It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


White House announces exit from TPP, warns of possible exit from NAFTA

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 01:52 PM

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Pyle

No, not Bush SR, this was CLINTON. Wtf is wrong with you?? I was THERE. Whatever you are spewing is nonsense. NAFTA took place in the late 90s and it was solely due to BILL CLINTON. Everything else you want to lie about is wrong, if you want to lie about where NAFTA came from prove to us that it didn't start with CLINTON. You may have a hard time of it. Sure getting sick of these LIES!!

It's pretty common knowledge that NAFTA was in the works before Clinton took office:

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.[6] The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

You called him a liar when he was completely accurate. This is why things are in such disarray, people support politicians based on what team they've aligned with and don't hold their feet to the fire, or even care about facts at all. I really do hope Trump does away with the TPP it will cause my negative opinion to start swinging positive. But as of now he's just moved a campaign promise to the White House website.

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:00 PM

originally posted by: andrewh7

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow! this is great news

America First!

Until you realize how much of everything you own or regularly buy is in some way imported. Wait until they start slapping tariffs on us and watch your prices get jacked up. Of course, Trump can do no wrong. So, don't worry about it.

It's either pay a little more for our products and keep our country or keep doing what we are doing and pretty soon so many people will be unemployed there will be too many people receiving entitlements and the country bleeds to death like a stuck pig.

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:06 PM
a reply to: PistolPete

I totally agree.

I am also very confident that Trump will make good on the trade deal promises.

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:08 PM
Hmm stocks are going too crash Monday

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:10 PM

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: xuenchen

Its that so or you are just pulling my legs.

I kind of thought about that too, maybe he replaced with MLK. But then I wonder.

But there's lots of controversy and rumors.

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:27 PM

originally posted by: Lilroanie
Ok this is me being confused. I understand the UK cannot self support being a 'relatively' small island, but what exactly does the US have to import? We can make our own food, we have(had, could again) manufacturing capabilities, we have(?) raw materials. What am I missing about what the US has lost irreparably that cannot be re-started to make us mostly self sufficient once again?

This is an honest not snarky question by the way, I really am confused. Thanks for any help educating me, lack of coffee means I'm confused easily lol.


On the contrary, the UK could be self-sufficient if it wanted. Take bananas, for example. Sure, we could produce them. We just need some gigantic green-houses with industrial strength heating and lighting. It would cost the equivalent of 15 dollars a kilo to produce them, of course, which is why we are happy to import them at a cost of 2 dollars a kilo from the Caribbean.

Let's have a look at that coffee you so need. The US could produce that coffee, but it doesn't. It doesn't even figure in the world's top 30 coffee producers. See my previous paragraph for an explanation.

You talk about self-sufficiency, but surely we have gone way beyond that as an aspiration. Countries achieve prosperity by producing what they produce best, and exporting that in exchange for the things they can't produce best. By "best" read "most efficiently". So, by all means scrap the trade deals, but don't start complaining when the T-shirts you used to buy from China for 5 dollars are no longer available, and the equivalent "Made in the US" garment costs twice that. And don't start complaining when US technology, energy, agriculture, drug and finance companies start laying off staff because the products they export are now more expensive abroad. Scrapping trade deals will ensure that.

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:00 PM
a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

Thanks, but I honestly wasn't offering an opinion, just asking a question to clarify this for me.

I see your point to an extent, but the difference is the stuff the we need can easily and cheaply be produced here to my knowledge with industry/agriculture revitalized in the US. Of course we would need trade deals for stuff we want and that's fine. Just make deals equitable for all.

I was just confused because some were making it sound like the US cannot take care of itself and never has and we have to have these inequitable trade deals or we will all be naked and starving and and and etc etc.

So to reiterate what exactly can the US Not produce that is vital to it's survival and wants(to an extent), that a revitalized agricultural/industrial infrastructure would be incapable of accomplishing?

And before it is pointed out, there are of course exceptions to every rule. I'm just asking in a broad sense, overall doing the things we used to do and do well to take care of ourselves.


posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

This is the sweetest music to my ears that I have heard in a very long time. ~$heopleNation

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:17 PM

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: s3cz0ne
I'm not sure that NAFTA has had the impact on American jobs that some have claimed. The real problem dates back to Jimmy Carter's administration and his Fed chair Paul Volker who raised interest rates so high that industry could no longer afford to borrow and in the ensuing years began to dismantle America's manufacturing infrastructure.

It's either Interest Rates or Taxes.

Take your pick.

They keep the Rich rich ... and the Poor poor.

Doesn't matter who's President. Those are the rules.

Well I won't argue with you there. He'll NAFTA was the bastard child of both the establishment Democrats and Republicans. I believe it was first conceived by Reagan/Bush & co. So much for voodoo economics. Very strange times we find ourselves in...

EDIT: I see someone has already beat me to the punch on that one.
edit on 21-1-2017 by s3cz0ne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:00 PM
a reply to: dreamingawake
ugh so they kicked out Malaysia. is china part of it because you know they still use slave labor , how about Indonesia

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:11 PM
a reply to: HomerinNCi know i lived in new bern during my early years and my mom made enough working at texfi textiles that i had a relatively spoiled childhood full of star wars toys and family vacations when i got grown the textile mills atound us all closed shop . remember when rca and zenith were good quality tv brands well trade agreements let those companies go over seas where they can be built by slave labor.

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:36 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

The only problem I have with NAFTA is that they put Mexico in the same league as Canada and the U.S. all of our good I.T. jobs have moved to Mexico from Canada or an Asian call centre.

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:40 PM
a reply to: vonclod

I wish he cut off NAFTA too, I'm a Canadian, and Trudeau raised our taxes to 30% for corporations, how can I compete when a business can move a km south of the border and get 15% tax or less.

I hope he kicks out Mexico from NAFTA they kill Canadian jobs too, if he kills NAFTA then Canada will get fair price for our oil, right now we sell it to the states for about 8 dollars less a barrel because it comes from Alberta. (Dirty oil, they call it)

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:35 PM
a reply to: Wookiep

It must suck being half right. Both parties with equal participation "sold out" to the globalists by taking advantage of the ignorant public.

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:41 PM
Thank God!!!!! Trump, Trump, Trump!!!!

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:50 AM
Trump is giving the people what they want and we can hope he continues to do so. Dropping out of TPP and NAFTA are smart moves undoing stupidity from previous administrations. He's killing his detractors with kindness.

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

Trump living up to his promise. What will the Clinton shills say now?

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:29 PM
Ross Perot called it. NAFTA is the giant sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico.

True, it lowers prices for everyone, at the expense of those left without a job.

Everyone wins, except those few who lose big time. Very democratic though.

Every major corporation follows suit, and suddenly everyone is losing big time, except those few who benefit big time.

Free trade with industrialized countries is generally good. It doesn't shift production. When there is a wage difference or trade imbalance, an equalizing tariff makes sense.

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 02:37 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Good those abysmal trade agreement should have never happened in the first place.

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 03:17 PM
I think you guys are not taking into account that although TPP and NAFTA will be scrapped, those same trade deals will be renegotiated. Even if there are tariffs, Trump promised to reduce corporate taxes, so those tarriffs will not hit the bottom line so hard.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in