Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 06, 2011, 05:46:09 PM
-
U.S. proposes to open roads to Mexican trucks
By John Crawley John Crawley
Thu Jan 6, 5:33 pm ET
________________________ ____________________
.WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration on Thursday proposed a new inspection and monitoring regime to permit long-haul trucks from Mexico on U.S. highways after years of delays over safety concerns and political wrangling.
The Transportation Department's compromise seeks to revive efforts to fulfill a key provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is highly unpopular with labor but supported by many businesses as a cost advantage.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called the plan by his agency a starting point to renew negotiations with Mexico, which has slapped tariffs on U.S. products over the delay.
The Transportation Department said the plan, which would eventually need congressional and Mexican government approval, would prioritize safety and that a formal proposal is due to be announced in coming months.
The countries would negotiate the number of carriers allowed to participate in a first phase. Applicants would be vetted by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Trucking safety programs would be reviewed and each vehicle would be inspected and certified by highway safety and environmental officials.
Prospects for an agreement are uncertain. The plan has failed to move ahead over the past decade regardless of which party controlled the White House or Congress.
But the Obama administration felt more comfortable issuing a proposal with the program's fiercest critics, labor friendly Democrats in the House of Representatives, voted out of office in November or sidelined to the minority. Republicans took over the chamber on Wednesday.
Mexico said it would review the plan, calling it a positive
first step, and said tariffs would be lifted after a trucking agreement is completed.
"In general this is very good news," said Humberto Trevino, Mexico's deputy transport minister.
Currently, big rigs from Mexico must offload their goods near the border so U.S. trucks can haul them the rest of the way.
BUSINESS SEES BENEFITS
Allowing cross-border trucking could increase competition, add capacity in the domestic market, and offer other benefits to business.
"We could see a more open Mexican border actually drive more ... freight activity in general, which would benefit the entire trucking industry," said Todd Fowler of KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Among the potential beneficiaries are farmers and livestock producers affected by the billions of dollars in tariffs on agricultural and other goods shipped to Mexico from the United States.
Mexico is a leading importer of U.S. pork, but currently it has a 5 percent duty on that product. It is widely believed the duty was applied in response to the trucking dispute.
"The pork industry has been eagerly awaiting this moment, which should further facilitate pork trade to Mexico," said Rich Nelson, analyst with agriculture advisory firm Allendale Inc.
Labor and consumer groups and their allies in Congress for years blocked the trucking initiative from progressing beyond small pilot programs. They were concerned about safety and potential job losses.
James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters union, called the new move disappointing and another opportunity to open the border "to unsafe trucks." He stressed the move was ill-timed considering the tough economy.
"Why would DOT propose to threaten U.S. truck drivers' and warehouse workers' jobs when unemployment is so high," Hoffa said.
But Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the move. "If we're going to double exports (globally) within five years, we must hold on to export markets, such as Mexico," Donohue said in a statement.
U.S. companies represented by the National Association of Manufacturers said a swift deal on trucking was necessary to counter gains by competitors in Canada, China and South American nations that have increased marketshare in Mexico.
(Reporting by John Crawley; Additional reporting by Doug Palmer in Washington; Bob Burgdorfer and James Kelleher in Chicago; Lynn Adler in New York and Mica Rosenberg in Mexico City; Editing by Sandra Maler and Cynthia Osterman)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/pl_nm/us_usa_mexico_trucks/print
-
-
What is your point behind this post?
That it's bad for unemployment? Well, it's good for businesses. Isn't stuff that's good for business good for unemployment?
-
::) ::)
Same crap was said about NAFTA, all nonsense.
-
By Josh Mitchell, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Obama administration said Thursday it would enter talks with Mexico designed to lift a U.S. ban on Mexican truckers operating north of the border, a key shift that business groups saw as a move toward more open trade policies.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sent a blueprint to Congress outlining principles the White House would push in attempting to resolve the conflict. He said a formal proposal could emerge in coming months, and another U.S. official said the goal was to have the nearly two-year-old ban lifted "as soon as possible."
A Mexican official said the country was "optimistic" a deal could be reached soon but cautioned that a resolution has been elusive in the past.
The White House risks angering some Democratic lawmakers and powerful unions that have opposed lifting the ban on the grounds that such a move would reduce trucker safety standards and kill U.S. jobs. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters strongly denounced the plan. And a union ally, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.), instantly pushed for a hearing on the matter, his spokeswoman said.
---snip---
"It's another tilt in the direction of pulling trade policy out of the basement, up into at least the first floor," Hufbauer said.
He said he believed it wasn't a coincidence the White House announcement came on the day that President Obama selected as his chief of staff William M. Daley, who successfully pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress in the early 1990s.
MORE...
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx...
________________________ ________-
And you people doubt me that Bama is trying to kill off this nation by the second?
-
I don't disagree at all, I think NAFTA sucked.
Why help the rest of the world... Fuck 'em.
A lot of people say what's good for wall street is good for main street... I don't agree myself, but many people do.
-
What happened to this guy who said NAFTA was unfair to average americans?
-
-
PREMEDITATED MERGER
Obama reverses opposition to Mexican trucks
White House reacts to diplomatic pressure with vow to retain program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 12, 2009
11:30 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
One day after signing the $410 billion omnibus funding bill into law, along with provisions ending the Department of Transportation's Mexican truck demonstration project, the Obama administration has announced intentions to restart the program as soon as possible.
Debbie Mesloh, a spokeswoman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, told the Associated Press Obama has asked the office to work with Congress, the DOT, the State Department and Mexican officials to come up with legislation to create "a new trucking project that will meet the legitimate concerns" of Congress and the U.S. under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
The Obama administration's determination to see Mexican long-haul rigs roll throughout the U.S. is a setback for labor unions, including the Teamsters, who supported Obama in the 2008 presidential election, in part on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA to preserve U.S. jobs.
The sharp policy reversal will also be a blow to many Democrats in Congress, including Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who fought hard for the past two years to stop the project out of concerns that Mexican trucks do not conform with U.S. safety regulations.
After Tuesday's vote in the Senate to pass the funding bill with language ending the truck project, the Mexican government put immediate pressure on the Obama administration to reinstate approval for Mexican trucks to operate throughout the U.S.
"Mexico still believes that the United States' noncompliance on this issue, more than 14 years overdue, is a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement," Mexican Embassy spokesman Ricardo Alday told the AP.
(Story continues below)
Alday insisted Mexico is willing to work with Congress and the U.S. "in finding a solution that honors its international obligation."
The Mexican truck issue became rancorous over the past two years as Bush administration Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters fought off repeated efforts by Congress to confine Mexican trucks to a narrow 20-mile-wide commercial area north of the southern border.
WND reported that after the truck project began, an examination of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration database revealed hundreds of safety violations by Mexican long-haul rigs on U.S. roads.
The contention of opponents has been that Mexican trucks and truck drivers do not reliably meet U.S. standards.
As WND reported, in a contentious Senate hearing last March, Dorgan got Peters to admit that Mexican drivers were being designated at the border as "proficient in English" even though they could explain U.S. traffic signs only in Spanish.
In the tense hearing, Dorgan accused Peters of being "arrogant" and in reckless disregard of a congressional vote to stop the truck project by taking funds away.
As WND reported, opposition in the House was led by DeFazio, who in September 2007 accused the Bush administration of having a "stealth plan" to allow Mexican long-haul rigs on U.S. roads.
"This administration [of President George W. Bush] is hell-bent on opening our borders," DeFazio then said, "but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks."
Previously, Peters had argued the wording of the Dorgan amendment did not prohibit the Transportation Department from stopping a Mexican truck project already under way, even if the measure prohibited DOT from starting any new project.
Despite strong congressional opposition, the Department of Transportation under President Bush had announced it planned in its final months to extend the truck project for another two years – an attempt to force the incoming Obama administration to comply.
Obama backtracking on NAFTA promises?
The administration's determination to open the U.S. to Mexican trucks raises questions about whether Obama intends to fulfill campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA to get provisions more favorable to American workers and jobs.
During the presidential campaign, top Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, an economics professor at the University of Chicago business school, stirred controversy after reporters learned he traveled to Canada to reassure Canadians that Obama's harsh words about NAFTA were just campaign rhetoric.
In the Ohio and Pennsylvania Democratic Party primaries, Obama pledged to renegotiate NAFTA as part of his appeal to workers in the states that have lost manufacturing jobs under the free trade agreements negotiated by Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.
Now, Goolsbee has joined the Obama administration, having taken a leave of absence from the University of Chicago after Obama appointed him chief economist and staff director of the newly created Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board, chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker.
Obama also appointed Goolsbee to the Council of Economic Advisors, or CEA, which is charged with assisting in the development of White House economic policy.
In his first trip to a foreign nation, Obama traveled to Canada, where he used a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to backtrack on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA.
The London Guardian reported Obama's comments in Canada "muddied his position" on NAFTA.
Obama responded to a question at the joint press conference with Harper saying, "Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signs of protectionism."
Translated, this meant that any renegotiation of NAFTA by the Obama administration might involve fine-tuning some of the side agreements, not renegotiating NAFTA itself in any fundamental way.
Then there was the issue of the "Buy American" provision inserted into the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus plan.
Canada was concerned that the provision could hurt Canadian steel exports to the U.S., and the EU complained the provision was antithetical to the spirit of the Transatlantic Economic Council, which President Bush signed with the EU last April.
The Obama administration did not object when language was added to the economic stimulus bill to specify that the "Buy American" provision would be interpreted as buying American products if it was consistent with U.S. international trade obligations. That meant any free trade agreement would override the obligation.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91549
-
::) ::)
Same crap was said about NAFTA, all nonsense.
we really need to scrap NAFTA.....
bench
-
Perot was dead right about NAFTA.
-
So Obama is outsourcing shipping jobs to Mexico? I won't hold my breath waiting for the far-leftists to condemn this like they did Whitman. ::)
Funny how big a fan Obama seems to be of outsourcing jobs from this country when UE sits around multiple percentage points higher than he claimed it would two years ago.
-
hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa
it was all CT for the last 20 years, right?
the big super highway that actually exists? Lou Dobbs was right, but asshats dismissed it as CT.
NOW... NOW you're gonna blame obama for simply continuing some shit that was clinton and bush before him? grow up lol...
-
hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa
it was all CT for the last 20 years, right?
the big super highway that actually exists? Lou Dobbs was right, but asshats dismissed it as CT.
NOW... NOW you're gonna blame obama for simply continuing some shit that was clinton and bush before him? grow up lol...
You had a problem with Whitman outsourcing jobs to make Ebay a profitable company but now it's OK for Obama to continually do it? This guy could skin a baby alive, boil it and then eat it on live TV and you'd still be the first in line to swallow his load with a big shit-eating grin on your face.
Go ahead and tell us how conservative you are with a singular pro-Thune post. ::)
-
WHERE or WHERE did I say this was OKAY?
LMAO!
I think it's inevitable. Not right, nor okay, nor american. But inevitable.
-
WHERE or WHERE did I say this was OKAY?
LMAO!
I think it's inevitable. Not right, nor okay, nor american. But inevitable.
You spent weeks crying about Whitman outsourcing a handful of jobs to turn Ebay into the juggernaut it is. I suspect we'll see maybe one mention of this over the next 6 months from you (and it will only come after 333 probably calls you out on it down the road).
I'm trying to debate where you fit in on the hierarchy of brainless Obama-worshiping drones on this board. Right now I'm penciling you in at #2 behind Straw Man, although Danny or BlackenVenus007 could easily push you down to #5.
-
Wasn't Bush pushing for this too.
Aren't there a ton of issues with making sure these Mexican trucks are safe, that the drivers comply with our laws regarding # of hours driving etc...
this idea is fraught with potential problems and I don't see any benefits
-
It was dead wrong when Bush pushed this crappola and I told you many times, I was bounced from FR for trashing Bush over these issues so much.
Its treason in my mind to push an agenda like this.
-
Ahh yes, Bush, the worst president this country has ever had, was also pushing this so that makes it OK for Obama to do it. Noted.
Good thing emulating the worst president in the history of this country gives him immunity from criticism.
-
Bush was rightfully nearly driven from office for many of his insane policies,
Whether it was dubai ports deal,harriet meirs, open borders nonsense, the "Religion of Peace" pandering, the wasting of insane $$$ on the wars, the wasteful spending, etc.
This trucking issue was but one more reason, many former supporters of his like myself came to literally hate the sight of him.
-
Bush was rightfully nearly driven from office for many of his insane policies,
Whether it was dubai ports deal,harriet meirs, open borders nonsense, the "Religion of Peace" pandering, the wasting of insane $$$ on the wars, the wasteful spending, etc.
This trucking issue was but one more reason, many former supporters of his like myself came to literally hate the sight of him.
Doesn't sound much different from the "hero" in the WH right now. :o
-
It was only wrong when Bush did it. When Obama does it - "But bush did it too"
I can't figure out that line of reasoning. ??? ???
-
It was only wrong when Bush did it. When Obama does it - "But bush did it too"
I can't figure out that line of reasoning. ??? ???
Agreed... That is the kind of shit a kid uses. "But, but, they did it to."
The real question is when will either party put up someone who's actually looking out for the people and not the businesses?
Answer... Never.
-
It was only wrong when Bush did it. When Obama does it - "But bush did it too"
I can't figure out that line of reasoning. ??? ???
Nor can I. It's quite laughable, to be honest.
-
Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all
The Democratic nominee, in an interview with Fortune, says he wants free trade "to work for all people."
By Nina Easton, Washington editor
Last Updated: June 18, 2008: 3:00 PM EDT[/color]
Presidential to-do list
More VideosMore from Fortune
Mac App Store: The good and the bad
Sheriff Volcker leaves Wall Street untamed
comScore: Android passes iPhone
FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune
WASHINGTON (Fortune) -- The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.
Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama-as the candidate noted in Fortune's interview-has not changed his core position on NAFTA, and that he has always said he would talk to the leaders of Canada and Mexico in an effort to include enforceable labor and environmental standards in the pact.
Nevertheless, Obama's tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.
The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton's lead in setting a protectionist tone.
In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause ("as a hammer," in Obama's words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called that threat a mistake, and other leaders abroad expressed worries about their trade deals. Leading House Democrats, including Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, distanced themselves from the candidates.
Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination.
"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."
Obama has repeatedly described himself as a free-trade proponent who wants to be a "better bargainer" on behalf of U.S. interests and wants agreements to include labor and environmental standards.
In May 2007, congressional Democrats and the Bush administration agreed to a plan to include environmental and international labor standards in upcoming trade agreements. Still, later that year Obama supported one agreement (Peru) and opposed three others (Panama, Colombia, South Korea). Labor leaders - many of whom backed Obama in the primary - were the chief opponents of those pacts.
Obama jumped into the anti-trade waters with Clinton even though his top economics adviser, the University of Chicago's Austan Goolsbee, has written that America's wage gap is primarily the result of a globalized information economy - not free trade.
On Feb. 8, Goolsbee met with the Canadian consul general in Chicago and offered assurances that Obama's rhetoric was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," according to a Canadian memo summarizing the meeting that was obtained by Fortune. "In fact," the Canadian memo said, Goolsbee "mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off as too protectionist."
In the Fortune interview, Obama noted that despite his support for opening markets, "there are costs to free trade" that must be recognized. He noted that under NAFTA, a more efficient U.S. agricultural industry displaced Mexican farmers, adding to the problem of illegal immigration.
We "can't pretend that those costs aren't real," Obama added. Otherwise, he added, it feeds "the protectionist sentiment and the anti-immigration sentiment that is out there in both parties."
Obama also reiterated his determination to be a tougher trade bargainer. "The Chinese love free trade," he said, "but they are tough as nails when it comes to a bargain, right? They will resist any calls to stop manipulating their currency. It's no secret they have consistently encroached on our intellectual property and our copyright laws. ...We should make sure in our trade negotiations that our interests and our values are adequately reflected."
Republican nominee John McCain, for his part, is emphasizing his consistent position as a free-trader. In a press conference in Boston this week, he attacked Obama as protectionist: "Senator Obama said that he would unilaterally - unilaterally! - renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, where 33 percent of our trade exists. And you know what message that sends? That no agreement is sacred if someone declares that as president of the United States they would unilaterally renegotiate it. I stand for free trade, and with all the difficulties and economic troubles we're in today, there's a real bright spot and that's our exports. Protectionism does not work."
First Published: June 18, 2008: 10:22 AM EDT
-
What happens when one of these trucls runs over somebody? Who do you sue? How do we verify insurance?
How do we verify the safety records of the drivers?
How do verify the registration records of these things?
What about the ease of smuggling drugs and illegals?
-
Agreed... That is the kind of shit a kid uses. "But, but, they did it to."
The real question is when will either party put up someone who's actually looking out for the people and not the businesses?
Answer... Never.
Bush didn't do it
he tried to do it
just like Obama is trying to do it
I'm clearly against it so saying "Bush was pushing for this too" is not trying to justify Obama's run at it
I'm opposed to the idea regardless of who is pitching it
-
It was dead wrong when Bush pushed this crappola and I told you many times, I was bounced from FR for trashing Bush over these issues so much.
Its treason in my mind to push an agenda like this.
I'm with you on the first sentence
but then you go off the rails crazy in the second sentence
-
WE ARE GETTING PLAYED FOR JERKOFFS AGAIN!
We are worried bout $2 Billion in tarriffs, yet not the hundreds of billions illegals and drug dealers from Mexico cost us?
How fucking ridiculous is this?
________________________ ________________________ _
LATIN AMERICA NEWS
JANUARY 7, 2011.
U.S. Jump-Starts Bid to End Truck Dispute With Mexico
By JOSH MITCHELL
The Obama administration launched a bid to resolve a festering trade dispute with Mexico over allowing foreign truckers onto U.S. roads.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Washington would seek talks with Mexico over a U.S. ban on that country's trucks operating north of the border. The ban has prompted Mexico to slap punitive tariffs on some $2 billion in U.S. goods.
Mexican trucks enter the U.S. in March 2009, the month Washington ended a pilot program allowing them in.
Mr. LaHood sent a blueprint to Congress outlining principles the White House would push. Mr. Obama could end the ban without congressional approval, but he is seeking to get key Democrats and others on board.
The transportation secretary said a formal proposal could emerge in coming months, and another U.S. official said the goal was to have the nearly two-year-old ban lifted "as soon as possible."
A Mexican official said that while Mexico welcomed the proposal, it was "just an initiative" and would not yet prompt the country to lift the punitive tariffs. Mexico says the ban violates the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The White House move will anger some Democratic lawmakers and unions that have opposed lifting the ban on the grounds that Mexican trucks are unsafe and the move would kill U.S. jobs.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Jim Hoffa said Thursday he was "deeply disappointed" by the White House proposal.
"Why would the DOT propose to threaten U.S. truck drivers' and warehouse workers' jobs when unemployment is so high?" he said.
A congressional ally of the union, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.), would call for a hearing on the matter, his spokeswoman said.
But the White House has been under increasing political and economic pressure to resolve the dispute. Mexico's retaliatory tariffs have hit dozens of American products, from apples to pork to pistachios. That has angered powerful U.S. industries and their congressional allies, who say thousands of U.S. jobs have been lost or jeopardized as a result.
Mexico is one of the U.S.'s biggest trade partners, and the spat has hampered the Obama administration's goal of expanding U.S. exports to create jobs.
"If we're going to double exports within five years, we must hold on to export markets, such as Mexico, where American companies are already doing well," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank, said the move by the White House reflected a shift in the Obama administration's approach to free-trade issues.
"It's another tilt in the direction of pulling trade policy out of the basement, up into at least the first floor," Mr. Hubauer said.
He noted that the White House announcement came on the day that President Obama selected as his chief of staff William M. Daley, who helped the Clinton Administration push the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress in the early 1990s.
Tensions over Mexican trucks operating in the U.S. heated up in early 2009 when Mr. Obama, shortly after taking office, signed legislation canceling a pilot program that had allowed Mexican trucks to carry cargo on U.S. roads.
The Teamsters union argued that Mexican trucks were unsafe, that some drivers didn't know English and that Mexican authorities didn't keep adequate safety records on drivers.
Mr. LaHood's blueprint says U.S. regulators will screen Mexican truckers for compliance with safety regulations, and keep tabs on their operations.
—Paul Kiernan
contributed to this article.
Write to Josh Mitchell at joshua.mitchell@dowjones.com
.
-
I'm clearly against it so saying "Bush was pushing for this too" is not trying to justify Obama's run at it
Stop it. You were trying to justify Obama. Just like you have tried to do in many other threads.
-
Stop it. You were trying to justify Obama. Just like you have tried to do in many other threads.
what do you think I was trying to justify?
-
Bush didn't do it
he tried to do it
just like Obama is trying to do it
I'm clearly against it so saying "Bush was pushing for this too" is not trying to justify Obama's run at it
I'm opposed to the idea regardless of who is pitching it
I wasn't really claiming YOU were... I was just saying my statement based on the principle of many people in fact saying "Bush did it too."
Which, I'm sure you will agree, many people do use that as a reason.
-
I wasn't really claiming YOU were... I was just saying my statement based on the principle of many people in fact saying "Bush did it too."
Which, I'm sure you will agree, many people do use that as a reason.
many people bring it up but depending on the context I don't think it's unreasonable to point out what a prior POTUS has done, especially the one immediately preceding the current one. In this case the last 3 POTUS's have been for something like this and I've been against it in each case. Obama has continued many policies of the Bush administration which I also don't agree with.
Each party tends to cite the others prior use or support of something and then when they are in power turn around and do the exact same thing or worse.
When Dems were in the minority and using the fillabuster the Republicans were all up in arms complaining about it and calling for the "nuclear option" and then just a few years later when they were in they were in the minority they took abuse of the fillabuster to a whole new level. I don't think it's unfair to point out these types of things
-
many people bring it up but depending on the context I don't think it's unreasonable to point out what a prior POTUS has done, especially the one immediately preceding the current one. In this case the last 3 POTUS's have been for something like this and I've been against it in each case. Obama has continued many policies of the Bush administration which I also don't agree with.
Each party tends to cite the others prior use or support of something and then when they are in power turn around and do the exact same thing or worse.
When Dems were in the minority and using the fillabuster the Republicans were all up in arms complaining about it and calling for the "nuclear option" and then just a few years later when they were in they were in the minority they took abuse of the fillabuster to a whole new level. I don't think it's unfair to point out these types of things
I agree when they are pointing out the hypocrisy, but not to validate.
-
I agree when they are pointing out the hypocrisy, but not to validate.
if that's the only argument and it's not relevent then I definitely agree
-
Bump for ozmo.
-
It's been happening for 20 years, fellahs.
bigger than any 4-year flash in the pan presidency.
we'll see open roads between nations in another decaade or three, and we all know it.
-
It's been happening for 20 years, fellahs.
bigger than any 4-year flash in the pan presidency.
we'll see open roads between nations in another decaade or three, and we all know it.
If we ever have a WW, please remind me not to get in a fox hole with you. You would blow us up and say "Wel we all knew the chinks were going to win eventually" or some shit like that.
-
If we ever have a WW, please remind me not to get in a fox hole with you. You would blow us up and say "Wel we all knew the chinks were going to win eventually" or some shit like that.
hahahah I understand the reality of shit.
and we all know, if you had to get into a foxhole and shoot shit out with a few getbiggers in there with you........ I'm betting you'd pass on a few "conservatives" here who don't own a piece and haven't fired one in their lives, and opt for 240.
-
hahahah I understand the reality of shit.
and we all know, if you had to get into a foxhole and shoot shit out with a few getbiggers in there with you........ I'm betting you'd pass on a few "conservatives" here who don't own a piece and haven't fired one in their lives, and opt for 240.
Not sure - you might be too busy jerking off to Obama speeches than able to fight at that point.
-
Not sure - you might be too busy jerking off to Obama speeches than able to fight at that point.
great point. I hadn't thought of that.
-
Bohica. This is why I hate our politics at times.
-
Bohica. This is why I hate our politics at times.
Issues like this make me nt regret a damn thng I ever say about Obama.
-
bump for hugo
-
WE ARE GETTING PLAYED FOR JERKOFFS AGAIN!
We are worried bout $2 Billion in tarriffs, yet not the hundreds of billions illegals and drug dealers from Mexico cost us?
How fucking ridiculous is this?
________________________ ________________________ _
LATIN AMERICA NEWS
JANUARY 7, 2011.
U.S. Jump-Starts Bid to End Truck Dispute With Mexico
By JOSH MITCHELL
The Obama administration launched a bid to resolve a festering trade dispute with Mexico over allowing foreign truckers onto U.S. roads.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Washington would seek talks with Mexico over a U.S. ban on that country's trucks operating north of the border. The ban has prompted Mexico to slap punitive tariffs on some $2 billion in U.S. goods.
Mexican trucks enter the U.S. in March 2009, the month Washington ended a pilot program allowing them in.
Mr. LaHood sent a blueprint to Congress outlining principles the White House would push. Mr. Obama could end the ban without congressional approval, but he is seeking to get key Democrats and others on board.
The transportation secretary said a formal proposal could emerge in coming months, and another U.S. official said the goal was to have the nearly two-year-old ban lifted "as soon as possible."
A Mexican official said that while Mexico welcomed the proposal, it was "just an initiative" and would not yet prompt the country to lift the punitive tariffs. Mexico says the ban violates the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The White House move will anger some Democratic lawmakers and unions that have opposed lifting the ban on the grounds that Mexican trucks are unsafe and the move would kill U.S. jobs.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Jim Hoffa said Thursday he was "deeply disappointed" by the White House proposal.
"Why would the DOT propose to threaten U.S. truck drivers' and warehouse workers' jobs when unemployment is so high?" he said.
A congressional ally of the union, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.), would call for a hearing on the matter, his spokeswoman said.
But the White House has been under increasing political and economic pressure to resolve the dispute. Mexico's retaliatory tariffs have hit dozens of American products, from apples to pork to pistachios. That has angered powerful U.S. industries and their congressional allies, who say thousands of U.S. jobs have been lost or jeopardized as a result.
Mexico is one of the U.S.'s biggest trade partners, and the spat has hampered the Obama administration's goal of expanding U.S. exports to create jobs.
"If we're going to double exports within five years, we must hold on to export markets, such as Mexico, where American companies are already doing well," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank, said the move by the White House reflected a shift in the Obama administration's approach to free-trade issues.
"It's another tilt in the direction of pulling trade policy out of the basement, up into at least the first floor," Mr. Hubauer said.
He noted that the White House announcement came on the day that President Obama selected as his chief of staff William M. Daley, who helped the Clinton Administration push the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress in the early 1990s.
Tensions over Mexican trucks operating in the U.S. heated up in early 2009 when Mr. Obama, shortly after taking office, signed legislation canceling a pilot program that had allowed Mexican trucks to carry cargo on U.S. roads.
The Teamsters union argued that Mexican trucks were unsafe, that some drivers didn't know English and that Mexican authorities didn't keep adequate safety records on drivers.
Mr. LaHood's blueprint says U.S. regulators will screen Mexican truckers for compliance with safety regulations, and keep tabs on their operations.
—Paul Kiernan
contributed to this article.
Write to Josh Mitchell at joshua.mitchell@dowjones.com
.
God I fucking hate these unified one world order
asshats... Obama has just about doublecrossed everything he said he stood for during the election. Yet people are praising him ::) You have got to be kidding ::) They seem to be doing everything they can to destroy us as fast as they can. unbelievable ::)
-
Deroy Murdock
About | Archive | Latest | Log In
January 21, 2011 12:00 A.M.
America’s Economy: The Ninth-Freest
The numbers are in: Our lost economic liberty is being noticed.
We’re No. 9!
America has slipped one spot since last year — from earth’s eighth-freest economy in 2010, according to the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom. This 17th annual report, jointly published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, sifts through the wreckage caused by government’s turbocharged acceleration during the Bush-Obama years. America’s slump in the rankings (we’re down from No. 5 in 2008) confirms the urgent need for Washington to revitalize free markets and restrain government intervention.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Among the 179 countries examined in the Index, Hong Kong is ranked first, followed by Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, and Denmark. These nations all outscored the U.S. across ten categories, including taxes, free trade, regulation, monetary policy, and corruption.
America barely made the top ten. Bahrain was tenth, with 77.7 points, one decimal point behind America’s 77.8 score. Chile reached No. 11 with 77.4, just 0.4 points behind the United States.
Even worse, with a score below 80, the U.S. is spending its second year as a “mostly free” economy. As it departed the family of “free” nations in 2010, it led the “mostly free” category. Even within this less-than-illustrious group, America now lags behind Ireland and Denmark.
How did our once-unassailable country wind up so winded?
“The national government’s role in the economy has expanded sharply in the past two years, and the federal budget deficit is extremely large, with gross public debt approaching 100 percent of GDP,” explain the Index’s authors, Terry Miller and Kim R. Holmes. “Interventionist responses to the economic slowdown have eroded economic freedom and long-term competitiveness. Drastic legislative changes in health care and financial regulations have retarded job creation and injected substantial uncertainty into business investment planning.”
Miller and Holmes also criticize Washington for abandoning the free-trade posture of earlier years, an area where Democrat William Jefferson Clinton boldly guided his party, starting with the NAFTA trade pact. Washington Democrats these days scorn Clinton’s enriching example. As Miller and Holmes write, “Leadership and credibility in trade also have been undercut by protectionist policy stances and inaction on previously agreed free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.”
On fiscal freedom, the Index rates the U.S. as below average. The top American federal income-tax rate is 35 percent, versus a worldwide average of 28.7 percent. At 35 percent, America’s federal corporate tax outpaces the world’s 24.8 percent average and increases U.S. exports . . . of jobs. America’s overall average tax burden was 26.9 percent of GDP, compared with 24.4 percent globally.
America also earns a below-average score for government spending. Worldwide, such expenditures average 33.5 percent of GDP; in the U.S., 38.9 percent.
Compare America with Rwanda, the Index’s most-improved nation. This landlocked African country leapfrogged 18 spots, from No. 93 in 2010 to No. 75 today. How?
“Rwanda scores relatively high in business freedom, fiscal freedom, and labor freedom,” Miller and Holmes observe. “Personal and corporate tax rates are moderate. With a sound regulatory framework that is conducive to private-sector development, Rwanda has achieved annual economic growth of around 7 percent over the past five years.”
As I noted on my visit there last month, Rwanda remains poor, with a long list of challenges. Yet there is no denying its self-confidence and unflagging commitment to pro-market modernization. Rwanda is moving on up.
America remains blessed with wealth, durable institutions, and creative, clever, industrious citizens. Yet its self-doubt is fueled by an insatiable state that constantly devours more of the nation’s output, and with little to show for its gobbling. Depleted, America stumbles downhill.
Miller and Holmes surveyed the globe and reached this conclusion: Rather than multi-billion-dollar stimuli and 2,000-page regulatory behemoths, “the best results are likely to be achieved instead through policy reforms that improve incentives that drive entrepreneurial activity, creating greater opportunities for investment and job growth.”
The path back to American prosperity and preeminence lies in the leadership of both parties in Washington abiding by the previous paragraph.
— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. Murdock visited Rwanda thanks to a grant from the SEVEN Fund of Cambridge, Mass. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEVEN Fund.
-
North American Union here we come.
-
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/jan11/11-01-21.html
Obama's Plan to Admit Mexican Trucks
by Phyllis Schlafly January 21, 2011
Phyllis Schlafly
It is amazing that, with unemployment unacceptably high, the Obama Administration has endorsed a plan that will cost U.S. jobs and make highway driving for Americans more dangerous and less pleasant. Obama wants to admit Mexican trucks to drive on all U.S. highways and roads.
Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, explained what this means: "U.S. truckers would be forced to forfeit their own economic opportunities while companies and drivers from Mexico, free from equivalent regulatory burdens, take over their traffic lanes." We wonder if Mexico has any regulatory standards at all.
Mexican trucks are known to be overweight and lacking in safety regulations we consider essential, such as anti-lock brakes. Mexico doesn't have national databases that track drivers' records, background checks, drug usage, and arrests, and it's known to be easy to get a commercial driver's license with a bribe.
Nevertheless, Obama's Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, has announced he wants to admit Mexican trucks, and he thinks he can appease Congress by presenting on January 6 what he calls a "concept document." It is two pages of bureaucratic pablum that does nothing to assure the safety of Americans on our highways and roads.
The concept document calls for a "review" of the Mexican carriers' safety program, the driving records of Mexican drivers admitted to the program, and inspection of Mexican trucks for safety and emissions. But the document says nothing about what the standard of review and inspection will be, and whether trucks and drivers who don't pass inspection will be rejected.
Under the concept document, Mexican trucks would be subject to border inspections at the "normal border inspection rate," and subject to inspections within the U.S. "at the same rate as U.S. companies." That doesn't reassure us; the "normal" border inspection rate means that only a few violators will get caught, which the Mexicans will consider just a cost of doing business, and the notion that Mexican drivers need inspection only at the 50 percent U.S. rate is ridiculous.
U.S. law requires truck drivers to speak and understand the English language. The concept document says it will "conduct an English Language Proficiency" test of each Mexican driver, but it doesn't say the Mexican drivers must speak English or pass the test.
We know from the House testimony of the previous Transportation Secretary, Mary Peters, that the Department's policy is to approve Mexican drivers as "English proficient" even when they respond to an examiner's questions in Spanish. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who was conducting the hearing, was so astounded at this answer that he asked Secretary Peters to repeat it.
The concept document contains other provisions about monitoring, inspections, review, and drug and alcohol inspection. But the document contains nothing about requiring Mexican trucks to meet U.S. standards and rejection if they do not.
Mexican trucks have been barred from operating inside the United States since March 2009. They are limited to a border zone where they must then transfer their cargo onto U.S. trucks.
Mexico claims the current ban violates our treaty obligations under NAFTA. That's not true because NAFTA is not a treaty; it was never ratified by two-thirds of Senators as our Constitution requires for a treaty, and is merely a law passed in 1993 by a simple majority vote.
Perhaps the Obama Administration plan to admit Mexican trucks is just a political maneuver. It may be a tactic to reach out to the business community, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and at the same time be a sneaky way to defeat Republican Members of Congress in 2012 by forcing them to vote on the admission of Mexican trucks.
This issue defeated one of our best conservatives in the House, the great track star Jim Ryun (R-KS), who unexpectedly lost his seat in 2006 after voting to admit Mexican trucks. The feminist Democrat who defeated Ryun, Nancy Boyda, then sponsored a bill to ban Mexican trucks, which passed the House by the overwhelming vote of 411 to 3, with the Senate passing a similar bill 75 to 23, votes that are a good indication of popular opinion.
With the drug war in full battle array along our southern border, this is no time to start admitting Mexican trucks. It's a safe bet that many of the trucks will be carrying illegal aliens and illegal drugs.
Another safety problem exists for U.S. trucks that would get access to Mexican roads under this misguided proposal. Trade is supposed to be two-way street, but U.S. drivers don't want to drive into northern Mexico, the most dangerous area in the world because of the ongoing war between drug cartels.
-
Official: Obama, Calderon reach trucking agreement
AP/WorldMag ^ | Mar 3, 12:26 PM EST | Julie Pace
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An administration official says President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon have reached an agreement on resolving a long-standing dispute over cross-border trucking.
The official says the leaders will announce a clear path to open U.S. highways to Mexican trucks during a joint news conference at the White House Thursday afternoon. Calderon is in Washington for wide-ranging meetings with Obama on everything from border security and immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
-
MEXICAN TRUCK DEAL FAILS TO PROTECT U.S. HIGHWAYS, COMMUNITIES
Teamsters Union ^ | 3/3/11 | Galen Munroe
Plan Threatens Jobs, Highway Safety and Border Security
(WASHINGTON) – Today’s announcement by the White House to move forward with opening the U.S. border to long-haul Mexican trucks drew strong condemnations from Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa and highway safety proponents.
“This deal puts Americans at risk,” Hoffa said. “This agreement caves in to business interests at the expense of the traveling public and American workers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at teamster.org ...
-
Feds Pay To Upgrade Mexican Trucks, US Trucks Not So Lucky
http://radioviceonline.com/ ^ | April 12, 2011 | Steve McGough
A story broke yesterday concerning the retrofit of more than 100 trucks from Mexico that do not meet United States environmental standards. Our federal government is paying to upgrade these trucks, yet when the state of California and the EPA set new rules for US-owned trucks, they fine companies who do not comply.
This post is not about the environment, it concerns how US trucking companies are treated by the federal and state government as compared to Mexican-owned rigs. From AzCentral.com.
For air-quality regulators, the border creates a legal barrier. State and federal agencies can’t force vehicles manufactured and bought in Mexico to comply with U.S. emissions rules, even though the trucks cross into this country.
So the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality tried a different approach, offering to pay Mexican truck owners to replace old mufflers with new catalytic converters that will reduce harmful diesel emissions by up to 30 percent. The project in effect circumvents the more lax Mexican rules about exhaust systems.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...
________________________ ___________________-
Beach and Ozmo - can you merge this thread with my "Step by Step thread?
-
Obama and Mexican Trucks
Townhall.com ^ | April 12, 2011 | Phyllis Schlafly
________________________ ________________________ _______
Barack Obama's deal with the president of Mexico to allow Mexican trucks to carry their loads onto U.S. highways and roads is new evidence of his high-handed solo behavior that has become Standard Operating Procedure in the administration. Here are 10 reasons why Obama's plan is dangerous and must be stopped by Congress and public protest.
1. Obama's deal with President Felipe Calderon, announced on March 3, bypasses Congress, defies the wishes of the American people, and looks like the action of a Third World dictator who thinks representative government is a nuisance and can be ignored. Congress made its wishes emphatically clear in 2007 when it voted to continue our ban on Mexican trucks. The House roll-call vote was 411 to 3, and the Senate's was 75 to 23.
2. Obama's deal is a direct attack on the jobs available to U.S. truck drivers because it helps big-business interests cut their costs by hiring cheaper Mexican drivers. Obama's deal is also an attack on small business (i.e., the owner-operated and independent truck drivers) who constitute the big majority of U.S. trucks.
3. The claim that Obama's deal is reciprocal (i.e., U.S. trucks will be allowed to drive into Mexico) is so cynical that we can hardly believe anyone says it with a straight face. "South of the border down Mexico way" (in the words of the old popular song) is the most dangerous war zone in the world (more dangerous than Afghanistan or Libya), where U.S. truck drivers would become the targets of hijackings, theft, murder, kidnappings and even beheadings committed by the drug cartels.
4. Built into the Obama deal is the sneaky imposition of costs on both U.S. truck drivers and U.S. taxpayers. Each truck will be required to install an EOBR (electronic on-board recorder) costing $3,000 plus maintenance fees: U.S. drivers at their own expense and Mexican trucks as a gift from U.S. taxpayers paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. U.S. taxpayers are already paying $1,600 each for many Mexican trucks to replace their old mufflers with catalytic converters.
5. Obama's deal will make it easy for Mexican trucks to bring in loads of illegal aliens and illegal drugs. Border inspection will be a farce, maybe only one in 10 trucks inspected, perhaps merely one in 20.
6. Opening our southern border to Mexican trucks will be a giant step toward the goal of creating a North American Union with open borders between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada -- a proposal launched by President George W. Bush using a website called Security and Prosperity Partnership (since deactivated). Obama is advancing the plan under less threatening names -- the March 23, 2010, State Department fact sheet titled "United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision," a Nov. 30, 2010, "Trusted Traveler" agreement with Mexico signed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and a Feb. 4, 2011, declaration signed by Obama with Canada called "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security."
7. When Mexican truck drivers have their layovers and turn-arounds in the U.S., what's to prevent them from enjoying a frolic and diversion? They could use that time to father a baby who would then be proclaimed a U.S. citizen and get generous financial benefits and handouts provided by U.S. taxpayers.
8. We can assume that Mexican truck drivers will not be required to speak and read English, as U.S. law requires. The previous secretary of transportation, Mary Peters, stated at a Senate hearing that if drivers respond to test questions in Spanish, the test-taker nevertheless checks the box that they are "English proficient."
9. While U.S. truck drivers are strictly limited to the number of hours per day they can be on the road, there is no way to figure out how many hours a Mexican truck driver has been on the road when he clocks in at the border. Has he been driving the typical Mexican 20-hour day?
10. Mexican trucks will make highway safety for Americans a major problem. We have no way to know a Mexican driver's record of accidents, alcohol or drugs, or a Mexican truck's record of brakes or emissions. Mexico doesn't bother with records or regulations.
Don't let anybody get by with saying that NAFTA requires us to admit Mexican trucks because it's a treaty. It isn't -- NAFTA never complied with the treaty provision in the U.S. Constitution and is merely a law passed by Congress that can be changed or overturned.
Tell your member of Congress to take action to cancel Obama's truck deal with the Mexican president. Solo deals like this one cannot be tolerated under constitutional government.
-
Obama's Plan
LOL! Clinton and Bush sure didn't do much to stop it, and it'd be going on for pres mccain too. This big ol highway is happening, deal with it. did you miss the last decade of Lou Dobbs rants?
-
LOL! Clinton and Bush sure didn't do much to stop it, and it'd be going on for pres mccain too. This big ol highway is happening, deal with it. did you miss the last decade of Lou Dobbs rants?
GMAFB - if he was against it - he put an end to it - not further it and have 240's tax dollars go to reair mexi-trucks.
-
GMAFB - if he was against it - he put an end to it - not further it and have 240's tax dollars go to reair mexi-trucks.
nobody is against it. the next repub prez won't stop it either.
you don't understand that some things are bigger than the prez, do you? Things like this road take 30 years to build and gain acceptance for. They aren't gonna let some 4 year pipsqueak slow that down, from either party.
So bitching about this highway is like bitching about the weather, really champ.
-
nobody is against it. the next repub prez won't stop it either.
you don't understand that some things are bigger than the prez, do you? Things like this road take 30 years to build and gain acceptance for. They aren't gonna let some 4 year pipsqueak slow that down, from either party.
So bitching about this highway is like bitching about the weather, really champ.
So its ok to you. Got it.
-
So its ok to you. Got it.
i accept it. i realize that it's a waste of time to bitch about things that no president, congress, governor, or state senator has gone after for the past 20 years.
whatever force is behind it, they call the shots, so bitching is a waste of breath. and hey, if it means one day we'll use it to steal canadian resources and mex labor, well, maybe it's not a bad thing. The USA is still the world's only superpower cause we usually come out of these things with the upper hand ;)
-
US, Mexico sign cross-border trucking agreement
Yahoo ^ | 7/6/11 | Jonathan M. Katz - ap
MEXICO CITY (AP) — U.S. and Mexican officials signed an agreement Wednesday allowing each country's trucks to traverse the other's highways, implementing a key provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement after nearly two decades of bickering.
Transportation secretaries Ray LaHood and Dionisio Perez-Jacome signed the three-year memorandum, which is based on an agreement announced in March by Presidents Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon.
NAFTA, signed in 1994, had called for Mexican trucks to have unrestricted access to highways in border states by 1995 and full access to all U.S. highways by January 2000. Canadian trucks have no limits on where they can go.
But until now, Mexican trucks have seldom been allowed farther than a buffer zone on the U.S. side of the border. In retaliation, Mexico had imposed higher tariffs on dozens of U.S. products.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
________________________ __________________
BeaCH OR OZMO - can you merge this into my Obama trying to collapse the nation thread?
-
Landmark US-Mexico trucking agreement resolves 15-year conflict
cs monitor ^ | 7/6/11 | Howard LaFranchi,
Posted on July 6, 2011 8:34:36 PM EDT by Nachum
After years of wrangling, US and Mexican officials signed an agreement Wednesday that allows trucks from each nation to travel on the other country’s highways – a key provision of NAFTA.
Washington
The United States and Mexico on Wednesday signed an agreement aimed at resolving a cross-border trucking dispute. The longstanding disagreement had come to symbolize growing resistance, especially in the US Congress, to free-trade provisions with America’s southern neighbor.
The accord, signed in Mexico City by US and Mexican transportation officials, would end a 15-year-old controversy that on the US side featured fears of unsafe Mexican trucks barreling along US highways, driven by unprofessional Mexican truckers.
On the Mexican side, outrage over the American disregard for a NAFTA provision led to retaliatory tariffs on US goods ranging from pork to consumer care products – which cost the US as much as $2 billion in exports.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
-
Teamsters General President Vows to Fight Plan That Threatens Jobs, Highway Safety and Border Security
WASHINGTON, July 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa today castigated the U.S. Department of Transportation for agreeing to open the border to long-haul Mexican trucks. Opening the border endangers America's highway safety, border security and warehouse and trucking jobs.
Hoffa said the program is probably illegal because it grants permanent operating authority to Mexican trucks after 18 months in the so-called "pilot program" outlined in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register. Congress has not granted DOT the legal authority to do so, Hoffa said. Further, DOT would use money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for electronic on-board recorders for Mexican trucks. Hoffa questioned whether DOT can do that legally.
"Opening the border to dangerous trucks at a time of high unemployment and rampant drug violence is a shameful abandonment of the DOT's duty to protect American citizens from harm and to spend American tax dollars responsibly," Hoffa said.
"This so-called pilot program is a concession to multinational corporations that send jobs to Mexico. It erodes our national security. It endangers motorists. It ignores the rampant corruption among Mexican law enforcement. It lowers wages and robs jobs from hard-working American truck drivers and warehouse workers.
"It adds insult to injury to force U.S. taxpayers to pay for monitoring equipment on Mexican trucks so Mexican carriers can take away their jobs," Hoffa said. "The DOT shows more loyalty to the Mexican people than it does to Americans."
MORE...
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hoffa-condemns-...
-
The good ol days....what happened to em?
-
The good ol days....what happened to em?
NWO happened.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Mexico, U.S. Sign Cross-Border Trucking Agreement
Latin American Herald Tribune ^ | Thursday | unk
Posted on July 7, 2011 11:39:31 PM EDT by Sarajevo
MEXICO CITY – Mexico and the United States have signed an agreement that will allow cargo trucks from each country to circulate without restriction on the other nation’s highways, ending a long-running dispute.
The memorandum was signed here by the heads of Mexico’s Communications and Transportation Secretariat and the U.S. Department of Transportation as a follow-up to an accord reached in March by Presidents Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon.
Under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexican trucks were to have been able to circulate freely throughout the U.S. roadway system as soon as the trade pact linking the United States, Canada and Mexico went into effect in 1994.
But previous U.S. legislation left Mexican truckers restricted to a narrow strip along the border while the case made its way through the U.S. legal system.
The simmering dispute grew hotter in 2009 when Washington unilaterally canceled a pilot program – begun two years earlier – that had allowed Mexican trucks to carry cargo in U.S. border states. The Mexican government retaliated that same year by slapping tariffs on nearly 100 U.S. products.
According to the terms of the plan agreed Wednesday, trucking firms will operate initially under a provisional, 18-month permit; once that period has expired, they will be eligible for a permanent permit if they are found to be in compliance with safety and other requirements, Mexico’s Communications and Transportation Secretariat said.
The new program will consist of three stages.
In the first stage, authorities will review the permits of the trucking companies and their vehicles and drivers to verify compliance with safety and environmental norms and ensure they have cargo and civil responsibility insurance, among other requirements.
In the second stage, trucking firms must submit to two audits over a period of 18 months to ensure their operations conform to “the established road safety regimen,” the secretariat said.
Finally, in the third stage, companies will receive “definitive and irrevocable authorization to circulate freely in both nations’ territories ... in accordance with the same rules that apply to U.S. trucking firms,” it said.
Companies can apply to participate in the program beginning Thursday and authorities estimate that the first permits will be issued in August.
As a result of the agreement signed Wednesday, retaliatory tariffs Mexico had imposed on 99 U.S. products will be reduced by 50 percent beginning July 8.
The tariffs are to be eliminated completely once the first Mexican truck is allowed to enter the United States under the new program.
The secretariat said, however, that “Mexico reserves the right to reimpose the retaliatory tariffs based on any new instance of non-compliance” with treaty obligations.
The new program, which is to be evaluated monthly by a binational team of monitors, “will bring direct benefits to producers, exporters, consumers and users of cargo transport, which will become more efficient and competitive,” the Mexican government said.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Mexico; News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: mexico; nafta; trucking; Click to Add Keyword
Long time reader, never donated? Click here to git 'er done!!
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
NAFTA lives...............
1 posted on July 7, 2011 11:39:38 PM EDT by Sarajevo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Sarajevo
Blame Reagan®.
2 posted on July 7, 2011 11:44:24 PM EDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Sarajevo
I drove for a company that would send trailers in to mexico. We’d drop the “good” trailer at the boarder station where the contents would be transfered to the “mexico bound” company trailers where mexican tractors would pull them in to mexico.
When I asked why in the world do you go through all the trouble?
Dock master said simple. Send a good trailer over there with good tires, you’ll never see it again!
I started to look at the mexican trucks, and sure enough, they ALL had trailer tires on them. Tractor trailer trucks have 3 types of tires. Steer tires, drive tires, and trailer tires.
Mexico trucks will ruin american trucking.
3 posted on July 7, 2011 11:45:23 PM EDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Sarajevo
Actually, this might be a good deal for the DOJ and the Mexican drug cartels. When DOJ has a big a$$ shipment of guns that are needed in Mexico or Honduras, the Mexican trucks that are delivering their drugs can backload the guns. Saves gas, keeps those DOJ and BATF gunrunners employed, keeps the junkies flying and enables poor Mexican morticians to make a buck.
-
As Obama hands America’s trucking industry to dangerous Mexican trucks Hoffa bleats like a sheep
coachisright.com ^ | july 12, 2011 | Kevin “Coach” Collins
Not content with soaring unemployment numbers and destroying our banking housing healthcare auto making and oil drilling industries (to name just a few) Barack Obama has just handed Mexico virtual control of the American trucking industry.
One of Obama’s most useful idiots,putative Republican U.S. Secretary Transportation Ray LaHood,traveled to Mexico City to sign the “agreement” far from our gaze as he made certain America’s humiliation was complete.
By ratifying a so-called “pilot” program to allow Mexican junk wagons disguised as long haul trucks onto the highways we pay for Obama has handed his pal Felipe Calderón another way to sneak undocumented fraudulent Democrat voters all over our nation.
Unless a lawsuit brought by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) is successful,within weeks Mexican trucks,many of which are American fleet castoffs,will be found in every corner of our country.
Mexican Commercial Drivers Licenses the essential document for all truckers do exist,but they are just as easily purchased on Mexican streets as any other phony documents. Drug testing of Mexican drivers will be done by Mexican laboratories not a single one of which in the whole of Mexico is certified to American standards. Union resistance?
Hoffa: talking but certainly NOT walking ……..If you can find any indication he will be taking action…….
“Opening the border to dangerous trucks at a time of high unemployment and rampant drug violence is a shameful abandonment of the DOT’s duty to protect American citizens from harm and to spend American tax dollars responsibly.”
“It adds insult to injury to force U.S. taxpayers to pay for monitoring equipment on Mexican trucks so Mexican carriers can take away their jobs.”
“The DOT shows more loyalty to the Mexican people than it does to Americans.”
“This pilot program doesn’t even meet NAFTA’s requirement…….
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
-
U.S. Taxpayers Footing Bill for Upgrade to Mexican Trucks
by Dustin Ensinger on April 14, 2011 - 8:56am
Not only will the cross-border trucking program with Mexico result in the loss of American jobs, as it turns out, it could wind up costing American taxpayers hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.
Since the U.S. government can’t legally force Mexican trucks entering the U.S. to comply with federal emissions regulations, the state of Arizona is taking an entirely different approach.
Under an Environmental Protection Agency grant, the state of Arizona is paying to replace the exhaust system on some Mexican trucks in order to reduce diesel-fuel emissions. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is replacing the old muffler system on the trucks with new catalytic converters, which is standard in the U.S.
Arizona officials claim that the program is mutually beneficial to both the U.S. and Mexico. Under the agreement reached by the Obama administration, the trucks are going to have access to U.S. roadways whether they meet U.S. environmental standards or not. By paying for the upgrades, it will vastly improve air quality on the American side of the border.
“It’s about establishing this relationship on environmental issues,” ADEQ Director Henry Darwin told The Arizona Republic. “It’s especially important on air quality because you can’t stop the air from moving across the border.”
Last year, the state agency replaced the exhaust systems of 55 Mexican trucks, and there are plans to do even more this year.
The cost for the upgrades to each truck is $1,600, all of which is funded by the EPA and, indirectly, the American taxpayers.
Officials say that the improvements can reduce harmful diesel emissions by as much as 30 percent.
Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexican trucks have had limited access to American roadways for the past 17 years. However, the trade pact was supposed to provide full access.
After the suspension of a pilot program that did just that, Mexican officials protested, and have now won full access to America’s roads.
http://economyincrisis.org/content/us-taxpayers-footing-bill-upgrade-mexican-trucks
________________________ ________________
Your wonderful POTUS at work.
Great job obama voters - maybe when your car is run over by one of these jalopies you will think twice about voting for a NWO communist tyrant.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Mexico says trucks to cross US border within weeks
Reuters ^ | Oct 6, 2011 | Walter Brandimarte
Posted on October 8, 2011 3:29:51 PM EDT by moonshinner_09
Oct 6 (Reuters) - Mexican trucks will start crossing the U.S. border again in a couple of weeks, reducing transportation costs between the two neighbors by some 15 percent, Mexico's Economy Minister Bruno Ferrari said.
The resolution of the long-standing cross-border trucking dispute should give an additional boost to Mexican manufacturers, who have been fighting to increase their market share in the United States.
"If you take into consideration that Mexico's manufacturing costs are at least 25 percent lower than in the U.S., this is going to be a very strong competitive advantage," Ferrari told Reuters in an interview late Wednesday.
Mexican manufacturers have been in a fierce battle with Chinese exporters to gain market share in the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
-
b b b b but that's just a conspiracy theory.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh t?
-
1st Mexican truck to enter US interior within days (Isn't third world status grand?)...
YahooNews ^ | 10/19/11 | Julie Watson
The first Mexican carrier is set to roll into the U.S. interior within days, but the Teamsters union and two California congressmen haven't given up on stopping the cross-border trucking program that had been stalled for years by safety concerns and political wrangling. U.S. Reps. Duncan Hunter and Bob Filner joined Teamsters President James Hoffa at the border Wednesday to take a bipartisan stand against the pilot project that will allow approved Mexican trucks to come deep into the United States. The first one will enter Texas on Friday. Hunter is a San Diego-area Republican, while Filner is a Democrat whose district includes California's border with Mexico. They were surrounded at a news conference by more than 75 union members from at least five states.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
________________________ ________________________ ____________
HOPE AND FUCKING CHANCE BITCHES!!!!
You pieces of work voted for this - take ownership.
-
this is nafta baby. this isn't dem/repub.
this would be happening on oct 20, 2011 whether it was president obama palin, mccain, whoever.
-
i remember agruing with getbiggers in 2005 about this. the superhighway is something like 16 lanes wide? google pics of it. media ignores it, except lou dobbs.
of course, it was all nonsense CT back then. Now suddenly, it's evil obama conspiracy.
in another few years, it'll be candians sending oil and maple syrup south, mexicans sending labor and drugs north. our guns head south and our $ will head north.
but but but by then it'll be under president romney, and we all know it'll just be a silly CT again ;)
-
First Mexican truck set to enter US interior
msnbc ^
SAN DIEGO — The first Mexican carrier is set to roll into the U.S. interior Friday, but the Teamsters union and two California congressmen haven't given up on stopping the cross-border trucking program that had been stalled for years by safety concerns and political wrangling.
U.S. Reps. Duncan Hunter and Bob Filner joined Teamsters President James Hoffa at the border Wednesday to take a bipartisan stand against the pilot project that will allow approved Mexican trucks to come deep into the United States. The first one will enter Texas.
Hunter is a San Diego-area Republican, while Filner is a Democrat whose district includes California's border with Mexico. They were surrounded at a news conference by more than 75 union members from at least five states.
Allowing Mexican trucking companies to deliver goods rather than transfer them to U.S. haulers at the border will put American jobs and highway safety at risk, they said.
"We're literally taking good jobs here in America and passing them over the line to Mexico," Hunter told the crowd, many holding signs reading "NAFTA kills" and "Stop the war on workers."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Globalization screwing the American people yet again. NAFTA needs to go asap. Not that we conform to it anyway, we protect so many industries the idea that there is 'free trade' is a joke.
-
Globalization screwing the American people yet again. NAFTA needs to go asap. Not that we conform to it anyway, we protect so many industries the idea that there is 'free trade' is a joke.
This is yet another obama lie. another betrayal to get the morons to vote for him.
-
This is yet another obama lie. another betrayal to get the morons to vote for him.
It's par for the course in a globalized world. If we allow our businesses to offshore jobs and undermine the workforce, then it's only natural the government would do the same. This is what globalized capitalism results in. Third world standards in first world countries.
-
Mexican Trucks Are on Our Roads
Townhall.com ^ | November 8, 2011 | Phyllis Schlafly
After years of negative votes in Congress and the opposition of the American people, on Oct. 21 Barack Obama allowed the first Mexican truck to cross the border at Laredo, Texas, and head north to deliver door-to-door service of its industrial equipment. This was implemented by an agreement quietly signed by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in Mexico City on July 6 with Mexico's secretary of Communications and Transportation.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., calls this deal a major anti-jobs program saying, "We're literally taking good jobs here in America and passing them over the line to Mexico." Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Independent Drivers Association, a non-union trade association, said 100,000 trucking jobs will be lost.
The Mexican company that won the distinction of being first-in-line to cross the border was Transportes Olympic. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration immediately granted it "permanent operating authority," instead of making the company abide by the specified 18-month waiting period, which means Transportes' trucks will not have to be inspected at the border every time they cross.
FMCSA announced that all Mexican trucks participating in this project will be given Electronic On-Board Recorders equipped with global positioning capabilities and paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. FMCSA also announced that U.S. trucks must install similar equipment at their own expense.
U.S. taxpayers are also being required to pick up the cost of replacing old mufflers on dozens of Mexican trucks at a cost of $1,600 each, while U.S. truckers must buy their own mufflers. The excuse is that this will improve air quality on our highways.
But EOBRs and mufflers are only part of the expensive regulations hitting U.S. truckers. Obama has imposed new fuel-efficiency regulations, new emissions targets and new safety regulations.
The large trucking firms may be able to absorb the cost, but independent truckers will be hit hard. If they can't afford to buy compliant rigs, they will have to cease operation.
It's apparently Obama's conscious policy to disfavor small trucking firms by regulatory favoritism. It's also Obama's policy to favor Mexican trucks with U.S. taxpayer handouts.
The chatter in Washington is about creating jobs for Americans and cutting spending. However, Todd Spencer says, "this program does exactly the opposite for both" and will "jeopardize the livelihoods of tens of thousands of U.S.-based, small-business truckers" as well as "undermine the standard of living for the rest of the driver community."
Americans who drive daily on U.S. highways are very concerned about safety when Mexican trucks are added to the many U.S. trucks already on our roads. The U.S-Mexico agreement requires us to accept Mexican commercial driver licenses, but Mexico has no real system of driver licensing, training, drug testing, physical requirements, truck safety inspection or brake standards that match U.S. rules.
Mexico cannot produce records of drivers' accidents or drug, alcohol use or a truck's record of brake safety or emissions. Also, Mexico is a country where bribes are the customary method of bypassing regulations.
George W. Bush's Transportation Secretary Mary Peters admitted at a Senate hearing that the U.S. regularly checks "proficient in English" when Mexican drivers answer questions and explain U.S. traffic signs in Spanish. Senator Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., was so incredulous at this reply that he had her repeat it, which she did.
The LaHood-Mexican agreement pretends to address this prevarication, stating that the exams are to be conducted orally in English. However, the agreement does not specify that the Mexican driver must speak English when he responds and explains U.S. laws and signs.
Even though Obama is a big advocate of clean air and green jobs, there is no mention in the agreement that Mexican trucks should adhere to the environmental standards imposed on American trucks. Juan Carlos Mu?oz, president of Mexico's National Chamber of Motor Transport of Freight, said that Mexican companies "do not have sufficient capacity to supply the diesel suitable for these new technologies," and that, if held to these requirements, Mexican truckers would be unable to "ever enter the United States, at least not for the next 20 years."
The reciprocal promise to allow U.S. trucks to drive into Mexico doesn't pass the laugh test. A U.S. trucker would be taking his life into his hands if he drove his truck into northern Mexico, where he would become a target to be robbed and killed by the Mexican drug cartels.
-
all those years - lou dobbs and the CTers were 100% correct.
-
It's weird that a free market lover like 333 is angry at cheaper labour coming into America. That's capitalism and in a freer market would have occurred years ago.
-
It's weird that a free market lover like 333 is angry at cheaper labour coming into America. That's capitalism and in a freer market would have occurred years ago.
::) ::)
We dont have a free market, not anything even close.
I guess obama loves this plan since he can ship more guns to the drug cartels.
-
::) ::)
We dont have a free market, not anything even close.
I guess obama loves this plan since he can ship more guns to the drug cartels.
Exactly, but this a step towards one. Cheaper labor is paramount to the continued growth of capitalism. If the market were truly 'free' not that it ever could be, then we would have had mexican labour up here years ago running our truck drivers into the ground.
You cannot be a nationalist capitalist. They don't mix.
-
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters on Wednesday expanded its lawsuit against the government in a long-running battle that has stopped Mexican trucks from coming deep into the United States.
In papers filed in federal appeals court in Washington, the union said the government must first assess the environmental impact of a pilot project before letting it continue. The first Mexican truck in the pilot program crossed the border last month.
Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said opening the border to the trucks is an attack on the environment, on highway safety and on American truckers and warehouse workers.
"It's outrageous enough that we've outsourced millions of jobs to foreign countries, but now we're bringing foreign workers here to take our jobs," Hoffa said in a statement. "This is another pressure the American middle-class doesn't need."
MORE...
Read more: http://www.newser.com/article/d9r6mlm81/teamsters-expan...
-
This is definitely an Obama flip-flop, but it's a good flip-flop. Doing this will lower transportation costs, which will increase business profits, which will allow businesses to hire workers in other areas. Also, lower transportation costs will increase real wages on the whole (due to lower prices of consumer goods).
BTW, this is a perfect example of why NAFTA isn't really free trade, but managed trade. THAT is the real reason why we need to get rid of NAFTA.