Verified answer

Yes and no.

Yes: it opens up foreign markets to American goods (that's a lie) and it encourages peace as nations are less likely to attack potential business partners.

No: because it encourages the effects we're seeing in America today: offshoring of companys, companys seeking cheaper labor

In short, I believe it should be regulated and monitored, otherwise it can cause economic destruction

nicely, she made a assertion asserting that she did no longer think of it became a conflict of interest. (Lie #a million) stated Mark Penn resigned (Lie #2) (The Clintons have been livid at him.) Her marketing campaign is a chaotic mess. From the commencing up, she wasn't able to get her human beings on the floor on the caucuses, she's gotten rid of her acceptable aides, human beings have fallen away and now her chief Strategist is long gone. i'm no longer able to have faith that anybody needs her for President. by utilising the way, as somebody else has stated, the Clintons have become rich at taxpayers rate. Everytime they make a public visual allure alongside with a conversing engagement or a e book signing, we are buying all those secret provider who're conserving them.

Depends. I wouldn't want pure, unregulated free trade. But I think we should have more trade with other countries than we currently do.

I support it. If there were no international free trade, we'd be a much less affluent country and we'd be defeating ourselves and we'd live much less luxurious lives. The economy is not just our economy, it's global.

We should only buy from foreign sources when we don't or can't produce the necessary products ourselves!

Yes we are to broke to buy any thing so free sound good to me.

yes; but only if it benefits us. we need to keep a strategic mindset.