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 previous 1-5051-100101-113 next last
To: traviskicks
By 'sustainable development' do you mean continued prosperous economic growth?

No, I mean sustainable development as proposed in the CAFTA preamble.
51 posted on 06/29/2005 11:52:23 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
The "two" parties have morphed into "one",

aka "The WishieWashies" (Washie refers to D.C.) Hehe.

52 posted on 06/29/2005 11:53:35 AM PDT by La Enchiladita (Remembering our Heroes today and every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

no, they are an honest bunch. And why is it a bad thing? How did you get here? Tens of Millions of Americans have flocked here since our country's founding and its only made us stronger and more prosperous. Reagan said:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.


"the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here"


53 posted on 06/29/2005 11:54:19 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
YOU SAID..."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."

When you give the government control over the free market...which includes the free labor market, for a philosophically desirable purpose...you are getting in bed with a whore and hoping you will find true love...and not get a disease along the way.

Think about the unintended consequences of these agreements....because of the fact that the government already has a massive social welfare and entitlement system IN PLACE NOW.

Everything you hate will come about...on a bigger scale...including unions and welfare programs.

It is a paradox I admit...but its reality Im afraid.
54 posted on 06/29/2005 11:55:07 AM PDT by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Private citizens have had nothing to do with this agreement. It is solely the venue of transnational corporations and different NGOs. The public citizen has not been invited to participate. The Senate will not even take a roll call vote beause they do not want the private citizen to know how they are voting.

The 2 senators from California have promised to come out with a statement on CAFTA, but not until AFTER it is voted on. They will not divulge to me a private citizena and constitutent, their position at this time.

Private citizens will not be able to trade once the CAFTA is in place. Only organization's which have set up public/private agreements with the federal government will, and they will be required to pay for social programs in these countries for the privilege.


55 posted on 06/29/2005 11:58:17 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

"no, they are an honest bunch. And why is it a bad thing? How did you get here? Tens of Millions of Americans have flocked here since our country's founding and its only made us stronger and more prosperous."

My family came through Ellis Island, legally. They also assimilated, rather than wanting moving as part of an organized "reconquista" invasion.

They didn't sneak over the border, breaking the laws of the country they were moving to.

You don't live anywhere near a border state, do you?

Anyway, the Losertarians are so because they have gotten less and less votes in every national election in the last 20 years.

75% of the US wants the borders enforced. The Losertarians want no borders. They are not a viable third party. Sorry!


56 posted on 06/29/2005 11:59:48 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

ok. well, I see what you're saying and it is an intelligent objection.

What do you propose we do then?

IMHO, It's like government saying if you import any sugar we'll throw you in jail, to them saying, well you can import a little under all of these bloated and wasteful agencies, with all of this regulation and yadda yadda yadda...

seems to me we might as well take it.

I mean, it already gives itself the power to block it, so its not like you're giving it power over an area it didn't previously have.


57 posted on 06/29/2005 12:00:10 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Oh, and for the record, I consider myself a "little L libertarian." I'm disgusted by the Big L Libertarian party even more than the GOP.


58 posted on 06/29/2005 12:01:19 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

My family came through Ellis Island, legally. They also assimilated, rather than wanting moving as part of an organized "reconquista" invasion.
---

Well today you're family would probably not be allowed to enter unless they hit a 'lottery jackpot' or some such thign. And I don't think most hispanics think much differently from the way your ancestors felt. Why did 44% vote for Bush?

I live in NC, the state with teh greatest jump in illegal immigration in the US.

And just cuz a party looses doesn't have any validity of their stances on issues. Goldwater lost in 1972 by a massive margin. Was he right on almost every issue? You bet. Don't live by polls. And the disasterousness of LBJ and Carter paved the way for Reagan's triumph.

(and I don't think the libertarians are loosing everywhere either, FYI, much of their successes are at local levels)


59 posted on 06/29/2005 12:05:24 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Europe based the EU on a socialist utopian idea that combines economic integration and supranational authority that will result in general peace

Sound familiar?

They also believe that a Europe without continental "trade barriers" would do better than a Europe fragmented into smaller national markets. Their "framework" would eliminate sovereignty and destroy any sense of national identity.

Sound familiar?

CAFTA is the product of a socialist/utopian/corporatism. It is being implemented in the same "framework" (in other words supranataional socialist government) as the EU.

Now the European people got a chance to vote on the EU constitution. Have the American people had a chance to vote on CAFTA? Have they had a chance to participate in the debate? If you have read the MSM articles on CAFTA, OUR GOVERNMENT only cares what the "stakeholders" and transnational corporations want. They do not care about individual citizens, and no, individual citizens will not be allowed to trade freely with CAFTA countries.


60 posted on 06/29/2005 12:07:07 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Most hispanic citizens I've met (I live in AZ, there are plenty) are very pissed about the illegal immigration situation.

It makes them look bad.

They want the border closed, too.

Limiting the # of people allowed in is a GOOD thing, btw.


61 posted on 06/29/2005 12:09:49 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
teeming with people

You got that right. The CAFTA open borders people forsee a USA with a population of 1 billion people by 2050.

Our constitutional govnerment as designed cannot effectively represent that large a population, but the way the trade agreements are written, it won't matter. There are supranational agencies waiting in the wings, some already acting in the place of natinal governments. What you advocate is the demise of the only free people on earth.
62 posted on 06/29/2005 12:10:40 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago

Are you serious? With all the missile batteries and no fly zones that didn't exist 8 years ago? The street cameras, the metal detectors and bomb sniffers? Come on!
63 posted on 06/29/2005 12:12:16 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

The word from On High is shut up, be happy with your cheap chinese imports, and take it like the serf you are being turned into.


64 posted on 06/29/2005 12:19:30 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
You said..."What do you propose we do then?"

There is usually no easy fix to things...

In general...I believe that a 'carrot and a stick' is the answer to many problems...make business in this country more competitive across the board...not just for politically connected companies.

Abolish most forms of corporate welfare and special loophole tax breaks...while reducing or eliminating many taxes.

Negotiate trade agreements that will give American companies the ability to set up operations in foreign countries...and produce goods for that country alone...as a means of building up the infrastructure of the host country.

I'm open to any and all other suggestions...

I don't have a problem with free trade of goods....its the free trade of services that causes problems...services can be defined very broadly. I would limit services to include temporary specialized labor...such as consulting services...which the user country does not have a capability in.

For example...there is a big difference with importing guest workers into this country to do conventional blue collar jobs on a semi to permanent living basis...at below market rates...and hiring a consultant to go to Costa Rica and set up a communications network for people who don't have the technical knowhow.

Yet...in this agreement...there seems to be no distinction on the American side...jobs is jobs.

On the other side of it...you bet there are distinctions...
65 posted on 06/29/2005 12:22:03 PM PDT by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

free trade is not a socialist idea. Communism = no trade, self sufficiency. Free trade is on the opposite spectrum.

Free trade does not mean the demise of nationalism. On the contrary, our freedom will make us prouder than ever of our country.

That is really a shame if the CAFTA agreement is written so only corporations can participate in it. Are you sure that is written in there?


66 posted on 06/29/2005 12:22:22 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

In 1790 the US population was 3.9 million. Today it is almost 300 million. The idea of limiting the power of government will suffice for any population, indeed, its the reason so many flocked here.

At least mulinational corporations exist for profit and work to create wealth. Government exists to steal and thieve wealth.


67 posted on 06/29/2005 12:25:15 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

well, we are mostly in agreement then. You seem to be in favor of free trade with 'conditions'. I'd argue that those conditions will hurt rather than help and destroy jobs rather than create them.

I think incremental steps towards liberty ought to be taken and I think CAFTA is one of them.

And I do think external taxes (tarrifs imports etc..) work better than internal taxes.


68 posted on 06/29/2005 12:29:00 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks; Carry_Okie
free trade is not a socialist idea

CAFTA is to "raise Central America out of poverty". Have you read it? It is purely socialist in its doctrine. "trade capacity building" is merely the transfer of US wealth to the third world so they can trade and be "lifted out of poverty". That is nothing less than socialism practiced on a hemispheric scale.

CAFTA promises "sustainable development". Sustainable development is the socialist control of natural resources and wealth generation that was first proposed by two global socialists, Gro Harlem Bruntlandt and Maurice Strong. It was quickly picked up by the "free trade" globalists who see it as a way to control populations and destroy private property rights. There is NO coincidence that the US supreme court voted against private property at the same time a "free trade" agreement that supports sustainable development is to be voted on in Congress. No coincidence at all IMO.
69 posted on 06/29/2005 12:31:23 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

I wonder what those of an evangelical disposition think of that list.


70 posted on 06/29/2005 12:31:35 PM PDT by lonewacko_dot_com (http://lonewacko.com/blog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
the idea of limiting the power of government will suffice for any population

How many representatives in the house, when the population is 1 billion? How will that work? And 100 senators to 1 billion people? How good will the representation be? Or will the senators just kowtow to the transnationals,as they do now, because there are fewer of them and its easier?
71 posted on 06/29/2005 12:33:40 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: lonewacko_dot_com

"I wonder what those of an evangelical disposition think of that list."

I'm not a Christian, so I don't understand why someones faith would made a difference to seeing their liberty dissolved in the freedom-solvent of bureaucray?


72 posted on 06/29/2005 12:36:27 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

RINOs selling us out - People we have to stop voting for Republicans and start voting for principled conservatives. Bush and McCain are RINO elitists - they could care less about honest hard working Americans.


73 posted on 06/29/2005 12:41:33 PM PDT by sasafras (Enforce the border, take away all the benefits and penalize employers who hire illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
You said..."You seem to be in favor of free trade with 'conditions'."

In general thats correct. Thats where the 'stick' comes in.

If you see that as a philosophical inconsistency...it is to some extent ...but so is your accepting of a comprehensive government negotiated and supervised trade agreement.

Many things are by necessity a paradox...we just have to choose the best compromise.

One other caveat....I do believe China falls into a special class of countries...and a special class of trade.

China is not a benevolent trading partner....but thats a topic for another thread!
74 posted on 06/29/2005 12:42:35 PM PDT by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

Here's a suggestion: someone could take that list, add some URLs to it, and post on evangelical-oriented forums asking what their members think of Bush's various moves.


75 posted on 06/29/2005 12:57:28 PM PDT by lonewacko_dot_com (http://lonewacko.com/blog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic; Dillybird; Tarantulas; AnOldCowhand; livefreeCA; Petruchio; Entebbe; river rat; ...

ping


76 posted on 06/29/2005 1:56:56 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Your new neighbors. If this passes, you will wish you lived in one of these S**t H*le countries.


77 posted on 06/29/2005 2:23:15 PM PDT by Ramonan (Honor does not go out of style.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
YOU SAID..."There is NO coincidence that the US supreme court voted against private property at the same time a "free trade" agreement that supports sustainable development is to be voted on in Congress. No coincidence at all IMO."

There does seem to be a 'perfect storm' brewing....when you factor in the illegal immigration angle...Social Security totalization proposals..Social security 'reform'...Prescription Drugs...spiraling Health Care and Insurance Costs..out of control judiciary and powerful trial lawyer advocacy groups..misc special interests and pols protected by the ubiquitous CFR...and even the bill Santorum introduced the other day regarding product labeling.

I do believe that all of these effects taken together...combined with the welfare and entitlement mentality people like Ted Kennedy push...have a synergistic effect which acts against individual liberty and opportunity.

Instead of the American Dream as we have traditionally understood it...we will have crony capitalism for some politically connected individuals...and 'managed' opportunity for everyone else.
78 posted on 06/29/2005 2:38:18 PM PDT by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

In my research, I have found indications that the reason for Social security 'reform', is to allow foreign investment in our social security system via the financial services clause that will be implemented in the FTAA and through the WTO. The 'reform' to "private accounts" is just laying the foundation for foreign companies to get involved in the huge amount of money our social security laws require to be collected from the American people.


79 posted on 06/29/2005 2:53:21 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard
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.

I wonder. Do you support "protecting domestic" pharmacological companies "from competition"?

80 posted on 06/29/2005 2:54:49 PM PDT by A. Pole ("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

" I wonder. Do you support "protecting domestic" pharmacological companies "from competition"?"

Generally no, beyond allowing them patents on specific drugs. Even there I think it would sometimes make sense for the U.S. government to buy the rights to the drug and allow free competition.


81 posted on 06/29/2005 2:59:19 PM 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 80 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard

The US government 'bought' the rights to flu vaccine. That's why we have shortages, and why the vaccine never quite matches the virus that is the most threatening.

Remember last winter? They US government was going to put people in jail if they got a flu shot and they weren't 'qualified'.

You should be careful what you wish for.


82 posted on 06/29/2005 3:12:43 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

The government took over the supply of the flu vaccine, they didn't just buy the rights to it.

To be honest I do not know the detail of the patents on the Flu vaccine. I know each years has a new strain of the virus, but that the original patents on flu vaccines must have passed the 17 year expiration mark long ago.


83 posted on 06/29/2005 3:27:27 PM 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 82 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
I don't quite understand those who wish to expand government to protect their jobs. If you need government to protect your job...

Obviously, you don't read so well. CAFTA is an expansion of government, except it is expansion to the detriment of U.S. citizens, and in the interest of thieves wanting to steal more wealth from U.S. citizens and redistribute it to the socialist neo-cons and their comrade third-world socialists.

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.

And according to the article, the bastards already know the poor folks in the targeted countries are not going to benefit from CAFTA, just like NAFTA only benefitted the corrupt bureaucrats and racketeers.

84 posted on 06/29/2005 3:54:38 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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

I do like "The People's Party" (Populists) but they are not all that big. Consitution Party is another good one and I think H. Ross Perot's Reform Party had a lot of good points, they did have a chance for a while.
85 posted on 06/29/2005 3:56:48 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Are you serious? With all the missile batteries and no fly zones that didn't exist 8 years ago? The street cameras, the metal detectors and bomb sniffers? Come on!

It's a shame it is like that now. Just seeing the news in the last hour or so with the Capitol evacuation and Shep on Fox doing a story about one plot to poison the milk supply, I do have to concur. I know we didn't ask for 9-11 and I think maybe we could have done something to stop it, maybe not, but I don't like what we are morphing into. I did vote on the poll a while back to cut back the Patriot Act when it comes up for renewal, yes, there are some good stuff there but I think there are other things that are bad like checking library records and so on. Crap, I miss the Cold War, it was saner then. B-P
86 posted on 06/29/2005 4:03:28 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
The word from On High is shut up, be happy with your cheap chinese imports, and take it like the serf you are being turned into.

And as Bobby McFerrin and "Wet Willie" always says, "Don't Worry, Be Happy" (1988) and "Keep on Smilin'" (1970) respectively. B-P
87 posted on 06/29/2005 4:08:39 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Please wake up and look at a calander..... it's 2005.

We must do everything possible to make life in central America better for the citizens. There must be development of a middle class.

The best way to deal with them is to make the choice of either staying home or leaving for the USA difficult. If the marginal cost of leaving can be raised to the point it is only slightly better than staying, they will stay at home.

Cafta will assist in that process


88 posted on 06/29/2005 4:18:48 PM PDT by bert ( "Market forces, not political majorities, will compel societies to reconfigure themselves in ways t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bert
We must do everything possible to make life in central America better for the citizens

I don't think the founders had in mind that the American people would be the do gooder police force for the world.

CAFTA won't help them. "Free trade" actually destroys local economies, especially agriculture. Thats why the $30 million to help the peasant farmers if CAFTA is passed.

US taxpayers pay taxes to support their country's infrastructure and the essential services of government. Our tax dollars are not up for grabs as a global charity or to smooth the way for transnational corporations to destroy the fragile economies of third world countries,yet somehow people have been elected to office that are misusing their office to send our money abroad, and without the consent of the American people at that. The 'civil society' council system that CAFTA helps to put in place does not promote freedom, or liberty or protect these people with a Bill of Rights. Therefore they will never be as successful as the American people, and there WILL be economic refugees (aka illegal immigrants) to this country.

The very best thing for these central American countries to do is to adopt a system of free enterprise (NOT "free trade") and put in a constitutional legal system to support it. My tax money and yours will not do that for them, they must do it for themselves, and they must instigate it, not us.

CAFTA however doesn't allow for free enterprise and sets up a supranational council system for governing these people in the name of "free trade". They are going to be getting global socialism, not FREEDOM.

Don't you see? In Africa, in the 1960s and 70's the powers that be tried to start a "green revolution" ostensibly to feed the African people. They set up transnational agribusiness (mostly European) in these countries. Their plan failed on 2 counts, and resulted in the famine deaths of millions of people. The first was that they forced temperate climate agricultural techniques in climates that were unsuitable for them. The second is that they contracted with farmers to grow commodity crops to sell in Europe. For example, many African farmers invested in heavy equipment and started growing peanuts to suit the global trade. The small producers that had been growing the food crops saw cash in peanut oil and stopped growing for local markets. The upshot was a lot of these farmers failed because the market could not support the flood of new production, and famine ensued because no one was providing food crops for the region anymore.

CAFTA has the potential for the same disaster, except the US taxpayer wil pay and pay and pay to keep people from dying. A global scam of global proportions.
89 posted on 06/29/2005 4:37:44 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The 'reform' to "private accounts" is just laying the foundation for foreign companies to get involved in the huge amount of money our social security laws require to be collected from the American people.

BTTT

90 posted on 06/29/2005 5:14:24 PM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
USTR Rob Portman Statement Regarding Senate Finance Committee Approval of CAFTA-DR

"CAFTA-DR is a great agreement that levels the playing field for American workers, farmers and businesses, will boost U.S. exports offshoring and will promote stability and democracy among our friends and neighbors in a fantasy world.
91 posted on 06/29/2005 6:42:51 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

I agree that part is terrible. I bet that money gets spent uionizing and destorying those peoples lives down there. Or perphaps its little more than bribery, but bribery to improve the lives of its citizens.

I've laid out my opnions on this thread if you'd like to go back and read them on this issue. Pealing back government restrictions on trade is worth these minuses. (IMO)


92 posted on 06/29/2005 7:53:49 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

Many things are by necessity a paradox...we just have to choose the best compromise.
---

Well, I understand where you are coming from and you where I am coming from. I take it if the 'free trade' uptopia we have discussed existed you would enthhusiastically support it.

So, we just disagree to what degree of compromise is necessary as a step to achieve that ends.

That is a disagreement I can live with.


93 posted on 06/29/2005 7:58:25 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: bert

If the marginal cost of leaving can be raised to the point it is only slightly better than staying, they will stay at home.
---

Thats what I don't understand. Many of the anti-free traders are also the most outspoken opponents of outsourcing and immigration. These beliefs do not jive because they are actually opposite each other. The more we restrict qualified foreign workers from coming to be employed here by US companies, the more the US companeis will go overseas. The less trade we have with other countreis the worse their (and our) economies will be, higher unemplyoment and the more people will flock to the US. etc.. etc.. etc..


94 posted on 06/29/2005 8:03:05 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I don't think your argument is a valid one because our population has increased x 10 since the constitution was ratified and although we have our problems, I don't think we can say it is because of our population growth. doubling or trebbling the population won't cause any harm, in fact it would strengthen our power and influence in the world, much less make the lives of those who come here infinitly better.

In fact, if the thieving federal government would give back all the land it has stolen from the states out west, we'd have plenty of space.


95 posted on 06/29/2005 8:09:51 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

We have less representation than before.

This is significant, and if the population were 1 billion, how many people is that per senator? Isn't something like 1 senator per 10,000,000,000,000,000 people? How do you get adequate representation with those numbers?


96 posted on 06/29/2005 8:22:20 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks; hedgetrimmer; Paul Ross; GOP_1900AD
YOU SAID..."I take it if the 'free trade' uptopia we have discussed existed you would enthhusiastically support it."

It depends on your definition of utopia.

In MY model of Utopian free trade, countries would be more or less symmetric trading partners, and would utilize comparative advantage in a way which maximized production efficiencies in each others country. Wealth would increase for both...and jobs would be secure. Trade functions in your ideal model of individual to individual...or company to company. I certainly support that.

The first question arises...can you have free trade with a country that does not have a free democratic government? How about if they are an enemy of the US?

A second problem arises in the real world. Should comparative advantage lead to job elimination in each country..due to the demands of efficiency. Don't we need, for example, certain classes of jobs...such as technical jobs / engineering in this country to maintain our own technology and standard of living....not to mention our military and defense capabilities. Should engineering be a protected labor category...or subsidized...by virtue of defense programs? But doesn't that defeat the purpose of comparative advantage?

Once again...a paradox.

The issue with REAL free trade always comes down to jobs. I don't equate free trade with the outsourcing of jobs overseas...as that IMO constitutes trade in labor...not goods.

Another example...efficiency demands that certain classes of factory production jobs are to be eliminated...but shouldn't they be replaced by another industry which can utilize people who are trainable for a production skill level. Without jobs at all skill levels..not just the manager level...society eventually degenerates into either anarchy or totalitarian socialism. But we don't want government deciding on winners and losers in industry.

Another paradox.

I also believe that Utopian free trade probably requires a radically different tax and revenue structure to support its existence. IMO, our present tax system, coupled with the legal burden and the many entitlements and loopholes have created a mess in which free trade as we are practicing it now doesn't raise the standard of living for society as a whole...but serves to redistribute wealth. For example...if most major American companies outsourced much of their workforces overseas, and increased profits...it would create wealth for some...but at the expense of others.

Would you support free trade with the provision of removing all income taxes and replacing taxes with tariffs or consumption taxes or a combination of both?

Honestly...I have more questions than answers...and I believe that many classical theories of economics will probably be revised over the next ten or twenty years or so, as people examine how free trade really functions on a global scale.

But...I'm just an engineer....let others weigh in on this.
97 posted on 06/29/2005 9:48:03 PM PDT by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: USAFJeeper
My particular brand of conservatism believes in the Constitution. Ron Paul nails it very well, what all the free trade types are upto:

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.

98 posted on 06/29/2005 10:01:53 PM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

Is GWB pushing LOST still?


99 posted on 06/29/2005 10:03:02 PM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Pealing back government restrictions on trade is worth these minuses. (IMO)

What kind of twisted reasoning does it take to consider 20,000 additional pages of trade law as "pealing (sic) back government restrictions on trade"?

100 posted on 06/29/2005 10:26:44 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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