Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Question for you about Mexico

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Question for you about Mexico

    Okay, so the illegals come here to try and make a few bucks so they can feed their families. They work too cheaply, dont pay taxes, and are basically parasites.

    They are dirt poor as is most of the country, and the Mexican government is totally corrupt. These people coming across the border have no way to earn a living in Mexico, and no pull to effect change there.

    Does the US have an interest in trying to reform Mexico's economy and affect changes in their government, to take the burden off of us?

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetcane]Okay, so the illegals come here to try and make a few bucks so they can feed their families. They work too cheaply, dont pay taxes, and are basically parasites.

    They are dirt poor as is most of the country, and the Mexican government is totally corrupt. These people coming across the border have no way to earn a living in Mexico, and no pull to effect change there.

    Does the US have an interest in trying to reform Mexico's economy and affect changes in their government, to take the burden off of us?[/QUOTE]

    Cheap labor is what has made this country thrive. It helps the rich get richer while passing the burden along to the taxpayers. It started with the slaves and now its illegal immigrants making less than half the minimum wage with no benefits.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Right now Mexico is a third world Sh!thole and it's up to the Mexican people to make their country better....NOT the USA.

    The only way that is going to happen is if the US closes the Mexican border thereby FORCING the Mexican people to help themselves and their country by installing a legitimate honest government.

    When Pablo can't come here illegally to better his life, it will force him to make his own country better... thereby bettering his life there.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Section109Row15]Cheap labor is what has made this country thrive. It helps the rich get richer while passing the burden along to the taxpayers. It started with the slaves and now its illegal immigrants making less than half the minimum wage with no benefits.[/QUOTE]

    Captialism is horrible...

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Captialism is horrible...[/QUOTE]

    I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that slave labor was at the core of capitalism.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Section109Row15]I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that slave labor was at the core of capitalism.[/QUOTE]


    what you consider slave labor a worker considers an opportunity....

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Section109Row15]Cheap labor is what has made this country thrive. It helps the rich get richer while passing the burden along to the taxpayers. It started with the slaves and now its illegal immigrants making less than half the minimum wage with no benefits.[/QUOTE]

    Posts like this make me laugh out loud. Never let ignorance get in the way of having a strong opinion about something.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=New England Hick]Right now Mexico is a third world Sh!thole and it's up to the Mexican people to make their country better....NOT the USA.
    [/QUOTE]


    yeah we only clean up third world ****holes if there is OIL there!!

    :osama:

    ALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!


    ---

    by the way why isn't this thread about Ron Mexico, im dissapointed. :D

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]yeah we only clean up third world ****holes if there is OIL there!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Possibly the stupidest statement ever...Mexico does not have oil???

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Possibly the stupidest statement ever...Mexico does not have oil???[/QUOTE]


    not like Iraq it doesn't - off shore under 100 feet of water and 15 feet of shale isn't like the beverly hillbilles style of black gold in iraq - in Iraq you can't swing a towel over your head without hitting a primitive oil drill that has a daily output greater than the state of texas.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]not like Iraq it doesn't - off shore under 100 feet of water and 15 feet of shale isn't like the beverly hillbilles style of black gold in iraq - in Iraq you can't swing a towel over your head without hitting a primitive oil drill that has a daily output greater than the state of texas.[/QUOTE]

    meanwhile Iraq is on the other side of the world while mehiho is a stones throw away....

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]meanwhile Iraq is on the other side of the world while mehiho is a stones throw away....[/QUOTE]


    financially it costs more to employ union workers, set up the drills in the middle of the ocean etc. etc. as compared to paying some Iraqi .25 cents an hour to stand by a rig in the sand and load it all onto a tanker -

    people think that ANWR is a political/environmental issue when really there are questions from big oil about whether anyone could make money in a place like that.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti] people think that ANWR is a political/environmental issue when really there are questions from big oil about whether anyone could make money in a place like that.[/QUOTE]

    Where in the hell do you get your facts from?

    Big oil has wanted to explore ANWR for the past 20 years.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=New England Hick]Where in the hell do you get your facts from?

    Big oil has wanted to explore ANWR for the past 20 years.[/QUOTE]

    straight from the horse's mouth buddy - i never said they didn't want to explore i said it might not be economically feasible -

    [url]http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy73334.000/hsy73334_0.htm[/url]


    [QUOTE]Chairman BARTLETT. I mentioned to the Vice President that if we have only 2 percent of the known reserves of oil, if we could go out and find and pump that tomorrow then what will you do the day after tomorrow. Because there will be a day after tomorrow. This may be a rainy day, if I lived in California, it really would be a rainy day. But I think that we are going to face an even rainier day. And so I am opposed to more off shore drilling. I am opposed to opening up ANWR. Not because I think there is any environmental impact. I have been to ANWR. It may be to some a pristine wilderness. It looked more like a wasteland to me. In that many hour trip of getting there all the wildlife that they claim, I saw 1 goose on the trip there. They do a very good job of avoiding the environmental impact. They make roads in the winter out of crushed ice. And when the summer comes you can't even see where the road was. I saw the footprint of their rigs there. And I don't think there is any meaningful environmental impact.

    By the way, the caribou nestle up to the pipeline because it is heated, you know. And they don't consider that a degradation of their environment. You see them all along the pipeline there. [B]But I am opposed to drilling simply because we are going to need that 1 day as a feedstock for our enormous petrochemical industry. It needs to be there in reserve. I don't mind exploring and finding what is there. I just want it to stay there for the moment because I don't want us to put a bandaid over a cancer. That when the bandaid comes off the cancer when you known it has grown as cancers do, and are problem is even bigger than it was when I put the bandaid on it. I want us to face now the problem that we face using a fourth of the oil in the world, having only 2 percent of the oil in the world. Using, what, 4 or 5 times as much energy per individual as the average person in the world. We just need to face that reality. And how do we get from where we are to a sustainable energy supply.[/B][/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]The proposal for rapid drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore in the lower 48 states, appears to be a short-term energy fix that seems to ignore the real-world reality of resource availability.

    The proposal to drill in the ANWR seems to be driven by urgency, without any long-term evaluation of the small effect on our national strategic energy situation that could be expected to result from the amount of petroleum that may be found in these areas. The number 3.2 billion barrels of oil has been offered as an estimate of what may be found in the ANWR. The [B]U.S. is currently consuming over 6 billion barrels of oil each year, so the amount of oil that may be found in the ANWR is likely going to be less than one year's consumption in the U.S.[/B][/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE] The CAFE standards proposed here would save about 1.5 million barrels of petroleum per day by 2010 and 4.8 million barrels per day by 2020.(see footnote 14) [B]Over 40 years, increasing vehicle efficiency as suggested above would save 10-20 times more oil than the projected supply from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and more than three times total proven oil reserves today.[/B](see footnote 15) [/QUOTE]

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]financially it costs more to employ union workers, set up the drills in the middle of the ocean etc. etc. as compared to paying some Iraqi .25 cents an hour to stand by a rig in the sand and load it all onto a tanker -

    people think that ANWR is a political/environmental issue when really there are questions from big oil about whether anyone could make money in a place like that.[/QUOTE]

    Bitonti - you act as if uncertainty or risk is a unique attribute of the oil business or of ANWR. "Big oil" constantly loses mony by drilling in places where there is no oil or where it is expensive to extract and refine. They constantly disagree as to where the best places to find good oil are. In light of this, they have to charge a price for the oil they do refine that is high enough to cover the costs of all of the fruitless searching and drilling that they do, since those costs are part of their overall cost structure. Many companies go out of business. It is no surprise that oil companies disagree about some individual sight like ANWR. When oil companies are making money, they do more exploratory drilling, and, thus, they typically find more oil. Remember all of those scary stories about how we are "running out of oil" from the 70's and 80's? Well, what they should say is that we are running out of the [I]known reserves [/I] of oil. The tight money of that era made exploration and speculatuive drilling expensive and less companies did it. When oil companies go looking, though, they typically find more oil and the amount of the known reserves rises, though people act as if the amount of known reserves at any given point in time is all that there ever will be and thus we are just around the corner from a catastrophy, which is simply not true.

    There is also considerable debate as to what creates oil, and just how finite the world's supply of oil really is, etc.

    No doubt that we need to find alternative sources of energy, though. It's just that people get addicted to these invented catastrophies and they enact laws and base policy on misinformation or a complete lack of understanding....
    Last edited by jets5ever; 04-26-2005 at 02:08 PM.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]financially it costs more to employ union workers, set up the drills in the middle of the ocean etc. etc. as compared to paying some Iraqi .25 cents an hour to stand by a rig in the sand and load it all onto a tanker -

    [/QUOTE]


    According to sec109, this country thrives on cheap labor- which mexico has plenty of...hey, if we take over mexico we'll get all the oil we need, have the mexicans work like slaves as cheap labor and keep them the hell out of this country!!!!

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=New England Hick]Right now Mexico is a third world Sh!thole and it's up to the Mexican people to make their country better....NOT the USA.

    The only way that is going to happen is if the US closes the Mexican border thereby FORCING the Mexican people to help themselves and their country by installing a legitimate honest government.

    When Pablo can't come here illegally to better his life, it will force him to make his own country better... thereby bettering his life there.[/QUOTE]


    Nice in theory, but you can't expect peopel that poor to take over a government as huge and corrupt as Mexico's. I can't blame those people for coming across the border for work to feed their families. I ahve to say I'd do the same thing in their positions. I also think we SHOULD close the borders tightly. I can't stand to see people in this country out of work. I'd like to take care of that problem before we solve Mexico's. I know it's not that simple, but that's in my Utopia.

  18. #18
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    225
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetcane]Okay, so the illegals come here to try and make a few bucks so they can feed their families. They work too cheaply, dont pay taxes, and are basically parasites.

    They are dirt poor as is most of the country, and the Mexican government is totally corrupt. These people coming across the border have no way to earn a living in Mexico, and no pull to effect change there.

    Does the US have an interest in trying to reform Mexico's economy and affect changes in their government, to take the burden off of us?[/QUOTE]

    Actually, there is a concerted effort to reform Columbia's economy, and they are using Ireland as the model (Ireland is booming right now).

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FloFloFloSo]Actually, there is a concerted effort to reform Columbia's economy, and they are using Ireland as the model (Ireland is booming right now).[/QUOTE]

    Ireland's economy WAS booming... isn't the tiger tired?

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,430
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, one day after I started this thread, one of my favorite op-ed writers wrote this inciteful article about the Mexico dilemma. Comments?

    A DIRTY FRAME

    By RALPH PETERS
    Email Archives
    Print Reprint
    April 27, 2005 -- THE United Kingdom is our crucial military ally. Australia, with its feisty love of liberty and strategic location, grows more important to us every day. Canada treasures the role of abused spouse. But no country is more important to our future than Mexico.

    With oil, a growing economy, a huge expat population in the United States (legal and illegal), its leadership role in Latin America and a population of over 100 million more than three times Canada's Mexico should top our list of strategic interests. Instead, we pay more attention to South Korea and show more respect for Qatar.

    Our fates are intertwined. For better or worse. It only makes sense to do what we can to make our relationship healthier.

    It's a challenge. Mexico's a country where politicians steal everything in sight, then blame us for local poverty. Drugs sold by Mexican cartels kill more Americans than terrorists do in Iraq. Even the presidency of Vicente Fox the first opposition candidate to hold the office since the Mexican Revolution has been a lost opportunity.

    Now our neighbor to the south faces a political crisis that will determine the country's future. At the center of the storm is a single man, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the mayor of Mexico City and the most popular politician in the country.

    President Fox and his conservative party, PAN, have united with their bitter rivals in the PRI, the party whose control of the state lasted longer than the Communist Party's rule in Moscow: No one in the establishment wants Lopez Obrador to run for president next year.

    Because he'd win. And he owes nothing to the kingmakers.

    As I write, the mayor has returned to the office from which the federal government tried to bar him for "criminal activities." He may already be under arrest. And what crime did Hizzoner commit? He built a hospital access road on a strip of private property.

    Wrong? Yep. But given Mexico's whopping corruption at the top, this is akin to arguing that an American can't run for president because of a parking ticket.

    Lopez Obrador's real "crimes" are that he's popular, incorruptible and a champion of the people.

    For almost a century, Mexico's politicians have made beautiful promises to their impoverished fellow citizens. Then they stuffed their own pockets, counting on the safety valve of illegal emigration to the U.S. to keep society from exploding.

    Along comes Lopez Obrador, to the in-crowd's consternation. He actually improves the lot of the poor. He lives in a simple apartment, not a mansion. And he seems to be a genuine man of conscience.

    The inner workings of the Mexican political system are opaque even to Mexicans. We never know what deals are being cut. But we can hear what the men who've failed Mexico say for our consumption.

    Washington has been warned that Lopez Obrador is "another Hugo Chavez," the Venezuelan colonel who dresses up as Castro. It's a lie. Lopez Obrador is more of a cross between William Jennings Bryan and Huey Long, an "every man a king" kind of politician who puts at least a drumstick, if not an entire chicken, in every pot.

    And he isn't anti-business, either. Just anti-corruption.

    But even if Lopez Obrador were a leftist demagogue, we need to stop and ask ourselves why recent elections in Latin America have installed left-wing governments in office.

    The truth is that the populations between the Rio Grande and the Rio de la Plata are sick and tired of broken promises and poverty. They're not voting for extremist philosophies. They're voting against those in power, against those who failed them.

    Our position on Lopez Obrador will be a test. If Mexico's established powers bust him on phony charges and we stay mum, we'll have betrayed our own rhetoric about spreading democracy while alienating Mexicans who view the United States more positively than ever before in their history.

    Which brings us to the big lies told about Mexicans who live and work within our borders. The nuttiest fable is that Mexican immigrants want to "take back the Southwest" for Mexico. On the contrary, having experienced the decency of American society, those immigrants, legal and illegal, want to make Mexico more like El Norte.

    No one wants to live in a society where bribes determine your fate.

    The paradox of illegal immigration is that immigrants want to stay here because they've learned to value the rule of law. Mexicans come here because the United States offers opportunities and a level of justice they can't find at home. They're fleeing poverty, corruption and degraded lives. Why on earth would they want to turn Texas into Jalisco?

    What's really changing Mexico is Mexican exposure to the society, economy and constitutional integrity of the United States. Even the illiterate now realize that things don't have to go on as they always have south of the border. Mexicans may be changing the United States, but our impact on Mexico is incomparably deeper. And Mexican pols are scared.

    If he isn't assassinated another grim Mexican tradition or jailed on trumped-up charges, Lopez Obrador will be Mexico's next president. He's the people's choice. We must support fair treatment of him now. As president, he might not make us happy every day but he could be the best thing that happened to Mexicans since they whipped the French army at Puebla on Cinco de Mayo.

    Mesmerized by Iraq and the War on Terror, we neglect the neighbor whose future will have the greatest influence on our own. No foreign policy development would be better for the 21st-century United States than a prosperous, rule-of-law Mexico.

    Ralph Peters is a regular Post contributor.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us