House will pass CAFTA tonight: DeLay

Reuters ^ | 07/27/05 | Reuters

[cotton1706]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the House of Representatives will approve a new free trade agreement with Central America late on Wednesday with the help of a few Democrats, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said.

"It will be a tough vote but we'll pass CAFTA tonight," DeLay told reporters after a meeting between President Bush and House Republicans. "We will honor our commitments to the south, we will protect our national security and will do it all with very few Democrats."

[expat_panama]

ATTENTION EVERYONE:   I AM A MEMBER OF THIS SECRET CONSPIRACY!

Now everyone will know it's a joke and realize that I'm not a member.

Then they'll start to think that I said it this way to make them fit right into my secret plan, but being smarter than that they'd know that I wanted them to think that.  

So then....

[hedgetrimmer]

wait until the market corrects things?

No, he is saying that its time for the government to interfere as usual to to create" the necessary conditions for a reversal of roles

No wonder you think the way you do. You've missed a huge point here.

Yes the president has appointed people who disagree with him. RE: Christie Todd Whitman, and Colin Powell.

[hedgetrimmer]

I never said it was a conspiracy. Its right there in CAFTA for all the cogent to read.

You all are the ones who make ridiculous remarks about conspiracies. It really wrecks your credibility.

[hedgetrimmer]

LOL. No leg to stand on, eh?

[Mase]

ROFL

Never let them see you coming, expat.

[Mase]

Yes, I still have both of them, thank you.

Or, did you mean something else?

[hedgetrimmer]

LOL.

[Dat Mon]

Hey, why dont some of you guys knock off the standup comedy schtick, and lets get down to business.

You tell me when you're ready...Ill go pour me a couple Becks Darks, and put my feet up....and keep quiet.

Now...using the ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE CAFTA AGREEMENT... show logically and systematically and consistently why all this opposition and fear of CAFTA is unfounded.

You better analyze this agreement language the way you would scrutinize a business contract you were reviewing. Just provide a link to the language so hedge can check it out.

Dogma don't cut it guys....I wanna read it in black and white....so educate me.

[Dane]

Dan Burton(R-IN) just said yes to CAFTA, good for him.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now...using the ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE CAFTA AGREEMENT... show logically and systematically and consistently why all this opposition and fear of CAFTA is unfounded.

How do you prove a negative?

Why don't you get the language in CAFTA that makes illegals suddenly legal. You can get it from hedgetrimmer. Then you can post it and we can discuss further.

[Dog Gone]

I am relishing the gnashing of teeth by those who think CAFTA passage means doom for America.

It's going to be good for America. We will sell more stuff. Our companies will be able to do business there in industries that were government monopolies until now. We will firmly bring into our sphere those countries that were previously hostile regions of communism and civil war.

This is a great day for geopolitics, if nothing else.

The John Birchers can moan and groan, but there's nothing new about that.

[Dat Mon]

Seems we've been down this road before.. ;0) Its not proving a negative...its legal language...the intent can be inferred from the language, just as in any contract. It was after all NEGOTIATED by American representatives...they would naturally put the required language in to protect American interests...else they are lousy negotiators.

Im asking you all to show why you think this trade agreement is a good thing...it must be in the language.

Okay...Ill count you out of the discussion...I thought you were familiar with the CAFTA language.

Next....

[expat_panama]

...using the ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE CAFTA AGREEMENT... show logically and systematically and consistently why all this opposition and fear of CAFTA is unfounded....

Ah yes the old "prove me a negative" trick-- works every time...

Look, instead of my showing you why the criticism is unfounded, let me tell you why CAFTA is founded -- it lowers my import taxes.   Now it's up to you to prove why CAFTA means the evil foreigners are going to take over my Thursday night Mahjong or whatever.  It ain't in there --- repeat it ain't in there.

Until you prove otherwise, all that's there is my import taxes get lowered.

[Dat Mon]

If somebody hands me a contract to sign...and they say its the greatest thing since sliced bread...I want to see language in there that is in my interest.

So using your logic... I can assume all contracts are equally good...as the intent and worth of the contract cannot be inferred from the language. If the contract doesnt explicitly say I forfeit my life...hell it must be a good deal.

Damn...Im paying my lawyer way too much for nothing...

To show a contract is good from the language means proving a negative...but you want me to prove a contract is bad from the same language.

Is there language in this agreement that addresses the concerns people have raised on this forum? Have these issues never arisen in any of these negotiations before?

So what exactly did our trade reps negotiate...what did we give up to get this deal?

Is answering any of these questions proving a negative?

[Clemenza]

To all of the Social(ist) Conservatives out there:

HA HA!

Yeah, 5% unemployment, one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, yours truly living a lifestyle my grandparents could only have dreamed of. Yeah, America has REALLY BEEN HURT by Free Trade.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Initial Provisions

These sound pretty good to me.

[jpsb]

It passed entirely with GOP votes, bye-bye GOP.

[Dat Mon]

Well the stated objectives themselves sound fine...IF we were to limit the discussion to trade in GOODS ONLY.

Right off the bat....they talk about unfettered trade in SERVICES.

This is one of the big problem areas in my view.

I keep saying...TRADE IN GOODS IS NOT THE SAME AS TRADE IN SERVICES.

Then theres the issues of enforcement and governing jurisdiction and authority, plus applicability and conformance with other agreements...more vague language to delve into....mentioned in passing here.

[hedgetrimmer]

it lowers my import taxes. but I have to give up my sovereignty to get it.

This may be a fair trade off for you, but not for the rest of us.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I keep saying...TRADE IN GOODS IS NOT THE SAME AS TRADE IN SERVICES

Considering that the vast majority of Americans produce services and not goods and considering that the vast majority of our spending is on services and not goods, why shouldn't we trade in services?