Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have selective hearing, selective memory and selective "truth" seeing.
Wrong, I heard Ron Paul and a few libertarian types complaining about the Bush deficits. The Bush non-funded prescription benefit received a large majority of Republican votes in Congress.
You seem to have forgotten that congress passes a spending budget the president only approves it. Please note at what time GWB spent the most who controlled congress. Please go to Citizens against Government waste web site.
Check the roll call vote on the prescription drug benefit.
Wrong, I heard Ron Paul and a few libertarian types complaining about the Bush deficits. The Bush non-funded prescription benefit received a large majority of Republican votes in Congress.
Like I said: Selective hearing, selective vision, selective truth.
Like I said: Selective hearing, selective vision, selective truth.
Yes, only 42 of 51 Republican Senators voted for Medicare Part D along with a large majority of Republican representatives in the House, including Cantor, Boehner and Ryan.
A whole 19 members of the "conservative" party voted against the biggest expansion of government entitlements since the 1960's and did not even bother to fund it.
Is it more conservative to tax and spend than borrow and spend?
How would you convince the people not to vote for the politicians that will give them welfare again?
The welfare crowd offers too many votes to keep welfare out of their hands. Same with corporations that fund the political campaigns to rally that voting crowd.
First you'd have to establish what you mean by welfare.
Then you'd have to establish that people actually go to the polls and vote for candidates that offer welfare.
Then you'd have to show candidates running on a more welfare platform winning elections. I can't think of any candidates that run on giving people more welfare. Probably because such a message wouldn't win a campaign and doesn't poll well.
Anyone that thinks about American elections understands some basic facts about those elections.
The population of people who always vote is not the same as the population of all eligible voters.
There are huge demographic differences between the two groups.
The population of people who always vote tend to be older, higher income, married, college grads, white, etc. In other words it is a population that contains a huge number of voters who would be turned off by the give the people more welfare message.
So you have a few problems with the premise of your question. You don't define welfare. There is no proof that people vote for candidates based on that candidate offering welfare.
There aren't any candidates that actually run on giving more welfare.
And the voting population tends to be older, whiter, higher income, more educated than the overall eligible voters.
It would be nice if conservatives worried about the national debt when conservatives are in power.
Conservatives do, but some people have very short and selective memories. Conservatives complained about Bush and Republican spending, as did Democrats. The difference is Democrats went silent on it when they got control in 2006 and outspent Republicans 2:1. Funny how spending $1 by Republicans is bad but spending $2 by Democrats is no big deal to some people.
Yes, only 42 of 51 Republican Senators voted for Medicare Part D along with a large majority of Republican representatives in the House, including Cantor, Boehner and Ryan.
Well, then, if 42 of 51 Republicans voted for expanding Medicare why do liberals say Republicans want to throw grandma off a cliff?
Why is Harry Reid saying that DOMA is unconstitutional when he voted for it himself?
Why did Democrats say they want to introduce a bill to make sure people can keep their insurance when the very same bill was proposed back in 2010 by a Republican and they voted it down?
Why did the Democrats say changing the rules on filibustering was dangerous to the fabric of our democracy when Bush was president, and then make those very same changes themselves?
Why did Obama say sequestration was terrible and damaging, that increasing the debt ceiling was unpatriotic, and running a deficit of 400B was irresponsible when he is on record as saying he'd veto any attempt to get around sequestration, requesting debt ceiling increases, and proposing budgets with 600B deficits?
Why did Democrats say it was reprehensible for Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke the very same name that they said nothing about Bill Maher calling Palin?
Why is Harry Reid saying that immigration reform is a top priority when he himself sponsored legislation to restrict illegal immigration?
Why did Democrats say that problems with the economy were Bush's fault when they held majorities in both houses of congress, but then say that problems with the economy weren't Obama's fault because Republicans held one house of congress?
Given all these things, your outrage over conservative hypocrisy is so absurd that it's nothing short of laugh out loud funny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
