Detroit River Fishing

The Great Detroit Flood of 2014 resulted from the second largest downpour in Detroit history. It closed several expressways and poured into thousands of Metro Detroit basements. The 4.72 inches of rain was the highest daily recorded rainfall since July 31, 1925, when 4.74 inches of rain fell. What went wrong? Could it have been prevented?

READ MORE »


New? Join DetroitYES»

DISCUSSING ALL THINGS DETROIT-WINDSOR SINCE 1999

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »

Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,990

    Default Obama drives US Teamsters jobs to Mexico

    President Clinton signed NAFTA into law. One of the provisions found in NAFTA allows Mexican truckers to deliver loads anywhere in the US. President Bush set up a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks to travel across the US. Senator Obama campaigned against NAFTA suggesting that there were some things in it that needed to be addressed.Hilary's campaign claimed that an Obama representative told an Canadian official that Obama was just coming out against NAFTA just for public consumption. Congress rescinded Bush's pilot program. Mexico responded by putting import taxes on some US agricultural products.

    President Obama is putting Mexican truckers back on US highways with another pilot program. Mexico relaxed its import tax penalties in response.

    "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." -Jimmy Hoffa Jr.

    US drivers are also allowed to deliver loads to Mexican cities but it looks like they or their companies will be too afraid to risk driving loads into Mexico so this is a one way street. Mexican trucks are not allowed to deliver loads from one US city to another. They must deliver loads picked up in the US, formerly hauled by US drivers, into Mexico. There doesn’t seem to be anything preventing trucks from immediately turning around and delivering their loads to nearby cities in border states after touching base in Mexico.

    It gets worse. The Obama administration, realizing that Mexican trucks might have safety problems, will be spending taxpayer money to bring Mexican trucks into compliance so they can compete for US trucking contracts.

    "It is outrageous that we would spend tax dollars to pay for equipment on Mexican trucks; equipment which either the Mexican government or Mexican carriers should be required to pay." "It is outrageous that American truckers, through the fuel tax, will subsidize the cost of doing business for these Mexican carriers." -Rep. DeFazio


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    6,220

    Default

    Well NAFTA goes back to the Clinton era etc. and the AFL-CIO heavily endorsed and supported president Obama initially. Everything's sorta off balanced, ergo planet miss-alignments (Dems pushing bad policy upon the peeps ---- LOL! ).

    In the meantime now he's getting er-uh 'sassed' by ALF-CIO on twitter. Oh the horror of it all...... Many are getting tired (withstanding deep-dish partisan loyalty).....

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07...esident_o.html
    Last edited by Zacha341; July-08-11 at 08:37 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oladub View Post
    US drivers are also allowed to deliver loads to Mexican cities but it looks like they or their companies will be too afraid to risk driving loads into Mexico so this is a one way street. Mexican trucks are not allowed to deliver loads from one US city to another. They must deliver loads picked up in the US, formerly hauled by US drivers, into Mexico.
    Let me make sure I understand this. We're getting upset because Mexicans will be doing work that Americans are too afraid to do?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto View Post
    Let me make sure I understand this. We're getting upset because Mexicans will be doing work that Americans are too afraid to do?
    Not sure if the OP made this statement or if it came from another source. However, if it's another source, it could be some corporate statement wanting to justify using Mexican truckers. Although with all the drug crimes going on there & depending on my destination, I don't know if I'd want to drive a truck into Mexico.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,990

    Default

    GP, No, we're getting upset because there will be a net loss of good paying American jobs because of this deal. Mexican drivers, warehouse workers, mechanics, supporting office workers, insurance agents, or lack thereof, etc. will be replacing US workers; many of whom are union employees. The inequality of operating conditions on either side of the border will discourage US trucks from operating in Mexico making this more of a one way street than the proponents of this deal wish us to believe. There aren't as many miles to be logged on the Mexican side of the border anyway even if that weren't the case. Also, if a Mexican and a US trucking company competed on a contract, the Mexican company's labor costs are much less. Oh, and US companies will be allowed to hire Mexican drivers for Mexico-US runs.

    Not entirely related but I just found this: In 2007, the House and Senate voted to end Bush's similar pilot program House roll-call vote was 411 to 3, and the Senate's was 75 to 23. President Obama set up this deal with the Mexican President in March to override Congress as if it weren't there just like with his war on Libya and overruled Congress with an executive order. Such is "democracy' in Amerika to reference another thread.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oladub View Post
    GP, No, we're getting upset because there will be a net loss of good paying American jobs because of this deal. Mexican drivers, warehouse workers, mechanics, supporting office workers, insurance agents, or lack thereof, etc. will be replacing US workers; many of whom are union employees. The inequality of operating conditions on either side of the border will discourage US trucks from operating in Mexico making this more of a one way street than the proponents of this deal wish us to believe.
    If I understand the original post correctly, US trucks are already not going into Mexico (for other reasons). So what, exactly, would we be discouraging?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto View Post
    If I understand the original post correctly, US trucks are already not going into Mexico (for other reasons). So what, exactly, would we be discouraging?
    We would not be discouraging anything. Truck jackings, drug cartel violence, corrupt cops, and the like would discourage everything from US drivers to the insurers of US trucks from operating in Mexico. This is a pilot program, as mentioned before, which was executed by an Obama executive order over the 2007 vote of Congress. It is about to go into effect and is supposed to be a prelude to an expanded use of Mexican trucks on our roads to displace higher paid US workers.

    The point is that this will create an uneven playing field in which US jobs will be replaced by Mexican jobs in the US without being balanced by many new US trucking jobs in Mexico.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oladub View Post
    We would not be discouraging anything. Truck jackings, drug cartel violence, corrupt cops, and the like would discourage everything from US drivers to the insurers of US trucks from operating in Mexico. This is a pilot program, as mentioned before, which was executed by an Obama executive order over the 2007 vote of Congress. It is about to go into effect and is supposed to be a prelude to an expanded use of Mexican trucks on our roads to displace higher paid US workers.

    The point is that this will create an uneven playing field in which US jobs will be replaced by Mexican jobs in the US without being balanced by many new US trucking jobs in Mexico.
    You're saying three entirely different things here, two of which directly contradict each other.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto View Post
    You're saying three entirely different things here, two of which directly contradict each other.
    Which are?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    6,220

    Default

    Precisely. That will be another hit to those who would otherwise be employed.
    Quote Originally Posted by oladub View Post
    ...there will be a net loss of good paying American jobs because of this deal. Mexican drivers, warehouse workers, mechanics, supporting office workers, insurance agents, or lack thereof, etc. will be replacing US workers; many of whom are union employees. The inequality of operating conditions on either side of the border will discourage US trucks from operating in Mexico making this more of a one way street than the proponents of this deal wish us to believe.
    Last edited by Zacha341; July-08-11 at 06:00 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto View Post
    You're saying three entirely different things here, two of which directly contradict each other.

    Perhaps you are not aware of how the trucking worked before? Prior to this latest abomination trucks driving into the U.S from Mexico would transfer their cargo to a warehouse or to a U.S driver and U.S truck shortly after crossing the border (And vice versa for the American drivers on the Mexico side of the border).
    Now both drivers will be able to drive straight though from from the starting point in one country to the ending point in the other.


    What oladub is saying is exactly how this is going to play out. The U.S worker is again getting screwed at the expense of the profit margins of corporations. What amazes me is that instead of supporting the American worker Obama is forcibly pushing this garbage against the will of Congress. It will undoubtedly lead to the loss of more U.S jobs to Mexico and to top it all off poses a safety issue as well.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,380

    Default

    That weird little dude from Texas sure was right. NAFTA was a horrible treaty for the American people, except the corporate masters. This new treaty with Columbia is worse.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,407

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,190

    Default

    It looks like the Mexican import tax would have affected a lot of our ag. We have dumped cheap corn and a lot of other food on Mexico's markets and driven a lot of their farmers out of business. So we're giving them our trucking jobs.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739445919172781.html

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,990

    Default

    maxx: "It looks like the Mexican import tax would have affected a lot of our ag. We have dumped cheap corn and a lot of other food on Mexico's markets and driven a lot of their farmers out of business. So we're giving them our trucking jobs."
    Yes there is a trade off but when the subject of illegal immigration comes up, there are remarks that because the US is dumping cheap corn into Mexico, unemployed Mexican ag workers have no choice but to head to the US for a job. It the latter is true, Mexico will be getting cheaper food and the US will be getting legal Mexican truck drivers and more economically desperate illegal aliens.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,004

    Default

    Here's the back story and why Obama is doing this at the risk of upsetting the Teamsters



    "In 2007, President George W. Bush implemented a pilot program that allowed a limited number of trucks to enter select parts of the United States. Last year, a stealth provision tacked onto the stimulus package by Democrats killed the pilot program, and launched the Mexican tariffs.
    The original list of items subject to tariff included 89 U.S. exports. Last week, Mexico announced a new set of tariffs that broadens the list to 99 items — subtracting some from the first list and adding more — valued at $2.5 billion. Newly affected products include pork, ketchup, cheeses, sweetcorn, dried and fresh apples and other fruits.
    The list now comprises 54 agricultural products and 45 manufactured products.
    Tariffs run as high as 45 percent on some items, a big handicap for U.S. business that can be undercut by competitors in other countries that don’t face the added costs."

    In other words Mexico was punishing us for ending the trial program and not following thru on the initial NAFTA agreement.

    What Obama did was a compromise to get that tariff off our backs. Unfortunately it affected the Teamsters in a negative way.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firstandten View Post
    Here's the back story and why Obama is doing this at the risk of upsetting the Teamsters

    "What Obama did was a compromise to get that tariff off our backs. Unfortunately it affected the Teamsters in a negative way.
    Candidate Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA. Instead, he is using NAFTA as a hammer against not only truck drivers, but other Americans working in warehouses, truck maintenance, and offices associated with the trucking industry. There seems to be a pattern of Obama using international agreements to override Congress and the wishes of Americans. Congress is aware of these punitive import taxes. Executive orders are not supposed to override votes of Congress; in this case, those of Democrats who killed Bush's pilot program.

    Mexico probably had a right to retaliate against the Congressional end to the pilot program. When Mexico decided to tighten the screws still further with additional tariffs, Obama rolled over siding with Mexico instead of US workers. He should have let Mexico know it had gone too far instead. "The Teamsters for two years have urged the administration to bring a challenge against Mexico for imposing excessive tariffs on U.S. goods." His submission to Mexican authorities and betrayal of US workers will only teach other nations how to get the most out of their agreements with the US.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,351

    Default

    Obama - Clinton - Gore -

    These names get thrown around an awful lot. Could there be another side to the story ?

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497


    NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., is a “non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.”
    Last edited by Bigb23; July-10-11 at 04:30 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oladub View Post
    President Obama set up this deal with the Mexican President in March to override Congress as if it weren't there just like with his war on Libya and overruled Congress with an executive order. Such is "democracy' in Amerika to reference another thread.
    Odd that you bring up a war in Libya, totally unrelated to this thread... but since you did.... didn't know we had any ground troops there.... Last time I checked Congress has only ever declared war 5 times in the last 236 years.... 1812, Mexican War, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII.

    Although Congress established some "pseudo-declaration" laws regarding the post Vietnam era... I don't recall any declarations in invading Granada or bombing Libya both initiated by President Reagan.... seems that Obama is following the precedent set by other presidents... one would have thought that Congress would have closed those loopholes by now.... apparently they're not as outraged by it as you are....
    Last edited by Gistok; July-11-11 at 02:06 AM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Firstandten got it about right. The apple export tariffs have been a desaster for soft fruit ranchers up here in a market where world wide competetion has grown greatly in the past 20 years. The agreement is being hailed here as a good thing.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasm View Post
    Firstandten got it about right. The apple export tariffs have been a desaster for soft fruit ranchers up here in a market where world wide competetion has grown greatly in the past 20 years. The agreement is being hailed here as a good thing.
    So Obama should roll over to meet the wishes of foreign leaders and corporatist interests even if it means threatening security and getting rid of union jobs so we can sell some apples? How many apples was this going to sell? Why doesn't Mexico import Chinese apples like we do? Almost half of the concentrated apple juice we drink is from Chinese apples. US grower can't compete with Chinese wages at least until theirs go up and ours go down. "The domestic Red Delicious apple currently goes for about $22 a bushel, while in China, the Fuji, another supermarket staple, runs about $4 a bushel, according to local growers." Maybe trucking costs can come down a little bit when Chinese apples or apple concentrate can be unloaded at a Mexican port (see Bigb23's post) and trucked in with less expensive Mexican trucks.

    Gistok, The common denominator, I noted, was going around Congress using loosely interpreted treaties to do so. Congress, including Democrats, did vote to kill Bush's pilot program. Obama overrode the wishes of our elected representatives with an executive order. He didn't get the assent of Congress to commit acts of war against Libya by fiat either. I see a pattern. I could add the redirection of federal workers' pension funds to this list. Congress certainly didn't authorize that either. I don't agree with any of these expansions of executive power, gradual or otherwise, but I don't understand why Democrats don't provide the President with an Enabling Act to legalize his random and unconstitutional actions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •