like for instance, Amtrak, airline bailouts, etc. But for some reason its ok to prop his industry?

Here is a Heritage Foundation take on it. I am assuming they did their homework.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/jtf5.cfm


20 posted on 06/29/2005 10:38:14 AM PDT by USAFJeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: USAFJeeper
". . but I remember a lot of the myths being exploded.'

===============================

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Myths and lies of illegal immigration

* * *


21 posted on 06/29/2005 10:41:04 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

no point in worrying about the klintoon heading up the UN...looks like little georgie is gonna destroy us all by himself.


22 posted on 06/29/2005 10:41:17 AM PDT by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: USAFJeeper

The heritage foundation and the council on foreign relations has the same view when it comes to open borders. Their homework would be to support the CFR and the globalists.


23 posted on 06/29/2005 10:46:46 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; AZ_Cowboy

;*(


24 posted on 06/29/2005 10:46:50 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (As Iraqi's stand up - We will stand down. . President Bush, 6/28/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

good news. I don't quite understand those who wish to expand government to protect their jobs. If you need government to protect your job you don't deserve it and you're not much different than the union thugs.


25 posted on 06/29/2005 10:56:34 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

You shouldn't talk about things of which you have no knowledge. You have utterly no knowledge of my circumstances and your postulating without facts is unwelcome.


26 posted on 06/29/2005 11:00:10 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; A CA Guy; A Navy Vet; A Vast RightWing Conspirator; abigail2; ..

CAFTA ping


27 posted on 06/29/2005 11:01:05 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
From Ron Paul's weekly column, Texas Straight Talk
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.htm

CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade

June 6,  2005 


The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer.  The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July. 

I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional.  The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade.  The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible.  Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty.  This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated.  Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade.  We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do.  Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers.  Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so.  As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole.  Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people.  We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies.  Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty.  When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple.  I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union.  Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.

The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg.  The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future.  Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people.  CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business.  I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free. 

CAFTA means more government!  Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system.  Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade.  Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body.  It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.

28 posted on 06/29/2005 11:03:50 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I am no expert on trade and commerce, just to get that out of the way :) But, my particular brand of conservatism likes free open markets. Of course I live near a port city, New Orleans, so it is a benefit for us :) I just dont see how it isn't a win/win. Oh, well, getting out of this one before my lack of firm knowledge gets me hammered!


29 posted on 06/29/2005 11:06:29 AM PDT by USAFJeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
would end trade barriers now encountered by U.S. goods in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic

Pure propaganda. Who cares about trade barriers to U.S. goods in those countries? Their net market doesn't equal one U.S. city.

CAFTA isn't about increasing U.S. markets. It's about breaking down U.S. barriers to outsourced labor markets in those countries, and turning the U.S. into a peon labor market, as all of Latin America is.

The elitists in this country who view such societies approvingly are the ones behind CAFTA, and it has nothing to do with "expanding markets" for the U.S.

30 posted on 06/29/2005 11:06:35 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

You shouldn't talk about things of which you have no knowledge. You have utterly no knowledge of my circumstances and your postulating without facts is unwelcome.
---


I wasn't talking about you personally. I was saying 'you' in general, as in 'people'. Sorry for being unclear.


31 posted on 06/29/2005 11:08:08 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

All the Senate has to do to pass this by simple majority is to lie and call it a "trade agreement."

No problem.

32 posted on 06/29/2005 11:10:10 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Just trying to get information out about CAFTA has gotten me hammered, so if I get a little sensitive, you now know why. BTW I have posted articles on both sides trying to get at the facts.


33 posted on 06/29/2005 11:10:15 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

when i wrote that comment I had no idea where you even stood on the issue of: free trade vs expanding government to block the actions of private citizens and porkbarrel it.


34 posted on 06/29/2005 11:10:53 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
"If you need government to protect your job you don't deserve it and you're not much different than the union thugs.
I don't expect our government to give our jobs away either.
35 posted on 06/29/2005 11:12:03 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Just trying to get information out about CAFTA has gotten me hammered, so if I get a little sensitive, you now know why. BTW I have posted articles on both sides trying to get at the facts.
---

lol yea,I can understand that, it seems to be a sensitive issue. I am (obviously) a free trader and I get plenty hammered too on here for that. But obviously personal attacks tell more about the person attacking then the person on the receiving end.



36 posted on 06/29/2005 11:13:51 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

So question for you. Are you a proponent of sustainable development?


37 posted on 06/29/2005 11:14:24 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi
Well, you can see it developing now. Open borders right down to Panama.

One guess where everyone will end up?

38 posted on 06/29/2005 11:14:53 AM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Are you a proponent of sustainable development?
---

By 'sustainable development' do you mean continued prosperous economic growth? Of course I'm for it (even the dems will say they are for it).

But, how do we achieve this? By equal rule of law, lower taxes, less regulations, free trade. In short, freedom. All of the poorer countries of the world have the opposite of this and are therefore, poor. We have a long way to go ourselves...

Do you agree with my assessment? Or do you side with those that believe in shrinking government (expanding freedom) for everything except free trade?


39 posted on 06/29/2005 11:26:17 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
YOU SAID..."free trade vs expanding government to block the actions of private citizens and porkbarrel it."

Are you saying that CAFTA is just a bunch of private citizens free tradin' with other private citizens?

Ive read through some of the documentation on this...I see mention of government and international government agencies involving in setting up this agreement...and enforcing it. After all...it is being voted on in GOVERNMENT... as we speak.

This IS THE GOVERNMENT....not only in the US but in all of those little countries where the government has alot more control over private citizens than it has in the US.

BTW... as far as your comment on protecting American jobs...you will be pleased to learn that in all the documentation I read...no mention of protection of American jobs was evident.

HOWEVER... that was NOT the case for all of those poor people over on the other side of the fence in Central America. I read page after page of special exemptions and considerations given to protect the jobs and the 'system' of those folks in those 'other' countries.

So much for philosophy....lets talk reality.
40 posted on 06/29/2005 11:31:10 AM PDT by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=euLTJbMUKvH&b=312131&ct=1128455

VoiceOfSanDiego.org

CAFTA on the Ropes:
Agreement Must Protect People and the Environment

(SNIP)

Our experience in the San Diego/Tijuana cross-border region is a lesson for the future. Congress should reject any trade agreement that does not include the following fair trade principles:

Enforceable environmental protections. There must be provisions to prohibit countries from lowering environmental standards or failing to enforce environmental laws as a means of attracting foreign investment. Compliance with International Labor Organization health, safety and wage standards is imperative in order to reduce job flight and create a more equitable global economy.

Protection of human, labor and environmental rights over investor rights. NAFTA's disastrous Chapter 11 dispute settlement mechanism allows foreign corporations to sue governments for loss of potential profits due to enforcement of domestic law. In some countries, the mere threat of such costly lawsuits may halt the adoption of new environmental laws or implementation of existing laws. Foreign investors must be required to act in a socially responsible way.

Compliance with established democratic governance. Trade negotiation and administration must be transparent, accountable, participatory, equitable and follow the rule of law. Trade agreements should not set new standards outside domestic regulatory processes.

Transfer economic resources to reduce inequality between trading partners. Trade agreements between countries with wide gaps in development must include assistance for less-developed countries to promote social, regional and economic cohesion and build stable, sustainable economies.

Trade that creates poverty, pollution, instability and injustice is not "free." By defeating the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Congress will fulfill its obligation to defend basic economic and environmental rights and build prosperity and security.


41 posted on 06/29/2005 11:33:46 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

We're screwed.

CFR.

LOST.

CAFTA.

Property rights.

Medicaid and medicare expansion.

"Reforming" the UN to make it more "effective" (aka powerful)

Open borders.

Foreign ownership of energy resources.

Judicial tyrrany.

Someone tell me how a dem would be worse again??? I'm starting to not see any difference between the two parties. Color me dissapointed.


42 posted on 06/29/2005 11:37:45 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon; traviskicks

I SAID..."you will be pleased to learn that in all the documentation I read...no mention of protection of American jobs was evident."

WRONG... I forgot about the one protection that SHOULD be removed...a special interest in this country that gets massive government handouts...


THE US SUGAR INDUSTRY STAYS PROTECTED...at least for the forseeable future.

So much for philosophy...lets talk reality.


43 posted on 06/29/2005 11:42:34 AM PDT by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: madfly

Thanks for the ping, madfly. We expected this from the Senate. The House is our only hope now.


44 posted on 06/29/2005 11:42:45 AM PDT by La Enchiladita (Remembering our Heroes today and every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
I'm starting to not see any difference between the two parties.

The "two" parties have morphed into "one", and America will lose until a viable third party becomes electable.

45 posted on 06/29/2005 11:42:52 AM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

So much for philosophy....lets talk reality.
---

yea, thats why i support CAFTA because it is at least a step in the right direction. In theory, private citizens should be able to trade with private citizens from other countries without government interference. As you state, this is not a reality because government gives itself the power to block it.

For example, if I bring in some sugar to sell and save American consumers mucho dinero the US government will throw me in jail for smuggling.

These trade agreements can be as one-sided as they like. They are not hurting anyone but themselves. By protecting their workers, they are in fact going to end up hurting their workers and their economy.

Its like the argument that airbus is getting more subsidies than Boeing. Well, who is getting their money stolen to fund airbus? Productive job creating Europeans! It's like Reagan said:

"Believe me, you cannot create a desert, hand a person a cup of water, and call that compassion. You cannot pour billions of dollars into make-work jobs while destroying the economy that supports them and call that opportunity. And you cannot build up years of dependence on government and dare call that hope."

So let the Europeans destroy their economies and jobs to protect one industry (which won't even be protected in the long run cuz it'll get lazy and fat)

So, if one country is shooting itself in the foot to protect its workers or industries, I don't see why we should follow suit.

I realize what is happening isn't the uptopia that I may seem like I was describing, but at least its a step in that direction.


46 posted on 06/29/2005 11:45:57 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

THE US SUGAR INDUSTRY STAYS PROTECTED...at least for the forseeable future.
---

That is unfortunate. Our bribed congressmen should be ashamed.


47 posted on 06/29/2005 11:47:20 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

the libertarian party is the answer.


48 posted on 06/29/2005 11:47:57 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: USAFJeeper
It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year. What madfly said!
49 posted on 06/29/2005 11:49:16 AM PDT by La Enchiladita (Remembering our Heroes today and every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

"the libertarian party is the answer."

LOL the Losertarians are for open borders - but at least they don't pretend any differently.


50 posted on 06/29/2005 11:50:30 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson