I thought it was Bush, Sr., who pushed NAFTA and had all the agreements in place before Clinton was elected. Clinton just signed the legislation.
Whatever, if the US is supporting however many illegals from Mexico it's supporting and, if the US has lost production jobs as a result of NAFTA, I agree it should go--or be modified in some way to equalize the balance of trade with Mexico and to bring back some of the lost jobs.
Renegotiate some of the union contracts--especially the UAW and the Teamsters. It appears as if their demands have pretty much killed a lot of the manufacturing jobs in the US.
Then there's the WTO and its predecessor, GATT. All trade should be balanced in favor of all countries--both developed and developing--if the WTO worked for both and not just for developing countries.
For the US--we need to be able to circulate money, both here and in all countries, without the investment and credit greed that led the world into its current financial woes. If that means short term socialism until a balance can be achieved, so be it--and I don't mean social programs, which is a different thing. It, to me, means government regulation. Republican capitalism in terms of Reaganomics hasn't worked. The US, as a service economy, can't rely on Adam Smith's liberal rules of economics and market stabilization through competition. That's, of course, my opinion.
Now--Invest in the American Worker--Great! Where are the American workers and where, in a service economy, are the jobs the American worker can take?
_________________________
Tomorrow's just your future yesterday. Craig Ferguson