Foreign Companies Are Buying Up American Highways and Bridges Built by U.S. Taxpayers

Associated Press ^ | Saturday July 15 | Leslie Miller

[dangus]

>> Let me try another angle - we have something like 15,000,000 illegals. They got here without Cintra's help. <<

Come on, that's like saying we have a drug epidemic, so it won't matter if we permit the Cali cartel to open up an unmonitored airport in the major American markets. There are barriers to illegal immigrants doing certain jobs. For starters, trucking requires some English abilities; truckers have to communicate along the way. The new highway, for instance, will have all bilingual signs, and will create a sheltered, Spanish-language environment for serfs to work in. It will create open up new lines of work to be taken by serfs, encouring their immivasion. It will conceal some of the harmful effects of the immivasion. It will provide easier access for illegal aliens to move from the border towns of Texas (which are hardly much better than the border towns of Northern Mexico) into heartland communities.

[dangus]

>> Contracts are contracts. <<

Contracts are enforced by laws. Government can always change laws. Go ask the millions of women who thought they could give up their careers because they had husbands who were contractually obligated to provide for their well-being, only to see states pass "no-fault divorce" laws, essentially shredding the marriage contract. Go ask legal owners of property who found that suddenly they were not able to develop their property because the land's drainage problem... caused by the construction of a nearby highway... made it offcially "wetlands."

[BobL]

"Hell, you can't even identify the roads."

Can't you get a life and stopped helping the governor stick his dirty hands into my pockets. Just go work for a living like the rest of us, instead of leeching off us taxpayers when we drive.

By the way, you have yet to support your claim that these were local attempts, as when you said in Post #35: "Contrary to your mis-info, the examples you use are under a local or regional authority and the guv has nothing to do with it.", yet you certainly seemed familiar with them - you wouldn't be fibbing, would you?

So don't call me a liar.

By the way, nice job on the business tax grab - I like the way your boss is calling it a huge tax cut when we all know that the schools are simply going to raise their rates to the new ceiling.

You need to tell him to crack down on the teachers unions, particularly the restrictions that keep otherwise-qualified people from working in the professions (like retirees, etc.).

[Ben Ficklin]

The fact is you cannot back up your statement in #8.

[BobL]

"Government can always change laws."

Understand - but for actual signed contracts to have any worth, they have to and are enforced by the actual wording, otherwise Cintra would not be signing them. Unlike the clowns we have in Austin, Cintra is not stupid and they know exactly what they're doing.

The examples you cite are open-ended in that the government or spouses never explicitly made these promises. But when government signs a contract, say to buy 100 fighters at $50M each, the government better buy those fighters at that price, or have a contractual way out - or they will be sued to the teeth. They simply cannot re-write a law and get away with paying, say $25M.

[Dont Mention the War]

That and the fact we'll just take 'em back if we really want to.

Yup. A couple of state troopers could "nationalize" the roads again in five minutes if the need arised.

[operation clinton cleanup]

The Indiana Toll road is primarily used by truckers. They already pay gas and other taxes for highway upkeep. The lease makes sense in this case. It would be interesting to know what the tolls collected were spent on before this deal.

[BobL]

You lose:

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/lofiversion/index.php/t1584.html
http://www.landlinemag.com/Legislative_Watch/2004/TX/Watches/toll_roads_watches.htm

"After the public spoke out last August (2004), state officials abandoned a proposal to convert an eight-mile segment of Texas 249 from Beltway 8 to Spring-Cypress Road in October (to tolling)."

Who knows, maybe in another couple of years, these links will be cold and you can try getting away with calling me a liar again.



But enough fun with you on this topic.

Please try to educate the gov. in other areas - he's killing the party in that so many people have to now split their tickets, so the down-ballot Reps are going to get killed in November.

[Ben Ficklin]

No, you lose.

I followed your links and it is clear that these are new construction and not being converted as you said in #8.

[dangus]

I will concur that it is very bad business to cancel legislatively cancel contracts without good cause that would be recognized by any possible party with whom a contract might ever be entered into.. which essentially is everyone.

But, as for your assertions that marriage contracts were not explicit, that's just plain silly. You've handled yourself well on the forum, so I hate to call an assertion silly, since it doesn't afford the respect you're due; but, call it my own incompetence, I can't think of a better way to put it. It's not only false, it's outrageously false. Marriage contracts clearly specified their terms, despite the fact it was vey unromantic. Every last living soul expected that, yes, you must pay alimony if you break the terms of the contract, even if they didn't think of it in such terms. And they even ritualized the summation of the contract, so the summation wouldn't seem so gosh-darn unromantic. ("I, Dan, do solemnly swear...") The terms were in writing, were universally understood, were fully representing the spirit, and were part of our social fabric.

[cope85]

very day

[BobL]

Trying to rewrite history is not how we debate in a civilized society. You can try to burn the books, but the links are out there for all to read.

You should be ashamed of yourself.


By the way, tell the gov that Mr. Patrick is out for blood, and is not taking hostages. The Texas Republican Party is about to be reborn, and it does not have room for people who try to re-write history.

[BobL]

I won't argue with your points, and don't worry, after having the guv's people call me what they do (since I won't march lock-step on toll roads), being called silly is a relief.

Anyway, I'm not nearly as well versus in marriage issues as toll roads, but I definitely will not defend no-fault divorce.

What you're saying is probably true here, but it's still difficult for me to see how the legislature can unilaterally cancel or change a 2-party contract with Cintra, without a big-time lawsuit taking place. On the other hand, the ability of government to affect other 2-party contracts has definitely been proven. One example (which, of course is just), is when the government nullified deed clauses that prevented the sale of property to blacks. But it still difficult for me to see how the government can change these types of contracts - and the Canadian government did try - and did lose in court, as the contract was clear, in that case.

[TXnMA]

What I was observing is that government would never let you charge me $100 for a 25-cent product.

Bravo Sierra!

Toilet seats and hammers...

[Ben Ficklin]

Ping me when you find something that backs up your statement.

[BobL]

Ping me when you learn to read.

[texastoo]

"(i.e., foreign ownership of highways; no more toll receipts for government; inability to build more highways, expand existing ones, maybe even maintain existing ones; and a populace that feels TOTALLY SOLD OUT by people they voted for and trusted)."

Not only has Perry sold us out but look what Cornyn did on June 29, 2006.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3622.IS:

snip....

SEC. 4. PROJECTS FUNDED.

(a) In General- Grants shall be awarded from the Fund for projects to carry out the purposes described in section 3, including projects--

(1) to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade between Mexico and Canada, and Mexico and the United States;

(2) to encourage the development and improve the quality of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education throughout Mexico;

(3) to expand the deployment of communications and broadband infrastructure throughout Mexico, with emphasis on rural and underserved areas; and

(4) to expand job training and workforce development for high-growth industries in Mexico.

If Cintra is good enough for Texas, then Cintra should be building the highways in Mexico. Free trade is not free. Since NAFTA has been in effect for 12 years, Mexico should be functioning without the American taxpayer and so should Cintra.

[BobL]

I heard about this also. It is bizarre, as Cornyn has (at least up to now) been OUTSTANDING in the Senate in all areas.

I would be nice if he explains to us what this is all about.

[texastoo]

I would be nice if he explains to us what this is all about.

Good luck. He never answers my letters.