Posted on 07/27/2005 9:14:44 PM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON - The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement early Thursday, a personal triumph for President Bush, who campaigned aggressively for the accord he said would foster prosperity and democracy in the hemisphere.
The 217-215 vote just after midnight adds six Latin American countries to the growing lists of nations with free trade agreements with the United States and averts what could have been a major political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
It was an uphill effort to win a majority, with Bush traveling to Capitol Hill earlier in the day to appeal to wavering Republicans to support a deal he said was critical to U.S. national security.
Lobbying continued right up to the vote, with Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez tracking undecided lawmakers.
The United States signed the accord, known as CAFTA, a year ago with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and the Senate approved it last month. It now goes to the president for his signature.
To capture a majority, supporters had to overcome what some have called free trade fatigue, a growing sentiment that free trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada have contributed to a loss of well-paying American jobs and the soaring trade deficit.
Democrats, who were overwhelmingly against CAFTA, also argued that its labor rights provisions were weak and would result in exploitation of workers in Central America.
But supporters pointed out that CAFTA would over time eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers that impede U.S. sales to the region, correcting the current situation in which 80 percent of Central American goods enter the United States duty-free but Americans must pay heavy tariffs.
The agreement would also strengthen intellectual property protections and make it easier for Americans to invest in the region.
"This is a test of American leadership in a changing world," said Rep. Kevin Brady (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a leading proponent of the agreement. "We cannot claim to be fighting for American jobs and yet turn our backs on 44 million new customers in Central America.
David Rockefeller must be happy now as America slides further into socialism and that tyranny is upon us.
Police state is just the beginning.
What the Hell are you talking about? Did I bring up 3rd parties?
The issue here is not Republican vs. Demonrat by the way, it is all about what is best for America.
The dumbass cheerleaders always get confused by that and think if an 'R' promotes it, we all should jump behind it like it was a football game. It is truly sobering to watch 'conservatives' cheer and promote something they would fight to the death had a liberal proposed an identical treaty.
He's the best president we've had since Reagan.
Well that wouldn't be too hard now would it? Sheesh. Kids these days...
*snicker* The only "great depression" Bush is bringing down is upon liberal Democrats and latent-racist Buchananites who pride themselves on being More Republican Than Thou. Meanwhile, America and THE WORLD (that oughta piss you people off) benefit from the fact of his presidency, and most of us couldn't be happier.
These eight years are so much fun in SO many ways....
-Dan
"The choice was CAFTA or give Central America to China."
Agree.
The 'mis-underestiminated" Bush proves once again that he is a brilliant leader and "chess"player.
Next up, India.
I wanted to be sure before I answered you and am looking up statistics. One estimate has our trade deficit increasing to 87 billion with both Canada and Mexico by 2002. Another report by an opposing group has our trade with CAFTA nations increasing to 15.7 billion in 2004. They don't say what it was before NAFTA, but it seems to look good this year. Notice that the Taxpayers' union does not specifically point to the huge deficit with Mexico, nor does it tell us a before and after number. Therefore, one can only conclude we lost with NAFTA, and lost big.
The experience with NAFTA as it can be documented has been terrible for numerous middle class industries in the US. It can be documented that it has deteriorated working condition in the maquiladoras along the border with Mexico and that our deficit is much worse than before. Yes, there are some successes in "free trade", but on balance it was a loser for our country.
We need much stronger border security, which is being worked on (finally) by John Kyl, et al....
I do not believe we have 'surrendered' the border, but I believe we need to do yeoman's work to get control of it, both political and civilian.
But that does not preclude free trade.
They are not the same issue.
I'm not a kid, I've been around a long time, and yes, indirectly, you're a third party cheerleader. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the macro plan, not the micro issue. Come on, don't just swing insults. Explain yourself. I gave you meat, do something with it other than calling me a dumbass. You sure have all the talking points down though. What was your prior screen name?
For the record, NO...
One World Order types require "order," NOT chaos....
...Which is why we shall soon see even more restrictions upon our "freedoms."
When all is said and done, he will be better for conservatives than Reagan.
Judges, judges, judges....... (not to mention taxes and military strength)
Or, Condi is the brilliant chess player, and Dubya's smart enough and savvy enough to know when her advice is good advice.
Hear ya...
We sold $50.8 billion to Mexico in 1994. $110.8 billion in 2004.
Trade in Goods (Imports, Exports and Trade Balance) with Mexico
We sold $114.4 billion to Canada in 1994. $189.8 billion in 2004.
Trade in Goods (Imports, Exports and Trade Balance) with Canada
How about the trade arrangement we had before NAFTA? If we had done nothing, we would have lowered our trade deficit with Mexico and Canada by 87 billion.
It was a hollow victory for us however. This managed and regulated trade deal of 2400 pages written by lawyers and bureaucrats is not something Republicans should be supporting.
A trade agreement should take a couple of paragraphs. We won't charge you tariffs on all imports if you won't charge us tariffs on exports and deal with subsidies.
This trade deal has a clause about the service sector trade can't have immigration restrictions put on it which violate the act. So control of illegal immigration would violate the act.
I was against NAFTA, GATT, WTO, MFN for China. I believe in trading our products with countries that have elected governments and have an economic system where multinationals like NIKE, IBM, Maytag, etc. don't close up shop and move to low wage countries that have no regulations or standards and ship products back to us duty free.
That is not free trade, that is treasonous in the long run.
Reagan did the best on military strength. And he was the first to reality test the notion that lowering taxes actually increases tax collections.
Judges ... ah, judges. We can hope.
Which means that they sold even more to us, and in the process destablized important American industries.
And WHY must we await a bill submitted by a House member before doing something about the border?
Isn't the President supposed to lead?? Naaah, he's the problem -- NO denying it.
As to "free trade," American can NOT compete with the cheap labor of Latin America. We're screwed.
What will be restricted, and when?
Put down an example and a date. I'll bookmark it and we'll revisit your prediction in the future.
In contrast, if I get to sell my software to 6 new nations with no import tarrifs, have I *gained* a little freedom?
I mean, we need to be fair to both pro and con sides of the CAFTA debate, right.
You predict restricted freedoms. Fine. Predict away and lets watch.
I can show enhanced freedoms. Fine. Let me list them.
That's the *substance* that makes for a decent debate. I encourage it.
It was a hollow victory for us however. This managed and regulated trade deal of 2400 pages written by lawyers and bureaucrats is not something Republicans should be supporting.
A trade agreement should take a couple of paragraphs. We won't charge you tariffs on all imports if you won't charge us tariffs on exports and deal with subsidies.
This trade deal has a clause about the service sector trade can't have immigration restrictions put on it which violate the act. So control of illegal immigration would violate the act.
I was against NAFTA, GATT, WTO, MFN for China. I believe in trading our products with countries that have elected governments and have an economic system where there citizens have some standard of living. Under SHAFTA I and II Multinationals like NIKE, IBM, Maytag, etc. close up shop and move to low wage countries that have no regulations or standards and ship products back to us duty free.
That is not free trade, that is treasonous in the long run.
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.