What promise has president Bush broken regarding Africa? The administration has, besides pledged more money for humanitarian aid than any other administration including Clinnochio’s- and promoted reforms and the development of Africa’s economies. The left has betrayed humanity with its unfortunate affection for fallacies and moral insoucience despite which America now has to spend time to reform her education system in order to properly promote the most beneficial model for government and economics that the world has known because the left has been busily working to undermine it.

Instead of the socialist model of handouts and dependency on an international scale, there must be a sea change towards promoting the, to a large extent, neglected and misunderstood values that made America so great.

How can you even compareBilldo’s policy towards Rwanda where 800,000 were slaughtered as he deliberately set out to do nothing where the policy was to deny that a genocide was going on while looking the other way to President Bush, even on Sudan where the administration had to push for more international involvement there?

“As for American interests, I call to see how Clinton damaged them. Clinton was adored in Europe. Bush has damgaed, perhaps permanently, our relationship with European allies that go back sixty years.”

I don’t care if the backstabbing Euroweenies don’t “love” President Bush. What matters is that more Americans do than don’t. Much more relevant to America’s security was the way that Billdo slashed America’s HUMINT capabilities by half and drastically reduced America’s military while Islamofascist attacks against the U.S. were on the rise and the world was becoming more dangerous.

“As for the economy being better when Bush was re-elected, the question is, better for whom? Not for the poor. Not for the middle class, especially if they ever get medical bills. Not for the McJobs that people are having to settle for.”

I suppose that it wasn’t enough to you to demonstrate your ignorance when it comes to the War on Terror, you also had to display your ridiculous ignorance about economics, here.

First, wages are higher, even adjusted for inflation, than when President Bush took office. And I don’t think that trying to resurrect class warfare is going to alleviate the problem of poverty. That’s been tried before.

The problem with you libs is that you feel like saying things, even if they aren’t true. I think that you do it especially because of that.

That McJobs meme just doesn’t stick: the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2002-12 Employment Projections states that “Employment growth will be concentrated in the service-providing sector of the economy. Education and health services and professional and business services represent the industry divisions with the strongest projected employment growth: projected to grow twice as fast as the overall economy. Information, leisure and hospitality, and transportation and warehousing are other service -providing industries that are projected to grow faster than average.

“The 10 occupations adding the most jobs employ a large number of workers and come from a wide range of occupational groups.”

And even worse than your spurious arguments is the way that you libs infantilize Americans by portraying us as some sort of passive mindless mass that needs to be controlled by the government for our own good.

“Social Security is NOT saving my money for me. Social Security is a safety net for the whole country. Once my money goes into Social Security, it is no longer my money. And anyway, Bush’s personal account BS would have reduced the amount of money available, by giving it away to already-obscenely-wealthy Wall Street brokerage firms. “-Biff

In other words, you don’t want to allow workers to invest in stocks and bonds with money that they are already committed to by a compulsory 12.4% deduction of their income because that would in terms of Marxist economic ignorance and moral confusion mean “giving it away to already-obscenely-wealthy”? And this is sane because… ??

I’m sorry, Biffy, but I’m going with Ken Mehlman on this one: Every single person who works for the federal government, including every member of Congress, has the choice to set up a personal retirement account so they have a more secure retirement. The AARP’s website encourages its members to, quote, “take advantage of the power of compounding, which is essentially, the buildup of investment gains on previous gains over time. Albert Einstein reportedly called compounding, ‘the most powerful force on earth.’

All Americans should have the same choice of personal retirement accounts. If it’s good enough for Federal Employees, if it makes sense for AARP members, then every single worker in America should be able to choose ‘the most powerful force on earth’ for a more secure retirement.

Today about half of Americans invest in stocks, but 45% don’t have enough to begin their own investment portfolios. A good approach to S.S. reform would be to change that. You see, the system needs to be modernized. IRAs and 401ks didn’t exist when S.S. was started up. As the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development has pointed out, privatization will help lift minorities out of poverty. Black seniors disproportionately are more dependent on S.S. yet they receive less financial security;

“An individual who owns his retirement security–a concept central to the president’s plan for reforming Social Security–would enjoy many of the same benefits homeownership provides. And under the plan, even the lowest-income workers would have the opportunity to build equity.”

To paraphrase Norman Cantor here, because you have to give credit where it is due: In the model of civil society, most good and important things take place below the universal level of the state. The family, the arts, learning and science, business enterprise, and technological processes, these are all above and outside the state level. These are the work of individuals and groups and the involvement of the state is remote and disengaged.

True social security is provided by the American family. But that is exactly what has been under assault by libs at the cultural and political stage. Take, for example, the consequences, as Thomas Brewton has pointed out, of LBJ’s “Great Society” project: Within five years after institution of the Great Society, we were in the hitherto unknown waters of economic stagflation: an economy dead in the water, while prices of everything soared and interest rates, even on prime credits, leaped toward 20 percent per annum, levels never before endured in this country.

One of the claims made for social justice, starting with Rousseau in the 1750s, is that redistributing wealth to achieve social justice will eliminate crime, because the poor will no longer be poor and will have no need to resort to crime. In other words, criminals are the victims of the society that protects private property.

In real life, outside liberal fantasy-land, while welfare-related spending tripled, violent crime rose exponentially. Large sections of Harlem and other neighborhoods like Bedford-Stuyvesant were reduced, building-by-building, to burned-out hulks occupied by drug dealers. In the bad old days before the New Deal, people could safely cool off on steamy summer nights in the city’s parks. Under the caring, social-justice administrations of the 1960s and 1970s, doing so was an almost certain way to get raped, mugged, or murdered.

Today almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. So rather than racial ignorance, the main problem is economic ignorance.

Its difficult not to notice that the destructive force of economic ignorance has moved into the old home of racial ignorance, the Democratic Party. My theory is that this is because a political organization geared more towards populism than principle naturally will have a stronger gravitational pull for some pretty unsavory human trends than one that models itself more closely to the government of the most advanced civilization in the world.

As a fellow economist, I can only applaude him.

The facts may not always be what some factions want to hear, but, we would be doing the public a great disservice if we diluted our analyses for political reasons.

Conservatives were definitely fooled by Bush and his administration, as were moderates and even some liberals. It speaks well for you that you are starting to realize what’s going on.

Hopefully we can move forward from this administration, and make a country that lives up to it’s highest potential, and works for everyone.

You aren’t listening close enough. If it’s true that the Dems are the party of the wealthiest, then it becomes especially interesting: they’re saying that tax cuts for THE WEALTHY aren’t necessary.

Let Bush propose a tax cut that is not a giveaway to the wealthy, but instead *only* cuts taxes for the middle class and the poor, and that would be a different situation entirely.

But that is not what Social Security is supposed to be doing for you.

SS is supposed to be keeping those who are currently elderly or infirm from dying due to poverty. It does this by collecting a small percentage from people who are currently working, and using that to keep our elderly citizens, who have built this country with their working years, to live out their remaining years with a modicum of security.

Well, the current man in the White House, George W. Bush, probably has not cheated on his wife.

But he has brought us larger government than Clinton, more spending than Clinton, less revenue than Clinton, four years of increasing poverty reversing the trends that existed under Clinton, a staggering amount of debt to the point that China now controls the fate of our dollar, three of the largest intelligence failures in history (9/11, WMD, not capturing Osama Bin Laden) on his watch, a decaying infrastructure, a government medicare giveaway to pharmaceutical companies by forbidding gov’t to haggle over drug prices; and along the way, fired multiple high-level employees simply for telling the truth to congress.

I’ll see your Rwanda and I’ll raise you a Darfur plus the multiple projected millions dead in Africa due to billions Bush promised that aren’t arriving. I’ll see your N. Korea, and I’ll raise you a N. Korea with six nukes. As for American interests, I call to see how Clinton damaged them. Clinton was adored in Europe. Bush has damgaed, perhaps permanently, our relationship with European allies that go back sixty years.

As for the economy being better when Bush was re-elected, the question is, better for whom? Not for the poor. Not for the middle class, especially if they ever get medical bills. Not for the McJobs that people are having to settle for.

So, which would you prefer: a doctor who cheats on his life, but most of his patients heal without complications? Or a doctor who doesn’t cheat on his wife, but all his patients have all sorts of problems?

In a perfect world, I would prefer my leaders to be spotless in their private lives. But that is not what they are hired for. They are hired to run the country effectively, care for it’s citizens, and safeguard this country’s future.

The most that Clinton has been effectivley faulted for, is lying about a consensual extramarital affair. George W. Bush has simply done an awful job as president.

And I always find it funny that the party with the wealthiest individuals in it telling Americans that tax cuts are “unnecessary.”