• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Mexican trucks can rule our roads. Thanks to BUSH!

Deadly Sushi

The One, The Only, Sushi
SUPER Site Supporter
Its bad enough to imagine such a dumb idea. But now Bush is breaking the new law congress set against this thing. PRESIDENT BUSH is an ASSHOLE!! :soapbox:

U.S. moves ahead with Mexican truck program
White House defies Congress, pointing to loophole in new law


updated 3:50 p.m. CT, Fri., Jan. 4, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is going ahead with a controversial pilot program giving Mexican trucks greater access to U.S. highways despite a new law by Congress against it.
The decision to proceed with the four-month-old program, which allows participating Mexican trucking companies to send loads throughout the United States, comes despite language in the recently signed catchall spending bill aimed at blocking it.
The Department of Transportation is taking advantage of a loophole in the new law, which prohibits the government from spending any money to "establish" the program. The government says the new rules don't apply to the current program since it was started in September.

"The U.S. Department of Transportation will not establish any new demonstration programs with Mexico," said Melissa Mazzella DeLaney, spokeswoman for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. "The current cross-border trucking demonstration project — established in September — will continue to operate in a manner that puts safety first."
Congressional opponents of the programs insist that it's clear what lawmakers were trying to do last year when both House and Senate voted against allowing the program to go forward.
The provision, as signed by President Bush last month, says: "None of the funds made available under this act may be used to establish a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico."
"They know what the law says," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who won a 74-24 vote to block the program. "And they're not above the law."
The hotly contested program, opposed by labor, independent truck owners and environmental groups, permits up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican motor carriers full access to U.S. roads.
Opponents have been fighting the measure — part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement — since it was first proposed, saying the program will erode highway safety and eliminate U.S. jobs. And they say that there are insufficient safeguards exist to make sure that Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. carriers.
"When you open up U.S. highways to long-haul Mexican trucks without equivalent safety standards, it poses risks for American drivers," Dorgan said.
Supporters of the plan say letting more Mexican trucks on U.S. highways will save American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. And they say U.S. trucking companies will benefit since reciprocal changes in Mexico's rules permit U.S. trucks new access to that country.
Since 1982, Mexican trucks have had to stop within a buffer border zone and transfer their loads to U.S. trucks.
Still, there's widespread opposition to the program within Congress. The House voted without a roll call in July to block the program and the Senate's 3-to-1 margin in September to block it came despite administration assurances that safeguards are in place to "ensure a safe and secure program."
The Teamsters Union, Sierra Club and Public Citizen joined together in a lawsuit filed in August seeking to block the program.
A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 12 before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Teamsters spokeswoman Leslie Miller said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
 

fogtender

Now a Published Author
Site Supporter
Its bad enough to imagine such a dumb idea. But now Bush is breaking the new law congress set against this thing.

Nope, NAFTA started when Clinton approved it and they started to deliver accross the boarder, this is just an extention of part of the treaty that was already written in....

All those that promoted it are A$$HOLES.....Dems and Repubs Same as the "Non Boarder" security, nobody wants to build a fence either.... 'course a minefield would slow them down a bit too....

It's all about the cheap labor and "How much money" the public is going to save, not the jobs Americans are going to lose... pretty much a crock...

Vote out all the incombents, start replacing them with some that get the message that "America First" is what their job discription is....
 

daedong

New member
Sushi, why do you whinge and complain about this, Cityboy and I posted articles and links to topics that covered things of this nature, you scoffed at them why? I suggest you order this DVD and watch it entirely, it is towards the end of the DVD that you will see a connection to your article and what is predicted.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/dvdorder.htm


 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
It's all about the cheap labor and "How much money" the public is going to save, not the jobs Americans are going to lose... pretty much a crock...

Fogtender this probably goes without saying; but I contend that the public saves very little if any money from these manufacturing plant relocations, and other ramifications of NAFTA. The lower costs generated are translated into improved profits for the companies; and in turn increased campaign contributions and kickbacks to our elected elite.............yada yada, bush*t yada.

I also fully support an extended period of not electing any incumbents.
 

fogtender

Now a Published Author
Site Supporter
Fogtender this probably goes without saying; but I contend that the public saves very little if any money from these manufacturing plant relocations, and other ramifications of NAFTA. The lower costs generated are translated into improved profits for the companies; and in turn increased campaign contributions and kickbacks to our elected elite.............yada yada, bush*t yada.

I also fully support an extended period of not electing any incumbents.

You are correct...

That was pretty much sarcasum on my part. The only advantage moving South is that the companies make more money/profit for the shareholders and the savings are not passed on to the consumer.

I didn't like it when Bush I was pushing for the NAFTA treaty, and I really didn't like it when Clinton pushed for it and signed it into law... Bush II didn't help any either by allowing the long haul clause to be allowed...

I don't really see much help from any of the current list of folks wanting my vote either. Voting for who will do the "Least" damage is the only option we have. Then we have the issue of the war, nobody wants to address that except for Thompson, the rest pretty much want to pull out.

The problem with that is that the same folks that brought us the Twin Towers aren't interested in a treaty.... they do however, smell blood...
 

Glink

Active member
Site Supporter
the companies make more money/profit for the shareholders

You know, actually ,I don't even buy this part. When you consider the ridiculous salaries, the golden retirement parachutes, and the unreal severence packages (given for failure at that), they pretty much "F" the shareholders over too.
 

Deadly Sushi

The One, The Only, Sushi
SUPER Site Supporter
Glink.... once again I agree. These are people that 90% of the time whould literally shit on someone if they could get away with it. They care about themselves.
 
Top