Vote in Congress Tues. or Wed to stop Mexican trucks

[Governor PiT]

this makes it a veto proof amendment.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Dorgan Amdt. No. 2797 )
Vote Number: 331 Vote Date: September 11, 2007, 07:00 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2797 to H.R. 3074 (Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 )
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the establishment of a program that allows Mexican truck drivers to operate beyond the commercial zones near the Mexican border.
Vote Counts: YEAs 75
NAYs 23
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Not Voting
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---75
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---23
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 2
Craig (R-ID)
McCain (R-AZ)

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Not Voting Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Lott (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Nay Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea

[Governor PiT]

I am sick of this crap, someone better stop Bush and these beauracrats he employs like this Transportation Secretary. They are doing this outside Congress, it's amazing.
WND
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.
Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan plans to offer an amendment today that would block the controversial federal program allowing Mexican trucks to operate freely on roads across the U.S.

Barry Piatt, spokesman for the North Dakota senator, told WND the amendment to the Fiscal 2008 Department of Transportation appropriations bill essentially will say, "None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to establish or implement a cross-border motor carrier demonstration or pilot project or program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border."

Piatt said the amendment could come up for a vote in the Senate tomorrow or Wednesday.

Dorgan has scheduled a 2:30 pm Eastern Time press conference in the Senate today to announce his decision to offer the amendment .

WND reported last week, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., charged the Bush administration with being "hell-bent on opening our borders, but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks."




In May, the House of Representatives passed the Safe American Roads Act of 2007 (H.R. 1773), by an overwhelming, bipartisan 411-3 margin.

WND also reported a White House strategy to pressure the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation not to hold hearings or take any action on the House-approved Safe Roads Act.

The overwhelming majority by which H.R. 1773 was passed strongly suggests the House would accept in conference a Dorgan-submitted amendment to cut DOT funding of the Mexican truck demonstration project.

[ag]

Well, we just have to hope the Senate shoots this down. It would be an awful mess if it passed.

[TheresNoMoney]

So this Amendement already passed 75-23? Great stuff! Every Democrat voted in favor.

Another example of why Byron Dorgan is one of the best politicians in Washington, he always has the best interests of the middle class and working people in mind.

[True Democrat]

So this Amendement already passed 75-23? Great stuff! Every Democrat voted in favor.

Another example of why Byron Dorgan is one of the best politicians in Washington, he always has the best interests of the middle class and working people in mind.

I didn't realize that Mexican truck drivers weren't also "working people?"  I guess only Americans should be in the interest of Senators.  Screw the rest of the world.

[ag]

So this Amendement already passed 75-23? Great stuff! Every Democrat voted in favor.

Another example of why Byron Dorgan is one of the best politicians in Washington, he always has the best interests of the middle class and working people in mind.

Very bad. BTW, Mexico will, likely, retaliate - probably, painfully for all those concerned.  For one, Mexican government is right now under an enormous domestic pressure to backtrack from the agricultural trade liberalization provisions of NAFTA that are due to enter into force next year.  It's job resisting the pressure has just been made enormously harder, if not impossible (this would mean humongous losses for American farmers).

Overall, the loosers are: overwhelming majority of Americans (including the truck drivers), overwhelming majority of Mexicans, reputation of the U.S. Congress, Mexican-U.S relations.   Winners - small group of union bureaucrats and populist politicians, who are willing to lie in order to induce major losses on everyone else for minor personal gain. The only other group that, possibly, gains (though indirectly) are the Chinese manufacturers, whose relative disadvantage in transportation costs will remain smaller than technologically necessary.

Whatever the bullsh**t the proponents of the ammendment may put forward, the likely result is a) fewer jobs BOTH in the U.S. and Mexico b) higher store prices for everywone c) HIGHER accident rate on both sides of the border.  When I am saying that well over 99% of Americans will be directly hurt by this, I am not really exagerrating.  Indirectly, any sort of cooperation w/ Mexican authorities on numerous matters is going to be undermined. For one, U.S. has demonstrated that it is unable to stick to signed agreements - next time it will have to pay in cash on the spot for any concessions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agree with ag.  Why would anyone want to sign a trade agreement with us when we don't keep our side of the bargain?  In the long run this will hurt us as our exports get squeezed out.

So this Amendement already passed 75-23? Great stuff! Every Democrat voted in favor.

Another example of why Byron Dorgan is one of the best politicians in Washington, he always has the best interests of the middle class and working people in mind.

I didn't realize that Mexican truck drivers weren't also "working people?"  I guess only Americans should be in the interest of Senators.  Screw the rest of the world.

Actually, only Americans should be in the interest of Senators.  It just is that this amendment, like most efforts to do away with free trade, harms Americans.

[Verily]

I have to agree with Ernest and ag on this, and (unfortunately) commend the assortment of nasty politicians in opposition to this amendment. There is really no excuse for signing an agreement and then making it illegal for us to keep our side of the bargain, nor does it seem particularly useful for us to be banning the activity of Mexican truckers. After all, if border agents are doing their jobs, there shouldn't be anything worth worrying about in those trucks in the first place.

[MarkWarner08]

So this Amendement already passed 75-23? Great stuff! Every Democrat voted in favor.

Another example of why Byron Dorgan is one of the best politicians in Washington, he always has the best interests of the middle class and working people in mind.

Very bad. BTW, Mexico will, likely, retaliate - probably, painfully for all those concerned.  For one, Mexican government is right now under an enormous domestic pressure to backtrack from the agricultural trade liberalization provisions of NAFTA that are due to enter into force next year.  It's job resisting the pressure has just been made enormously harder, if not impossible (this would mean humongous losses for American farmers).

Overall, the loosers are: overwhelming majority of Americans (including the truck drivers), overwhelming majority of Mexicans, reputation of the U.S. Congress, Mexican-U.S relations.   Winners - small group of union bureaucrats and populist politicians, who are willing to lie in order to induce major losses on everyone else for minor personal gain. The only other group that, possibly, gains (though indirectly) are the Chinese manufacturers, whose relative disadvantage in transportation costs will remain smaller than technologically necessary.

Whatever the bullsh**t the proponents of the ammendment may put forward, the likely result is a) fewer jobs BOTH in the U.S. and Mexico b) higher store prices for everywone c) HIGHER accident rate on both sides of the border.  When I am saying that well over 99% of Americans will be directly hurt by this, I am not really exagerrating.  Indirectly, any sort of cooperation w/ Mexican authorities on numerous matters is going to be undermined. For one, U.S. has demonstrated that it is unable to stick to signed agreements - next time it will have to pay in cash on the spot for any concessions.

Great points.  Sadly, this is another example that the three menaces in American politics (protectionism, isolationism, and nativism) are once again rising.

[opebo]

So this Amendement already passed 75-23? Great stuff! Every Democrat voted in favor.

Another example of why Byron Dorgan is one of the best politicians in Washington, he always has the best interests of the middle class and working people in mind.

Very bad. BTW, Mexico will, likely, retaliate - probably, painfully for all those concerned.  For one, Mexican government is right now under an enormous domestic pressure to backtrack from the agricultural trade liberalization provisions of NAFTA that are due to enter into force next year.  It's job resisting the pressure has just been made enormously harder, if not impossible (this would mean humongous losses for American farmers).

Overall, the loosers are: overwhelming majority of Americans (including the truck drivers), overwhelming majority of Mexicans, reputation of the U.S. Congress, Mexican-U.S relations.   Winners - small group of union bureaucrats and populist politicians, who are willing to lie in order to induce major losses on everyone else for minor personal gain. The only other group that, possibly, gains (though indirectly) are the Chinese manufacturers, whose relative disadvantage in transportation costs will remain smaller than technologically necessary.

Whatever the bullsh**t the proponents of the ammendment may put forward, the likely result is a) fewer jobs BOTH in the U.S. and Mexico b) higher store prices for everywone c) HIGHER accident rate on both sides of the border.  When I am saying that well over 99% of Americans will be directly hurt by this, I am not really exagerrating.  Indirectly, any sort of cooperation w/ Mexican authorities on numerous matters is going to be undermined. For one, U.S. has demonstrated that it is unable to stick to signed agreements - next time it will have to pay in cash on the spot for any concessions.

Great points.  Sadly, this is another example that the three menaces in American politics (protectionism, isolationism, and nativism) are once again rising.

Haha, maybe we'll get back to those dreadful days of Keyensian liberal economics supported electorally by unions.  (must only be a coincidence that the height of american working class well being was around 1969-1973). 

[Jake]

What a joke. Lets put a brake on the economy to earn some political points with the unions.

[opebo]

What a joke. Lets put a brake on the economy to earn some political points with the unions.

The economy is improved by redistribution through high union wages, Jake, not by increasing  the enslavement of the working class.  Please try to distinguish what is good for 'the economy' and what is good for the owning elite.

[Ebowed]

I don't support this at all.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Mexican trucks driving in the US should be subject to the same labor and environmental regulations as American trucks driving in the US.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Annex mexico and force them to adhere to our standards.

[Colin]

I have to agree completely with ag, Ernest, and Verily that this will do a very large amount of harm while only basically scoring points for populist politicians and economic nationalists. The most worrying point is that this would unilaterally renege a certain portion of a treaty signed between the United States and another sovereign nation. If we acquire the reputation that we are not trustworthy in the treaties we sign then we are in for some tough times in the globalized economy.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Chief Geronimo agrees that there should be no more immigration into the Americas.

Of course it's not like immigrants haven't been prone to utterly racist abuse before now, this is clearly different:





And look at the negative impact those damn immigrants had on American society; clearly freeloaders as we can see above. Thank god our forefathers only interbred among themselves and so produced a superior form of native American.. oops, I mean American natives... errr, oops again I mean American white non-Jewish, non-catholic, non-German Anglo Protestants though our level of inbreeding is a problem; But better that being overrun by German Sausage eaters, Irish drunks and those Damn lazy Mexicans; if they were here they would only work below Minimum wage in crap conditions in usually dangerous jobs that most Americans wouldn't touch with their distended scrotum. So clearly we are not racist, we love foreigners, really.

Ain't I right?

[ag]

Mexican trucks driving in the US should be subject to the same labor and environmental regulations as American trucks driving in the US.

You know, this could be interpreted as a call to actually relax the standards. 

[ag]

Annex mexico and force them to adhere to our standards.

If done immediately this would imply either (a) mass starvation in Mexico or a 10% income tax surcharge in the U.S. to finance the social payments to the 80% of Mexico's population that is going to be unemployed and starving.  Of course, in the medium term (ie, in about a year) it would also imply 50 million Mexicans moving to the U.S. to avoid unemployment. 12 thousand pesos/ month (basically, the U.S. minimal wage after the forthcoming increase) is more than a young university graduate is likely to make in Mexico. Imposing it would be equivalent to posting a big sign: "All those without a university degree: die ASAP, we don't need you".

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Annex mexico and force them to adhere to our standards.

If done immediately this would imply either (a) mass starvation in Mexico or a 10% income tax surcharge in the U.S. to finance the social payments to the 80% of Mexico's population that is going to be unemployed and starving.  Of course, in the medium term (ie, in about a year) it would also imply 50 million Mexicans moving to the U.S. to avoid unemployment. 12 thousand pesos/ month (basically, the U.S. minimal wage after the forthcoming increase) is more than a young university graduate is likely to make in Mexico. Imposing it would be equivalent to posting a big sign: "All those without a university degree: die ASAP, we don't need you".

I was thinking a 10-20 year process of rapid modernization(Something in between PR or MS for the pre-annexation goal would be the target)/infrastructure building(including linking US-mexican infrastructure)/harmonizing mexico's laws with US norms. Immediente annexation would be epic fail beyond belief for the reasons you say.

[angus]

THIS IS A BAD DEAL.  oops.  had the olde capslock button on.  well, anyway it'll adversely affect the price of many of the goods you buy.  Mangos, jalapeños, bananas, and calcitines.  (that means socks)  Protectionism at its finest.  I'm sure Mr. Kucinich and his ilk are very proud of this one.  Nevermind the fact that the american worker will now pay more for the goods he imports because trucks will have to be unloaded and reloaded at places like Nogales, Matamoros, and Ciudad Juarez.  Nice going.

[StateBoiler]

Annex mexico and force them to adhere to our standards.

If done immediately this would imply either (a) mass starvation in Mexico or a 10% income tax surcharge in the U.S. to finance the social payments to the 80% of Mexico's population that is going to be unemployed and starving.  Of course, in the medium term (ie, in about a year) it would also imply 50 million Mexicans moving to the U.S. to avoid unemployment. 12 thousand pesos/ month (basically, the U.S. minimal wage after the forthcoming increase) is more than a young university graduate is likely to make in Mexico. Imposing it would be equivalent to posting a big sign: "All those without a university degree: die ASAP, we don't need you".

Your last sentence is what makes me really distraught about this whole thing with immigration and globalization. I can see everyone's point about what they believe, it's just that not everyone can win.

What's going on is just one big arbitrage in wages. The reason jobs are moving overseas is that Americans make too much money. The reason George W. Bush wants an amnesty is cause Mexican workers get paid less and that will help business owners. Obviously this is a big no-no to the American worker, they're losing their job or getting paid less. I imagine Bush sees it as keeping the business in America instead of the business leaving America cause it cannot compete in a global free market. My entry-level was $45k per year straight from college for my job. In India, I don't know the number but it is much much less for the same work. The market works on supply and demand. With so many stable governments around the world with little organized conflict, there is right now a vast supply of labor that are much cheaper than us. (If you don't want your job to go to India for example, the best thing that can happen for you is for Pakistan and India to start fighting over Kashmir.)

So what is going to happen with this thing? I see two scenarios. First, the corporations get what they want and win. There will be open markets, open immigration, and you're going to have enclaves of extraordinarily rich people that run the companies, while all the proles (us) are going to be worse off as the middle-class disappears.  The reason the middle-class disappears is all the middle-class jobs got shipped to become the Indian middle-class. Once the Indian middle-class becomes comparable to ours, those jobs will become the Nepalese middle-class or the Guatemalan middle-class or the Mexican middle-class or the Jamaican middle-class. That's one issue I have with economists that say those jobs in China will all eventually come back here. If one country's standard of living goes up, that doesn't mean the jobs will move back here, that just means it'll go to some other country. Corporations work hard to keep costs low and charge a set price for goods for profit, they're not going to choose to raise costs on their own accord. Service jobs will remain just cause they need to be in person, but costs will go up a lot. For a contemporary example of this, look at how much education (private and college tuition) and healthcare have increased in cost the last 10 years. Higher education will become devalued. If the engineering jobs are all in India for product design, you won't need as many engineers to come through university. Commodities will become king as resources are utilized on a global scale if societies like China and India gradually rise to our level. The American public in this period will in general become more open to socialism, although it probably won't be called that as that word is a red herring in American politics.

The second scenario is what I think will happen. Corporatism - everyone will get subsidized by the government for everything to keep them in business. This will be a step in protectionism alongside high tariffs, meaning we still get poorer cause we have less goods and less choice and have to pay artificially higher prices. We already do this in agriculture. Is it that big of a step for the government to do that for car factories or for healthcare? Bush last week stated the government will do all it can to keep homeowners that were getting foreclosed on in their homes. I've followed the housing bubble for two years, and the only way those people can stay in their homes and to keep the lenders from declaring Chapter 11 is for the federal government to pay the mortgage payments. That is one contemporary example of this futuristic scenario I am painting.

I just can't see a bright future and I'm in my mid-20s, I have a lot of working years left in me. The two parties that run this country are too stupid and corrupt to come up with an answer. If the lower financial classes (in this case, the people from the emerging countries of the world are what I call the lower financial classes; America's lower financial classes comparatively would be middle-class) are getting richer, that means someone else is getting poorer. I just think that we're on the cusp of being in a downswing on a national scale and all of the G7 are, and we just have to all be in it for ourselves. It's you versus the world, good luck.

[MarkWarner08]

What a joke. Lets put a brake on the economy to earn some political points with the unions.

The economy is improved by redistribution through high union wages, Jake, not by increasing  the enslavement of the working class.  Please try to distinguish what is good for 'the economy' and what is good for the owning elite.

You seem to be under the false view that capitalism only benefits the rich. You probably have seen the salaries of the hedge fund managers rise as the bottom 95% has faced stagnating wages.  This is vindication for my far left William Jennings Bryan like economic views! Right? Wrong.

You're ignoring one of the most basic principles of economics: the invisible hand. I don't mean to be pedantic here, but to understand the way business works, you should try to examine what Adam Smith was theorizing. The invisible hand theory asserts that when a businessman seeks to make money for himself (the raw motive of capitalism is profit and the enrichment of the leisure class), even if he cares little for his workers, he's actually improving society. This is because companies hire workers, pay taxes -- even if the companies themselves don't pay taxes, their workers do -- and create a ripple effect that benefits other companies in service sectors like retail and restaurants.

The next time you  reiterate your hackneyed neo-Marxist talking points and bemoan the rise of the rich,  I hope you'll consider that the the benefits at the top help all of society, even if they don't "trickle down" directly, like the supply-siders say they do.

[ag]

Annex mexico and force them to adhere to our standards.

If done immediately this would imply either (a) mass starvation in Mexico or a 10% income tax surcharge in the U.S. to finance the social payments to the 80% of Mexico's population that is going to be unemployed and starving.  Of course, in the medium term (ie, in about a year) it would also imply 50 million Mexicans moving to the U.S. to avoid unemployment. 12 thousand pesos/ month (basically, the U.S. minimal wage after the forthcoming increase) is more than a young university graduate is likely to make in Mexico. Imposing it would be equivalent to posting a big sign: "All those without a university degree: die ASAP, we don't need you".

I was thinking a 10-20 year process of rapid modernization(Something in between PR or MS for the pre-annexation goal would be the target)/infrastructure building(including linking US-mexican infrastructure)/harmonizing mexico's laws with US norms. Immediente annexation would be epic fail beyond belief for the reasons you say.

You are willing to spend that much money to make it work? Ok, let me tell you: it would be a lot cheaper (and much more efficient and realistic) to develop NAFTA in EU style (in fact, that's exactly what EU is about). Still, it would, probably, take more than 20 years, but the economies would, likely, converge eventually.

But one thing for sure, even after 10 years of pumping Mexico w/ cash through its nose you wouldn't be able to make the 7-dollar/hour minimal wage work there (hint: Spain has been in the EU for over 20 years now, and 1000 euro/month wage is still considered decent there; and Spain is RICH compared to Portugal).  And if you insist on keeping protectionist barriers (like the truck nonsense) up until that happens, it won't happen  even after a 100 years of the same: you could transfer 10% of US GDP in direct handouts to Mexicans until fifty years past the Last Judgement, and it still won't do much good if you insist on "protecting the domestic workers" in the meantime.

The best thing that can be done for Mexico is letting the countries trade (pressure to harmonize laws is fine - in fact, essential to make that work; but "harmonization" does not mean imposing every single piece of U.S. regulation that Mexico can't possibly afford).  

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK - I've heard about this, but haven't seen details - so can somebod summarize for me UNBIASEDLY what the amendment would do?