NAFTA According to Buchannan

Read the local paper today, and Pat Buchannan thinks we got hosed by NAFTA:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49201

If what he says is right, we did.

This, amazingly, was done during Clinton. Ain't the DEMs supposed to be
looking out for the working-folks?

Can we repeal NAFTA? Should we?

Dave Head

Dave Head wrote:
> Read the local paper today, and Pat Buchannan thinks we got hosed by NAFTA:
>
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49201
>
> If what he says is right, we did.
>
> This, amazingly, was done during Clinton. Ain't the DEMs supposed to be
> looking out for the working-folks?
>

Both parties are composed of elitist traitors who regard working people
as "useless eaters" as henry kissinger famously said.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> This, amazingly, was done during Clinton. Ain't the DEMs supposed to be
> looking out for the working-folks?

No. We have one effective party. Democrats sell themselves as looking out
for working folks but if you look at their actions it's always about
increasing their power, increasing the amount of money the government
takes in, decreasing their own personal tax payments, and of course what
is really the number one priority---- doing the bidding of those who
donate funds to their campaigns.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Dave Head
> wrote:
>
>> This, amazingly, was done during Clinton. Ain't the DEMs supposed to
>> be looking out for the working-folks?
>
> No. We have one effective party. Democrats sell themselves as looking
> out for working folks but if you look at their actions it's always
> about increasing their power, increasing the amount of money the
> government takes in, decreasing their own personal tax payments, and
> of course what is really the number one priority---- doing the bidding
> of those who donate funds to their campaigns.
>
>
>

Except for "increasing the amount of money the government takes in..." it
sounds just like the GOP. They would rather just borrow and put the burden
on our kids and grand kids.

Doug

In article >, Doug wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Dave Head
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This, amazingly, was done during Clinton. Ain't the DEMs supposed to
>>> be looking out for the working-folks?
>>
>> No. We have one effective party. Democrats sell themselves as looking
>> out for working folks but if you look at their actions it's always
>> about increasing their power, increasing the amount of money the
>> government takes in, decreasing their own personal tax payments, and
>> of course what is really the number one priority---- doing the bidding
>> of those who donate funds to their campaigns.

> Except for "increasing the amount of money the government takes in..." it
> sounds just like the GOP. They would rather just borrow and put the burden
> on our kids and grand kids.

That's the point, there isn't any significant difference. The GOP's run
away spending and tax policy is actually quite consistant with democrat
action. The spending side is pretty obvious and is identical in reason
from helping those who got them elected to buying votes to increasing
government power.

On the tax side, the democrats favor tax policy that allows the elite to
escape taxation (see what they do personally, not what they say) while
droping the poor from taxation. (votes, dividing the
population, ie power) This increases the burden on the middle class who
have money to take as taxes but not the resources to defend/hide their
money from taxation that wealthy people do. No individual strength but a
lot of money collectively. The bush tax cut achieved the same goal. It
dropped more people off the bottom of a tax obligation, allowed the
wealthy elite to protect more income, shifting more burden to middle class.
(yes there has been some reduction in rate for individuals, but I am
speaking collectively)

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:56:01 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>Read the local paper today, and Pat Buchannan thinks we got hosed by NAFTA:
>
>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49201
>
>If what he says is right, we did.

Are you just realizing this?

>This, amazingly, was done during Clinton. Ain't the DEMs supposed to be
>looking out for the working-folks?

No, the article states it was done under Bush, Clinton and Bush,
although the second Bush had little to do with it. Almost all the job
losses to Mexico came under Clinton.

*************************
Dave

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:17:15 GMT, Doug > wrote:

>Except for "increasing the amount of money the government takes in..." it
>sounds just like the GOP. They would rather just borrow and put the burden
>on our kids and grand kids.

Actually that is incorrect. Every study done has shown that
decreasing tax rates ends up in increased revenue for the government.
Where did you think clinton balanced the budget from? Well, assuming
you ignore the money he stole from SS.

*************************
Dave