How much do you think the Dems who signed off on 'welfare reform' care

[Mairead]

about outcomes like this? (see a related poll and the pointer to the story here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=553631 )

[ikojo]

1. I don't think they care at all..

after all poor people don't write checks to their campaigns. We all know that dem dat got da checks are dem dat write da laws....

Sure some Dems will pander and say they care about working people but once they get in the white house it's "what's a worker?"

That is why we need Dems like Kucinich...too bad the corporate media ignores him.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Well said. low income & minorities are irrelevant to the voting process

And by now the gap is so wide, the polarization is so great, that a political solution has all but passed from the realm of possibility.

The affluent voting classes should just go ahead and concentrate on the comfort they derive from the electoral process and their other faith traditions.

[flamingyouth]

3. Read this article before you vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=173258

Sick and WRONG!!!

[greendog]

4. They couldn't care less...

...and most of the people who vote for Democrats are more than willing to look the other way.

[quaker bill]

5. As Michael Moore said

"Bill Clinton was the best republican President we have had in a long time"

He was better than Bush and better than Dole, but he was no liberal.

This is why I did not support Clinton during the '92 primaries. He was too conservative, and if I recall correctly, they were all too conservative for me.

I did vote for Clinton in the general election, twice, which apparently only prolonged the inevitable rise of the Bushista's.

The "welfare to work" concept is not all bad. But the way it has been done is horrific.

There can be more dignity in working. But the problem is that these folks assume that any job is more dignified than simply getting a check. Having put myself through school working at various points for the minimum, I can assure you that is not the case.

There are some damn hard and undignified jobs out there. Working in these places adds nothing to your self esteem. You are just lucky to walk away in one piece.

If our aim is to be a truly redemptive society, where we give folks a "hand up rather than a hand out", we simply have to do alot better than this.

[janekat]

6. Dean pushed it BEFORE Clinton did - also backed Clinton's bill

http://www.progress.org/2003/sol125.htm

"Economic justice has been a much lower priority. During the early 1990s, Dean spearheaded a new "workfare" state law requiring labor from welfare recipients. The Vermont program later won praise as more humane "welfare reform" than what occurred in most other states. But in the summer of 1996, Dean put his weight behind the final push for President Clinton's national "welfare reform" law -- a draconian measure, slashing at an already shabby safety-net while forcing impoverished mothers to work low-wage jobs.

While some other Democrats angrily opposed Clinton's welfare reform, it won avid support from Dean. "Liberals like Marian Wright Edelman are wrong," he insisted. "The bill is strong on work, time limits assistance and provides adequate protection for children." Dean co-signed a letter to Clinton calling the measure "a real step forward."

[quaker bill]

8. It was the "policy of the month" in it's day.

Just like the vote on Iraq, most people felt that it was actually a better way to address the problem at the time. I am gathering you and I knew better.

Many since have grown up and learned from the experience.

This fixation on positions candidates took ten or more years ago is pointless. I don't say this just for Dean, I mean for all of them. Times were different, circumstances were different, they were different, younger people. I am sure that every candidate has a vote or a statement or a position somewhere they wish now they could take back. Some of them voted for the war and are trying real hard to take that one back.

[janekat]

9. I just hope he's learned from it - has he said anything about it more

recently? Might be a good thing for us to know...

[sangha]

7. Under Clinton, child poverty went down

and under welfare reform, which I don't support, a larger share of the money being spect is going to child care, health care, hosuing subsidies, and job training.

[John_H]

10. Nader should give 100 of his wal-mart shares to each poor family

until he runs out as recompense for doing far more damage to their futures than any dem--or republican for that matter--who voted for Clinton's welfare reform program.

Owning Wal-mart, Viacom, and Merk stocks. Busting unions. Enabling George W. Bush. Now, that's 100 percent geuiiiiiiiine concern for the working poor!!!