Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why don't you admit as long as you have your leftist president in the White House, you don't really give a damn about unemployment rates and falling wages. You have exactly what you want so you don't want this issue discussed.
If we had a truly free and open market, you could compete. If you were in a closed market, you could compete. In a market that shackles local merchants and product while letting foreign competitors wander free, you have no chance... unless of course you move your operation to Mexico.
BUT.......... and it's a really big but........ As a foreign national in Mexico, you will not be allowed to own a business (or property within 50 miles of a beach) unless you "partner" with a local who will more than likely rob you blind and leave you in a gutter with your throat slit after you've provided the capital to start a new venture. Go figure.
NAFTA is a giant freaking scam to create an entire nation of serfs and wage slaves. It was meant to be lob sided from the beginning. It's no different than China's most favored nation status. As long as our market is hindered, we cannot compete in a global market. If we want to continue controlling the markets, we have to shut the front door. Air conditioning doesn't work if the freaking windows are open.
I personally am for an open market. Most democrats are actually against NAFTA because they're well aware that in the closed system they prefer, this kind of BS is sheer folly. The Republicans own this one for sure but Obama isn't guilt free because were he actually a real democrat and not an oligarch be would have fought it. While the Republicans were thinking on the lines of free trade, they failed to smell the coffee and realize we don't have a system of free trade and that NAFTA is just plain stupid.
Why don't you admit as long as you have your leftist president in the White House, you don't really give a damn about unemployment rates and falling wages. You have exactly what you want so you don't want this issue discussed.
Exactly what the Conservatives argued in supporting NAFTA! Those who spoke against NAFTA were accused of not caring about USA employment rates.
NAFTA goes back a long, long time. It did not 'spring up' in the past day or two. It was implemented, in stages, over almost the past two decades. The 'trucking' part was held off until we could be sure that the Mexican trucks entering our country would be safe on our roads.
I was one who agreed with Ross Perot that NAFTA would not be real good for the country. Yet the cry was 'free trade is the conservative way!'
Heck, at one point the politicians were vying for a 'super corridor' from south Texas up through north Texas (trans-Texas corridor) and beyond, just to handle the Mexican truck traffic that was expected. I recall that the super corridor, that was to run along I-35, would have six or eight lanes on each side for cars/trucks, as well as rail lines. When someone said "hey, this will cost some billion dollars per mile", it was given up (I think just this year).
There is a simple solution to this problem. Make it so it costs these foreign companies more than it is worth to drive through the US. Sabotage their trucks, slash their tires, put sugar or mothballs in the gas tank, etc., etc. If they cannot deliver their goods, how long do you think they will make the attempt?
“There are no means to regulate these guys. Bush has opened up highways to unsafe trucks,” Flores said at the Laredo protest. “I don’t want them sharing the roads with my family.”
I'll admit that I haven't followed this issue closely, but on the surface it sounds like a terrible idea and very indicative of how out of touch Washington is with America. It's almost as if the competing interests (domestic vs. international) always seem to trump what's best for our own people when contemplating trade policy.
Well, since NAFTA was a treaty negotiated with Canada and Mexico and passed and signed into law with an implementation date of January 1, 1994, my question is simple:
You are the President. What would you have done? Please provide your Constitutional authority for your answer.
For instance, "I would have said NO", is not a valid answer. Or, if it is, please explain what authority the President has to unilaterally tear up a treaty.
What would you, as the President, have done?
Tax the hell out of them. they want to use our country as a pass-thru, then tax the hell out of them. make so hard to get thru, they'll tear up their own treaty. They don't have our approval to come through, unless Bush or Obama approved it.
Secondly, make the border patrol checks so strict, they would rather carry the loads on their backs than to bring their potential truck bombs through one of our cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
