Posted on 07/25/2005 8:58:34 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
What is the difference between 1000 letters from American citizen and one letter signed by 10 CFR members?
I know I am going to regret this but...What?
The one letter signed by 10 CFR members will be at the top of the stack and that will be the only one the Rep actually reads.
Well, it is easier to read one letter than 1,000. :-)
I am not buying this invisible hand behind the government business. What we can see is bad enough.
"I am not buying this invisible hand behind the government business."
Do you think that legislators write Bills and push for them on their own (to help put their standards into their district and community)
or do you think there is 'outside' influences such as businessmen and lobbyists?
Do you think financial contributions have an effect of the passage of Bills?
Specifically, CAFTA brazenly requires the executive branch of the United States Government, as well as this Congress, our State Governors, State legislators, and even local authorities to conform all existing and future Federal, State, and local laws to a new set of international statutes and standards that go beyond trade matters.
I have heard similar arguments with respect to some of the other agreements we are involved in. Since there are over 1000 pages, could someone point me to the section that requires this?
I have not read the agreement, but there are a number of statements made by the speaker that I would like to actually see in writing.
Every trade agreement has to have some method of issue resolution. I heard the many cries of horror for NAFTA, but have somehow missed all of the horrors that eminated from it. To the best of my knowledge, anything that Congress finds objectionable under any trade agreement (including the free flow of trucks) can be handled with legislation. Congress does not act, but merely expresses concern. Apparently these concerns are not so substantial after all.
No trade agreement can dictate how Congress or any state does its business and frames its laws, except as it may involve specific trade issues.
But I have not read it. To those who have, please educate me.
WTF? Do you know what you are talking about? You need a dictionary. When you get one, look up "akin".
...we allow our own sovereignty to be continually assaulted by the NAFTA tribunal.
CAFTA merely adds insult to injury by continuing this downward spiral toward a complete loss of U.S. sovereignty.
Much more than "interesting" my friend, and about dam# time!!!
To admit outside influence is not to accept an invisible hand controlling the world.
Thank you for your kind and polite mention of my ommission. I meant are "akin to the believers in....."
Again, thank you for pointing that out to me. I hope you bring my attention to any other errors you see as you have such a pleasant way of pointing those thngs out.
CAFTA: at what cost?
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - Bangor Daily News
In recent weeks, the president has been pressing the Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the administration's free trade proposal with El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. This week the House of Representatives is expected to take up the measure: but at what cost?
Pressing his case in a recent speech, President Bush claimed that the pact would aid U.S. farmers, businesses and workers, claiming "by passing CAFTA, the United States would open up a market of 44 million consumers for our farmers and small business people."
But if this is such a slam-dunk case, why does such a broad, bipartisan coalition - including nearly 30 Republicans in the House of Representatives, business organizations, labor groups, family farmers, ranchers, churches and faith-based groups -strongly oppose CAFTA?
These opponents are hardly anti-trade zealots. Clearly, something else is going on here. During the president's tenure in office, Congress has typically voted within 65 days after he has signed a trade agreement. But CAFTA has been on hold for more than a year because congressional opposition has remained steadfast.
When it comes to CAFTA, the benefit is pretty hard to find. Despite having 44 million inhabitants, the CAFTA nations only boast the purchasing power of New Haven, Connecticut. More than 40 percent of Central American workers work for less than two dollars a day. Clearly, under these conditions, CAFTA will not truly open new market opportunities for American products-as currently written, it merely allows more outsourcing and access to cheap labor markets with almost nonexistent environmental and labor standards.
How could such a bad deal for our workers pass? In recent days, the administration has authorized House leaders to secure votes with whatever is at hand, from extra funding for individual members' districts in the highway and energy bills to the still incomplete annual appropriations bills. Members are being asked to trade away their votes for a trade agreement that only promises to trade away American jobs.
Two years ago, this tactic worked to pass the deeply flawed Medicare bill by one vote - leadership held open a 15-minute vote for three hours while they twisted arms in order to ensure its passage. It is expected that the CAFTA vote will be more of the same.
Is this the way that the people's House should look after the best interests of our nation? What message does this send the American people and our work force? And why must these votes always be held in the dark of night? While working Americans sleep, their jobs are traded away in a Capitol Hill back room.
The administration may want this deal passed as quickly as possible, before opposition mounts even further. But the people who have suffered the most under our trade policies - including my neighbors, my co-workers and my family, and many of the good people of Maine - have earned the right to ask the simple question about what a new trade deal will mean for their families, and get some real answers before we move forward.
All Americans have earned this right. And we're still waiting for the answer.
Michael H. Michaud is Maine's 2nd District congressman.
"some unknown reason"
To me there's nothing unknown about it. It's the globalist exporting of our economic base while at home the economy implodes. I have to laugh though at how all the Clintonites are bashing CAFTA but conveniently forget how CLinton pushed so strongly for NAFTA. There's hypocrisy everywhere on this.
It is interesting that when NAFTA went through most of the outrage came from the Left. Years later though, many patriotic, heartland communities are feeling the sting and speaking out against it.
Please tell me of your next invitation to the CFR Meeting.
Rep. Otter nails it right here. THIS is the reason President Bush is pushing this so hard. Globalization rules!
What better way to push the globalization agenda than through a supposedly innocent trade agreement.
This represents a chance for this country to take a giant step backwards. We ain't gonna be happy living under these new rules. This must be stopped.
Can't, that would be telling secrets. Next you would be wanting the code.
And even those can be aborted if Congress and the President decide to. The biggest objection voiced on these threads is that we are giving up our sovereignty to foreign powers. That is total BS.
Even now we are in disagreements with the WTO. We have the choice to accept their rulings or not to, but the choice is ours and it is a choice Congress will make. No foreign power controls us.
Most opponents, imo, are backers of unions and others who can't stand the heat of competition. When they scream about all the harm these agreements are going to cause and you ask them to explain our present economy, they change the subject.
Same with those who fret over our trade with China.
So far, that's the way I see it. I've yet to see any of my sovereignty lost with the other agreements.
Most opponents, imo, are backers of unions and others who can't stand the heat of competition. When they scream about all the harm these agreements are going to cause and you ask them to explain our present economy, they change the subject. Same with those who fret over our trade with China.
Yes, this is the real issue and the one that Buchanan hangs his trade hat on. We have two issues to deal with. One, union wages frequently make our products uncompetitive with other countries and help lead to the deficit we are experiencing. The other is a two pronged problem. The low (in some instance, slave) wages paid in some countries, including China, and the subsidies given which make some products and services cheaper to export. The last is what most of the trade agreements were instituted to overcome. But they are still a problem with many countries.
Union wages being "uncompetitive with other countries" is a polite way of saying "We can make a S#@T-load more by shifting the manufacturing base somewhere else instead of correcting the problem at home." Do you really believe that the sweatshops would cease to exist if union workers were paid less? Would illegal aliens stop being hired if Americans volunteered to do their work?
"explaining our present economy" is one in which the effects of NAFTA have already been felt. BTW it's interesting that as the Chinese become further empowered by our trade policy they may just use the power the West has endowed them with to someday kill American soldiers, as they have done in the past. How can we empower a nation that has recently threatened us with nuclear attack?
"Giving up our soveereignty to other powers" should be reworded as " slowly giving up our concept of nationhood to one world government."
If all the time, money, and energy spent on fighting these trade agreements were spent on eliminating the above, we would be more than competitive with the "slave labor" wages.
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.