ocm said:I am sure I am a minority here. I am a member of OCM.
I am here to root out and destroy liberal ideas from those who call themselves conservative but aren't. (some of them don't even know it)
So prepare to have your eyes opened!
agman said:ocm said:Links are now fixed.
But here is the one article I challenged ~SH~ on.
http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2005/july5tstevenson.htm
CAFTA - More Than A Trade Agreement
by
Terry A. Stevenson
A common claim used by CAFTA proponents is that it is more than a trade agreement. Indeed, government officials have used this phraseology in their attempt to gain Congressional passage of this "trade" pact. In a speech given to the Heritage Foundation on May 16, 2005, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick stated, "Our domestic debate over the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is about much more than trade." A web site maintained by the International Trade Administration, an agency of The U.S. Department of Commerce, defends CAFTA-DR by saying, "… CAFTA-DR can be viewed as more than a trade agreement…." (http://www.ita.doc.gov/cafta/why_cafta.asp)
Interestingly, the same web site tells us, "U.S. export growth to the CAFTA-DR region has outperformed overall U.S. exports. From 2000 to 2004, export shipments to CAFTA-DR destinations grew by almost 16 percent, compared with less than 5 percent for overall U.S. exports." If that is true then why is a trade agreement necessary? The answer is that CAFTA-DR is indeed about "more than trade" and that provides one of the best reasons to reject it.
In the aforementioned speech Zoellick said of CAFTA-DR, "it will strengthen democracy through economic growth and open societies based on the rule of law." He said, also of CAFTA-DR, "It criminalizes bribery, casts sunlight on procedures long hidden from public scrutiny, and strengthens the rule of law." While it is certainly desirable to criminalize bribery, it can hardly be called "democracy" for a legislative act to be forced on Central American countries through a "trade agreement." Democracy is bottom-up, not top-down.
CAFTA-DR would not only impose requirements on Central American countries, it would also impose requirements on us. Internal trade preferences would be prohibited. Most states have laws that give some kind of preference to in-state contractors bidding on state projects.
CAFTA-DR would sweep aside such legislation -- no trade preferences allowed. In fact, any state legislation that a CAFTA country deemed unfair could be the basis of a complaint. An international tribunal would rule on the dispute, and no American entity can overrule its decision. The tribunal is superior to state legislatures, Congress, the President, and even the Supreme Court.
Even state constitutions would not be sacrosanct. For example, the State of Wyoming's Constitution says, "No person not a citizen of the United States or who has not declared his intention to become such, shall be employed upon or in connection with any state, county or municipal works or employment." This provision is currently used to prevent foreign citizens from bidding on contracts for the State or for any other governmental entity in Wyoming. Such a provision would almost certainly be challenged under CAFTA as an unfair trade restraint. The people of the State of Wyoming would likely have their constitution changed by a decree from an international tribunal, and they would have no recourse. Such possibilities advance oligarchy, not democracy.
Of course it could be argued that the tribunal would only address trade issues. Congress and the Supreme Court have broadly interpreted the "interstate commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution, resulting in a great expansion of Federal authority over the States. That expansion has included a federal law that prohibits carrying a gun within a certain distance of schools. There would be much to fear from an "international commerce clause." The State of Utah has experienced this kind of erosion of its sovereignty when the WTO at the behest of the island nation of Antigua. The WTO decided that Utah's law prohibiting internet gambling unjustly limited Antigua's trade.
CAFTA-DR also would accomplish something that is not a part of the general public debate. According to the International Trade Administration web site mentioned above, "CAFTA-DR would promote close cooperation among the Central American countries, thereby advancing regional integration…." Advancing regional integration is a polite way of saying that there will be movement toward a North American Union after the pattern of the European Union. If the U.S. is to enter into a North American Union, it should be done with an informed vote. Since the E.U. still has not surpassed the economic power of the U.S. by means of their union, nor has their union increased their national security, there is no reason to assume that a North American Union would be beneficial for us. More importantly, the Declaration of Independence would have to be supplanted with a "Declaration of Dependence."
Finally, since supporters of CAFTA have clearly stated that it is "more than a trade agreement" we must question why it has not been submitted to Congress as a treaty, requiring a two-thirds majority approval in the Senate. Since CAFTA would surrender a great deal of our sovereignty, it certainly qualifies as a treaty. It would seem that the judiciary is not the only branch of government guilty of overreaching its constitutional authority. TS
What happened to your original thoughts OCM? You must be Haymaker in your Sunday duds. Cut and paste...cut and paste...
HAY MAKER said:agman said:ocm said:Links are now fixed.
But here is the one article I challenged ~SH~ on.
http://www.competitivemarkets.com/news_and_events/newsletters/2005/july5tstevenson.htm
CAFTA - More Than A Trade Agreement
by
Terry A. Stevenson
A common claim used by CAFTA proponents is that it is more than a trade agreement. Indeed, government officials have used this phraseology in their attempt to gain Congressional passage of this "trade" pact. In a speech given to the Heritage Foundation on May 16, 2005, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick stated, "Our domestic debate over the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is about much more than trade." A web site maintained by the International Trade Administration, an agency of The U.S. Department of Commerce, defends CAFTA-DR by saying, "… CAFTA-DR can be viewed as more than a trade agreement…." (http://www.ita.doc.gov/cafta/why_cafta.asp)
Interestingly, the same web site tells us, "U.S. export growth to the CAFTA-DR region has outperformed overall U.S. exports. From 2000 to 2004, export shipments to CAFTA-DR destinations grew by almost 16 percent, compared with less than 5 percent for overall U.S. exports." If that is true then why is a trade agreement necessary? The answer is that CAFTA-DR is indeed about "more than trade" and that provides one of the best reasons to reject it.
In the aforementioned speech Zoellick said of CAFTA-DR, "it will strengthen democracy through economic growth and open societies based on the rule of law." He said, also of CAFTA-DR, "It criminalizes bribery, casts sunlight on procedures long hidden from public scrutiny, and strengthens the rule of law." While it is certainly desirable to criminalize bribery, it can hardly be called "democracy" for a legislative act to be forced on Central American countries through a "trade agreement." Democracy is bottom-up, not top-down.
CAFTA-DR would not only impose requirements on Central American countries, it would also impose requirements on us. Internal trade preferences would be prohibited. Most states have laws that give some kind of preference to in-state contractors bidding on state projects.
CAFTA-DR would sweep aside such legislation -- no trade preferences allowed. In fact, any state legislation that a CAFTA country deemed unfair could be the basis of a complaint. An international tribunal would rule on the dispute, and no American entity can overrule its decision. The tribunal is superior to state legislatures, Congress, the President, and even the Supreme Court.
Even state constitutions would not be sacrosanct. For example, the State of Wyoming's Constitution says, "No person not a citizen of the United States or who has not declared his intention to become such, shall be employed upon or in connection with any state, county or municipal works or employment." This provision is currently used to prevent foreign citizens from bidding on contracts for the State or for any other governmental entity in Wyoming. Such a provision would almost certainly be challenged under CAFTA as an unfair trade restraint. The people of the State of Wyoming would likely have their constitution changed by a decree from an international tribunal, and they would have no recourse. Such possibilities advance oligarchy, not democracy.
Of course it could be argued that the tribunal would only address trade issues. Congress and the Supreme Court have broadly interpreted the "interstate commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution, resulting in a great expansion of Federal authority over the States. That expansion has included a federal law that prohibits carrying a gun within a certain distance of schools. There would be much to fear from an "international commerce clause." The State of Utah has experienced this kind of erosion of its sovereignty when the WTO at the behest of the island nation of Antigua. The WTO decided that Utah's law prohibiting internet gambling unjustly limited Antigua's trade.
CAFTA-DR also would accomplish something that is not a part of the general public debate. According to the International Trade Administration web site mentioned above, "CAFTA-DR would promote close cooperation among the Central American countries, thereby advancing regional integration…." Advancing regional integration is a polite way of saying that there will be movement toward a North American Union after the pattern of the European Union. If the U.S. is to enter into a North American Union, it should be done with an informed vote. Since the E.U. still has not surpassed the economic power of the U.S. by means of their union, nor has their union increased their national security, there is no reason to assume that a North American Union would be beneficial for us. More importantly, the Declaration of Independence would have to be supplanted with a "Declaration of Dependence."
Finally, since supporters of CAFTA have clearly stated that it is "more than a trade agreement" we must question why it has not been submitted to Congress as a treaty, requiring a two-thirds majority approval in the Senate. Since CAFTA would surrender a great deal of our sovereignty, it certainly qualifies as a treaty. It would seem that the judiciary is not the only branch of government guilty of overreaching its constitutional authority. TS
What happened to your original thoughts OCM? You must be Haymaker in your Sunday duds. Cut and paste...cut and paste...
Say agman,I have noticed you do a lil cuttin and pastin yourself,and in case you havent noticed cuttin and pastin makes up the majority of topics discussed on the board. Interestingly, you over look that when convenient,
Surely you can muster a reply more suitable than your old original "BS"about Hay Maker cuttin & pastin? ...............good luck
Sandman: "If Japan has truly accepted terms with us, what is the hold up?"
Sandman: "They're thinking they see no need to not demand tested only beef and they're not impressed with the US's heavy handed handling of them."
Sandman: "The Japanese Government's purported agreement with "science" certainly is helping us isn't it? How much beef have we been shipping them?"
Sandman: "It looks like the USDA is really making the Japanese Government's job easy when the Inspector General exposed their "proper measures."
Sandman: "Once again, when has the USDA said ANYTHING about deception? Once again, how can you deceive someone when it is their law?"
ocm: "~SH~ how is it a debate if you just spue out NCBA rhetoric."
ocm: "I challenged you to read from the OCM Newsletters. So far I have no indication you even looked at them."
ocm: " Just to get you started,(from the article)"
Fact: EXPORTS to CAFTA countries are already growing faster than almost any other area--a lot faster.
ocm (in response): "Why do we need the CAFTA trade agreement if EXPORTS are already growing rapidly."
Quote: "Fact: CAFTA is a step toward "regional integration". I thought you liked less government, not more."
Sandman: "Then why aren't we shipping beef? Could it be that there is resistance from the Japanese consumers? (they're the ones who would actually be buying or not buying US beef)"
~SH~ said:Sandman: "Then why aren't we shipping beef? Could it be that there is resistance from the Japanese consumers? (they're the ones who would actually be buying or not buying US beef)"
Well duh? We just found BSE in our native herd why wouldn't there be some resistance.
The fact that we are no longer exporting beef to Japan should have been your first "RESISTANCE" clue.
Do you get some kick out of acting so stupid?
~SH~
I can't wait for someone from the OCM to support their claim of branding others as liberal. That is the joke of the day, I mean week, or month. You have me confused already!!!!!
Sandman: "When did we find BSE in our native herd and when did the Japanese resistance start?"
~SH~ said:Sandman: "When did we find BSE in our native herd and when did the Japanese resistance start?"
You already know the answer to that.
Quit acting like an idiot!
~SH~
ocm: "I want to see what his response is to the facts in the article."
ocm: "The answer is that CAFTA-DR is indeed about "more than trade" and that provides one of the best reasons to reject it."
ocm: "While it is certainly desirable to criminalize bribery, it can hardly be called "democracy" for a legislative act to be forced on Central American countries through a "trade agreement."
ocm: "Advancing regional integration is a polite way of saying that there will be movement toward a North American Union after the pattern of the European Union. If the U.S. is to enter into a North American Union, it should be done with an informed vote. Since the E.U. still has not surpassed the economic power of the U.S. by means of their union, nor has their union increased their national security, there is no reason to assume that a North American Union would be beneficial for us. More importantly, the Declaration of Independence would have to be supplanted with a "Declaration of Dependence." "
ocm said:According to the article quoted, Robert Zoellick said CAFTA is more than a trade agreement.
And who is Robert Zoellick? He's the one guy--formerly the US Trade Representative--who is most responsible for negotiating CAFTA. He says its more than a trade agreement. If he's not an authority, then who is. If the guy who negotiated it says it's more than a trade agreement, then THAT is a fact. Your statement that it is only an opinion is COMPLETELY OFFBASE.
FACT: CAFTA is more than a trade agreement--the guy who helped create it says so.
Your response.
As to "regional integration" that term comes from a US Government website promoting CAFTA. That US Dept of Commerce website says that CAFTA is a step toward "regional integration."
FACT: The US Government promotes CAFTA by saying that it is a step toward regional integration.
Your response.
Sandman: "So do you. Makes your previous post kinda silly, doesn't it?"
Sandman: "Then why aren't we shipping beef? Could it be that there is resistance from the Japanese consumers? (they're the ones who would actually be buying or not buying US beef)"
SH (previous): " We just found BSE in our native herd why wouldn't there be some resistance.
The fact that we are no longer exporting beef to Japan should have been your first "RESISTANCE" clue."
Sandman: "When did we find BSE in our native herd and when did the Japanese resistance start?"
ocm (previous): "Why do we need the CAFTA trade agreement if EXPORTS are already growing rapidly."
SH (in response): "Because we are paying tarriffs as high as 40% to these countries when they are importing into the U.S. virtually duty free. CAFTA would eliminate those heavy tarriffs."
ocm: "While it is certainly desirable to criminalize bribery, it can hardly be called "democracy" for a legislative act to be forced on Central American countries through a "trade agreement."
ocm: "Advancing regional integration is a polite way of saying that there will be movement toward a North American Union after the pattern of the European Union. If the U.S. is to enter into a North American Union, it should be done with an informed vote. Since the E.U. still has not surpassed the economic power of the U.S. by means of their union, nor has their union increased their national security, there is no reason to assume that a North American Union would be beneficial for us. More importantly, the Declaration of Independence would have to be supplanted with a "Declaration of Dependence."
ocm: "FACT: CAFTA is more than a trade agreement--the guy who helped create it says so." Your response."
ocm: "The European Union is the premier example of regional integration.
As applied to North America it would mean.
Common Markets--no tarriffs, no quotas
Common Currency--Do away with the currencies of the US, Canada, Mexico and other participants and replace them with a common currency(like the Euro in Europe)"
ocm: "He says CAFTA will open our borders to almost unlimited immigration from CAFTA countries. Under the "trade in services" clause of the agreement we would agree not to hinder the movement of workers from other CAFTA countries by using "unreasonable" immigration restrictions. Who gets to decide what is "unreasonable"? An international tribunal. If we refused to changes our laws to meet their definition of "reasonable" there would be trade sanctions (tariffs on our exports)."
to which you threw out another "red herring" to divert:SH (previous): " We just found BSE in our native herd why wouldn't there be some resistance. The fact that we are no longer exporting beef to Japan should have been your first "RESISTANCE" clue."
Sandman: "When did we find BSE in our native herd and when did the Japanese resistance start?"
