The Nobel prize this year (2004) in Economics went to an ex-U of M Economics professor who researched on the way government policy affects lives-this takes an even greater meaning in this election season; well, the thing that I do not understand is how US politicians can be blind to the implications that their domestic policies have worldwide-take the case of outsourcing-one canditate is for it, so obviously the other canditate is against it; tax cuts-one candidate is for it, so obvioulsy the other candidate is against it; tuition tax benefits to families; one candidate is for it, so obviously the other candidate is against it-war in iraq; one candidate for it; so obviously th other candidate is against it- farm bill, one candidate is for it; the other candidate is against it. I quite frankly have no respect for either candidate because neither has shown consistent consideration for the people in US and people abroad.
Take the farm bill for example; well it does take into account the plight of the small-town US farmer (which is great-I think US farmer income needs to be subsidized to a certain extent); but various studies have shown that it hurts farmers in other countries (specially farmers who live below the poverty-line). Why do political leaders have to take one stand in complete opposition to their contenders? Why do they not for change come up with policies that is a compromise for people living in the US as well as worldwide?
Does anybody have any answer?Posted by jaya0023 at October 14, 2004 7:15 PM