U.S. makes deal to let in Mexico’s trucks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,741
569
126
Why'd Obama back down after Mexico slapped a tariff on some US goods? Does Mexico really want a trade war? Who do they think would lose in that one? According to the US Census Bureau, Mexico exports $66B more into the US than it imports in US goods. Any trade war is going to harm them worse than it harms the US.

Well, Obama is a huge pussy.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,045
30,333
136
Thank you Democrats for NAFTA.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.

...
In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, and with much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
You're welcome. :rolleyes:
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Unlikely. Theres already been assloads of incidents with illegals doing shit since the 70's, and no one tried to get rid of them.

Yeah this already happened in Virginia recently. Illegal drunk driver killed a family, went to jail. Was supposed to be deported. But then Obama's justice department released him instead of deporting him. Then he went drunk driving again and killed someone else.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,045
30,333
136
I had thought NAFTA was a largely conservative idea? As I recall Regan was the primary driving force behind it.
You can understand his confusion. He has been led to believe that it is democrats and their policies that are destroying this country so naturally this problem resulting from NAFTA must have come from them.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,809
944
126
Why'd Obama back down after Mexico slapped a tariff on some US goods? Does Mexico really want a trade war? Who do they think would lose in that one? According to the US Census Bureau, Mexico exports $66B more into the US than it imports in US goods. Any trade war is going to harm them worse than it harms the US.

trouble is that a good portion of that is probably oil.
Over a million barrels per day

The trucks coming from Mexico should be 100% inspected to be up to the same standards as the US ones are held to. Plus the same limits on how long drivers can drive for in a stretch.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0

Title has been corrected to remove trolling aspect and thread is now reopened for participation

EK
Admin
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
You sign it, you own it. So who signed NAFTA? So thanks Bill!

I actually agree with this. Clinton killed us with this. Zebo posted some interesting stats on NAFTA and some of the other "FREE trade" stuff that occured later. I'll try to dig it up.

There is a reason that wages are stagnant and 47&#37; don't pay income taxes on the Federal level....

This will cause massive jobs lost in trucking and at the border warehouses. Oh well, those people can go back to school and get a over paying gob at Intel.
 
Last edited:

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
I actually agree with this. Clinton killed us with this. Zebo posted some interesting stats on NAFTA and some of the other "FREE trade" stuff that occured later. I'll try to dig it up.

There is a reason that wages are stagnant and 47% don't pay income taxes on the Federal level....

This will cause massive jobs lost in trucking and at the border warehouses. Oh well, those people can go back to school and get a over paying gob at Intel.




The other part is that HWB was tossed out after 1 term. Why in the hell would you continue any parts of his administration since it was obviously a failure and the votes picked a new path? I don't care how much work on NAFTA was done prior to that, Clinton should never have signed that. He signed it because he wanted to and there should be no excuses of blaming Bush for that one.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
The other part is that HWB was tossed out after 1 term. Why in the hell would you continue any parts of his administration since it was obviously a failure and the votes picked a new path? I don't care how much work on NAFTA was done prior to that, Clinton should never have signed that. He signed it because he wanted to and there should be no excuses of blaming Bush for that one.

I'm not so sure that it wouldn't have passed (veto override) even in Clinton vetoed it. Regardless, EVERYONE who was for this piece of shit is at blame. That doesn't even go for the other so called FREE trade shit that he was for...and not Obama just signed 3 more of the so called FREE trade bullshit agreements. The foundation continues to crumble....
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally Posted by Nintendesert
Thank you Democrats for NAFTA.


I had thought NAFTA was a largely conservative idea? As I recall Regan was the primary driving force behind it.

Democrats have been supporting this as well.

Like to get them both out of power. Republicans seem more hell bent on destroying the country than Dems but Dems are not far behind.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
what's the big deal? so long as they're safe i don't see a problem. maybe an addiotonal driving test or a mandatory 20 hour retraining or someting
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Yeah this already happened in Virginia recently. Illegal drunk driver killed a family, went to jail. Was supposed to be deported. But then Obama's justice department released him instead of deporting him. Then he went drunk driving again and killed someone else.

Link? Only stories I saw involve one incident killing.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,045
30,333
136
The other part is that HWB was tossed out after 1 term. Why in the hell would you continue any parts of his administration since it was obviously a failure and the votes picked a new path? I don't care how much work on NAFTA was done prior to that, Clinton should never have signed that. He signed it because he wanted to and there should be no excuses of blaming Bush for that one.
Funny, you blame democrats, I point out that republicans had more to do with crafting NAFTA and then you translate that into me blaming Bush? It seems to me you think the only person that matters is the president. That's pretty ignorant.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
10
81
I wonder how productive government would be if there wasn't so much blame flying around.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,078
136
I wonder how productive government would be if there wasn't so much blame flying around.

By their very nature politicians CANT be productive. They dont create products or services of value. They manipulate those who do create products or services of value. In some cases to the point of actually screwing up a system that may have been fine on its own.
Of course, sometimes they also protect such entities. The issue we seem to be having is: In the last few decades, have they been more harmful or more helpful?
People cant seem to agree.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
I wanna see em try to deliver my package to hawaii... Tho what's next? Flying planes in from mexico and china? Ah well... I guess it really kinda fits the bill since have you seen those HUGE cargo ships that are made in china? Used to yes you guessed it delivery the billions of exported ipods and iphones from china.
 

ComradeBeck

Senior member
Jun 16, 2011
262
0
0
Neo-Liberalism is the elephant in the center of the room the US media avoids altogether even vaguely discussing in real terms. (outside of a few intellectuals) It is a huge problem in both parties. Hence the finger pointing back and forth for responsibility for the NAFTA debacle. I tend to find even people who are knowledgeable about politics don't even know what it is. This is a shame and a big part of why we are all are getting screwed by both sides of the aisle. Problem is to do so is to criticize the almighty sacred cow (but pretty much hollow useless term in US Politics) "free markets" they beat us over the head with so they can outsource/layoff/wage cut in the race to the bottom for the working class.
 
Last edited:

J-Money

Senior member
Feb 9, 2003
552
0
0
You sign it, you own it. So who signed NAFTA? So thanks Bill!

If all the original agreements and work are done by a Republican.
Voted on with Republican yes votes counting higher in both the Senate and House.
But signed by a Democrat it's a Democrat problem!

At the very least it you could argue it was both sides, which still renders your comment useless.

Congratulations Nintendesert on being the stereotypical problem with your country!
 
Last edited: