Funny little Michigan town. Visit the Ice Cream/Gift Shop and the Dam Site Inn while in Hell. Both were fun, friendly, and just twisted.
Posted on 10/08/2007 1:48:03 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
Canada PING!
Now, now. What could Ms Stall possibly know?
Michael Medved assures us from his island perch off of Washington State that this is pure conspiracy nonsense that only kooks believe.
Next thing you conspiracy buffs will try to tell us is that Dubya is soft on illegal immigration from Mexico.
Just how many American products are actually being bought in China compared to what they sell here?
Just as I suspected: the “NAFTA Superhighway” is much like Anthropogenic Global Warming. It’s probably not really happening, and if it were, it would probably be a good thing.
This might interest you.
Bump and Ping!
Um, hel-loooo, is someone forgetting the epic and awesome ZZ Top song of the same name? It certainly was not inspired by La Grange, France.
“…in faux pearls…”
Luiza Ch. Savage, as we say in the Republic of Panama, you are a beech.
BTTT
Previous threads on this topic have noted a point of confusion: the Trans-Texas Corridor is not the same thing as the "NAFTA Superhighway". The former is a concept that some would like to see built, but the latter already exists in the form of a network of existing Interstate highways.
As for whether a realignment of our cargo transportation network away from the west coast and favoring Mexican ports is a good thing for us, I don't see what benefit can come of it. I'm certain that it benefits Mexico, no matter what the impact is in the U.S.
The state of Texas should improve its existing north/south highways and forget about the rest. Any increased port capacity needed to offload Asian goods headed for the US should come from expansion of our west coast ports, not from ports in Mexico.
However they want to spin it, this is just one more scheme to eliminate jobs in the US (in this case port workers and truckers) and use the cheaper labor south of the border.
Supporters even say it will bring imported goods in more “efficiently”, in other words cheaper by eliminating more jobs in the US and giving them to Mexicans.
In short, usable space for increased port facilities just isn't there at a cost anyone can afford.
Mexico ends up having THREE West coasts, and there are vast expanses of undeveloped territory where new and expanded port facilities are possible.
So, here's the choice ~ constricted port facilities if we stick to our own shoreline, or vastly expanded port facilities if we develop Mexico's West coasts.
The United States also needs a new Chicago and a new New York, and maybe even a new Dallas and a new Atlanta when it comes to international travel.
At the present time a couple of Midwestern cities (Indianapolis and Columbus) have the space and runway capacity to begin serving that need. I kind of wonder what they'll call the newer, longer, lower, wider land transport corridors serving those cities ~ certainly nothing to do with NAFTA.
“In short, usable space for increased port facilities just isn’t there at a cost anyone can afford.”
Of course it’s there: Eminent Domain, the same as would be necessary for that Trans-Texas corridor, or whatever it’s called.
And this would be a perfectly legitimate use of eminent domain, unlike the SC case which approved the taking of private, beach front homes for a hotel or condo development because it would pay more taxes
And those homes were taken at FMV, though the owner’s didn’t think the price offered was fair. But if beachfront property can be taken for that purpose, it can definitely be take for needed new port facilities.
The East Coast is already pretty much tied up in properties the public wants to keep that way ~ and eminent domain won't change a thing ~ since most of those properties are already owned by the government.
The politics of things won't even let the oil fields off the coast of Florida be tapped, nor windfarms be set out off Cape Cod.
The West coast is also tied up.
Expansion can take place in Mexico with little impact on anybody.
So, land can be taken for condos, but not for ports?
I’ve seen nothing that says our existing west coast ports couldn’t be expanded, or modernized. We have quite a few and they are already receiving cargo from Asia.
This is like the rhetoric surrounding immigration proposals: don’t believe a word anyone says. What can be done about improving expanding existing ports and building new ones needs to be studied by independent parties.
Not buying these blanket dismissals from people who desire to see the cargo come through Mexico.
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.