Flag burning...you forgot flag burning.....

This is truly a more important issue than welfare.....corporate and individual......

The caseload is half, but the federal welfare budget (now called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) has risen every year! The problem is that many of the states refuse to honor the restrictions outlined by Clintons welfare reform bill. If a family has been on welfare for more than 5 years, for example, the state will no longer list the family on the federal caseload, but the checks still come. The following graph does not include the TANF supplemental budgets which have also increased yearly.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1134311338.jpg

Clinton tried to do a good thing. A very good thing, His work has been undermined by his own party at the state level. The welfare burden is now shifting from the federal budget to the state budgets where our free-wheeling legislators can provide cash assistance to the homeless with absolutely no documentation.

Cool you have an uncanny ability to spout off on this board based on whatever your "understanding" was and then when you are shown facts to the contrary your response is usually something along the lines of "Whatever, all you Repubs want to do is find fault with liberals. When will you get a clue?" To paraphrase, "Yeah whatever, I'm still right". You seem to have the art of deflection down pretty well. Notice that you bring up flag burning above...is that the topic of this thread? You post above how the conservatives never want to discuss the issues. I have been posting facts and opinions about this issue and you seem to be the one not willing to discuss those facts. Focus please.

You have never responded to my questions about who authored the welfare reform bill and which party voted for or against it. You seem to have acknowledged that the Republicans had majorities in both Houses but discount their role. I give Clinton credit for taking a step towards actual reform, but don't kid yourself and think he did things all by himself. I think to be intellectually honest, you must acknowledge that introduction and passage of a welfare reform bill in 1996 does in fact constitute an "action" by the Republican party on welfare. But you choose not to acknowledge that because it might break down some of the preconceived notions you have about Republicans.

Rodeo- I don't think that welfare reform is a hot button topic nor is it one of the most important topics that we need to deal with, I agree that the 1996 bill was a heck of a lot better than it used to be. But, this thread is about welfare so that's why I'm discussing it. You wanna talk about abortion or gay rights or the economy? Start another thread.

PS: Moses posts an excellent graph above. I also wonder about how successful our current program is when the New Jersey Welfare Reform Study found 48% of people on TANF were still unemployed at 5 years...

Well thank you Rick. Happy Sunday to you too.

I tend to give credit where credit is due (this case, Clinton). Sorry if that bothers you.

CC, are you saying Welfare reform was A Clinton proposal? Did he campaign on it?

Yes I am and yes he did.

Bill Clinton?

Yes

welfare reform was one of his campaign promises.

Clinton had a tough time finding dems to author a comprehensive welfare reform bill. The bill ultimately got bipartisan support and passed. It was Clintons idea and the bill was crafted with his direction. Clinton gets full credit for trying to reform welfare.

What has happened in effect is the partial transfer of welfares financial burden from the federal government to the states. It's a small improvement as some states have chosen to follow the new federal guidelines strictly and have been rewarded with declining welfare caseloads.

No question that Clinton campaigned on welfare reform as a major part of his domestic agenda. Unfortunately, daddy has showed up with his trademark of posting questions intended to mock posters that actually make substantive contributions to the discussion, when he has no clue.

Unfortunately, this excellent thread has degenerated into partisan bickering. Rick, you took a swipe at me, but failed to address the (non-confrontational) question I posed:

"It seems odd, Rick that you are going after liberals and democrats pretty hard on the welfare issue, but (1) "the culture of dependence" seems a relic of the past, and (2) after 5 years in control of the executive and legislative branches, the Rupubs don't appear to think welfare is an issue. If they do, they certainly have put forth no proposals to make it better, much less enacted them. So what's your specific problem with welfare today?"

Maybe if you tell us your problem, we will find that we agree!

When did I take a swipe at you Rodeo? I don't recall that, sorry if it came across that way.

My specific problem with welfare is that it is still a system that gives increased entitlements for having multiple children, a fatherless home and penalizes you for finding a minimum wage job. The Reform bill of 1996 took a good first step and was 100% better than the old system, but still didn't do enough. I also think that 5 years is way too long. That's enough time to get a Bachelor's degree at any major university (even if you screw off for a year). I would think 2 years would be more appropriate.

I agree the Republicans haven't moved on this, but welfare is also dwarfed right now by the war on terror/war in Iraq. Both sides are so caught up in name calling and fingerpointing that the domestic agenda has been put on the very back burner. After we get out of Iraq I think you will see these issues come back to the forefront.

One final point: I agree that Clinton deserves credit for helping get the reform bill through. However, I think a little history is in order. The first version of a welfare reform bill was introduced in 1995 as H.R. 4 as part of the first "Contract with America" congress. Clinton vetoed this bill at the urging of NOW and other left wing agencies. He then ran for re-election in 1996 and won with part of his platform being welfare reform. Soon thereafter another bill was offered that was largely identical to the one Clinton vetoed. He signed it this time and proclaimed he had fixed welfare. Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist (or maybe just a realist about how things work in Washington), I would say that Clinton saw the reform coming down the pike and decided to jump on board instead of fight it again. Kudos to him, a great political move.

Ahhh, revisionism at it's finest.

That was his platform in 1992!

He started on the initiative as soon as he got in office in 1993!

Everything's a goddamn conspiracy, huh? It just pains you to admit a freaking democrat would do something about welfare, just because it's the right thing to do, huh?

Sheesh CC, it's just politics here. Man you get worked up about a discussion over the internet.

I took a look at Clinton's acceptance speech in 1992 and you are correct that he mentions welfare reform as one of his platform ideas. I still stand by my assertion that he vetoed and then signed an almost identical bill. The only difference was the timing.

And if that was the edited version, I would hate to see the inital draft. Man, take a valium or something...

He vetoed the original bill because of something about the dollar amount allocated for children....

He didn't veto it because of some sinister plot. That's all your inaccurate interjection.

And why would I take valium? I can't stand drugs.

Oh, one last thing...Bush I ran for re-election with welfare reform on his platform too...and it was part of the Contract with America...here is a clip from their 1992 platform statement:

Ending Dependency

Welfare is the enemy of opportunity and stable family life. Two decades ago, decisions about public assistance were taken away from states and communities and given to Washington officials. Since then, almost everything has gone wrong. Since 1965, we have spent $3.5 trillion on welfare. It brought a horrendous expansion of dependence, especially among mothers and children.

Today's welfare system is anti-work and anti-marriage. It taxes families to subsidize illegitimacy. It rewards unethical behavior and penalizes initiative. It cannot be merely tinkered with by Congress; it must be re-created by states and localities. Republican governors and legislators in several states have already launched dramatic reforms, especially with workfare and learnfare. Welfare can no longer be a check in the mail with no responsibility.

We believe fathers and mothers must be held responsible for their children. We support stronger enforcement of child support laws. We call for strong enforcement and tough penalties against welfare fraud and insist that work must be a mandatory part of public assistance for all who are able to work. Because divorce, desertion and illegitimacy account for almost all the increase in child poverty over the last 20 years, we put the highest priority upon enforcement of family rights and responsibilities.

Among these responsibilities is the obligation to get an education - a key to avoiding dependency. Families on welfare with school-age children must be required to send them to school or provide adequate home education in keeping with various state laws in order to continue receiving public assistance. Young adult heads of welfare households should be required to complete appropriate education or training programs.

So what's your point? Why didn't Bush campaign in 1998 and get it started in 1988-1992?

Or does this have to do with your latest conspiracy theory?


Clinton campaigned, clinton started as soon as he got in office, Clinton delivered.

Domestic Policy Council, Bruce Reed, Welfare Reform (1993-2001) Subject File

When President Clinton entered the White House, he soon established an interagency group, the White House Working Group on Welfare Reform, Family Support, and Independence (1993-1994), in order to carry out his campaign promise “to end welfare as we know it.” The Working Group was co-chaired by Bruce Reed, Deputy Assistant (later Assistant) to the President for Domestic Policy (1993-1997) and Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-2001), and two senior staff members from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), David Ellwood and Mary Jo Bane. The Working Group contained employees from various government agencies, bureaus, and offices (HHS, Treasury, Office of Management and Budget…). The Working Group presented their proposal to the President in the spring of 1994, and the Work and Responsibility Act of 1994 was introduced to Congress in June of that year. After several versions, many changes, two vetoes, and a number of titles, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was signed by President Clinton in August 1996. Bruce Reed, Welfare Reform Series consists of four subseries: two subject files (one large and one small), specs/drafts of the Working Group's proposal from 1993-1994, and miscellaneous briefing books, binders, and reports. The Welfare Reform files include material pertaining to legislative strategy, analysis of state plans, child support, speeches, rollout of the Working Group's proposal, and various drafts of welfare reform bills authored by the Working Group, Congress, and public/private organizations. The files contain incoming correspondence, reports and articles, memos, handwritten notes, legislative bills, and various printed material. Also included are memos to the President prepared by Bruce Reed, other White House staff, and various governmental agencies (primarily HHS) and memos between members of the Working Group, all concerning welfare reform. Other documents include background information for welfare events, hearings, and meetings, Working Group agendas and notes, talking points, testimony and briefing books before House and Senate committees, financing ideas and costs, polls, vetoes, welfare case histories, and news clippings. The collection also contains material related to the granting of welfare waivers in a number of states, most prominently Wisconsin. In addition to information about the efforts to pass White House and Congressional welfare reform bills, there is also material about the effects of the final bill, the PRWORA, in memos, letters, and reports originating from the White House, HHS, and nongovernmental entities. The series also contains various publications about welfare reform, authored by federal and private organizations. The series is divided into two parts: Bruce Reed's welfare reform files from 1993-2001 (a large subject file) and Reed's welfare reform files from 1993-1994 (a small subject file, specs/drafts of the Working Group's proposal, and miscellaneous reports and publications).

Another snip about the Democrat's reaction to the 1996 bill:

Several members of Congress were critical of Clinton's announcement. Rep. George Miller, (D-Calif.) said, "Unfortunately, the president has joined the Republicans in making children the victims of the very system he said he wanted to reform." Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said if Clinton signs the bill he would be "throwing one million [children] into poverty."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.) said children and their parents "will be reformed and not even know it." The average level of food stamp assistance will drop from 80 cents to 66 cents per person, per meal. "I wonder if the ones who wrote this ridiculous formula could feed themselves or their children for that amount," he said.

While the bill made some concessions to the White House it sill forces millions off welfare and into a search for non-existent jobs while eliminating a $3 billion work program to get them there. It would let states deny Medicaid coverage to an adult who loses welfare benefits by not going to work and requires single parents with children over 6 years of age to look for work.

Was also finally able to track down who actually authored the bill.....drumroll......Republican Rep. E. Clay Shaw (Fla.).

Yeah, those Democrats are always pushing welfare reform...

You are hilarious. This is a bill that had bipartisan support, a democrat president who led the initiative, you find a couple democrats who opposed it, and this is your response.

This is proof of these two statements:

It is indeed odd. It's appears they genuinely don't care about the issues and addressing them, they only care about finding a way to put the blame on liberals and democrats for anything.....

It just pains you to admit a freaking democrat would do something about welfare, just because it's the right thing to do, huh?

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say that I DO give Clinton credit for working on reform. YOU were the one who made the following statement:

"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'm simply trying to show you that the Republican party DID take action, namely the Welfare Reform Bill. If you really want to give credit, you would have to give it to Clinton and the Republicans and say that the Democratic leadership in Congress fought it like hell.

You said that once already...

And "a few Democrats"?? Leahy?? Rangel?? How about two of the senior leadership of the House and Senate??

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!