Any agreement that gives non-citizens the right to develop what our policies will be, is off the table for me.
These are multi-national agreements, and their review process can morph the original terms.
Who doesn’t actually agree with Free Trade as long as it makes sense? If it’s contributing to the standard of living for our citizens, I’m pretty much for it. If it puts some folks out of work so someone who is still working can get a 25% discount on what they purchase, I think it’s a decaying process on the well-being of our nation.
We MUST HAVE EMPLOYED citizens to thrive. Employing the citizens of other nations while our populace puts up with 25% unemployment and another 25% of our citizens have to work for far less than they used to, doesn’t add up on the list of what healthy nations do.
I don’t like taxes, but we do have to have ‘some’ tax base. It’s silly to thing we don’t. As we build ever larger national debt, there are contributing factors. Those factors include the financial well-being of our citizens.
As for these agreements, there are always things included that have nothing to do with trade, but more a binding of our border status, across border security, and a myriad of employment practices.
My rule of thumb is this. If we could thrive as a nation without these multi-national agreeements thick enough so no sane person would read them, then why must we have them now?
Trade took place before. We obviously don’t need these agreements to conduct it now. Further, we don’t have to have 20 nations in an agreement to get an agreement.
These things get far afield. They shouldn’t.
Personal agreements nation by nation are a better way to go IMO. If there is a reason to alter the agreement, we can do so without offending the other 19 nations in the agreement.
We hobble ourselves, and make agreements that don’t benefit us all too often.
I just don’t agree with this drive to turn us into a multi-national co-op.
We obviously didn’t have to go this route. And when you look at where we were twenty-five years ago today, and where we are now, I defy anyone to say we’re better off economically today.
We obviously didn’t have to go this route. And when you look at where we were twenty-five years ago today, and where we are now, I defy anyone to say we’re better off economically today.
Were if it were not for the arguments by Ross Perot long ago, Clinton would never have been president. Unfortunately those who heard Ross’s commentary thought he was a nut and Bush I went down in flames.
Btt
Free trade -- even the real kind based on actual freedom -- will always cause some to lose work. People in other countries with different economic situations will be able to produce some goods more cheaply and more efficiently.
We should take advantage of that and shift our capital into lines of production that are more capital-based and more profitable. In a well-functioning and free economy, that process would more than compensate for the losses.
It is the gradual erosion of our economic freedom that causes the overall job losses -- not the freedom, itself.