Competitive Assistance Program: Fill & Download for Free

Well hello there Mike Patterson and welcome to Quora. I see this is your very first question here. If you spend much time here you will begin to understand that there are a lot of folks on Quora who will “fact check” any dubious premises included in questions.List of nationalizations by country - WikipediaIf you open the above link, and scroll down to find Mexico, you will see that only three industries in Mexico were ever nationalized; the oil industry (1938), the electrical system (1960) and the banking system (1982). Now the banking system was quickly re-privatized in 1991 - 1992. And the oil industry is in the process of re-privatization: Is privatisation working out for Mexico’s oil industry? So in reality, the only sort of actual socialism in Mexico is its electrical system.BTW, as a U.S. citizen that lives full time in Mexico, I can tell you that the most I have ever paid for a month of electricity here was about $30 USD. So, based strictly on my personal economics, I would say that the socialized electricity in Mexico is working out very, very well.But maybe you didn’t mean actual socialism. Maybe you’re using the word socialism to describe government policies you don’t like, such as high taxes, massive social programs, and big, bureaucratic regulations. But unfortunately, once again, that doesn’t describe Mexico at all.Mexico has the lowest effective taxes of all OECD nations; all of them.OK, so what about those massive social programs in Mexico: A Comparison Of Food Assistance Programs In Mexico And The United States. Here is a brief quote from the above linked page:Food assistance programs have little effect on the extent of poverty in Mexico, while the opposite is true in the United States, primarily because the level of benefits as a percentage of income is much lower in Mexico and a much higher percentage of eligible households receive benefits from food assistance programs in the United States.Finally lets look at those big, bureaucratic, free-enterprise stifling regulations. Top Challenges Of Doing Business In Mexico - Corporate/Commercial Law - Mexico. Again, I will include a brief quote from this linked article; “Mexico is one of the most competitive countries for investments at an international level thanks to its political and macroeconomic stability, size, and strength of its internal market, and unfluctuating inflation.”In many, many ways, Mexico is far more “conservative” than the U.S. Abortion is still illegal in most Mexican states. There are far fewer problems with illicit drug use. And as referenced above, there are fewer social programs and lower taxes. So I am not sure where the idea that Mexico is socialist came from. Is it because Mexico has a public healthcare option and subsidized higher education? Because those are about the only ways that I see Mexico as more “socialist” than the U.S.A.

On the contrary, cheaper imports have kept inflation down and raised living standards in the USA.We also benefit by exporting goods, like aircraft and agricultural products.American companies can also design products (like stuff that Apple makes), have them manufactured economically elsewhere, and sell them around the world.The only people hurt by globalization are employees of companies put out of business by more efficient foreign competition. We need better trade adjustment assistance programs for those people.

Contrary to popular opinion, they wouldn't respond to Sanders presidency as strongly as many predict:Sanders already has a reputation of being someone who works with the other party when it does not violate his principles. He has many important bills and amendments he was able to pass through:Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise YouCorporate Crime Accountability (February 1995): A Sanders amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995 required “offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.Holding IRS Accountable, Protecting Pensions (July 2002): Sanders' amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.” Although he faced stiff GOP opposition, his amendment still succeeded along a 308 to 121 vote.Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn't think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor.Increasing Funding for Heating for the Poor (September 2004): Sanders won a $22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program.Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China.Once Sanders made it to the Senate in 2006, his ability to use amendments to advance a progressive agenda was empowered. Here are some of the amendments he passed in the Senate:Greening the U.S. Government (June 2007): A Sanders amendment made a change to the law so at least 30 percent of the hot water demand in newer federal buildings is provided through solar water heaters.Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq.Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren't used to displace American workers.Helping Veterans' Kids (July 2009): A Sanders amendment required the Comptroller General to put together comprehensive reporting on financial assistance for child care available to parents in the Armed Forces.Exposing Corruption in the Military-Industrial Complex (November 2012): A Sanders amendment required “public availability of the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors” – an important step toward transparency that revealed the corruption of the revolving door in action.Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military's TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.There will be a segment in Congress who would react extremely strongly to Sanders. But then again that segment would react strongly to Jesus of Nazareth even if he descended from the skies on a flaming horse. Not that Jesus of Nazareth was a fan of such flashy displays though.Returning to the topic at hand, I'm talking about Tea Party. Who seem to be holding GOP rhetoric in their hand currently.This segment would react extremely strongly to whatever anyone not from among themselves did, but in general scheme of things that does not make much impact in that there are a lot of people in Congress who would find Sanders agreeable to work with - especially due to massive support Sanders policies would receive from their own voter base as well. Once general election begins, Sanders' message will reach their own constitutes as well - then see how much traction will they get. Especially among independents.There is this important factor: Sanders had openly declared that he was building a movement to take over American politics from day one. That means not only White House, but also Congress and Senate - as he openly declares. He knows that to push major reforms without hassle and without the reforms being watered down (Hello ACA), you gotta have Congress and Senate.As you can see from the masses who are attending Sanders rallies and even more so from the hundreds of thousands of people volunteering for Sanders campaign on the ground, his movement is a major movement already.What that means is that come next House elections, that movement will be there to topple anyone who doesn't support the reforms.So for incumbent House and Senate, its a choice in between supporting the reforms, or losing your House/Senate seat in the next elections. You can rationally conclude that the latter option is not so desirable for anyone who has a seat. Which is a reason why you would readily see many cooperative representatives in the House and Senate than you expect, when Sanders becomes president.Of course, the best thing to do would be to just sweep entire House and Senate, and put pro-people representatives with track records in. Which seems what Sanders is going to do with his movement.And that would make the stance of Congress and Senate irrelevant, since ones who are there in next elections would be people who were elected for making those reforms.But reality of politics is that, a lot of people will cooperate. Once the people rise up, its wiser to swim with the tide than try to stem it.