Posted on 03/15/2012 4:30:47 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A long-delayed U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement (FTA) that has stirred controversy in both countries took effect on Thursday, although the opposition in Seoul has vowed to renegotiate it if it wins elections this year.
The deal between the world's top economy and Asia's fourth largest will boost trade by billions of dollars and create tens of thousands of jobs, the two sides say, making it one the biggest deals of its kind.
[]
The pact, which was signed in 2007 and finally approved by both countries in late 2011, immediately eliminates 80 percent of South Korea's duties on U.S. manufactured goods and nearly two-thirds of its duties on U.S. farm products.
In Seoul, shoppers felt the immediate impact, with bottles of Californian wine and citrus fruit flying off the supermarket shelves at up to a 20 percent off less than before.
South Korea is the United States' seventh-largest trading partner and has an economy valued at $1 trillion dollars. The pact's tariff cuts are expected to boost U.S. exports to Korea by $10 billion to $11 billion, helping to support 70,000 jobs.
The agreement mostly negotiated by the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush and former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun also opens up more of South Korea's large services market to U.S. companies and has new protections for exporters, investors, and intellectual property rights holders.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Please follow the whole thread before commenting on something I wrote as if a quote of mine was a stand-alone statement.
Run away.
Wouldn’t want a fact to pop up and hit you. LOL!
Since I was a young man when Reagan signed the US-Canada agreement and remember it well, and since I was involved in politics when GHW Bush was arguing to create a new agreement which included Mexico called NAFTA, and since Reagan wasn't in office during discussions of NAFTA, and since NAFTA was signed into law under Clinton when Reagan had Alzheimer's.
Why don't you get back to me when actual facts are posted. Better yet, quote a source showing Reagan supported adding Mexico to the agreement.
Until then, why bother?
I'll get right on that. As soon as you post the percentages you failed to provide previously. Good luck!
Otherwise, I have neither the time nor interest in reading everything you write.
You stated:
Reagan was in favor of a North American common market and reduced tariffs - BETWEEN CANADA AND THE US! Mexico was not a part and parcel and Reagan would have disagreed with that.so lets take a look at his own words, shall we?
This year, we have it within our power to take a major step toward a growing global economy and an expanding cycle of prosperity that reaches to all the free nations of this Earth. I'm speaking of the historic Free Trade Agreement negotiated between our country and Canada. And I can also tell you that we're determined to expand this concept, south as well as north. Next month I will be traveling to Mexico where trade matters will be of foremost concern.So the only question remaining is, are you ignorant of this subject, or are you the one doing the Stalin-esque revising of history?Ronald Reagan, State of the Union Address, January 25, 1988.
My money is on ignorant. Shame on you that you tried to pull a fast one. There are conservatives on this website.
I took care of it, but only because it pisses me off to see Ronald Reagan treated so badly.
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.