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.
Yeah, good for you. Now the rest of us, those who don't live in North Carolina, would like some proof that your claims are true.
I can debate with accurate facts from the knowledge in my head.
So when you give us a real source, I can bow to your superior North Carolina knowledge. Absent a source, you're just a guy making stuff up.
Glad that's cleared up.
So you're accusing me of lying. Another proof you have no class. Where's the apology for calling me ignorant.
Here's two darn darn source about the effects of NAFTA. Take this a chew on it.
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v22/hossfeld.htm
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_impactstates
I don't make stuff up. I just don't see wasting time looking stuff up I already know. I can't help I'm intelligent with an exceptional memory.
I don't have any sources on NC at the moment just say I live here and I know what's going on. I don't have to have a source to know what's going on.
Yeah, good for you. Now the rest of us, those who don't live in North Carolina, would like some proof that your claims are true.
I can debate with accurate facts from the knowledge in my head.
So when you give us a real source, I can bow to your superior North Carolina knowledge. Absent a source, you're just a guy making stuff up.
Now that you have your sources, when are you going to bow. I guess when you apology for calling me ignorant like you said you would but didn't.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Service Economy BUMP!
You haven't proved you're not ignorant yet.
Gee, how could I ever have doubted you? LOL.
Either you you're right, you're making stuff up or you're ignorant of the composition of North Carolina's economy. I'm leaning towards a combination of 2 and 3. If you provide a source I'll apologize for assuming you were economically ignorant. Otherwise, if the shoe fits....
Oh, thanks for posting stuff from E.P.I. I just love it when you Buchanan lovers post from left wing web sites.
I posted from BLS, you just pulled numbers out of your ass. I win.
You have no class do you? Whatever, your Alinski method doesn't work with me. I'm sorry that you can't argue with those sources which prove I've been giving accurate info the entire time. And now that you can't you just go back with insults. You insult because you can't intelligently debate, especially now that I have those precious sources backing me up. When are you going to bow?
You just don't read enough on FR and yoru abject lack of research skill, is neother my fault nor my problem. ;^)
Now that you have your sources, when are you going to bow.
I posted from BLS, you just pulled numbers out of your ass. I win.
No, I posted links to two sources. Read them. They are real numbers from policy papers.
Either you you're right, you're making stuff up or you're ignorant of the composition of North Carolina's economy. I'm leaning towards a combination of 2 and 3. If you provide a source I'll apologize for assuming you were economically ignorant. Otherwise, if the shoe fits....
Oh, thanks for posting stuff from E.P.I. I just love it when you Buchanan lovers post from left wing web sites.
Hello, the first one is a paper from UNC with sources of its own. Its a scholarly source. Just graduating from Wake Forest University, I know all about them. Anyways, why are you so classless and rude? WWJD? He wouldn't insult people.
The second link looks like some kind of FAR LEFTY, so called "economics review", with every single article ANTI-BUSH!
If that's the best you can come up with, then you really need to rethink it all. You'd probably be much happier over on DU, you'd really like there; no matter what your nic says.
Perhaps you don't understand the points of those sources. The points are to back up my claims that NAFTA has cost the US jobs, particularly in manufacturing. Using deductive reasoning only says CAFTA will do the same thing and is thus a bad for the American workforce, particularly in manufacturing and in NC. That's what I've been arguing all night.
Neither source talked about "The majority of NC's economy relies on manufactoring".
I keep asking for your proof. Before you change the subject again.
Its hurt NC in general as far as jobs with that county being hit the worse. But NC has been hurt. Thats why 5 of NC's 7 House members voted against CAFTA.
It's not a debate when you won't back up your silly assertion.
Making up "facts" means you are the classless one.
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.