Posted on 07/28/2005 8:13:58 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
That's the only reason I supported CAFTA. If you want to talk about "Buy American" It starts at home!! It does take more time to check the labels but it's worth it. I'd rather pay more for a "Made in the USA" product and do without a foreign made one, only buying if it was a real necessity.
Excellent e-mail to your congressman.
The same traitors that gave us this also gave us China. China would not be such a threat without Most Favored Trade status. This will not make China go away. They do business in South America too, Hell the own the Panama Canal. Why do our Representatives insist on giving away the farm? I don't feel good about being a Republican today. Without manufacturing, our country will grow weak.
Exactly, without free economies on both sides of the table, they ought to rename this treaty: Central American Economic Affirmative Action
"The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade." "Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty." -Ron Paul...
The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible...
"The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..."
CAFTA (along with the other so called "free" trade agreements) has clearly given that power over to the World Trade Organization... A bunch of foreign and unelected bureaucrats are now illegally controlling/regulating US trade. Yes... I have a major problem with that...
And again... Most all of the support for CAFTA on the floor last night centered on the belief that CAFTA was badly needed to help these Central American Countries... The debate was overwhelmingly about the benfit of CAFTA for THEM... not US. Not too complicated IMHO.
Lobbyi$t$ win another.
Hmmm.
I thought I read that Taylor was supposed to vote "nay" or was leaning that way.
"Rep. Taylor said, “In 1994 when President Clinton was urging me to vote for NAFTA, which he signed into law when it was passed by the then-Democratic majority, I refused to support it and tried to get the bill, if passed, spread over some 10 to 15 years in order to give our region an opportunity to transition. … I have voted against all of these trade pacts and will vote against CAFTA because although CAFTA isn’t as bad as NAFTA, it still, like all the trade pacts, fails to provide and monitor a system of symbiotic trade relations, i.e. guaranteed equal trade rather than just dumping goods, either legally or illegally, on our businesses in this country.”
[Citizen Times, Asheville]
So what happened??
Wonder if his abstension was greased with a little lard?
I think you'd better look at the facts on this. When did China purchase the Panama Canal? I'd appreciate you posting factual information on this purchase transaction, please.
#138 - more insight on CAFTA thought process.
I think you should read the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Rogers, too. I just don't get it.
Did Congress not just vote to ratify the agreement...How was Congress left out of the process? Good lord, this is law school 101 (or civics 101 for that matter).
We want to sell in these markets, too. Think Washington Apples.
The first time I agree with my reps point of view........
Congress did not write the agreement, nor, under the rules of "free trade" are they allowed to modify the CAFTA.
If you are the only institution that is authorized by Congress to regulate trade, and you don't write the trade agreements and you can only vote yes or no, not ammend or change the agreement, that sounds pretty unconsitutional to me. Or should we call it anti-Consitutional?
Take a look at this thread...I found your rebuttals on the other CAFTA thread were so outstanding...thought you might like to see how the neg posting continues...emotional over facts. ;o)
Oh, now I get it. This works kind of like our trade with China.
Their are good reasons for CAFTA. However,
their wouldn't be a CAFTA if Clinton's decision to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China didn't happen.
Cause and effect.
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.