No.
So now do you get it?
Posted on 07/27/2005 9:14:44 PM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON - The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement early Thursday, a personal triumph for President Bush, who campaigned aggressively for the accord he said would foster prosperity and democracy in the hemisphere.
The 217-215 vote just after midnight adds six Latin American countries to the growing lists of nations with free trade agreements with the United States and averts what could have been a major political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
It was an uphill effort to win a majority, with Bush traveling to Capitol Hill earlier in the day to appeal to wavering Republicans to support a deal he said was critical to U.S. national security.
Lobbying continued right up to the vote, with Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez tracking undecided lawmakers.
The United States signed the accord, known as CAFTA, a year ago with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and the Senate approved it last month. It now goes to the president for his signature.
To capture a majority, supporters had to overcome what some have called free trade fatigue, a growing sentiment that free trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada have contributed to a loss of well-paying American jobs and the soaring trade deficit.
Democrats, who were overwhelmingly against CAFTA, also argued that its labor rights provisions were weak and would result in exploitation of workers in Central America.
But supporters pointed out that CAFTA would over time eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers that impede U.S. sales to the region, correcting the current situation in which 80 percent of Central American goods enter the United States duty-free but Americans must pay heavy tariffs.
The agreement would also strengthen intellectual property protections and make it easier for Americans to invest in the region.
"This is a test of American leadership in a changing world," said Rep. Kevin Brady (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a leading proponent of the agreement. "We cannot claim to be fighting for American jobs and yet turn our backs on 44 million new customers in Central America.
LOL! Going out of town in an hour or so, but I'm doing my best here.....
OK...........as a born again Christian for nearly 50 years who has studied Scripture, I'd like for you to show me, using specific references, how any verse/verses tell you that trading goods with other countries in the Americas has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING in Scripture.
I really want to know where you're getting this, and which preachers/ televangelists / cult leaders are promoting this.
"Anybody wanna make bets on how many Buchannanites blow their top on FR over the next few days?"
You've made a typo...
Try this: "Anybody wanna make bets on how many Conservatives blow their top on FR over the next few days?"
The good news is, after we get two Supreme Court nominees, we'll be free to vote 3rd Party again and let the Country Club republicans will their illegal alien housekeepers deal with Hillary for 8 years ...
Whatever has been done to secure the San Diego area has only shifted the invasion to the Tucson Sector.
"but often the higher value elements of their design, are performed by Americans."
REPLACE WITH
"but often the higher value elements of their design, are performed by HINDU and CHINESE."
"You're just angry because we created 21 million jobs since NAFTA. You sound silly."
You sound sillier, we've decimated manufacturing and have created 21 million Mcjobs and low paying service jobs.
True!
"I said created since NAFTA, not created by NAFTA"
Correctamundo!
McJobs for everyone!
If it didn't create so many new jobs why aren't the Mexicans staying home? Ten percent of that country's workforce is here -- legally or not.
Keep drinking the koolaid buddy
Well, it's no guarantee, is it? China can manipulate it's people and money in ways that we cannot.
I undersand the reasoning behind it, but I'm not all that comfortable with it.
You better have a flame suit on.. I agree with you on that..
So, NAFTA hurt us because all our jobs went to Mexico? Mexico was hurt because all their jobs came here? It's a lose-lose situation? Thanks for straightening that out.
I've already documented the damage to the farm industry.
Did we produce more farm products in 2004 than in 1994? Did we just export a record amount of ag products last year?
I have been here much longer than you, and shall be here after you are ashamed to call yourself a Republican. It takes a year or two for any cycle to complete itself. I just figure in the second year of Hillarys Presidency, the shit will really hit the fan. She has now been given clearance for her "move to the center". She will cobble together a coalition of the wacky left, the disenchanted right and the independence, to sweep into the WH. Now tell me how that will be good for the business of the US?
*shakes head in disgust*
You're in California? Well then, it's no wonder you're a crybaby.
*points and laughs*
The depression I speak of will be high unemployment, and Hillary Clinton in the WH. If that is not a depression, what is?
"Anyone want to guess who said this?
"But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade."
Karl Marx?
No.
So now do you get it?
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.