|
Son of a gun-- Snowrip is right!
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.
|
Son of a gun-- Snowrip is right!
I fear you are talking to a brick wall.
There's a certain breed of human that doesn't care about country.
All they care about is how they can best make money.
And if someone doesn't want to try to make money their way, then they judge us wrong for wanting some other way--as they are enlightened and we are backward.
Quote: Wow, didn't realize those 3 companies employed so many
Yep, a typical smartass answer from toddster
And as the Indians become more Westernized, they will draw the outsides, too.
We must all be afraid--because all our jobs can eventually be done more cheaply overseas.
I ask again: Can we really become a nation of gas station attendants and waitresses, buying from eachother and the world?
The good news is, after we get two Supreme Court nominees, we'll be free to vote 3rd Party again
Although there are some whom frequent these threads whom I cannot say that of! :-)
"And as the Indians become more Westernized, they will draw the outsides, too."
I don't know why they couldn't do it now. It's all pretty much cookie cutter anyway.
Sadly, these are the facts...
"Are there fewer American jobs today than back when NAFTA was first ratified in 1993?"
Unemployment overall is lower. However, the net loss of jobs in the SKILLED labor markets (such as auto, textile, and electronics manufacturing) has been disasterous. These are hundred-billion-dollar industries, whose working families are part of the backbone of middle class America. The total number of unemployed people is lower because of the creation of millions of lower-paying jobs in the UNSKILLED labor markets. The net gain in jobs is hardly a gain for Americans as a country.
"Are American salaries lower today than in 1993?"
Yes, wages are higher... but they always are. Wages keep place with inflation, cost-of-living index, etc. NAFTA was ratified over a decade ago... of course salaries are higher. The problem is that economic growth, the true measure of national economic prosperity and success, is slow. The hemmoraging of manufacturing jobs, farming dollars, etc. is slowly killing us. The numbers are further muddied by artificially low interest rates and an increase in the minimum wage.
It has been argued here that we need to get into Central and south America ahead of the Chinese, who are strategic thinkers. I happen to agree with this, but give us a trade bill that will actually STRENGTHEN OUR TRADE. The Chinese, after years of observation and analysis, see the United States as dying empire. This is partially based of the view that the government is strangling both itself and the populace. The clinking of glasses that you hear may well be theirs.
Aw Jeeze-- I screwed up again by forgetting my < / sarcasm > tags. Hey everybody, my post 481 was meant to be a joke! The actual BLS website has no such numbers. I'm amazed that Todd and I were the only ones here that thought snowrip's 21,000,000 was 'beyond all recognition'.
Well stated!
[ANTI-NAFTA RANT MODE] Not possible because my union masters say it is not possible. {/ANTI-NAFTA RANT MODE]
Why shouldn't Wal-Mart purchase product from the cheapest source? If they can get a broom from China for $0.80 or 1 from the U.S. for $1.20 the choice is obvious.
Forgot my sarcasm tags, also... although, you'd have to be a reeeeeeal DUMMY to think that I actually meant all 21 million jobs were created through these three companies.
Oh, yeah...>sarcasm<
I am a Paulist.
Are you a Bushit?
Bushit! Bushit! Is that kin to a Bushbot? : ) <<< me
More nonsense. Do you know anything about productivity and how it impacts output, pricing, profits and wages? Using your logic we shouldn't have any jobs left here at all - since other countries can do things so much cheaper than we can. Yet, our employment continues to grow (141.6 million now) along with wages.
Food imports were up 15% in 2004 vs. 2003. The major reason is a demand by consumers for more exotic foods and for fresh fruit and produce year round. We are also consuming more imported beer and wine. Add to this the ongoing beef dispute with japan which stopped $1.7 billion of American beef exports, a poultry dispute with Russia, three hurricanes in Florida that decimated the tomato and citrus business and you have many of the reasons why this has happened. Despite all of this there was a zero trade surplus/deficit for Ag products in 2004.
For 2005, the Department of Agriculture is projecting just a 6% increase in Ag imports. We may or may not become a net importer of food, beer and wine. Over the long term though, Ag exports will continue to grow and American agribusiness will remain healthy.
And I will make it clearer for you. Between 1996 and 2003 our agricultural imports increased from 33 billion to 46 billion.
And, during that same time, exports of American Ag products also increased. There are no losers here. Trade is increasing for everyone. Why do you see this as a win-lose situation? There doesn't have to be a loser when all parties benefit.
A trade deficit in itself is not a bad thing. Inducing a trade deficit and disrupting our country in the manner
Huh? A trade deficit is not bad yet it disrupts our country? How does increasing exports of American products and services disrupt our country?
Somehow we had tariffs on their products in the 20th century and our economy was just fine
Tariffs are nothing more than taxes. Are you for higher taxes or lower taxes? Does removing barriers to trade increase trade or not? Is there a correlation between economic freedom and per-capita GDP? How do you think Thomas Jefferson would feel about his republic now when the government takes more than half of a citizen's income in taxes? You're the one mixing apples with oranges.
They probably have better taste.
Yes like the people at WND, Capitol Hill Blue, Lew Rockwell, Phyllis Schlafly and others.
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.