Of course it was part of his platform. He knew it would buy moderate and conservative votes...even if he had no intention of actually doing anything. The man is well known for saying whatever people want to hear...regardless of the truth. What is funny is that welfare reform was a product of the Republican's "Contract with America," typically called the "Contract on America" by Liberals. Clinton and ignorant/uninformed Democrats attempt to take credit for the (modest) welfare reform portion, yet forget that Clinton/Democrats clearly did nothing in this regard during his first term when his party had control of the House. When Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years, Clinton knew he either had to go along...or suffer the consequences. Sadly enough, due to the vote buying tactics of certain liberal legislators....much of the reform efforts have gone for naught since other social welfare programs have increased to the point where they are as bad or worse than the original programs.

You yourself found a vote of 78-22, and you say the dems "fought it like hell?"

Hell, that's the same amount that voted for Iraq and you claim the dems for should shut up for voting it in?

What is it? Credit when it's Iraq, opposition when it's welfare?

Sorry, you must be confusing me with Joe or Mul or Fint. I can't recall saying anything about Democrats shutting up about the war in Iraq because they voted for it. Please keep your right wing nutbags straight...

LOL

It's hard to keep up.

Hey, I"m sorry, but I give Clinton the credit for this one....

OMG the guy wasn't 100% bad.....he did do a couple good things....and this is one of them.....

"And when will your party ever address it further (answer...never.....they're not about what kind of stuff....remember, actions speak louder than words......I can't think of one action by republicans with regard to this topic)"



I say these things because it's the republicans who publically claim they're against welfare. They have power now...why don't they work on it further? I don't like welfare either. Or are they lying about their platform?

I would agree with you that Clinton wasn't 100% bad. I actually think his policy decisions were not bad at all. I think his philandering defiled the office but his policy wasn't too bad.

And I can't say why the Republicans aren't working on welfare. Probably because they are weak politically and don't want to tick off any more voters...

Plus I think border security is more important to get done now than further welfare reform.

Border security is definitely important, but neither party seem to care about that....

How in the hell can we be "safe" if the borders are sieves?

Amen sister.

I say put in 3 strands of Barbed Wire, a moat filled with Crocidiles and machine gun towers to stop the illegal immigration.

However I would have a Work Program set up so that people can come across legally and work.

Increasing World Population is the BIGGEST problem facing mankind today. The Co/founder of Intel said, " The world is a great place for 2 Billion people to live but not 10 Billion. With so many people it is severally straining the resources of the planet." I also had a conversation at a Town Hall meeting with my now passed away Congressman Ultra Liberal George Brown. He to recognized over population as mans biggest problem.

At some point Mother Nature is going to come up with something that is going to reduce the population.

Already has Tabs...just take a look at Africa. I think the only way we are going to really get control of the border is with a big wall and barbed wire. Until the standard of living in Mexico approaches anywhere near the US, there is no other way to stop it.

I am also for a worker program...but I still think that some of those 48% unemployed on welfare could be out in the fields too...

Not this nutbag. Don't blame me on CC's confusion. She was confused before I ever posted here.

I don't recall saying anything about that either, not to say that the democrats aren't treasonous liars using their deceptive rhetoric to sew discontent for purely political gain.

So, take me out of the lump too.

fint and daddy have showed up ... this was an excellent thread. Like all good things, that unfortunatelyhas come to to an end :)

Yep...It must be tough on you to have to tell the truth...or be called on it.

fint, I thought you were off searching for those "really small" WMDs in Iraq. Or did you find them? Can you show us or would we need a microscope to see them?

After being away from Pelican for several days, I figured I better just pick one thing... so Moses, this is it :D Sorry! I don't think this angle has been explored too much yet.

Parents? Father or Mother only? Is there benefit to a stay at home parent? Is this a function valued by society? So valued by society that it is encouraged through any combination of tax incentives to single parent working/disincentive to the second one working/benefits available for solo mothers/fathers.

Oh, and with respect to the fully developed WPA system, it sounds awfully, err, communist in outcome (not intent!).

I think the over-riding thing coming out of this thread for me is that there are two ideas put forward by those with whom I disagree which I think are wrong:

(1) That everyone can "succeed" (by the capitalist definition) in a capitalist society ---> I believe there are winners and "losers", and that there are winners because there are losers. I note I'm not entirely alone thinking this...

(2) That welfare is sufficiently generous to take away the incentive to work for the average person on welfare (not the genuine deadbeats occupying a certain area at the bottom). Being on welfare would suck, unless you liked a level of existence well below the poverty line (summary definition of poverty line - everybody else has a better quality of life than you). (You can add to this that 1x minimum wage income plus benefits will not support a 2 adult, 2.1 child family --> that is how society has evolved).

And just to get my 2c worth, I'm gonna throw in two extra ideas. For those still reading, imagine up your hard earned tax dollars, your feelings about welfare bludgers, and (if you're that way inclined) how you'd prefer to see private charity step in rather than the govt:

- how do you feel about people who dodge their taxes? Worse or better than long term welfare recipients?

- how would you feel if the private charity model did exist, and you found that while you contributed 10% of your income, all your neighbours contributed <5% and bought stuff and saved instead.

Oh, you gave up time from your coloring books to post more inane remarks? Perhaps you should wait until you have an actual argument to come back and post...
No need to search. Plenty of chemicals have already been found. Obviously you could see the bottle or vial they were contained by...but would need a way to test them to determine exactly what they are. Most would kill you if you put them on a microscope slide...but do as you wish.

My objections to the present welfare system have nothing to do with money. Having lived and worked in some of the most severely impacted inner cities I can tell you that for many, welfare is a multigenerational way of life. I have met countless people who cannot recall any parent or grandparent being gainfully employed...ever!

One major problem is that the welfare policy has made fathers obsolete. Having a father in the home severely restricts the availability of government cash and grants. Another problem is that when young teenage women get tired of living with their mothers, all they need to do is get pregnant! They become an emancipated minor and instantly qualify for the same aid package their mother has. They get a place of their own (county housing subsidy) WIC supplement, food stamps and a TANF grant check.

So the problems with the welfare system have very little to do with money, but stem from the catastrophic effects on the culture of poverty in America. Todays welfare culture is truly shocking. School attendance is not encouraged by parents as it has little relevance to the culture. Fathers have a very small impact on families as they are not generally living with their children. By the time many of these children reach the teen years they have become hard-core unemployable. They are uneducated and carry the stigmata of a sub culture that has no access to the mainstream economy. I sometime wonder if the proponents of the current welfare system have intentionally crippled these folks knowing that they will never compete with our children for jobs.

Anyway, my objections to the current system have nothing to do with money, but rather the tragedy of creating a culture of failure and hopelessness in our cities.

Very nicely said Moses.

How is that? The WPA work is always completely voluntary. No need to work if you don't take the money!