Some angry person ... some not so angry person ...
MK. Discussion deleted...
MK. Well, yes. If this is an allusion to NAFTA and GATT and the WTO, recall your HS History: trade protection was, for most of the 19th and some of the 20th century, the Republican Party position, while the Democratic Party was pro-free trade. Most organizations favor free trade in the commodities they buy and protection in the things they sell. As a general rule, free trade is beneficial. Recently, the major political parties have changed sides on the free trade issue, to a considerable degree. NAFTA and GATT were negtiated by Republican-appointed diplomats, and pushed through Congress by President Clinton, with more Republican than Democrat Senators in support. If the complaint relates to jobs lost to cheap immigrant labor, recall that, while traditionally big business favored open borders (and this is still the Wall Street Journal editorial position), and private sector unions traditionally opposed open borders (Pat Buchannan voters), the interests of --public sector-- unions (teachers and social workers) are very different. The median income of full-time employed, HS-educated white workers has fallen pretty steadily (in constant dollars) since 1975, about the time Congress loosened controls on the southern border. The median income of full-time employed HS-educated Black workers has fallen pretty steadily since about 1975. The public-sector unions overwhelmingly support Democrat politicians. Don't blame President Bush (or President Reagan) exclusively for policies which --both-- parties support.
MK. Discussion deleted (health care)....
MK. Why suppose that medical care is a Federal responsibility? Where's the consbreastutional authority? What's the point of politicizing the medical industry?
MK. 1) "Cut spending" on NCLB? The program didn't exist before the Bush presidency. 2) Where's the consbreastutional authority for --any-- federal role in education? 3) Support for school vouchers and othe forms of parent control just might improve the wretched performance of the US K-12 education industry, a rat hole down which US taxpayers pour over $400 billion per year. The current State-monopoly system serves taxpayers poorly, and serves the children of the least politically adept parents horribly. 4) What's the point of any role for the State (government, generally) in education?
on school. Please read this.)
MK. Discussion deleted...
MK. George Bush was not the choice of fiscal conservatives in 2000; that was Steve Forbes. Bush was not the choice of social conservatives; that was Alan Keyes. Molly Inins predicted, during the 2000 primary, that Bush would disappoint conservatives. She predicted that President Bush would govern the US as Governor Bush had governed Texas, by compromise and avoidance of confrontation. She was right. Bush has not vetoed anything. He has rolled over for the big business-public-sector union coalition on the immigration issue, for the public sector unions on NCLB (abandoning school vouchers), for insiders in his own party (transportation spending).
MK. btw, the 9-11 attacks were planned long before Bush became President. Regime change in Iraq was US policy before Bush became President.
Take a red.
