While the neo-conned weren't looking...
 

The Bush administration is now allowing Mexico-based trucking companies to operate deep in the US.

Safety and security concerns are being ignored, as is the 'will of Congress.'

Just more administration kowtowing to the corporate drive to outsource... this time at the potential cost of quite a few moderate-pay jobs and smaller businesses.

Hopefully, some Bush supporter (there seems to be a concentration of them here on OT) will tell me why this is good.

Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24166.html

I think this has been going on for some time.

There was a 20 or 25- mile restriction from the initial NAFTA agreement. The expansion of NAFTA concessions on our side under this administration is underreported.

No one will give a damn until they make all the road signs in Spanish to accommodate the traffic.

Welcome to last year. Apparently you're the one who wasn't looking ;)

Joking or serious?

I'm not in the SW, can you post a picture?

It's not news to me, but probably is to 90% of the folks here. Faux News will never bring it up.

Nor will they bring up the extension of NAFTA into South America.

George Bush loves Mexicans.

...and the dirty Sanchez.

I *****ed about it when it 1st started, and I never stopped I also took time, more than once to let President Bush how strongly I feel against this BS!!!:mad:

..................so that's what a dirty Sanchez is.

Thought so.

The liberals have been hugging trees so much that they did not notice when this happened last year.

If you would watch a real news channel instead of CNN or CBS you might have seen. It was broadcast when it happened on FoxNews...

I missed it, must of been in church or at the shooting range.

I heard about this a while ago too, but can't remember where I read it first, probably in the WSJ or Wash. Post. As long as those trucks are inspected at the border, what difference does it make whether they drive 25 miles or 1500 miles into the U.S.? I think when I first read about it, the main concern was about the safety of the trucks, as they are subject to different inspection regimes in Mexico than in the U.S. What's the big issue here, Techweenie? That you don't think it was reported on Fox? Or that you think conservatives here are supposed to have a knee-jerk, xenophobic reaction to a change in the 25 mile radius policy? I really don't see the big deal here. Bush was/is 110% wrong on the amnesty issue, which has little if anything to do with this issue.

No, it's the Cleveland steamer for George. :cool:

Not to be confused with the Brown Tie or Angry Pirate.....arrrggghhhh.

Faux News, General Betrayus, Neo-conned... That's so crafty. :rolleyes:

I'm beginning to wonder if your (Liberal) arguments are based on how well a crafty contortion of a word will sound.

There are several reasons for concern, of course the ever-fearful neo-conned are sure that terrorists and their weapons are pouring across the border. Ordinary citizens might rightfully be concerned about the state of repair of the trucks coming onto our highway system as well as driving behavior... but another key concern -- or something that should be a concern -- is another wave of middle class incomes disappearing from the economy.

I know the neo-conned are empathy-challenged, but how dumb do you have to be to see that this is just another form of exporting jobs?

Just this week it was reported that the standard of living of Great Britain has now surpassed the US. The progressive disappearance of incomes that create the fabled 'middle class miracle' of this country is a major cause. If thousands of truckers lose their jobs and replace them with Walmart wages, what do you think happens to the network of businesses that depend on that chunk of now-disappeared income?

Last year, some of the usual suspects shrugged off the 'mortgage crisis' as if they were insulated. But a dropping tide lowers all the boats.

Another fake but accurate story by Techweenie.

What really happened is Clinton signed NAFTA but failed to implement the provision to allow Mexican trucks to travel that far into the US (citing safety concerns). Bush continued with the Clinton program. Then Mexico protested and put the issue to a NAFTA tribunal in 2001. The tribunal ruled in Mexico's favor and ordered the US to allow NAFTA cross-border trucking services to travel deeper into the US. After much negotiating, this one-year pilot program was finally implemented in September 2007.

You can read about it here, on Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Sep09/0,4670,MexicoTrucks,00.html

Fake but accurate. Wow. Says it all, doesn't it?

Faux News is the politboro for the Bush administration.

It's much harder to find the real story about Bush's expansion of NAFTA through its most recent evolution to the Security and Prosperity P...

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4276

So are you saying that Bush is now as bad as Clinton was then or that Clinton was then as bad as Bush is now?:)

Also, we all realize that FOX is a great source of news...they devoted about 6,777 hours to the case of a single missing teenager (Natalie Holloway)...but you can take look at a discussion of the 2001 NAFTA ruling at:

http://www.citizen.org/publications/print_release.cfm?ID=6839

Weiner, do you think the democrats fought against this?

Sure does.

Arguments about the 1994 NAFTA agreement eventaully spawned the Cross Border Pilot Program in 2001 which allowed up to 100 Mexican trucking companies to obtain licenses to operate in 20-25 mile commercial zones in the US. At the end of these zones were set up freight transfer points to move the cargo from Mexican trucks to US trucks.

In February 07, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters announced that "a select group" of Mexican companies will be allowed to operate beyond the established commercial zone. There were a few reasons offered for this decision, some legit and some to appease people.

One of the reasons was that up until this change, US trucks were not allowed to operate in Mexico (due to our non-acceptance/compliance with those provisions of the NAFTA agreement). By allowing the "select group" to operate in the US, we comply with the NAFTA provisions and open the door for up to 100 US companies to operate in Mexico.


Teamsters have been lobbying strongly against this measure since Mexican truckers can haul freight cheaper than Union truckers.

Some reading:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/5407728.html
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/cbtsip/dot2107.htm




My businesses are in the transportation industry.
One in aviation, the other in trucking.

Secret NAFTA Tribunal's Decision to Open U.S. Highways to Unsafe Mexican Trucks..............................F-Mexico, the USA is a sovereign nation!

You don't think the US should honor the agreement that Clinton signed?

No Habla Espanol...I only speak English...

Not only are they being given unrestricted travel, "select companies" in Mexico are going to be allowed to fasttrack border security, meaning they wont have their cargo searched.

This opens the US borders to virtually anyone within those companies who wants to smuggle drugs, money, and/or personel into the US at will.


That's some "security" prez you got ther boys:rolleyes:

Techie- we've heard your rapidly aging neologisms describing why conservatives might be against this but I don't understand your point. I think NAFTA was the best thing Clinton ever did. I'm glad the senior Bush got it started. And lifting the 25 mile rule, in accord with that agreement, is even better.

So loggers in Washington don't like the import of Canadian lumber and the Teamsters (who as we all know are the most scrupulously ethical of Washington special interest groups) don't like the extension of the 25 mile rule. First on the basis of safety and now on the basis of security. Sounds to me like those both those concerns have been covered. You got another one or are you just heaving the usual insults?

I heard about it on Fox. Unlike, apparently, you, I listen to a lot of news sources. Including the disgustingly biased and taxpayer supported NPR, the Washington Post and CNN. The difference is I balance those with the WSJ, Fox and the web. If you don't listen to multiple sources you're only getting part of the story- is that what happened to you here?