The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6313809.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6313809.html)

Tried to find this in the Whirled and couldn't. But, the potential impact could be enourmous, not to mention the bigger issue of trade.

Funny a Dem inserted this into Obama's 2009 Spending Bill, though.

On the bigger scale, just imagine if the North American Highway projects left the US with no good alternative for transport. Mexico would be in position to cripple us economically.

Not to fear, Obama says he's going to fix it.

I am on the fence on this one. Are the Mexican vehicles to be inspected the same as American vehicles? Do Mexican truckers have to go through the same licensing requirements? Can the drivers follow the "rules of the road" and read/understand the road signs? If not, keep them out.

Possibly unjustified, but I might be concerned about what is being transported across our border. How stringent are the controls going to be? Are they going to inspect every truck that crosses the border?

No worries..........! They will mostly be transporting workers for the "Community Gardens" in Tulsa..

By the way, can you pay workers to work your "Community Garden"?
C'mon Duane say we can... ;D

If you can I can see Neighborhood Coalitions turning some serious Green........!

Maybe even enough to pay the truck drivers to haul excess back to Juarez.

Actually, the United States declared a trade war with Mexico.  By treaty we are required to allow inspected trucks access to US highways.  In exchange, the US trucks can travel in Mexico and we get unregulated access to Mexican markets for imports and exports.

We reneged  on our side of the bargain.  By rule they have the right to place a certain number of tariffs on our goods.  It has yet to be announced what goods will be crippled, for Tulsa's sake lets hope it isn't oil infrastructure.

I don't know what the inspection, insurance or safety criteria are - but I'm sure we thought of putting that in the treaty.    I would hope Mexican drivers are held to the same standard and a heightened insurance requirement (odds of them leaving the country are higher) - but I don't know. If we didn't set criteria we're still in violation of the treaty and will be punished. Not good for the US and not good for Mexico.
<hr>

We are also facing trade sanctions from the EU for various infractions we committed, restrictions from Canada for limiting timber imports, and possible sanctions from the WTO for subsidizing our auto industry to the detriment of Japan. 

Protectionism costs everyone in the long run.  By saving a few timber jobs you have cost more American jobs in industries that rely on timber as well as costing every American more money for anything that uses timber (including paper).  It is a net loser for America and the whatever nation we limit trade with. 

But boy does it play well politically . . .  the administration gets credit for helping the American Timber industry, but no one realizes it hindered the paper industry, every business and school that uses paper, or the housing industry.  Idiots.

The U.S. is a Cancer known for dramatic changes in mood from one day to the next.  She is generally seen as an unreliable partner.  We promised all of this a ways back and now we are reneging.

Our wealth is the only reason we can get away with this consistent pattern of unreliability in our relations with the rest of the World.

Did you know that the Latin American countries satirically characterize the U.S. as a "Business Woman?"

Mexico is not declaring war, that's inflamatory language; she is just using procedures laid out in NAFTA that we agreed to, probably even authored.

The United States is a cancer?

That’s just downright offensive. And Stupid.

First off, if we are so unreliable and are evil enough to be called a “cancer” how did we ever get so wealthy? Why would anyone have ever done business with us?

This country has many faults and is far from perfect, but we have done more to spread freedom, reason and wealth than any other nation in the history of the world.

As for being some kind of joke to South American nations. Really? You take that seriously? Is there a single nation in South America that has been well run for any length of time? It sounds like you are quoting Hugo Chavez, who besides being a world class nut job, is a tin pot dictator who uses hyperbolic speech about non-existent threats from other countries to foment populist, nationalist hate in an attempt to suppress the press, cover up his failures and cement his place as dictator.

Ever read horoscopes, Swake? ;D

CF, I think you mis-read the article. The U.S. is NOT reneging on anything. The 25-Mile rule established by NAFTA is still being honored.

What's changed is the funding for an _experimental_ program allowing deep access into the U.S. by Mexican truckers has been eliminated, thus the temporary program. This program was NOT a condition of NAFTA.

FWIW, this also has little to do with protectionism, from a market standpoint. Protectionism from terrorist threats, imigration and illegal drug traffic indeed.

And, it would provide a level of protection for the U.S. trucking industry.

But, not goods markets.

What's the matter with Mexican truckers dropping load in a U.S. border zone to be picked up by U.S. trucking? Why does a Mexican truck line need to be able to drive to Kansas City, Minneapolis, Denver, et al?

Free trade and free travel are not the same thing.

These Mexican truck drivers are only supposed to come into the country and run their cargo and go back.  What happens is they come in and drive for 6 months or 9 months and then go back.  Rinse, repeat.

I never thought I would read something more stupid, insipid, and damned unAmerican than your BS Vietnam era walkabout/anti-military post you made some time back until you posted the above statement.

Swake, +1 on your smackdown on Hometown the Gutless. It's amazing that as much of cancer we are that at approximately 13 million "undocumented immigrants" (many being from Latin and South America) have come to this country illegally.

You guys make me laugh. Cancer, the disease, is not captilized. Cancer, the astrological sign, is capitalized. Look up Emily Luttila from Saturday Night Live back in the seventies. Nevermind.

I wonder what sign the US could be that would be American? Apparently they didnt like the idea of the US being a Cancer. I am a stubborn Taurus.... is that unAmerican? :-p

Astrology.

Well, first off, I apologize for taking this the wrong way. This being the 21st century and all it really shocks me that people might take that mindless crap at all seriously. But anyway, I am sorry, the moon must not have been in my house and Venus must have been ascending causing me to miss the reference.

Astrology.

Guido I don’t know how you ended up being a provincial Xenophobe when you have a moniker that sounds like Cousin Guido from the Bronx.

I’ll tell you what amazed me about New York and California.  They open their doors to one wave of immigration after another and give everyone equal footing in a wide open competition that embodies the best of our nation.  They’ve had waves of immigration that you’ve never even heard of.  Like all the immigrants from the Eastern Europe that showed up during Reagan’s term.  All these blondes were cleaning the office buildings in Manhattan. 

At the other end of the spectrum there was my Mother’s hometown of Evening Shade, Arkansas where there was a decision not to modernize and bring in business because it might draw what they called “colored” people.

Guess which example Tulsa must struggle against and overcome.

Mexican people are our first cousins.  Nothing to be afraid of you brave gunslingers.

Artist, all I’m coming up with for Taurus is the City of Oakland and the former Soviet Union.  Look for the date of incorporation and think of it as a birth date.

Just as I love my many moody Cancer friends, I love my moody U.S. for what she is:  Rich as old Midas and a master manipulator.

+1 HT on the immigration thing HT.

NY and California have allowed (note: I don't say welcomed.  Each wave is generally mistreated by the others) immigrants and are among the most prosperous places on Earth.  The States that are staunchly anti-immigrant tend to struggle economically.   Certainly there is a long standing correlation.

Whatever problems immigration brings, it is apparently outweighed by the benefits.  It increases competition.  Provides unskilled labor for manufacturing.  And brings in new culture, ideas, and ways of doing things.

I'm not an open borders advocate, but certainly something drastic has to be done with immigration NOW before the economy turns around and it is a serious issue again.  It would be easier to implement the rules and begin enforcing them in an immigration slump than when the boom starts up again.

What B.S. Oklahoma has almost the lowest unemployment in the nation and suffered minimal fallout from the housing meltdown. California has high unemployment, leads in foreclosures, the state government is bankrupt and writing I.O.U.s  for income tax returns it owes, but can't pay.

If California is so great, why did HT move here? If Oklahoma sucks so much, why stay?

Obama should grow a pair and tell Mexico if they impose tariffs, we will impose a 90% tax/assessment/processing fee on all remittances leaving the United States going to Mexico. Considering this is one of Mexico's biggest sources of income, I bet they would fold like a cheap suit. It's embarrassing to see the leader of the free world drop to his knees like a jailhouse b*#ch when a corrupt, third world country threatens us.

It's becoming increasingly clear that all the talk during the campaign about helping the middle class and making free trade, fair trade was just that, talk. It seems that was just meaningless pandering to win an election with no intention whatsoever of making good on the promises made.



 

Good call AA. Throw in Nevada and Oregon as states with unemployment at 10%.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amYi1YKTblko&refer=worldwide

Narco-terrorist state and everyone's discussing trade?

Stop the aggression now!

Anti-Drug Effort at Border Is Readied
Obama Plans to Send Agents, Equipment To Aid Mexican Fight
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102247.html?hpid=topnews

"I don't think the administration wants to play into the hands of those who take a rather xenophobic stance with regard to immigration."

You ever get the feeling those of us in Oklahoma live on the open range of opposition to the Obamiens?

Tail wagging the dog.....

DoubleA:

I assume you are being an donkey and are not really this stupid.  I clearly did not say Oklahoma was a bad place and I clearly did not say everything was rosy in California or New York.   If you want to deny the fact that California and New York generate more wealth and more wealth per capita than Oklahoma than have at it.  I'm listening.

California booms and busts.  They take 10 steps forward and 2 steps back each decade.  In the meantime Oklahoma takes a few steps forward.  The sad truth is even when they are at a bust they still have more per capita wealth than Oklahoma does.  Looking at the stats we have twice the rape, equal the murders, 15% more property crime, more homelessness (by %, of course), a higher poverty rate, higher incarceration rate, slower economic growth (NET), more teenage mothers, less per capita income . . .  (seemingly attacking the myths that immigration causes crime while destroying values and reducing incomes).

I don't like everything California does, but on the whole they have generated a more prosperous people than Oklahoma has.  I could move anywhere I want to in the nation and have chosen to live here.  That doesn't mean I don't think it can be improved.

---

In any trade war the United States would be a net loser.   Mexico might lose more than we do, but I'd rather not lose at all.   Punishing Mexico by taking a few billion out of their economy while simultaneously taking a couple billion out of ours just doesn't make sense to me. 

Trade wars costs both sides.  One side will lose more than the other.  So yeah, we could probably grumble slap Mexico with a trade war of some kind into submission.  We'd prove ourselves right.  We'd lose billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, but man... we'd be right.