Any Guru comments about US roads NOW open to Mexican Trucks?
 

This should turn the whole industry upside down, as well as our roads which will be supporting fire-bomb trucks with no additional taxes.

Just like illegal aliens: all benefits go to cheap-azz Industry while the tax payers will foot the bills for roads and illegal alien benefits.

Trucking will be the last of good middle class jobs sucked out of the USA that will go to either China for marked up poor quality goods, or illegal aliens entering FL in loaded cruise ships daily.

Good job GW and Jeb Bush!

Seems to me newbies may never taste successful wages and veterans have their days numbered before they will have to accept lowered wages.

Your right wages will go down for truckers... thats a no brainer. But if your CEO your looking great....

LAREDO, Texas - Dozens of truckers rallied at Mexican border crossings in California and Texas Thursday to protest a pilot program to allow up to 100 Mexican trucking companies to haul their cargo anywhere in the United States.

Carrying signs reading "NAFTA Kills" and "Unsafe Mexican Trucks," a few dozen protesters circled in the heat for two hours at Laredo's port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border.
"What do we want? Safe highways. When do we want them? Now!" they chanted.
The U.S. Transportation Department said no Mexican trucks had arrived under the program as of late Thursday afternoon. But 38 Mexican firms were poised for U.S. permits, said Melissa Mazzella DeLaney, a spokeswoman for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which regulates truck safety.
The Teamsters union, Sierra Club and watchdog group Public Citizen sued to stop the program, arguing there won't be enough oversight of drivers, but a federal appeals court ruled the Bush administration could move ahead.
Government lawyers said the program is a necessary part of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the trucks would meet U.S. regulations.
Near San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing, dozens of truckers led by the Teamsters mixed with anti-illegal-immigration activists. Business was uninterrupted, said Lt. Hector Paredes of the California Highway Patrol, which inspects about 3,000 trucks a day at the crossing.
"We're already inspecting Mexican trucks and will continue to inspect them the same way," Paredes said. "These trucks already haul product from Tijuana to San Diego. Now they will be able to go beyond San Diego."
Critics such as Teamsters organizer Hugo Flores doubt that Mexican drivers will be held to the same rules, such as the length of work shifts and drug testing.
"There are no means to regulate these guys. Bush has opened up highways to unsafe trucks," Flores said at the Laredo protest. "I don't want them sharing the roads with my family."
NAFTA requires that all roads in the United States, Mexico and Canada be opened to carriers from all three countries. Canadian trucking companies already have full access to U.S. roads, but Mexican trucks can travel only about 20 miles inside the country at certain border crossings.
The one-year pilot program is designed to study whether opening the U.S.-Mexico border to all trucks could be done safely.
The government says it has imposed rigorous safety protocols in the program, including drug and alcohol testing for drivers done by U.S. companies. Additionally, law enforcement officials have stepped up nationwide enforcement of a law requiring interstate truck and bus drivers to have a basic understanding of written and spoken English.
Besides the safety issues, Flores said there are also concerns about job security and pollution from emissions.
"Now they're trying to export all our driving jobs to Mexico," Flores said. "That's one less American job."
At a Petro truck stop near El Paso along Interstate 10, reactions to the program were mixed.
Carlos Moreno, who has been a truck driver for nearly four decades, said he doesn't begrudge anyone trying to make a living.
"There's enough for all of us," said Moreno, an El Paso resident.
But he is concerned that some of the drivers from Mexico can't read highway signs written in English. "You can always tell in construction zones," he said.
Omar Nunez, a 34-year-old driver from Pecos, said he worries that freight prices will drop as shippers turn to Mexican trucking companies that may offer cheaper services.
"As it is, I'm barely making it right now," he said.
Among those most concerned were a group of drivers gathered at the Flying J truck stop in Edinburg, Texas. Much of their business has come from picking up loads that Mexican drivers previously had to leave at the border.
"That's my business," said Gerald Fernow, 36, from Flatonia, Texas. "What am I supposed to do? I'm screwed."
___
Associated Press writers Alicia A. Caldwell in El Paso, Lynn Brezosky in Edinburg and Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.

I think if we really apply ourselves, we can start at least 10 more threads on this same subject and say the same things over and over and over and over........

Originally Posted by Sheepdancer:
I think if we really apply ourselves, we can start at least 10 more threads on this same subject and say the same things over and over and over and over........

Doesn't that show you how concerned drivers are? I'm sure you get the same "comish" regardless who you recruit. For that reason, and we already know your stand point, you may remove yourself from any further discussion on this topic, if you don't like it. :wink:

ddog, Nafta was implemented Jan ,1, 1994, Bill Clinton was president,
. As you can see below the opening of the borders were part of the
Nafta agreement . "Partial access 1995,full access in 2000" . Although
full access was not opened until 2007, the plan was in place from the get go. I am not a GW fan but the facts are that Bill Clinton signed the agreement. This is the info I came up with , if you find that it is wrong
please let me know . Darin








INVASION USA
Mexican truckers to hit
U.S. roadways next year
Transportation secretary vows to release
1-year, NAFTA pilot plan by December

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 1, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com





Under the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA – the borders were to open partially to truckers from both countries in 1995. Full access was promised by 2000. Because of the restrictions on Mexican trucks, the Mexican government has imposed limits on U.S. truckers.

Originally Posted by continental:

Originally Posted by Sheepdancer:
I think if we really apply ourselves, we can start at least 10 more threads on this same subject and say the same things over and over and over and over........

Doesn't that show you how concerned drivers are? :

It shows that a good portion of the drivers on this forum don't know how to use the search engine.

Re: Any Guru comments about US roads NOW open to Mexican Tru
 

Originally Posted by ddog:
This should turn the whole industry upside down, as well as our roads which will be supporting fire-bomb trucks with no additional taxes.

Just like illegal aliens: all benefits go to cheap-azz Industry while the tax payers will foot the bills for roads and illegal alien benefits.

Trucking will be the last of good middle class jobs sucked out of the USA that will go to either China for marked up poor quality goods, or illegal aliens entering FL in loaded cruise ships daily.

Good job GW and Jeb Bush!

Seems to me newbies may never taste successful wages and veterans have their days numbered before they will have to accept lowered wages.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

It is impossible for them to use the search engine, impossible for them to simply view the page to see that there are at least to threads started on the subject and of course REALLY impossible for them to separate the issues of illegal immigration and legal workers.

Originally Posted by continental:

Originally Posted by Sheepdancer:
I think if we really apply ourselves, we can start at least 10 more threads on this same subject and say the same things over and over and over and over........

Doesn't that show you how concerned drivers are? I'm sure you get the same "comish" regardless who you recruit. For that reason, and we already know your stand point, you may remove yourself from any further discussion on this topic, if you don't like it. :wink:

What in the world does this subject have to do with recruiting? American companies will never hire mexican drivers. THESE ARE MEXICAN COMPANIES USING MEXICAN DRIVERS TO HAUL MEXICAN FREIGHT.
Im sure recruiters down in mexico are busy right now. But that has nothing to do with us.

If you are going to let your paranoia get the best of you and you really truly believe that 5 years from now american truck drivers are only going to make 15cpm because of this, why dont you start looking for another career? If you are 100% sure all this negative stuff is going to happen, wouldnt that be the smart thing to do?

I idisagree Sheepdancer....these are US companies taking advantage of cheaper freight costs. So a company from Mass will now be able to bring freight in from Mexico at Mexican (not US) freight rates. And YES...this is different from Canadians in that the pay scale for Canadian drivers is more on a par with the US so there won't be a huge incentive for US companies to "run for the border" with Canada.

This will also fuel an increase in the Maquiladoras...ie the US companies that set up manufacturing operations just over the border to take advantage of cheap Mexican labor. NOW they will also benefit from having Mexican carriers (and drivers) haul the product anywhere in the US that they want to. Plus they will get backhaul privileges to take loads back to Near?) the border.

AND...they will increase International port facilities just over the border in Mexico because of the cheap dockworkers and now they can haul that offloaded freight anywhere in the US.

This will serve to eliminate US driver jobs and drive down rates.

I agree that if you are a driver and you are 100% running freight from wherever to the border, you probably are eventually going to have to look for something else in the industry to do. However, 99% of the freight in this country doesnt run to the border.
Ok lets look at this.....say out of the millions of drivers in this country 1% of those drivers consistantly run freight to the border. That 1% will probably need to move to another run in the industry. At the same time because companies using the mexican drivers to run freight to the border are showing a lot more profit, the pay for 99% will go up. HIGHER PROFITS ARE GOOD FOR EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR A COMPANY.
Profits are the reason any of us have jobs anyway. Lack of profit is why people lose jobs.
You know when companies started using the rails more for border freight many drivers said the same things they are saying now. We at JB use the rails more than any other trucking company. It didnt cause us to cut jobs or cut pay. In fact it created MORE jobs. It created MORE PROFIT and that benefits EVERYONE including the drivers.

Originally Posted by Sheepdancer:
I agree that if you are a driver and you are 100% running freight from wherever to the border, you probably are eventually going to have to look for something else in the industry to do. However, 99% of the freight in this country doesnt run to the border.
Ok lets look at this.....say out of the millions of drivers in this country 1% of those drivers consistantly run freight to the border. That 1% will probably need to move to another run in the industry. At the same time because companies using the mexican drivers to run freight to the border are showing a lot more profit, the pay for 99% will go up. HIGHER PROFITS ARE GOOD FOR EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR A COMPANY.
Profits are the reason any of us have jobs anyway. Lack of profit is why people lose jobs.
You know when companies started using the rails more for border freight many drivers said the same things they are saying now. We at JB use the rails more than any other trucking company. It didnt cause us to cut jobs or cut pay. In fact it created MORE jobs. It created MORE PROFIT and that benefits EVERYONE including the drivers.

Here's the issue you don't understand since you are NOT a driver. A very large percentage of freight comes out of Laredo, El Paso and San Diego. There a several harbors in Mexico that are being expanded to route container traffic away from L.A., Seattle, etc.

The reasoning is it's cheaper for shippers to run those containers in Mexican harbors(workers earn a lot less) and then move that freight over Mexican rail and trucks.

Another problem is companies moving their manufacturing south too. So again they can produce products with cheap labor and now can move it anywhere in the U.S. with cheap drivers.

I don't think some people have put a whole lot of thought into just how much this will affect American drivers. You just believe what the government and big corporate America tells you.

SD, ask your OTR drivers how many times a month the go to Laredo or El Paso to pick up or drop off loads. I think you'll be surprised.

No offense Sheepdancer, but I doubt seriously if the "excess" profits derived from the 1%, will be passed in its entireity to the 99%. The company has the intial expense to recapture, then upper level stock options and bonuses. Then the everyday increases in benefits cost, insurance, maintanence, fuel etc., and count in for inflation, after, or IF, any of the 1% is left over, then that amount can be passed on to the 99%.
Granted it was many moons ago when I was a economics major, But I am having a difficult time understanding the new "globalism." This country has lost 3 MILLION manufacturing jobs since 2000. Please tell me how taking, say a 45K and year job with benefits, and shipping that job to another country, then having the taxpayer expense of retraining those displaced workers to have a 40K a year job with less benefits. Then take the 40K a year job, that is displaced again, retrain again, and now you have a 30K a year job with even less in benefits, how does this benefit the US economy overall?
Sorry, I degress, the the subject was, Mexicans. I think it is too early to tell overall, but I would venture a guess, that it doesn't look good long term for the American trucker trying to make a living. Or for new hires to enter the industry. But, if there are no Americans entering the industry, then corporations will say that they hire the Mexicans because no American will do the job. Wait, this is beginning to sound like a broken record.
My apologies, having trouble understanding again. Didn't mean to hijack the forum.

Originally Posted by :
Granted it was many moons ago when I was a economics major, But I am having a difficult time understanding the new "globalism." This country has lost 3 MILLION manufacturing jobs since 2000. Please tell me how taking, say a 45K and year job with benefits, and shipping that job to another country, then having the taxpayer expense of retraining those displaced workers to have a 40K a year job with less benefits. Then take the 40K a year job, that is displaced again, retrain again, and now you have a 30K a year job with even less in benefits, how does this benefit the US economy overall?
Sorry, I degress, the the subject was, Mexicans. I think it is too early to tell overall, but I would venture a guess, that it doesn't look good long term for the American trucker trying to make a living. Or for new hires to enter the industry. But, if there are no Americans entering the industry, then corporations will say that they hire the Mexicans because no American will do the job. Wait, this is beginning to sound like a broken record.
My apologies, having trouble understanding again. Didn't mean to hijack the forum.

Losing manufacturing jobs isnt always a bad thing. In a tech age machines replace a lot of manual jobs of the past. Also manufacturing jobs are lost because there is no need any longer for what they are manufacuring. Example: Think about all the typewriter manufacurers who lost their jobs in the early 80s. I dont think anyone would argue that we should have done something to save the jobs of the poor typewriter manufacturers.
Which kind of segways into the other portion of your post. You say that this will hurt trucking "long term". How much longer do you think truck driving is going to be around? Its only been around for 100 or so years...do you honestly think it will be around in 100, 50, or 30 years.....
Im a technology buff, Im always reading and researching new technologies. Ive seen things that are only 10-15 years away that will make semi trucks hauling cross country pretty much obsolete. Personally, I believe that in 25-30 years you wont see a demand for OTR drivers at all. It will be replaced with something more high tech. Really when you think about it, if you were to have told typerwriter manufactures in 1970 that they would no longer be needed in 1985 because people would have computers in their homes, most of those people would have said that you were crazy.
Personally if I were a young person just starting out and looking at a life long carreer choice in truck driving, I would be watching the technology closely and perhaps constantly training myself for higher tech jobs.
I really feel that the days of someone being able to come into this industry and being a driver for 35-40 years is gone. One that same note, I dont think my sons will be able to follow in my footsteps either and be a great driver recruiter like their daddy... :lol:

Of course technology advances will always replace other ways of doing things. But generally speaking, it is a more "paced" evolution. But with high tech also comes high speed. Faster changes. If you are replacing those jobs with equal or greater paying jobs, then that is definately a good thing.
My reference was more to the "flight" of jobs out of our country, to overseas locations. This is done to simply to lower manufacturing costs. The jobs weren't lost to technology. But you would think also that prices would be lower also, especially considering the companies relocating are given tax breaks for the constuction of the new manufacturing plants in the foreign country, tax breaks for costs pertaining to the closing their American plants and liberal tariff structures to allow those very same products back in the US. Of course the biggie is maybe the taxation on corporate profits derived from foreign operations. You would think these companies could or would increase their measly dividends (if any) to their sharholders at least. But these days it seems most of the "excess" profits are eaten up at the top level of management thru stock options and generous "retirement" benefits.
But I am certain you are correct, you are far more knowledgable than I, maybe another good 5 years as a driver?

Originally Posted by geomon:
This will also fuel an increase in the Maquiladoras...ie the US companies that set up manufacturing operations just over the border to take advantage of cheap Mexican labor. NOW they will also benefit from having Mexican carriers (and drivers) haul the product anywhere in the US that they want to. Plus they will get backhaul privileges to take loads back to Near?) the border.
.

Mexico can't compete with China for cheap labor anymore. It took so long for NAFTA to be implemented that the cheap labor moved on.

PackRatTDI:
Your correct, the $1.00 per hour has lost out to the $.05 cents per hour!

Originally Posted by Sheepdancer:
I think if we really apply ourselves, we can start at least 10 more threads on this same subject and say the same things over and over and over and over........

You're just drooling over the prospects of recruiting 50,000 new drivers to work for $0.19 a mile for your master JB, you anti-American evil goat sucker!

¡Solamente estás babeando mientras piensas en reclutando a 50.000 conductores nuevos para trabajar por $0,19 por milla para tu maestro JB, tu chupacabras antiestadounidense!

(Is this way past too far yet? I hope so, because I'm bored with this, Sheepdancer.)

I pretty much agree with Sheepdancer, the subject is being reintroduced and rehashed over and over on a daily basis.
Just keep your eyes open and hope for the best. Remember the elections are in 2008. You can make it a issue if you want.
Heres a article from newsmax.com . Copy and paste.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/mex...mo_code=39A5-1

Originally Posted by Sheepdancer:

Originally Posted by continental:

Originally Posted by Sheepdancer:
I think if we really apply ourselves, we can start at least 10 more threads on this same subject and say the same things over and over and over and over........

Doesn't that show you how concerned drivers are? I'm sure you get the same "comish" regardless who you recruit. For that reason, and we already know your stand point, you may remove yourself from any further discussion on this topic, if you don't like it. :wink:

What in the world does this subject have to do with recruiting? American companies will never hire mexican drivers. THESE ARE MEXICAN COMPANIES USING MEXICAN DRIVERS TO HAUL MEXICAN FREIGHT.
Im sure recruiters down in mexico are busy right now. But that has nothing to do with us.

If you are going to let your paranoia get the best of you and you really truly believe that 5 years from now american truck drivers are only going to make 15cpm because of this, why dont you start looking for another career? If you are 100% sure all this negative stuff is going to happen, wouldnt that be the smart thing to do?

I have to respectfully disagree also! There are a couple of U.S. based companies that have been chomping at the bit for this to be implemented, as they have intererest in companies south of the border. One has big red trucks, one has orange trucks and one has white w/yellow trim trucks. They already have hired Mexican drivers, they own the companies. One of the top executives from one of these companies had the nerve to tell the ATA President to back off of the lawsuit that was filed against the FMCSA, or his company would withdraw from the ATA. Now if that ain't some BS.

The above is not paranoia, pure fact! As a said with all respect, you have some excellent points that I agree with. Catch ya later.

The northern herd was peacefully grazing on their lush greens, when one of the sheep noticed the southern herd was advancing.
-They're coming-he yelled.
-No, they're not-said the Sheepherder.
-No, they're not-echoed his faitful sheepdog, Fuzzy.
-But I can see them coming- said the sheep.
-What now, master?-asked the concerned faithful sheepdog, Fuzzy.
-We'll stand between them to block their view!-said the crafty Sheepherder.
-But I can still smell them- said the sheep.
-What now master-panicked the concerned but still faithful sheepdog, Fuzzy.
-We'll distruct them with loud farts- answered the Sheepherder.
-But I know they're coming-said the sheep.
-Don't worry-said the Sheepherder-they're bringing their own grass.
-Bringing their own grass-repeted the parrot dog.
...to be continued.

Re: Any Guru comments about US roads NOW open to Mexican Tru
 

Originally Posted by ddog:
This should turn the whole industry upside down, as well as our roads which will be supporting fire-bomb trucks with no additional taxes.

Just like illegal aliens: all benefits go to cheap-azz Industry while the tax payers will foot the bills for roads and illegal alien benefits.

Trucking will be the last of good middle class jobs sucked out of the USA that will go to either China for marked up poor quality goods, or illegal aliens entering FL in loaded cruise ships daily.

Good job GW and Jeb Bush!

Seems to me newbies may never taste successful wages and veterans have their days numbered before they will have to accept lowered wages.

Originally Posted by gordoUSA:
No offense Sheepdancer, but I doubt seriously if the "excess" profits derived from the 1%, will be passed in its entireity to the 99%. The company has the intial expense to recapture, then upper level stock options and bonuses. Then the everyday increases in benefits cost, insurance, maintanence, fuel etc., and count in for inflation, after, or IF, any of the 1% is left over, then that amount can be passed on to the 99%.
Granted it was many moons ago when I was a economics major, But I am having a difficult time understanding the new "globalism." This country has lost 3 MILLION manufacturing jobs since 2000. Please tell me how taking, say a 45K and year job with benefits, and shipping that job to another country, then having the taxpayer expense of retraining those displaced workers to have a 40K a year job with less benefits. Then take the 40K a year job, that is displaced again, retrain again, and now you have a 30K a year job with even less in benefits, how does this benefit the US economy overall?
Sorry, I degress, the the subject was, Mexicans. I think it is too early to tell overall, but I would venture a guess, that it doesn't look good long term for the American trucker trying to make a living. Or for new hires to enter the industry. But, if there are no Americans entering the industry, then corporations will say that they hire the Mexicans because no American will do the job. Wait, this is beginning to sound like a broken record.
My apologies, having trouble understanding again. Didn't mean to hijack the forum.

You hit the nail on the head, Gordousa and Ddog.


It used to be that what was good for American corporations, and the venerable shareholders, was also good for American citizens, but that concept has become a romantic memory. What's good for American corporations is probably good for workers in some foreign country who just got a pay increase from 30 cents an hour to 31 cents an hour.

American corporations have actively expanded into other countries, and have created the "globalism" we now enjoy. It didn't just happen. American corporations created "globalism" for their own benefit.


Unless it can be stopped by political forces, what I foresee for trucking is that the "shortage" ( and I agree there is somewhat of a shoratge of drivers) will be filled with increases in drivers from foreign countries with work visas, and the relocating of trucking companies to Mexico, as you mentioned.

The CEO's I guarantee you, are thinking "Why do I have to pay that trucker $50,000 a year plus benefits, when I am only paying that factory worker $20,000 a year plus benefits ??" They can't stand to see any blue collar person make much more than minimum wage.


I am surprised Bush and congress hasn't already allowed the floodgates to open with work visa truckers. Could they possibly want to protect the jobs of American-born truckers? I really believe some do. Like senator Jeff Sessions.

I think the Kennedy/ McCain amnesty crap was all about getting a large new supply of legal truckers and other workers. The the millions of Mexicans with amnesty could (and would) become truckers legally and the huge new wave of labor could push wages down to that happy $20,000 a year plus benefits that makes the CEOs happy. And hey, if Hillary gets in, and Universal health care begins, the corporations won't even have that expense. ! Just shove it onto the good ole taxpayer.


I really think that if we call our congressmen we can stop the loss of our wages, or slow it down. There was a house bill passed that calls for the cancelling of the Mexican truck pilot program. The Senate has not yet voted on it. We need to call our senators and urge them to vote for the cancelling of the Mex truck program. I think they actually care what we think.

Originally Posted by Darin Younce:
ddog, Nafta was implemented Jan ,1, 1994, Bill Clinton was president,
. As you can see below the opening of the borders were part of the
Nafta agreement . "Partial access 1995,full access in 2000" . Although
full access was not opened until 2007, the plan was in place from the get go. I am not a GW fan but the facts are that Bill Clinton signed the agreement. This is the info I came up with , if you find that it is wrong
please let me know . Darin

I'm no Clinton fan but he walked into the NAFTA deal, He had nothing to do with the creation of NAFTA so I don't really think any blame should be put on him. The agreement was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed during December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries.

Here's the signing in 1992.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8592/naftasp5.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-0...n-impact_x.htm

But if you dig deeper Reagan had a big part of the "idea" of NAFTA

Promoting free trade policies

Reagan negotiations with Canada were the predecessors of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He expanded the scope of international agreements and helped expedite trade talks.

While much of his work did not come to fruition until the Clinton administration, supporters say he deserves credit for pursuing open markets in the face of then-record trade deficits.

I will agree with you that Clinton did not work out the details of NAFTA, most of that was done by Bush 1, but Clinton did sign it into law. Technically, by that standard if blame were going to be placed with anyone, he would have to be more to blame than any of the others since he certainly had the power to kill the Treaty. As a matter of fact, NAFTA was a big part of the debates in 1992. Clinton wouldn't say he was totally against NAFTA, but he was totally against the agreement as Bush had drawn it up. He even said something to effect of, if all he did was sign agreements that Bush worked out, what would be the need for him to even be President? Then when he had the chance to make all those changes to Bush's agreement, he didn't change one thing. Instead he complimented it very highly and enthusiastically signed it into law within his first year in office.

I'm sure that there are papers out there that will back this up, but I recall this from memory. It was a big part of the debates between Clinton, Bush and Perot. Now, that Perot fella didn't like NAFTA period! I'm sure there are transcripts out there somewhere if anyone cares to look them up...

Originally Posted by redsfan:
I will agree with you that Clinton did not work out the details of NAFTA, most of that was done by Bush 1, but Clinton did sign it into law. Technically, by that standard if blame were going to be placed with anyone, he would have to be more to blame than any of the others since he certainly had the power to kill the Treaty. As a matter of fact, NAFTA was a big part of the debates in 1992. Clinton wouldn't say he was totally against NAFTA, but he was totally against the agreement as Bush had drawn it up. He even said something to effect of, if all he did was sign agreements that Bush worked out, what would be the need for him to even be President? Then when he had the chance to make all those changes to Bush's agreement, he didn't change one thing. Instead he complimented it very highly and enthusiastically signed it into law within his first year in office.

I'm sure that there are papers out there that will back this up, but I recall this from memory. It was a big part of the debates between Clinton, Bush and Perot. Now, that Perot fella didn't like NAFTA period! I'm sure there are transcripts out there somewhere if anyone cares to look them up...

One has to remember also, that after Clinton signed NAFTA, he delayed the border opening the first time, supposedly for technical issues, but the real reason was that he was up for re-election and it was unpopular then. Then the second time, delayed it again, do to the next election, and did not want to tarnish his legacy by opening the border. The Monica Legacy was more worthy issue. :roll:

Originally Posted by countryhorseman:

One has to remember also, that after Clinton signed NAFTA, he delayed the border opening the first time, supposedly for technical issues, but the real reason was that he was up for re-election and it was unpopular then. Then the second time, delayed it again, do to the next election, and did not want to tarnish his legacy by opening the border. The Monica Legacy was more worthy issue. :roll:

Tarnish his legacy? I didn't know he had a legacy. Honestly, I don't remember him doing much of anything at all. In his defense, however, I will say that Bush 1 was pretty much a do-nothing President also. I prefer the ones that at least try something whether the results are good, bad or indifferent.

IMO, NAFTA and the Pilot Project were inevitable regardless of who was or will be President. There were and are proponents and opponents on both sides of the aisle. I'm not certain that it will prove to be a great thing, but I certainly don't believe in the doom and gloom naysayers either. My thinking is that it's here, we knew it was coming. Why not let things play out and see where it goes?

The Senate is scheduled to take a vote on the Cross Border Program in the morning. Call your Senators and express your opinions first thing in the morning. Below is an Alert from OOIDA earlier today. The Capitol switchboard has been flooded with calls on the issue since last week, and the Senate is finally paying attention. CALL!

Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) offered an amendment today that will slam the brakes on the Mexican trucking pilot program!

The Senators' amendment to the Senate's version of the FY08 transportation appropriations bill will cut off all funding for the DOT's cross-border pilot program.

In July the U.S. House of Representatives passed a similar amendment to their version of the FY08 transportations appropriations bill. The amendment will be voted on sometime tomorrow (Tuesday) morning.

Please contact both of your U.S. Senators ASAP to tell them to SUPPORT the "Dorgan-Specter cross-border trucking" amendment.

To contact your senators, call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, provide the operator with your home zip code and they will connect you with the office of your senators.


----------------------------------------------
SAMPLE MESSAGE:

"I am from ________ and I am adamantly opposed to the DOT's cross-border trucking pilot program. As my elected representative, I insist that the Senator votes for the Dorgan-Specter cross-border trucking amendment."

----------------------------------------------

Ok it happened, 2 whole mexican truck drivers came into this country and drove all the way to the northeast and delivered their loads.
On a completely different note that has nothing to with this subject, I would like to announce our new improved pay plan for drivers. Because of a "restructuring" of our corporate model, we have now lowered our driver pay to 6 cents per mile. I know you all will welcome this and help make this industry more profitable....thanks for your support.
Just kidding :wink:

Quote: (My thinking is that it's here, we knew it was coming. Why not let things play out and see where it goes?)

Sit. Stay. Roll Over. Good Boy!!!