Biden: "We're familiar with stories of welfare moms driving luxury cars"

[wellst0nev0ter]

Now I know why Joe supported the racist welfare reform law.

In the fall of 1988, shortly after Congress had passed the first piece of welfare reform legislation in 50 years, Joe Biden, then a senator from Delaware, wrote a column in his local newspaper that leaned heavily on racial stereotypes in praise of the effort.

“We are all too familiar with the stories of welfare mothers driving luxury cars and leading lifestyles that mirror the rich and famous,” the column read. “Whether they are exaggerated or not, these stories underlie a broad social concern that the welfare system has broken down—that it only parcels out welfare checks and does nothing to help the poor find productive jobs.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-joe-biden-worried-about-welfare-mothers-driving-luxury-cars

[stopbush]

1. Er, what's your point? Did you read what you posted?

[Hoyt]

2. Well, at least he acknowledges the stereotype might not be true.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Let the BASHING begin!

[Thekaspervote]

95. Indeed, and for those that bothered to open the link.. the photo shopped pix is suppose to lend

Creditably to the article??

Cheap!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Did you read the article?

[JoeOtterbein]

5. More from the link:

“It certainly was a racist narrative,” Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC and the affiliated nonpartisan Black Progressive Action Coalition, said of Biden’s use of the “welfare recipient with a luxury car” imagery. “That was obviously the sort of outrageous and untrue stereotype that emerged certainly during the era of Ronald Reagan, this notion of fraudulent undeserving women... I was a kid. And I remember that being the image—an image that, as a child, I knew was inaccurate.”

[marybourg]

8. This is an obfuscation of an obfuscation.

Read the original opinion piece written by Biden. It doesn’t matter what this person says.

[George II]

24. Right. It's an interpretation (a wrong one at that) in 2019 that was written in 1988.

[Thekaspervote]

96. +1000

[Otto Lidenbrock]

6. Also in that article

“Welfare policy should be based on a simple premise: we have an obligation to help society’s less fortunate receive the education, training and transitional services they need to work their way out of poverty,” Biden wrote. “In return we expect a commitment from them to do all they can to succeed in becoming productive members of their communities.”

But he was hardly a conservative ideologue in pursuit of reform. He opposed a provision that would have prohibited additional cash assistance “for children born to families already receiving assistance.” And he supported an amendment that allowed states to use federal block grant money to provide non-cash assistance to children whose families had hit their welfare support limits.

[riverine]

7. I suspect many others (besides myself) are starting to tune out all these attempts to "get" Joe

based on some long forgotten remark people didn't even care about back then.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

11. A lot of these reporters hitting on Joe were too young (maybe not even born)

When these things occurred.

They are looking at the past using the point of view of today.

It's easy to sit on a high horse like that. Hillary had this problem too with a load of 20 something year olds thinking she was a corporate stooge when it came to healthcare. When those reporters were little boys and girls Hillary was working on universal coverage to the chagrin of the corporate powers.

[wellst0nev0ter]

21. Those things stunk then and they stink now

Nobody gets a pass because "times were different." You should know right from wrong.

[Hoyt]

25. Agree. I'm still a possible Biden voter in March, but opposition to racism and racial stereotypes

is at the very essence of what it means to be a Democrat to me, from well before 1988.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

27. The DU frontrunner was a Republican until 1996!

So presumably Warren supported Reaganomics. Is that disqualifying? I think not.

People evolve their views and society's acceptance is malleable through time.

More recently Obama did not support same sex marriage in 2008. His administration as we all know in the end made it legal.

[Celerity]

200. no, Warren didn't support Reagan/Reaganomics and she was only a registered Repug from 1991-1996

I am not a Warren supporter atm, but I am tired of seeing the same claptrap spread about her for months. Especially the 'she declined to answer' meme that is from a 7 or 8 year old article, and has been used over and over by multiple accounts with the same modus operandi, and is used to cast doubt and uncertainty about her.

Below are much more current ones, including an April 2019 article where she specifically says she did not vote for Reagan or any other Rethug for POTUS, except for Ford in 1976.

here is a snip from that (the full excerpt is further down):

According to Warren, in the six presidential elections she voted in before 1996, she cast her ballot for just one GOP nominee, Gerald Ford in 1976.

Warren was only a registered Repug for around 5 years (1991-96) and the only Rethug POTUS

she voted for was Ford.

1972 McGovern (she hated Nixon)
1976 Ford
1980 Carter (she did not like Reagan)
1984 Mondale
1988 Dukakis
1992 Bill Clinton
1996 (the last year she was a registered Republican, she switched before the 1996 general election) Bill Clinton
2000 Gore
2004 Kerry
2008 Obama
2012 Obama
2016 Hillary Clinton

She registered Repub in PA in 1991 because she like Arlen Specter (ironic as he too changed to Democratic)

Other Repub to Democratic Party switchers include:

Former Republicans Howard Dean, Leon Panetta, Chris Coons (has Biden's old seat in the Senate), Carolyn McCarthy, Harley Rouda, Gabby Giffords, James Webb, Wendy Davis, Gil Cisneros, Jim Jeffords, Patrick Murphy, and Specter himself, etc.etc etc.

Some of them even ran (oh the HORROR!) for President.









More on Warren:


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613

Warren has acknowledged her Republican past before, but she does not often discuss it, or else downplays it. In a recent interview over tea at her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, she said she assumes the first time she registered as a Democrat was 1996, but added, “I’m not even 100 percent sure what I was registered as.” According to Warren, in the six presidential elections she voted in before 1996, she cast her ballot for just one GOP nominee, Gerald Ford in 1976. She does not talk about her Republican past in either of her books or as part of the biography she recounts in her stump speech; the information often comes as a surprise even to Beltway politicos and longtime Warren allies.

https://thinkprogress.org/why-elizabeth-warren-left-the-gop-e78680711424/

Warren has quickly become a populist hero to liberals. Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s The Week, noted something in her background that “might surprise” her supporters: the fact that she has voted Republican in the past, and was a registered Republican in Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1996. Warren said she left the party after that because she felt it was siding more and more with Wall Street:

I was an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away.

Warren’s instincts on the GOP’s sympathy for the big financial institutions proved prescient. Former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) spent the 1990s spearheading legislation that made the 2008 financial crisis possible: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which broke down the firewall between commercial banks and the far riskier investment banks, as well as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated the over-the-counter derivatives that played a key role in the 2008 financial collapse. Both bills passed with majority Republican support, though they were also supported by a good deal of Democrats and the Clinton White House.

snip

She grew up in an FDR Democratic household.

Her first vote the POTUS was AGAINST Nixon in 1972. She did vote for Ford, but liked Carter. She voted Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984. In 1988 she voted for Dukakis, and in 1992, Clinton. Obviously voted for Clinton again in 1996 and every other Democrat since then. She registered as a Republican because she had moved to PA and liked Arlen Specter, who also switched to our Party from Republican.

Her first presidential vote, in 1972, had been cast against a man she said she disliked passionately, Richard Nixon. But reflecting on how little she had paid attention to day-to-day politics at the time, she couldn’t immediately recall who had been running against him. When told it was Democrat George McGovern, she said, Yes, she would have voted for him but didn’t have any specific memory of having done so. (She was living in New Jersey at the time.)

Going to the polls, she said, was nothing new for her. Warren’s mother had been a poll worker and brought her young daughter to the polls each Election Day.

Nixon was re-elected that year, of course, but resigned and was replaced by Gerald Ford. Warren said she had voted for him in 1976, believing that “Ford was a decent man.”

But she was happy with Jimmy Carter, who beat him. “I thought he [also] was a decent man,” she said, transferring her then-standard for what she wanted in a politician from Ford to Carter. “He was a really good man.”

As the ’80s wore on and her research on bankruptcy progressed, Warren started waking up politically. At the time, though, the two parties had yet to separate entirely along ideological lines, as some deeply conservative and racist Democrats still held office, as did some genuinely liberal Republicans.

In 1988, Warren voted for Michael Dukakis but, in 1992, split her ticket, voting for Republican Arlen Specter for Senate and Democrat Bill Clinton for president. Specter is a good example of the one-time flexibility of the party system and the politicians within it: He began and ended his career as a Democrat, but was a Republican for much of the middle of it.

By the fall of 1987, she had moved to Pennsylvania and registered there as a Republican. Warren said she couldn’t quite remember why she did it but that she was a fan of Specter. “Again, I thought he was a decent man,” she said. She couldn’t recall whom he ran against. (His Democratic opponent was Lynn Yeakel.)

That GOP registration, though, has set off speculation over the years that one of the Senate’s most progressive champions may have at one time been a Ronald Reagan backer.

So we asked her: Is it true? Is it possible the champion of the regulatory cops on Wall Street voted for the man who made deregulation a hallmark of his presidency?

No.

In 1980, she said, she was a registered independent living in Missouri City, Texas, and cast her vote to re-elect Carter.

When Reagan won, she wasn’t happy but not crushed the way she was on election night in 2016. “I was disappointed and didn’t like him, but I wasn’t deeply worried for the country, not anything like when Trump was elected,” she explained. If she could go back in time, she said, she would tell herself “this was a far more pivotal historical moment than you understand.”

snip


Warren also has the lowest Trump Score in the entire Senate


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/



compare that to the highest Democrats

[riverine]

29. Then Senator Warren is disqualified because she was an actual Republican - Biden merely quoted them

on 'welfare queens".

FOR THE RECORD I DON'T BELIEVE "WARREN WAS A REPUBLICAN" MATTERS ONE BIT.

She has proven she is a loyal Democrat now.

(Only one of the candidates is not a loyal Democrat)

[BlueMTexpat]

61. Thank you!

[Thekaspervote]

79. +1000

[uponit7771]

192. +1,

[Thekaspervote]

78. This .. whistling past the graveyard of negative hit pieces

[George II]

9. Oh shit, here we go. BTW, this quote of Biden's is right out of the article:

“Welfare policy should be based on a simple premise: we have an obligation to help society’s less fortunate receive the education, training and transitional services they need to work their way out of poverty”

[highplainsdem]

10. The MOST relevant paragraphs at the link:

Still, Democrats embraced reform, either convinced of its merits or spooked by the attacks. The legislation to which Biden was referring in his Nov. 3, 1988, article—which The Daily Beast unearthed through a larger review of his columns—was The Family Support Act. It enhanced child support collection, created job opportunities and training for families on welfare, and established that single parents with a child over the age of 3 must enroll in educational activities or vocational training in order to receive full government assistance, provided that they had child care services as well.

The bill was championed by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), a liberal stalwart, and was embraced across the political spectrum.

-snipping paragraphs and moving on to the stricter 1996 reforms-

But he [Biden] was hardly a conservative ideologue in pursuit of reform. He opposed a provision that would have prohibited additional cash assistance “for children born to families already receiving assistance.” And he supported an amendment that allowed states to use federal block grant money to provide non-cash assistance to children whose families had hit their welfare support limits.

-snip-

Biden, as recently as 2012, defended the ’96 welfare reform, saying opposition to it at the time “made no sense.” But his spokesman Brown also noted that Biden has voted to maintain public assistance for children of immigrants and opposed efforts to cut food stamps. “As president,” Brown said, “Biden will continue fighting each and every day for Americans of all socioeconomic backgrounds.”

And even though he adopted traditional conservative rhetoric in the late ’80s, not everyone in Democratic politics feels it is worth dinging him on it.

“The question remains,” said former DNC chair Donna Brazile, “where is he now?”

[wellst0nev0ter]

13. Look at what you are praising him for:

...and established that single parents with a child over the age of 3 must enroll in educational activities or vocational training in order to receive full government assistance, provided that they had child care services as well.

So if someone is not enrolled in school, you cut benefits and put the family through more hardships?

[highplainsdem]

18. He didn't write the bill. I quoted that paragraph because of the one following it, about Democrats,

including liberals, supporting it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. He supported it. He was wrong.

So are the other dems who voted for this bill and other racist welfare reform legislation.

[highplainsdem]

31. Only one senator voted against that 1988 bill. So you're condemning a lot of Democrats.

[highplainsdem]

35. The bill was passed by a 96-1 vote in the Senate and 347-53 in the House.

[wellst0nev0ter]

43. And look where we are today.

[Thekaspervote]

80. Your point.... please, other than bashing Biden and now other dems?

Your purity is showing...it’s a lost cause. ALL the candidates have their faults.

[wellst0nev0ter]

83. I can't say that Dems lost their way

back when we needed them most? (and when they controlled congress?)

That's good to know.

It doesn't help that Biden referenced a racist trope, though.

[emmaverybo]

106. You blame BIDEN and all those other liberal democrats for where we are today?!

[wellst0nev0ter]

107. They controlled congress, and passed this piece of garbage

Coopting repuke policies and their messaging got us all these problems.

[emmaverybo]

109. Rather sweeping that "where we are today." Better to stick to the harm you think done by the

bill. Otherwise one might think you are blaming all manner of horrors on democrats. “All these
problems” quite vague and not a clarification of your first attempt.

It’s not Biden who wants to knock down Medicaid, Medicare, social security, or welfare and kick people off food stamps. Know thine enemy.

[AJT]

38. I was on a welfare program back in the 80s and had to be working or in school.

It was fine, childcare was paid for as well as transportation(I didn't have a car). There is nothing wrong with having to be in training for a good job, or working at least part-time while receiving benefits as long as a person is able bodied. Maybe a requirement to be in a rehab program would be better for others. A person with an infant should not have to be training or working.
Of course if there are those kind of requirements then the government may have to provide the jobs in certain areas, real jobs not junk jobs.

I still had to work part-time at 3 jobs to make my rent and had to serve mac and cheese by the end of the month, but tuition and books were paid for and I got some foodstamps and some rental subsidies as well as childcare. It was a tough 2 years, but when I was done I got a really good job. The sacrifice was well worth it, not just for me and my children but for the government. I have paid much more in taxes than I received in benefits. I also gained a lot of confidence.

[Vegas Roller]

55. Hi five to you

What a wonderful and empowering story! Thank you for posting.

[Thekaspervote]

81. Kudos to you! You took a really lousy situation and made it better for yourself and family

[wellst0nev0ter]

136. Wonder if any of that is possible today

Thanks to welfare deform.

[Tribalceltic]

12. This is the most relevant part

In the fall of 1988

30 years is a long time to hold a grudge

[wellst0nev0ter]

15. Yeah, it was a youthful indiscretion

When he was doe-eyed 45-year old.

[Thekaspervote]

65. Your negativity isn't going to change the minds of voters.

[Thekaspervote]

82. Got anything positive to add to the conversation?

[wellst0nev0ter]

84. Not here to entertain you or to give you a rise

[Thekaspervote]

91. Not looking for entertainment... there's the glass half full or half empty

It’s a choice. Everyone has them...

[bigtree]

23. I was raising my young family at the time. Hardly ancient history

...we are, in many ways, products of that era.

Makes perfect sense to find out where folks running for the highest office in the land stood and acted at the time.

[kelly1mm]

159. Justice Kavanaugh agrees! Nt

[gordianot]

14. I have lost all sense of nostalgia for old memes and battles.

I want to know how in the hell this horror we live through daily will be fixed. There are more things broken in 2019 than 1988, being around seven decades I will attest. Most of the politicians that used the welfare Cadillac line are dead and joyfully rotting in their graves. The poison being spread by the GOP and talking heads today is far more toxic.

Nope not everyone is familiar with welfare luxury cars stories today.

[melman]

16. Not good

Not good at all.

[Vegas Roller]

17. This is a pure, unadulterated hit job over nothing

Trying to create an issue out of whole cloth ... as probably instructed by David Sirota and his media buddies.

[TwilightZone]

19. You might want to read the article.

It doesn't say what you think it says. It actually says pretty much the opposite of what you're asserting.

[crazytown]

22. 'How we ended welfare, together' - Bill Clinton

Biden's 1988 article should be read in conjunction with Bill Clinton's reflections on 'Welfare Reform'. For better or worse, Biden and WJC are one and the same on working with Republicans.

How We Ended Welfare, Together
Bill, Clinton, 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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html

[bigtree]

28. Clinton was wrong on this, too

...very much like, and part and parcel of the 'tough on crime' push.

Mainstream Democrats scrambling to prove they're as 'tough' on welfare recipients as republicans were. Had to keep pointing out their toughness was actually meanness to folks we were spending money on which represented no more than a couple percentages in total social services funding from a trillion dollar budget.

I was a Jesse Jackson Democrat.

[crazytown]

32. The GOP will compromise when it comes to poor.

Rather than a kick in the guts, they will settle for a kick in the face.

[PatrickforO]

26. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight. At the time Biden was working with

the Newt-lizard and his lock step 'do-nothings'.

They wanted to rip the whole thing apart, unravel the whole New Deal. Gingrich had a giant fake tyrannosaurus skull in his office as a reminder how government can gobble up everything - or so his staffer said when I asked.

PRWORA is deeply flawed, a punitive law that punished the weak and poor, creates a permanent underclass and promotes wage slavery. The problem is that while Biden and the Dems wanted, and fought for, job training funds to be part of the new welfare reform, the Republicans held out for 'work related activities' because, by golly, those people need to EARN their welfare checks! So no training, slave labor in 'volunteer' Community Work Experience Programs and instead of looking at employment and wage outcomes, the Republicans chose a thing called 'participation rate.' Which, in effect, meant that 50% of the caseloads had to be engaged in these 'volunteer' programs and 90% of two-parent families did.

But no money for GED prep, occupational classroom training, on the job training or any of that. It was, and still is, a revolving door where they herd the people through, and since job search doesn't count toward the 'work related activity' after a very short period, it's like the old Rawhide. Keep them clients moving! (whip snapping) Rawhide!

It's disgustingly bad policy. One of the Republican horrors of the '90s.

So, yeah, Biden and the rest did fight the good fight. But they lost.

[betsuni]

89. +1

[melman]

30. "Whether they are exaggerated or not, these stories underlie a broad social concern"

So he's saying they have legitimacy regardless of whether they're true. That's some bullshit right there.

[highplainsdem]

33. What's bullshit is your saying he said the stories have legitimacy. He said the stories showed

concern about abuses.

I remember those times, and there WAS concern about abuses, even if almost everyone knew the most lurid stories about abuses were exaggerations or fabrications.

There WAS concern that not enough people were being helped out of poverty.

That's why that bill was passed by the Senate 96-1, and by the House 347-53.

If he was wrong, so were almost all Democrats in the House and Senate then.

[crazytown]

34. Are we talking about the 1988 Bill, here?

[highplainsdem]

37. Yes. The article cited in the OP mentions both that and the 1996 bill.

[crazytown]

42. OK. Context is important.

What is overlooked is the fiscal context - The Tax Reform Act 1986, cut the highest Personal Income Tax rate from 50% to to 28% (overtime). 1980s/90s welfare reform is emblematic of the selfish, uncaring ideology that was Reaganism.

[George II]

164. That was the so-called Reagan "tax cut". But although it cut tax rates, it also greatly increased...

....taxable income but eliminating lots of deductions and made other forms of income taxable. For example, sales tax and credit card interest were no longer deductible, and unemployment compensation became taxable.

I was unemployed and collecting unemployment compensation the year that went into effect. Although my income was roughly 2/3 that of the previous year, my net income tax went UP.

I think trump and the republicans learned well from that Reagan "tax cut"!

[George II]

45. Who knows, looks like one of those drive by shots at anyone but __ that we've become accustomed to.

[crazytown]

51. "Welfare policy should be based on a simple premise"

that is the line you quoted, and what Biden was talking about was not controversial, in 1988 or today.

we have an obligation to help society’s less fortunate receive the education, training and transitional services they need to work their way out of poverty .

[melman]

44. "Whether they are exaggerated or not, these stories underlie a broad social concern"

This is saying they can't be dismissed out of hand. That is the same as saying they have legitimacy.

[George II]

47. You already said that in post #30.

[melman]

48. Your point?

[George II]

53. ....

[melman]

54. So you didn't have one

Okay.

[Vegas Roller]

60. I see at least two points there

Will it help if I highlighted them?

[melman]

62. No

No it won't.

[Vegas Roller]

64. I figured

[George II]

73. You got it!

[highplainsdem]

57. No, it isn't.

[melman]

58. Yeah it is

Deny it all you want but it's all there in plain English.

[George II]

39. "So he's saying they have legitimacy..." No he didn't say that, not at all, not even close!

[Vegas Roller]

63. Epic fail at trying to bring Biden down over nothing - once again

Einstein had something to say about repeating over and over whilst expecting a different result -- but the exact quote slips my mind.

[melman]

68. "whilst"

Interesting.


btw, that's a fake quote. Einstein never said that.

--
Here Are 6 Things Albert Einstein Never Said


“Not everything that counts can be counted.”

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

“Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”


“Two things inspire me to awe—the starry heavens above and the moral universe within.”


“Education is that which remains, if one has forgotten everything he learned in school.”


“When you sit with a nice girl for two hours you think it’s only a minute, but when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. That’s relativity.”

https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6-things-albert-einstein-never-said

[Thekaspervote]

105. I don't care who said it.. it's a wise saying and fits here

[Vegas Roller]

111. Whilst - explained

Whilst vs. While—Which Is Correct?


Whilst and while are two words with identical meanings—usually. But you can’t always use whilst instead of while.

Typically, Brits use whilst and Americans use while. That’s the main difference. When used as a conjunction or an adverb, while and whilst are interchangeable.


https://www.grammarly.com/blog/while-vs-whilst/

[melman]

116. "Typically, Brits use whilst and Americans use while"

Yes.

[Vegas Roller]

119. "Typically" is the key word

Not everyone is "typical."

[melman]

120. Is it?

Is that the key word?

[Vegas Roller]

121. In the aforementioned sentence, it is.

[melman]

123. Is it?

Are we sure?

[Vegas Roller]

124. Asked and answered. Next question. nt

[melman]

125. Okay

What the key word?

[Vegas Roller]

126. That sentence needs a verb. nt

[melman]

127. That's four words

Which one is "key"?

[Vegas Roller]

128. None -- it is not a complete sentence. nt

[melman]

129. So there are no key words?

Is that what you're saying?

[Vegas Roller]

131. Correct.

"Key word" is a phrase that describes one word that should be given importance and emphasis whilst (or while if you prefer) interpreting a sentence.

Random collection of words which are not complete sentences do not have key words.

PS: A complete sentence requires at least a subject (unless implied), an object and a verb. The latter cannot be implied because it denotes an action.

[melman]

132. Fantastic. Just one more question..

What's the key word?

[Vegas Roller]

135. In which sentence? nt

[melman]

137. Just trying to find out what the key word is

Sorry if that bothers you.

[Vegas Roller]

140. It doesn't bother me

I'm more than happy to help you out with your conundrum.

Just give me a complete sentence - any complete sentence - and I shall type a reply.

[melman]

141. "shall"

Interesting.

[Vegas Roller]

142. I am glad it interests you

Will and shall are modal verbs. They are used with the base form of the main verb (They will go; I shall ask her). Shall is only used for future time reference with I and we, and is more formal than will.

The "I will" form is used in a non-emphatic manner. The "I shall" form has a much higher level of certitude.

Nexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtttttt ...

[melman]

143. "Nexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtttttt ..."

Is that the key word? It has to be. No? I figure a word that long must be the key word.

[Vegas Roller]

148. Wrong

The correct key word is "sealioning" - also spelled "sea-lioning"

[sheshe2]

156. OMG! This sub-thread!

[George II]

170. Bazinga!

[sheshe2]

176. TaDa!

[George II]

177. Mahalo, she.

[sheshe2]

178. Mahalo, George.

[George II]

162. Yep. Welcome to the Merry-Go-Round. Hope you get the brass ring!

[melman]

179. No

The key word is rich. As in "that's rich"

[George II]

182. As in:

[Vegas Roller]

186. lmao

[George II]

188. On the other hand:

[Vegas Roller]

190. bwahahahahahahahahahaha nt

[betsuni]

195. HA!

[Autumn]

199. No, the keyword is five.

[betsuni]

112. Why is the use of "whilst" interesting? Not all DUers live in the U.S.

I don't.

[melman]

117. Why is anything interesting?

[sheshe2]

174. Why?

[betsuni]

198. I'm interested in knowing why anyone thinks the Democratic Party is "ideologically bankrupt."

I know I'll never get an answer for that one, either. If the Democratic Party doesn't have large majorities in Congress and the Senate and hold the presidency, progressive legislature will not be passed. I wonder why this is so hard to understand.

[George II]

168. I've been accused of that from some.

[betsuni]

175. Strongly supporting the Democratic Party on a forum for Democrats but saying "whilst" and "shall"

is HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS.

[Vegas Roller]

180. Actually, "shall" is also American

and a lot of people in the Boston area use "whilst" ... it is not necessarily geographical.

[melman]

181. I lived in Boston for years

Never heard a single person say whilst.

[Vegas Roller]

183. It is common usage amongst the educated class. nt

[sheshe2]

187. Bazinga!!!!

[melman]

184. You find these things suspicious?

That's very interesting.

[George II]

161. If Vegas never gave an actual quote, how can you say Einstein never said it? Never said what?

[melman]

163. Because I've seen that "quote" referenced a billion times

just like everyone else that's ever been on the internet?

[George II]

165. What quote? Again, he never posted a quote so how do you know what quote he was talking about?

[melman]

166. He who?

What quote what?

[George II]

167. I'm a Democrat, don't you mean:

He haw?

[melman]

169. Hee Haw has two 'e's

[George II]

171. He Haw has only one.

[melman]

172. One what?

[George II]

173. Not "What", "He Haw".

[sheshe2]

189. What quote?

melman (5,037 posts)
68. "whilst"

Interesting.


btw, that's a fake quote. Einstein never said that.

THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE QUOTER THAT ACTUALLY NEVER QUOTED THE QUOTEE YOU SAY THEY QUOTED.

What quote are you saying they quoted when they never quoted a quote. And I quote the quoter this is what they said here:

Vegas Roller (694 posts)
63. Epic fail at trying to bring Biden down over nothing - once again

Einstein had something to say about repeating over and over whilst expecting a different result -- but the exact quote slips my mind.

[zentrum]

36. I find it disturbing

.....given the dog whistle issue in the welfare queen language. He shouldn't have referenced it at all. In any way.

You can't walk back or explain a dog whistle.

Just don't use it.

There are so many ways he could have explained the need for jobs, education and a level playing field, as the real "welfare reform".

[George II]

41. He was referencing the term that right wingers were using in 1988....

THIRTY ONE FUCKING YEARS AGO!

[zentrum]

56. Yeah, I know.

But the reference merely corrected the RW approach while still validating it.

THIRTY ONE FUCKING YEARS AGO, even I knew what "welfare reform" and images of welfare users wasting their money meant.

We all knew. It wasn't "how it was" back then. We knew.

[George II]

72. This is 2019. I'm concerned with Biden's positions now. I like them all.

[Thekaspervote]

98. +1000

[uponit7771]

193. +1,

[betsuni]

197. +1

[bigtree]

40. we don't play these games with people's lives anymore, at least Dems don't

...but this was bipartisan abuse of the poor and working poor, with policy advanced by BOTH parties which penalized people for asking the government for help because someone, somewhere committed fraud, some infinitesimal number of the total helped by our social service resources.

It was a fraud committed against poor Americans by our elected officials to win elections, lingered in mainstream political rhetoric and policy until Democrats using the defaming rhetoric (mostly moderates like Joe Lieberman) were the only ones left emboldened enough to openly bash the poor for getting government aid.

It was a shameful point in history. I followed Jesse Jackson and other liberal activists in opposing every instance and instigation of that era's politician's denigration and assault on vulnerable families and individuals who dared ask for help from our government.


August 28, 1996
Liberal icons Jesse Jackson and Mario Cuomo last night criticized President Clinton over welfare reform as Democrats deliberately spotlighted their party's split personality midway through the 1996 Democratic National Convention.

"Many of us ... believe that the risk to children was too great to justify the action of signing that bill, no matter what its political benefits," Cuomo said of the new welfare law.
https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1996-08-28-3103577-story.html

[MadDAsHell]

46. I read the entire editorial. Where was race, color or ethnicity mentioned even once?

Are we getting to the point where "dog whistle" basically means the entire Oxford Dictionary?

[wellst0nev0ter]

49. You need to do a lot of heavy lifting

to convince yourself the "welfare queen" trope is not racist.

I'll expect you will comment on the article in good faith.

[MadDAsHell]

50. The majority of welfare recipients are white. Are you saying it's racist against whites? nt

[wellst0nev0ter]

69. Even today most people assume minorities get the most welfare

Or that they get it in equal amounts

?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/americans-welfare-perceptions-survey_n_5a7880cde4b0d3df1d13f60b

And this is all due to the decades of dog whistling over welfare and black folks, and you know it.

Come back when you are ready to discuss this topic in good faith.

[Celerity]

113. Linda Taylor, a mixed-race black woman from Chicago, is the origin, its a straight racist trope

In his new book "The Queen," author Josh Levin tells the story of Linda Taylor, a woman who became infamous as a welfare cheat. She was a woman who went by many names, was accused of many crimes, and whose image as a Cadillac-driving welfare recipient has lived on. Hari Sreenivasan spoke with Levin to learn more.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylor

Linda Taylor (born Martha Louise White; c. January 1926 – April 18, 2002) was an American criminal who committed extensive welfare fraud and, after an article in the Chicago Tribune in fall 1974, became identified as the "welfare queen". Accounts of her activities were used by Ronald Reagan, from his 1976 presidential campaign onwards, to illustrate his criticisms of social programs in the United States. Her criminal activities are believed to have extended beyond welfare fraud and may have included assault, theft, insurance fraud, bigamy, the abduction and sale of children, and possibly even murder.

[wellst0nev0ter]

138. Interestingly enough, the census listed her as "white"

So this racist trope was started by a white woman. How ironic.

[Celerity]

146. She was not white, she was a mixed race A-A

[wellst0nev0ter]

149. Jim Crow laws considered her to be white

which makes her white.

[Celerity]

150. you are wrong, she was part black, and was portrayed a black in the media, thus the birth of the

racist trope of The Welfare Queen.

I myself am a complexly miscegenated mixed-race, partially black female with a West Indian Caribbean background on one side. I have done a fair amount of academic study in the field of sociology and have a lot of real life experience on this exact same subject.

You should read up on miscegenation, passing, racial ambulatory, and what my fellow PoC went through with this throughout the whole of the Americas and the Caribbean basin after we were introduced into socio-economic ecosystem as chattel property, then continued to labour under the cosh of the remnants of that system of slavery. Read about skin bleaching, parchment parties, the disowning of all of ones 'too dark family' as we tried to make our way in life.

Read about the plaçage system in New Orleans and other southern areas, with its 'octoroon' balls that were glorified pimping out of girls just like me, after they were shipped over to France for finishing school. They were made into the ultimate sophisticated, exotic, high court-mannered, multi-skilled (music, poetry, the classics, etc) mistresses. Lifetime prostitutes in reality, unless you could REALLY put the hex on your new 'owner' and turned the tables of power, got him to leave his white wife, which sometimes happened, far too often ending in death and/or tragedy for all involved. They cost a king's ransom (or at least a good chunk of a whip-handed cotton plantation owner's ill-gotten fortune) at bidding after the ball. Almost white, but just black enough to be sold.

Did you even look at the links? Did you look at the pictures of Taylor? The Chicago Tribune, which had dubbed her the 'Welfare Queen in 1974, did NOT pass her off as white. She became the racist embodiment of the lying, cheating, lazy ,conniving, Cadillac-driving , swindling caricature of black women perpetrated by whites. The 'Welfare Queen' trope is racist, it did not come from some 'white woman.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylor

In census records and court testimony, her relatives gave varying information about her parentage, but always identified her as "white". Rumors in the family indicated that her father was black, but Lydia White could have been convicted of a felony under Alabama's law against interracial relationships if she admitted this.

Throughout her life, Taylor presented herself as being of various racial and ethnic identities, including Black, Asian, Hispanic and Jewish. Taylor represented herself as being many different ages, with one government official stating in 1974 that "it appears she can be any age she wishes, from the early 20s to the early 50s"

snip

Her many identities included using the title 'Reverend' and posing as a nurse, a doctor, and a spiritual adviser who used Haitian Vodou.

snip


She was stereotyped as ‘the welfare queen.’ The truth was more disturbing, a new book says.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/05/21/she-was-stereotyped-welfare-queen-truth-was-more-disturbing-new-book-says/

snip

But the so-called welfare queen was real. Her name was Linda Taylor, and she indeed owned a Cadillac, and several other cars, at the time she was arrested in 1974. She was a mixed-race woman who often told authorities she was white, Mexican or Hawaiian, according to Josh Levin, author of the new biography “The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth.”

snip

“Linda Taylor … had as much in common with a typical welfare rule breaker as a bank robber does with someone who swipes a piece of penny candy,” Levin writes. Yet “Taylor’s mere existence gave credence to a slew of pernicious stereotypes about poor people and black women.”

snip

Linda Taylor was born Martha Louise White in 1926 in Golddust, Tenn., the result of her white mother’s affair with a black man. Though she was light-skinned, she was forbidden to go to the local white school. In 1940, at the age of 13 or 14, she had her first child.

snip


https://www.thenation.com/article/josh-levin-the-queen-book-review/

snip

The South also incubated massive federal-aid programs. The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and a devastating drought in Arkansas in 1930 required national interventions, which “primed the nation to support Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” Levin argues, including the Aid to Dependent Children program. As early as 1933, newspapers were fixated on the “parasites” who scammed these relief agencies. In 1947, New York City newspapers were in “a froth over a ‘lady in mink’…who cadged relief payments while living rent-free in a city-funded hotel room.” Over the decades other publications, such as Reader’s Digest and Look, ran their own outraged reports about women—the culprits were invariably shiftless mothers—who fleeced the system. “These extraordinary individual claims stood for something bigger: widespread bureaucratic waste, moral decay, and the triumph of the indolent over the industrious,” Levin writes.

Taylor, likewise, stood for something bigger. In 1974, the year she was indicted for stealing 21 public-aid checks under two different aliases, 12 percent of the US population lived below the poverty line; 10.8 million people received federal assistance; inflation hit its highest rate in three decades; the economy was in a recession. Watergate had curdled the mood of the country. Taylor embodied everything broken about a government many Americans now considered corrupt and dysfunctional. And because she was a black woman from Chicago—a city that recorded 970 homicides that year—Taylor became a synonym for criminality, as if by osmosis. “Taylor was a real person, not some anonymous, maybe even fictional character in a newspaper or magazine,” Levin writes. “She could be found, and she could be punished for what she’d done.”

At first, she was punished only in the press. Taylor’s welfare scams were an obsession at the Chicago Tribune, where the paper’s star reporter, George Bliss, doggedly ran down every lead related to the Illinois Department of Public Aid. His stories depicted an open season at the state treasury, where up to $20 million a year was supposedly pilfered by welfare cheats and double-dealing bureaucrats. With her fur coat and Cadillac, Taylor was ready-made for sensational coverage; stories about her were syndicated to newspapers nationwide. By 1978, 84 percent of Illinois voters considered welfare and Medicaid fraud to be matters of grave concern. As a result, a 24-hour welfare-fraud hotline opened and received more than 5,000 tips its first year. The Department of Public Aid also ramped up in-home spot checks of welfare recipients and began mailing checks to banks or currency exchanges, where multiple forms of ID were required to collect payment.

snip

Perhaps one reason Taylor’s story resonated is because it straddled a turnaround in how the mass media represented poverty. Levin points out that in 1964, just 27 percent of newsmagazine stories about poor Americans featured images of black people. In 1972 and 1973, that number ballooned to 70 percent. Taylor embodied how the country imagined and identified poverty. Reagan’s election in 1980 turned attention to white poverty in the aftermath of a gutted manufacturing sector. Images of trailer parks, rural desolation, and hollowed-out Appalachian towns replaced the inner city as the requisite backdrops for economic woe. Taylor was both the symbol of malicious entitlement and the reason why other Americans, white Americans, were denied the comforts they’d been promised.

snip

[wellst0nev0ter]

154. Her heritage was inconclusive, as your links say

What is true is that she could pass for white, and apparently well enough that the census called her white. You're familiar with critical race theory, so I don't have to explain how race is based on societal construct rather than any set rules based on ancestry.

[Celerity]

155. my links did NOT say that at all, and she was only listed as white early on, due to illegality of

racial mixing in the state she was born in.

For someone upthread who is correctly arguing with a poster who was trying to falsely claim that the Welfare Queen trope is not racist, you sure seem to want to turn its person at the root of the trope into a 'white person', which plays right into that other poster's disinformation attempts.

here are three very relevant snippets from my links above

[melman]

59. No kidding

I can't believe people would even try that one.

[wellst0nev0ter]

70. They do

And they think they're sooo clever

[Hoyt]

67. We either have a lot of young folks here who don't know how "welfare queen"

was used in the past, and who typically used it, or they just don’t care. I find the latter sad.

I too don’t believe Biden is as bad as that term might otherwise indicate. But, damn, not sure how much more of this kind of junk can be rationalized.

[wellst0nev0ter]

74. I don't buy that these certain young people are ignorant

I grew up with them and their white families. They know damn well about the stereotypes.

Biden may not be racist, but he has certainly has a history of waffling on racial issues.

[George II]

85. Not at all, Biden has been consistent on racial issues, more so than the other "older" candidates.

[Thekaspervote]

101. And is that why Jim Clyburn and John Lewis have come out with statements to the contrary?

Or why Pennsylvania AA voters admit they stayed home in 2016, but are feeling good about mr. Biden?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287253331

Or that mr. Biden polls at 51% of the AA vote in South Carolina.. the bellwether for the AA vote?

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/election/article233109981.html

[wellst0nev0ter]

108. Hillary had high black support too

During the primary. Too many still stayed home during the general.

[Thekaspervote]

144. Did you open the first link about AA voters in PA? As this was the whole point of the article

[George II]

52. Precisely - it's yet another opportunity to make shit up about something someone said 31 years ago.

[wellst0nev0ter]

75. Are you feigning ignorance

about the welfare queen stereotype too?

[George II]

86. You're acting like Biden used the "welfare queen" stereotype, which he didn't.

[wellst0nev0ter]

87. He brought it up, gave it oxygen

did not reject it out of hand and gave it legitimacy.

I don't know what you call welfare moms driving luxury cars is, but that is the classic welfare queen trope.

[George II]

90. Yes, he "brought it up" thirty one years ago. NO, he didn't "give it oxygen", he explained...

....the Reagan attitude in 1988. You do recall who was president in 1988, don't you?

It WAS, as you put it, "the classic welfare queen trope", but Biden never used it as an explanation of HIS position on welfare, but to explain how others felt in 1988 - again, more than three decades ago.

You seem to be bent on bashing Biden regardless of his real intent and no matter what. So noted.

[Thekaspervote]

92. This!

[George II]

93. I'm dumbfounded about some of the things people drag out of the past, and then attribute....

....false motives to it.

[betsuni]

100. The goal: convince us that Democrats are the REAL racists, don't vote for them.

Democrats are the REAL (bad thing here), don't vote for them.

[Thekaspervote]

102. This!! Or someone isn't feeling too good about their poll numbers!

[mr_lebowski]

99. +2 ... he didn't even say 'Welfare Queen' but certain posters seems obsessed with suggesting

that he said that very thing.

It's a bit of a cheap shot.

He's very clearly talking about 'something many are concerned about, whether true or not'.

Which they were, fairly or not.

[NYMinute]

66. Sam Stein wrote this

He is Greenwald's and David Sirota's buddy.

Must have received a communiqué from HQ ....

[Thekaspervote]

77. The constant bashing of Biden will not help bernie

If I recall, he was the one that wanted everyone to agree to keep it positive. ...as he did in 2016. It is just nauseating.

The dailybeast is now off my list of reliable fair news organizations

[Beartracks]

71. And they are just that: stories. Which Biden acknowledges. n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

76. Useful stories

to distract white voters and undermine the safety net.

[George II]

94. Keep trying - the bottom line is that despite your desperate attempt to bash Biden....

...throughout his career he worked to STRENGTHEN the safety net, and I'll bet you can't find a single case where what I just said isn't true.

Don't know your motive here, but it's simply not working.

[Thekaspervote]

104. One would think the message would get out... but then again

They go low

We’ll go over or around them, but will not stoop to these kinds of negative tactics. They simply do not work

[Thekaspervote]

88. And.. in the real news

Dotard rolls back methane regs
Mumps is now at epidemic levels in the migrant children
Latest Ebola outbreak has now claimed 3,000
Dorian bear down on FL as a CAT 4

But but but...let’s not forget that Obama wore a tan suit
And Hillary’s emails
And this whack job that someone wants to spin

[myohmy2]

97. shameful...

...absolutely shameful...

" Thirty years later, as Biden finds himself the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, both the column and Biden’s broader support for welfare reform could prove politically problematic—serving as another résumé spot, along with his prior praise for segregationist senators and his opposition to busing, that raises concerns about past cultural and racial insensitivities.

“It certainly was a racist narrative,” Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC and the affiliated nonpartisan Black Progressive Action Coalition, said of Biden’s use of the “welfare recipient with a luxury car” imagery. "

...I'm getting extremely tense and worried...

...too many gaffEs…

...

[Thekaspervote]

103. You might want to take a look at this...or not

The incredible irony of Bernie’s attacks on joe Biden

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287259716

[betsuni]

110. My calendar says it's August 31, 2019.

[melman]

118. And nothing in the past matters at all

Yay!

[wellst0nev0ter]

130. We always look forward, not backwards!

[betsuni]

157. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=254033

[melman]

158. .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=260890

[betsuni]

160. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=261071

[uponit7771]

194. +1,

[Skya Rhen]

114. AAs are fully aware that Biden supported welfare reform and we support him. Period. Next...

[wellst0nev0ter]

134. That's not the issue

What killed us in 2016 was the 4 million black Obama voters who stayed home. Hillary's support among blacks was not enough to win her the election if there's an enthusiasm gap.

Blacks voters are pragmatic. They initially supported Hillary in the 2008 election primaries before breaking to Obama when he won Iowa. And thankfully, Obama was charismatic enough to fire up black turnout. Will Biden have that magic?

[Thekaspervote]

145. Black voters in PA who admit they didn't vote in 2016 now say they will support Mr. Biden

More at the link

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287253331

[Joe941]

115. This in concerning.

[Eric J in MN]

133. Bernie Sanders voted against the 1996 welfare cuts

...which Joe Biden voted for.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

139. This is disqualifying

[Loki Liesmith]

152. But since he'll probably be the nominee you'll still vote for him

Right?

[LanternWaste]

203. "Gotta purge folks..."

"Purges always end well..."

So sayeth the self-appointed prophets.

[uponit7771]

196. You forgot the sarcasm tag

[loyalsister]

147. Racialized narratives in politics

were accepted and common. But that doesn't mean it was acceptable. Not then or now or ever.

[Loki Liesmith]

151. Lol one of these days they'll land a punch

Not today tho.


Lololol

[MarcA]

153. People with jobs still in need of financial assistance, lacking in healthcare

and even housing issues is a more concerning reality that job training,
education, etc. really do not adequately address. Action needs to be taken
to keep this situation from worsening.

[YOHABLO]

185. So true. We have a housing problem in the U.S. Rent has gone crazy high.

[Blue_true]

191. So what did you prove? That Biden heard "stories" that he may not have believed.

The concept of welfare payments is to help people that are knocked down get back on their feet, and to provide assistance to people who have physical or psychological disabilities that cause them to not be employable. Wanting adequate controls in that process does not mean that a person is opposed to the concept of welfare.

[loyalsister]

201. "adequate controls"

Meant white women choosing to work or stay at home while women of color provided childcare to white children and did not have the opportunity to stay home to care for their own children. Then came the narrative that put the blame on them (and alleged absent fathers) for struggles of young people whose education and social supports had been withdrawn by the same callous politicians who would accept implicit white supremacy in order to win elections.

[Blue_true]

202. Wow, you really spun this way off course. I really don't know what else can be written. nt

[Joe941]

204. This is concerning.