Full Version: Columbia Free Trade agreement shelved.
QUOTE
After 16 months of fruitless negotiations with Democrats in Congress, President Bush sent the U.S.-Colombia Free-Trade Agreement to Capitol Hill this week. Under existing rules, lawmakers have 90 days to vote on the legislation. But Nancy Pelosi intends to hold a vote today that would change the rules, allowing Democrats to quietly kill the bill.
Such a maneuver would signal that protectionism has made a comeback in Washington, meaning fewer opportunities for American businesses and higher prices for American consumers. Rejecting the deal would also undercut a valuable ally in a region where the U.S. needs all the friends it can get.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGZmN...WUyNTExYTdmZWE=
Such a maneuver would signal that protectionism has made a comeback in Washington, meaning fewer opportunities for American businesses and higher prices for American consumers. Rejecting the deal would also undercut a valuable ally in a region where the U.S. needs all the friends it can get.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGZmN...WUyNTExYTdmZWE=
Questions for the Debate:
Does changing the “fast track” rules that have been law for decades mean that the Democrat controlled Congress means to block any Bush initiatives for the remainder of his term?
Was this a smart move or will there be a backlash? AreDems pandering to “labor” for the upcoming election?
Some say we would have benefited more than Columbia from the trade pact. How do you feel about it?
Is this a political smart move or a major blunder for Pelosi and Democrats who have said we “need all the friends we can get”? How will other countries like South Korea who hope to have a trade agreement some day view the shafting of Columbia?
QUOTE
Does changing the “fast track” rules that have been law for decades mean that the Democrat controlled Congress means to block any Bush initiatives for the remainder of his term?
I don't believe this is a trend that will occur 90% of the time. The only reason why this is an issue is because it's an election year and Hillary's advisors(i.e.-Mark Penn) was discovered to be a shill for the Colombian government.
The pinstripes dictate trade policy and when a candidate talks about being against NAFTA(when in fact, the opposite is true,) you can't have embarrassing things like the Penn thing surface. This issue was killed because it's an election year and because Hillary just needs the issue to die down if she has any hope of winning over voters who have to be lead by the nose to think that losing jobs overseas and running a trade deficit is good because of potential "high costs" to the consumer. Talk overalls, legislate for the pinstripes, and talk out of both sides of your mouth-that is Hillary's formula here. 
QUOTE
Was this a smart move or will there be a backlash? AreDems pandering to “labor” for the upcoming election?
It was a smart move politically, it was also a smart move economically, though it was done not out of principle, but out of a desire to not embarrass the party, the candidates, nor those who own the party through wealth and influence.
QUOTE
Some say we would have benefited more than Columbia from the trade pact. How do you feel about it?
The amount of goods sold to Colombia would not have matched the goods that would've been made in Colombia and sold here. The numbers up to this point with Colombia, show a continuing trade deficit, it will only be accelerated through deals like this. Our trade deficit would only continue to increase, net job losses would only continue, it would be a loss for us. Oh yeah, and the trade deficit only continues to rise.
QUOTE
Is this a political smart move or a major blunder for Pelosi and Democrats who have said we “need all the friends we can get”? How will other countries like South Korea who hope to have a trade agreement some day view the shafting of Columbia?
Trade is one thing, letting other nations take the shirt off of your back is quite another. It is akin to allowing people to ransack your home and then acting incredulous should you make them stop.
I know this is a one liner- but it is just that it is succinct, and brings some reality into this debate.
We need a free trade agreement when we stop importing all thier drugs and funding thier drug kingpins. Until then- who cares?
We need a free trade agreement when we stop importing all thier drugs and funding thier drug kingpins. Until then- who cares?
QUOTE
The amount of goods sold to Colombia would not have matched the goods that would've been made in Colombia and sold here. The numbers up to this point with Colombia, show a continuing trade deficit, it will only be accelerated through deals like this
NOT correct. What you seem to be missing is that they have, since the early 90s, shipped their products here duty free. THEY would have dropped their significant duties to OUR exports in this deal. This would have included machinery, fame equipment etc. – and this would have turned the deficit around and provided jobs here.
Apparently the Dems think it more important to suck up to the AFL-CIO.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.