Anniversary of U.S. welfare reform

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:54 pm

Today celebrates the 10th anniversary of the passing of a sweeping welfare reform bill in the United States. And today in the New York Times is a piece written by Bill Clinton on how "we ended welfare together". In character, Clinton wanting to claim credit for it, by claiming that "we did it together".

Let's look at history for a second. Clinton said as early as 1992 during his campaign that it was time to end welfare as we know it. During the first two years of his administration when he had a Democratic Congress to work with, he never proposed it. Had it not been for a Republican Congress elected in 1994, there would never have been welfare reform, and Clinton vetoed it twice before signing it the third time around.

A quote from Bill Clinton in 1996 after vetoing one of the bills:

We want a bill that actually is welfare reform. You can put wings on a pig, but you don't make it an eagle. We want real welfare reform.

That's the smartest president in America since JFK you see talking there.

Here's what he had to say after finally signing the welfare reform bill after two vetoes:

At the beginning of this very Congress, some wanted to put poor children in orphanages and take away all help from mothers simply because they were poor, young and unmarried. Last year the Republican majority in Congress sent me legislation that had its priorities backward. It was soft on work and tough on children.

But he signed it anyway. And when he signed it the Democrats were livid. Check out what some of the prominent Dems in the senate had to say about it.

BRAUN: This day, in the name of reform, this Senate will do actual violence to poor children, putting millions of them into poverty.

MOYNIHAN: I pray God when those children end up on the streets roving in bands, out of control, threat to themselves, danger to others, that we remember what we did.

MOAKLEY: It puts another million children into poverty and doesn't go far enough.

FATTAH: There will be members who will come to the floor today because they want to be reelected and will vote for it.

CLAYTON: We care about children too much to rob Paul to pay Peter.

It turns out that the reform has been quite a success. And today, a little over ten years later, Bill Clinton writes how "we" ended welfare together. Bill Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to this. His party was livid over this, and they went to the convention that year demanding that he fix it. But now he'll be happy to take credit for it.

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:28 pm

Well, there is also the fact that welfare didn't end.

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:43 pm

awip2062 wrote:Well, there is also the fact that welfare didn't end.

No, it didn't end. But it's not as easy as it used to be to make a career out of it.

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:45 pm

But when a man says we ENDED welfare....

Walkinghairball · Post by **Walkinghairball** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:10 am

Let me share a rant here with you all...............bare with me please, I'm drunk and home from a good gig.

This just irks me to no end.

Like a lot of folks in this America, I have a job.
I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a HUGE problem with helping someone sit on their ass, and buy dope and booze with my hard earned money.

Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check.

zepboy · Post by **zepboy** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:36 am

HB, I couldn't agree more with your sentiment. Unfortunately, the real culprit here is our own government. Over the years, the government has gone out of their way to breed a culture that is dependent on them. They're not about to stop now. Our beloved government would never to anything that would legitimately threaten their way of life. When the people depend on them, they have their security, which is the primary thing many of them are after.

With the welfare "reform," we are giving almost twice as much to those who won't/cannot work as we were before. The main difference is that now we claim to be doing it to help get people back on their feet rather than keeping them down. There are fewer people receiving as then, but they cycle through faster. The return to welfare rate is higher than before, but their stay is shorter. In the long run, they are receiving more benefits.

Personally, I would prefer the don't work, don't eat system. Not only would that save the hard working people a ton of money, but it would bring strength back to the American family. When a people reaches the end of their abilities to cope, they then MUST turn to family. It will hurt for the next generation or two, but it will teach the people the value of family and usher it back into it's rightful priority in our society. For those who have not family, the rest of us will have the chance to love our neighbors, something we should have been doing all along.

In short, we as a nation, have become way too dependent on our government. We the people are the guilty party in creating this nanny state!

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:08 pm

zepboy wrote: We the people are the guilty party in creating this nanny state!

And I, for one, am not playing their version of politcs as usual. I don't care if anyone thinks the person I vote for has a snowball's chance in the upper levels of hell, I am going to vote for the person who actually represents me whenever there is one. They are rare, but once in awhile they do show up on the ballot.

What I am not going to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I figure if I really don't like what I see yet I vote for someone other than whom I really want because I don't think that the one I really want can win and the someone I vote for is the lesser of two evils, I am still contributing to the decline of our nation. I am allowing status quo to continue.

And as for the argument that I am wasting my vote or allowing the bad guys to win because I don't vote for the lesser bad guy...posh! I am voting my conscience and if others did that we might well have a different set of leaders. I am not going to choose my vote based on fear or peer pressure.

Me · Post by Me » Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:45 pm

Leon that is an excellent idea and Dan you are basically correct.

"Emma Goldman was a principal exponent of Anarchism, which she herself characterized as "the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:25 am

Yep, I agree as well. Even though I'm not a Clinton hater (so, basically he hesitated signing something that the majority of his party was against, then signed it. What a horrible person) welfare has bothered me since I was old enough to understand what it was. I love the "Don't Work - Don't Eat" idea. Hunger is an awesome motivator. The piss test for assistance rocks as well.

I know! How about we put in place a requirement for all the illegal aliens who we set up in their own businesses for free that they must hire only welfare recipients.

Our government is indeed a tangled web of stupidity.

And T! You'll vote for who we say you'll vote for and like it!

Walkinghairball · Post by **Walkinghairball** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:37 am

And T! You'll vote for who we say you'll vote for and like it!

Dang it Owlie, you beat me to the punch.

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:42 am

I voted for Prell to go back to the old glass bottle!
Then I became deeply cynical...

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:45 am

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:32 pm

Walkinghairball wrote:
And T! You'll vote for who we say you'll vote for and like it!

Dang it Owlie, you beat me to the punch.

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

zepboy · Post by **zepboy** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:27 pm

atleast there is plenty of filth to go around!

Big Blue Owl · Post by **Big Blue Owl** » Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:35 am

Yes.....never a shortage of...filth.