Thread: We need to be open to funding Mexico infrastructure projects

That figure was the peak remittance flow from two years ago it has since gone down. Actually if you read my whole argument not presented in this thread while I favor US investment in selected Mexican infrastructure projects I also say that better use of remittance money by beneficiary families is the most important investment. They are not using it wisely now instead they are spending it on things they could produce locally themselves. More food should be locally sourced instead of bought from supermarkets which stock Mexico City manufactured and imported food. Clothing is less pivotal but more of that could be sourced locally too.

Originally Posted by Richard

It is stupidly shortsighted to avoid funding projects which are of equal or primary benefit to us merely because they are located in another country. I guess you feel that the United States under Roosevelt should have refused to fund a Tehuantepec shipping route in favor of the Panama Canal because it was Mexican not that it was cheaper.

StokeyBob I guess you would rather fund the Teamsters

RedPony read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith

Roundabout like I said above we should not be shortsighted

I see you guys got on at Porter this is Kendall it is my stop.

That is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about!!!!

Stay away from me and my pockets with your bleeding heart manure.

If you want to spend your money go right ahead.

I've been down there and taken building materials and helped people build their houses.

I've had my moments when I've tried to help.

I seen money, that I will be taxed to pay for, go down there many, many times. Recently to finance the drug cartels. The government officials said it was to help the police. I say what is the difference?


I'll have no problem helping when I see fit but it looks a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way off!@

They have a very wealthy country and need to start helping themselves ... helping themselves somewhere else but HERE!

Originally Posted by Richard

The thing that is missing which has made NAFTA unsuccessful compared with it's potential is capital. It has acheived growth of both economies already. There would be more demand for our production if there were more Mexican factories.

Unless our animus so unreasoning that we feel that cutting off our own nose to spite our own face because it will bruise the Mexicans we should be putting money into Mexico. To do otherwise is the equivalent of our banning navigation on the Great Lakes because it might be of benefit Canada. The shortest ocean navigation route for a lot of the United States is through Mexico and the closest place to put petroleum infrastructure outside the southern United States is Mexico.

USA is broke and wages are depressed. NAFTA has not acheived growth of our economy.

Originally Posted by Richard

It is stupidly shortsighted to avoid funding projects which are of equal or primary benefit to us merely because they are located in another country. I guess you feel that the United States under Roosevelt should have refused to fund a Tehuantepec shipping route in favor of the Panama Canal because it was Mexican not that it was cheaper.

StokeyBob I guess you would rather fund the Teamsters

RedPony read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith

Roundabout like I said above we should not be shortsighted

I see you guys got on at Porter this is Kendall it is my stop.

USA has plenty of infrstructure work that needs to be done....and I think Mexico should pay for it. It would be shorsighted of Mexico not to do so.

Well there goes the redline subway car effect again.

Originally Posted by Richard

Well there goes the redline subway car effect again.

That's all you have left to say?

We have given enough to Mexico, cut them off like Cuba. It is time to take care of Americans, first.

Deport all illegal Mexicans and secure the borders.

Richard wrote:

Well there goes the redline subway car effect again.

At the risk of sounding ignorant, what does that mean? That's the first time I've heard that term used.

We're offering you legitimate reasons of why we shouldn't fund the building of infrastructure in Mexico and you're offering short quips to dismiss us and our concerns?

Nothing personal, Richard, but I think you need a better argument if you hope to justify your position.

I do not need to waste time justifying common sense to people who do not want to understand the picture after someone says the words Mexico or Mexican.

A wiser person would understand that not every infrastucture project aids us to the same degree but there are some which are located in Mexico which help us as does the Panama Canal in Panama or the St. Lawrence Seaway and HydroQuebec out of Canada. Those that help us we should be backing even if they are physically in Mexico.

Originally Posted by Richard

I do not need to waste time justifying common sense to people who do not want to understand the picture after someone says the words Mexico or Mexican.

A wiser person would understand that not every infrastucture project aids us to the same degree but there are some which are located in Mexico which help us as does the Panama Canal in Panama or the St. Lawrence Seaway and HydroQuebec out of Canada. Those that help us we should be backing even if they are physically in Mexico.

Bwa! Ha! Ha!

Like the new port to unload the container ships so they can bypass our ports?

You know to take some of the load off us and so they can bring the goods in on the Globalist new super highway through Texas and the heart of this once great nation?

I'm afraid you may have went to the well once to many times.


P.S. Maybe we should get the money together before we start deciding how we are going to spend it on these sort of things or other things like Socialized Medicine.