Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump Calls NAFTA A "Disaster" [Syas He'll Either Rip Up Agreement Or Renegotiate]
CBS News ^ | September 25, 2015

Posted on 09/25/2015 11:19:28 AM PDT by Steelfish

Trump Calls NAFTA A "Disaster" Trump on trade: The Republican presidential candidate calls NAFTA a disaster he will either break or renegotiate if he's elected president

Donald Trump wants to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement as one of his strategies for creating new jobs for the middle class. The Republican presidential candidate tells Scott Pelley the free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. is a "disaster." He says he will either break or renegotiate it so he can enact tariffs that would dissuade manufacturers like Ford from building cars elsewhere that are meant for the U.S. market.

The Trump interview, in which he also tells Pelley his plans on immigration and reveals a major part of his tax platform for the first time, will be broadcast on the 48th season premiere of 60 Minutes, Sunday September 27 at 7:30 p.m. ET.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: nafta; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: Conscience of a Conservative
The whole discussion of NAFTA arose out of a discussion of tariffs. Trump said he would impose tariffs on Ford if Ford built a plant in Mexico. The interviewer asked how he could do that, since NAFTA prohibits such tariffs. Trump said he'd renegotiate or break NAFTA.

Interesting on several points. First, the reporter had to interject on tariffs and NAFTA, then that Trump said it could be renegotiated or ripped up.

Trump should be using sound bites about repealing or amending NAFTA, not about imposing tariffs, because you cannot consider the latter until you accomplish the former. But Trump is running by heavily leveraging sound bites, not policies.

Second, renegotiating is not a simple answer. He would be not only renegotiating with two foreign nations, he would also be dependent on three nations legislatures/parliaments ratifying or passing legislation to approve the new law. What does Trump plan to do before all of that is completed? We are talking several years of work.

And as I commented before, breaking or ripping up NAFTA is simply not possible. Only repealing the law is possible, and I don't see NAFTA being repealed without an alternative agreement.

I think all of our trade agreements should have a sunset date. It would be nice for the nation to have to periodically renegotiate them.

41 posted on 09/25/2015 11:50:49 AM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Snicker! :-)


42 posted on 09/25/2015 11:51:54 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: central_va

If we could replace income and payroll taxes with tariffs, I would support that. But when the government raises taxes in one place, it rarely cuts taxes elsewhere to compensate.


43 posted on 09/25/2015 11:52:03 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Mexico has to be wondering WTF. And the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Iranians, and ....


44 posted on 09/25/2015 11:53:37 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

You are selectively picking your facts here. Many members of nafta subsidies their products through government subsidies and currency devaluation. This makes their products cheep here in the USA and American products very expensive. Hence the trade deficits. The trade agreements were sold as leveling the playing field, but in truth they tilt it dramatically away from American products. nafta and other trade agreements that our government has signed us up for, both republican and democrats, are based on a one world government model.


45 posted on 09/25/2015 11:55:26 AM PDT by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: central_va
First of all tariffs are part of the US Constitution, they are the basis of income for FedGov™ and protection of US industries.

Oh wow! That overrides all the laws of economics then doesn't it?

46 posted on 09/25/2015 11:56:05 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
BS. Hundreds of millions of Asians are subsistence farmers, and for them factory work is a big step up in pay and conditions. They are free people acting in their own interests.

So the gloBULList venom seeps out of your craven mind.

You know what? I could give a crap about the rest of the world. I am an American and only care about America. I could care less about gloBULLism you traitorous POS. Go f you self if you care about dung eating Chinese peasants than you do Americans.

By the way Reagan had a pretty good record of protectionism, so you might change your handle.

47 posted on 09/25/2015 11:56:29 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

It is an incentive for US companies to relocate production back to the US. Also an incentive for new US companies to step in for those companies that choose to not relocate back to the US. Anything that brings jobs back to the US is a good thing.


48 posted on 09/25/2015 11:57:02 AM PDT by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: central_va
My guess is that you are the ignorant one.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 The Congress -- not the President.

You just made my point.

The President has no power to implement tariffs.

The President has no power to "rip up" laws.

It would take 218 votes in the House, then 60 votes in the Senate for cloture and 51 votes in the Senate to pass a law, which then the President could sign.

Then if Trump wants to rip up the original NAFTA for the cameras, he can.

But if you really think Trump is the solution to a bad bunch of people in congress, you are going to be very disappointed in an actual Trump presidency.

49 posted on 09/25/2015 11:57:56 AM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

How about never.


50 posted on 09/25/2015 11:58:25 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip
Many members of nafta subsidies their products through government subsidies and currency devaluation.

Yep. And the United States is one of the worst offenders, both of subsidizing decrepit industries and of inflating (devaluing) the currency.

51 posted on 09/25/2015 11:59:04 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
That overrides all the laws of economics then doesn't it?

Yes it does. Either we have a country or we don't. Your economic freedom ends at the waters edge, as with a lot of freedoms you play in the US sandbox or leave. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

So what other parts of the US Constitutions would we throw away?

52 posted on 09/25/2015 11:59:23 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

In principle I agree, but the NAFTA deal stinks because of all of the slimely side deals that came out AFTER it was signed.

Canada and mexico sued in some court and won.....the case was about labeling country of origin for meat and poultry. We had it and wanted it but now we lost.

Anyone one here want to eat chicken/meat/pork from mexico?


53 posted on 09/25/2015 12:00:49 PM PDT by rrrod (Just an old guy with a gun in his pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Yep. And the United States is one of the worst offenders, both of subsidizing decrepit industries and of inflating (devaluing) the currency.

Then why the trade deficits?
54 posted on 09/25/2015 12:02:04 PM PDT by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Don't worry, most companies will eat the tariff and start to in source production.

The one who is going to "eat the tariff" is you. You will pay higher prices for the protected goods.

55 posted on 09/25/2015 12:02:05 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

Trump is pro union.


56 posted on 09/25/2015 12:03:26 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: magellan

We had enough of this rule by executive fiat with Obama. We need to get back to the rule of law.
......................................
Reversing what BO has done would be getting back to the rule of law.


57 posted on 09/25/2015 12:04:33 PM PDT by g.orwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: erkelly

You don’t get it. Apparently, when an American pays $20,000 for a car built on foreign soil they have a higher standard of living than when they pay $20,000 for one built in the US.


58 posted on 09/25/2015 12:04:59 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Lex rex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
The one who is going to "eat the tariff" is you. You will pay higher prices for the protected goods.

Happily and joyously so. Eventually domestic manufacturing will come back and lower prices. The tiny inflationary effect will be offset BY AMERICANS GETTING OFF WELFARE AND BACK TO WORK. So overall it is neutral to the taxpayer. this must upset you so....

59 posted on 09/25/2015 12:05:16 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
It’s not the business of the government to tell me what countries I should buy from.

That's right. That's why you can still buy from those countries. So don't distort the facts.

NAFTA was a sovereignty-destroying, job-killing abomination which allows nations to, for instance, use slave labor and thus send their more cheaply manufactured products to America and enjoy exaggerated profits.

You might not like tariffs, but at least they're totally Constitutional, and I believe they can be appropriate in certain extreme cases. And there are plenty of extreme cases.

Furthermore, NAFTA lowers trade barriers between the US and other countries disproportionately.

That's right: the US reduces or eliminates our tariffs, while trading partners get to maintain theirs at a higher rate, or reduce them much more slowly.

NAFTA was patently unfair to the US, just like GATT which followed it. Nobody who is a fan of these lopsided trade agreements has the best interests of the US worker in mind.

60 posted on 09/25/2015 12:06:16 PM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson