Socialist policies saved this nation in the 1930's from total economic collapse. The New Deal saved AMerica from "trickle-down" conservative economic policies that only served to concentrate wealth in fewer hands.

Perhaps Mexico will benefit from progressive policies that include social programs that help the poor.

The world needs salvation from the Gospel of Greed which Republicans in here in the U.S. follow chapter and verse.

Wade

How do the folks on this forum feel about NAFTA and FTAA? I am not a huge fan of either, and I think one possible upside to Obrador's election is that both could get scaled back.

Another plus might be that, as Mark notes, if illegal border-crossing suddenly becomes an enormous problem, then it might cause our own government to finally get serious about border security.

The twenty-something (I think it's 26?)Mexican states should apply for statehood. Instantly, every Mexican would be a US citizen. And how many representatives you think Mexico City would get?

Mark,

"I feel for Mexico - but there's nothing we can do for them."

That might be the first time in over 150 years a white man has said something like that.

Wade,

Actually, socialistic policies in the 30's deepened and intensified the economic depression...and it was only by grace of the rest of the world's industrial plant being blow to pieces in WWII that we emerged after the war with no depression.

Wade,

Mark is reminding us about what the US's stated economic policy with regards to recession is...bomb someone.

Mexico is nothing like what most Americans think. I work there five or six times a year, in Mexico City, Chihuahua and Monterrey. Mexico City is two million catalytic converters away from being one of the finest cities in the western hemisphere. It has incredible infrastructure that handles 17 million people. There are Porsche dealerships and city parks with people walking dogs barking at squirrels and fine Greek and Italian restaurants. It is not a bunch of cactus and panchos and taco stands. Monterrey has upscale neighborhoods that would blend unnoticed into San Diego. Chihuahua has fashion and leather districts, international artists playing concerts in modern amphitheaters, and a hopping nightlife.

The one and only hinderance to a growing middle class is summed up in one word: oligarchy. Wealth is manipulated into too few hands by a bunch of cronies who buy politicians to screw the people out of a better future, just like the current situation in this country is beginning to resemble.

Your statement "there's nothing we can do for them" would be spat on by the 96.4% employed citizenry (better than America, I might add), and in fact, would be cynically greeted with "¿como ti hizo a Iraq?" (like you did for Iraq?)

Mexico is nothing like what most Americans think

Yeah, must be the land of milk and Honey. Wonder why nearly everyone of them are trying to sneak across the border - Guess they must not like milk or honey.

Funny Wade, you don't mention all of the failed societies as a result of social policies...how come?

Shall I? I'm happy too.

Congressive...you are so dramatic it is pathetic. I do business in Monterrey as well. We have a call center down there.

As for this country becoming like and oligarchy, give me a frickin' break. Home ownership is at an all time high, wages are rising, etc, etc. The middle class in this country is doing quite well, which is exactly why we shouldn't be taxing them any more. But to suggest the US is becoming an oligarchy is just a total joke and something stuck in your liberal biased head.

[Smacks Forehead] Ai carumba! (Just what does that mean anyway?)

And after the Mexican government collapses and the people beg us, will we make Mexico the 51st state? LOL!

Has anyone recognized a problem with conservative macro-economic policy in Mexico since Fox took over from the PRI?

Even with billions in foreign investment, a robust free-trade agreement, and more than enough time to reverse the authoritarian lock on the government for nearly 80 years, those policies have driven more people out of the middle-class, which was extremely anemic to begin with, and has intensified the urge of poorer mexicans to risk life and limb to sneak into a country that is paying them below minimum wage...what does that say when people are leaving in larger amounts, even after the boon of free markets and american-style capitalism?

I know what is being said in Mexico City, "Let's do more of the same, except BIGGER!"

Kahn, I've been saying for months that we should just annex Mexico, gain a few new states, and on one fell swoop realize the goals of more than half of all Mexicans---to live in the United States.

Congressive painted a lovely picture of one Mexican city. I guess his claim of "96.4% employed citizenry .." must refer to that single city, as it sure can't apply to the country in general. His comment that it is "better than America...." reminds me of the starry-eyed Libs who came back from Cuba in the 60's and 70's, all swoony over Castro and the paradise he was building. But Congressive, do the horrible shantytowns still exist on the fringes of Mexico City? How about Monterrey? It's been a while since I was in Monterrey, but I will never forget the sight of the women scrubbing clothes on rocks in the river, to take home to one-room shanties with no toilets, packed into a barrio that was far far worse than anything in the United States.

There was a recent article comparing the economies of two areas in North America which contain relatively equal amounts of oil--Alberta and Mexico. As you can imagine, the differences are dramatic---probably why we don't have millions of illegals snowshoeing across the border into Montana every year. And the main difference was the ability in Canada for private companies to invest in the oil business, whereas in Mexico the oil business is nationalized.

Yes, I know---allowing the oil business in Mexico to be opened to investment would mean it would allow even more people to make money. But that is an evil that might have to be tolerated, given that it would also provide hundreds of thousands of jobs, and make it possible for people to stay in their homeland and have decent lives. I realize that's a trade-off you might not find acceptable, being all capitalistic and profity and so on, but it just might be worth trying.

The Eye is repeating something someone told him about the "..boon of free markets and american-style capitalism." Does he mean "boom" Or is it "boon"?

In either case, I'd like to see some examples of a "boom" in "...free markets and american-style capitalism". Just curious.

It sounds like the Eye is blaming the abject poverty of Mexcio on----the capitalist model. But of course!! Not only "capitalism" but (gasp!!)--AMERICAN-style capitalism! No WONDER they are in such a mess!!

And that would explain, of course, the mad dash for the actual SOURCE of that nasty American-style capitalism. Unless the Eye is arguing that fleeing to America is a flight AWAY from "Amercian-style capitalism". And he could be. That argument would be no more fatuous and unsustainable than his others.

Hey, eyeful, the biggest "boom" in American-style capitalism in Mexico is the influx of dollars sent home by Mexicans who are actually EXPERIENCING "American-style capitalism" by living and working here, legally or illegally.

You are aware, of course, that the money sent back to Mexico is the second-largest source of revenue in the entire country? Second to the nationalized oil industry, whose profits go to only a small select group of people.

Almiranta,

I was being cynical, and condescending by using the term "boon" to describe Mexico's macroeconomic reaction to privatization.

The 'boom' came in the form of Mexico laying down for privatization, selling off over 900, of its 1100 government-held businesses, yet somehow the market monopolies just became private monopolies, like TelMex's sale to private, politically connected people who raised prices, and never improved services.

TelMex is only one of many stories about the supposed opening of the Mexican markets, were only opened to those who had political connections, and multi-nationals who saw a brand new pool of under-trained workers at their disposal.

Can you show me some examples of how the privatization of Mexico's previously state held companies has helped their economy?

As I said before, you would think that Mexico agreeing to the World Bank's reccomendations back in the early 90's, and the passage of NAFTA would have helped them, but has curiously intensified the ever-wideing gulf between rich and poor.

The 'abject poverty' as you say is not our fault, but the multi-national looting of Mexican industrial and natural resources is well documented, and yet the word from PAN (highly connected to US business, and backed by Republican power-brokers) and their candidate are: "More of the same will make everything better!"

"...empties the treasury to pay for social programs and prevents foreign investment so that small, inefficient Mexican farms can continue to exist long past the time when they became economically unviable."

As opposed to the corporate welfare programs favored by the right? ;)

"Economically unviable" small Mexican farms? Subsistence farming in Mexico and Central America - based largely on corn - has been an economically viable and self-sustaining way of life for millienia. What has threatened this age-old economic system is not Mexican "inefficieny", but rather, huge US government subsidies to American corn producers. We tax payers here actually subsidize US farmers to market corn at prices far below production costs (and no, we're not talking about boosts to small family farms - we're talking handouts to big agribusiness). Under the provisions of NAFTA and CAFTA, Mexico and Central America are forced to open their markets to that corn that is sold at far below cost.

The dumping of heavily subsidized US corn on Mexico and Central America - while having only marginally positive benefits for US corn producers - is forcing millions of small Mexican farmers off their lands, rending apart families, destroying entire cultures, and sending waves of immigrants into protected nature preserves, overcrowded cities and on to the US.

"Diversifying" into export crops to the US is not really an option for most Mexican small farmers. Through careful selections over centuries, the Maya and other meso-American groups have created strains of corn that will grow in all kinds of conditions, and in the generally poor quality, rocky soils to which they have access, and which are largely unsuitable for growing other crops. The kinds of crops valued by the export market (coffee, tropical fruits, etc) generally require much higher quality soils and a level of mechanization not available to subsistence farmers. Consequently, since NAFTA, more than 2 million Mexican subsistence farmers - hard working people who never before needed a government handout - have been forced from their land.

NAFTA/CAFTA is not so much about reducing tariffs as it is about corporate welfare. As a conservative, I assume you are against welfare. I also assume that you are against protectionism, subsidies, and artificial price supports for US corn producers. As a conservative, I also assume you are concerned about the influx of Mexican immigrants, many of them former subsistence farmers forced to abandon their way of life as a direct result of these subsidies to US producers. You should think about these conservative principles, Mark, before shooting your mouth off about "inefficient" small Mexican farms, and launching into another mindless screed against "leftists".

Aarontime,

Sounds good...so, when are you going to become a peasant trying to scratch out a living on three or four acres of substandard farm land?

Oh, you don't want to? Why not? The way you describe it makes it sound like the peasants down there WANT to be poor and scratching out a bare existence from poor soil...

A few acre farm - except for some high value specialty crops - has been economically unviable for more than a century...its just a waste of effort to grow corn on small farms...but here come the socalists! To them, this is "culture" and it must be preserved! Not for the socialists, of course...oh, no!, none of that...the socialists have to live in large cities with plenty of wealth and comfort...how else can they "save" the peasants?

TEO,

As I said - the corruption in Mexico is a problem whether the government is left or right...the only slight hope Obrador has of partial success is to ruthlessly suppress corruption. Some major Mexican players will have to see the inside of jail cells...and not just among the business class...most of the union bosses are just as dirty as most of the political and economic bosses.

Unfortunately, with Obrador, the Mexicans are likely to get a combination of endemic corruption and socialist economics...recipe for utter disaster.

Mark -

Subsistence farming in Mexico and Central America has provided an economically stable and self-sustaining way of life to millions of indigenous peasants for millenia. It matters not whether you deem this living economically viable or even desirable. It is not up to you or me to decide for these people whether their way of life is worthwhile.

If by "economically viable" you mean the ability to provide profits in sufficient quantity to purchase consumer electronics and other such luxuries, well no, subsistence agriculture isn't "viable". But by that standard, US style big agri-business apparently isn't economically viable either, since the US government must heavily subsidize its production! However, milpa agriculture (where corn is interspersed with low growing, carefully bred strains of beans and squashes) provides complete nutrition and basic necessities for millions. And the white corn that is not consumed as food is sold in the urban areas, providing enough extra cash to purchase those necessities that they cannot make for themselves (like some medicines, etc). With US corn dumping, that is no longer the case.

And yes, entire cultures in Meso-Amertica were based on the cultivation of corn. But this is primarily not about protecting "lifestyles" for the sake of high minded cultural preservation. It is not about "saving the peasants", as you typically ridicule. It is about preserving a self-sustaining means of living. If you think subsistence agriculture is abhorrent, fine. But what do you propose to do with the millions of people who used to make a simple and sustainable, if not luxurious, living this way? The miracles of the free market have not been able to absorb these small farmers who have been forced to abandon their lands. In exchange for ruining their ability to provide for their families, so-called free trade agreements have offered these peasants almost nothing in return. The dispossession of peasants has only resulted in swelling the ranks of the labor pool, which has further depressed wages in Mexico since NAFTA was enacted, sending millions north to the US or to urban slums.

You never addressed these fundamental questions, Mark: Are you in favor of US farm subsidies? Are you in favor of the artificial, ruinious, below-cost prices resulting from these subsidies?

If you are against providing any incentives for peasants to live off the land, fine - they never asked you for subsidies (or your opinion about their way of life). But isn't it only fair that large US agricultural corporations not be subsidized?

And isn't it interesting that the same US agro-businesses that benefit from farm subsidies also benefit from the huge labor pool of illegal immigrants?

"Escape from Mexico!"

A riveting reality show now playing at the US/Mexico border, daily...!

Mark,

I find it funny that you're willing to write off Obrador, with a waive of your hand, and a cynical shrug. Fox has done diddly as cabin-boy to Bush's flagship, yet as an American, who probably knows very little about Mexican politics, you seem fairly convinved that another dose of the same old same is just what they need for their problems; perhaps a guy who is willing to re-write NAFTA, and take a bit more help from the south, is better than selling of the few remaining national industries to multi-national corporations, so the rich can get even more rich.

Viva la Obrador!

"¿como ti hizo a Iraq?" (like you did for Iraq?)

Posted by: congressive

Congressive your Spanish is almost as bad as TEO, calling Obrador "la", indicating he is either a woman or a maricon (homosexual).

ti is not a word. surely you meant :
"como hiciste a Iraq".

Your analysis of Mexico is remarkably juvenile and uninformed, especially for someone who aledgedly travels there with some frequency.

Mexico's ills have nothing to do with economic policy, and certainly have nothing in common with conservative macroeconomic policies.

Mexico is a SOCIALIST country, all the natural resources theoretically belong to the people of Mexico. The operative word is 'theoretical'. In fact they are controlled by 100 families, who have done so before the time of Maximillian. So 90% of the assets of the country are controlled by 10% of the population. Comparisons to the US are absurd.

Nice neighborhoods? There is considerable wealth in Mexico, in the hands of very few. If you really want to see what Mexico city is try getting to the outskirts where the slums are.

Your quote of 96.4% employment is laughable. 10% of the population of Mexico resides illegaly in the US. The majority of the 96.4% are hopelessly underemployed, qand underpaid.

BTW please provide links to the "well documented looting of Mexico by multi-nationals".

While in Mexico I hope you have enjoyed the strawberries and the lettuce. Did anyone happen to mention that they fertilize the fields with human feces? I didn't think so.

Enjoy the pork? Probably no one mentioned to you that the pork in Mexico is riddled with a parasite called cystes, and that the Mexico has one of the highest incidences of cystisarcosis, a condition which causes hydrocephalus in adults. We are seeing more and more of this thanks to our "undocumented guest workers" that most americans call illegal aliens, (as well as frequent visitors to Mexico). Be sure to get a CT scan of your brain in a few years.

Almiranta, as far as annexing Mexico for the oil, its not worth it considering we'd get about 100,000,000 socialist who, like congrssive and TEO, would vote for the Dems.

Mark, as we have seen with Chavez, when properly implemented left wing ideals do work better than capitalist. While 80% of Venezuela just a few years ago was in absolute poverty, now most can read and write, wealth from natural resources are no longer in the hands of a few but used to help the majority. If the socialist revolution currently taking place all over south america does fail then yes, me and others will blame north america since it is bush that is attempting to prevent the revolution taking place (supporting the coup, talking about islolating the regon, refusing to sell weapons they are entitled to, etc).
viva la revolution!

It's discouraging when people say "96.4% must be in blah blah blah, I don't know where he gets this blah blah bah." Look it up. The CIA Factbook CLICK HERE is a good place to start. America gets bludgeoned with the "everything is bad in Mexico" nonsense and "every Mexican want to come here" myopic viewpoint. The statement that if you want to see the real Mexico, then go to the slums, applies equally well to virtually every country on earth. Wanna see the REAL America? Go visit King/Drew hospital in South Central... nonsense.

Doubt me, but for chrissake, look something up once in a while. Otherwise you become the Stephen Colbert parody that just "feels" the truth.

As for this little gem: "So 90% of the assets of the country [Mexico] are controlled by 10% of the population. Comparisons to the US are absurd." - CLICK HERE for the US breakdown as of 2001, 70% of the assets of the US were controlled by 10% of the population. Do you think that number has fallen or risen since then under the Republicans? Describe HOW absurd that is. Fling adjectives around, but again, LOOK IT UP.

Kiwi,

Please tell me you are being sarcastic. If not, you are seriously delusional.

Phnxbmed,

Thank you for calling me out, I love it when I get to educate someone.

1. Since its creation, NAFTA has gone a long way in destroying the agricultural backbone of the Mexican economy, turning what used to be viable, arable land, into plots for industrial complexes, or making it economically impossible to compete, even on local levels, with the heavily subsidized food and grain flooding in from the US.

2. Biotech companies such as Monsanto, ADM, and Novartis are waging war on biodiversity within Mexico, creating a 'monoculture' of food stocks, and bringing the spectre of ravaging crop disease that much closer. Don't forget that in the 70's when American 'monoculture' corn was ravaged by resistent fungus, the counteracting gene was found in the 10,000 or so varieties of southern Mexico maize; those stocks are being increasingly diminished at the hands American firms by "dumping" of our subsidized crops, thus forcing many small farmers to sell out to multi-national corporations, which inturn force these farmers to use chemical and water intensive strategies to supply the American demand for mexican agricultural products. This strategy has led to further erosion of top-soils and dangerous run-off into the Sea of Cortez, further endangering the economic viability of Mexico.

The Houston Chronicle, USA by Michael Pollan
4-25-04

From an economics standpoint, the entire uprising in Chiapas can be directly correlated with the re-writing of article 27 in the Mexican constitution following the signing of NAFTA. This immutable guarantee that the people of Mexico owned their lands in co-opt, and guaranteed the Mayans in southern Mexico could continue to farm as they had for centuries before the US was a country, was disregarded outright, and the lands sold to multi-national corporations for industrial use. This sad reality of "progress" has pushed these farmers into more mountainous fields, while their arable, plains-fields have been sold for beef ranching causing great harm to the balance of the enviroment in Southern Mexico.

3. Water rights within Mexico has been a hot-button issue for them for many years since NAFTA went into effect. The opening up of the markets to private water companies has shown the same outcomes many of the privatization of other industries has shown: continued monopolies and disregard for the poor.

"Research by the Public Services International's Research Unit, University of Greenwich (London) revealed that corruption has been an issue in water privatisation by multinational companies in developing countries. Private water management companies experienced financial losses and, importantly, "failed to serve the poor, or even exploited them" (as stated by J.F. Talbot, CEO of SAUR International, the world's fourth largest multi-national company, as of January 2002).

Privatisation of water has already been carried out in various parts of the world, including Argentina, Columbia, Bolivia, Mexico, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia and Hungary. Research in Bolivia, Pakistan and Argentina indicated the same thing, i.e. price increases and failure to serve the poor. Following water privatisation in Cochabamba, Bolivia, the cost of water increased approximately 300%, around 25% of the total income of the poor."

4. How about the sugarcane industry in Mexico, according to NAFTA, they should have had their cane exported to the US at a rate of about 500,000 tons a year, yet in a "side-letter"--a rewriting of the contract, without Mexico's approval--trade restrictions of 116,000 tons are imposed, leaving the already struggling Mexican agriculture business even farther in the hole, this has led to mills closing, lack of payment for already milled products, and the mass migration of the young to cities and the US to find ANY work since the family plots are no longer protected by the Mexican constitution, and multinational corps. are swooping in to buy them for pennies on the dollar.

These are just a few that didn't require a book to explain the intricate nature of all the "fingers in the stew", i'm sure if you spent enough time searching to you can find many more examples of the poor farmer being uncerimoniously heaved off their land so "privatization" and the "opening of markets" can occur.

First, the Mexicans flooding across the border are not coming to a geographical location which we call the United States---they are coming to a political system which governs the United States. They are fleeing a country with incredible natural resources. Why aren't these resources untilized?

Your loathing for the American system is blatant. So how do you explain that of the three largest countries in North America, each with roughly equivalent natural resources, only one is so mired in abject poverty and a primitive lifestyle?

You people amaze me. You have the free time to sit around in front of your expensive computers, probably in nice housing, no doubt very well fed, and then pontificate on how terrible this country is. You've never had to work 18 hours a day just to survive, you've never had to carry water and use an outhouse, you've never had to live on rice and beans, yet you feel somehow qualified to lecture us on how our system is so inferior.

And of course you use the traditional LibSpeak to do it. The cliches like "corporate welfare" just roll off the tongue, don't they?

The Third Eye is spewing again, this time with a bunch of statistics about "privatization" and its many many failures---proof that governement should run everything, I guess. Proof at least that capitalism is bad bad bad. Of course, there is no context for his cut-and-paste diatribe. There is either no understanding or no reference to the political systems in which his examples have taken place---as if the acts of privatization can merely stand alone. In the overly-simplified world of the Left, maybe they can.

First, there is no system of government that is perfect. All are flawed, and allow some degree of corruption and incompetence. This is going to be true as long as countries, and governments, are comprised of human beings. No way to get around that.

Second, it appears that democracy is the best of the choices available to us. One reason is that it allows for flexibility and change, when things fail to work the way we want them to. Support for this theory includes the fact that while some individuals, such as the leftists who choose to evangelicize their belief system on this blog, evidently would be happier in a strongly socialistic and government-controlled system, historically people have moved toward representational government and systems which reward enterprise and ambition.

Third, like it or not, capitalist nations offer the highest standard of living and the most freedom of any nations. While some loathe and despise captitalism and yearn for the utopian promises of idealized socialism, the penalizing of ambition and the rewarding of indolence do not resonate with the majority of humans.

As for quoting sources and links, I don't do that any more, not with lefties. When people are interested in an honest exchange of ideas, and are open to new perceptions and information, I love to get into the details. But I have learned on this blog that no matter how many quotes I provide, no matter how many sources I reference, no matter how many links I suggest, the steadfast dependence on ideology rather than fact will always trump reality.

I would not think of trying to convince someone that his religion is false, even though it may seem apparent to me that it is based on fantasy. But arguing belief systems is a waste of time. I knew years ago that Liberalism is a belief system, of the most ardent, intolerant, and fundamental type, admitting of no deviance from a very rigid doctrine. It makes you happy---good for you. I wish you did not feel the need to be so evangelical about it, but then the most deeply fundamental of all belief systems depend heavily on self-validation through conversion of others.

So as I view your belief system in much the same way that I view the belief that the world is only 5000 years old, though I find your system to be less tolerant and generous than the true Chrisitan's, I just accept that it is there, that it meets some need of yours, and let it go. If I thought that facts would make a difference to you, I would list them all day long. But you (plural 'you') have proven to me that facts simply do not outweigh the way your world view makes you FEEL.

And I remember an old cowboy saying:

"You don't never want to rassle a pig. You can't do it without getting as dirty as the pig is----and the pig LIKES it!"

"The 'abject poverty' as you say is not our fault, but the multi-national looting of Mexican industrial and natural resources is well documented". TEO

Thanks for the 'education' on the agriculture of Mexico, and what Nafta has done to it. I am still waiting for you lesson on the "multi-national looting of Mexican industrial and natural resources".

Almiranta,

Conjecture as usual.

Look, i've tried to be nice here, I provide my sourcing, I speak from my beliefs, and yet you still marginalize the messenger without ever speaking to the message.

Mexicans are coming to the political structure known as "USA" because that is where they can make a living now that their family lands are being made useless to wide-open markets, and in turn being gobbled up by multi-national corps, that is fact. Care to rebut that with facts?

I never claimed ANY government is perfect, but to step on poor mexican farmers so we can save $.20 on a head of lettuce or tomatoes is not "progress" and it isn't helping Mexico one bit. You need to stop feeding yourself this false dichotomy that it's either American-style Capitalism or it's something else (read socialism, communism, anarchy), this isn'thow the real world works. We have just found out over the past 50 or so years that we can use developing countries for their workers and resources to our benefit, without having to worry about building eco/social friendly infrastructure or helping to raise their ship as our tide comes in. Welcome to globalization, welcome to being a good world neighbor.

I do sit infront of a very nice computer--built by me I might add--in a pretty nice duplex, on a quiet street in North Florida, I eat well, and don't have to worry about crime more insideous than someone breaking my window for a book of CDs. What that tells me is that I am blessed, I am blessed to be so lucky that I son't have to worry about where my next meal comes from or if robbing a neighbor is the only way I can keep my kids from starving. What that means is that I have the RESPONSIBILITY to whine and bitch and moan about the problems I see, until everyone has everything they need, this isn't a hobby, it's my duty as a member of the richest nation on the planet to get as much of that wealth to the people who in their lifetimes can never hope to beat back such a juggernaut of "economic progress", why should a Mexican family who has farmed for generations have to give up on that because now we can ship dump corn ino their markets, forcing their children to work in unsafe, underpaid, overworked US manufacturing plants where if they are lucky if they aren't raped and killed on the walk back to their shanty-hut.

Don't get uppity with me, woman. I have worked my fair share of 18 and 24 hour shifts, can't say I much like it. I'll sit on my ass in a office, sucking up air conditioning, getting my paid time-off. I have eaten my fair share of Ramen and Mac 'n' Cheese, i've searched the couch cushions for loose change to get the bus-fare to work. I have pulled cable in high-rises and i've picked cucumbers in South Georgia, go complain to someone else, your past doesn't give you any right to claim you're right and I am wrong, capitalism at its best is freedom, at its worse, its slavery...now if you'll excuse me, my rice is about done.

If the Mexican government wishes to renegotiate NAFTA, a treaty they negotiated with in good faith, we should renegotiate it. If phnxbmed is correct, Mexican agricultural products are inferior. I think he/she is correct. I remember reading something about this. They can keep their inferior agricultural products. In exchange for them changing the terms of NAFTA, we secure our borders and they agree to actively block those who are trying to illegally imigrate to the USA. Mexico will agree not to complain about the US securing its borders or to file lawsuits to halt actions of the National Guard, as a Mexican official recently threatened. Furthermore, Mexico will agree to actively crack down on the groups who wish to annex the American Southwest, as well as the drug running gangs, and they will provide American law enforcement officials with any and all information they have on these groups. The Mexican government will issue a formal apology for the prior actions of its military in assisting those who were trying to cross the border illegally. Finally, the Mexican government will agree to help US authorities in bringing the cyotes, those who transport people illegally to the US, to justice. Finally, all foreign aid to Mexico will be contingent on Mexico fulfilling the obligations. Failure by the soverign Mexican government to respect the soverign rights of its American neighbor will result in a boycott of Mexico. We probably will not get everything we want in renegotiations, but we should get something. This would be a starting point for negotiations.

Have a happy 4th everyone and God bless!!