Proveu el concurs polític

0 Respon

 @2Q6VKQZde New York respon…4 anys4Y

Yes, with the provision that companies may not move their base. This is to incentivize trade and create jobs and a stronger economy- we should have provisions and guidelines in place for participants to ensure the continued growth of the american workforce.

 @2Q6L3VVde New York respon…4 anys4Y

No, free trade must be allowed and not subject to treaties guaranteeing reciprocity. We should not engage in trade wars; the market will provide the incentive for other countries to stop protectionism; even if they are deaf to the market, using force is counterproductive.

 @2Q6CQC7de Guam respon…4 anys4Y

 @2Q5W52Yde Virginia respon…4 anys4Y

No, HELL NO. I live and work in China now. I'm here because I can't find a job in the US. Do something to make jobs at home so I can come home!

 @44gangsterde Maryland respon…4 anys4Y

It's like the Affordable Care Act; too complicated for the average citizen to understand and suspected of having hidden clauses. Build our economy and trade one on one with other countries

 @2Q3SN7Jde Georgia respon…4 anys4Y

Yes, but only if it were guaranteed that the companies would employ American workers, thus not taking away from American job opportunities.

 @songturede Texas respon…4 anys4Y

from leaked documents, this is a very biased agreement in favor of multinational corporations and their interests that will override other issues such as the environment and civil liberties.

 @2MBZ243de Georgia respon…4 anys4Y

No, it is secret and will affect us all. Restrictions on intellectual property, outrageous extranational courts negating sovereignty and infuriating Internet rights infringements.

 @2MBSN9Bde California respon…4 anys4Y

Without knowing what has been negotiated, I can't say. There are geopolitical reasons to have trade agreement with the countries engaged in these discussions. It could be an effective way to counterbalance China's influence.

 @2MBJY6Cde California respon…4 anys4Y

No, tariffs are an important source of revenue. Instead of pursuing a free trade strategy, the United States should pursue an equal trade strategy, where signers of the partnership agree upon a universal tariff rate.

 @29G823TLlibertarirespon…4 anys4Y

Favor free trade in principle as beneficial, but dislike increasing intellectual property law guarantees.

 @2MBGD2Tde Texas respon…4 anys4Y

Some of the member countries routinely commit human rights abuses. This makes me uncomfortable.

 @2MBBYF8de Massachusetts respon…4 anys4Y

 @2MB8H68de Maine respon…4 anys4Y

No it reduces a country's sovereignty and makes it easier for corporations to exploit countries for economic gain. Some countries will see a reduction in their food safety standards and some will miss out on jobs. Countries will loose some of their authority and will be able to be sued by corporations.

 @2M9YRTZde New York respon…4 anys4Y

support it, but only with the caveat that they limit the size of the operations allowable overseas and a majority % of jobs must remain stateside.

 @2M9YJ45de Virginia respon…4 anys4Y

 @2M9XS6Zde Colorado respon…4 anys4Y

 @2M9VQDSde New York respon…4 anys4Y

No... While I believe in free trade, I don't believe in all the hidden riders that the government will hide within the bill.

 @2M96XRDde California respon…4 anys4Y

 @2M8Q3PKde Alabama respon…4 anys4Y

No, I do not support any kind of agreement that may, by circumstance or design, force Americans to do business with any country or persons who commit criminal acts against humanity, as several of the intended "partners" are known to do.