US to double aid-for-trade by 2010

Reuters ^ | Dec 13, 2005 | Doug Palmer

[hedgetrimmer]

The United States plans to double aid-for-trade grants to devleloping countries to $2.7 billion per year by 2010, a U.S. government spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

She said U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) would announce the proposed increase in a speech on Wednesday to the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Hong Kong.

The U.S. offer to increase the grants its provides developing countries to boost their exports is part of a proposed trade deal to open up agriculture, goods and services markets around the world.

The United States provided $1.34 billion in aid-for-trade grants in 2005, and will ask Congress to increase that to $2.7 billion by 2010, the spokeswoman said.

With deep differences still over how far to cut agricultural subsidies and tariffs, WTO countries are focusing much of their attention at this week's WTO meetings on a package to ensure the world's poorest countries benefit from a free trade deal.

Japan has promised to provide $10 billion in trade-related loans and other aid to help poor countries with infrastructure and other projects to increase their ability to export.

Individual EU countries will raise their spending on trade-related aid to 1 billion euros ($1.2 billion) a year, the European Commission said on Tuesday.

That follows a committment the European Commission, the EU's executive, made earlier this year to raise its own trade-related assistance for poor countries to 1.0 billion euros ($1.19 billion) a year from 2007, up from about 800 million euros now.

The Commission also provides about 800 million euros a year to fund infrastructure projects in poor countries.

[hedgetrimmer]

Aid-for-trade grants are just another name for corporate socialism.

[hedgetrimmer]

Developing countries say they need rich-world aid so they can strengthen their ports, roads, schools and bridges.

"Free trade" is a very expensive system.

[hedgetrimmer]

More "free trade" scamming, this time in Hong Kong.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Here, let us give you some money to trade with us please. Isn't that typically referred to as a bribe?

[hedgetrimmer]

Isn't that typically referred to as a bribe?

It is. But is it still a bribe when you use taxpayer money, or does it become graft then?

[Jasper]

"Aid-for-trade grants are just another name for corporate socialism."

Oh so true!

I have to wonder just how much more of this 'free trade', open border diminution of American sovereignty Bravo Sierra we're are gonna have rammed up our a$$es until we get a clue and put an end to it.

We, as a free and sovereign republic,are rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Stand Fast

/jasper

[jpsb]

bump

[raybbr]

The United States plans to double aid-for-trade grants to devleloping countries to $2.7 billion per year by 2010, a U.S. government spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

​We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

....As president, I will ask Congress for $100 million dollars to help microcredit organizations that are working in Latin America. And I will ask the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank to add to this investment. We will apply the power of markets to the needs of the poor.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

Building the "new America" comes at a price.

[antisocial]

""Free trade" is a very expensive system."

Expensive and sovereignty destroying.

[janetgreen]

Building the "new America" comes at a price.

Pandering to Mexico and slave labor will come at a high price for those in Congress who are supposed to be "representing" us!

[Willie Green]

Aid-for-trade grants are just another name for corporate socialism.

It's bad enough that our Trade Deficit is already running in excess of $700 billion per year.
Now these traitors are hellbent on GIVING AWAY money we don't even have to plunge us into indebted poverty even quicker.

[hedgetrimmer]

"Free trade" isn't.

[groanup]

What does the above article have to do with free trade? It is about using taxpayer money to prop up something or other. How does the 2.7 billion stand beside the sugar and agriculture subsidies that we pay so that our food can cost more?

[hedgetrimmer]

What does Rob Portman have to do with "free trade"? What does the WTO have to do with "free trade"? What does the Doha Round have to do with "free trade"? You forgot cotton. Thats what Africa is attacking this week at the Doha.

[hedgetrimmer]

U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman "free trader"(news, bio, voting record) would announce the proposed increase in a speech on Wednesday to the World Trade Organization "free trade global institution" (WTO) meeting in Hong Kong "free trade meeting".

Funny he never gave a speech to the American people informing us of this new expense to us, before going over there.

[hedgetrimmer]

What does the above article have to do with free trade?

Are you "free traders" really so ill informed about the system you advocate?

[groanup]

Are you "free traders" really so ill informed about the system you advocate?

Well the "ill informed" editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal agrees with us. The " ill informed" economist Walter Williams agrees with us.

But, then again, you have the highly successful Pat Buchannon as your spokesman.

BTW, what was it this article had to do with free trade? Looks to me like taxpayer subsidy of undeveloped countries. What does that have to do with free trade?

[groanup]

More "free trade" scamming, this time in Hong Kong.

And Hong Kong became successful how? Opium? lol.

[hedgetrimmer]

Well the "ill informed" editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal agrees with us

Let me reword this. Are you so ill informed that you do not know "aid for trade" is a construct of the WTO,to transer wealth from "rich countries" to "poor countries"?

If you do not know this about the system you support, why would you support it? Don't you think, before you stake your reputation on something, that you should know its purpose and workings?

[groanup]

Are you so ill informed that you do not know "aid for trade" is a construct of the WTO,to transer wealth from "rich countries" to "poor countries"?

Please elaborate. This is the most convoluted post you have made so far. I'm willing to listen if you will simply explain. Your post has no meaning to me whatsoever.

If you do not know this about the system you support, why would you support it? Don't you think, before you stake your reputation on something, that you should know its purpose and workings?

Your statement is pretextual and bogus. You are doing the classic liberal editorial. "Since George Bush is a fascist then...". That is a big mistake on this board.

My pretextual response would be: Your posts have indicated a serious lack of understanding of economics. It is with great urgency that I direct you to Adam Smith and John Locke. But since your posts indicate an illiterate tendency I don't save much hope that you are capable of understanding that which I refer.

[hedgetrimmer]

Your post has no meaning to me whatsoever.

As a "free trader" surely you are following the proceedings at the Doha round.

French socialist Pascal Lamy approached the Fund and other institutions seeking our help in putting together a package of support measures for low income countries that need help in maximizing the gains from trade liberalization. We have enthusiastically endorsed the WTO's Aid for Trade initiative and will do all we can.

--Anne O. Krueger for the Fund-Bank Panel on Aid for Trade, First Deputy Managing Director, IMF At the WTO Ministerial Meeting, Hong Kong December 13, 2005

[hedgetrimmer]

Your statement is pretextual and bogus

No, you are claiming "free trade" by global socialist institutions like the WTO , is better for consumers , but make no mention of what is good for citizens. Then you claim that "aid for trade" has nothing to do with "free trade". LOL!

[groanup]

Where have I ever made such a claim. Find it. You can't. You should stop making such claims yourself. Aid for trade doesn't make trade free does it? Why am I wasting my time with you?

[1rudeboy]

Is this one of those off-budget, black USTR programs? If so, how did Reuters find out about it?

[hedgetrimmer]

Is this one of those off-budget, black USTR programs?

Why don't you tell us, since you are the expert "free trader".

[1rudeboy]

No, I am simply an expert on arguments you've made in the past.

[hedgetrimmer]

Then you must be an expert on the class warfare of "free trade":

Ministers from WTO's 149 members met here Tuesday in a new bid to advance the Doha Round talks, which bogged down in a deadlock over farm subsidies, pitting mainly rich countries against poor ones .

[1rudeboy]

There are rich countries, and there are poor countries. There are primary colors, and there are secondary colors. Pointing out the difference is not "class warfare."

[hedgetrimmer]

More evidence that "free trade" is redistributing wealth.

When U.S. and European delegates at the global trade talks here say they're working hard to help the poorest countries climb the ladder of wealth, it's hard to take them at their word.

The World Trade Organization bargaining table, after all, is where nations fight for every scrap of advantage — not where they hand out charity.

And yet, that's exactly what the U.S. did Wednesday.

The U.S. pledged to more than double its "aid for trade" to help poor countries build roads, ports and communications system so they can join the global market.

In the 'old' constitutional trade system, it wasn't the purpose of our trade negotiations to 'advantage' "poor countries" by using our tax money to build THEM roads, ports and communication systems.

So while they give money, it remains to be seen if rich-country negotiators can give poor countries what they really want.

Yes, lets give "poor countries" our industry, sugar, cotton, textiles and manufacturing. After all, they deserve it. And if we have to spend our tax money to build up those countries so that they can take our industry, well thats just the WTO. Its a scam tremendously bigger than oil-for-food.

[hedgetrimmer]

Pointing out the difference is not "class warfare."

It is when you use it as a basis of your trade negotiations. To advantage a country just because its poor? Not because its a strategic ally, just because its poor. Yeah... right. No class warfare here.

[1rudeboy]

This is far too complex for you to understand, but I'll take a stab at it . . . when you have the usual pinko suspects (and their fellow-travellers on the Right) yelping that free trade only benefits multi-nationals and their globalist masters (gee, who have I heard that from here?), it is not out of the ordinary to argue that the best way to lift everyone's per capita income is through trade. For someone who specializes in class warfare rhetoric, (i.e., "the elite! the elite!"), to turn around and accuse others of the same is the height of sophistry.

[hedgetrimmer]

As usual, you resort to name calling because you cannot defend the "free trade" system that the WTO epitomizes, in the context of a free sovereign country and our Constitutional rights. The "free trade" system usurps authority over the American people, and this aid-for-trade program they've established is an example of that. Nobody in Congress took information from their citizen constituents to produce a bill that says the US must build infrastructure in foreign countries so that multinational corporations can do business with them. It would NEVER fly in Congress, just like open borders doesn't fly with the American people. But in your zeal to protect the globalist institution of the WTO and their fraudulently named "free trade" crime scam, you insult your fellow Americans, who in the end are standing up for the rights of all our citizens.

[groanup]

More evidence that "free trade" is redistributing wealth.

Who are you talking to. I don't like the WTO. I don't like government interference in trade. You really don't understand my position, do you?

And it's nice that you quoted someone in the italics in your post. You don't say who it is. Why should I buy it?

[1rudeboy]

As another member here asked you some time ago . . . stop calling folks with whom you disagree "traitors" before observing that they are supposedly calling you names.

[hedgetrimmer]

stop calling folks with whom you disagree "traitors"

I call them "free traders". If they don't like that then they should stop calling their system "free trade". This isn't a casual theoretical conversation where people can simply disagree either. Its about a reformation of the United States into something that frankly, most citizens oppose. I post plenty of material that shows exactly what the "free traders" are doing and quote the "free traders" themselves as they wax poetic about "lifting all boats" and "aid for trade" to advantage "poor countries" while at the same time denouncing "rich countries" for domestic policies developed by their own citizens. They condemn themselves, they don't need me to do it.

But what do you call people who usurp authority from the American people in the name of a global institution that pits "rich countries" against "poor countries" and cultivates the notion that "rich countries" should give up their industries to "poor countries" to "fight poverty"?

[hedgetrimmer]

You are a "free trader" and the WTO is the organization that "free traders" use to promote their global agenda. You don't like the WTO? Then stop defending the fraudulently named "free trade" system that they have imposed on the world and help US citizens regain their sovereignty.

You want to know who said "they're working hard to help the poorest countries climb the ladder of wealth"?

The World Trade Organization bargaining table, after all, is where nations fight for every scrap of advantage — not where they hand out charity.

And yet, that's exactly what the U.S. did Wednesday.

--Alwyn Scott, Seattle Times Business Reporter

[1rudeboy]

As I said, quit whining that people are calling you names, then. "A rising tide lifts all boats," as a precept, may signify "class warfare" to you, but supply-side economics to others. It's funny that you paint with such a broad brush, yet insist that your opponents hold to a level of detail worthy of Michelangelo, e.g. "if it looks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, and walks like a socialist, then it is a not a socialist, but a "conservative."

[groanup]

You give someone a label: "free trader" then go on to use your own definition of that label. I think you're some kind of nut.

[hedgetrimmer]

"A rising tide lifts all boats," is just the kind of unverifible platitude that "free traders" need to puff of their fraudulently named "free trade" system. After all, the name has the word "free" in it, so it must be good, even though we all know that the "free trade" system imposed on the world today is the brainchild of an elite group of pro socialists who are based in Geneva and that their system is the worst kind of corporate socialism anyone can imagine. We also know that the "free trade" system is a wealth redistribution system in their own words, the globalists continually emphasize that the "rich countries" have to give up their wealth to "poor countries", so their claimed flood of global prosperity that will ensue can "lift all boats".

When did it become the function of the federal government to "lift all boats" in foreign countries? Even a person defending supply-side economics should be able to see 1. that this is an unconstitutional breach of the compact the American people have made with the federal government to protect individual rights and 2. is flat out theft of our tax money. Why should you even care that I point this out? Its the truth. Doesn't the truth matter to "free traders"?

[hedgetrimmer]

I don't give anyone that label. You give it to yourselves. The "free traders" of the world define themselves. They don't stick up for their fellow citizens, they only care about consumers. If they cared about citizens and citizenship, they would not be able to support "free trade" and the open borders and dissolution of national sovereignty in favor of global institutions. And tell me, why is it in the "free trader" world, Africa can demand the US to change our domestic policies? In a constitutional world, that is the domain of the sovereign citizen, it is NOT to be negotiated in Hong Kong for the Doha round.

You cast aspersions on the article describing the unconstitional activities of the USTR at the Doha, yet you as a "free trader" say you never heard of "aid-for-trade", which is driving some of the unconstitutional behavior at that conference. How do you support the system with the misleading name, when you don't even know what it does?

[1rudeboy]

Don't worry about it. Foreign aid didn't exist until hedgetrimmer discovered it, and tried to pin it on the free-trader hiding in her bushes.

[1rudeboy]

"A rising tide lifts all boats," is just the kind of unverifible platitude that "free traders" need to puff of their fraudulently named "free trade" system.

And yet again, I refer you to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, which establishes a correlation between prosperity and open markets.

[groanup]

I support open, unencumbered markets. I think the people in Hong Kong can jump on a junk and float away. I don't want any gov't interference with trade at all. The only thing gov't should be doing is inspecting for disease, contraband and weapons.

You, otoh, seem to urge closing American markets and isolating us from the rest of the world. If you think that will work you're spitting into the wind.

[Fledermaus]

They should just put it into bills like the Farm Aid bills...it fits better there.

[groanup]

hiding in her bushes.

lol. Watch it. It really is getting exasperating. He,she,it doesn't seem to have a clue about my position yet accuses me of having whatever position he,she,it creates.

[hedgetrimmer]

seem to urge closing American markets

Never. I positively urge you to support constitutional government and the American people, not the global consumer that the "free traders" love.

[hedgetrimmer]

Foreign aid didn't exist until hedgetrimmer discovered it.

So "aid-for-trade" is foreign aid?

[groanup]

I positively urge you to support constitutional government and the American people, not the global consumer that the "free traders" love.

I can assure you that I do support the Constitution and the American people. I have no idea whether I should support the global consumer because I don't know what the hell that is. I have a feeling you are singling me out because I will respond to you. I also have a feeling that I should stop.

Good-bye.

[hedgetrimmer]

What does the above article have to do with free trade? It is about using taxpayer money to prop up something or other.

What you don't seem to know or want to believe, is that "free trade" is a global scam on the American people. The article is all about "free trade". Its about the unelected bureacracy that is making rules that the American people are obliged to follow, like giving away our tax money, by a department with no constitutional authority to do so, the USTR, to countries that the WTO deems elegible based on their poverty. If you support the Constitution and the American people you clearly cannot support this system. When you say you are for "free trade" are you aware of the full meaning this phrase as it is being executed globally? I guess you don't.

[groanup]

What is obvious is that I am a hell of a lot smarter than you and so is everyone else here. You should go away. Bye.