This is the shit Trump will STOP

[Valerie]

hillary flipped on the tpp...

Hillary Clinton says she didn't endorse the TPP trade deal until it was actually negotiated

She will push it through..........she speaks to what she thinks the voters want to hear...........She's in the tank for Crony Capitalism...............and has benefited greatly for these ties............

She will not change her stripes..........and the TPP is bad for America.........but hey...........as long as she gets more money for it................WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE.......when Americans lose their jobs because of it..............

she didn't flip on the the tpp.. she still supports the idea of the tpp and is only holding out to ensure the best terms of the deal. as usual, the talking heads twist and shout as if she lied about something, but that's what smart politicians do in order to leverage better conditions and negotiate the best trade deal. hillary is wisely using every opportunity at their disposal to hold out and leverage a better deal for the American people.

 

[Valerie]

Speaking in Australia in 2012, Clinton hailed the deal as "setting the gold standard."

"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field," Clinton said. "And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

Strong words for a deal that hadn't been completed yet. But it wasn’t just on that one occasion that Clinton was more than just hopeful about the deal’s impact.

"It will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia's middle class and rebalance the global economy."


The partners finalized the deal in 2015.

Why the change of heart? In Thursday’s debate, Clinton said she opposes the trade deal because, "We have failed to provide the basic safety net support that American workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy."

...


Clinton's response was cool and collected. She reminded Cooper that the TPP negotiations were only concluded earlier this month, and stated that the negotiated deal "didn't meet [her] standards." When she was Secretary of State, she had hoped that the TPP would represent the "gold standard" in new trade deals, as she expressed in a speech in 2012. But as anyone who has studied these trade deals knows, the devil is in the details -- and Clinton was not in charge of the final talks that produced the details of the TPP. Now that Clinton knows what was negotiated, she has decided she doesn't support the agreement. As she explained, "I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, 'this will help raise your wages.' And I concluded I could not."

Why Hillary Clinton Is Right on the TPP

 

[Valerie]

there is no reason to doubt Clinton's account of her position on trade. It would be foolish to think that because she had once supported the TPP in principle, she should remain committed to it unconditionally. Furthermore, Clinton's longer record shows an increasing reluctance to support the free trade agenda that characterized her husband's administration twenty years ago. While she has supported many past free trade agreements, she voted against the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA) in 2005, while she was a senator. In 2007, reflecting on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), she offered mixed support, explaining, "what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain." By 2008, she had concluded that NAFTA "had not lived up to its promises." Later that year, she broke with members of her own campaign team -- and her husband -- over a free trade agreement with Colombia.


In more recent years, Clinton's positions on trade have partly reflected the needs of the Obama Administration in which she served as Secretary of State. But they also show a commendable willingness to scrutinize the specifics. Not all trade deals are created equal, and what matters are the details. Support for one deal should not automatically translate into support for another -- but explaining how the details matter, and why, is hard to do in a campaign slogan or a quick response in a televised debate.

Why Hillary Clinton Is Right on the TPP

 

[eagle1462010]

hillary flipped on the tpp...

Hillary Clinton says she didn't endorse the TPP trade deal until it was actually negotiated

She will push it through..........she speaks to what she thinks the voters want to hear...........She's in the tank for Crony Capitalism...............and has benefited greatly for these ties............

She will not change her stripes..........and the TPP is bad for America.........but hey...........as long as she gets more money for it................WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE.......when Americans lose their jobs because of it..............

she didn't flip on the the tpp.. she still supports the idea of the tpp and is only holding out to ensure the best terms of the deal. as usual, the talking heads twist and shout as if she lied about something, but that's what smart politicians do in order to leverage better conditions and negotiate the best trade deal. hillary is wisely using every opportunity at their disposal to hold out and leverage a better deal for the American people.

How the hell is it good for us..........when the big argument in congress was how much to spend on the TPA...........which is funding for the displaced workers as a result of the deal..............................

Check it out and say HOW GREAT IT IS...............It's gonna cost us more jobs............but I guess you guys want more on the Gov't dole anyway..........

 

[Avatar4321]

Intel Lays Off 12,000 After Seeking Visas to Import 14,523 Foreign Professionals Since 2010 - Breitbart

This is bullshit. Trump can end the visa's and since Obama's has shown us the power of a pen and a phone he can punish these companies in some form or fashion.

The reason these companies do this is is because the government forces up cost of labor and regulation compliance and you think more government intervention is going to fix the problem government intervention began? That's insane.

Besides which, doesn't Trump so this with his own companies? Why would he punish other companies for doing something he does?

 

[bripat9643]

Intel Lays Off 12,000 After Seeking Visas to Import 14,523 Foreign Professionals Since 2010 - Breitbart

This is bullshit. Trump can end the visa's and since Obama's has shown us the power of a pen and a phone he can punish these companies in some form or fashion.

Here is how Mr. Trump proposes on how to reduce HB1 visas, from YOUR article:

Since then, political outsider Donald Trump has put himself on track to the GOP’s 2016 nomination by promising to reform the nation’s immigration and guest worker systems to help Americans.

For example, he has said he would reduce the inflow of H-1Bs by raising the minimum wage for H-1B workers, and has called for one year “pause” in legal immigration.


Odium, that doesn't sound like he'll accomplish or do anything worth while to stop the flow....

So your Messiah, on this is weak, weak, weak...

Most foreign workers get hired on HB1's, not so much that they pay them less when hired, but because these workers are indebted to the employer that hired them and can not compete in the market place.....in other words, they can't quit, they are basically paid slaves....for 6 years each.

Now that is interesting. So Bill Gates who also uses that and in fact asked for MORE is promoting SLAVERY. And he just happens to be a democrat.

Why change the subject of my post? DO YOU have anything to say on Trump's plans on how he would handle it?

YOU introduced salary slavery into the thread yourself. Its a good point and one worth looking at for more then one reason.

well, they are a form of indentured servants....they cant work for anyone else but the company that imported them

That's actually not true. They switch employers all the time, but they have to get any new employer to sponsor them, and they can only go for so long without having a sponsor before they have to leave the country.

 

[bodecea]

Intel Lays Off 12,000 After Seeking Visas to Import 14,523 Foreign Professionals Since 2010 - Breitbart

This is bullshit. Trump can end the visa's and since Obama's has shown us the power of a pen and a phone he can punish these companies in some form or fashion.

How?

 

[GHook93]

Intel Lays Off 12,000 After Seeking Visas to Import 14,523 Foreign Professionals Since 2010 - Breitbart

This is bullshit. Trump can end the visa's and since Obama's has shown us the power of a pen and a phone he can punish these companies in some form or fashion.

You don't understand H1B visa requirements. The fallacy is these programs are money saving machines. Far from the truth. First, compliance is tough. There is a lot of red tape and requirements to overcome. Second, the fallacy of paying H1B workers pennies on the dollar is propaganda. The actual vs prevailing wage requirement is a build in protection. The employer must offer the higher wage of the two. Actual wages are the historical data that the employer paid to domestic workers for identical or similar jobs. Prevailing wages are what the regulators determine is the industry norm for the position. Again the employer must offer the higher value. Next employer nearly always get the H1B workers from job placement agencies. These places charge a pretty penny. Usually if you pay a worker $50k a year you are also paying the job placement agency $50k also. Next there is continued compliance cost with reporting to the regulators. Anyone who thinks foreign workers are cheap is plain ignorant.

Next there are the legal requirements of attesting to non-displacement and recruitment. Attesting to non-displacement means the company confirms they are not replacing domestic workers. Regulators specific look into this. It provides fired workers with standing and statutory damages. Violators also get hit with hard penalties. For recruitment, the employer must attest they have sought domestic workers prior to going foreign. I do compliance law for a too big to fail financial institution. We offer the job for 6 months before going foreign. If we get even a half qualified American candidate we go with them. The candidate pool for coders, engineers, etc is tiny. Blame liberal schools that do not promote math and science.

Propaganda so easy for the simple minded to eat up.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I really don't know if companies going overseas causes any economic damage to the whole economy. I happen to think that it is good for the whole economy but it does destroy local economies that depend on the business. I think that might be an issue in the northeast. I wouldn't mind if foreign companies would move into here but why would they when their currency is so degraded that it isn't economical to do so. TO pay an American worker cost them 1000 times what it cost them to pay one of their own because of the difference in the value of currencies. One solution that might work is to allow competing currencies that way any country that wants to manipulate its currency would have to do so against 10-20 different American currencies which is a very difficult thing to do.

I just realized this. I..I...I....am beginning to sound like Obama with how many times I say I.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm going to destroy the myth that companies can't afford to pay their workers more money. They have the dough to do so but because they are cheap they choose not to. I fully understand that it is the market that drive wages but I've seen it where even small business owers are ultra cheap in wages. What is the big deal to pay people a dollar more per hour when the revenue from your business allows you to own three homes! Please don't assume I am against business in this country because I happen to think the business practice of some businesses borders on the unethical at times. Being a business doesn't give you the right to break the laws in this country or harm other people's property by polluting.

 

[my2¢]

If I recall right this bringing in of foreign workers is somewhat like the thing Trump was pulling with low-income workers at his resort in Florida and construction workers elsewhere. I think the guy is playing labor for fools in this campaign, much like he's played investors in the past and left them hanging. I'd still take him over Hillary but I'm not expecting much except for a few half decent picks for the Supreme Court.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Intel Lays Off 12,000 After Seeking Visas to Import 14,523 Foreign Professionals Since 2010 - Breitbart

This is bullshit. Trump can end the visa's and since Obama's has shown us the power of a pen and a phone he can punish these companies in some form or fashion.

How?

He will insult them, and then threaten to sue them.

 

[Syriusly]

Intel Lays Off 12,000 After Seeking Visas to Import 14,523 Foreign Professionals Since 2010 - Breitbart

This is bullshit. Trump can end the visa's and since Obama's has shown us the power of a pen and a phone he can punish these companies in some form or fashion.

I almost want to see Trump elected just to point out later that he does nothing like this that would hurt big business.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How on Earth would Trump stop a private enterprise from implementing economic decisions?

 

[Preacher]

How on Earth would Trump stop a private enterprise from implementing economic decisions?

He can make it very painful economically on them....no more tax breaks,no more government handouts etc...companies that hire AMERICANS will get those.

 

[Crixus]

Intel Lays Off 12,000 After Seeking Visas to Import 14,523 Foreign Professionals Since 2010 - Breitbart

This is bullshit. Trump can end the visa's and since Obama's has shown us the power of a pen and a phone he can punish these companies in some form or fashion.

Really? We sure we want presidants doing that ?