General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you ever stop pwning yourself, Oerdin? As usual you have all your facts screwed up. The welfare "reform" of the Clinton era consists of two major elements: a revolutionary change in the basic goals set by the federal government; and a dramatic "devolution" of responsibility – turning what used to be a federal, centralized system over to the states. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...re/welfare.htm As a governor, President Clinton was a strong proponent of the Family Support Act, but he campaigned for the presidency on a pledge to "end welfare as we know it." Legislation embodying the details of his plan was introduced in 1994 as the Work and Responsibility Act. It built on the Family Support Act philosophy by investing still more in education and training but set a two-year time limit, after which welfare recipients would either have to work or lose their benefits. http://www.urban.org/publications/306620.html The Clinton welfare reform plan: Will it end poverty as we know it http://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/wispod/1037-94.html If DinoDoc knew a damn thing about what he was talking about then he'd know that Gingrinch and company wanted to simply eliminate welfare lock stock and barrel. Clinton scored a major political victory by urging welfare be reformed instead of simply eliminated. DD, stop being a partisan tool and open a history book then maybe you'd know this sort of stuff. Or at the vary least learn to shut the hell up about things you know nothing about. |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
Gingrinch and company wanted to simply eliminate welfare lock stock and barrel
![]() Welfare reform was strongly pushed by Republicans as is the Welfare-to-Work programs in certain states. Clinton responded to their wishes for a reform to welfare, which Clinton didn't even think about touching when there was a Dem majority. In fact, welfare reform is the issue that caused James Carville to break away from Clinton. stop being a partisan tool ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
Originally posted by Oerdin
As usual you have all your facts screwed up. The fact that it happened under Clinton doesn't mean it isn't a conservative triumph. How much more of a triumph for them is it that they got a Democrat to do their dirty work? This program has been an unmitigated disaster for the poor and has driven them into the arms of the evangelical church movement (which is where most relief for poor folks is now found--faith based charity and all that), and thus into conservatism. If this is a victory for the Democrats, its the most bone-headed stupid victory ever. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|