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.
If you cannot distinguish between a Pell Grant and, say, the U.S. price-support policy for sugar, then I truly wish you had gotten one.
The man, this forum worships,(GW) believes in open borders in all his actions and inactions.
The policy is open and reported in multiple news sites. It is called the "Friendly travelers system" or something similar. It allows people to apply for a sticker that allows them free travel on the roads, without stopping between the borders of Canada, the US and Mexico.
I can just imagine what the footnote pages of your term papers looked like.
1) 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. Post #713
2)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. Post #724
3)I know alot myself. I just graduated from Wake Forest University with a degree in Political Science. Post #698
NAFTA was supposed to help create a thriving Mexican middle class that would then be far less likely to (both legally and illegally) immigrate to the U.S. looking for work. But as you probably know that hasn't happened, and the stampede across the border continues.
In fact, NAFTA put a huge number of Mexican farmers out of business because they could not compete with US agribusiness. .....so they come up here.
The same thing will happen with Central America because of CAFTA.
(Hypotheticals and guesses don't count in my book as viable arguments).
And the results of NAFTA are not "hypthetical," they're proven.
And it's particularly amusing to think about 'a forum' with thousands of diverse opinions with many bullheaded, cantankerous people, are all 'worshipping' anything.
I think you're a bit confused about this, jeremiah.
In other words, you are supposing a result that you cannot possibly know will occur.
As to the 'same issue' thing...........you pinged me to a reply to my post where I said they were not the same issue, by saying they are intertwined (as though it somehow refuted my statement).
I was just clarifying my position, not attacking yours.
The two agreements are virtually identical in both principle and (proposed) implementation, and while that doesn't prove they'll yield the same (negative) results, it's a mighty strong indication.
you pinged me to a reply to my post where I said they were not the same issue by saying they are intertwined (as though it somehow refuted my statement).
Nope, I wasn't refuting your statement; I was merely adding to it.
This thread is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Now that My GOP has finished school, I see his/her future very clearly:
Employer: "My GOP, you did minimal research and used dubious sources so your conclusions and recommendations were all wrong. We lost the contract and the client. You need to find another place to work.
My GOP: "But, but..I'm very intelligent with and exceptional memory...."
Repeat again for 40 years.
Rather than be angry at the men that manipulate political feelings, I am sad that they think so little of the sacrifice of our troops, and they mentally spit upon those that are willing to give their hearts to the cause of conservatism. Conservatism being= smaller less centralized govt, and laws limited to the minimum to protect citizens from each other, and outside sources. If the current Republican party actually believes in 50% of the above definition, they are miserable failures.
Forget about arguing with the sellouts like toddster and rude.
what's worse yet the pell grant is paying him to be a lawyer.
More likely, they lost their work to more efficient farmers within their own country. Inefficient industries tend to die unless they get welfare like our sugar farmers.
At one time last century, we had 50% of our workforce employed in agriculture. Today it's around 2%. Yet, we produce more food now than ever. That's what's finally happening in Mexico now that there is competition. What's wrong with more variety and lower prices for consumers?
Look at the link below. Mexico is buying a whole lot more Ag products from us now than in 1993 and, we are buying much more from them. Freer trade is a win-win since all parties benefit. Page #5 shows that 89% of all Mexico's Ag exports go to the U.S. and that 56% of their imports are from the U.S. Page #5 also shows, by product, what is being imported and exported by Mexico. They are producing and exporting much more now than in 1993.
Page #8 shows total Mexican exports to the U.S. in Ag products. The increase since 1993 is dramatic.
Don't worry, I'm not going to argue with them anymore. I've already been told by another member all about them. My argument was and has been that CAFTA will cause NC and the US to lose manufacturing jobs. I have shown them sources showing a decline in manufacturing job since the passage of NAFTA: http://www.ncruralcenter.org/news/ncreconomysummer.pdf
Its unfortunate they can't read an article with hard facts, those facts being there has been a lose of manufacturing jobs. They also ignore statements from a conservative Republican Congressman on how CAFTA will cause a loss in manufacturing jobs and the fact that 5 of NC's 7 Republican US House members voted against CAFTA. My concern is these people's hardships. I've grown up in a blue collar family, I'm the first in my family to go to college. Relatives on both sides worked in textile mills, my dad's first job was in a textile mill. Many of the people in my area are losing their jobs, most are middle aged, don't have a college education and its going to be very difficult for them to find a job and if they find one its probably going to be at a lower salary and less benefits. But todd, rude and others can't relate. They probably grew up in well to do middle class families. They live in Chicago, probably with a nice cushy white collar job and no worries about job security or finances and they probably don't associate with working class people. So while CAFTA will allow them to buy shirts a dollar cheaper, hard working, decent people lose their jobs and suffer hardships. They have no compassion. And as far as the source thing goes, I didn't know that posting comments on here required the same as a college paper. Why don't I give you the email address of one of my college professors, say the one I had for my Senior Seminar where I made an A- on my thesis paper.
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.