Skip to comments.
Bush Wins CAFTA But Loses Wider War
Oxford Analytica ^
| 07.29.05
Posted on 07/29/2005 7:57:25 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-151 next last
To: Tenacious 1
if that is all it does then why is it 3,700 long?
CAFTA gives alot of control over US trade policy to nameless, faceless bureaucrats at the WTO.
41
posted on
07/29/2005 8:36:27 AM PDT
by
jpsb
To: William Creel
True modern conservatives
Whats a "modern conservative"?
To: Tenacious 1
There is no post here that presents a ligitimate argument against CAFTA.
-----
** READ THE ENTIRE CAFTA DOCUMENT **
...and then explain WHY you are FOR IT, as opposed to taking a position, like most here (who obviously have not read it) that well, "IT CAN'T REALLY HURT US", or "IT IS A NET GAIN"... or some other rationalization for the fact that Bush has rammed it down our throats without explanation, discussion, and open talk. Just like the open border issue...
Rationalize all you want -- it won't change the facts. Read the CAFTA agreement before you stuff a cigar in Bush's mouth.
43
posted on
07/29/2005 8:37:57 AM PDT
by
EagleUSA
To: William Creel
The Buchananite isolationist, protectionists.
Never thought of myself as any of those, unless they mean protecting our Republic, or our "borders, lanquage, and culture" ? Is that so bad to you?
* CAFTA is only the beginning. The Senate Republican Policy Committee policy paper admits that CAFTA's purpose is "integrating more closely with 34 hemispheric neighbors-thus furthering the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)." Americans do not want to be "integrated" with the poverty, corruption, and Communism of our hemispheric neighbors!
* CAFTA will put the U.S. under another anti-American international tribunal. CAFTA includes hundreds of pages of grants of vague authority to foreign tribunals. The World Trade Organization has already ruled against the U.S. in 24 costly cases and even had the nerve to outlaw Utah's gambling ban. A NAFTA tribunal opened our highways to Mexican trucks even though they don't comply with U.S. laws.
* CAFTA would prohibit states from giving any preference to contractors in their state. Any Central American country could file a complaint.
* Under CAFTA, state legislatures would relinquish their right to regulate utilities, land use, and taxpayer-funded contracts. It forces us to use the "least trade restrictive" regulation and change our laws so they are "no more burdensome than necessary." Activist judges can make that language cover anything they want.
* * CAFTA will not give us customers for U.S. goods. The total wealth of the six countries in the agreement is about the same as New Haven, Connecticut. Half their population lives below the poverty line.
* The real purpose of CAFTA is "round-trip trade." This allows multinational corporations to exploit the abundance of cheap labor and the scarcity of taxes and safety regulations in CAFTA countries. CAFTA will increase our job-killing U.S. trade deficit and further weaken our already suffering dollar.
To: Porterville
It is amazing how often Bush wins but is still consider in a worse spot than before.Well....you know how "morons" are. :o)
To: cambridge
Unions are agains it, Bush is in favor.
That isn't a good reason to favor or oppose anything. Informed voters will know the facts and support or oppose something accordingly. Read the CAFTA. If you need help understanding what it means, ask.
To: 11th_VA
I think you are correct but there is more to come. Afterall the pubs have to be sure.
47
posted on
07/29/2005 8:40:17 AM PDT
by
winodog
(We need to pull the fedgov.con's feeding tube)
To: Brilliant
With CAFTA, investors will feel much safer about relocating plants and factories in CAFTA countries. The GOP staid as much in the debate, the CAFTA countries are just another cheap labor pool to be utilized by industrialists to avoid high labor counties like the usa.
48
posted on
07/29/2005 8:41:18 AM PDT
by
jpsb
To: hedgetrimmer
My understanding is that free trade is what let the West rise and the lack of it is what doomed Communism.
To: hedgetrimmer
Where are you getting your information on hemispheric integration as it applies to us? Also on the "sustainable development" thing, I fail to see how this is a problem unless I am missing the meaning of sustainable development.
To: William Creel
You're pretty good at name calling, pretty poor at factual defense of your opinions.
To: 11th_VA; lOKKI
I will be remembering this sell out of the middle class in 2008.
52
posted on
07/29/2005 8:42:23 AM PDT
by
TXBSAFH
(The pursuit of life, liberty, and higher tax revenue (amended by the supreme 5).)
To: Delphinium
Senate voted last month 54/45 or something like that R's yea, D's nea.
53
posted on
07/29/2005 8:43:40 AM PDT
by
jpsb
To: Tenacious 1
What ideals? What are you talking about?
The idea that our federal government exists to protect individual rights, and not make a mockery of our Constitution, and erase our borders to integrate us with the rest of the western hemisphere so a bunch of transnational corporations can control global trade.
To: hedgetrimmer
...However, the same polls show that a majority of the U.S. populace supports deeper trade integration if they are given enhanced tools and training to compete effectively against foreign workers...
They want enhanced tools and training to learn how to do roofing or yard work for five bucks an hour or less?
Learn to eat dirt, that's all the training you need.
Stupid sheep.
To: cripplecreek
It's starting to look like it's intentional. Might help to explain the adoption of the K-Toon.
56
posted on
07/29/2005 8:47:03 AM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
(I - LOVE - my attitude problem!)
To: EagleUSA
Why? Because globalists make terrible Presidents, that's why.
Flame away, I'm long past the point of caring.
57
posted on
07/29/2005 8:47:22 AM PDT
by
Dazedcat
To: jpsb
That would be true, except that the vast bulk of their exports to the US are not subject to significant tariffs anyway. That's not to say that it won't have any impact, but it would be minimal, and may very well be a net benefit to the US since most of those countries have very high duties on American imports.
To: hedgetrimmer
The idea that our federal government exists to protect individual rights, and not make a mockery of our Constitution, and erase our borders to integrate us with the rest of the western hemisphere so a bunch of transnational corporations can control global trade.
-----
Kudos! Nice to see SOMEONE HERE GETS IT!!!
59
posted on
07/29/2005 8:48:37 AM PDT
by
EagleUSA
To: cambridge
"My understanding is that free trade is what let the West rise and the lack of it is what doomed Communism."
Your understanding is incorrect, the usa for most of it history was a high tariff protectionest state, it is only recently that the usa has openen it's market to the world. And most of the "world" is still high traiff/protectionest including the fastest growing economies of China and India, Russia (10% growth) dido.
60
posted on
07/29/2005 8:49:38 AM PDT
by
jpsb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-151 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson