Look - you can't have an agreement without somekind of arbitration built in to settle disputes. Using your logic, the US should never have joined NATO or have treaties with anyone. Keep in mind that the US can withdraw from CAFTA or NAFTA any time it wants - it's not like a Constitutional amendment.
And no, it's not political consolidation. In the years that we have had free trade with Jordan - while US relations have improved with Jordan - do you think there has been any political consilidation whatsoever?
Look, if you are determined to oppose this treaty, you will always find weenie ways to spin things and see them as you would like to. Tarrifs are taxes - as Rs we should oppose them here and abroad - and this treaty does both.
Oh yes it is. You have seen the 'blocs' the internationalists are bent on creating? Isn't it interesting how similar the proposals are?
And then tell us why the preambles to all these agreements include the term "justice"--a red flag socialist buzzword if ever there was one.
In the years that we have had free trade with Jordan - while US relations have improved with Jordan - do you think there has been any political consilidation whatsoever?
Bilateral free trade treaties are not the same as these massive multilateral structures. Bilateral treaties are the constitutional way to go.
And your NATO argument is a red herring. We were confronted with a military threat, and we are entitled to join and set up alliances to deal with those threats. And those were done by TREATY (Hence North Atlantic Treaty Organization), not simple agreement.
Pure nonsense. Treaties have been entered into throughout history, and only very recently have treaties involved of any kind of independent body to oversee disputes. That's just an embryonic government, plain and simple.
Using your logic, the US should never have joined NATO or have treaties with anyone.
Treaties I already dealt with. As for NATO, does it involve a separate body for "resolving disputes"? If it does, then it probably would have been better not to join up and set that precedent. What exactly did it enable us to do that we wouldn't have been able to do otherwise? Would the nations of Western Europe have not allowed us to station troops there without us all being in some kind of formal alliance? Would they have preferred instead to let themselves be exposed to Soviet attack?
In the years that we have had free trade with Jordan - while US relations have improved with Jordan - do you think there has been any political consilidation whatsoever?
Was the FTA with Jordan attempted to be justified on the grounds of national security the way you're trying to justify CAFTA? And in either event, CAFTA goes further, according to the USTR's own website.
Tarrifs are taxes - as Rs we should oppose them here and abroad - and this treaty does both.
The taxes you refer to are minuscule compared to the overall tax burden. Sure it would be nice to get rid of them, but it's not such an emergency that we need to compromise our sovereignty in any way whatsoever in order to do it. If it really is "taxes" that you're concerned about, we can more than make up for both our own tariffs and theirs by cutting the income tax back down to civilized levels.