Obama just flushed another set of American jobs down the drain

[MadHound]

<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-says-mexican-trucking-deal-reached-2011-03-03?siteid=rss>

"President Barack Obama announced at a press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon a deal over cross-border trucking. The deal will result in half the tariffs that are imposed on the U.S. lifted immediately, and a pilot program to allow Mexican trucks on U.S. roads provided safety, driver skills and language tests are met."

Well, I guess we can kiss the American trucking industry good-bye. Much like other industries that have been undermined with cheaper foreign labor, the trucking industry will soon be gone too. Tens of thousands of decent paying jobs will now be handed over to cheaper labor from across the border.

Not to mention the safety and environmental impacts this could have.

So what exactly are Americans supposed to do to employ themselves? Industry after industry, profession after profession is being systematically taken over and either shipped overseas, or filled with cheap, foreign labor.

This is insane.

[boston bean]

people don't want to drive trucks in the USA! It's below us! nt

[jacquelope]

170. I don't believe that.

People don't want to drive trucks for the kind of low pay they're being offered.
I say we as Americans start engaging in civil disobedience and blocking these Mexican trucks.

[SlimJimmy]

195. What? I sure hope that's sarcasm. Many truckers make 60k or more a year

driving over the road (long haul) routes. That kind of pay is hardly "beneath" us.

[OnlinePoker]

218. "Many truckers make 60k..."

Not any more they won't with this decision. Like the construction industry, the market will be flooded with low paid workers and the only way U.S. truckers could compete with them is to drop their rates.

[SlimJimmy]

221. I agree completely. I was responding to the statement that Americans wouldn't drive a truck because

that was "below" them. And this is happening all across America with many different jobs. If we keep outsourcing jobs, then it's a hole we will never dig out of. Bring back jobs to America and get America to work, first.

[pscot]

230. It's happening already.

My recent Costco order was delivered by two little brown men who spoke no English. Maybe they were here legally, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Jakes Progress]

203. You lack a touch with reality.

There are more wannabes than their are trucks.

[tabatha]

1. Not good.

He will not get a single vote from a trucker. What is he doing?

[rhett o rick]

224. I dont see any of the Pres Obama "spinners" in this thread. nm

[Larkspur]

2. I bet the drug cartels are happy

Now they can use these trucks with their drivers to transport their drugs to the USA.

[Modern_Matthew]

5. Relax! Truckers will always have a job at the DEA.

:sarcasm:

[femrap]

212. ding ding ding....

we have a winner! And on the return trip, they can haul guns and ammo!

How nice for everyone.

[pscot]

231. +1

[Skip_In_Boulder]

214. Hmmm, so I guess there is an upside to this. n/t

[robinlynne]

233. exactly. and people. and I dont mean immigrants who are looking for jobs.....

[somone]

3. Real nice move

[QC]

4. Don't worry. He is merely setting a trap for the Republicans. Soon, soon,

it will all come together, and the trap will be sprung!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Could be.........but who is the trap intended for?

[QC]

25. Look! Look! Over there! It's a picture of Bo with a bandanna around his neck!

He's so adorable!

[Bluebear]

81. THUD!

[crim son]

138. Heh.

At first I thought you were serious.

[Plucketeer]

210. Hey! Lookit that nice chunk of cheese!

I think I'll just go over there and grab it!

[Hawkowl]

18. Yes! Obama will announce his dual campaign!

In the name of bipartisanship, Obama will announce his intention to run as the Republican presidential nominee as well as the Democratic nominee! Voila! No more partisan bickering!

[Doremus]

45. +1000

[MsPithy]

155. What evidence do you have that he is

even one half Democrat?

[Beacool]

198. Good One!!!

:rofl:

[russspeakeasy]

202. Perfect

[QC]

219. What an excellent way to move past the tired old divisions of the past!

Reagan would be so proud!

[jtuck004]

228. We could just move on to a benign dictator... eom

[ananda]

23. Part of that grand chess strategy...

... always thinking three steps ahead to be on the right side of the right.

[IamK]

135. he is a f'in genius... The jedi mind trick master!!!! I'm so stoked

[pam4water]

140. Yeah he lulling them into a fail sense of security before he appoints Rupert Murduch king!

[Knight Hawk]

145. YES!

It's 3D Chess ,that's what it is.

[theaocp]

6. k&r

Rec'd to zero. Perhaps the unreccers can explain why they like the idea of Mexican truck drivers taking American jobs?

[DFab420]

7. Here's the full story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12640830

"US and Mexican trucks were previously authorised to cross their shared border under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, but the US has refused to allow Mexican trucks access amid concerns over their ability to meet US safety and environmental standards.

Mr Calderon's government last year retaliated with tariffs on a number of US goods after US lawmakers cancelled funding for a pilot program that allowed long-haul Mexican trucks to circulate in the US."

So Obama didn't do anything that NAFTA hadn't already set up. Your OP title is misleading.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DFab420]

16. What??

Did you actually read that article???

Obama was able to ease strained relations/undo reactive tariffs against American goods/"Mr Obama also announced that the US would soon look to "develop new sources of energy in the Gulf of Mexico" with the help of the Mexican government."

Thank you for your strawman argument though.

Suddenly its about GWB?

[quakerboy]

209. yes, actually it is

It is about GWB. Or more accurately it is about intelectual honesty.

Whatever nafta said, we have not been allowing it, and now we apparently will. And when GWB tried, it put a lot of people in full meltdown and motivation to try to prevent it via the legislature. Which, as I recall, was a successful movement.

Now that Obama is trying it, I expect intellectual honesty, and for us to do the same thing. But instead we will see Democrats split, half supporting the president come hell or high water, and half trying to prevent the destruction of one more "industry".

[Buzz Clik]

13. +1

[Solomon]

76. Double plus one

I'm really getting sick of this.

[MadHound]

15. So, again, Mexican trucks and Mexican truckers will be allowed access to US highways,

That is what both articles are stating. This means that American truckers will eventually be driven out of their jobs by lower cost labor from south of the border. I see nothing in your article that contradicts what I said, just you trying to desperately spin what amounts to the death blow to the American trucking industry that came from this administration.

[DFab420]

20. HAAHA!

Do you really assume the allowance of Mexican trucking is going to be a death blow to the American Trucking industry?? When Canada was allowed to send it's trucks across the boarder did it kill American trucking??

[MadHound]

26. Candadians were and are paid at a rate similar to US truckers,

Mexican truckers are paid much less. Thus the trucking industry will follow the same trajectory as the construction industry in this country, with American workers being thrown out of their decent paying jobs in favor of lower cost labor from Mexico.

[Swede]

37. Canadian truckers can only drive from point "a" to point "b".

From point "a" in Canada to point "b" in the USA and back,again. And vis versa for American truckers. They cannot then move it to point "c",or pick up a load and move it to point "d". They cannot move freight freely in the USA.

[DFab420]

46. Can the Mexican trucking industry do that?

I didn't read that they had cart blanche to drive around the country cavorting with whatever cargo they have...

[jobycom]

164. No. No one has a goddamn clue what they are talking about here.

The bill allows Mexican trucks to go to destinations in the US, exactly like the Canadian trucks. Now, Mexican trucks bring goods to the border, they unload them, and American trucks load the stuff back up to deliver it, sometimes 100 miles up the road.

More, the trucks will be required to pass more rigid safety and environmental standards than American trucks, which itself will make this a specialized and expensive business for Mexican trucking companies to get into. Each truck will have to be fitted with transponders to ensure that they aren't making domestic runs.

There are American trucking firms who specialize in picking goods up at the borders, and they will be hurt by this, although it remains to be seen how much. They could get some benefits by being able to haul goods into Mexico, but they say that Mexican roads are too dangerous for American truckers (why they aren't just as dangerous for Mexican truckers, I don't get).

But contrary to the misinformation, Mexican trucks aren't going to shut down the American trucking industry, or compete with it in any area except the Mexico-US border-crossing transport industry.

[jacquelope]

171. I got four words for ya

Foot
in
the
door.

[Enthusiast]

179. Right you are........nt

[jobycom]

238. The dog barks in the rain.

Or whatever. There is no foot in any door here. This doesn't allow American firms to hire Mexican truckers any more than it would allow an American McDonalds to hire Mexican counter clerks. Immigration and labor laws still apply. It doesn't affect domestic shipping. It's a specific bill that affects only goods loaded on one side of the border crossing to a single destination on the other side. And while it will hurt truckers who specialize in border shipping, it will help manufacturers who will be freed up by the removal of tariffs into Mexico--that will help small businesses a lot more than multi-national corporations, too.

I'm not saying there aren't issues with it--the value of the tradeoff is debatable--just that the rhetoric and understanding of the issue in this thread is non-existent.

[TMcCaleb]

240. The govt

will "enforce" this just like they do immigration laws......

[MadHound]

246. No, what it does it it allows corporations to unload at cheap labor ports south of the border,

And then employ cheap labor truckers to haul the load to that "single destination" anywhere in the US.

As far as helping manufacturers and small business, hey, I thought that's what all these tax cuts were about:shrug:

[1776Forever]

108. Thanks for that! You are right on! This is bad all around! n/t

[amandabeech]

129. It's not just construction. It's everything.

That wonderful auto company Ford builds its popular Fusion down there. While I was in Michigan for a death in the family, the local brake parts maker announced that it was moving down to Mexico because it wanted to be close to the Ford plant.

Oh, Steel Case, which used to be big in Grand Rapids, MI, is moving to Mexico and Alabama. Unemployment may go well over 15%, and GR has the best economy in the state.

Did you notice the story today that Canada doesn't want to negotiate with Mexico and the U.S. It just wants to deal with us. I wish I could find the story again. I can dream that the Canadians have the sense to get out of NAFTA before they lose every job to Mexico, one way or another.

The Canadians always look after themselves and we should, too.

[Enthusiast]

180. The Canadians are

not under corporate rule................yet.

[doc03]

62. Canadian wages and standards comparable to ours n/t

[skyounkin]

234. Except for that whole single payer thing...

[Enthusiast]

178. Yeah, Canadian truckers are the

same as Mexican truckers. Yep.

[TMcCaleb]

239. Mexican trucks

are unsafe

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. Yes, this is really about --

bypassing American ports amd their Unionized workers, so companies can shit in their already cheap shit into a poor country with wokres happy to work for a pittance, then have it trucked into our country via those very same poor workers once again bypassing the more expensive American workers.

More Union busting/undermining courtesy of Democrats. :puke:

[soryang]

119. Right, that is the plan, an anti union plan

Move as much commerce as possible from California ports and docks to Mexican ports and docks and thence onto mexican trucks with mexican drivers taking the commerce to American warehouses, putting as many American dock workers and drivers out of work as possible and putting downward pressure on their wages.

[glinda]

35. I thought the original point was the pollution issues with their trucks and weight?

[MadHound]

41. Well, yes and no.

The overt problem was environmental and safety issues. However the underlying threat is that American truck drivers are going to find themselves out of a job as the trucking industry is taken over by cheaper labor from south of the border.

[Ikonoklast]

117. Not possible.

You have no clue as to what the rules are concerning cross-border truck traffic.

None.

Just because you think something, then post it, doesn't make it even remotely true.

[dennis4868]

31. "Your OP title is misleading"

Correct, but it goes along with the DU "narrative" so who cares....right?

[MadHound]

33. How is it misleading?

Please, explain in detail how it is misleading.

Jobs are going to be lost at the border ports of entry. Jobs for American truckers are going to disappear as their place is taken by cheaper Mexican labor.

So please, explain in detail how my OP title is misleading.

[MineralMan]

44. Yup, NAFTA. How soon we forget things, it seems.

It's a treaty. President Obama did not write it. Later.

[lumpy]

53. People are quick to judge what they really don't understand.

v

[AtomicKitten]

65. +1

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[okieinpain]

197. yep lack of knowledge is a powerful drug. n/t.

[rhett o rick]

225. Pres Obama bows to pressure from Mexico.

And will allow Mexican truck drivers to now cross the border when they havent been, "but the US has refused to allow Mexican trucks access amid concerns over their ability to meet US safety and environmental standards." Pres Obama isnt worried about the jobs that will be taken. And Congress will never fund the enforcement of the safety and environmental standards.

To summarize, Mexican truckers had been denied access and now Pres Obama allows them access.

[HereSince1628]

9. A gift to the syntax challenged t-party I am afraid.

I can just hear the outrage of those against immigration

Obama is for "Mexican Trucking."

[DFab420]

22. lol +1

That's going to become a meme here too...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

21. No, Mexican good were reloaded at the border,

Into American trucks, which meet American environmental standards, driven by American drivers making decent wages.

Now those American drivers will be replaced by lower cost Mexican drivers.

Now do you understand?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. Uh, no.

Companies used to ship stuff in to our American ports and truck from there. But those damned unionized longshoreman were sooo expensive that American companies wanted to cut out the American middleman and ship to the cheaper Mexican ports and use cheaper Mexican drivers to bring the goods.

Sorry, but I prefer Americans working at good wages more outsourcing of our jobs.

[Buzz Clik]

34. All in all, this is a NAFTA legacy, not an Obama invention.

[MadHound]

36. Except that Obama is the one, who after fifteen years, allowed this to finally go through

Granted, Clinton has to have blame laid at his feet for pushing the original NAFTA deal, but Obama just allowed the blockage to be removed. Goodbye American truck driving jobs.

[Buzz Clik]

39. God damn Obama!

:eyes:

Let's not good research into the facts get in the way of a solid, angry rant.

:rant:

[MadHound]

42. Just as we shouldn't let facts get in the way of blind loyalty and hero worship n/t

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReggieVeggie]

60. yeah, good luck with that

[SammyWinstonJack]

112. +1000!

:thumbsup:

[Ikonoklast]

115. Please explain to me current cross-border cabotage laws,

and the direct impact NAFTA has on them; what changes will take place, if any, and how U.S. domiciled carriers will either profit or lose business as the NAFTA rules are implemented.


Bet you don't even know what I'm talking about.

[amandabeech]

123. Your statement is incredibly insulting, but of course, that's how you meant it.

Go away. You don't deserve the "please."

[Ikonoklast]

136. So, you admit that the OP is full of it.

Thank you.


Maybe YOU can explain the current cabotage laws concerning cross-border traffic, then.

[amandabeech]

137. No. I most certainly don't.

I know what caobtage laws are and if I want to know the details of the current laws, I'll go look it up at the law library tomorrow.

But as you know, cabotage laws don't address wage arbitrage.

As for you, I'm sending you to spot you so well deserve. In accordance with current cabotage laws, of course.

[Enthusiast]

182. Plus one! nt

[Jakes Progress]

204. +1000

[doc03]

73. Bush pushed for the trucking deal and couldn't get it through

so a Democrat ends up doing the dirty work. Bet on this, we will hear Republicans blaming Obama for shipping trucking jobs to Mexico. Just what did Obama gain by that move?

[AlabamaLibrul]

166. Well, if the blame is deserved, the blame is deserved... n/t

[Enthusiast]

183. You're exactly correct.

Come election time you won't be able to find a truck driver, union or not, that would vote for Obama. This is all part of a long term strategy. We were played in 2000, 2004 and 2008. Expect a replay in 2012.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

47. Obama made a choice.

Right here, right now. He made a CHOICE.

Yes, this bullshit goies back to Clinton, but O just picked up the baton. That falls on HIM no matter how much you try to wish it away.

[DFab420]

57. Yea he made a choice!

He choose to ease a 20 year old trade relation issue with our largest growing export buying neighbor.

He choose to open our boarder up to allow American trucking into Mexico without tariffs, and Mexican trucking into America as long as they met American standards for safety/emissions/ etc.

He choose to to take Clintons shatty shatty NAFTA deals and iron out wrinkles.

[Buzz Clik]

61. Easy, tiger.

You don't have a receptive audience. Your facts and logic are no good here.

[DFab420]

69. Haha

Yea but goonies never say die.

they may not be receptive but the facts are still the facts.

[TMcCaleb]

241. Mexican trucks

are garbage.

[doc03]

72. And who signed NAFTA a f---g DEMOCRAT. The Republicans

couldn't get it passed so Bill Clinton pushed it through for them. Now whenever we loose jobs the Republicans say Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, like they were against it all along.

[Buzz Clik]

84. I don't think so. GHW Bush signed the agreement in 1992.

During the ratification in Congress in 1993, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats.

The GOP owns NAFTA. Thems is the facts. The rest is just spin.

[doc03]

89. I know that, but Bill Clinton gets the blame. Every time the

unemployment goes up the Republicans are quick to point out Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. That is true, they just conveniently leave the other part out. I bet if a poll were taken the Democrats would get the overwhelming blame for NAFTA, the Rethugs are experts with the spin and the media never calls them on their lies.

[jacquelope]

174. In insurance we have a standard of deciding fault

it's called the person who had the last chance to avoid an accident.

Don't get pissed at me, just look at the historical facts here.

Clinton was our last guardian at the gate. He campaigned on his opposition to NAFTA.
When Clinton was elected, he signed NAFTA.

How can he not be at least partially culpable for NAFTA?

[Enthusiast]

184. And every single American

truck driver will blame Obama. Them's some more facts.

[Xithras]

92. Revisionist nonsense. The Clinton administration pushed it and signed it into law. Bill owns it.

GW Bush signed a ceremonial agreement in 1992 closing negotiations, but it carried no force of law. In order for a treaty to carry ANY weight, it must first be approved by Congress and THEN signed by the President. Bush didn't have the support in Congress to to either, so it languished as an unratified treaty after his little ceremony.

Bill Clinton sent the treaty to the Senate, and even introduced clauses to the bill to try and appease Democrats and unions who were fighting hard against it. After Congress approved it, Bill Clinton signed the treaty and made it formal, binding law.

GW Bush handed a giant cardboard check to the corporations and declared them the winners of America's race to the bottom. Bill Clinton actually did the work to push the laws through, and signed on the line to make it happen.

He could have killed it with a word. He didn't. He owns it.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rpannier]

133. Thanks for the reminder

I just always remember it was Clinton because of the VP Gore-Failed Presidential Candidate Perot debate.

I thought Perot made a fool out of himself at the debate.
Sad part ia/was, Perot was right.

[Enthusiast]

185. I remember it well.

It seems to me, IIRC, the media kind of wanted to humiliate Perot for his poor performance. The corporations had the Democrats by the ass clear back then.

[Vinee]

102. Most of them were against it actually. nt

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vinee]

106. Were you even alive back when Al Gore was calling Ross Perot a crackpot on Larry King?

The average Republicans hated NAFTA as much as they hated Clinton. NAFTA tied right in with the black helicopters and the militias, the AWB and the general RW paranoia of that era. Clinton owns NAFTA, I'm sorry.

[amandabeech]

109. I remember that. Perot was warning us about that "giant sucking sound."

He was absolutely right and a lot of us knew he was right.

Gore looked really bad, has been proved wrong.

I wonder how many people remembered that back in 2000.

[Vinee]

111. was he wrong or did he flat out lie to us?

and don't let Gore take all the blame for NAFTA, there's plenty of it to go around.

[amandabeech]

122. You know, I really have a hard time thinking about that possibility,

especially with Gore. It is however, a possibility.

Don't think that I blame Gore for the NAFTA disaster. I have a l-o-o-o-o-ng list of usual suspects for tha one, including the Bushes and the Clintons.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sad sally]

125. The DeFazio proposal was introduced when there was a DEMOCRATIC House majority.

Was this rejection by the Obama administration an example of how he thought then, and still does, about protecting American jobs?

"A group of 78 lawmakers proposed a way to once and for all put an end to the debate over a cross-border trucking program with Mexico: remove the requirement from the North American Free Trade Agreement treaty. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-OR, circulated a letter to his fellow members of the U.S. House of Representatives calling for removal of the cross-border trucking requirement. The final draft of the letter had the signatures of 78 lawmakers supporting the proposal."

http://www.truckdriversnews.com/cross-border-trucking-with-mexico-equals-us-jobs-lost/?du

[Enthusiast]

181. Come election time in 2012

it will be an Obama legacy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. This is why the Teamsters need to work wiht

both CANADIAN and MEXICAN counterparts for Continent WIDE contracts.

That is the only way to deal with this.

Globalization is a fact, but UNIONS have yet to react to this reality by at least CONTINENT WIDE unionization.

[Raksha]

93. What can I say, except YOU'RE RIGHT!!!

[amandabeech]

126. Have fun organizing in Mexico.

I'll call the Teamsters and let them know that you'll be going down there next week.

Have fun!!!

[TMcCaleb]

242. globalization

helped destroy our economy

[SpartanDem]

14. Do gave problem with Candian trucks on US roads

because they're allowed. Go to Eurpe and you see trucks from various countries transportion goods, this was a stupid rule.

[truedelphi]

30. This does not compare with European situation. Not in the least.

If you have ever lived in Europe, you quickly catch on to the fact that Europe has very stringent rules regarding the condition of the vehicles using its highways. Even minor noise from a somewhat faulty muffler is not allowed.

The trucks that are to be entering our nation from Mexico often fail to meet the most minimal safety standards. This is part of what the outcry is over, in addition to the hit taken by the job sector once again.

[Tatiana]

17. This was started under NAFTA.

But, I think we should have just accepted the Mexican tariffs instead of caving on allowing Mexican trucks to do long-haul driving here. Not only will this hurt American truckers, but there are serious safety concerns as well.

[Renew Deal]

19. Is this part of the "North American Highway" new world order story?

OMG :tinfoilhat:

[SidDithers]

27. Coming soon: The Amero...

:rofl:

Sid

[glinda]

38. It is already the Amero-Sears. Their goods and trucking firms are from Mexico already.

[pampango]

176. And the North American Union. (So says the John Birchers, anyway).

:)

[MadHound]

28. No, but thanks for trying to smear me with that conspiracy nutjob brush,

Interesting that you reach for that in lieu of a real counter argument.

[Renew Deal]

55. It is not about you.

And I wasn't arguing against it. :shrug: You've been here long enough to know that story. It sounds a lot like it.

[superduperfarleft]

32. If you bothered to read the actual article, you'd find that no, it is not.

I know, I know, reading is hard.

[Renew Deal]

56. Of course not. The powers that be wouldn't like that.

:rofl:

[shanti]

128. my thoughts exactly

:tinfoilhat: it was the first thing i thought of too. isn't it being built now?

[Union Scribe]

216. Of course. There's no REAL attack on US workers, right?

It's allllllllll a whackjob conspiracy. By Birchers...who love unions...

[Xenotime]

40. I see this as a progressive step towards more open borders.

[MadHound]

43. Ah, so it is progressive to ship American jobs south of the border now?

Wish I had that latest copy of the Progressive's Handbook to look up where it says that progressives should be willing to sacrifice American jobs.

[DFab420]

51. DEY DOOK ER YOBS!!

Anyone watch South Park?

It is progressive to allow other country's to open their boarders/ remopve their tariffs off our goods, anfd open their markets not only to American exports but also American energy futures.

Also who do you know that Mexican companies, with their recent issues with security etc, won't turn to American drivers whose records clearly indicate a better record? Isn't that just as possible?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

63. Every damned time we do it -

American companies make a buttload of cash and American workers get the shaft. Every damned time. China, Mexico -- same story, same outcome.

[DFab420]

66. We opened trucking boarder with China?

That's CRAZY!!

Can you imagine the time those truckers must log on the road!

[Confusious]

114. Deliberately obtuse?

Or just don't pay attention?

Or both?

[Confusious]

113. It's libertarian.

South park's creators are looneytarian.

[rpannier]

134. Many things are possible.

Your scenario has a likelihood of about 1 in 500,000,000

[pampango]

173. To many people here opening borders and removing tariffs is "progressive" only in Europe.

In Europe it is the right (particularly the far-right) that fights for more border controls and higher tariffs. (They're called "Eurosceptics".) The left continues to fight for open borders on the continent (27 countries belong to the EU) as well as the other progressive issues that Europeans are used to, e.g. national health care, an effective safety net, strong unions, progressive taxation, etc.

History has taught them that problems in one country affect its neighbors. Segregating countries from each other though border controls and tariffs never led to the peace and prosperity in Europe that integrating countries by opening borders and eliminating tariffs has done.

Some (many?) progressives in the US are much more nationalistic than that. France and Germany have open borders and trade with each other in spite of their historic animosity for each other. In the aftermath of WWII open borders must have been a tough pill for French and German progressives to swallow, but they did. Now they do not want to go back (though most countries there have right wing parties that do want to return to the good ol' days of enhanced "national sovereignty"). We haven't had a war with Mexico in 160 years, but many still view it as a "problem" that needs to be walled off. (European liberals must wonder about our nationalism sometimes. The EU has a "free trade" treaty with Mexico.)

Maybe it's an American "populist" thing rather than a "progressive" one. Teabaggers are more opposed to our trade treaties than are Americans in general or Democrats in particular. They also "want their country back" so they oppose immigration, too. Is it "populist" or "progressive" to blame our problems on poor foreigners (who want to work here or send their products here)? Is the real issue that such poverty exists in the world or that we have trouble isolating ourselves from it?

[TMcCaleb]

243. Regarding

"free trade" and borders it works both ways. Mexico exports its poor to us yet enforces their own strict immigration policy. It's similar to the one way trade policy with China.

[provis99]

227. that's not progressive. That's libertarian nonsense.

[Elwood P Dowd]

48. I almost feel out of my chair laughing at this.

It's really all about bypassing middle class US drivers and dock workers, paying Mexicans two bucks an hour, and then shipping all the imported junk into the US on unsafe Mexican trucks, and putting millions of extra profits in the hands of giant corporations. Just one more lap in the race to the bottom for US workers.

[Enthusiast]

187. You win.

You get the award for succinctly summing up the truth of the matter.

[somone]

50. Charity begins at home

In a world of limited resources, take care of your own first.

[superduperfarleft]

67. Lulz, of course you do. n/t

[rhett o rick]

226. Yes, the hell with jobs our goal is an "open border". nm

[MineralMan]

49. OMG! What's next? Will they allow foreign ships to dock at

US ports?

I see that part of this deal ends a bunch of tariffs on US goods going to Mexico. I suppose that's going to destroy American jobs, too. And then there are all those warehouse people and shipping people who will be handling the goods, too. They're bound to lose their jobs, right?

Give and take.

[ieoeja]

74. We have had a lot of problems with invasive species because of that.

So I wouldn't be too quick to use that argument.

Of course, the invasive species only happens because the shippers disobey the rules (they are supposed to change ballast before entering port).

[MineralMan]

80. You're not getting my point at all. You are aware, aren't you

that the United States scarcely has a merchant marine industry at all any more? We don't do shipping. Almost all ships that dock at U.S. ports are foreign-owned. If we stopped them from docking, we'd have no shipping at all to speak of.

[Confusious]

116. Is your point that this won't destroy American jobs

and then use an example where it has?

[soryang]

120. less American workers will be handling the goods

I can see you are unfamiliar with who is doing what in the United States.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumpy]

70. Verily

v

[Buzz Clik]

85. No kidding!

The OP is a classic example of just that.

[Doctor_J]

54. We'll eventually be Haitian peasants

This step will take us one more rung down the ladder.

[shanti]

130. that's the plan n/t

[doc03]

58. Open any paper and you will see ads for truck driving jobs,

that was one of the few fields were a blue collar worker could find work. I know many people that got laid off with me from the steel mill that went into trucking, now Obama gives those jobs away. A few years ago we were told manufacturing was going out and we would have to work in service jobs. So now they get rid of truck drivers and contractors are hiring illegal workers to do construction. What the f--- are we supposed to do?

[Enthusiast]

188. It used to be a good occupation.

At one time.

[City Lights]

64. Swell.

Just swell.

:banghead:

[Richardo]

68. There's already a very critical shortage of truck drivers in the US

I doubt this has much of an effect reducing the available jobs.

[JoeyT]

82. Close, but not quite.

There's a critical shortage of drivers that will drive for the wages some companies want to pay.
Not quite the same as a critical shortage of drivers.

I know a bunch of truck drivers that are unemployed or underemployed because they can't find work and when they find work the conditions are messed up and the pay is horribly low. The ways many companies screw them out of their pay are nearly unbelievable, too.

This is like declaring your factory will only pay minimum wage for a dangerous and exhausting job, then insisting Americans don't want to do the work so you just *have* to hire from other countries.

[Richardo]

86. A mixed bag, to be sure - companies in my industry run their own fleets and are short drivers

The pay and benefits are excellent, BTW.

Also, the LTL common carriers we use are also in dire need of drivers, and some of those jobs are still Teamster. The problem is as much an aging truck driver pool, and the face that drivers prefer to stay close to home and are therefore not filling long-haul routes.

[JoeyT]

94. Yeah, it is hard to find long haul truckers.

I don't know how your company pays, but a lot of companies can't do it because they pay "As the crow flies" for the mileage. So you may drive a thousand miles, but only get paid for 400. But yeah, I can see where asking them to spend weeks away from family might make it hard for others.

[soryang]

121. The pay is crap for OTR drivers and everyone in it knows it

If they don't, they don't know anything about the business.

[jacquelope]

172. Ayup

Plus the funniest part is that fuel costs go up before pay does, and from what I understand fuel costs hit the drivers first.

But 150BBL oil could also make hauling goods from Mexico impossibly expensive.

[amandabeech]

152. Your company might want to advertise here.

Lots of folks need work, but don't live anywhere near Houston.

Advertise in the upper Midwest. People are leaving to find work just like they did in the '80--81.

Tell your employers to put something in the M-Live (Grand Rapids Press) ads or the Detroit Free Press/News ads.

Michigan people are moving, and the best go first.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Are you claiming that...

Mexican companies will be allowed to do anything other than cross the border with freight and deliver it, then deliver freight back to Mexico? If not, how, precisely, will that "destroy" the American trucking industry? Do you actually understand much about the trucking industry?

[AlabamaLibrul]

167. Obviously you understand everything about everything, given the tone in all your posts, dude n/t

[JDPriestly]

77. And the Obama administration accuses Manning of giving comfort to the enemy

Destroying the livelihoods of American workers is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

How does Obama plan to replace these jobs?

When another country puts tariffs on your goods, you put tariffs on theirs. That's the response that Obama should give to Mexico.

We need tariffs not trade agreements.

[Amonester]

148. Yeah, but you see, if he does that, the wRong-wingeRs corporatist

will accuse him of being "against business" and then, they will "cut" their industry's "contributions" to the top Dem$... (elections are expensives, and so are cocktails...).

Given that they already accuse him of being "against business," maybe he "hopes" that will make them stop? (Of course, that will never happen. Didn't happen since the day he was elected, and won't happen until the day he will leave. But don't try to tell him, because he still "hopes" they will "change".... which they won't.)

[defendandprotect]

151. +1 --

[pampango]

175. Mexico put tariffs on some of our goods because we didn't live up to our end of the agreement.

There are provisions in the agreement that allow any party to it to seek redress if another party doesn't live up to its commitments. Mexico didn't unilaterally impose tariffs on some of our goods. It followed the provisions of our mutual agreement with them. We should punish them for that?

I like the idea of resolving international issues through negotiations and multilateral agreements. Most international agreements will involve some level of compromise on all sides. (If there was total agreement to begin with there wouldn't be anything to negotiate.) If an agreement is going to have any "teeth" (not just pretty words on a piece of paper), there has to be some form of penalty for not living up to each country's commitments.

This, of course, impinges on "national sovereignty" and there will be many who insist that we shouldn't have to abide by provisions that we don't like. Does that mean that other countries should be able to ignore provisions they don't like? In which case what's the point of negotiating an agreement to begin with if no one has to follow it? Better that we should just go it alone in the world and not be bound by any agreements with other countries?

[Enthusiast]

189. "We need tariffs not trade agreements."

Right on! A thousand times, right on!

[pampango]

211. Smoot, Hawley and Hoover cheer from their graves. FDR turns over in his. n/t

[Enthusiast]

217. FDR would turn over

in his grave if he knew the scope of todays trade deficit. He would also roll over in his grave if he knew of the wholesale outsourcing of our manufacturing.

Something has to be done to offset the lack or worker health and safety requirements(and or enforcement), the lack of environmental laws or enforcement, the fact that some of our trading partners prohibit collective bargaining and the fact that some foreign industries operate at a loss but are subsidized entirely by their respective governments.

This is unfair foreign competition. No one that favors the present day status quo actually loves their country. Unless, of course, "their country" only includes the ultra wealthy and corporations.

[newportdadde]

78. Someone please bump this thread the first time lax safety kills a US motorist or in 10 years the

US trucking industry has shrunk by a 1/3rd. I'm sure they will meet all those safety and polution standards.. ow yeah you betcha!

You all are kidding yourselves if you don't think companies are salivating at the chance to go directly from Mexico to US distribution points. One trip and much cheaper(wage wise) then transfering cargo to US truckers to deliver.

What we need right now is more tarrifs not less.. like how about a fucking BAN on H1Bs? Yeah I know.. crazy... demand for workers and good jobs you could use some of that much vaulted 'retraining' for what would we do? Instead we just flush ourselves down the toilet. Owell I guess we can always just sell each other food and pet grooming services.

[Enthusiast]

190. Exactly.

Just like with the original NAFTA agreement, criticism was pushed aside with snide smart ass remarks. Then, after it has destroyed millions of our jobs it's like, "What happened?"

[JoeyT]

79. Hey, remember when he promised to renegotiate NAFTA during the campaign?

I guess we REALLY should have pressed him for details on that.
I'm sure this will be paraded around as a promise kept, even though he gave some details, this wasn't in any of them, and he hasn't done any of that.

Of course lack of details and insisting it's a promise kept won't stop this from hurting Democrats chances in the next election cycle.

[Enthusiast]

191. You were not supposed to say that.

Heads will explode.

[johnnie]

83. Interesting article from last year

U.S. Farmers Suffer From Ban On Mexican Trucks

"One sore point in U.S.-Mexico relations, involves a dispute over whether to allow Mexican trucks onto U.S. highways. The U.S. ban has prompted Mexico to enact steep tariffs on U.S. potatoes and other products. Union truck drivers fought to block the Mexican trucks to save U.S. jobs. But now U.S. farmers say the resulting trade fight is costing them jobs and business."


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126967979

[Romulox]

87. Does that mean that my Prius is going to be unloaded and *gasp* shipped by non-union workers?

That will never do! :silly:

[bvar22]

88. Don't Worry. The Giant Invisible Hand will save us all!

Its Faith Based Economic Policy!

[Shagbark Hickory]

90. I hear border patrol is hiring.

:sarcasm:

[onethatcares]

91. there goes the Teamsters.

shit, did you expect them to get a free pass?

So much for "change we can believe in".

[nc4bo]

95. omg.

This is Democratic Underground so I can not say what I really think of this sh*t.

[elehhhhna]

96. have y'all ever seen what passes for a truck in Mx? Ain't pretty. Prolly not street legal here.

[DFab420]

99. Yea! I mean look at these!!

http://www.lgiinc.com/logisticas_internacionales.html]

:sarcasm:

These look so awful!!

[libmom74]

153. don't worry between the cuts to the EPA

and relaxing the standards on greenhouse gas emissions our two countries standards will match up perfectly.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AngryOldDem]

98. NAFTA.

The gift that just keeps on giving.

You're right -- this just opens the door to more losses of American jobs. No matter how you may spin it.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

101. Good Paying American jobs are a pipe dream until...

...they put outrageous tariffs on products produced overseas. Go ahead produce them cheaper over there, but they will be more expensive to bring back and sell here. While it will piss off people who import, it will keep production and manufacturing jobs here. Like it or not, we have to do something keep them from outsourcing, and we have to hit their pocketbook in order to do it.
Duckie

[2Design]

103. more union busting

[Canuckistanian]

107. Not even Bush managed that

It's a coup for Obama!

:sarcasm:

[lonestarnot]

110. This is a fucking bushitler idea. He tried it and failed. WTF!

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

124. Goods shipped from China --> Mexican ports -->US...bye bye port worker jobs in CA...

It seems that Obama is going to finish what Bush started...

[Elwood P Dowd]

131. Thousands of dock workers and truck drivers will lose their jobs.

Just another lap in the race to the bottom for US workers that the repukes so dearly love, as do a few Free Trade worshipers on this board.

[mitchtv]

127. bye bye Teamsters

all the American carriers will promptly move to the other side of the border, and there will be plenty of brand new trucks for the new ,non union drivers.

[DeSwiss]

132. K&R

- Change you can believe in......

[pam4water]

139. Jeeze when Bush tried to do this he got stopped. :( Bummed K&R

[Rochester]

141. Outrageous

We need more than ever to be protecting jobs and industries, not exposing them to competition that they have no chance of defeating. Just Say No to free trade!!!

[Tsiyu]

142. Truckers are PISSED

Apparently, there are very different standards for training and they are concerned about safety of the highways.

Don't know the reality of their complaints, but I know from many I've heard, they are outraged.

I'm pretty dumbfounded over this. Seems like a win-win for corporations and a lose-lose for American truckers and taxpayers.

Obama does not seem to care about the citizens of this nation.

[AllTooEasy]

143. This is BS criticism!

I'm not a fan of everything Obama does and I have my list of gripes, but this criticism is CRAP.

Read the article:
Tariffs on half of US goods are lifted immediately. That means US goods can be sold more easily in Mexico! Which means more money and jobs for the US!!! Across the entire US, where these items are made! More exports means a lower trade deficit, more revenue for the gov't, and therefore less debt. This is how you decrease the deficit, not cutting heating old subsities for the poor (one of my Obama gripes).

The US economy is getting obliterated by unbalanced trade tariffs with countries like China, Japan, and the World. US Truckers will be fine with the existing opportunities to transport goods around the US. Manufacturing and exports will grow and I love it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

146. Total bullshit.

This won't have a .01% effect on our trade deficit. Our trade deficit is 500 billion dollars a year. A few potatoes to Mexico ain't going to do squat. This is not only about truckers, this is about dock workers. Chinese crap will be shipped to Mexico and then trucked all over the US.

Edit: And then there is this notice from the Teamsters........


Mexican Truck Deal Fails to Protect U.S. Highways, Communities
March 3, 2011
Plan Threatens Jobs, Highway Safety and Border Security
Press Contact
Galen Munroe
[e-mail]
202-624-6904

(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.”

The Obama administration closed the border to unsafe Mexican trucks in February 2009 after Congress shut off funds for the cross-border pilot program. Mexico retaliated with tariffs that are excessive. The Teamsters believe the administration should have brought a challenge against Mexico for imposing excessive tariffs on U.S. goods, as the Teamsters Union has urged for nearly two years instead of agreeing to open the border to unsafe trucks.

Hoffa questioned the rationale behind this decision at a time of persistent high U.S. unemployment, budget deficits and unrelenting drug violence in Mexico. He said the proposed program would threaten the traveling public in the U.S. and open our southern border to increased drug trafficking.

“I am strongly opposed to this agreement,” Hoffa said. “Why agree to a deal that threatens the jobs of U.S. truck drivers and warehouse workers when unemployment is so high? And why would we do it when drug cartel violence along the border is just getting worse?”

Ciudad Juarez, which is right across the border from El Paso, is now the most dangerous city in the world. The administration’s own Homeland Security Department issued a warning in December 2010 that noted Texas safety officials urged people to stay away from Mexico.

"The warning comes as kidnappings, violence between drug cartels, as well as between law enforcement and the cartels, increases,” Homeland Security said.

Further, a Homeland Security incident report from Oct. 15, 2010 indicates that drug traffickers have been known to hijack and clone legitimate trucks to transport illicit cargo across the border. According to the document, criminals hijacked over 10,000 commercial trucks in 2010 in Mexico.

Hoffa noted that the trade agreement benefits Mexico but not the United States. “Given the drug violence, there’s no way a U.S. company would want to haul valuable goods into the Mexican interior,” Hoffa said. “Trade agreements are supposed to benefit both parties, but this is a one-way street.

“We continue to have serious reservations about DOT’s ability to guarantee the safety of Mexican trucks. Mexican trucks simply don’t meet the same standards as U.S. trucks. Medical and physical standards for Mexican trucking firms are lower than for U.S. companies. And how can Mexico enforce highway safety laws when it can’t even control drug cartels?

“The Bush-era pilot program was a failure that shouldn’t be repeated,” Hoffa said.

The U.S. government spent $500 million on the pilot program, which began in September 2007. Only about three Mexican trucks per day traveled beyond the border zone until the program was shut down, according to the Transportation Department’s office of inspector general. The inspector general also reported that “FMCSA does not have assurance that it has checked every Mexican truck and driver … when they cross into the border in the United States.”

“I do appreciate that the administration is attempting to raise the bar on safety for Mexican trucks,” Hoffa said. “But the stricter standards aren’t enough, and they could cost the U.S. taxpayer. For example, the administration proposes that Mexican trucks be checked for U.S. EPA emissions standards and that drug testing take place in U.S. labs.

“Why should American taxpayers pay for Mexican trucking companies to take away American jobs?”

Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents more than 1.4 million hardworking men and women in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Go to www.teamster.org for more information.

[Populist_Prole]

201. What US goods? They used that same canard to sell NAFTA

This not about selling "US goods". There's no way exports could ever burgeon anywhere near enough to offset the onslaught if imports.

This is about cheap labor to circumvent to marginalize jobs that were heretofore no outsource-able.

Call it "crap" if you want. but anybody who has paid attention for the past 20 years and compared the trade agreement "happy talk" to the actual result knows well this is just another nail in the coffin.

[ProSense]

144. FACT SHEET: Enhancing U.S.-Mexico Cooperation

FACT SHEET: Enhancing U.S.-Mexico Cooperation

President Obama and President Calderón today announced that Mexico and the United States have found a clear path to resolving the cross-border long-haul trucking dispute. This path will allow for the establishment of a reciprocal, phased-in program built on the highest safety standards that will authorize both Mexican and United States long-haul carriers to engage in cross-border operations under NAFTA. Once a final agreement is reached, Mexico will suspend its retaliatory tariffs in stages beginning with reducing tariffs by 50 percent at the signing of an agreement and will suspend the remaining 50 percent when the first Mexican carrier is granted operating authority under the program. Mexico will terminate all current tariffs once the program is normalized. The agreed schedule will not affect the rights and obligations of Mexico or the United States under the NAFTA, including Mexico's right to apply its retaliatory measures.

This agreement will deliver a program that is safe, secure, efficient, and advances the economic interests of both the United States and Mexico. It also will feature a number of program improvements that are important to both United States and Mexican interests. U.S. and Mexican negotiators are continuing to work through the remaining issues and expect to have a draft final agreement in place very soon. As soon as all of the details are in place, the United States Department of Transportation and USTR will confer with interested members of Congress and publicly share the proposed agreement and seek comment.

<...>

The Teamsters expressed concerns.

Still, the treaty isn't finalized yet, and still has to be ratified by Congress.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Major Hogwash]

147. I thought Boehner was supposed to create new jobs?

How is he going to do it if we keep importing workers?

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

156. What about drug testing? They'll be doing it. That's part of the agreement.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014392749_usmexico04.html

Under the deal, Mexican trucks would be subject to U.S. safety and pollution standards. Drivers would have to obey U.S. work rules and pass drug and English tests.

[defendandprotect]

150. Anyone still relying on Obama for change of any kind?

????


The Rightwing Koch Bros Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

[StarsInHerHair]

157. get these Mexican Truckers to join unions, make their pay equal

it levels the field

[Elwood P Dowd]

158. That would be 10,000 times more difficult than making Obama act like a Democrat.

Good luck!

[StarsInHerHair]

159. why do you assume that?

nt

[Jakes Progress]

205. Not gonna happen. Killing the union is the whole point of this move.

[blackspade]

160. This is bad.

I can only imagine how crappy the 'rules' will be for this pilot program.

[glowing]

161. Even bigger picture: where will the port charges be cheaper for china to ship in

Their cheap plastic crap? And then trucked cheaply to walmarts in the US. At somepoint these yahoos have got to realize that without jobs or money, even cheap Chinese crap will be too expensive at some point.

We need to change free trade to fair trade if we really were about lifting the world into democracy. But I don't believe the wealthy have any intention of willingly giving anything up.

[indimuse]

162. this is all apart of their big plan...

...seems to be right on schedule..

knr!

[Mimosa]

DUPE n/t

Pls delete.

[Mimosa]

163. Obama's Presidency is like Bush term III

There just isn't much difference.

Nobody is fighting for jobs for American workers.

BTW, how do the Teamsters feel about this?

[Citizen Worker]

165. Excuse me, but this is the eighth term of Ronnie Raygun. And don't forget Obama's praise for Raygun

during the campaign. Remember the most important thing is to vote democrat next time. I wonder if by 2016 voting registrars will set up tables underneath the freeway overpasses to register the soon to be legions of homeless?

[polichick]

208. That's the truth. imo this party must choose a populist Dem or merge...

...with Republicans. The way it is, the people lose with both parties - which is no doubt the plan.

[Mimosa]

244. His praise of Raygun shocked me. n/t

[LooseWilly]

168. Don't forget to write off the US port jobs... that's the real target.

Truckers are already pretty well fucked over on pay... but if Wal-Mart can have its Chinese DooHickies unloaded in Mexican ports... rather than unionized US ports... and then shipped by Mexican drivers... well then there's no leg left for the US port workers to stand on, and they'll be quickly starved and buried in a shallow ditch (metaphorically) somewhere that the law won't bother to look... because they're getting their payola and don't give a shit.

Fuck you all.. all you workers... the time is now to learn shoplifting skills... we here in CA have the advantage, as we have Hollywood Divas to instruct us in the fine art of stealing from the corporate purveyors of tripe that, even if we don't want it, we might be able to sell at a flea market once we've stolen it from the corporate showroom...

Welcome to the new US economy... ;)

[madrchsod]

169. who is left for him to sell out?

i think he`s just about sold out every working class job in the usa. what`s next?

[Enthusiast]

177. Obama has no intention

of winning a second term. Rather than stand up for the truckers, the American working people and the populist side of this issue he again does precisely what the corporations want. I will not vote for Obama in 2012.

[MissDeeds]

193. This president is begging to be primaried

And I hope the party is smart enough to help him out with that.

[NorthCarolina]

196. I'm begging for him to be primaried as well.

So I guess Obama and I have that in common.

[CanonRay]

192. Another assinine move

by a supposedly Democratic president. Join Clinton in a NAFTA koolaid cocktail

[OwnedByFerrets]

194. Just another bad day in Merika

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

200. what an idiotic thing to do.... does he really want to be re-elected?

is he relying on the fact that the GOP is sooooo bad, that everyone will just vote for him instead? How fucking arrogant.

[Jakes Progress]

206. Can you say one-termer?

Maybe if he ran as an independent.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Plucketeer]

213. Drugs in -

weapons out. Such a deal! And I guess American trucks have better access now too! Can you put gun turrets on a Semi???

[Teaser]

215. Obama's encore: rounding up the gypsies and putting them in camps

I warned you about this guy.

Don't say I didn't.

[VermeerLives]

220. "Not to mention the safety and environmental impacts this could have"

My concern as well. Will these trucks be inspected at the border, before they are allowed entry?

[valerief]

222. Why does our prez hate us? nt

[ProSense]

223. Boehner is

trying to take credit for the new jobs report.

[Vinca]

229. U.S. truckers are having a hard enough time as it is what with fuel prices skyrocketing.

[1776Forever]

232. I think there are a lot of things that need to be looked at here.

Who is going to check all these trucks that are going to come into our country for drugs etc? How many will get through unchecked? Will they be using the Mexican diesel oil that has much more problems to the environment? I have read there a lot of safety issues concerning this also because Mexican truckers do not have to follow the same rules as the U.S. Truckers or for that matter the Canadian Truckers. Also some say China will come to Mexican ports and then their goods will be shipped to the U.S. and this will take some of the Longshoreman's jobs from them. Will this bring down wages for truckers in the U.S.? I heard that if the tariff issue would have been taken to the WTO this may have been worked out with them.

Teamsters Swift reaction to U.S. - Mexico truck agreement

http://fleetowner.com/regulations/swift-reaction-us-mexico-agreement-0304/

The announcement that the U.S. and Mexico have reached agreement on a border trucking program garnered swift reaction among interested groups. Both the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA) issued strong statements opposing the deal, which was announced at a joint press conference at the White House yesterday by President Barack Obama and Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon.

In a statement from OOIDA expressing “outrage” at the announcement, executive vp Todd Spencer said it was “simply unbelievable” that the U.S. would agree to a deal. “For all the President’s talk of helping small businesses survive, his administration is sure doing their best to destroy small trucking companies and the drivers they employ,” he said.

Teamsters general president Jim Hoffa expressed similar sentiments, saying the deal “puts Americans at risk. This agreement caves in to business interests at the expense of the traveling public and American workers.”

(more at link)

And this link:

http://fleetowner.com/topics/cross-border-trucking/index.html

[Marnie]

235. Any American who has not gone to Lorado or any other border

crossing and witnessed the trucks crossing over the border between the US and Mexico has no concept of what NAFTA means. The border states have literally been turned into off ramps from Mexico into the rest of the US.

[Marblehead]

236. nafta superhighway

will be next, so that the mexican trucks can run all the way to canada. I thought it was nixed but I guess not

[Auggie]

237. I wonder if auto insurance rates will rise?

I hate this

[Mimosa]

245. This administration is all about insurance company profits.

That's why we couldn't have public option health insurance.