Quantcast

Slick Willy rewrites history, wants credit for accomplishments of Republican congress!

Ken 2011/10/03 21:39:29
You can trust Bill, can't you?  After all, he didn't have sex with that woman, the cigar did!
Depends on whether he was shaking his finger at the TV camera when he said it!
Other (Please leave a comment.)
This from a disbarred, convicted perjurer?
Undecided
All of the above
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos





Politico.com



Bill
Clinton rewrites history, wants more credit

By:
James
Hohmann

September
30, 2011 11:10 PM EDT


Bill
Clinton thinks he deserves more credit for reforming welfare and
balancing the budget.

“I go crazy every time I read the
conventional wisdom,” he said Friday night at his presidential
library in Little Rock, Ark. “So part of the Republican narrative
is that I was ‘saved’ from myself by the election of the
Republican Congress [in 1994] that ‘forced me’ to do welfare
reform and ‘made the balanced budget possible.’”


Clinton
said reporters and commentators “keep saying this, overlooking all
relevant facts.”

The 42nd president said Arkansas had been a
test case for reform during his governorship. At the federal level,
he said 43 states received federal waivers to implement welfare
reform before the GOP-controlled House passed the final bill.

“And
yet I kept reading how this was ‘a Republican idea,’ just because
President Reagan had a good story about a welfare queen and a
Cadillac who didn’t exist,”
Clinton said.

The feisty
comments came during 20 minutes of unscripted remarks that
immediately followed a one-hour panel discussion commemorating the
20
th
anniversary of Clinton announcing his run for president in front of
the nearby state house. They showcased a Clinton determined to
present himself as a transformational figure.

Six senior aides
from the 1992 campaign had waxed nostalgic, praising their old boss
for revitalizing the Democratic Party and changing the way campaigns
are run.

When Clinton took the microphone, he riffed on the
importance of offering voters a compelling story line.

“I’m
telling you this to point out that we need a coherent narrative,”
he said. “The No. 1 rule of effective politics, especially if the
people you’re running against have a simple narrative — that
government is always the problem, there is no such thing as a good
tax or a bad tax cut, there’s no such thing as a good program or a
bad program cut, no such thing as a good regulation or a bad
deregulation — if you’re going to fight that, your counter has to
be rooted in the lives of other people.”

His speech included
an attack on the tea party governing philosophy.

“We need to
understand that one of the things that tends to tilt things toward
the Republicans’ anti-government narrative is our country was born
out of a suspicion of government,” Clinton said. “King George’s
government was not accountable to us. That’s what the Boston tea
party was about. When the tea party started out, at least they were
against unaccountable behavior from top to bottom. Then it morphed
into something different. If you want to go against that grain,
you’ve got to tell people you understand it’s a privilege and a
responsibility to spend their tax money, but there’s some things we
have to do together. And that’s what the purpose of government is,
to do the things that we have to do together that we can’t do on
our own.”

“If we can make that choice credible,” he
added, “then our candidates — starting with the president — and
our principles will be fine.”

Among
friends and longtime supporters, the 65-year-old looked at ease and
spoke lovingly about the aides and Arkansans who helped him get to
the White House two decades ago.

“We were looking at total
meltdown about a week before New Hampshire,” Clinton recalled,
praising James Carville for the way he handled the blow-up over the
Vietnam letter.

“He likes to act crazy because it helps him
get speaking gigs,” Clinton joked. “He figures if he goes around
acting like he needs a rabies shot that more and more people will
want to see him.”

Clinton said commentators struggled to
deal with him when he stepped onto the national stage because he did
not fit easily into one easily defined category.

On the issue
of race, he bragged about having the highest percentage of
African-Americans on his professional staff of any state attorney
general in America in the late 1970s.

Panelist Vernon Jordan,
the civil rights icon who chaired Clinton’s presidential transition
in 1992, heaped on praise.

“The party was lost at sea,”
Jordan said. “And Bill Clinton came in 1991, and he was to the
Democratic Party what Rosa Parks was to the civil rights movement. …
He was to the Democratic Party what Martin Luther King became to the
movement. It was change. It was different. It was fresh. It was
young. It was also experience. He’d been governor a long time. It
was renaissance time in the Democratic party, and a lot of the older
Democrats had to be brought around.”

Al From, the founder of
the Democratic Leadership Council, marveled at Clinton’s ability to
give the same charter school speech to two different groups with
opposite interests and get them to see him as on the right side of
the issue.

Frank Greer, media consultant to the 1992 Clinton
campaign, said it took someone from the South to bridge the gap
between working whites and African-Americans.

“He understood
it because he had lived it,” he said. “It was growing up in the
South.”

Former Little Rock Mayor Lottie Shackleford, deputy
campaign manager in 1992, talked about how Clinton was a party
outsider who did not initially attract many movers and shakers.

“It
was true grass roots,” she said.

Carville talked about the
innovations in the 1992 Clinton campaign. Every campaign has a war
room now. The “it’s the economy, stupid” mantra has long become
cliché. The candidate bus tour that seemed somewhat novel when
Clinton did it is now standard practice for national
candidates.

“The campaign was not just a different way,”
Carville said, “but it was sort of a cultural transformation in
American politics.'






Comment:



Maybe
Bill doesn't get all the credit he thinks he deserves because the
bill was a Republican bill, passed by a Republican congress after
Clinton had vetoed two prior welfare reform bills:




The
Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

(
PRWORA,
enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law
considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of
federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce
development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment
among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract
With America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R, FL) who
believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to
the United States.(Clinton had vetoed two prior Republican welfare
reform bills after they took control of congress in 1995, and only
signed the third into law because the polls showed around 70% of the
voters supported it!)




Regarding Slick Willy not getting the credit for balancing the budget,
maybe that's because before the Republicans took control of congress
in 1995, Clinton refused to embrace the idea of a balanced budget.
Clinton's first budget called for an astronomical tax hike of $220
billion that Democrats in Congress increased to $240 billion.
Clinton's first three budgets -- released in 1993, 1994, and 1995
(for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4
billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation
(which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion
respectively). In the meantime Clinton vetoed the Republicans' budget
in 1995 -- a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to
have balanced since 1969.(Recall that the government shutdown in 1995
over Clinton's veto of the budget was effectively blamed on the
Republican congress!)

Not
until election year 1996 did he even aspire to balance a budget,
producing a budget that left an $81 billion deficit in its final
year, and It wasn't until 1997 that Clinton, for the first time,
joined the Republican congress in its goal and agreed to his first
balanced budget.


http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/BUDDEAL2.JT.htm

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • jr 2011/10/03 22:45:31
    You can trust Bill, can't you? After all, he didn't have sex with that woman...
    jr

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Welshtaff 2011/10/05 02:41:26
    This from a disbarred, convicted perjurer?
    Welshtaff
    +1
    What an idiot. wish he would go away for good and take Hillary with him.
  • gibyob 2011/10/04 20:52:01
    This from a disbarred, convicted perjurer?
    gibyob
    +1
    Bil Clinton is a sad excuse for a man. He can't admit he lacked the moral fortitude to be a married man and not cheat pon his wife. He lacks the same principled moral compass as a rapist!
  • G.J. the time has come to s... 2011/10/04 20:13:08 (edited)
    You can trust Bill, can't you? After all, he didn't have sex with that woman...
    G.J. the time has come to switch
    +1
    he was taking credit for the congresses work during his lying under oath NO HE WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE BRINK OF IMPEACHMENT FOR HAVING SEX WITH A YOUNG WOMAN LESS THAN HALF HIS AGE WHILE MARRIED TO THE WORLD TRAVELER HILLARY HIS PROBLEMS WERE HE LIED UNDER OATH A SMALL PROBLEM ONE MUST TELL THE TRUTH NO MATTER HOW EMBARRASSING IT MAY BECOME.OH WASN'T HE A LAWYER HE HAD NO EXCUSE HE KNEW THE LAW. HE MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN THE CONTRACT WITH aMERICA THE ONE THAT NEWT KRAFTED.
  • Ken G.J. th... 2011/10/04 22:08:01 (edited)
    Ken
    It is most likely that he also attempted to interfere with the investigation and get her to lie under oath, but Monica would never testify against him. If it hadn't been for the infamous "blue dress", which she was apparently keeping with the stain as some sort of "presidential memorabilia", the truth would never have come out.
  • Billyk75 2011/10/04 15:04:49
    This from a disbarred, convicted perjurer?
    Billyk75
    +1
    it was the Republican Congress that made the 90's economy great. Slick Willie only took the credit.
  • Dave 2011/10/04 14:18:40
    This from a disbarred, convicted perjurer?
    Dave
    +1
    Slick Willie is a coat tail riding piece of trailer trash.
  • mg's haven~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2011/10/04 04:16:07
    Other (Please leave a comment.)
    mg's haven~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    I know i probabaly shouldnt have this attitude but he cut the navy fleet almost to nothing and come to find out later he cut it too damn far and had to commision new ones. If he gets credit for anything its being an airhead thats full of smog. I quit listening to him chatter years ago
  • Ken mg's ha... 2011/10/04 05:29:31
    Ken
    +3
    You are right - Clinton took full advantage of the "peace dividend" when the Soviet Union folded during the Reagan/Bush administrations and cut the military budget too deeply. Those Tomahawk missiles he kept shooting were bought during the G.H.W.Bush administration.
  • mich52 2011/10/04 04:04:42
  • Pedro Doller ~Inc. 2011/10/04 02:35:15
    This from a disbarred, convicted perjurer?
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +1
    This guy's past needs to re-examined. He has been a teflon guy up to now. Our current economic wows fall in his lap. Glass Steigal being the most damaging.
  • JaguarSocialist 2011/10/04 01:09:41
    None of the above
    JaguarSocialist
    +1
    Without the signature of President William Jefferson Clinton, none of those Republican bills would have become law.
  • mich52 JaguarS... 2011/10/04 04:05:52
  • Ken mich52 2011/10/04 05:31:48
    Ken
    +1
    With the truth, as always.
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/04 18:09:26
    JaguarSocialist
    Right wingers don't have any truth.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/04 22:09:09
    Ken
    Apparently you don't know the truth when it's right in front of you.
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/05 13:39:14
    JaguarSocialist
    You haven't written any truth. The fact is that not a single piece of legislation passed by Newt and his thugs would have become law without the signature of William Jefferson Clinton.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/05 21:20:42 (edited)
    Ken
    That is undeniable, but the fact also is that neither of the policies, reforming welfare nor balancing the budget, was implemented or even mentioned during Clinton's first two years with a Democratic congress, and it is also a fact that he twice vetoed welfare reform bills before signing the third one presented to him, by a Republican congress. As I said, you are more willing to parse words that to recognize the truth for what it is.
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/06 11:49:37
    JaguarSocialist
    Wrong again! Clinton did a beautiful job of co-opting the policies and, in many ways, making them his own. In other words, Clinton was a hell of a lot smarter than Newt's twits.

    Again, the welfare reform bill wasn't veto proof and it would never have become law without Clinton's support and his signature. Bill Clinton is a very smart politician, but I will admit he doesn't have high standards when it comes to selecting "attractive" women.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/06 22:02:23
    Ken
    Question:
    From 1993 to 1995, did President Clinton propose a "welfare reform" bill?
    Answer: No!

    Question: From 1993 to 1995 did either the Democrat-controlled house or senate propose a "welfare reform" bill?
    Answer: No!

    Question: Were the budgets for either 1994 or 1995 (those for which the Democratic controlled congress and President Clinton, elected in 1992, were responsible) balanced?
    Answer: No!

    True, Bill Clinton did "co-opt" the credit for the very popular policies that the Republican congress implemented - he signed them because he knew it would be extremely unpopular to do otherwise. They were Republican policies, not Bill Clinton's!
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/13 20:48:17
    JaguarSocialist
    As I correctly stated, the "Republican" welfare bill wouldn't have become law without the signature of William Jefferson Clinton. Had Clinton not signed it, it would have been added to the growing list of conservative failures.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/13 21:33:29
    Ken
    True -- and as I correctly stated, Slick Willy is now attempting to take credit for a welfare reform bill, which he had twice vetoed, that was drafted by a Republican controlled House of Representatives and passed by a Republican Senate.
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/13 22:03:45
    JaguarSocialist
    He should take credit for it since he signed it into law. Actually, Clinton had proposed, during the 1992 campaign, to "end welfare as we have come to know it."
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/13 22:34:29
    Ken
    He may have proposed it (I don't recall one way or the other) but the fact is he signed a Republican bill into law after twice vetoing it.
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/13 23:38:46
    JaguarSocialist
    And, without his signature, that bill could have been added to a never ending list of conservative failures.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/14 01:22:22
    Ken
    LMAO - you are something else! A typical liberal trying to spin a loss into a win. See ya.
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/14 16:24:51
    JaguarSocialist
    Clinton didn't lose; he won!
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/14 17:31:44
    Ken
    He lost! He twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills before being force to sign one into law by public opinion1
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/14 20:30:07
    JaguarSocialist
    Of course he won; who won re-election in 1996 and what happened to Newt?
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/14 20:44:13
    Ken
    He lost when he was forced by public opinion to sign a Republican welfare reform act that he had twice vetoed, angering his left-wing base.

    You say he spoke out for welfare reform when he was running for president in 1992, right? Why is it, then, that in the 1993 and 1994 congresses there wasn't a single welfare reform bill presented, while he had control of both houses? It wasn't until the Republicans took over in 1995 that welfare reform was addressed, and then Clinton vetoed the bills twice before overwhelming public opinion forced him to sign it. And his "friends" on the left weren't all too happy about it, either:

    "Christopher Hitchens, . . . has become the self-appointed spokesperson of the ultra-left angry at Clinton for capitulating on everything from welfare reform to Rwanda."
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/14 20:58:48
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/14 21:28:20 (edited)
    Ken
    Don't get testy now, this has been a polite discussion, so far!

    Hitchen's was a liberal ICON! "Christopher Eric Hitchens (born 13 April 1949) is an English-American author .... listed by Forbes magazine as one of the "25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media". ..

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/01...

    "By the 1990's, public opinion had turned strongly against the old welfare system. Offering no incentive for recipients to seek employment, the welfare rolls were exploding, and the system was viewed as rewarding and actually perpetuating, rather than reducing poverty in the United States

    ."http://usgovinfo.about.com/...
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/14 21:33:11 (edited)
    JaguarSocialist
    Damn, if Forbes said it then it must be true. Wrong!

    Hitchens is an angry atheist who, frankly, more closely resembles a neocon than a liberal. He strongly supported invading Iraq and defended Bush. How many liberals do you know that supported the invasion of Iraq?

    Damn, a conservative who relies upon a website owned by the government most conservatives hate.

    The fact remains that, without Clinton's signature, the bill wouldn't have become law.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/14 21:39:25
    Ken
    And without a Republican congress to draft it and pass it it wouldn't have become law either.
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/14 21:44:04
    JaguarSocialist
    Republicans do have a habit of passing legislation that harms the needy and the working class.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/14 23:56:10
    Ken
    And liberals have a way of trying "progressive" ideas that are anything but progressive -- ideas that have been tried and have failed in every collectivist society since Jean Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century, and tried by progressives in this nation as well since the early 20th century..

    They also have a way of wanting to "stretch" the Constitution beyond its original meaning by interpreting it as a "living document." Thomas Jefferson recognized this possibility when he wrote "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."

    Liberals would love nothing more than to make the Constitution a "blank paper", removing all of the original restraints on the power of the federal government. Thus we have liberals such as Sonya Sotomayor who decides cases based upon "empathy" and "compassion" rather than the law.
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/17 19:48:33
    JaguarSocialist
    It's interesting you didn't address the point of my comment.

    If you don't believe the constitution is a living document, then you should book the first flight out of the United States. If it wasn't a living document, we'd still be living under the constitution as it was ratified.

    For the record, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner who, more than likely, fathered children with his female slaves.

    Congress has the constitutional power to expand, for example, the Commerce Clause and, in fact, the Supreme Court has, in the past, upheld any number of these laws.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/17 21:43:14
    Ken
    No, we wouldn't. The Constitution itself provides for a means of changing it, it's called an amendment, and it takes the approval of 3/4 of the states.

    That doesn't make it the type of "living document" liberals like to say it is, where liberal justices can "interpret" it according to their biases and current feelings of "compassion" and "empathy."

    That is a tired old argument - slave ownership was allowed to remain in the south as a compromise, so that the United States could be created. Almost to a man the founding fathers expressed the desire that it be done away with, sooner rather than later.

    If you won't take Jefferson's word for the way the Constitution should be interpreted, here's what the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison, wrote in 1825: "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution."

    "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil."
    -- Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1773

    "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

    "[The Convention] thought ...





    No, we wouldn't. The Constitution itself provides for a means of changing it, it's called an amendment, and it takes the approval of 3/4 of the states.

    That doesn't make it the type of "living document" liberals like to say it is, where liberal justices can "interpret" it according to their biases and current feelings of "compassion" and "empathy."

    That is a tired old argument - slave ownership was allowed to remain in the south as a compromise, so that the United States could be created. Almost to a man the founding fathers expressed the desire that it be done away with, sooner rather than later.

    If you won't take Jefferson's word for the way the Constitution should be interpreted, here's what the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison, wrote in 1825: "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution."

    "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil."
    -- Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1773

    "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

    "[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
    -- James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787

    "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]."
    -- George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786

    I realize that the Supreme Court has allowed a virtually unbridled expansion of federal power under the guise of the "Commerce clause." The Commerce clause gives congress the power to "regulate commerce between the states (as well as with foreign countries and the indian tribes)." The Court has taken that power to regulate to the extent that anything that "affects interstate commerce", even if only in the aggregate, can be "regulated" by congress. That was clearly not the intent of the founders.
    (more)
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/17 21:51:04
    JaguarSocialist
    The constitution is indeed a living document. Times change, and new interpretations must be applied to current needs.

    "Almost to a man the founding fathers expressed the desire that it be done away with, sooner rather than later."

    The fact is the founding white guys could have ended slavery then and there. They didn't do so; instead, northerners caved in to southern slave owner demands.

    Madison would have been insane to argue the constitution he helped write wasn't the legitimate constitution.

    By your own admission, the constitution is a living document since, as you indicated, the founding white guys were smart enough to realize it would need to be changed.

    Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the constitution means. You wrote "The Court has taken that power to regulate to the extent that anything that "affects interstate commerce..."

    Well, yes, the Court has ruled in matters related to interstate commerce and those needs have changed since the U.S. was founded. Today, we have a global economy and future rulings of the Court related to the Commerce Clause will, no doubt, take that reality into account.
  • Ken JaguarS... 2011/10/17 22:11:53
    Ken
    No they couldn't have ended slavery then and there and still have formed the United States, so they compromised and allowed it in the agricultural south, with importation of slaves to end in 1808. After 1808 the U.S. Navy in fact intercepted the ships of slave traders on the high seas and turned them back to Africa.

    Yes, the Constitution might need to be changed and they provided a means for changing it through amendment, by the will of the people -- they didn't intend for it to be changed by the will of five of nine unelected justices on the Supreme Court..

    The need for the federal government to interfere in areas that were left to the states has not changed -- there is no such need. Read the Tenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has rendered nearly meaningless: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    We now have the federal government telling farmers how much corn they can grow, even though the corn is to be used for their own consumption or to feed their animals, never to enter the stream of interstate commerce. We also have the federal government interfering in local schools, something for which there is no constitutional authority, and som...





    No they couldn't have ended slavery then and there and still have formed the United States, so they compromised and allowed it in the agricultural south, with importation of slaves to end in 1808. After 1808 the U.S. Navy in fact intercepted the ships of slave traders on the high seas and turned them back to Africa.

    Yes, the Constitution might need to be changed and they provided a means for changing it through amendment, by the will of the people -- they didn't intend for it to be changed by the will of five of nine unelected justices on the Supreme Court..

    The need for the federal government to interfere in areas that were left to the states has not changed -- there is no such need. Read the Tenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has rendered nearly meaningless: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    We now have the federal government telling farmers how much corn they can grow, even though the corn is to be used for their own consumption or to feed their animals, never to enter the stream of interstate commerce. We also have the federal government interfering in local schools, something for which there is no constitutional authority, and something that has been an abject failure since the formation of the Department of Education under Jimmy Carter.

    The fact that there is a global economy is well-covered by the Constitution, as Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

    What the Court does with the Obamacare mandate will be instructive, as many have argued that if congress can mandate that individuals purchase a product, any product, there is virtually no limit on what congress and the federal government can do.

    Is that really what you want -- a federal government with virtually unlimited power? Do you want a Supreme Court that can "interpret" the Bill of Rights out of existence?
    (more)
  • JaguarS... Ken 2011/10/17 22:18:50 (edited)
    JaguarSocialist
    If you respond to my comments here, I'll get back on the rest.

    The Bill of Rights isn't absolute, and the Court has interpreted them in different ways many times. The Court couldn't "interpret" any right in the Bill of Rights out of existence. That would require a new amendment.

    "The fact that there is a global economy is well-covered by the Constitution, as Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations."

    Yes, but there's a vast difference between trade in the eighteenth century and the twenty-first century. Therefore, in the coming years, the Court will have to take into account, for example, trade treaties and other agreements that impact commerce beyond anything the founding white guys could have imagined.

    States rights is a code word for racism, and that amendment was used to justify Jim Crow laws. I should ask what powers do you assume the federal government has "stolen" from the states?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/31 01:20:39

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals