Recent Summit of the Americas a Success, U.S. Official Says (taxpayers will be stuck money)

U.S. State Department ^ | 16 Nov 2005 | USINFO

[hedgetrimmer]

Democracy is very good

Our constitution guarantees us a constitutional republic. The Declaration of Florida guarantees a democracy. Our government through the Summit of the Americas is only guaranteeing American citizens a democracy, they "reaffirmed their commitment to the Declaration of Florida, the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the Charter of the OAS". Nowhere does our unelected "permanent minister" reaffirm the American people's commitment to the Constitution and the constitutional republic it guarantees, despite the fact that it would be a logical retort to the demand by the rest of the hemisphere to support "democratic institutions". This lack of commitment is not because they forgot to mention it.

[Mase]

One wonders why the "free traders" in this country don't object to billions of dollars being spent by "rich countries" to build their infrastructure?

Once again hedge, you're caught up staring at bark, oblivious to the trees and the forest. You're outraged that the government invests in things that will provide ROI (increase trade, more jobs, etc.) yet, you unequivocally support farm welfare (income security) which constitutes a whopping 15% of total annual government expenditures.

I'm not saying I support tax dollars for the purposes outlined in this article however, I am saying that your outrage is seriously misguided. To support welfare on one hand and then decry it on the other, when it results in more jobs and increased revenue is, well, inconsistent. At least, in that regard, you are consistent.

[hedgetrimmer]

Until Congress authorizes spending, this means nothing

I guess you didn't read the CAFTA. It created a council to disburse US funds for "trade capacity building". Not one member of congress is on the council. But the World Bank has authority there.

The World Bank's support strategies have been shared with DR-CAFTA's Trade Capacity Building Committee, which is serving a valuable role in coordinating aid and technical assistance needs for implementation of the agreement.

[hedgetrimmer]

You're outraged that the government invests in things that will provide ROI (increase trade, more jobs, etc.)

Not for the American people. NOTHING that the government is doing PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS,which is the SOLE purpose of the federal govenrment. Why do you support creating global bureacracies to be funded by US taxpayers? Are you a US citizen?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Infrastructure Facility of the Americas...

I suggest buying stock in Vaseline.
We are going to need lots of it.

For those who don't understand diplospeak, this means you are going to be stripped by the tax man to build stuff for third world countries that hate us, in order to create the hemisperic Guatemala of our elite's wet dreams.

[hedgetrimmer]

unequivocally support farm welfare (income security)

Too bad you "Free traders" try to obfuscate your agenda.

Why don't you tell everyone that "income security" for farmers is a "green box" program promoted by the WTO through "free trade" agreements?

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.



Producer retirement means PAYING a farmer not to grow. THAT is welfare. Its income security, in your words.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It created a council to disburse US funds for "trade capacity building".

Did Congress authorize funds to give to this council?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you tell everyone that "income security" for farmers is a "green box" program promoted by the WTO through "free trade" agreements?

Did Congress authorize funds for this program?

[hedgetrimmer]

when it results in more jobs and increased revenue

Now you are saying that welfare creates jobs and increases revenue? Thats funny. Or are you saying it only does it if the global socialists are involved in the decisions about how to spend the welfare check?

[hedgetrimmer]

Did Congress authorize funds to give to this council?

Gee,Toddsterpatriot. Somehow they have money to operate. Where did they get it?

[Mase]

Not for the American people.

Your hysteria has reached new heights. Increased trade has always created jobs and increased our standard of living. You cannot prove otherwise.

PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS,which is the SOLE purpose of the federal government.

So, are you now against government handouts to rich American sugar producers?

Why do you support creating global bureacracies to be funded by US taxpayers?

GATT, which created the WTO, was approved by Congress. Do you remember just how overwhelming the vote in favor was? Do you not have representation where you live? If not, maybe you're not an American citizen.

[hedgetrimmer]

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.

Who authorized this "green box" money?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gee,Toddsterpatriot. Somehow they have money to operate. Where did they get it?

Gee, hedgetrimmer, I guess if they got the money from Congress you'd have to be pretty silly to keep insisting that the OAS or the WTO did this or the USTR did that without Congressional oversight. If Congress gave them the money your argument is idiotic.

You try to argue that somehow all these activities are outside our Constitution and yet the Congress voted for the money, not your unelected bureaucrats or permanent ministers.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who authorized this "green box" money?

The WTO? The OAS?

[hedgetrimmer]

Increased trade has always created jobs and increased our standard of living.

I don't think so.

The whole system [of British free trade] has for its object an increase in the number of persons that are to intervene between the producer and the consumer--living on the product of the land and labour of others, diminishing the power of the first, and increasing the number of the last

The whole purpose of "free trade" is to create servitude, a "service" economy in America to consume products not built here. This system is not conducive to the accumulation of wealth among the consumers, nor to independence of the individual. You are categorically wrong that trade has always created jobs .

[Mase]

Why don't you tell everyone that "income security" for farmers is a "green box" program promoted by the WTO through "free trade" agreements?

Farm support programs didn't exist before 1994? Now whose obfuscating? The president has proposed eliminating 60% of this welfare program and I'm sure he has your unconditional support. Or, do you support the French socialist point of view that this is an efficient use of taxpayer funds?

[Mase]

Now you are saying that welfare creates jobs and increases revenue?

No, just trying to explain the difference between making and investment and pouring money down a rat hole. You can't seem to differentiate between the two.

[hedgetrimmer]

PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS,which is the SOLE purpose of the federal government.

So, are you now against government handouts to rich American sugar producers?

Marxist rhetoric. How does the government protect individual rights? By taxing US citizens so that corrupt and communist foreign governments can be made wealthy? There is no defense for these expenditures, if you defend the American system of government. You can argue for it if you are a global socialist who believes that a communist country that uses slave labor should never be penalized with "trade barriers". Refusing to trade with communists and corrupt dictators has no place in your world of global socialist bureacracies.

[hedgetrimmer]

I guess if they got the money from Congress you'd have to be pretty silly to keep insisting that the OAS or the WTO did this

Oh, I guess Congress developed the "green box" system and is just paying out on it after they debated it before the American people, in keeping with the idea of representative government. So show me in the congressional record, which senator or congressman introduced the bill creating the "green box" program. Who testified in support? who testified against?

[hedgetrimmer]

between making and investment and pouring money down a rat hole

The purpose of the federal government is not to "make investments" in foreign countries.