Do We Hafta NAFTA?

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

Both Clintons’ support for NAFTA was why I lost faith with them years ago & started voting for Nader (who, btw, is running again, if anyone still cares) so I’m finding very little sympathy for Clinton during the debate talking about how against NAFTA she’s always been.

Goddamn politicians. Hate ’em.

7 Replies to “Do We Hafta NAFTA?”

  1. That’s why I’m so enamored of the idea of reducing reliance on government, and returning responsibility to the individual. If the government can’t touch it, they can’t mess it up, waste money on it, or bring about completely unintended consequences.

  2. Yeah… “I’ve always been against Iraq.” “I’ve always been against NAFTA.” Ummm… riiiiiiiiiiiight. Clinton is politics as usual. No big surprise there.

    I’m not sure if I would vote for Nader a third time. I really believed in him in 2000. In 2004 I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for Kerry so I voted for Nader again. I’m still not sure of Obama. I saw some of the dirty tricks his campaign was using locally so I’m not all that convinced he’s that much of a change, really. Clinton is right out. If she manages some incredible upset (be it with superdelegates or some other way) then I’m definitely voting third party, possibly Nader again. If Obama gets the nomination then I might have to really consider voting Democrat.

    What I find interesting is that in 2000 third party voters were shunned as wasting their votes and third parties were just shrugged off. In 2004 there was the “anyone but Bush” factor that drove so many to vote Democrat regardless of who was running. This time around I’m hearing more favorable interest in third party candidates. I don’t know if it’s just my local area or if the country in general has finally become so disgusted with the usual two-party shenanigans that voters are more open to third parties. That would be nice.

  3. Really, Obama, Clinton, McCain… they’re all for NAFTA.

    I agree with NPR that NAFTA is really small potatoes these days, anyways. It probably ended up helping the US (overall), but its relevance is really quite minor in comparison to the WTO and what not.

    They were quite surprised that it’s actually been brought up as a talking point, and figured it had more to do with the fact that the labor movement’s last real educational push was about NAFTA, and that so that’s what people in the Rust Belt remember.

  4. On the other hand, Christine, if YOU (or anyone else) can’t touch money, you wont waste it, mess things up, and bring about unintended consequences.

    And if you can touch it, you still cant fund a military, police force, interstate highway system, etc. How could we reduce the need to protect our assets, insure our people and property against the injustices others might commit, and transport goods and individuals efficiently? We can’t. We NEED government, and a weak government exposes it citizens to risk.

    If you want government to get better, get active. Lobby for change to party organizations, legislators, and candidates. Join local politics. Or, if you can afford it move to another country. “Starving the beast” will just make it more viscious.

  5. Perhaps Christine was really referencing an issue of federalism, less big government (in reference to spending) and more accountability at the State and local level. There is no doubt the Federal Government has a responsibility to assess human rights on a national scale and “enforce” right human relations.

    But both parties spend like drunken sailors. I am about as human rights directed as you can get. But I fail to see why money earned by us is considered the government’s money, taken in huge amounts (approx 49% of all income goes to taxes. Tax freedom day is in May!) and its disbursement is determined by a faceless federal government beauraucrats instead of those that earn it. There is no linkage I can see to being a political progressive and high taxation.

    If I was Helen and Betty’s age, I would be more furious than I am now about the total irresponsibility of both major parties in how they have mortgaged the future. Just some stats to ponder.

    Social Security: Over committed. Helen and Betty’s generation will never see a dime in their old age even though they will probably pay 15-20% of their income to FICA for their entire lives. The system will go completely bankrupt in 2040. It starts going bankrupt in 2016. Its too late to fix it.

    Medicare, Medicaid and Entitlements: It is the largest outlay in the budget. (In 2007 it is about $680 Billion. Together Ted Kennedy and George Bush “expanded” future entitlement commitments. This item accounts for over 60% of the budget. Because they are mandates, it is impossible “not” to spend the money. Helen and Betty will be forced to pay off this debt later in their lives. There will be no choice. That is unfair. (Boomers and the FDR generation have been selfish.)

    National Debt Service:In 2007, the budget “had” to spend 406 Billion to service interest expense on the national debt. It is the third highest expense in the budget. In the same year, only $60 billion was spent on education, about $55 Billion on Roads (Transportation).

    DoD Expense is second largest at about $575 Billion. However, the military is “burned out” due to Iraq. The equipment is burned out. Estimates state it will take $1.5 Trillion to replace the equipment over a ten year period above what is presently being spent. (All due to strategic and tactical errors.)

    The more we go into debt, the more the debt service crowds out other areas of spending.

    The country is broke. We “the people” must regain control of the government for Helen and Betty.

    And I think that is a “progressive” political comment.


Comments are closed.