Posted on 07/22/2005 8:24:29 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
he was pro-nafta, so why would he not be pro-cafta?
this thread is just sugar industry propaganda.
Oh, I see.
Mode 4 is pro sugar industry propoganda?
Sustainable development is pro sugar industry propoganda?
Sovereignty is is pro sugar industry propoganda?
How do you figure that?
I still don't believe you're a conservative when you support the loss of sovereignty to global socialist institutions like the WTO, CODEX and ILO.
How much control do the governments of these six countries exercise over their respective economies currently? Do you know for sure? I don't know for sure but I am absolutely certain that introducing competition and reducing government influence (tariff removal)will significantly reduce whatever that level of influence is now. By removing tariffs (protection), the local businesses must get better or get beaten. Does not leave a lot of room for the same level of corruption.
Reduced barriers to trade creates greater economic freedom and that economic freedom, in turn, creates more wealth for all parties.
The naysayers here at FR will have to admit that, in the end, the agreement does reduce barriers to trade and will increase trade.
Don't take my word for it, The Heritage Foundation has done extensive studies on it and publishes them annually in their Report on Economic Freedom.
Economic Freedom and Per Capita Income
Index of Economic Freedom
The Democratic Benefits of Free Trade with Central America
You really look ridiculous.
Chapter Sixteen
Labor
Article 16.1: Statement of Shared Commitment
The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and their commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-Up (1998) (ILO Declaration).1 Each Party shall strive to ensure that such labor principles and the internationally recognized labor rights set forth in Article 16.8 are recognized and protected by its law.
each Party shall strive to ensure that its laws provide for labor standards consistent with the internationally recognized labor rights set forth in Article 16.8 and shall strive to improve those standards in that light.
How do you get any sleep at night with all those monsters under your bed?
The Heritage Foundation is in league with the Council on Foreign Relations to integrate the United States socially, politically and economically with the rest of the Western Hemisphere, using "free trade" to do it.
What country do you live in? Because if you live in the United States, and pay taxes here, you wouldn't have such disdain for your fellow Americans.
Silly me, I thought this was about trade. Now you're howling about tax revenue from illegal aliens. Sheesh, ADD must really be a bummer.
You want to cut them out an leave it to us mere citizens to pay and pay and pay? At least with tariffs, we shared share some of the burden of the federal government with them which is only fair.
I think pay and pay and pay should be your tag line. I'm tired of paying. I stand with consumers and tax payers (since they're the same people) in wanting us to be able to keep more of our money.
You must be standing with Hillary in her belief that taking things from us is good for us. Elitist.
You should really spend more time on immigration threads since it's all you really seem to care about.
See post #64.
What about the 280 million Americans who are both consumers and taxpayers? Do you want to take more of their money for their own good, Hillary?
True, there is no difference between each Party shall strive to ensure and each party must. Because the OAS said so, that's why!! LOL!
Taking more of my money is patriotic? My opposition to this means I'm unpatriotic and disdainful of my fellow American's?
So, you would believe Hillary is being patriotic when she says: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good?"
Her vision of big government is really no different that what you're advocating here.
May is the weasel word. Shall means you have to do it.
Funny you should bring up 'big government' because "free trade" REALLY is big government. Government on a global level, with global institutions to match.
Like I said. Bill Clinton supports 'free trade'. Do you want to take the domestic economy away from the 280 million Americans not all of whom pay taxes but have the right to have a domestic economy just the same?
The tax cut argument is a complete red herring. The only effective way to reduce the tax burden is to reduce spending, and government is showing absolutley no inclination to do that. As a result, those income tax cuts that were passed a couple of years ago have a very high chance of sunsetting automatically when the ten years are up. Passing CAFTA isn't going to make that any less likely to happen.
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.
