Chavez vs. Free Trade

The American Enterprise Online ^ | 11/18/05 | José Idler and Mario Villarreal

[CitadelArmyJag]

Agreed.... his demise is far past due. He should have been "stung" in the back of the head by a .50 cal bumblebee a long time ago.

[hedgetrimmer]

Gee, the falsely named "free trade" policy, the Trade Promotion Authority, requested by the WHITE HOUSE, created a 70% subsidy for trade-dislocated workers!

Don't forget the other subsidies that go to those "poor countries" (the marxist rhetoric of the "free traders") for "trade capacity building" , "infrastructure development" and "technical assistance" .

Who are the socialists? The falsely named "free traders".

[hedgetrimmer]

Why don't you "free traders" pay the subsidy. Oh, I forgot, you hate subsidies.

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, that's a yes?

[FFIGHTER]

In his mind, yes.

[1rudeboy]

Who are the socialists?

Well, Chavez for one. Buddy of yours?

[GOP_1900AD]

What a classic analogy! Thanks for the note!

[hedgetrimmer]

The Trade Act programs, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), assist individuals who have become unemployed as a result of increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign countries. The goal of the Trade Act programs is to help trade-affected workers return to suitable employment as quickly as possible. To facilitate this goal, TAA certified workers may access a menu of services that include income support, relocation allowances job search allowances, and a health coverage tax credit. TAA participants that require retraining in order to obtain suitable employment may receive occupational training.

In addition, the ATAA program for older workers provides an alternative to the benefits offered under the regular TAA program. Participation in ATAA allows older workers, for whom retraining may not be suitable, to accept reemployment at a lower wage and receive a wage subsidy.

***
A socialist program to prop up "free trade".

[1rudeboy]

Speaking of subsidies, how do you feel about our government paying farmers not to grow crops?

[Thunder90]

The hardliners in Moscow and Beijing will be very proud if Chavez succeeds.

[hedgetrimmer]

The WTO requires our government to pay for "conservation" which means not to grow crops.

You see, its all just part of your "free trade" scheme.

[hedgetrimmer]

Not to mention Havana.

[1rudeboy]

Not an answer.

[hedgetrimmer]

According to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (Annex 2), the following types of domestic support programs qualify for exemptions from the reduction commitments and are thus considered Green Box programs.

• Structural adjustment assistance--These payments, for producer retirement programs, resource retirement programs, and investment aids, include the conservation reserve program. The United States provided $1.731 billion in CRP payments for 1998 along with $93 million in farm credit programs and state mediation grants in 1998.
  
• Payments under environmental programs--The amount of payment is limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with government programs. The United States provided $297 million worth of such payments in 1998, including Environmental Quality Incentive Program payments.
  
• Payments for relief from natural disasters--The United States provided $1.411 billion in such payments in 1998, including the livestock indemnity program.
  
• Domestic food aid--Expenditures for providing domestic food aid to sections of the population in need, or domestic food aid programs, totaled more than $33 billion in 1998, most of which was for food stamps and child nutrition programs. This category accounted for more than two-thirds of all Green Box spending.

[hedgetrimmer]

The WTO does not view conservation payments as distorting international trade, unlike other subsidies, as long as they are used to make conservation gains.

Seventy six percent of US agricultural subidies are green box meaning they are approved by the global socialists at the WTO.

The United States spent $66.6 billion on total subsidies in 1999 with $16.9 billion of that in "amber box" payments.

[1rudeboy]

Good Lord, please save us from the following socialism:

- Amber box: 60% cut for the United States, with an 83% cut for the EU
- Blue box: further reduction of the 5% cap to 2.5%
- de minimis: a 50% reduction in the current allowance (from 5% to 2.5%)
- Overall trade-distorting support: 53% cut for the United States, 75% for the EU.
- Green box: no material changes in the criteria, and no cap on expenditures
- Litigation protection: protection against WTO challenges if a member controls support below new, lower, allowed levels.

[hedgetrimmer]

Green box: no material changes in the criteria, and no cap on expenditures

• for producer retirement programs,
• resource retirement programs
• Payments under environmental programs

"free trader"socialists are using environmentalism to control property, and set up payments to farmers NOT TO GROW CROPS, which YOU claim offends you. So why do you defend the global socialists at the WTO? All these programs are perfect illustrations as to why FRENCH SOCIALIST Pascal Lamy is the head of the WTO. These programs suit his socialist philosophy to a 'T'. In fact they were started in the soviet of socialist countries called the EU. There the Common Agricultural Programme has forcibly retired many producers from farmers to fishermen, all in the name of "free trade" and forced wealth redistribution to the poorest countries in the EU.

Americans are offended that these edicts are coming from the global socialists at the WTO. The WTO has NO RIGHT to force Americans to make Blue, Amber, Green or Chartreuse payments to anyone, or to control what we grow and how we grow it.

And the defintion of "Free trade"? Repeat after me. Socialism Socialism Socialism.

[1rudeboy]

What I posted above is the US' latest negotiating position. I'm sorry that almost every conversation with you turns to semantics, but it does not indicate that the WTO is "forcing" the US to do anything.

[hedgetrimmer]

I'm sorry that almost every conversation with you turns to your support of every socialist policy the WTO has to offer, while you blithely refuse to acknowldge that these policies kill American freedom and sovereignty.

Your focus on the trivial is a poor attempt at trying to deflect the discussion from the true evil of global socialist "free trade".

[1rudeboy]

FTAA, however, hasn’t been put into practice. The reasons are many and complex, but an obvious stumbling block, in addition to their bold resistance to liberalization, is Venezuela’s Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA)—a pact based primarily on socialist principles.