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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 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