Welfare Reform....Bush couldn't touch what Clinton did.

[Labrocca]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Recon ciliation_Act

In 1996 Clinton passed into law a bill presented by the Republicans for welfare reform. The Dems resisted and certainly the liberals hated this bill calling it cruel.

Here is a nice 2006 article printed in "The New Republic".

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060904&s=editorial090406
Sometimes the sound of success is silence. It was ten years ago that President Clinton signed into law a landmark welfare-reform bill, reinventing the signature New Deal program upon which millions of poor Americans had come to depend--and provoking a firestorm of criticism, mostly from his own political party. The new law sought to make assistance available to only those beneficiaries who worked--and, even then, for only a limited time. While proponents predicted reform would break the cycle of poverty, the measure's opponents called it a "brutal assault on the poor." Key members of Clinton's Cabinet opposed the measure, and three administration officials actually resigned over it.

No such outcry has greeted the program's ten-year anniversary; if the press hadn't mentioned it, it's not clear anybody would have even noticed. The public preoccupation with more urgent matters has something to do with this lack of attention. But the most important reason that welfare reform no longer stirs passions is that it just isn't very controversial anymore. A broad consensus now holds that welfare reform was certainly not a disaster--and that it may, in fact, have worked much as its designers had hoped.

In many ways, that consensus is correct. The old welfare program, known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, reflected the era in which it was born. Its main purpose was to provide money to widowed mothers so they could support their families without having to enter the workforce. But, by the 1980s, unwed mothers had replaced widows as welfare's archetypal recipients. Many middle-class families began to resent the idea of paying higher taxes so the poor could live on the dole. And even some experts on the left began to concede that welfare was structured in a way that fostered a permanent underclass dependent on government handouts.





Clinton embraced welfare reform back in his 1992 presidential campaign, arguing that welfare "should be a second chance, not a way of life." And, when he put it that way, virtually everyone agreed. The problem, critics warned, was with execution. It was fine and good to say welfare recipients had to work. But where would they find jobs? What about child care? Making matters worse, the bill Newt Gingrich's Republican Congress produced only faintly resembled the generous measure that Clinton had talked about.

But, after signing that bill, Clinton made good on his promise to correct the most egregious flaws of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (tanf), as the new program was called. And governors from across the country surprised skeptics by investing heavily in programs to ease the transition from welfare to work. Perhaps because of those efforts--or because the bill's architects were right about many things--the dire predictions never came true. Welfare rolls shrank while more single women entered the workforce. Teen pregnancy fell, too. And, while the statistics on income leave room for conflicting interpretation, most experts agree that, on the whole, former welfare recipients are slightly better off than before, even though the economy has slowed in the Bush era.

Yet doing "better" is not the same thing as doing "well," and many of those who made the leap from welfare to work are having trouble climbing the economic ladder. They find themselves struggling to pay for housing, child care, and medical care. Millions of families have left the dole only to join the working poor.

But this is a failure of the U.S. economy, not the measure that became law in 1996. And welfare reform, far from making this problem more intractable, actually makes it easier to solve. We know what helps people lift themselves out of poverty--programs like Section 8 housing vouchers, government-run health insurance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. What we have lacked is the political will to bolster these programs sufficiently. The old welfare system had a lot to do with this: It cast public doubt on the Democratic Party and the very notion that government programs can work. But that has changed. Today, welfare-bashing has lost its political resonance. And, by blurring the distinctions between the poor and middle class, welfare reform has expanded the constituency for activist government. Democrats now have more political room to fight Republican austerity--and to propose, in its place, a stronger safety net. The silence that greeted welfare reform's anniversary was heartening. But now it's time to make some noise.


I think it hits the nail on the head. Certainly if Bush had proposed a similar deal it would be called unconstitutional, criminal, and cruel.

This begs me to ask another question. Are the Clintons really Republicans in disguise? History is certainly starting to view Clinton more and more favorably and if Hillary can match Bill then their legacy will surely be printed in gold.

[ViolaLee]

I think you're full of shit. Clinton's work-fare was a good program. Bush doesn't have half the brain Clinton has. Bush is the worst and most stupid president in our history. It's quite arrogant and vain of you Republicans to start calling the Clintons Republicans and Bush a lefty. It's pretty darn bold and obnoxious. It's time you all admit that we Dems had a good President last time and you Republicans have the worst ever. Stop trying to twist the truth and change their parties. You people are unbelievable!

[Labrocca]

WTF are you talking about? Have you lost your mind? My entire post basically applauds something Clinton did. Do you actually read my posts or just throw in some "you people" and "bush is..." comments everytime?

Let me just ignore your comments...they don't make any sense to me anyways.

I also found this nice page about the Clinton Welfare Reform.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1620.cfm

Some great quotes from there...
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) proclaimed the new law to be "the most brutal act of social policy since reconstruction."1 He predicted, "Those involved will take this disgrace to their graves."2

Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, declared the new reform law an "outrage...that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children." The reform, she said, "will leave a moral blot on [Clinton's] presidency and on our nation that will never be forgotten."

The Children's Defense Fund predicted that the reform law would increase child poverty nationwide by 12 percent...make children hungrier...[and] reduce the incomes of one-fifth of all families with children in the nation

Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, stated that the new welfare law "places 12.8 million people on welfare at risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness."

Peter Edelman, husband of Marian Wright Edelman and then Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services, resigned from the Clinton Administration in protest over the signing of the new welfare law. In an article entitled "The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done," Edelman dubbed the new law "awful" policy that would do "serious injury to American children."8

Peter Edelman believed the reform law would not merely throw millions into poverty, but also would actively worsen virtually every existing social problem. "There will be more malnutrition and more crime, increased infant mortality, and increased drug and alcohol abuse," claimed Edelman. "There will be increased family violence and abuse against children and women." Moreover, the bill would fail even in the simple task of "effectively" promoting work because "there simply are not enough jobs now."

Notice all the comments above are from Democrats or Liberals. None of their predictions came true and as a matter of fact poverty and hunger has seriously diminished.

[Stoner]

It's time you all admit that we Dems had a good President

Yeah, being one of only 2 presidents in our history to be impeached is extrordinary! Great job, Bubba!

[BoogyMan]

I think you're full of shit. Clinton's work-fare was a good program. Bush doesn't have half the brain Clinton has. Bush is the worst and most stupid president in our history. It's quite arrogant and vain of you Republicans to start calling the Clintons Republicans and Bush a lefty. It's pretty darn bold and obnoxious. It's time you all admit that we Dems had a good President last time and you Republicans have the worst ever. Stop trying to twist the truth and change their parties. You people are unbelievable!


Viola, did you even read the article or do you just post an attack any time you see a conservative poster write something about Clinton.

This is pretty comical actually since the article was pretty much a positive review of something Clinton got done.

[ViolaLee]

Because Clinton did a good job, you are asking if he is really a Republican.

NO! He is not a Republican. He is a Democrat.

There are other threads on this board where people are claiming Bush is really a Liberal because he sucks so bad.

NO! He is not a Liberal. He is a Republican.

YOU PEOPLE, you are included Labrocca, are trying to twist the truth, re-write history, change the facts. Clinton is Democrat and Bush is Republican.

FACE IT![hr]
Viola, did you even read the article or do you just post an attack any time you see a conservative poster write something about Clinton.

This is pretty comical actually since the article was pretty much a positive review of something Clinton got done.


Obviously you don't read and comprehend my posts. I said Clinton did a good job with welfare reform. That's not the issue.

Read and comprehend boogy. The issue is Republicans trying to take credit for a good Democratic President. You guys have the worst Republican president in history right now. Face it and stop trying to pretend that Clinton is a Republican. Are you so partisan that you can't admit we had a good Democratic President without trying to pretend he is a Republican?

Unfuckingbelievable.

[Labrocca]

Smaller government is a Republican value. Realize that and then consider the Welfare Reform Act and Clintons role. He also lowered spending and demolished the deficit. Bush...he ain't a liberal at all...clearly a Neoconservative. Clinton...good president or not he got things done that any Republican would only dream about. Remember he had a Republican congress and house that was creating all the laws for him to sign.

Also consider the liberal promises he made like Government Health Care..never happened. One has to wonder why. I named a bill signed by Clinton that was clearly a GOP bill that worked amazingly well for our society. Now you name a Democratic bill that Clinton signed that had done as much good.

Bush...I won't judge his status in history. It's not important calling him the "worst president ever". It's meaningless in any debate as it can't be proven.

You should stop repeating yourself Viola. No one is taking credit away from Clinton. I am only admitting the truth. 1. The bill was introduced by Republicans. 2. The bill was signed into law by Clinton.

Are you so partisan that you can't admit we had a good Democratic President without trying to pretend he is a Republican?

Ugh...I think I am admitting that by making the post above. What's your beef?

[ViolaLee]

Apparently a balanced budget is now a Democratic value. And a bigger government is a Republican value. Hopefully our next Democratic President will bring those good values back that we had under Clinton.

You want a good Democratic bill that Clinton signed? Clinton signed the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on handgun. There ya go. Keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and making it harder for criminals to get them.

I just find it fascinating and disgusting that Republicans keep twisting the truth - when they aren't blaming Clinton for all the crap Bush has done, when they aren't bring up his blow job, they are trying to claim him for their own. It's outrageous!

[Labrocca]

First paragraph..not bad.

Second paragraph...excellent

Thrid paragraph..terrible.

Any chance you can participate in a debate without the rhetoric?

You want a good Democratic bill that Clinton signed? Clinton signed the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on handgun. There ya go. Keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and making it harder for criminals to get them.

That was a solid bill designed to appease the left. Great example viola. Congrats on entering the discussion. No one in this thread is discussion bj's but you. I am not claiming Clinton as my own. I was making light of his welfare reform and that if Bush had made the same attempt to sign that bill he would have gotten MUCH more criticism. Exactly what was your stance on the bill 10 years ago? I remember some of the hoopla about it.

[ViolaLee]

You should stop repeating yourself Viola. No one is taking credit away from Clinton. I am only admitting the truth. 1. The bill was introduced by Republicans. 2. The bill was signed into law by Clinton.

Are you so partisan that you can't admit we had a good Democratic President without trying to pretend he is a Republican?

Ugh...I think I am admitting that by making the post above. What's your beef?


Hellooooooo!!!! Did you already forget what you wrote in the OP?


This begs me to ask another question. Are the Clintons really Republicans in disguise? History is certainly starting to view Clinton more and more favorably and if Hillary can match Bill then their legacy will surely be printed in gold.


NO, they are not Republicans in disguise and you're arrogant and self righteous to suggest it.

When a Democrat does something good, he is still a Democrat even though you partisan Republicans wish he was a Republican. OK?[hr]
First paragraph..not bad.

Second paragraph...excellent

Thrid paragraph..terrible.

Any chance you can participate in a debate without the rhetoric?

You want a good Democratic bill that Clinton signed? Clinton signed the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on handgun. There ya go. Keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and making it harder for criminals to get them.

That was a solid bill designed to appease the left. Great example viola. Congrats on entering the discussion.


You must be wack. You ask me to participate without the rhetoric while you engage in the rhetoric in the same post? Are you nuts? :madlaugh: That bill wasn't to appease the left. It was to cut down on gun crime.

[hr]
Exactly what was your stance on the bill 10 years ago? I remember some of the hoopla about it.
I was all for welfare reform and work-fare. I think Clinton was a great President. I think the Republicans were complete assholes for trying everything possible to take him down.

[NortheastCynic]

The idea that downsizing government is either a Republican or Democratic value is incredibly enteraining to me. Neither party is interested in downsizing DC, neither Republicans nor Democrats. Was Clinton a 'Republican in disguise'? No. He was a moderate, like most Presidents are. The current President is a moderate with a heavy authoritarian bent. Clinton was a moderate witha fiscally conservative bent. The Republican and Democratic parties are simply two shades of the same color, so naturally a Democratic President will do some things that Republicans will applaud, and vice versa.

-NC

[Deadshot]

What's more funny about this is how politics work. Only Nixon could go to China; Bush I is ousted when he's forced by a Democratic Congress to raise taxes; Clinton turns an impeachment into positive numbers becoming the most popular POTUS in the last 40 years!

Clinton did what he had to, and unlike Bush I he was able to explain to his base what he was forced to do, yet still take the kudos for the bill when it went well. Bubba da man!:ecstatic:

[ViolaLee]

I'm sorry, what? I don't 'take a side and take a stand?' I don't take a side with either the Democrats or Republicans, yes. That however does not mean that I haven't taken a stand or made my opinion perfectly clear in this thread. I think everyone here knows me better than to confuse me for a fence sitter.


-NC
I'm tired of people saying they are all the same. They are no where near or close to being the same. Just look at the Bush admin compared to the Clinton admin.

Those are polar opposites.

Compare Gore to Inhofe. Compare Boehner to Feingold.

It's my opinion that people who lump them all together and say they are all the same, are just too lazy or uninterested in finding out what they are individually all about.

[Marley]

Ross Perot was a scam.

He was planted in the process by the Clinton mafia. One would think the man died he's disappeared to such a degree from the media radar.

The USA will never have a "3rd party."

The 2-party system is an effect of the US Constitution. The parties are permanent stanidng "governing coalitions."

You are best advised to quit thinking of them as "parties" in the sense you are thinking, and think of them as coalitions of parties. What we call "wings" of the Dem or Rep parties are free-standing "parties" in other democracies.

Other democracies elect the legislature THEN elect the executive, the USA elects two executves in the primaries, then elects the legislature and the executive at the same time.

[Labrocca]

I'm tired of people saying they are all the same. They are no where near or close to being the same. Just look at the Bush admin compared to the Clinton admin.

Those are polar opposites.


Back on topic please.

I agree they are not the same but a law is a law. That's sort of my point. The Welfare Reform Act would NOT have gotten passed by Bush yet it did under Clinton. I think Clinton got a pass from the left even though they didn't agree with this bill. I believe 100% that if Bush attempted this he would have gotten huge protests and called every name in the book. So that's a stark difference.

Do you disagree with anything I have said?

[ViolaLee]

Who says the left didn't agree with holding people accountable who collect welfare? I think you're just believing the hype about the left. The right has been lying about us for years.

[Labrocca]

Who says the left didn't agree with holding people accountable who collect welfare?

How about those people and organizations I quoted?

http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-98/welfare.html

You only have to do some googling to find a LOT of the left didn't want to change welfare.

On August 22, 1996, President William Jefferson Clinton joined his conservative congressional cronies and ensured his place in history by signing into law the Personal Responsibility and Welfare Reform Act of 1996, the most brutal abdication of U.S. government responsibility for the poor in our nation's history. With one stroke of the pen, Clinton ripped the safety net of income support from our nation's poorest people, snatching assistance from poor single parents (mostly mothers) with children, Hmong veterans (who had been promised support in return for their war service in the Vietnam Conflict), legal immigrants, able-bodied adults without dependents and disabled children.

The Welfare Reform Act was a politically expedient act, which blames the victims, offers them few tools and ensures that while some families may survive its brutality, many will not. The added bonus of the legislation's construction is that most of us will not even know the depths of despair to which it will subject many of our next generation, simply because they had the bad luck to be born poor.
The legislation's elements included an end to entitlement to cash welfare, work requirements for able-bodied adults, a lifetime limit of five years and severe penalties on clients "refusing to comply." Administration of this vast human experiment was "devolved" to the states-hence the term devolution-ending federal standards and client protections, and giving wide latitude to state governments to set eligibility guidelines.

The welfare reform legislation did not contain funding for jobs to employ the poorest of our nation's families; provisions for adequate levels of safe, affordable, quality child care to meet the needs of working families; nor even tools to evaluate the reform's success or failure.

The act was funded in large part by cuts to the Food Stamp Program (this nation's primary defense against domestic hunger) and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (the greatest source of government support to child care).

Individual entitlement to cash assistance was eliminated under the pretext that the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) fostered a culture of dependency instead of putting people to work. AFDC operated by providing families who needed more economic resources with monetary assistance that was nevertheless lower than the standard of need, or what the state determined was necessary to survive.

The Welfare Reform Act emphasizes punitive measures to foster work in the belief that clients receiving welfare need to be forced to work. Legislators included this component on a political rather than factual basis, relying on a racist media campaign to convince supporters and detractors that public assistance was primarily a vehicle for people of color (despite the fact that the majority of households participating in AFDC were white) to live well, "whether they deserved to or not"-the unspoken but ever-present inference. The act requires work for the poorest sector of our population regardless of the fact that a significant portion of workers' jobs already fail to raise them and their families out of poverty. To pay for the program, Congress decided to further undermine the availability of affordable quality child care, a necessary support for clients' returning to work.

In the absence of child care programs, the government has opted to put poor families between a rock and a hard place: a parent loses the family's benefits if the parent does not go to work, or loses his or her children when child care arrangements (if any) are not deemed "suitable" by the state. The People's Tribune reported the story of a young woman in Georgia who was working two jobs to support her family. Unable to afford child care, she left her children ages 11 and 10 months in the care of her 14-year-old to go to her second job. Police and social workers came and took her children, refusing to call her at work even though her 14-year-old told police she was there. After spending 36 hours to find her children's whereabouts, but unable to get them back, she fell into depression, lost both jobs and her home and, at last report, still did not have her children back. This is our country's nightmare, and it is too real for many of us.


There is more on the page too. The left was infuriated by this act being signed by Clinton. Hey...read the bold part I have above. Sounds like something you would say about todays Republicans ehh...