Analysis says CAFTA would cost money

Billings Gazette ^ | July 22, 2005

[hedgetrimmer]

Many on Free Republic who are against CAFTA are socialists and in unions.

CAFTA is a socialist agreement that has little to do with trade. You've made your position very clear.

[Toddsterpatriot]

CAFTA is a socialist agreement that has little to do with trade.

If you say so Hillary.

[hedgetrimmer]

LOL!

[Mase]

The federal government will not give up on $4.4 billion dollars, they'll just collect it out of the hides of the taxpayers.

How much did the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts save American tax payers? Where did the government raise taxes to replace that lost "revenue"? Or, did the tax cuts stimulate the economy in such a way that revenues actually increased? Why is the deficit dropping rapidly now? Is it because of tax increases?

Do you know anything about supply side economics and the Laffer curve? Or, do still grasp on to the discredited Keynesian view? Or, are you just clueless about both?

But maybe you're not a taxpayer?

Only someone who doesn't pay taxes would advocate in favor of increased tariffs, in spite of the already onerous federal tax rates and, for increased prices and less freedom for consumers.

Is that why you don't care?

Only someone ignorant of basic economics would assert that price supports actually create stable prices and secure supplies.

Who do you stand with hedgetrimmer, the overburdened taxpayer or big government liberals like Hillary?

[Dat Mon]

YOU SAID..."they do it because of the WTO entitlement programs paid for by the citizens of "rich countries" for the benefit of the transnational corporations."

My reading of the CAFTA agreement, some of the other articles on the WTO and EU, plus my gut instincts tell me that these trade agreements will bring in increased revenues for some trade sectors...but cost the American people money in employment earnings in other service sectors and through government support spending and taxes.

Its all about the S...for SERVICES.

I don't know what the net balance in dollars in the US Treasury is...but say for arguments sake that the net effect is even. What the agreement effectively results in is an income redistribution in BOTH trading partners....connected groups in both countries make alot of money.

But thats what happens in government controlled economies...the politically connected prosper...at the expense of the average citizen. Central American economies are all striclty controlled now by well connected families and government authorities.

[hedgetrimmer]

Tariffs are voluntary in the sense consumers do not have to purchase the goods. Taxes are not voluntary. All paycheck to paycheck CITIZENS have to pay them. Why do you want to increase their burden? Likely, because you are a 'free trader' consumers are more important to you than citizens. It also doesn't matter to you that CAFTA will open a floodgate of illegals from Central America, because citizens rights are pretty low on you 'free traders' totem pole.

[Mase]

But thats what happens in government controlled economies...the politically connected prosper...at the expense of the average citizen. Central American economies are all striclty controlled now by well connected families and government authorities

So you're saying that by reducing government control of an economy the end result will be more government control of an economy? Ok,...so increased competition and lower barriers to trade leads to more government control of an economy? Got it.

You are a true pioneer in the field of economics.

[hedgetrimmer]

CAFTA is true capitalism, it's not at all socialistic

Sustainable development is not capitalistic, its socialist. The ILO is socialist, the WTO is socialist. All those things are reinforced and obligated to in the CAFTA.

Read it, they're there. Open your eyes.

[Mase]

Tariffs are voluntary in the sense consumers do not have to purchase the goods.

Soft peddle this anyway you need to help you believe your own BS. You're only fooling yourself. Tariffs are taxes that raise prices and take money away from American CITIZENS and transfer it to government coffers. Period.

All paycheck to paycheck CITIZENS have to pay them. Why do you want to increase their burden?

How does reducing tariffs result in higher taxes for paycheck to paycheck CITIZENS? Tariffs are taxes that are passed on to consumers. Name one CITIZEN in this country who is not a consumer.

You and your ilk will never accept the fact that illegal immigration is caused by politicians who won't enforce our laws. But, then, what would you have to demagogue about as you lurch for an issue to help build your third-party.

Or, maybe Hillary is really more your kind of candidate. You are one conflicted guy/girl.

[Dat Mon]

You said..."So you're saying that by reducing government control of an economy the end result will be more government control of an economy?"

Im saying first....that the economies of Central America are already government controlled. If you disagree...refute it.

Your statement above is logically contradictory because you are making a supposition that this agreement reduces government control. That is the point to be proven.

My supposition is that (in reading through the agreement and all of the ancillary international position papers as posted by hedgetrimmer and others) the commerce aspect is strictly controlled by government entities at the international level....and leads to more intrusion into our economy and culture.

Thats what you have to refute.

Id like to be a pioneer in logic on this forum..not economics...its not my area of expertise.

[hedgetrimmer]

You and your ilk will never accept the fact that illegal immigration is caused by politicians who won't enforce our laws all the while knowing that they refuse because it interferes with WTO brokered trade agreements.

Up next, illegals not only from Mexico, but from the rest of the LDCs around the globe.

WTO agrees to push Dhaka's motion for movement of natural persons

A great example of the loss of sovereignty by US citizens. Now the third world is bringing in the WTO to force illegal immigration on us and to steal remittance money from our economy.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now the third world is bringing in the WTO to force illegal immigration on us and to steal remittance money from our economy.

Well at least you're consistent about his one thing. You don't want illegals to spend their money as they choose and you also don't want American citizens to spend their money as they'd choose.

Sounds just like Hillary.

[hedgetrimmer]

Tariffs are taxes that are passed on to consumers

Thats it! Consumers! So at least when tariffs are levyied, the illegal aliens in this country purchasing goods here pay SOME taxes. Its not an inconsequential number either-- it could be as many as 30 million right now.

So you are trying to protect illegal aliens from paying anything while they are in this country? You want to cut them out an leave it to us mere citizens to pay and pay and pay? At least with tariffs, we shared share some of the burden of the federal government with them which is only fair.

[hedgetrimmer]

You don't want illegals to spend their money as they choose

And you want the global welfare program called remittances? Yes, "free traders" are all about socialism.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thats it! Consumers! So at least when tariffs are levyied, the illegal aliens in this country purchasing goods here pay SOME taxes. Its not an inconsequential number either-- it could be as many as 30 million right now.

Illegals do pay some taxes when they buy goods here. Sales taxes. As far as the illegals in America, send them back. Send them back now.

I still don't believe you're a conservative when you worry more about the government losing tariff money than the evil consumer saving money.

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you want the global welfare program called remittances?

Do you not understand the difference between people spending their earned own money and welfare? I won't say I'm surprised.

[hedgetrimmer]

You don't want illegals to spend their money as they choose

Why must our economy be used to increase the GDP of Guatemala and El Salvador and Bangladesh? Because "free trade" is global socialism. Why is it ok for people to come here illegally, and then claim they are entitled to the federal government to force companies that transfer money internationally to lower their rates? Because "Free trade" is global socialism.