CAFTA Should Be Rejected, Just Like the EU Constitution

Eco Logic Powerhouse ^ | 15 Jul 05 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Dazedcat]

"Bush The Elder".......are they secretly making another Lord Of The Rings film? That would sure fit if they are.

I agree with you too by the way, completely. It's not about "trade".

[inquest]

Just because I don't think the Republicans will give up our sovereignty doesn't mean I believe all that other stuff.

You're not making any sense. "All that other stuff" is simply a matter of established fact: British "Conservatives" have been part of the effort to involve Britain in the EU, knowing full well that it was more than a mere trade agreement.

Conservatives by nature are honest and liberals by nature are liars.

Except, of course, when you have liberals pretending to be conservatives. Then you're just back to square one.

If you aren't aware that the idea of a cabal of Jewish bankers secretly running the world has been around almost as long as banks and Jews then you are either very young or are very sheltered from conspiracy theories.

There are lots of "theories" about a lot of things. Unlike the first three items you mentioned, this fourth one exists only in people's imaginations.

Yeah, well I happen to know that the Masons run everything and plan it all in their secret meetings. Those other three are just misdirection.

Yup, typical response from people who don't want to deal with the facts. Not terribly original, in case you were wondering.

Look how adamant you were at first, even accusing me of Communists affiliations [?], only to wimp out at the end and admit you really don't know what the heck you are talking about.

I know full well what I'm talking about. The fact that there are natural limits to my knowledge (and yours) doesn't change that. We know that these organizations exist, and that they conduct their meetings secretly. I didn't claim that they conspire; I just pointed out that there's no way you can know that they don't.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

...the Codex Alimentarius and phytosantiary rules. Did you see it?

Don't need to read it. Other things have been cited which overrule anything it may say. Can we apply a little common sense here? Is that allowed? If you are going to buy all that One World, One Government, NWO, BS have at it.

I remember a few years ago when there were supposedly thousands of UN trucks spotted parked in selected places all over the country, especially in south Texas. There were trucks on the highways hauling tanks and armored personnel carriers, supposedly am omen of the evils to come. Well, the UN is losing ground rather than taking over the world. If there is truly this nefarious plan afoot there is nothing we can do about it so stop wringing yours hands.

Look under the bed! There are no monsters there! Stop fearing there are!

[mbraynard]

Sounds like a good way for me to get less expensive labor and increase my firms profits.

My firm does not exist to give you a standard of living. I'd rather burn it to the ground than be your slave.

[hedgetrimmer]

Other things have been cited which overrule anything it may say

The reality is, they don't over rule. The reality is that our standards have been changed to meet the international standards that were set by the unelected codex. Its quite out of the range of the hypothetical and is quite concrete.

[inquest]

However, under trade agreement rules, the United States retains complete sovereignty in its decision of how to respond to any panel decision against it

Any explanation for this, then?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

We need to take the GOP back, and clean house of everyone who does not repudiate these actions that have been implemented.

I am happy with my Senators and my Representative. How about you? If you are not happy there is little I can do about it. I can't vote in your district, I am not a Democrat. :-)

I believe we need a constitutional amendment to term-limit the Senators to two terms. Let's see if that improves things. My guess is that it would.

Why? If you have dishonest people they would only act faster to do their skulduggery. The problem is the rules which give too much power to those with seniority. Another problem is the power of the committees and sub-committees. Who rules those? The ones with the most seniority. That is why incumbents have an unnecessary advantage.

I know that seems to back term limits but not necessarily. Some congressmen are better for us than any replacement so why shouldn't we have the option to vote for them. The need is to change the rules so that such people can't have undue power.

And an honest Supreme Court would have made all this unnecessary, if they had simply ruled from the get-go that these "agreements" were an unconstitutional Excess Delegation by Congress, and further, to the extent permissible, that any such Agreement needed to be implemented as a Treaty, by two-thirds vote in the Senate. But as you know, we have 5 or more Justices who believe not in our Constitution, and the Power being from THE PEOPLE, but their own internationalist creeds.

I agree. Bush is trying to remedy that, I hope.

I didn't address the rest of your comments because they all come back to this, the quality of people we elect. I can't replace those I object to because I can't vote for or against them and neither can you.

I don't believe these agreements are a power grab. I think they are good trade policies. If I am wrong and you are right, what are you going to do about it?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Let's put this to bed. Who is going to enforce the rulings of these international tribunals? With this in mind, is our sovereignty in jeopardy?

[n-tres-ted]

Problem is they send 80% of the money they earn out of the country as remittances, so its lose lose for the American citizens again.

I'm not sure about your # for the percentage sent South, but it is a substantial increase in purchasing power for the recipients. I would prefer that US-made goods be in their markets available for purchase. Chalk up a win-win for both the US and the other economy.

[n-tres-ted]

So shifting the bulk of the tax burden to people who live paycheck to paycheck will somehow address the issue that the American standard of living means that Joe Sixpack's labor costs more than the same labor in the third world ?

The Fair Tax Act is actually more "progressive" in its rates on taxpayers than the current tax system. As to the cost of US labor, the only ways to make US labor more valuable are (1) better training and education; and (2) increased capital investment in equipment to assist the employee in being more productive. Plus, an honest dollar will allow the worker to keep the full value of his earnings.

This is about labor costs due to a higher standard of living. Period.

No. Higher standard of living results from higher capital investment and higher productivity, which allows more to be paid for the labor used in the process. The competition is never won; it goes on indefinitely, and those who decide to stop competing will promptly experience a reduction in standard of living.

[inquest]

Who is going to enforce the rulings of these international tribunals?

You tell us, assuming you know about the details of the agreements.

With this in mind, is our sovereignty in jeopardy?

That depends in large part on what the answer to the above question is. If, for example, our executive branch is responsible for enforcing those rulings, then that would indeed alter the balance of powers set by the Constitution, and thereby will compromise our sovereignty.

[Sam the Sham]

There is no way a consumption based tax can be made progressive. By defintion it falls heaviest on those whose income is mostly consumed, i.e, people who live paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth. So it is more "shaft Joe Sixpack" tax policy alongside "shaft Joe Sixpack" trade policy.

And we won't brush off with airy talk about "training" the fact that most of the people in your country will be average regular Joes doing repetitive jobs to whom God gave no more innate brainpower than he gave the third world. And in a world of totally mobile capital where labor costs are the variable, Joe Sixpack knows perfectly well that he cannot compete on labor costs against someone doing precisely the same job in the third world.

But what about trained workers ? There is no 'secret technology' that gives the American skilled worker any edge whatsoever. That's why we have outsourcing and offshoring. A white collar professional in the third world is just the same as one in America.

So 'free trade' is a competition that people who live on paychecks will lose but people who live on investments will win.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

That depends in large part on what the answer to the above question is. If, for example, our executive branch is responsible for enforcing those rulings, then that would indeed alter the balance of powers set by the Constitution, and thereby will compromise our sovereignty.

I guess I wasn't clear. In another reply I had said if some international tribunal had made a ruling we didn't like, who was going to enforce the ruling? France? The UN? I wasn't talking about who within our own government would do that, although I assume it would be the congress. However, that begs the question. Would they enforce such a ruling which they had determine was detrimental to us? Very doubtful since they are voter dependent.

[inquest]

I understood that you were referring to the international angle when you asked about enforcement, but the fact remains, the domestic angle is just as important. If any "agreement" with another country gives the President powers he wouldn't have under our Constitution, that's still a threat to our sovereignty. There's a reason why political power is distributed the way it is in this country. The fact that the President is elected doesn't mean it's perfectly safe to let him exercise all of the powers of government himself.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I am not aware that any of these agreements make the president the arbiter. Do they? If not, they change nothing about how our government works nor does that answer who will enforce the rulings if we don't volunteer to abide.

[inquest]

If they don't alter the balance of power within our government, then fine (assuming that's the case). The fact still remains, however, that making ourselves economically dependent on other countries can compromise our sovereignty. There's a reason, for example, why we've been so friendly to the Saudis despite their rather sordid habit of supporting terror movements.

[Pylot]

Americans will defend their right not to be slaves!

[n-tres-ted]

I am not nearly that pessimistic about the prospects of the American worker to compete. I acknowledge that if all conditions of humanity are the same the world over, then each person is able to compete equally with every other. But regardless of whether it is fair to others, we Americans have great advantages over most others that will continue past our lifetimes. Those include our Constitution and the institutions of law that other countries are still trying to build and/or reform, and that will take many years before they can achieve equal footing with us. Unfortunately, these advantages have been squandered to some extent by those who run our government as they brag of the great wealth of this country in order to justify government spending and undercutting the dollar. The competition from other economies may actually help us make reforms here at home that will improve our chances for economic success. But success does not lie down the path of withdrawal and protectionism.

[n-tres-ted]

Oh, and BTW, the Fair Tax is made progressive by refunding all taxes to every household up to the level of spending for necessities at the poverty line. With payroll taxes repealed, low earners will be much better off than now, since they will be able to provide food, clothing, shelter to their families before they pay their first taxes.

[mbraynard]

What does that have to do with me doing business with someone in Peru?

I think this whole anti-Free trade argument is a fraud to cover up the horrific, horrific regulations and taxes that the US puts on it's own economy. Starting with sugar subsidies.