The person you were responding to was me, btw.
Hillarycare certainly would have been bad. It still will if the Democrats keep control of Congress and capture the White House. I think I'll be splitting my vote this time.
Drastically cutting government spending is a good long-term plan. I believe it needs to be done gradually though.
The problem with our current view of cutting welfare is that we need to rethink how we allocate it. Back in my college days I bought a floor scrubber and buffer and got a contract to clean a local grocery store. One of the guys there had a severe form of degenerative arthritis. He had to be careful not to work too many hours or he would lose Medicare-and his medicine was nearly $1000 a month. Because he couldn't work full-time, he also needed Food Stamps and housing assistance, draining the economy even more. Whenever welfare was cut, they'd lower the amount you could make and still draw benefits, so he'd have to work even less. Meanwhile, fatass meth-heads sit on there butts all day and do better than he did. It seems that you get punished for trying to get off welfare. If we had a system that would allow people to work full time until they were eligible for health insurance people like my friend could get off of it.
During the Cold War we had a history of supporting guys like Shah Reza whatsisname. This policy kinda bit us on the ass.
True. I have no idea what really happened, and neither does anyone else. It was originally brought up as a slam against Clinton-which assumes the worst.
