I don't listen to Rush at all. Welfare reform was part of the Contract With America which was a Republican reform program. The administration of the first President Bush initiated the legislation. But Bush lost his re-election bid when he was defeated by Clinton. As a result the legislation was signed into law by Clinton, much to his chagrin. Since welfare was created by the Democrats in the 1930s, the Republicans have been the only ones to propose its reform. Bush did not start welfare reform. Republicans had been trying for years to reform it. My source is not a "simple-minded right wing fud factory" whatever that is. My source is living 60 years of American History. Clinton had 8 years of a solid economy because he had no war to contend with. The same was true of the first President Bush. The truth of the matter is presidents are rarely responsible for downturns in the economy. The economy is cyclical in nature. There are years of growth followed by a short recessession followed by more years of growth. The first president Bush had 4 years of continued growth up until the very end of his administration when the economy took a downturn. Clinton came in and the recession deepened for a while, but the economy bounced back and the nation enjoyed a pretty good economy until the very end of his administration when another downturn occured spured on by the collapse of the dot com industry. The current Bush administration took over as the economic downturn deepend into a recession, then leveled out. The event of 9/11 ended any hope of a balanced budget, although I will be the first to admit that Bush could have, and should have, vetoed more spending bills. But the economy did okay until the recent downturn caused by the decline of the housing market. But that too will level out regardless of who is in the White House.
There are some aspects of Paul's philosophy that I am in total agreement with, such as the idea of limited government and replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. But Paul's idea of limited government is unrealistic. He does not want to limit government; he wants to scrap it. Secondly, he is an isolationist which is also unrealistic. Thirdly, I am getting sick and tired of hearing that Paul is the only person who cares about the Constitution. All the candidates care about the Constitution. They just view it in a different light. To claim that anyone who does not interpret the Constitution in the same way as Paul, does not care for the Constitution is just plain ridiculous and very narrow-minded. I certainly would not interpret the Constitution in the same way as Obama or Clinton does, but that is a far cry from saying they don't care about it.
No joke. If you lines up every Republican candidate they would say the same thing about the Federal government's size and would have the same views on the Constitution.
I have to disagree with this Bush I was busy cleaning up the economy from The "Great" Regan. The economy was still kinda bad during his years as president. Although, I dont think Bush I did a bad job at all.
Not a chance. Bush was WAY right, just fiscally and politically irresponsible. He was one of yours and you can't paint him a a leftist now, just because he's a miserable failure. A Rushlike truism that is not supported by any facts. Can you quote any democrat who has said this? Can you cite any democratic legislation that says this?
No you didn't. You just cited three bi-partisan federal programs. National Healthcare Welfare Social Security BB earlier said that "The Democrats try to get as many people dependant on the federal government as they can". My questions were: Can you quote any democrat who has said "Democrats are trying to get as many people dependant on the federal government as they can"? Can you cite any democratic legislation that states a policy of "trying to get as many people dependant on the federal government as they can"? You still haven't done this.
Not only that, who the hell do you think is actually doing this?? That's neo-con bull**** at it's best. Blame the welfare and unemployment abusers, and claim they're living the life of reily. And it works too, because John Q. Public can see the guy laying on his porch drinking a 40 when he's coming home from work, but he doesn't see the CEO's and mega rich paying less taxes as a percentage of income, than he does, or laying off 2000 workers while taking a bonus that could have paid the wages of the people he laid off!! I'm not anti- rich folks, or anti business, I'm anti irresponsible business and rich folks. In reality, most of us are a lot closer to the guy on the porch than the real Republican party. I'm at least 2 zero's on my W-2 from being a real republican
