The Impending Demise of the GOP (Grand Obsolete Party)

Not sure what point you're arguing with this MM. The statement you quoted is aligned with what you have here stated.
It did mention this however:



So, no, he did not play a major role in shaping the policy detials, but he deserves more credit than the conservatives care to admit. You, obviously, being one of them.

Yes, I saw that, and true I don't want to admit it because I don't believe it. In the last few decades, Democrats have never done much of anyhting to tighten welfare programs and make people accountable and responsibility. We dealt with 40 years of a Democratic Congress that did nothing but enlarge the programs, and when Gingrich's Republican Congress shaped this initiative, Democrats accused him of being heartless and predicted starving children, blah, blah, blah. Clinton paid lip service and wisely eventually signed the legislation, I think because he saw the handwriting on the wall. I remember the news surrounding this legislation. Its not as if we weren't around when this happened and I am just now getting around to read up on it. I'm not sure about this Robert Rector guy is about, but one thing he did say and that is that Clinton had no major role in putting together this legislation. He signed it, thats all.

Clueless

Its sad to see you still are, Roxi. But you don't have to keep admitting it.

How We Ended Welfare, Together


By BILL CLINTON
Published: August 22, 2006

TEN years ago today I signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. By then I had long been committed to welfare reform. As a governor, I oversaw a workfare experiment in Arkansas in 1980 and represented the National Governors Association in working with Congress and the Reagan administration to draft the welfare reform bill enacted in 1988.

Yet when I ran for president in 1992, our system still was not working for the taxpayers or for those it was intended to help.In my first State of the Union address, I promised to "end welfare as we know it," to make welfare a second chance, not a way of life, exactly the change most welfare recipients wanted it to be.

Most Democrats and Republicans wanted to pass welfare legislation shifting the emphasis from dependence to empowerment. Because I had already given 45 states waivers to institute their own reform plans, we had a good idea of what would work. Still, there were philosophical gaps to bridge. The Republicans wanted to require able-bodied people to work, but were opposed to continuing the federal guarantees of food and medical care to their children and to spending enough on education, training, transportation and child care to enable people to go to work in lower-wage jobs without hurting their children.

On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law. At the time, I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous. Three members of my administration ultimately resigned in protest. Thankfully, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill because they thought we shouldn't be satisfied with a system that had led to intergenerational dependency.

The last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew it, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans.

In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts. Through the Welfare to Work Partnership, which my administration started to speed the transition to employment, more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients. Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action.

The success of welfare reform was bolstered by other anti-poverty initiatives, including the doubling of the earned-income tax credit in 1993 for lower-income workers; the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which included $3 billion to move long-term welfare recipients and low-income, noncustodial fathers into jobs; the Access to Jobs initiative, which helped communities create innovative transportation services to enable former welfare recipients and other low-income workers to get to their new jobs; and the welfare-to-work tax credit, which provided tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire long-term welfare recipients.

I also signed into law the toughest child-support enforcement in history, doubling collections; an increase in the minimum wage in 1997; a doubling of federal financing for child care, helping parents look after 1.5 million children in 1998; and a near doubling of financing for Head Start programs.

The results: child poverty dropped to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest rate since 1979, and in 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest level in four decades. Overall, 100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class during our eight years as in the previous 12. Of course the booming economy helped, but the empowerment policies made a big difference.

Regarding the politics of welfare reform, there is a great lesson to be learned, particularly in today's hyper-partisan environment, where the Republican leadership forces bills through Congress without even a hint of bipartisanship.Simply put, welfare reform worked because we all worked together. The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country.

The recent welfare reform amendments, largely Republican-only initiatives, cut back on states' ability to devise their own programs. They also disallowed hours spent pursuing an education from counting against required weekly work hours. I doubt they will have the positive impact of the original legislation.

We should address the inadequacies of the latest welfare reauthorization in a bipartisan manner, by giving states the flexibility to consider higher education as a category of "work," and by doing more to help people get the education they need and the jobs they deserve. And perhaps even more than additional welfare reform, we need to raise the minimum wage, create more good jobs through a commitment to a clean energy future and enact tax and other policies to support families in work and child-rearing.

Ten years ago, neither side got exactly what it had hoped for. While we compromised to reach an agreement, we never betrayed our principles and we passed a bill that worked and stood the test of time. This style of cooperative governing is anything but a sign of weakness. It is a measure of strength, deeply rooted in our Constitution and history, and essential to the better future that all Americans deserve, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Bill Clinton, the 42nd president, heads the Clinton Foundation.

Thats all fine, but you seem to have forgotten the Republicans gaining Congress and their Contract With America, of which Welfare Reform was a big part of, and without which it would have never happened. Newt Gingrich was the driving force behind that program and welfare reform. I give credit to Clinton for signing the legislation, but he only signed after rejecting previous proposals, and his party was not wholly behind it. When push came to shove, enough of them voted for it and Clinton signed it, but for Clinton to now claim to be responsible for the legislation is just another typical trait that he has, take responsibility for the good things that happen, even when you had little to do with pushing it. I give him credit for signing the legislation, but not credit for the legislation. No way.

That welfare reform was a conservative policy, not a Democrat policy, and it was truly one of the first really effective pieces of legislation to roll back liberal policy in the federal government that I have ever seen in my lifetime. It was solidly and clearly due to the Contract With America and the Republicans that had the numbers in Congress. And now for Clinton to take credit for it, no way.

P.S. Why would you believe anything Bill Clinton said, much less something his foundation puts out, that was probably not written by him, but by somebody that is spinning his legacy to the hilt? Clinton signed the piece you quoted, but just like the welfare reform, he probably never wrote it or had much to do with what it said.

Of course, what really matters is who gets the credit....

Okie doesn't believe what the far right Heritage Foundation puts out or what the Clinton foundation puts out. He doesn't even belive his won words, a few days ago, he said he was ignoring me. Sad.

Greenspan praises Clinton's economic policies

Not to want to encourage the trainwreck this thread is, but this cant be addressed often enough:



In reality, the richer a voter is, the more likely he is to vote... Republican.

Here's the exit poll data for the 2004 presidential elections. Here's the numbers by income:

2003 total family income:



Among all income groups below $50,000 family income, Kerry won.

Among all income groups above $50,000 family income, Bush won.

Which do you suppose came first, nimh ---> The riches, or the decision to be a Republican?

The riches

Though for sure, I'm sure there's reverse influences going on too... eg, in a group of equal level education, liberals will be somewhat more likely to opt for jobs in the public sector, or in NGOs and the like, or in teaching or academia, etc. Whereas conservatives will be a little more likely to be attracted to work in the business world, and wages tend to be higher in the latter.

But I know my Marx <winks>. There's nothing like a material understructure to determine the cultural superstructure (or whatever the terms are in English). It's striking how many people lose their more combative leftwing ideals as soon as they start earning enough to themselves suffer from all too redistributive taxes..

There's also a hereditary factor; if you grow up in a blue chip upper crust country club family, you will be very likely to be both well off and Republican from an early age, so the two emerge together.

There's plenty of exceptions of course - poor Christian folk in the South and West voting for conservatives, latte-sipping rich in Manhattan and Mass. voting for liberals - but in the mean, most people, or a lot of people anyhow, vote for their wallet. Or at least vote within margins set by their wallet (eg, a bit of a liberal is OK, but not one that would actually raise taxes all too much).

"You can tell a man's politics by where he gets his cornpone."
Mark Twain

"Same as it ever was."
Talking Heads