Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plan for superhighway ripped as 'urban legend'
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | January 26, 2007 | Jerome Corsi

Posted on 01/26/2007 6:42:51 AM PST by Paul Ross

Plan for superhighway ripped as 'urban legend'

Congressman, DOT undersecretary disagree over threat to sovereignty

By Jerome R. Corsi
January 26, 2007, WorldNetDaily.com


Jeffrey N. Shane, undersecretary for DOT

Jeffrey N. Shane, undersecretary for DOT Congressmen and a policy official of the Department of Transportation engaged in a spirited exchange over whether NAFTA Super Highways were a threat to U.S. sovereignty or an imaginary "Internet conspiracy," such as the "black helicopter myths," advanced by fringe lunatics.

At a meeting Wednesday of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Jeffrey N. Shane, undersecretary of transportation for policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation, testified.

During the questioning by committee members, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, asked Shane about the existence of plans for a "NAFTA superhighway."

Shane responded he was "not familiar with any plan at all, related to NAFTA or cross-border traffic."

After further questioning by Poe, Shane stated reports of NAFTA superhighways or corridors were "an urban legend."

At this, the chairman, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., questioned aloud whether Shane was just "gaming semantics" when responding to Poe's question.

"Mr. Shane was either blissfully ignorant or he may have been less than candid with the committee," Poe told WND in a telephone interview.

Asked about the Department of Transportation's work with Dallas-based trade group NASCO, the North American SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., and the Texas Department of Transportation plans to build the Trans-Texas Corridor, Poe told WND "the NAFTA superhighway plans exist to move goods from Mexico through the United States to Canada. It appears to be another one of the open-border philosophies that chips away at American sovereignty, all in the name of so-called trade."

Poe said there are security obstacles to the project that must be addressed.

"I don't understand why the federal government isn't getting public input on this," he said. "We get comments like Mr. Shane's instead of our own government asking the people of the United States what they think about all of this. This big business coming through Mexico may not be good business for the United States."

Poe continued to insist "the public ought to make this decision, especially the states that are affected, such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and all the way through up to Canada. The public needs to make input on this. So, I don't understand, unless there's some other motive, why the public isn't being told about these plans and why the public is not invited to make input."

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., introduced House Concurrent Resolution 40 earlier this week to express the sense of Congress that the United States should not build a NAFTA superhighway system and should not enter into an agreement with Mexico and Canada to form a North American Union.

Asked to comment on Shane's response to Poe, Goode dismissed Shane's claim that NAFTA superhighways were just another "urban legend."

"Let's take Mr. Shane at his word. Let Mr. Shane come over here from the Department of Transportation and endorse House Concurrent Resolution 40," he said. "If, in his mind he's not doing anything to promote a NAFTA superhighway and he's not doing anything to promote the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, then he won't mind joining his voice with ours to be in opposition to any such 'urban legend,' as he so calls it."

Goode added this comment in a playful retort to Shane's attempt to dismiss the discussion: "My prediction is Mr. Shane will run for the timber."

In a serious tone, Goode objected to Shane's attempt to play what he agreed was a game of semantics.

"When President Bush had the meeting in Waco, Texas, the three leaders called the new arrangement the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,' SPP for short," Goode said. "But, as is suggested by Congressman DeFazio at the hearing, the intent of people like Mr. Shane is to use different words and different names as a way to deflect attention from what they are really doing."

Asked about White House Press Secretary Snow's denial that there was any White House plan to create a North American Union, Goode's reply also was direct.

"I guess Mr. Snow is saying that a Security and Prosperity Partnership and a North American Union are not one and the same," he said. "That's just the use of his words, but is he denying that President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin had the meeting and came up with the Security and Prosperity Partnership in 2005? I doubt it."

Also present in the audience at the subcommittee meeting was Rod Nofzinger, director of Government Affairs for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. Nofzinger told WND Shane's denial struck him as less than genuine. In an e-mail to WND, Nofzinger commented:

"Considering what we know about the Bush administration's efforts to open the border to Mexican trucks and that DOT officials have met with groups such as NASCO, I was truly surprised to hear Mr. Shane say flat out that he had no knowledge of plans or meetings related to NAFTA or cross-border surface trade corridors."

Substantiating Nofzinger's argument is a speech Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta gave April 30, 2004, at a NASCO forum in Fort Worth, Texas. Mineta told the NASCO meeting:

"NAFTA has opened the doors to expanding and flourishing trade across our borders. Since its implementation, total U.S. trade with Mexico has increased almost 200 percent – with 70 percent of the U.S./Mexico trade passing through Texas.

"There are, however, some things that we still need to do in the United States to fulfill our obligations under the NAFTA treaty. One of them is to finally open the market between Mexico and the United States for trucking and busing."

Mineta continued:

"And to our friends from Mexico who are here today, I say, 'Welcome, and get ready.' Opening the border is of mutual benefit."

Specifically referring to Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94 – the core highways supported by NASCO as a prime "North American Super Corridor" – Mineta commented:

"You also recognized that the success of the NAFTA relationship depends on mobility – on the movement of people, of products, and of capital across borders. "The people in this room have vision. Thinking ahead, thinking long-term, you began to make aggressive plans to develop the NASCO trade corridor – this vital artery in our national transportation through which so much of our NAFTA traffic flows.

"It flows across our nation's busiest southern border crossing in Laredo; over North America's busiest commercial crossing, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit; and through Duluth, and Pembina, North Dakota, and all the places in between."

In a statement provided WND by e-mail, DeFazio cut past Shane's attempt to dismiss the subject by ridicule, writing:

In the hearing, Undersecretary of Transportation for Policy Jeff Shane, in response to a question from Representative Ted Poe, said the NAFTA superhighway was an urban legend. Whatever the case, it is a fact that highway capacity is growing to and from the border to facilitate trade, and there is no doubt that the volume of imports from Mexico has soared since NAFTA, straining security at the U.S. border. Plans of Asian trading powers to divert cargo from U.S. ports like Los Angeles to ports in Mexico will only put added pressure on border inspectors. The U.S. needs to invest in better border security, including enhanced screening of cargo crossing our land borders.

Shane declined to comment for this article.

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



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: corsi; cuespookymusic; kookmagnetthread; morethorazineplease; nafta; nasco; sppnau; superhighway; transtinfoilcorridor; wnd; xfiles
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last
Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: Paul Ross
There should be no problem security-wise with a Nafta highway from Mexico to Canada.

After we build the continuous Gulf-of-Mexico to Pacific border fence with Mexico, it would then be a piece of cake to build TWO more fences, one a bit to the east of the Northbound lanes, and one a bit to the west of the Southbound lanes. Its just another couple of thousand miles of fence, no?

...with border patrols at every exit.

2 posted on 01/26/2007 6:50:57 AM PST by C210N (Bush SPIED, Terrorists DIED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Plan for superhighway ripped as 'urban legend'.

Congressman, DOT undersecretary disagree over threat to sovereignty

It is no more of a threat to U.S. sovereignty than another 'urban legend'....the illegal immigrant invasion. /sarc

3 posted on 01/26/2007 6:52:33 AM PST by Boston Blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Perry is pushing this to help Mexico and China.
It will hurt most port cities and small time truckers!
It will do only harm to the USA but it will help the Global companies and the Norte American Union.

Not a plus for America!
4 posted on 01/26/2007 6:53:38 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
There's no such thing as a NAFTA SuperHighway There's no US troops in Iraq

5 posted on 01/26/2007 6:55:45 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"It appears to be another one of the open-border philosophies that chips away at American sovereignty, all in the name of so-called trade."


....because, as we all know, it is currently impossible to drive from Mexico to Canada through the US now. <sarcasm

All I can say is WTF?
6 posted on 01/26/2007 6:57:30 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker; Registered
LOL!

Good Old Baghdad Bob! Put some specs, a green uniform, and a black beret on Shane, and 'oila, I think you're on to something here!

7 posted on 01/26/2007 6:57:46 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: monday
...because, as we all know, it is currently impossible to drive from Mexico to Canada through the US now

They want Mexican trucks to roll freely through the U.S. without any U.S. laws getting in the way. The U.S. and its laws will be subordinated to the SPP/NAU "agreement".

8 posted on 01/26/2007 6:59:39 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Indiana is doing its part. Selling the I80-I90 toll road. The port to fort project, involving building a 4 lane US24 between Fort Wayne IN and Toledo OH. The idea of extending I69 farther south with a toll road around Naptowne. Those illegals can get through the state quickly and be on their way to Detroit and points north and east with rapid progress.


9 posted on 01/26/2007 7:07:02 AM PST by lmailbvmbipfwedu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N
"be a piece of cake to build TWO more fences"

That would be to keep one group of people from running across the highway and getting run over?

10 posted on 01/26/2007 7:08:24 AM PST by Deguello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: monday; Paul Ross
All I can say is WTF?

Jerome Corsi, WorldNetDaily

Enough said. Jerry thinks the Mexicans are coming to get us all and we'll have a 'North American Union' by Christmas...Toss in Crazy Joe and the black helicopters are warming up on the pad as we speak...

They want Mexican trucks to roll freely through the U.S. without any U.S. laws getting in the way. The U.S. and its laws will be subordinated to the SPP/NAU "agreement".

No really I heard the trucks will be full of Mexicans. That's why they can't inspect them at the border. They're just moving in to take our jobs and don't want anyone to know...sort of like 10,000 Trojan Horses full of people. Sneaky Mexicans.....I just hope they don't complete the highway going north. I mean Mexicans are bad enough but think of the travesty if Canadians invaded us.....we'd be eating back bacon and all drinking Nabob coffee before we knew it!!

11 posted on 01/26/2007 7:15:22 AM PST by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C210N
...such as the "black helicopter myths," advanced by fringe lunatics.

LMAO! So, then the critics are correct--the superhighway IS a threat to national sovereignty? Because the black helicopters damned sure weren't myths.

There are fringe lunatics, but this guy should look in the mirror to find one.

12 posted on 01/26/2007 7:19:12 AM PST by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N

We can't build a border fence/security zone but some want to build a 1/4 mile wide, fenced secured and patrolled concrete and asphalt corridor that divides the country in two.

Our leadership's priorities are screwed up and detrimental to the security of this country.


13 posted on 01/26/2007 7:22:50 AM PST by Rb ver. 2.0 (A Muslim soldier can never be loyal to a non-Muslim commander.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
They want Mexican trucks to roll freely through the U.S. without any U.S. laws getting in the way.

Mexican trucks will have some form of rolling diplomatic immunity. Cool. Now I can buy Bohemia by the truckload in Vera Cruz cheap, and have it delivered without the revenoors getting in the way.

Now, if I could figure out a way to truck beer from Munich.

14 posted on 01/26/2007 8:22:25 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: C210N
It's absolutely true. Governor Mitch is gearing up to steal a bunch of farmland and plow though our end of I69 in Indiana.

But who cares as long as we can keep buying cheap stuff!! /s
15 posted on 01/26/2007 8:28:23 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rb ver. 2.0
. . . but some want to build a 1/4 mile wide, fenced secured and patrolled concrete and asphalt corridor that divides the country in two.

Making it the Road to Partition. [rimshot]

16 posted on 01/26/2007 8:32:47 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Mexican trucks will have some form of rolling diplomatic immunity.


Coming to your backyard...soon.

17 posted on 01/26/2007 8:39:53 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

I have GOT to get into the Mexican trucking business. I won't even put lamps on mine, and tell them to run at night with absolutely no regard for the speed limit.


18 posted on 01/26/2007 8:43:53 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: C210N

"I don't understand why the federal government isn't getting public input on this,"

Because we have elections and don't micromanage policy. If we did, the borders would be secure.


19 posted on 01/26/2007 8:58:16 AM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I won't even put lamps on mine, and tell them to run at night with absolutely no regard for the speed limit.

Awww, ya Gotta have the head lamps to give all us Gringos a really good scare!


20 posted on 01/26/2007 8:59:07 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jammer
Because the black helicopters damned sure weren't myths.

Were they flying over your house?

21 posted on 01/26/2007 9:00:00 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Why is everything always blamed on the fringe lunatics, why don't the mainstream lunatics have to answer for their foolishness?


22 posted on 01/26/2007 9:01:07 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rb ver. 2.0

23 posted on 01/26/2007 9:02:35 AM PST by meg88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Great movie, btw. Love Dennis Weaver (RIP).


24 posted on 01/26/2007 9:02:54 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
But who cares as long as we can keep buying cheap stuff!!

Pay more for your stuff. For the children!!

25 posted on 01/26/2007 9:06:37 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: C210N

It's far worse than anybody suspects.

I've heard rumors they're planning not just one road, but a thing called "The Interstate Highway System" that's supposed to be ALL OVER the country. Apparently this attack on our sovereignty dates all the way back to the *Eisenhower* administration. I'm shocked-- shocked! that even a war hero like him could imagine such a dastardly thing.


26 posted on 01/26/2007 9:11:34 AM PST by Ramius ([sip])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Because the black helicopters damned sure weren't myths.

Status. True.


Check out Wikipedia's assessment:

Black helicopter facts

At least some sightings of black helicopters are very likely to have been helicopters on exercises and/or missions. The American military does in fact operate helicopters painted in black or dark colors, particularly the Pave Low which is optimized for long-range stealthy insertion and extraction of personnel, including combat search and rescue.

U.S. Army and National Guard helicopters painted olive drab will appear to be black in the reddish light of dawn or dusk, or under other low light conditions during the day when their shadow side is viewed against the sky with the naked eye.

Real black helicopters do exist. Some of them are flown by units of the Army National Guard and are actually black (not dark olive or chocolate brown) when seen in ordinary light.

The U.S. Army regularly conducts both exercises and operational missions in United States airspace. Some of these exercises have taken place in densely populated areas, including Los Angeles, Detroit, San Francisco, Oakland and Washington, D.C. Most operational missions are tasked in narcotics interdiction in the American Southwest and out of Florida. By extensive use of GPS and night vision equipment, as well as other classified means, they are able to fly in zero visibility conditions with no running lights. At this high intensity level of operation, training is necessarily almost as dangerous to pilots, other air traffic, and the public as actual combat. Frequent practice is necessary to retain proficiency.

Many defense contractors and helicopter manufacturers also conduct public flight testing of aircraft and components or fly aircraft in public view to test ranges or other corporate airfields for training or demonstrations. Occasionally, some of these aircraft will be made for military clients and are painted in black or dark colors.

Were they flying over your house?

Nope. Yours?

But I do get to see some cool C-130s and the local Minnesota Air National Guard do their air-drop trainings in our vicinity...and then they fly in tandem right over my house.

27 posted on 01/26/2007 9:14:22 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Real black helicopters do exist.

I don't think it's a question of the existence of black paint, helicopters or some combination of the two. I think it's a question of if the helicopters belong to a top secret, UN or NAU type organization.

28 posted on 01/26/2007 9:18:07 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
...why don't the mainstream lunatics have to answer for their foolishness?

Answer:


29 posted on 01/26/2007 9:21:51 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Pay more for your stuff. For the children!!

Exactly. Because we wouldn't want them to have good paying jobs or anything. Better to keep them in debt and buying that cheap stuff. If they want a better job, they can go to college. ALL of them. And since college is hard to afford, the government can create a brand spanking new entitlement that pays for all college for everyone.

You're right, the societal costs of cheap stuff are almost nonexistant. Let's just move all manufacturing to South America. Our workers are lazy and greedy for wanting more than five dollars a day.
30 posted on 01/26/2007 9:22:47 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
If they want a better job, they can go to college.

Don't save your money for your kids to go to college, buy more expensive stuff instead!

Let's just move all manufacturing to South America.

I thought we already did?

I guess we didn't.

31 posted on 01/26/2007 9:28:20 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Don't save your money for your kids to go to college, buy more expensive stuff instead!

It's not going to happen. The last 60 years of Redemopublicrat rule has taught people that if they can't afford it, the government will provide. So once many manufacturing jobs are south of the border and college is like high school, the middle class will demand free college for their kids. And they'll get it, regardless of which party is in power.

All so we can save 50 cents on veggies and get the hammer for $7 instead of $10.
32 posted on 01/26/2007 9:34:55 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
The last 60 years of Redemopublicrat rule has taught people that if they can't afford it, the government will provide.

Maybe that's what they taught you in your public school, that's not what I learned.

So once many manufacturing jobs are south of the border

Damn that NAFTA giant sucking sound.

All so we can save 50 cents on veggies and get the hammer for $7 instead of $10.

Buy more expensive stuff, it'll raise your salary!

33 posted on 01/26/2007 9:39:52 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Maybe that's what they taught you in your public school, that's not what I learned.

Apparently you fell asleep during American history.




The cheap stuff isn't that cheap.
34 posted on 01/26/2007 9:50:20 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
The cheap stuff isn't that cheap.

Is that chart supposed to show that the deficit would be lower if the government bought more expensive goods? Or if you bought more expensive goods?

35 posted on 01/26/2007 9:59:22 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Nope. Of course not. They were part of tests conducted in the '90s, and were in San Antonio (lots of pissed off people), Cincinnati, Los Angeles, etc.

I suggest you do some research before you show your ignorance by shooting off your mouth.

36 posted on 01/26/2007 10:10:01 AM PST by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jammer
They were part of tests conducted in the '90s,

NWO black helicopters?

37 posted on 01/26/2007 10:16:38 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

The chart shows the explosion of entitlement spending that you claimed not to have been taught about in private school.


38 posted on 01/26/2007 10:31:46 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
The chart shows the explosion of entitlement spending that you claimed not to have been taught about in private school.

I never denied that entitlement spending has exploded.

I was never taught that:
The last 60 years of Redemopublicrat rule has taught people that if they can't afford it, the government will provide.

Some people can't afford big screen TVs. Does the government provide those yet? Why not?

39 posted on 01/26/2007 10:38:02 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
People demand that the government provide essentials and some luxuries that their jobs won't afford them. As jobs pay less, more essentials become out of reach for a larger number of people. These people begin to demand that the government fill in the gap. And the Redemopublicrats have been stepping up to do just that since the Great Depression.

You can't deny any of this. And the more jobs move out, the more YOU'LL be soaked for the difference, if you're in the socioeconomic class I think you're in. And the rest of us will have to suffer under cancerous government, spreading everywhere to fill in the gaps.
40 posted on 01/26/2007 10:45:36 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
People demand that the government provide essentials and some luxuries that their jobs won't afford them.

Doesn't mean the government will provide them. Unless you know something about big screens that I don't?

As jobs pay less

Link?

And the more jobs move out,

Link?

the more YOU'LL be soaked for the difference, if you're in the socioeconomic class I think you're in.

Which class is that?

And the rest of us will have to suffer under cancerous government, spreading everywhere to fill in the gaps.

Allow me to amend my original comment, Pay more for your stuff. For smaller government!!

41 posted on 01/26/2007 10:53:31 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

There are none so blind as those who will not see.


42 posted on 01/26/2007 10:57:56 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

It will hurt most port cities and small time truckers!




You mean those port cities like at Long Beach CA when thsoe "patriotic" longshoremen went on strike at the worst possible time in Autumn of 2002 disrupting the economy? Estimates put this effect at about $20 billion, even though President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act after ten days.

Or are you talking about truckers --- you know those whose union officials appeal to racist and chauvinist sentiments. A statement on the union’s web site slanders Mexican drivers as potential criminals and says opening the border would “make it easier for traffickers to smuggle illegal drugs into the US.”

What a laugh since the teamsters are guilty of the worst kind of accidents and "drug driving" of anybody!


43 posted on 01/26/2007 11:02:20 AM PST by eleni121 ( + En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
What, no ridiculous exaggeration? No unsourced assertion? I'm deeply saddened.

So what socioeconomic class am I in?

44 posted on 01/26/2007 11:04:47 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
NAFTA and Workers' Rights and Jobs The central focus of pro-NAFTA campaigning was the issue of U.S. job creation, so it is fair to measure NAFTA's real-life results against its backers' expansive promises of hundreds of thousands of new, high-paying U.S. jobs. However, even measured against the more lenient "do no harm" standard, NAFTA has been a failure. Using trade flow data to calculate job loss under NAFTA (incorporating exactly the formula used by NAFTA's backers to predict 200,000 per year NAFTA job creation) yields net job destruction numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Whether the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs qualifies as "a giant sucking sound" depends on the ear of the listener. It is clear, however, that NAFTA has indisputably led to widespread job loss, with over 412,177 U.S. workers certified as NAFTA casualties under just one narrow government program. The fact that job growth totally unrelated to NAFTA has produced a net gain in U.S. employment during this period in no way changes the reality that NAFTA has cost large numbers of individual workers their jobs,­ most of whom are now unemployed or working at jobs that pay less than the ones they lost.

The U.S. economy created jobs at a fairly rapid rate in the 1990s, but without NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of full time, high wage, benefit-paying manufacturing jobs would not have been lost. It is also important to note that while the U.S. economy is generating substantial numbers of new jobs in absolute terms, the quality of the jobs created is often poor. The U.S. Department of Labor projects that the professions with the greatest expected future growth in the U.S. are cashiers, waiters and waitresses, janitors and retail clerks. These and other lower-wage service jobs are the kind that will most likely be available to workers displaced by NAFTA. Economic surveys of dislocated workers shows that the jobs lost to NAFTA, in many cases high-paying manufacturing jobs, are, in the majority of cases, replaced by lower-paid employment. NAFTA also has had a negative effect on the wages of many Americans whose jobs have not been relocated but whose wage bargaining power with their employers is substantially lessened; NAFTA puts them in direct competition with skilled, educated Mexican workers who work for a dollar or two an hour ­or less. NAFTA was supposed to ameliorate this problem by raising Mexican living standards and wages. Instead, both have plummeted, harming the economic prospects for workers on both sides of the border.

link
45 posted on 01/26/2007 12:17:29 PM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot


Boy, NAFTA is sure helping Mexico, too. I guess your cheap stuff is causing the rush across our border. Man, your cheap stuff is even more expensive than I first thought.
46 posted on 01/26/2007 12:19:15 PM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
I'm sorry, did that Public Citizen (hehe) source prove that American wages are dropping? Did it prove that if only we bought more expensive goods, wages would be rising instead of falling? Because that seemed to be your earlier claim, but I just didn't see it in that Public Citizen (hehe) link.
47 posted on 01/26/2007 12:32:31 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
Boy, NAFTA is sure helping Mexico, too.

While that is an interesting chart, what does Mexico's dysfunctional government and economy have to do with more expensive goods being better for your children or better for our smaller government?

48 posted on 01/26/2007 12:34:03 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

It will hurt most port cities and small time truckers!



Port cities... When the Panama Canal widening is completed Houston and the rest of the Texas Ports most likely will see increases. Now them 'small time truckers' I don't know. But when all is said and done they will need highways to handle the incoming both goods and people influx.

I think I read an article just a few days ago on FR about the major growth in the China port facilities to handle container exports and new facilities were being built on the Pacific Coast to off load them... I-10, I-40 corridors and others may be next to get major upgrades.

I guess if the people of the US would just not buy those goods coming in via those importers and then businesses could only warehouse so much before they'd decide not to bring anymore in. But my guess the public is not going to give up shopping at the major retailers like Walmart, Target, etc.


49 posted on 01/26/2007 12:54:31 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Amazing how their government went "dysfunctional" right as Nafta passed. What an incredible coincidence.


50 posted on 01/26/2007 12:55:07 PM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson