Posted on 05/24/2005 7:08:18 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
Reagan literally saved that American company from extinction and I'm glad he did.
The stupid thing is why anyone would consider withdrawing from an agreement that removes tariffs from our exports.
No it hasn't much at all...
the circumference at the equator is still 24902 miles...
And there are still only seven continents and four oceans...
They only SAY the world is getting smaller...
the FACTS say it has changed much at all!
So why is it necessary for CAFTA to enact thousands of pages of fine print to regulate what is supposed to be FREE trade???
You're the one who pointed out we could withdraw if need be, I was simply stating it would never happen once enacted despite the ABM Treaty. The reason for that is it's about money and corporations contribute lots of it to campaigns. I never underestimate their lobbying or influencing abilities to keep the laws they like going.
It's not thousands of pages, by the way. It's maybe 100. I've read it.
It will integrate countries into a permanent dialogue and financial transaction with the US that will have lasting benefits.
I'm sure you remember what happened in Nicaragua during about 25 years ago. We never want a repeat of that. At a time when Hugo Chavez is spreading his Castroism in our hemisphere, it is time to lock in some new buddies.
This is not even a hard question.
It's just a matter of time before they're taken off our money, they obviously have no place in our conscience. Maybe General Kofi Annan or Vincent Fox on our one dollar bill would be more to their liking.
The fact is that the agreement removes the tariffs they impose. If anyone here wants to argue that a 30% tariff on US automobiles is a good thing, have at it.
I wasn't the one to "bring in" the Founding Fathers, and I am aware of no rhetorical rule that prevents me from speaking to a subject introduced by my opponent. Sorry.
I remember when he did it.
It is true. There are tariffs and quotas.
What 80% of tariffs are you talking about?
Same here, and Japan behaved themselves after that.
Thesis: Protectionism does not save jobs.
1) People will be employed so long as there is capital available to profitably employ them. It therefore follows that sufficient employment will exist if sufficient capital exists.
2) Acquiring more capital per employee requires savings with which to acquire the capital in the first place (this process is called 'investment'). It therefore follows that anything which reduces savings->investment will reduce the amount of capital with which to profitably employ people.
So in conclusion:
1) More capital == more jobs (and therefore less capital == less jobs)
2) less savings and investment == less jobs
therefore:
1)+2) less savings and investment == less capital == less jobs.
It therefore follows from 1)+2) that anything that reduces savings/investment will reduce the amount of jobs.
And what's one good way to reduce savings? Tariffs, of course - tariffs push up input costs.
I thus conclude that tariffs are bad for job creation.
(anything that reduces savings/investment are bad for job creation, tariffs are just one aspect; capital gains taxes are an even better example).
And since 1994, how many American jobs have been lost and "outsourced" overseas?
NAFTA needs rescinded along with GATT, and every other trade agreement we have.
While we're at it, let's get out of the UN, WHO, WTO, the World Bank, and purge all members of the CFR and TLC from governmental positions. We need to get out of all this globalist nonsense, and like yesterday. before its too damn late.
Yeah, I'm a Bircher. Deal with it.
Oh, I've used insidious for a long time now, wise guy. Take your condescending attitude and do what Teresa Heinz-Kerry told that reporter to do.
That's my main disagreement with these Hemispheric deals, they are basically signing off on the idea that the third world countries within it can flood our markets and we'll do nothing but take it, even at the expense of our livelihoods and standard of living. I don't see that as Free Trade but corporate welfare for those who want higher profits.
US trade and development program.
San Bartolomé Silver Mine - USTDA is funding a $760,000 grant for a feasibility study conducted by the Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, for the San Bartolomé silver mine project in Potosí, Bolivia.
Does this look like the government is subsidizing the Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation to move some operations offshore? It sure looks like it to me. What do you call it when the government pays for feasibility studies to move a company offshore? Why doesn't the company pay for the study itself(it would if there was a free market). Why does the government pay for it(to control the free market and to use the subsequent transfer of wealth to the foreign country as political capital).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407671/posts?page=73#73
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.