在跨太平洋伙伴关系是一个贸易协定，将使它更容易为美国公司推销自己的商品和服务的环太平洋国家。此次交易将有利于美国公司的服务，谁就能开拓业务在亚洲和南美国家。反对者认为，这项法案将激励美国公司向海外转移服务和制造业就业机会。支持者认为，这将使得美国公司更加成功地销售他们的商品和服务在太平洋沿岸国家，导致经济更强劲，更多的就业机会和更高的收入为美国工人。
@8LB5TM44yrs4Y
Disagree, global trade will make it easier for the Communist Party to penetrate the democratic and free world.
@2Q6VKQZ4yrs4Y
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.
@2Q6L3VV4yrs4Y
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.
@2Q6CQC74yrs4Y
No, this will weaken environmental regulations and threaten labor rights.
@2Q5W52Y4yrs4Y
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!
@44gangster4yrs4Y
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
@2Q3SN7J4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if it were guaranteed that the companies would employ American workers, thus not taking away from American job opportunities.
@songture4yrs4Y
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.
@2MBZ2434yrs4Y
No, it is secret and will affect us all. Restrictions on intellectual property, outrageous extranational courts negating sovereignty and infuriating Internet rights infringements.
@2MBSN9B4yrs4Y
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.
@2MBRWXQ4yrs4Y
Yes, only if Malaysia is taken out of the deal.
@2MBJY6C4yrs4Y
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.
Favor free trade in principle as beneficial, but dislike increasing intellectual property law guarantees.
@2MBGD2T4yrs4Y
Some of the member countries routinely commit human rights abuses. This makes me uncomfortable.
@2MBBYF84yrs4Y
No, corporations will abuse the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions.
@2MB8H684yrs4Y
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.
@2M9YRTZ4yrs4Y
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.
@2M9YJ454yrs4Y
No, I am suspicious of secret deals that the American public cannot see.
@2M9XS6Z4yrs4Y
Yes, but limit companies ability to move operations/manufacturing jobs overseas.
@2M9VQDS4yrs4Y
No... While I believe in free trade, I don't believe in all the hidden riders that the government will hide within the bill.
@2M96XRD4yrs4Y
Yes, but the deal has to be more transparent and publicly influenced
@2M8Q3PK4yrs4Y
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.
