I agree. He's anti-free-trade agreements and that is just fine with me. I'm sure that will piss off the globalists in the GOP, but I don't care. OTOH, it will definitely be likeable by the blue collar "Reagan democrats" and would pull in a lot of Joe average moderate voters. In other words, I see it as a bonus.
His spending has been shown to be for military spending, which is the only thing the government SHOULD be spending big bucks on anyway.
And, sorry we missed CAFTA's big birthday by a few days, so we'll just have to wish a happy belated birthday to CAFTA today. You'll recall all the opposition to this pact, even though it would open markets to US manufacturers large and small. No matter, the facts were swept up by the protectionist rhetoric swirling around the debate. But one year later, it's clear that the anti-trade sentiment was (once again) misplaced.
Secretary Gutierrez hit on some of these facts when he spoke to the NAM Board, but they bear repeating:
Here's a link to a pretty good Bloomberg story that lays out the many benefits that have emanated from CAFTA. It's important to keep all this in mind when the protectionists come 'round again, as they most surely will.
We'll say it again: Trade agreements open markets to US-manufactured goods. It's why we support 'em.
I see it the same way. The absolutists think that Fiscal Conservatism trumps all, but we learned the hard way that libs can paint you into a corner when you say you're for family values but won't vote for things like the Family Leave Act. At the very least, republicans should be putting up better alternatives that have more fiscal soundness, but instead the public hears silence and criticizing rather than an equivocal alternative. Having a healthy economy is very important, and free trade has a much better way of building it, but if the benefits won't happen for 10 or more years out, the electorate will vote you out of office before you can see the benefit. So we need free trade policies that work fast. The "rational middle ground" is fair trade.
This article has been around for a long time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/705954/posts
Multinational companies aren't interested in helping americans build jobs here, they take advantage of loopholes like H1B visas in order to drive wages down. I see it here pretty often in silicon valley.
No votes on NAFTA and CAFTA could be construed as anti free trade. But protectionism of American jobs and industry should be a priority over global pressures to be assimilated into a socialist trade philosophy of open borders, free trade etc. Protecting Americans first should be the number one priority of a true representitive regardless of how many people he pisses off.
The author places Hunter into the general can't trust Republican light because he has voted with the majority, which is what politicians generally do when they are part of a majority party. So what? Rats do exactly the same predictable behavior.
Since the election is still over 21 months away it is hard for me to choose anyone as a favorite. And it should be the same for everyone else. there is no need to be pressured by the MSM presidential candidate draft to participate in worthless polls, that will be forgotten a month from now when the weather changes, to a new topic of how to group potential candidates according to the MSM- who is controlling the entire political process with carefully controlled manipulation of public opinion.
Ask me who I would vote for now and I say nobody.
Ask me who I favor and I say nobody.
America cannot afford to be distracted by a two year presidential campaign staged by the MSM when there are crucial issues that congress should be pressured into addressing.
“He’s anti-free-trade agreements and that is just fine with me”
Likewise, i’m for fair trade.
Gag the State Department and just send a letter to every country stating that until further notice every subside and tarrif you supply or impose will be matched on your products, end of letter.