Belanger Park River Rouge
NFL DRAFT THONGS DOWNTOWN DETROIT »



Results 1 to 21 of 21

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    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.

  2. #2

    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?

  3. #3

    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.

  4. #4

    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.

  5. #5

    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?

  6. #6

    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.

  7. #7

    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.

  8. #8

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.