![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Re success without hard work -- I did mention Clarence Thomas, didn't I? Did you read about him in my subsequent posts.
As for the welfare reform, I recall Clinton being the insistent one. I remember the speeches during the time, and every day my wife gets the privilege of working with urban baby-mommas who bitch about Clinton and the fact they have to get up off their arse at least 2 days a week or lost their welfare due to his reform program. I recall him doing the smart political thing and letting what he saw as an imperfect (but better than before) bill pass into law, and then trying to reopen it and change the parts he didn't like (with little success -- showing he was willing to accept something that was not exactly what he wanted, a nice bipartisan gesture). Anyway, that's how I remember it. I am only drawing on memory here -- I don't have the gumption to go research this so we can argue about the past. Right now, I'm reserving my real time expenditures for present concerns, not past. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | |||||||||||
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They all spend like idiots. Both sides. Take your pick: corporate welfare or public welfare -- there is no other option. Boyo, John D. -- citing the Contract with America? THANKS FOR THE AMMO!!! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I'll lay off for a moment and allow you time to remove your foot from your mouth. |
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Further Research indicates:
Reforming welfare The stage was set by 1996. Even Bill Clinton, a Democratic President, had promised to "end welfare as we know it" in his State of the Union Address. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party. One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive. Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars). Outcome Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. For instance, they claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit might turn to mendicancy or crime. They also felt that too little money was devoted to vocational training. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that though the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession. Supporters held that the five-year limit was a necessity, that allowing states to experiment would result in improving welfare, and that the number of people affected by the five-year limit would be small. These controversies have not been fully resolved. The consequences of welfare reform are still being debated today. Welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly in the years immediately after the passage of the bill. The original bill was set to expire in September of 2002; as of July, 2004, Congress had passed 7 temporary reauthorizations, generally of 3 months. Debate continued over Republican attempts to increase the amount of hours that recipients would need to work. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Ninja Storm Shadow
![]() Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,577
|
T.L. I have NO problem being wrong on the Contract with America,(edit: though #3 of the second bunch of Items comes close to the welfare reform act.) it seems My 'ole grey matter hard drive has got a virus, your refreshing of the info will alow me to wipe that virus, and now be right, no big deal, life goes on.
![]() Now who introduced the welfare reform act? Who are the authors of record? I'm to lazy to refresh the 'ole grey matter, plus beings how it's a legal thingy and you am a lawyer you'd know where to look to find it faster. Why was it politicly right for a Dem President to do something Non-Dem? (Remember the policy of trianglation ![]() [ 08-06-2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
I honestly think Clinton thought it was the right thing to do -- but Clinton was notorious for fretting over the opinion polls, and was very succeptible to what we the people wanted (which may be why I liked him so much). I do applaud him for going against the party a good bit. Without each other's support, both he and the Republican majority would have been dead in the water on this one, so let's just agree that they all got together and did the right thing -- proving that every now and then the stars come into alignment, even where Congress is concerned.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | |
Ninja Storm Shadow
![]() Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,577
|
Quote:
![]() Don't get me wrong while I believe President Cliton is and was a lying SOB, (based on things I heard he say long before an intern ever got on her knees) but he can not be accussed of being stupid. Infact as much as it pains me to admit it I believe he could find his rear. [ 08-06-2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Drow Warrior
![]() Join Date: April 1, 2004
Location: trapped inside this octavarium
Age: 59
Posts: 251
|
Let's get back on topic, shall we?
Alan Keyes to challenge Barack Obama in Illinois Sigh. I used to have a lot of respect for Mr. Keyes. Former Ambassador, ran twice for President, excellent orator. Big problem, though. He's from Maryland. Bigger problem. He raked Hillary over the coals when she ran for Senate in New York. Illinois is a cesspool. I thought Mr. Keyes would've known better than to get involved. [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]
__________________
<i>\"You have been sat here far too long for the good that you are doing. Depart, I say, and let us be done with you. In the name of God, go!\"</i>\"--Oliver Cromwell |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
40th Level Warrior
![]() Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
*Point of View from Inside the Cesspool*
Mr. Keyes has secured something special for his race, something that come November will only have happened thrice ever. Why is raking Hillary over the coals such a big problem for a Republican? I thought it was a rite of passage, in fact. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Drow Warrior
![]() Join Date: April 1, 2004
Location: trapped inside this octavarium
Age: 59
Posts: 251
|
You're missing the point. It's one thing to trash Hillary for something, quite another to later do the same thing. I vote Republican because I cannot stand the Democrats, but when there becomes no difference...
Hell with it, I'm voting for the third party candidate. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]
__________________
<i>\"You have been sat here far too long for the good that you are doing. Depart, I say, and let us be done with you. In the name of God, go!\"</i>\"--Oliver Cromwell |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
Quintesson
![]() Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Manchester, NH, USA
Posts: 1,025
|
Alan Keyes trashed Hillary for being a carpetbagger when she ran for the Senate in NY in 2000, being that she wasn't from NY.
Now Keyes will look like a hypocrit for doing just about the same thing The only difference is that Hillary truly sought to run in NY. Keyes has been drafted to run in Illinois after Ryan was forced to withdraw and the GOP had no one to take his spot on the ticket. The Illinois Senate race may have the best debates of the year with Keyes and Obama. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|