It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
tep 1: Repeal NAFTA, institute stiff taxes & tariffs on imported goods and, especially, on outsourced labor from US-based compnaies, withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization, institute tax credits & cuts for corporations & small businesses based on percentages of US citizens employed. These tax credits would be weighted to provide greater incentive to employ US citizens in all position levels, from cimple laborer all the way up to managerial roles. Use a 50% baseline, meaning if a company is headquartered in the USA, and they employ 50% American workforce, they would pay the baseline tax rate, not being eligible for any credits or cuts. Conversely, if they employ less than 50%, their tax rates would go up proportionately to whatever percentage under 50% they are at.
U.S. dumping on world agricultural markets:
here is mention of a "right to regulate" in the preamble of the whole agreement, but this is not legally enforceable. In the investment chapter itself, a provision indicates that parties can maintain and enforce environmental and health measures that are "otherwise consistent" with the agreement. Translation: environmental and health measures (other than those related to tobacco control) can still be challenged under ISDS.
Then there are the 'safeguards', also meant to prevent challenges to public policy - are they 'robust', as argued by DFAT? Since the last leak of the investment chapter, the TPP parties have added further clarifying language to one of the most contentious provisions on the so-called 'minimum standard of treatment'. This is likely a result of both continued public pressure, and tribunal decisions in cases like Bilcon v Canada that demonstrate that the safeguards in existing agreements have proven insufficient. However, while the additional language may plug some holes, there is no guarantee that creative lawyers won't open up new ones.
This is because the parties have chosen to continue with the US practice of linking the standard to 'customary international law' and have thus left it relatively open to interpretation. This is something that Europe has rejected in favour of "a clear, closed text which defines precisely the content of the standard without leaving unwelcome discretion to arbitrators".
originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: burdman30ott6
It's an endless loop. Ask what about NAFTA was good for the average American Worker and you get silence.
Ask why having millions of low skilled workers enter our workforce, Illegally mind you, is somehow good for the average American Worker and you get silience.
Ask why high taxes are better for the Average American than lower taxes and you get some platitudes at least (Don't you like roads fixed and Firefighters), but no real rebuttal. We had those with lower taxes, what changed?
Ask what was or would be so good about the TPP and you get gobbledegook that sounds like NAFTA on Steroids, like that's a good arguement.
Healthcare is a mess, Obamacare was an attempt, it wasn't the solution. Now what do we try?
The United States has the world's largest trade deficit. It's been that way since 1975. The deficit in goods and services was $566 billion in 2017. How do we fix that? Again, Silence from the Left side of the aisle.
Let's not even talk about the National Debt as both Parties have their heads up their asses about that.
But this is all Trumps fault in 2 years.
Give me a break.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Pyle
We have a $63 Billion annual trade deficit with Mexico and an estimated 600,000 to 700,000 jobs have left the US for Mexico. Your $4 bil in gains is chicken feed compared to the grotesque whoring of our prosperity to interests south of the US/Mexico border.