Bush decision to let Mexican trucks far into U.S. faces criticism

[PJay]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The news that Mexican trucks will be allowed to haul freight deeper into the United States drew an angry reaction Friday from labor leaders, safety advocates and members of Congress.

They said Mexico has substandard trucks and low-paid drivers that will threaten national security, cost thousands of jobs and endanger motorists on the northern side of the Mexican border

read on:

http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2007/02/24/news/national/310042232145976.txt

I ditto the readers comments.

 

[Lenny]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The news that Mexican trucks will be allowed to haul freight deeper into the United States drew an angry reaction Friday from labor leaders, safety advocates and members of Congress.

They said Mexico has substandard trucks and low-paid drivers that will threaten national security, cost thousands of jobs and endanger motorists on the northern side of the Mexican border

read on:

http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2007/02/24/news/national/310042232145976.txt

I ditto the readers comments.

Another of those damnable Clinton-era deals comes to haunt the U.S.

 

[scottrobts]

Another of those damnable Clinton-era deals comes to haunt the U.S.

correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't George H. Bush for NAFTA as well?

 

[PsyOps]

Another of those damnable Clinton-era deals comes to haunt the U.S.

Bush had/has an opportunity to fix this and he hasn't. This is the biggest damning part of the Bush admin. And, if we get hit again, and it is determined Bush's failure to seal the boarders enabled this to happen, I may be inclined to stand with the dems in that this could be an impeachable offense.

 

[ylexot]

I don't see the problem. :shrug:

 

[Lenny]

correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't George H. Bush for NAFTA as well?

Yes, George Herbert Walker Bush was in favor of NAFTA as was Ronald Reagan. And Ross Perot was against it. That just goes to show that it's roots were in the right place. But it didn't get ratified until 1994 which puts any damnable aspects in slick Willie's lap.

Bush had/has an opportunity to fix this and he hasn't. This is the biggest damning part of the Bush admin. And, if we get hit again, and it is determined Bush's failure to seal the boarders enabled this to happen, I may be inclined to stand with the dems in that this could be an impeachable offense.

What exactly would you have George W. Bush fix about the treaty? The treaty allows the trucks from 100 identifeid companies to drive beyond the border for a ways. I don't think they'll jeopardize any Maryland jobs.

 

[zimmie]

Bush had/has an opportunity to fix this and he hasn't. This is the biggest damning part of the Bush admin. And, if we get hit again, and it is determined Bush's failure to seal the boarders enabled this to happen, I may be inclined to stand with the dems in that this could be an impeachable offense.

Don't the majority of Democrats agree with Bush on an immigratipn policy?

 

[PsyOps]

What exactly would you have George W. Bush fix about the treaty? The treaty allows the trucks from 100 identifeid companies to drive beyond the border for a ways. I don't think they'll jeopardize any Maryland jobs.

This is just one issue with many that points to weak border control. To me it's not about jobs, it's about security. This is Bush's weakest policy; border control.

 

[desertrat]

This is just one issue with many that points to weak border control. To me it's not about jobs, it's about security. This is Bush's weakest policy; border control.

It's only partly about security. The main problem is the trucks may not be up to US safety standards and not insured by US companys if at all. The drivers are not subjected to the same rules, ie length of time they are allowed to operate without a siesta, etc.

 

[PsyOps]

It's only partly about security. The main problem is the trucks may not be up to US safety standards and not insured by US companys if at all. The drivers are not subjected to the same rules, ie length of time they are allowed to operate without a siesta, etc.

Even if these truckers have no intention of causing us problems, the problems they bring (no insurance, substandard safety, accidents, etc...) causes our law enforcement's attention to be diverted this rather than keeping us secure. To me it's all about security. You can screw the jobs if we can remain secure.

 

[PsyOps]

Don't the majority of Democrats agree with Bush on an immigratipn policy?

Not that I'm aware of. Bush wanted the wall to go up, the dems didn't. Problem is Congress didn't want to fully fund it. It was all smoke and mirrors. No matter what position Bush takes, the dems will go 180 from that.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I don't see the problem. :shrug:

Teamsters Union won't like that idea because it won't be thier trucks.

 

[Coventry17]

Bush will bend over backwards all day long rather than do anything even that has even a remote chance to piss off the Mexicans. Isn't it funny that when Bush does something the Neo-Cons don't like, they immediately shift the blame to Clinton?

 

[Bustem' Down]

Bush will bend over backwards all day long rather than do anything even that has even a remote chance to piss off the Mexicans. Isn't it funny that when Bush does something the Neo-Cons don't like, they immediately shift the blame to Clinton?

And the Dems blame everything including natural disasters on Bush.

Now that we have the basic fingerpointing out of the way....

 

[ylexot]

Teamsters Union won't like that idea because it won't be thier trucks.

I just noticed this:

Said Teamsters President Jim Hoffa: "They are playing a game of Russian roulette on America's highways."

They found him!

 

[ylexot]

It's only partly about security. The main problem is the trucks may not be up to US safety standards and not insured by US companys if at all. The drivers are not subjected to the same rules, ie length of time they are allowed to operate without a siesta, etc.

According to the Transportation Department, U.S. inspectors will inspect every truck and interview drivers to make sure they can read and speak English. They'll examine trucks and check the licenses, insurance and driving records of the Mexican drivers. Inspectors will also verify that the trucking companies are insured by U.S.-licensed firms.

:shrug:

Frankly, I'm more concerned about US trucks...

One-fourth of all U.S. trucks are taken off the road after random inspections because they're so unsafe

 

[SamSpade]

Bush will bend over backwards all day long rather than do anything even that has even a remote chance to piss off the Mexicans. Isn't it funny that when Bush does something the Neo-Cons don't like, they immediately shift the blame to Clinton?

Do you even know what a Neo Con *IS*, or do you like so many, use it as a euphemism for "conservatives I don't like"?

 

[ylexot]

"conservatives I don't like"

That implies that there are conservatives that they do like :shrug:

 

[SamSpade]

That implies that there are conservatives that they do like :shrug:

See, there's a big difference, but it's like saying "Christian" when you mean "fundamentalist" or "Asian" when you mean "North Korean".

 

[2ndAmendment]

See, there's a big difference, but it's like saying "Christian" when you mean "fundamentalist" or "Asian" when you mean "North Korean".

Or saying "Christian" when you mean "church goer."