Works every time.
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.
Beware the Red Queen.
For she and/or her minions
Will ride down on you.
I'm sorry, I thought NAFTA was a disaster that would send all the good jobs to Mexico. Now we see that wages actually increased. Is there anything about NAFTA you were right about?
Beat me to it.
True conservatives say: "We have a moral obligation and a vital national security interest in helping the CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA succeed, and CAFTA DOES NOTHING TO further that goal."
A bad day for America. Whoop it up, Free Traitors. You are tools of the stateless international elite and the coming New World Order.
"This world is not my home........I'm just a passing through."
I didn't see anything about an international trade organization approving or disapproving our laws. Maybe you could cut and paste that section? Thanks.
They voted against it because George Bush was for it. It's not like they had a choice. If you want to blow kisses to Jug Ears, go ahead.
I've read the CFR report and found that they are saying that the three countries have lots of common interests, especially border security and economic development. To address these common concerns that all three countries share, they should work together. That means that when someone on a watch list enters Mexico, the US government gets alerted. That means that the three work together to patrol the borders of the continent, rather than the US ineffectively stopping terrorists from crossing into the US. You are taking great and paranoid license with your interpretation of their wording.
Of course, others will disagree and that's just fine. The CFR is not a government agency, it's an independent committee. It has no power. This is a work group, independent even from the CFR, that the CFR commissioned to study these problems and to make recommendations. It's not policy, and it's still entirely up to the government and the people to enact any of their suggestions.
To accomplish what you tin-foilers are claiming, our government would have to amend the Constitution. Bush struggled just to get CAFTA passed by congress and you think that the U.S. is imminently going to change our Constitution in favor of becoming the Union of North America! How do you sleep at night with all those monsters under your bed?
I've got a number of chapters in the scriptures that are favorites...but my very top of my favorites is Psalm 37...reading that chapter gives me great joy. God Bless ;o)
Works every time.
$0.06 per hour per year.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!
More jobs, lower prices. What's not to like?
Yes, growth is real wages is another sign that NAFTA was a disaster.
The small family farm has become extinct for many reasons. The biggest reason is because idiot protectionists don't realize that 80% of their cherished farm subsidies end up in the hands of the large farming cooperatives. That money is then used to out-comptete the small farmer and drive him out of business or to buy him out and then hire him back as a tenant farmer.
You guys cry rivers for the small family farmer but never seem willing to recognize the unintended consequences of your protectionist policies.
ROTFLMAO!!!
"The upcoming vote on CAFTA promises a replay of mafia-style tactics used to coerce votes from reluctant House members," he said. "Already, arms are being twisted; deals and pork payoffs are being made with your tax dollars; political threats have been issued -- and that's only the beginning."
Relinquishing U.S. sovereignty is the biggest reason to oppose CAFTA, he said.
"Then it's the economy, and the list goes down from there," he said.
Snyder referenced CAFTA-DR article 10.16.3 that "places the United States under the jurisdiction of international tribunals supervised by the United Nations."
Article 10.5.2 says international tribunals must use "customary international law" as established by "principle legal systems of the world" when deciding cases.
"CAFTA, like NAFTA, treats the U.S. Constitution like a relic," Snyder said.
Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, Warrenton, Va., said U.S. sovereignty is absolutely the No. 1 concern with CAFTA.
"Sovereignty is a question of who is in control," he said. "A nation should be in control of it own destiny and should not voluntarily relinquish that control.
"CAFTA is a danger to our independence and to our sovereignty, and it is the job of the U.S. government to protect Americans first," he said.
DeWeese said the trade agreement, like those that have gone before it are simply "a raid on our economy."
"It is a redistribution of wealth, and who has the most wealth?" he asked. "The United States does."
DeWeese said he supports free trade but not the "CAFTA truckload of regulations that tell you how to do it."
Information from the United States Trade Representative's office confirmed that CAFTA-DR countries already enjoy duty free access to the United States on up to 80 percent of their goods exported to the United States. For agriculture exports, CAFTA would reduce tariffs on many U.S goods going to Central America, but just as many would not be duty-free for at least another one to 15 years, the USTR office said.
Under the agreement, American taxpayers will also pay to develop trade with those nations. National Action Plans have been designed to identify each country's trade-capacity-building needs and funnel money from public (and private) sources ... "to make the transition and changes necessary to realize the linkage between trade and development."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1446507/posts
I see by your glorious chart that wages have increased about an average sixty cents per hour since '94. That is certain proof that "real" wages have blossomed out of control, in favor of the little guy.>/sarc<
Seriously, Botster, that's a chart I don't believe I would have posted given your side of the argument.
But your friends said NAFTA sent high paying jobs to Mexico and replaced them with lower paying jobs. You and your friends were wrong.
How much should real wages have increased? Did they increase more or less in the 10 years before NAFTA?
Heh heh heh. Read post #277, and educate yourself.
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.