Clinton had nothing to do with what your statement says. Welfare had been available to low, to no income people, for many years prior to his Presidency.

I do not know what you mean by full access. Maybe you can explain.

It is not true that before his reign the only thing that could be bought with food stamps had to be WIC approved items. WIC coupons can only be used for foods like milk, cheese etc. , but food stamps have always been used to purchase any food item.

It is still illegal to purchase lottery tickets, cigarettes, liquor or any non food item with food stamps. This is not to say that some markets don't abide by this.


The majority of food stamp reciepients are the working poor and should be allowed to feed their families whatever their budget will allow (which is supplemented by foodstamps). And an occasional steak or cake is not out of line. By the way most of the bills (including Welfare reform) that Clinton signed were not his bills but were bills introduced by the Republicans and some of the Republicans in congress even joked that he was the best Republican President they had ever had. He could used his veto power but seldom did.

Environmental standards need to be increased. This is the only planet we have to live on. If it is used up we do not have a replacement on hand.

This failed.

There may be some legitimate arguments there.

Bottom line, if you're poor you love democrats because they gouge the rich to give to the poor. If you vote republican, its not necissarily because you like THEM, its just that you hate democrats taking your money and giving it to the rabble.

Instead of intelligent social management, the democrats pander to the poor and middle class by instigating class warfare. They do this to hide the fact that democrats over tax everyone so they can hand a little back to the middle class and poor to look like heros.

Accusing the rich of being evil because they're successful works very well with the uneducated.

The way 12clicks defines it, it kind of boils down to this:

Being Democrat=some compassion for the less fortunate.

Being Republican=little compasson for the less fortunate.

Keep in mind that the rich ususally become rich off of the backs of the poor and middleclass.

Best---Chester Arthur

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/images/21parth.jpg

Classic

um, no. I've got all the compassion in the world for the less fortunate. It's just not the government's place to take my money and give it to you because they want your vote.

yeah, you and the other communists both think that. it's the mantra of the underachiever. :1orglaugh
The rich are rich because they're smarter, better, or luckier. Your back wouldn't make anyone rich. :1orglaugh

It doesn't really matter who is president anyway -- the poor will never be too poor and the rich will never be too rich -- otherwise the system would collapse and our leaders know this.

JFK was not good ! LOL WORSE !

He was a freaking playboy who used the mafia and his father to get into office ! He makes Bush/ Florida voting incidence seem minor... !

Reasearch the deaths of Marilyn Monroe and Dorothy Kilgallen and you will be amazed .



:feels-hot

Funny how all the liberal dopes are whining about deficit spending in the Regan era -- but make no mention of the reasons for it -- and how the ultimate goal was achieved.

Anyone remember this speach in Berlin???

"Mr. Gorbachev, open these gates!
Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall."

Regan single handedly brought down the iron curtain by spending what Russia could not afford to spend. They tried to keep up and it lead to their demise. A demise they are just recovering from over a decade later.

-----------------


Best: Franklin Roosevelt
Worst: 42

True. The whole Kennedy family has mauled the justice system like a Ca. rottweiler on a dike. And JFK was the biggest dog of them all. I read somewhere that he had to have a different girl every night of the week or some shit.

However, I did appreciate JFK's ability to motivate and lead the nation. His decleration that we were going to the moon was very inspiring. I have often wondered why Presidents do not do that at least once per term. I would love to hear a President address the nation and decree that we will eradicate at least one disease before his term is through. Or something that would motivate the nation and unite us towards a worth while goal.



:2 cents:

Worst: Reagan, his movies all sucked.

Best: Kennedy, you know he was pullin' more ho's than Clinton.

That's not what he said at all.

I have only lived through the last 4 presidents and I was too young to know what was happening with Regan and Bush number 1. In my limited experience I remember Regan as being my favourite but again, I was very young. Clinton did the least amount of damage abroad and the economy did improve in the 8 years he was in office. Both of these could have been coincidence.

I know VERY little about most of the presidents prior to my lifetime. I suppose I can thank the curriculum of my high school history classes. But it would be my guess that the best president from the last 100 years would be FDR and the worst would be Nixon. Again my education is severely lacking and I base these assesments on the limited education I have had in my short life.

FatPad:

Your are correct. It is what I said about 12clicks comments about differences between Democrats and Republicans.

12clicks said: "if you're poor you love democrats because they gouge the rich to give to the poor."

And: "democrats over tax everyone so they can hand a little back to the middle class and poor "

Democrats=social programs

Republicans=few if any social programs

It is not the rich that work for the rich and make the rich, richer.

By the way I am not a member of a Socialist party, a "Communist party", the Democratic party, or the Republican party.

Absolutely true.

It is the rich who pay the middle and lower class to perform different jobs.

Last time I checked, being employed was a good thing. Someone had to enable that employment. It was most probably a rich person, because there are not a lot of poor people who own companies that employ others.

Now rich people get crucified for providing jobs to non rich people.

Amazing.

The rich do not get crucified by me, but I do not have a problem with them being "gouged" and helping out the poor, since it is on the labor of the poor and middle class that they continue to get richer.

A large percentage of people that benefit from social programs are the working poor, that are not paid enough money to make ends meet.

Some of our people in the military qualify for food stamps.

By the way I am not poor or middleclass. I am in the upper middleclass bracket, so I get "gouged" to some extent.

I suppose all of trillions and trillions spent by prior administrations, since the end of the Second World War on the "Arms Race", did not have anything to do with keeping the pressure on the U.S.S.R's economic engine. The idea that "Reagan single handedly brought down the iron curtain" is amusing but not factual.

The bottom line on who was the best, or the worse, President is subjective; as most things are.

When you have a population as large as ours even a 90% approval rating for a President still would mean 26-27 million people that do not approve and that is not an insignificant number.

Two questions:
1. Where the hell do you get your information? Ever hear of Walesa? (just one example)

2. Do you know anyone that lives in Germany that is old enough to remember when the wall was up? Are they glad the wall came down? Unless they were East German, I highly doubt it.

they are all fucked!!!

You may want to consider voting Libertarian next time around, Mr. Clicks.

www.lp.org

its too funny watching pathfinder the communist insist that the poor make the rich rich so the rich should give up their money for the poor.
it's classic stupidity.

taken to its conclusion, pathfinder's communist ideas would squelch all incentive for anyone to succeed because succeeding wouldn't get you any more money, you'd be giving it all to the poor. :1orglaugh

squishy, I'll vote libertarian when it doesn't help a democrat get into office.

12miss: Your exaggerations are almost as great as your swish.

hey commie, if I give you some of my money (check that, more of my money) will you be happy?

probably not, you won't be happy until the government forces everyone to be equal. after all, that's the only senario where you can achieve equality with your betters. :1orglaugh

Clinton is the one!
Got busted for a blowjob! :1orglaugh

The first time I was shot by a commie in Korea I was irritated. After I was shot the second time by a commie, I was pissed. After I was shot the third time by a commie in Vietnam I began to hate the fuckers. I could continue but even you should get the point.

You certainly won't be in that category.

before they shot you a 4th time, you realized you were one of them? :1orglaugh


:1orglaugh

keep telling yourself that gramps.

Best: Abraham Lincoln, hands down. Made tough decisions and was lucky enough to make the right ones...even when he was up against tremendous opposition.

George W. is a good mouthpiece, with the exception of Ashooooo he has surrounded himself brilliant people, probably at the behest of his father, but, who cares, they are there. Powell, Rumsfeld and Condelezza Rica are top notch.

Worst: Jimmy Carter, wonderful guy, nuclear science background but just couldn't cut it as a president, was incredibly inept.

There are probably ten close runners up for worst...Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson...the list goes on.

On the other hand, I know that I wouldn't want the job, you can't win...even if you were Mother Theresa.

Maybe your NOT the village idiot...good post