I support giving President Obama the ability to negotiate and complete new trade agreements with some of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
Donald Trump understands China influence. He's been talking about it since 1980. He understands it. The people that are on the other side of this, including his opponent, Hillary Clinton, have been part of every bad trade negotiation we've had since 1993.
Bill Clinton was for NAFTA. I heard him over in Tokyo he came out all said it was a great bill. Secretary Clinton was for it. She called it the gold standard when she was secretary of state.
I don't want to stop and build protectionism out there, but I certainly don't mind tough negotiation with our trade partners.
The nation that buys commands, the nation that sells serves; it is necessary to balance trade in order to ensure freedom; the country that wants to die sells only to one country , and the country that wants to survive sells to more than one.
President Obama has proven himself to be a terrible negotiator. I don't support any trade deal negotiated by his administration.
If we want an international trade deal that advances the interests of our own people, then perhaps we don't need a 'fast-track' but a regular track: where the president sends us any proposal he deems worthy, and we review it on its own merits.
When it comes to China, there are genuine giants that need to be conquered and dragons to tame. Protecting intellectual property rights and leveling the playing field for international trade are serious matters that must be resolved. But that will happen through honest negotiation.
Free trade agreements are never for one sector alone.
This is a global economy. If you're not at the bargaining table, if you don't get an agreement, someone else does.
We're at the start of the process of talking about a trade deal. We're both very clear that we want a trade deal. It will be in the interests of the UK from my point of view, that's what I'm going to be taking in, into the trade discussions that take place in due course. Obviously [Donald Trump] will have the interests of the US. I believe we can come to an agreement that is in the interests of both.
I favored the idea of Trans-Pacific Partnership, but I did not support the administration - the [Barack] Obama administration TPP. There are three or four things they did in that, that I though were terrible agreements that were not worth supporting.
It's been years, decades, since a president has lost a major trade initiative. That would be bad headlines.
I think what Donald Trump is saying to people is that America has way more leverage at the negotiating table than America has used in the past. And whether you like it or not, the government and trade representatives have made the decision not to use that leverage. And it has had an economic impact on the lower and middle class.
Everybody talks about tariffs as the first thing. Tariffs are the last thing. Tariffs are part of the negotiation. The real trick is going to be increase American exports. Get rid of some of the tariff and non-tariff barriers to American exports.
There's a whole range of areas that we'll be looking at, so I'm not at this very early stage going to specify any particular areas. As you will know, there will be a limit to how far we can go in terms of a formal free trade agreement until we've actually left the European Union. I think there is much that we [with Donald Trump] can do in the interim in terms of looking at how we can remove some of the barriers to trade in a number of areas.
I was discouraged when I read that [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell said that Trans-Pacific Partnership was dead, but then I was told he turned around and said, "No, it's not."
Well, everybody is trying to make this a money thing. If you send me to another team, let's see what I ask for. I won't ask for nothing. I'll play under the same terms. So it is not Gary wants more money. Gary has money. What else do I need?
We're always willing to look at ways NAFTA can work better. But it's a fine line between looking at ways to make it work better and actually starting to open the agreement. I think, if you actually opened the agreement, I think you would get into a negotiation that - that would never terminate.
I think we're gonna end up with a much better relationship with Mexico. We will have the wall and in a very serious form Mexico will pay for the wall.
If the seller has a player that they think is going to have a lot of value, they're aware of it, protect that value. You have to go get it. That's the way the trade market works.
Congress has the responsibility to ensure that any international trade agreement entered into by the United States must serve the national interest, not merely the interests of those crafting the proposal in secret.
The economic misery: who passed NAFTA? You know, Bill Clinton signed that with Hillary's [Clinton] support.
When you're talking about a trade you're saying, 'Is it good for this team or that team, did they give up too much?' That kind of debate is great for the game.
White men have two hands. The stronger hand is the hand of war. The other hand is the hand of trade. Which hand do the Abanhos want?
The Abanhos as a group responded, “Trade.”
