By on January 17, 2020

The U.S. Senate approved changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement on Thursday, effectively replacing the 26-year-old deal with the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement. USMCA embraces stronger automotive content rules for the region, updates language for new technologies, and enacts sweeping labor protections aimed at uplifting the Mexican workforce. As a byproduct, it’s also likely to discourage automakers from isolating themselves south of the U.S. border in an effort to secure cheap labor.

Passing with a 89-10 vote in the Republican-controlled Senate, USMCA also allows President Donald Trump to keep his campaign promise of replacing NAFTA — a pact he often referred to as “the worst deal in history.” 

Approved by the House in December of 2019, USMCA was finalized in 2018 and will now replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump vowed for years to renegotiate or outright abandon NAFTA, which he faulted with the loss of millions of U.S. factory jobs to Mexico. Despite strong headwinds throughout negotiations, the deal received widespread Republican support in Congress.

It also had much more support from Democrats than many expected. However, a few high-profile politicians on the left have faulted USMCA for not addressing environmental issues that were also missed by NAFTA. “Despite the fact that it includes very good labor provisions, I am voting against USMCA because it does not address climate change, the greatest threat facing the planet,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.

Senator Bernie Sanders expressed similar environmental concerns, adding he believed USMCA would fail to “stop the outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico, China and other low-wage countries.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who is also vying to run against Trump in the next election — voted to support.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office wasted no time in promoting the increased environmental protections in the renegotiated deal, saying USMCA goes far beyond addressing air and water pollution by ensuring violations are easily enforceable. But environmental groups like Sierra Club seem largely unconvinced. It said more needs to be done to stop companies from polluting.

For our purposes, the most noteworthy regulatory changes include a shift that requires increased North American content in cars and trucks. At least 75 percent of vehicle content must come from the region to receive tariff-free treatment, with additional mandates imposed on North American steel and aluminum. Likewise, USMCA stipulates that 40-45 percent of vehicle content must come from areas paying over $16 an hour.

Mexican legislators approved USMCA last month. Canada is expected to revisit the matter once parliament is back in session on January 27th.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

132 Comments on “Senate Approves USMCA Trade Deal Replacing NAFTA...”


  • avatar
    A Scientist

    *grabs popcorn*

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    While the increase in US content is great, there should be no surprise environmental concerns were ignored. This is Trump after all. We should be grateful that there is no tax advantages tied to dumping toxic waste into the ground Instead of getting rid of it properly. 15 flushes indeed.

    • 0 avatar
      dont.fit.in.cars

      Drive south of San Diego, just cross the border witness the chemical dump oozing to the Pacific. The current picks it up and deposits onto SoCal beaches for years long Trump thought about being President.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “Drive south of San Diego, just cross the border witness the chemical dump”

        I get driven that way every time we go to or come back from Ensenada and you are absolutely right. That whole area is a chemical dump, and with the wind just right, it can water your eyes.

        And as far as environmental concerns with the USMCA, the US is nowhere near the top polluter on this planet.

        Asia is.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          @highdesertcat:
          “And as far as environmental concerns with the USMCA, the US is nowhere near the top polluter on this planet.

          Asia is.”

          We’re not in a race to see who can pollute our own backyard the fastest.

          I’m quite glad someone else is winning.

          BUT, we can do better.

          My grandfather lived to 86 in a much dirtier environment than I do (breathing mid-20th century California smog half the time), and with poorer worker protections (he was a tool & die maker).

          I’m likely to live much longer than he did, as are my kids and future grandkids are too. But only if we don’t insist on peeing in our own pool, environmentally speaking.

          I’d rather compete with Canada and Europe here, not Asia and Mexico. Let’s pick our battles properly, and recognize the stakes.

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        DONT FIT IN

        Hang on a second. Oceans north of the equator rotate clockwise. Stuff dumping into the ocean at that TJ canal FLOWS SOUTH. How does it hit California beaches.?

        Earth Science from 11th grade bro.

        • 0 avatar
          dont.fit.in.cars

          8th grade reading…bro

          https://www.foxnews.com/us/millions-of-gallons-of-mexican-waste-threaten-us-border-patrol-agents

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Wow. No wonder the border patrol agent’s union and the city of Imperial Beach are suing…that’s some nasty stuff being dumped out to the ocean in TJ.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            What doesn’t make the headlines is that the power plants in Ciudad Juarez, just across from El Paso, TX, use anything and everything that burns to generate electricity, which includes old tires, trash, used oil, etc.

            I can tell you that the acrid smoke that blows north into El Paso, TX, knows no boundaries and knows no politics, because it stinks and waters the eyes, irritates the lungs, and deposits a fine layer of soot on everything.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          The Tia Juana River crosses the border into California. The river delta is on the American side, where it flows out to sea.

          More to the point, it’s a TRADE agreement. Using trade to coerce another nation to alter its environmental policies is not, and should not be, the point of the agreement. As any diplomat will tell you, arrive at points of agreement first, and tackle the more difficult issues later.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      I bet ya – our agriculture pollutes more than car industry.

      • 0 avatar
        dont.fit.in.cars

        Bet it doesn’t. My friend has 1000 acres and leveraged 2.4 million in equipment to grow corn and soybeans. He knows we’re every seed lands on his plots, amount of nutrients in the soil, GPS mapping for least hours of tractor and combine time. All data stored in an iPad. Subscription Satellite data service for soil hydrology. Maintains above ground captured basin fuel tanks, receives seed in 48 cubed bins (no 50lb bags) and harvests with three family members and prepares for six months to do three months of work.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Yea? Great. What about all the fertilizers? chemicals to make these fertilizers. And all the animal food, medicine, etc? Pesticides and herbicides that pollute while being produced and while being used. There is more to it than a perfect tractor route

          • 0 avatar
            dont.fit.in.cars

            Wrong again, and where technology reduces the amount of fertilizer. By knowing where each seed is planted, I’ve watched him look out his field, grab his iPad and walk to a yellow hue among green calf high stalks. Few clicks, walks around the coloration, then takes a soil sample and sends to a lab. Analysis is uploaded into his gps chemical tank trailer and next spray, that area gets what chemical it needs. He relays it saves him 23% in chemical costs because he only buys and use what he needs.

            Also has a corn dryer. As corn comes off the field, he transfers to a dryer. Goes in at 35% moisture and leaves (twenty feet later) at 17% using natural gas. Knocks moisture down otherwise he couldn’t store it.

            Not every farmer does it. My friend said if they don’t do it they’ll be out of business in a few years.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            It’s true. Hormones, pesticides, fertilizers, etc. in the waste stream from farming and animal operations — and in some areas, like hog farms in North Carolina that overflow vast rivers of pig feces in the rain, the waste stream is controlled very poorly indeed. In California, fertilizer runoff and pollution killed the Salton Sea — turned it from a popular recreation spot to a place where fish can’t live and dust storms on the shore kick up toxic dust. Same deal with some midwest lakes too. But Big Ag has beaten back efforts to regulate these issues.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @slavuta,
            As someone who works in the IT industry in the midwest, helping farmers figure out where NOT TO APPLY pesticides and fertilizer is a growth industry for us here.

            It saves the farmer money because that stuff is expensive. It improves the environment because less stuff on the field is better. The farmer’s equipment can deliver these inputs accurately because precision farming is starting to mature technologically. And it makes us nerds money, because the farmers will pay for good algorithms which save them money on inputs.

            This is getting better, because everyone makes more money by keeping fertilizers and pesticides away from places where they are not needed.

            Also, farmers are a pretty varied bunch. Some of them are liberal environmentalists, some of them are rabid Trumpies. As rural people, they tend to skew more conservative than the populace — but they’re all small business owners looking for an edge in a business where the only way to increase profits while maintaining volume is to cut costs. Finding a few farmers who are willing to experiment with ways to use technology to cut costs doesn’t seem to be a problem.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          “Analysis is uploaded into his gps chemical tank trailer and next spray, that area gets what chemical it needs. He relays it saves him 23% in chemical costs because he only buys and use what he needs.”

          Haha. Saves him… But still pollutes. Look how much food is thrown out by restaurants. We don’t need so much food grown. Less food, less pollution

          • 0 avatar
            dont.fit.in.cars

            So let’s ding the farmer for downstream food waste? Maybe the Chinese will buy the surplus? Oh yeah them Chinese just signed a trade deal benefiting….US farmers.

    • 0 avatar
      NoID

      Is it US content? The article stated North American.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      I agree that Schumer is a disgrace

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    ““Despite the fact that it includes very good labor provisions, I am voting against USMCA because it does not address climate change, the greatest threat facing the planet,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.”

    Although this actually helps Americans, I want to be on the record of voting against helping Americans because I am a douche.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @28-Cars: I realize you’re strong on Nationalism but we still need to remember that we all live on one world–one tiny blue speck in an almost unimaginably-large universe. This tiny dot is all we have between us and nothingness. Until mankind can prove it can make a new home on another world, we need to do what we can to make sure we can survive on this one.

      • 0 avatar
        Robotdawn

        This tiny blue speck has been around 5 billion years and has shrugged off far greater calamities than humanity. It’ll be fine.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Robotdawn: But will Humanity? We’ve already triggered a mass-extinction event for many of this planet’s creatures. We keep it up and mankind itself may go extinct. Is that the kind of legacy you want to leave for some not-so-distant alien visitor to find?

          • 0 avatar
            Robotdawn

            Humans are the perfect generalists, we’ll be fine. A few degrees ain’t gonna hurt a thing. It’s been several degrees warmer since Genus Homo evolved.

            Assuming it’s not a load of baloney. I distinctly remember being told it was getting colder when I was in school, and we were going to starve, and run out of room, and oil, and even landfills. The next time one of these end of the world types is right will be the first time.

          • 0 avatar
            bullnuke

            Vulpine – What is the tipping point for the “mass-extinction event”? 10’s of creatures? 100’s of creatures? 10k’s of creatures? Please cite the source for the current “mass extinctions” and the dates of the start of this “mass-extinction event” that “we’ve already triggered” so that I may study the findings.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @bullnuke: How about the roughly 1 million sea birds that died very recently up in Alaska because the sea water was too warm and took away all their fish? Easy to find that article–the event happened 5 years ago. There have been massive fish die-offs, leaving lakes or rivers or even beaches covered in dead fish… all within the last 15-20 years.

            All you have to do is read or watch something other than the news channels to find out our world is changing around us and if we don’t stop doing what WE are doing, we, too, will die off, leaving this world for the roaches and other ultimate survivors. And you want to know something really funny? Whatever intelligence ends up replacing us may well be asking the same questions we did about why their predecessors failed to survive.

        • 0 avatar
          NoID

          You stated the point yourself. Do you want humanity to be “shrugged off” like all of those other calamities?

          I’m not a climate alarmist either, but your choice of words perfectly illustrated the point.

          The earth is in no danger of dying. We are.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Yup, and the climate has been changing for all of those 5 Billion years since its formation.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Scientists have been studying C02-induced climate change since 1850 or so, and have been documenting it decade after decade in the IPCC reports that you can read for yourself. They know a damn sight more about this than you or I do. Your opinion (or mine) is not equal to their expertise. If I need open heart surgery, I’m not going to have highdesertcat do it for me because he has strong opinions on surgery. I’m going to have a surgeon who knows what the hell he’s talking about do it.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            HotPotato, LOL.

            Not everyone believes in climate change. Maybe they should not have cut down all those trees that use CO2 on this planet.

            Every scientist has an agenda of their own. It only becomes dangerous when they team up and start to push their agenda as a doomsday group.

            Fortunately, not all scientists subscribe to this doomsday agenda just like during the global cooling scare decades ago.

            So how’s that global cooling scare working out? Better brains prevailed.

        • 0 avatar
          Ol Shel

          Nobody is suggesting that the planet will disappear. As in the past, it is the species on the planet that will suffer or disappear.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Vulpine,

        There was no human-invoked climate change when dinosaurs died due to climate change. And next big shake to this “blue speck” will not be cause by humans either. If you want to help, stop commenting here because server that hosts this website uses awfully a lot of fuel to generate heat while it is working and then too cool all this heat off using A/Cs.

        Frankly, if you want to save the planet, kill yourself, better yet kill another N number of people with you. This is the only way – stop babies! Especially in India, Pakistan, Indonesia and China. And close our border because when these poor people come here, they start to consume much more here than they would while in Central America.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Nice of you to notice that there WERE no humans in the dinosaur ages AND that they were taken out by one big honkin’ meteor.

          But that isn’t relevant to the discussion because humans, as such, have only been around for about 50,000-100,000 years yet we can STILL determine when something happened and even give a rough calculation as to how drastic and sudden certain changes were. Every SUDDEN change had to do with astronomical or geological causes–until now.

      • 0 avatar
        dont.fit.in.cars

        So the answer is for 50% of US corporations to retain R&D while environmental regulations and jobs are transferred to China & Mexico,

        Earth will be here long after we’re removed by a virus, not a 2 degree change in temperature.

    • 0 avatar
      Superdessucke

      If you believe Chuck U. Schumer cares about American jobs, I’ve got a nice bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!!

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Whether or not human influenced climate change exists or not, should be a separate thread.

        For Canada this is largely unchanged from the previous agreement. There is a benefit in that if Mexican wages go up, it may help the remaining Canadian auto workers. But that is a fairly big ‘maybe’.

        As to climate change, just as I prefer to fly in aircraft designed by engineers rather than aircraft built in someone’s shed (the Boeing Max notwithstanding), and prefer to have my surgery conducted by someone who has completed medical school over some internet taught naturalist, and get advice from a nutritionist rather than Gwyneth Paltrow, I prefer to base my opinion on climate change on the research of those with post-graduate degrees in science, and meteorology and related disciplines. And the overwhelming majority of them agree that manmade climate change exists and is a serious risk. If you want incontrovertible proof of human influence on the climate, then just research London’s killer fogs, the smog that used to shroud many cities and the change in the atmosphere and environment around Sudbury Ontario.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          “And the overwhelming majority of them agree that manmade climate change exists and is a serious risk.”

          And they also falsified a lot of data.

          I believe, fighting climate change is waste of time. We can fight pollution. But for this, we need to reduce population, and increase regulation – cant fertilize your lawn, can’t use this, can’t drink that. Can’t have a dog, a pet.

          May be we should add a label to each product – “to produce contents of this package xxx KWH of energy was used”

          • 0 avatar
            Robotdawn

            The Meteorologists who worked for our local stations (when I was younger) didn’t believe in global warming at all. They said it was just cycles, anybody could see that if they paid attention to base data.

            They are all retired now, and of course the new weather bimbos, both male and female, are Believers.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            A news/weather reader is not a meteorologist. That requires a specialized degree. And the overwhelming majority who hold such degrees or teach in that program agree that humans have impacted/created climate change.

            Citing websites by people untrained in the applicable science is like depending on someone on a website to tell you how to perform home dentistry.

            As for previous predictions, they were based on the data available at the time, the world population at that time and the economies/activities of that time. The biggest change of course being the astronomical increase in world population. Combined with improved standards of living that has led to greater cultivation, more housing, more autos and the loss of more habitat than predicted.

            Also check with your municipal/regional government and insurance companies. They track this data. Flooding has now become commonplace in areas that never experienced. According to a public forum I recently attended our municipal government is spending tens of millions of dollars because although we receive relatively the same amount of rain, it now occurs primarily during ‘storm’ events. The storm sewer system was designed based on predictions of storm events offer the past 100 years (using publicly accessible data) and current weather trends no longer conform with historical data. Insurance companies are experiencing the same in regards to flooding, hail, and wildfires. Your insurance bills reflect this.

            Another major issue is that climate change is most severe near the Equator. This will result in mass ‘climate’ refugees. When people are starving due to drought, etc, they will move, en masse. So if you think the current refugee crisis is a danger to your country, just wait.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            aurthurdaily..

            PULEEZE.
            first, science is NOT “consensus”!
            or indeed the world was flat at one time, eh?
            “the overwhelming majority who hold such degrees or teach in that program agree that humans have impacted/created climate change.”
            What!?
            humans “created climate change.
            Look…buy some help.
            climate change is a kinda old thing.
            climates have always…changed.

            nobody says otherwise.

            the argument is the main causes.
            that humans have an effect is stupidly silly.
            EVERYTHING has an effect on the climate.
            but mostly the sun does.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Arthur Daily, I think you believe that everyone should be as concerned about climate change as you are.

            They’re not.

            Worse yet, the vast majority don’t care.

            The people in Asia certainly don’t care, and they pollute far worse than the non-believers in America.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “first, science is NOT “consensus”!”

            Really?

            “Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.”

            Anyone in virtually any profession will look at something, analysis it and then come to a conclusion. If someone else looks at the same problem and comes to the same conclusion? That is how consensus forms.

            Ask anyone on this site how to change the oil in their vehicle or how frequent it should be done. You’ll get outliers but if everyone posts their opinion a consensus forms.

        • 0 avatar
          dont.fit.in.cars

          You don’t need to be a scientist, just a guy poking the bear.

          https://realclimatescience.com/

          He shows how selecting portions of data for claims are not overall mean. Also built sliding graph where inputing know data from any source shows a decline in temps.

          Also pulls articles from 50-100 years ago.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Great link! I actually had something like this in other areas, like politics. When they write something like “this is the worst crisis…” And you find article from 1965, which says same thing about same thing

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            realclimatescience is a site set up by Steven Goddard aka Tony Heller. He is an electrical engineer and has a geology degree.

            This fellow also pushes birtherism.

            One ALWAYS needs to do a background search on anyone or any site that isn’t an accredited scientific institution.

            People search for the validation of their beliefs as opposed to validation of the truth.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @TrailerTrash: I provided multiple examples of human influence on the climate. Actual cases of how human activity changed/influenced the climate. There are more.

            And you have ignored these.

            Yes, the climate changes. But natural climate change is generally incremental.

            Remember that the Earth existed before humans. We are a relatively ‘recent’ invasive species.

            What we are experiencing is massive change, occurring rapidly. And influenced by human activity.

            Since there is no ‘world government’ despite what conspiracy theorists claim, then we cannot force other nations to conform.

            Population control might be the only answer. Be it from a mass epidemic, famine or warfare.

            Or a switch from our petroleum/coal addiction. Replacing plastic with hemp based products. Using molten salt reactors to produce energy. Reducing consumption of red meat.

            What we will experience is mass movement of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people toward the northern hemisphere. That alone should be impetus for those in the 1st world northern nations to seek solutions.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            Arthur Dailey
            your listing of quotes and data are meaningless…here in this limited space.
            anybody with skill can show data enough to completely fill these pages with data.
            and i can list hundreds of equally skilled and noteworthy scientist and data that points out the deceptive data you embrace.
            i am in no mood to address individual data you post.
            however, to ignore competing and contradictory data from equally impressive science is foolhardy.

            the fact that wealth distribution is a deep and viciously deceptive underbelly of much of the left’s climate movement is something you should be more aware of and worried of, that is unless you are all in for such.

            and remember..you originally =said this topic is for another time, yet dove in.

            this is about the orange man doin well.not a good thing as far as you are concerned.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @TrailerTrash: You are repeating fake news. The overwhelming majority of people trained in the related sciences agree on the existence of human influenced climate change.

            The ‘studies’ that deniers rely on a predominantly from people not trained in these sciences.

            Much like the so called evidence cited by ‘anti-vaxers’.

            This is not a conspiracy. There is not ‘global government’.

            It is based on scientific evidence, checked in peer related studies.

            Or for example this document published by NASA:
            https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            TrailerTrash, ability to google does not make you a scientist. Of peer-reviewed studies, all but a tiny handful confirm AGW. Of the tiny handful that don’t, all were found to contain math errors. When these were corrected, they confirmed it too.

            AGW is real. Deal with it.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Arthur Dailey – agreed. NAFTA version 2.0 did not justify all of the tariffs and/or posturing. Ironically, the concessions Canada made in regards to USMCA were already approved to go into affect with TPP. Trump got Obama’s TPP out of Canada and Canada got the labour concessions out of Mexico that they wanted. The master negotiator got nothing extra other than red meat to throw to his fans.

          • 0 avatar
            dont.fit.in.cars

            “One ALWAYS needs to do a background search on anyone or any site that isn’t an accredited scientific institution.

            People search for the validation of their beliefs as opposed to validation of the truth.“

            Why does one need accreditation pulling and article from early 1900’s showing temperatures higher than current or flooding equal to today’s headlines? Contrast that with accredited scientists imputing select data to computer models producing an output validating their research grant?

            Let’s humor and say accredited science is correct world temp rises 1 degree, should government tax 300 million individuals for their BTU’s while the rest of the world pollutes Itself until it’s citizens lungs bleed?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @dont.fit.in.cars – “Why does one need accreditation pulling and article from early 1900’s showing temperatures higher than current or flooding equal to today’s headlines?”

            A person can request a copy of a CT scan performed on them that shows a tumour in their brain. Does that mean they can figure out what it shows and how to manage it?

          • 0 avatar
            redgolf

            Lou_BC – “People search for the validation of their beliefs as opposed to validation of the truth.” I love this quote, so true!

        • 0 avatar
          dont.fit.in.cars

          I prefer climate scientist look at date over time than pick a narrow point then claim a trend. Or in the case of NASA remove a data set to justify a claim.

          Here’s my favorite.

          https://realclimatescience.com/2020/01/nasa-confirms-their-own-conspiracy-theory/

          Personally I could care less about climate change, the concern is government creating legislation to extract coin from taxpayers for a gas we all exhale.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Again: some self-promoting lunatic’s blog is not a reliable source.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            First it is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, which turned out to be just another bullsht sky-is-falling apocalypse panic.

            Then they shifted to “climate change,” because that is unfalsifiable. You cannot deny “climate change,” and if you do, you are irrational.

            There is no impending climate catastrophe caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The earth does not have a fever. The oceans are not rapidly rising. There is no reason to adopt radical “solutions” to a non-problem. This is a legitimate area of scientific inquiry that has been hijacked by the left, in order to gain power and control. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” and if there is no crisis, go out and create one.

            Even the IPCC reports have greatly moderated their findings, but it doesn’t matter, since no one reads them and the summaries are not written by the scientists.

            There is nothing about being trained in the sciences, btw, which makes a person more honest, trustworthy, free of bias, immune to prejudice, less greedy, less power-hungry, less corruptible, than any other person.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @thelaine: It appears to me that you are intentionally blinding yourself to observed and observable effects of our planet’s “fever.” Burning fossil fuels is what previously caused the “acid rain” that actively damaged many historical edifices, not even considering any other atmospheric effects which caused our atmosphere’s temperature to start rising.

            There most certainly is an impending climate catastrophe. Even if it’s not a catastrophe to the planet itself (it has previously healed itself once the CAUSE of the catastrophe was absorbed and effectively eliminated,) as the CAUSE of this pending catastrophe, the Earth will simply burn us out and return to its well-known cycles. The catastrophe, ergo, is a human one, not a global one. The globe will simply eliminate that which makes it unwell.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          so it should be a separate thread, you suggest, then proceed to opine on it.

          but may i advise that you are getting biased, filtered and specifically slanted :”science” from those who depend upon their findings to provide their financial support.

          i can provide many, many reports on the “science” of global warming being produced by such soulless scientist.

          in fact, today to speak otherwise cost careers and livelihoods.

          the cancel culture is not restricted to hollywood.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Sure, bud. A bunch of earnest, bespectacled researchers up against the richest, most powerful companies and countries and individuals in the world, and you’ve convinced yourself that the ones with all the money and power are actually the underdogs. That is one hell of a conspiracy theory.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I’d wager all but a couple of Senators supported this in their heart of hearts. They know the score.

    But they also knew that a few of them with particularly anti-trade primary electorates could vote against it without real consequences, so you got some no votes.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      This USMCA, and the China Phase 1 trade deal are the biggest and best things that have happened to America since I was born in 1947.

      The future looks brighter today for America than at any time since President Reagan.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @highdesertcat – USMCA isn’t much different than NAFTA. Please take a look at an up post reply I made to @Arthur Dailey.

        I’ll add a few quotes:
        “All of the new measures line up with Canada’s interests,” said Dan Ciuriak, a former deputy chief economist in Canada’s foreign affairs and trade department.”
        “Canada’s main concession in last year’s agreement was to give the United States slightly more access to its dairy market. It also agreed to end a pricing system that limited imports of the industrial milk ingredients known as Class 7 dairy products.”
        “Canada had already scored small gains in the initial version of the USMCA last year. It won in its efforts to preserve the dispute settlement process in NAFTA’s Chapter 19, which allows the members to challenge one another’s countervailing and anti-dumping duties before a binational panel.”

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Lou_BC, the USMCA and the China Phase 1 deal are considered a big deal for the US. I think Americans only care about how good these deals are for them, not giving a second thought to the other parties.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @highdesertcat – All of a sudden a name change to USMCA makes it a good deal? My point is that the USA has gained very little in USMCA over NAFTA.

            NAFTA did need cleaning up. Intellectual property and electronic trade is included in USMCA but that was needed since NAFTA predates electronic trade on a large scale. It makes crossborder trade easier and cheaper. The USA did get some benefits.
            BUT at the end of the day, it isn’t a huge change and tariffs and all of the petty posturing that occurred wasn’t wort it,

            In relation to China, TPP was a better option and the first phase of the China deal to quote an analyst,

            “The signing of the Phase 1 deal would represent a welcome, even if modest, de-escalation of trade hostilities between China and the U.S.,” said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist and former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China division. “But it hardly addresses in any substantive way the fundamental sources of trade and economic tensions between the two sides, which will continue to fester.’’

            Typical Trump, make things much worse then scale back the b^llsh!t to return to where you started from then claim a victory.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “The USA did get some benefits.”

            I think that is the key. The USA is no longer being dumped upon by its trading partners, and treated like a trading doormat as in the past.

            And I am very optimistic about the prospects of other trade deals that unleash the “Wrath of Trump” on America’s trading partners who have so blatantly cheated America for decades.

            I believe that in any trading relationship America should levy the same tariffs on the trading partners that those trading partners levy on American-made goods.

            Hopefully there will be an even bigger announcement after Davos. I like seeing America trade on a fair and level trading field.

            Sock it to ‘m, I say. Long overdue.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        “The future looks brighter today for America than at any time since President Reagan.”

        Considering the foundation for NAFTA was laid under Reagan, that seems rather optimistic that there could be no possible negative outcomes from this.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          And possible negative outcomes may yet appear, considering how over the past decades America’s trading partners have flourished by placing America at a trade disadvantage.

          Americans should enjoy that at last we have a President that works for America’s best trade and economic interests.

          It will end all too soon and with the next ‘crat president America will revert back to public bowing, apologies, and trade disadvantages.

          Here the past is indeed prologue.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        USMCA is only superficially different than NAFTA and much of it would have happened with TPP that Trump rejected. Still, it’s a lot better than nothing.

        China Phase 1 is the usual pack of empty empty trade promises from China, which they’ll break as usual. Trump has to take any deal they give him to make it look like progress is made before the election. China doesn’t have to take any deal, ever: they don’t have national elections. They always, always, always can outwait any US politician. That’s why it’s f*ing insane to open up the global trading system to a non-democratic country.

        • 0 avatar
          dont.fit.in.cars

          “Trump has to take any deal they give him to make it look like progress is made before the election.“

          Nonsense.

          Trump doesn’t care one wit about China. He knows they’ll break the deal and won’t honor IP. He set up bilateral trade deals with Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil and India because those governments protect IP and trade deficit are less than China. In effect nulling China’s leverage and gave US companies 2 years to change their supply chains. China Cannot feed it’s people and bought soybeans from Brazil, however they couldn’t supply enough so back to the US.

          Putting tariffs on China and closing the NAFTA loophole allowing China steel and aluminum to route through Canada and Mexico along with the Ukraine Hunter Biden exposure and Pelosi Impeach show will yield another four years of lower GDP brought them to the table.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “Trump doesn’t care one wit about China. ”

            Neither do I, nor do millions of Americans care one wit about China.

            Do you?

          • 0 avatar
            dont.fit.in.cars

            Yes I do. Walk into Home Depot, Lowes or Walmart pull any product off the shelf and 68% will be made in China. 50% of major US manufacturing is made in China to circumvent US labor and EPA regulations. When I heat treat stainless steel for Teflon coating it turns a gold hue because they use to much nickel. Try and laser 050 SS and the air holes explode. Have to send out and water jet. No one combination scale last more than 2 years without major repair. Nor are they locally supported. I could save 50% on my fabrication if bought Chinese but won’t do it because it’s junk.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            dont.fit.in.cars, yeah but who is to blame for driving America’s industries overseas?

            Foreigners could do it better and do it cheaper than we could in America because of America’s economic policies, taxing and restrictions.

            With President Trump there is hope, and change, whereas with the previous administration there was only doom and gloom.

            The optimism in America is reflected in the stock market, currently over 29K from where it was in 2016 at 18K.

            That’s a GREAT thing. It means people are optimistic and betting big on the future. No wonder the boomers still working aren’t about to give up their jobs.

            Happy days are here again! Hold on to them for as long as you can.

          • 0 avatar
            dont.fit.in.cars

            High D

            “yeah but who is to blame for driving America’s industries overseas?“

            Wall Street. Globalization is code for shifting labor to 3rd world nations while circumventing regulations. AND it makes economic sense factoring return on capital. It takes capital to control a market (there is no free market). Tree a House Conservative does a great job explaining it.

            Using AG example for limes. Grow in Mexico but own the land, processing, packing, warehousing, and distribution. The conglomerate sets the price. 50 cent in Mexico, 1.50 in US and .75 in Brazil. And destroy crop that doesn’t sell based on price point established for a particular region. All to gain a specific profit destroy remaining supply.

            Wall Street capitalization supports this model because it reaches an established return and they hit the mark every time. This model is used across all industries, all over the world.

            Would you place your money on a sure 3-5% gain or bet one that doesn’t? Wall Street been doing this for 30 years at expense of Main Street. A friend of mine who makes roofing nails walked into Home Depot and saw nails priced below his cost, drove home and shut down. Another friend made windows and making money during housing boom until the Chinese approached him. They showed him their window making factory ships. He returned and sold his business.

            Same with vehicles. All car manufacturers were setting up in Mexico…why? Supply chain routed from China, low Mexican labor and circumventing US regulations. Sure we get low cost vehicles at the expense of US jobs.

            Trump curtailed the practice through tariffs. His next act is creating a banking system for small business.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Oh no!! Peach Mints isn’t going well! We must distract from USMCA, Phase I trade deal, and civil war breaking out in Iran against the Ayatollah!

    Wait we got these climate thingies to distract everyone with! The icy pops will all melt by 2002, I mean 2009, I mean 2012 for real this time guis, 2020for realsies this time!

  • avatar
    phxmotor

    75?%. American content. Yeah ok. And fudging in their “accounting” methodology would NEVER be done.
    We can all % trust the new statistics… yeah ok.
    Alternative facts will be the rule of the day. Yesterday’s 62% American Content pickups and cars will be 83% tomorrow. With no actual change in anything.
    We all know this … right?

  • avatar
    How_Embarrassing_4You

    Damn, threads still young and already someone told someone else to kill themselves. Good times. Pass the bucket. yeehaw…and stuff…

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Just don’t dramatize. But also don’t deny the true – only way to fix climate/pollution is to remove 3-4 billion people. But don’t worry, EPA has a plan. Key word is – Atrazine

      • 0 avatar
        dont.fit.in.cars

        Actually the fastest way to reduce population is increase standard of living. All develop countries birth rates are down.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Eh, but then they realize that to keep up a good life they need some suckers to work and pay taxes into pension system; and then they call African and Arab “reinforcements”. In the end, I think, these dudes will think, “it is easier to kill these masters than pay taxes for their pensions”. Hey, they periodically machete down someone on the street. But I don’t think high standard of living affects birth rate into negative territory. I would say emancipation of women did the trick. All housewives did was taking care of children. Now women want to achieve. There is not time for babies. Look at my 26 yo son – he is like, “me? family? babies? hell no! I want to travel, do sports, do things. Maximum – dating. And not too often please”

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            You guys are both right in a sense. “Population control” by some overbearing government doesn’t work–at least not without baleful unintended consequences (see China)–but educating and emancipating women does work. If women have better options in life than being some prick’s baby factory, the evidence is overwhelming that most take those options, and the birthrate drops to replacement rate at most.

  • avatar

    Kudos to Trump – he accomplished most of things he promised while professional politicians are full of lies and empty promises.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      How’s that wall coming? (Hint: the Trump administration has built all of three miles of new wall that wasn’t a replacement for existing wall or fence.)

      • 0 avatar
        SharkDiver

        Replacing 100’s of miles of existing barrier in high traffic areas that you can walk or drive across, with 15′ to 30′ bollard fencing is exactly what border patrol requested. Do you really not understand this issue, or are you just trying to look stupid?

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          He promised a wall covering the entire U.S.-Mexico border, not “I’ll do what the Border Patrol asks.” He didn’t deliver on his promise, regardless of whether you think what he built is smart or not.

          And, in any event, he hasn’t replaced “hundreds of miles” of existing fence, but 90. The border is ~2000 miles long.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            You’re right. No need for a wall. Just put bunch of barb wire with some mines below it. Will be cheaper and more effective. Climbing over the wall is “too safe”

            Now – “In Hungary, for example, the number of illegal immigrants dropped from 4500 per day to 15 after a 175-kilometer long, four-meter high fence was constructed in 2015”

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Just hire some Soviet and East German engineers. Now they know how to build a wall.

      • 0 avatar
        SharkDiver

        Replacing 100’s of miles of existing barrier in high traffic areas that you can walk or drive across, with 15′ to 30′ bollard fencing is exactly what border patrol requested. Do you really not understand this issue, or are you just trying to look stupid?

      • 0 avatar
        dont.fit.in.cars

        Considering legal challenges, withholding funding and general Government obstruction for the last 30 years…3 Miles could be interpreted as on schedule.

        The wall cost 25 billion, illegal immigration cost 300 billion…ROI 30 days. Keep in mind the Alaskan Highway 1500 miles was built in 8 months with 11k people. If government wanted it done it would be finished by now.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=old+border+fence&t=h_&ia=images&iax=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FD1urvujWkAEV3_U.jpg

        That is not a wall, you can continue parroting MSM lies but seeing as everyone else knows the truth you just look ridiculous.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          The wall is symbolic, but really targets the poorest of illegals, unable to get a passport to overstay, nor fly into Canada first, but they’re mostly coming over to work.

          So blame industry lobbyists for the wall’s slow build.

          Mexican/Columbian/etc, cartel generals and majors fly into the US 1st Class, likely US born and also legit US business/corporation owners.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            DM, the pushback is against ILLEGAL immigration, i.e. people wading the Rio Grande, jumping the border in the desert, etc. then disappearing into America’s interior.

            People who fly into the US or arrive via Cruise Ship have to go though US Customs and are documented, fingerprinted, picture taken, etc.

            Huge difference, even if they overstay their welcome.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            HDC, the criminals we need to worry about aren’t swimming for it and or hiking though the desert for 9 days. They probably don’t have a criminal record, on either side of the fence, and more than likely, US born citizens sometimes raised in Mexico to South America.

            Yeah the whole thing’s a mess, but complicated by the lobby system, US insane thirst for illegal drugs, and a corrupt CBP.

            But I get it, the CBP has no choice but to hire criminals themselves as long as they pass all tests, background checks, etc, including younger cartel members/soldiers.

            Yes there’s solutions, but for now, the money floating around the region and DC is too great, and the US is a business above all else. We seem to forget that.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            DM, criminals will always be with us, no matter how they get here.

            The Wall will at least deter some illegals from waltzing across the border illegally. They can still enter through the portals.

            And they do. But at least then they’ve been screened and registered.

            Did you know that thousands of aliens residing in Old Mexico cross the border daily at El Paso, TX?

            If they do not leave the US or overstay their welcome, at least there is documentation and registration on them for deportation.

            But most of them return to Old Mexico each night.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The wall is like any other infrastructure that’s lacking.

            Simply knowing who they are doesn’t really solve anything. We already know the criminals are a tiny fraction, no matter how they’re getting in.

            Real solutions lay within, laws overlooked, loopholes by politics, etc, etc.

            Of course there’s the Canadian border to handle next, then fences out in the oceans, a net in the sky over the US, and whatnot. Not that some of those are any less goofy.

        • 0 avatar

          Who is MSM? The only name come to mind is Mary Stuart Masterson, the actress from 80s.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        dal20402
        ok.
        i am gonna do something a very great man advises me.
        instead of arguing with these nitwit thoughts, simply ask…if NOT a wall, what then.
        sit back and wait for the answer.
        partial?
        army?
        no wall?
        no borders?
        what, exactly, do these anti-wallers say when asked???
        so, what say you?

        • 0 avatar
          HotPotato

          I’m guessing that by this time in our history, we probably have walls already at the spots where the border patrol has decided they’re needed. Building them where they don’t see a return on investment is just a waste of dough.

          • 0 avatar
            dont.fit.in.cars

            Entire wall 25 billion. Annual cost of illegal immigration 300 Billion. Wall pays for itself in 30 days.

        • 0 avatar

          I suspect that dal20402 already lives in gated community which already has walls around 360 degrees. Because that’s how coastal elitists live – they have guards, walls, gates, attorneys, so they do not give a sh!t about us or laws.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Like Nancy Pelosi shielding herself and her family from San Francisco’s filth, used hypodermic needles, and feces.

            Yet she adamantly opposes the wall President Trump is building successfully.

            Coastal elitists and limousine liberals.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I live in the middle of a big city. No walls, no gates, and very little crime.

            I’ve lived on this block 3 1/2 years and in that time I think the block has had one car break-in.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            HDC, you’re mistaken sir, if you really think there’s a direct connection between the wall/border and hype needles and feces on the streets, any street.

            I don’t think you really do…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            DenverMike, there’s a direct connection between sanctuary states, illegal immigration, crime, etc.

            I’ve got a brother who lives in Manhattan, NY, NY fulltime, and he is distraught about what The City has become. It isn’t as bad as CA, yet.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            HDC, with all due respect, can you stop being silly? Next you’re going to make the leap linking illegal immigrants to the homeless problem. Beggars? Maybe they’re prostitutes too??

            Are your windows that tinted???

        • 0 avatar
          dont.fit.in.cars

          sanctuary cities blocking ICE protecting illegals in exchange for votes. But there’s more.

          My banker left his job six months ago and ran into him at Home Depot. His new gig is securing credit for illegals to run small businesses. My brother is a painter and won’t hire illegals because they’re your competitor in six months.

          Finally giving a client an electrical plan and despite marking every location with voltage and amps, not one run was correct. When the illegals electrical handed be 12 gauge wire to run 230 theN refused allowing me to verify amperage on the CB Panel, I stopped work. Inspected lines and found individual wires instead of romex or soow.

          So circle back and yes we need a wall and shut the border to all human traffic. There is absolutely no reason for Mexican NationalS to be in this country. Nor H1-2B. Or US citizens to be in Mexico

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          We’ve already fenced off nearly all of the places where people actually cross in any significant numbers. Building a wall in the middle of the Rio Grande is just a dumb waste of money.

          Allow many more people to come in legally. Most of them bring in far more than they cost, and that would be even more true if they were documented and paid all taxes. We did it back in the Ellis Island days, and that worked out pretty well.

          • 0 avatar
            dont.fit.in.cars

            “Allow many more people to come in legally.”

            Agree. No we’ll developed country survives without immigration. The problem is Mexicans and Central Americans don’t come here to be Americans, only arrive to work. That does nothing but drive down wages for US workers.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            They pay their taxes. Except they don’t file a tax return. Hundreds of illegals will jump on compromised SS#, and it somehow does’t raise any red flags when the same Jose is working 879 jobs simultaneously.

            Go figure.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Make them legal, and they will pay all taxes and it will be much easier to go after them if they don’t.

          • 0 avatar

            “No we’ll developed country survives without immigration. ”

            Never heard about Japan? Or Korea? Or China? We do not talk here about legal immigration, okay?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Japan is undergoing a demographic crisis, which will shortly become a fiscal crisis, and would be very well served by changing its attitude to immigration.

            South Korea is about 20 years behind Japan but will follow the same path if nothing changes.

            Most of China is not a developed country and so the logic is rather different. Internal migration to the richer areas can serve a lot of the same purposes that immigration does for fully developed countries.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            They also pay their taxes every time they buy something.

          • 0 avatar

            “Make them legal, and they will pay all taxes”

            It makes too much sense for Congress to even consider. Congress is too busy bashing current President or other sujet du jour to weaken America.

  • avatar
    redgolf

    Arthur Daily – “Just hire some Soviet and East German engineers. Now they know how to build a wall.” Hahahahaha! got em!

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Trump is winning on multiple fronts and will cruise to re-election in 2020.

    The ignorance in the comments regarding climate change never ceases to amaze. There is a whole range of future climate scenarios generated by the models; the worst case scenarios rely on positive feedback effects of increased CO2. Anyone who knows anything about control systems would know that, based on the relative stability of the climate over the last billion years, the likelihood of positive feedback in the climate system is vanishingly small. In fact, strong negative feedbacks must be present to keep the climate as stable as it has been.

    The media latches onto the worst case scenarios and reports that to the uninformed masses to generate clicks. The government loves the worst case scenarios because it gives them an excuse to tax energy at confiscatory rates in the name of saving the planet.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      State your credentials to make that determination. Do you know more than the world’s leading researchers on the topic, who are in near-total agreement on it?

      If something’s true, it doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference if you “believe in it” or not. You don’t have to believe that gravity is real. But if you walk off a cliff, you’ll find out.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “State your credentials to make that determination.”

        For one thing, I’m a scientist. I can also read. From the most recent IPCC report concerning projections of future warming:

        “Relative to 1850–1900, global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) is projected to likely exceed 1.5°C for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence). Warming is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence), more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5 (medium confidence), but unlikely to exceed 2°C for RCP2.6 (medium confidence). {2.2.1}”

        Real sciences don’t use words like “likely” and “high confidence.”

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Master Baiter
          “high confidence.” et al…… scientists do look at “confidence limits”. Basically, the higher the “limits” the more likely the results are going to occur.
          That quote you posted is a statistical way of showing probability.

          “Likely” definition = “such as well might happen or be true; probable.”

          “In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples.”

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        state your credentials???
        it has come to this?

        hotpotato, do you have a yard? boundaries around it?
        how would you control the entire earth’s temperature?
        you, yourself, what are you doing to change it right now, today?
        tell the class all the things you and your family are doing to save this wonderful planet.

        from a person who thinks “consensus” is science?????
        so we have artdaily claiming it is man made, suggest third world cannot be made to participate.
        then says birth control is a possible solution…and really, THAT will be followed tooth n nail by third world contries.

        and then people taking manipulated data to keep their funding coming group thinking consensus as the end all.

        so, like i said before, group thinking was the sun rotated around the earth and the earth was flat, so the great consensus was not long ago.

        • 0 avatar
          HotPotato

          If you do not understand that the scientific method is what corrects misunderstandings, including those that have achieved consensus, I cannot help you.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Scientific consensus is Peer Review–it means that when a theorem is published, other scientists attempt to duplicate the study to see if they get the same results. AS YET, the argument you have forwarded has not received any form of peer review and therefore is only a theory without any independent confirmation.

            That is the Scientific Method.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      MB – Excellent comment. Truth.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @dont.fit.: CO2 is not what you need to worry about; it’s only an indicator. It’s methane and other gasses that the rising temperatures will release and ARE releasing, which are true greenhouse gasses. Even excess water vapor in the upper atmosphere, as seen from the white contrails from jet aircraft (and prop aircraft around 20,000 feet) is considered a greenhouse gas.

    • 0 avatar
      dont.fit.in.cars

      “ worst case scenarios rely on positive feedback effects of increased CO2“

      Best explanation on CO2 and its effect on environment.

      https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/what_the_university_of_alabamas_football_stadium_tells_us_about_co2.html

  • avatar
    dont.fit.in.cars

    Is the thread dead yet?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • HotPotato: A buddy of mine has the manliest leather satchel I’ve ever seen. My cowboy quotient would go up...
  • GenesisCoupe380GT: I’m grateful Cad has this option at all. BMW took it away from the M5 and now it’s...
  • ToolGuy: That hood graphic reminds me of the circuit board out of my WiFi router which suffered a lightning strike in...
  • ToolGuy: Those A-pillars look refreshingly slender (could be the camera angle).
  • EBFlex: Built Ford Proud! This is a result of the furniture salesman squeezing suppliers to the bone to keep the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber