Prophet traveled in time from 1951 to deliver us this timely comparison of the republican and democratic parties:
Quote:
well pirate, your right about welfare, but the liberals want everyone on welfare, that way they get elected and which is also where they got coined the "poor persons politician"....When there are those who SHOULD be on welfare (disabled) and those with limited welfare (single parents, people laid off - who get welfare for 3 months and must find a job by then)
And whoever says there are no jobs, thats retarded...maybe there are no jobs to fit your liking, but there are jobs, and beggers cannot be choosers, if its your butt working @ McDonalds or sitting @ home collecting, well by God it better be @ McDonalds - beggars cannot be choosers and no one is to good to work....
If you read the article I put up you would discover that Bush spent a lot more money than Clinton which totally nullifies any notion that liberals want to put everyone on welfare.
----
As to Physician and his definition...
"governmental ownership and administration of the means of production"
First, the United States has no means of production. Our only source of income is financing, and since the U.S. government owns the largest bank in the county this part of the definition evaluates to be true.
"distribution of goods"
from the article:
"But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent.
This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending."
You were right about one thing. The tax cuts you claimed are "definately not socialist." You're right, cutting taxes with massive spending increases isn't socialist. It's stupid.