How did Republicans ram welfare reform down Clinton's throat? Clinton campaigned

[wholetruth00]

on this issue and his administrative agenda included that as well as tax relief for the middle and lower class and tax hikes on the wealthy.

[hedgehog]

1. Refresh my memory.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[eleny]

2. And he had to wait for a Rpub Congress before he could get WF passed

And didn't he campaign on NAFTA, too?

Btw, what made you bring this up? Watching or listening to a discussion somewhere?

[bigwillq]

5. I heard it on one of the news channels today.

That Clinton had to wait for a repuke Congress to get it passed even though he campaigned on the issue.

[Selatius]

8. He failed to withdraw from NAFTA like the executive has the power to do

There are some who have said to me Bush Sr. signed NAFTA, while others said Clinton did. Regardless, NAFTA was something Clinton could have repudiated but did not. He favored the fucking boondoggle. It may have helped in the loss of Congress to the Repubs in 1994.

[central scrutinizer]

13. NAFTA never had a chance with Republican prez

but Clinton was able to twist enough arms and make enough promises to those of his own (nominally) party to ram it through. I am one of those who feel that this contributed mightily to the 1994 debacle when union members felt so betrayed that they did not campaign for or support the traitorous Democrats.

[AnneD]

39. Ding ding ding

this also accounts for the gutting of union jobs and therefore Union donations to the DEM's. If you don't back us, it's hard to back you. He really let me down with that one. We need to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs. Yes, it IS that sucking sound you are hearing.

[eleny]

18. He campaigned on NAFTA

[AnneD]

40. And he wanted health care too.

We could have Nafta but keep the tax incintives to maintain industry here. The unions got bumpkis, the business' got everything. This triangulation killed the DEM'S. We forgot who we were and where we came from.

[Megahurtz]

3. I don't know but

Clinton should have never gone for Welfare Reform, or NAFTA for that matter. :(

[gully]

4. Clinton had a safety net in place for those coming off the system.

The Bush admin has gutted that.

Just adding my .02

[papau]

6. Good point - indeed he only signed after amendments were promised by GOP - which

were passed in the following year to provide a better deal/safety net.

[eleny]

7. That safety net wasn't very strong, imo

I worked in social services agencies from 1971-1999 and wasn't impressed with that net. I don't mean to contrary for the sake of it. I just couldn't believe how fast people were scooted off the system. You're definitely spot on about how W gutted it, though.

[gully]

9. Well I know moms who got help with day care assistance for example.

That was gutted when "W" took over.

[eleny]

15. Yes, that's accurate

And health care was extended for a while. Then the CHIPS program was instituted for kids health care up to age 19 for eligible households.

But I'm thinking back to how babies born to a woman already on assistance couldn't be added to the budget. Taking food out of the mouths of babies is a harsh policy that has no place in a modern country. Certainly not in America. We're talking under $100 a month. It's like some "sins of the mother" deal.

We can be pretty cruel toward the poor as a nation. I think back to the days when "welfare" actually put heads of households through school. I had clients in the early 70s who went to beauty or nursing school or college and got off the system permanently when their skills were honed.

That was back in the day when higher education could be affordable - especially in the community college system. For instance, in the late '60s my mom and dad put me and my brother through private four year colleges. My parents worked in factories. It was a prosperous time for the working class. It's an era that NAFTA killed.

[Selatius]

17. Now look at America

Higher education is increasingly unaffordable. Your parents factories were probably outsourced to Mexico under Clinton's NAFTA before being outsourced again to China, and the jobs being created today pay lower than those that have been lost. Ain't it a good economy!? :sarcasm:

[eleny]

21. My parents' jobs were outsourced to Asia back in the 70s

Factory sewing/tailoring work in New York City went to the south and to Asia back in that era of manufacturing. The giant sucking sound that Ross Perot talked about actually started long before Clinton. Just to put some perspective on it. But NAFTA surely shot the working class in the heart.

This is why I appreciate Thom Hartmann so much. His analysis of the war on the working class is spot on. Things weren't entirely flush back in the 50's through '70s. But things have been degrading since the '70s, in my experience.

[Hamlette]

27. this must be something in your state

"I'm thinking back to how babies born to a woman already on assistance couldn't be added to the budget."

This was not part of welfare reform and I don't know any state that actually did this, but maybe it happened. That was NOT federal law or Clinton.

There is a provision of welfare reform that says if a mom won't identify the dad the MOM can be "sanctioned" (basically her portion of the grant can be taken away or reduced, not the kid's) If mom can't identify the dad, no penalty. Once mom identifies the dad, the state goes after him for support. I don't object to that and I'm pretty bleeding heart about it.

The idea behind welfare reform is not bad and it worked well in several states. Would you rather kids be raised in a household that is self-sufficient or in a household on welfare? The plan was to put lots of money into families for 5 years. Provide education and training and child care and medical benefits and help finding a job that could make the family self sufficient. If the parents did not take advantage of the help and were able to work, it stopped after 5 years.

The bill passed this year gutted most of what was good about the 1996 welfare reform act and kept basically only the deadline: 5 years. Hopefully Congress will act to go back to the way it was during the last 10 years and NOT back to where it was before that. Before welfare reform there was no money which could be used to better someone's lot. Not enough for training or child care while in training. It tended to do nothing but keep people on welfare. Clinton's idea was better and it was designed to help the poor, not punish them. The 2006 legislation appears to be designed to just punish.

[eleny]

33. You offered a false choice....

"Would you rather kids be raised in a household that is self-sufficient or in a household on welfare?"

We can have both. I had a front row seat to that in my early days as a caseworker in NYC. The five year limit did not exist back then. The 1996 legislation shut the door at the five year mark with very few exceptions. And the day care provisions were a weak provision, imo, even when the law was passed.

Another major weakness in the scenario is that child support enforcement has never been as strong as it should be. Absent parents have too many loopholes to leap through and the legislation is far to weak.

And yes, Colorado did enforce not putting new babies on the budget.

We're going to continue to disagree on the merits. I'm way too liberal for the reforms of '96. I envision a society where the working class is strong due to a strong manufacturing base. You know - more exports than imports. It's the America I grew up in. And that kind of society can offer a more generous hand up to those on the lower economic places in society.

The current system initiated in '96 was draconian since it made it all the more difficult for the most vulnerable in our society - the children.

[Hamlette]

44. my experience has been way different I HATED welfare reform

in 96. I thought it would be one more failed social experiment conducted at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society.

I was wrong. There are some problems but those are less significant than the problems under the old system, in my experience. I think people are are better off if they are participating in the society.

The not adding new babies has nothing to do with welfare reform. It must be a colorado thing.

I also envision a society with a strong working class which comes about in part by giving a more generous hand up to those on the lowest rung. Which is exactly why I think welfare reform worked (past tense, was destroyed this year.) It pumped tons more money into households for five years to give parents the opportunity to get education and training and assistance in finding jobs.

Welfare reform also gave states tons of options on how to run the program. My state allowed less education than I would have liked but pretty much let us run the program how we, the professionals, thought it would work the best.

It doesn't look like a false choice to me because I think a lifetime on welfare is crappy because it disenfranchises people and because benefits are not generous. I think our first goal should be finding a way for a family to be self sufficient, if possible. That does not mean at a minimum wage job, it means at a job that will support them, hopefully well above a low class status.

[eleny]

47. "The not adding new babies has nothing to do with welfare reform"

The federal legislation permitted it by allowing states the latitude. Before '96, the states had to design their programs within stricter parameters.

And yes, your choices were false since things don't have to be the either or proposition you offered. The way it was back in the salad days of the late 1960s - early '70s worked. People were on assistance, got the education or training they needed to get off the system. And it wasn't accomplished with an ax over their heads/benefits. But right wing ideologues who hate the poor and who had a war to pay for stepped in. The cultural and economic context was ripe to kick the poor in the ass.

Little by little the programs were lopped and it hasn't stopped yet. I had a front row seat to the metamorphosis for almost 30 years. My experience over the better part of three decades convinces me.

We had a way to get people into jobs that pay more than minimum wage and we buried it so deep that it's now only a dim memory to many and non existent to most.

[Hamlette]

50. actually, TANF and PROWRA are silent on family caps

most states that have them had them before PROWRA. That's all I meant. A state was free to do a family cap under AFDC. The only difference is specific permission from the feds was required. I'm unaware that the feds ever denied a state the right to impose a family cap. Most state that have family caps had them under AFDC. Since the feds still have to approve a state's plan and a family cap provision would have to be in the state plan, I don't think there is any difference in practical terms.

The '96 legislation did not "permit" family caps. It was permitted under AFDC. That's all I meant.

And my experience with welfare and welfare reform has been different from yours. Hence we have very different opinions of the effects of PROWRA on the poor. I think you assume that by allowing a state more latitude every state made the sytsem worse. In my state the latitude made the system better, in yours, your legislature or state agency apparently made it worse.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. Oh how right you are about welfare reform

It seemed thst far too many of the poor didn't lose their welfare as much as it was yanked out from under them.

[elehhhhna]

53. As was the Green Thumb Employment for lo-income Senior Citizens program

[bobbolink]

35. BULL!

You may like Clinton a lot, but don't gloss over the pain and suffering he caused to poor folk.

I get so tired of this same blindness, over and over.

Where was the followup?? If he was so careful about "safety net", why wasn't there a followup, to see what happened to all those people?!

Clinton may be your hero, but at some point it's important, for the sake of poor people, to look at the reality of what he caused.

[nini]

36. Poor people who are given the opportunity for training etc..

need to take advantage of it too.

This isn't a black and white issue, as there are many examples of people who have fallen through the cracks and were left behind.

HOWEVER, there were plenty who were able to get the training they needed to get beyond those minimum wage jobs and who are better off because of the help they got.


I am not for life long welfare for everyone who has the ability to work. I believe in helping citizens get the training and help they need too.


Again, not a black and white issue, but helping those who were able to improve themselves is a GOOD thing.

[bobbolink]

37. Yeah, I expected a blame the victim reply.

Actually, I expected more hostility, so thank you for some civility.

I suggest you watch a video called "Day's Work, Day's Pay". IN the small group that was followed, there were two deaths because of CLinton's Welfare Deform.

Does that matter?

And, how bout answering my question about followup? Why?

[nini]

41. I was on welfare twice

once when my son was born for a few months until I got a job, the other time after I had a car wreck and couldn't work. I never would have survived without the help I received during those times.

Yes, all these things matter and of course you bring up the cases that would have fallen into the category where I believe I admitted were situations that did not fall into what I was talking about. I NEVER said those that needed help should be denied it. I SAID those who get the help need to take advantage of it and improve themselves if it is possible.

I definitely know both sides of this issue and do not need a lecture from anyone regarding it.

[bobbolink]

43. Then, answer why there was no followup, and look at the video

There *is* another side.

How that is a lecture is beyond me, but whatever.

[eleny]

42. I agree with you 100%

It's not a one-size-fits-all world. City people have different needs and resources than people living in rural areas. People can fall through the cracks in either place. The legislation didn't seem to have enough flexibility in my view. And child support enforcement became a joke. In the end the children suffer the most. But the bigwigs go after the vulnerable most often. The elderly, the disabled and the poorest kids. America can be better than that.

You ask a very good question. There's no answer because follow up didn't really exist. We can find better answers if we asked the question of the family shelters across the country.

:cry:

[Rosemary2205]

10. Seems Clinton's idea of welfare was great

My "widowed mom" sister was affected by that whole thing. The aid and educational training money was increased significantly for 4 full years. She was able to stop working and go to school. Now she's making 4 times what she would ever have made if it weren't for Clinton's reforms.

Unfortunately, Bushco has sucked the life out of that whole program. Educational money is nearly impossible to come by, daycare funds have been cut back, section 8 has been gutted. You name it they've destroyed it.

Don't blame it on Bill. He did good. Just ask sis.

[warrens]

31. I agree with you

There are a lot of people here calling Bill a right-winger.

[Wiley50]

45. Not a Right Winger, But a Corporatist

All right wingers are Corporatist
but all Corporatists are not right wingers

Clinton obviously toes the Globalist Banker's vison
of a one world government
But a lot of working people get thrown under the bus
with their jobs outsourced wherever labor is cheaper
before nationalism is dead
and war between countries is no more

Meanwhile the American standard of living
keeps going south

[bobbolink]

57. No, Bill Did Not Do "Great"!!

I'm so tired of hearing this!

People DIED because of his cut-offs, and he didn't even care enough about them to institute a tracking system to find out what happened to them!!

Just because a few benefitted, doesn't mean that it was a great idea.

Many more were hurt, badly, and they have been ignored.

Watch the video, "Days Work, Days Pay". It tracks a small group of people in New YOrk City. Out of that small group, two died as a direct result. Do those deaths matter to you, or is it of no consequence because your sister benefitted?

Look at what those people were shoved into---demeaning jobs with below standard pay. Then tell us again what a Great Idea it was.

Yes, I blame it on BILL!! He didn't do it to better people's lives. He did it out of sheer political advantage for him. He also says now that it should have been the first thing he did. "Political capitol" is all. Sound like anyone else we know?

:mad:

[Wiley50]

11. As Someone living on $603/mo SSI Disability, I can attest

that there is no such thing as welfare anymore

And because of Clinton's

Welfare Reform Act of 1996

It took three and a half years
with an attorney
to get it

Even though my Doctor's and their MRI's
showed without any doubt

Degenerative Disc Disease with 10 discs affected
Arthritis of the Spine
Chronic Progressive Nerve Damage

I paid in SS for 30 years
and they still fucked me out of full SS Disability

Fuck Clinton!

[eleny]

16. So you had to go to court to finally get approved?

I can't tell you how many clients I had, while I worked in social services agencies, who had to go that far. My advice to anyone applying for disability benefits or SSI was to never give up. Always opt for every appeal in the process. And then go to court if necessary. The judges often make the right decision to approve and then the applicant can get benefits going back to the date of the application. But that process can be so stressful to someone who is chronicaly ill. I feel that the process is draconian to the disabled.

[Wiley50]

20. Judge approved it as soon as it hit his desk.

It was that obvious.

But it was stalled 3 1/2 years getting there by state disability determination
using Clinton's guidelines

[eleny]

23. Your experience is so familiar!

I can still recall a conversation I had with one gentleman who had similar back problems to yours. He told me that he went before the judge, the judge looked over the paperwork and made his decision to approve right on the spot. This was after 2 years of appeals.

[Wiley50]

28. My Judge didn't even bother to hold a hearing n/t

[bobbolink]

54. This is SOOOO SICKENING!!

ONe of the things that makes me the maddest, is that those of us who are most in need, are put in the position of having to give a large portion of what we so badly need, and what we are ENTITLED TO HAVE!, to lawyers, just to get what is legally coming to us!!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

That is soooo very very wrong, yet it's become part of the "system" and seen as just fine.

They are obviously hoping that we will just die.

That kind of "compassion" must end, and it will only end when DEMS start speaking out loudly and demanding it!

Thank you so very much for sharing your experience. I'm angry this happened to you.

[Wiley50]

22. Clinton is the Populist "Face Man" for the Corporatists. BEWARE!

[rinsd]

25. And you appear to be focusing your ire on the wrong target

http://arthritis.about.com/cs/disability/a/clintonchanges.htm

[LoZoccolo]

48. Off ya go.

See you in 2008.

[bobbolink]

55. Some have no choice but to "give up"

It's one thing to advise people of that, and clearly you understand the stress to those who are already struggling with illness and stress.

However, it MUST be said that some have no choice. If you have already run through your bank balance, and have nothing left to live on, no place to live, and no food to eat, how are you supposed to "hang in there"?

The same was done, under the "Deficit Reduction Act" (does that name tell you anything???) by cutting off Social Security to many--probably thousands.

I was one of them. I had NO MONEY coming in, it took months and a lawyer to straighten it out, and the only way I survived was because someone took me in and fed me.

Would DUers have done that? Would any here take into their home someone who has been cut off, shelter and feed them when they had ZERO DOLLARS???

I'm still wondering how many people died from this, because it wasn't covered in the "news", and when I posted about it here, it got ZERO responses.

No interest.

It's only human life.

[Hamlette]

19. SSI is not "welfare reform" two different programs

I'm not going to defend SSI, it is a mess but it is not "welfare" nor was it part of "welfare reform"

I have worked as counsel for the welfare office in my state. The idea behind welfare reform is not a bad idea. It says: lets put money into the program up front and help people get into the labor market. States were left to design the program pretty much how they wanted. In some poor, (dare I say) red states, it was never as fully funded as it could have been. In other states it worked as it was intended IMHO. (Having read PRWORA, the welfare reform act of 1996 several times, it was my bible for years.)

[Wiley50]

26. All that's left of welfare is AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children

As a disabled guy with grown children
it didn't help me

There's a BIG HOLE to fall through

TN doesn't suppliment SSI like some states

[Hamlette]

30. you are right, there is no federal aid to families with no dependent children

it was left to the states. (Actually there is a tiny state supplement, you wouldn't "see" it as it is included in your check. It's like $3 a month, which is not even worth mentioning.)

[Wiley50]

32. Ge Thanks TN. Can I move to CA now?

I'd be getting about $1000/mo in CA

[sandnsea]

58. There never was

It was always assumed adults would either work or be on disability. The only program I remember back in the 80's was General Assistance and it was a teensy check and adults had to work for it. I don't know how bad it is now, but believe me, it was never good for adults without children. Even married couples with children have always had a hard time getting assistance, the system presumes one of them can get work, even if there aren't any jobs.

[eleny]

29. I have one major disagreement with your advocating the new system

Mothers on assistance have no choice in spending some formative years with their babies.

I will admit that I have forgotten exactly at what point a mother must either seek work or attend school. But it's when the children are very young. If I'm not mistaken, it's when the youngest child reaches age 1 or 2. Please shed some light on that. I retired in 1999 from Colorado Human Services and am fuzzy on that point.

Also, the day care funding was very low. So, as an advocate of children's welfare, I thought that the reform measures were out of the scope of my idea of a modern society that cherishes its own future. Herding little tykes into day care isn't always for the best, imo.

[Wiley50]

34. I support support for families with children

But those of us who are disabled
but are not 65 yet
fall through the hole
and are pretty much on our own

Fairness is needed

[bobbolink]

38. You're so right, and I thank you for speaking up!!

I'm so goddamned sick of Dems not giving a shit about us!!

THEN... compounding that with saying we don't vote, as if that would even be an excuse for torturing us with the shit that we live with!

Keep speaking up!! They MUST hear us!

[calimary]

51. That's about it. Upthread, the exortation from eleny - post 16 -

DO NOT give up. Keep speaking up, indeed!

Hopefully, we can finally see a correction ahead. It's been so lopsidedly against the increasingly desperate need of the "have nots" under this horrendous regime - for the sake of further benefitting bush's own al qaeda (which means "base" after all) - the "haves" and the "have mores." Hopefully, America has had a belly-full of the pain too many of our fellow citizens have endured since this ravenous bunch of pirates took over. I hope the change in Washington means people of TRUE compassion have taken over, and will actually make changes - and that the bad guys are so demoralized and in such disarray that they can't block our efforts anymore. THAT would be "fair and balanced," don't you think?

Don't forget, 'cause it's as true now as it ever was:

If they think you don't care, THEY WON'T, EITHER!!!

[bobbolink]

56. Of course I care, but I'm just one person. I Need Support On This!

Yesterday, I got soo fedup with hearing everyone listing their priorities of the new Congress, and not hearing anything about poverty being mentioned, that I finally took a deep breath and called in to my local Air America station.

When I expressed my frustration at poverty not being on anyone's list, she said, "I'm going to be honest with you and very blunt... poverty is not seen as important to people, and it isn't a sexy issue."

That's just what I've been saying here on DU for... how long now....and I either get no response to that, or I get told in so many words that I'm just feeling sorry for myself.

So, there it is... someone who works with this stuff at a national level sees the same thing I'm seeing.

My one voice counts for just about nothing.

Unless others decide that it's important that people not die in poverty, nothing will change.

[calimary]

61. But if your one voice isn't alone...

There are more of us pleading the poverty issue. You're NOT alone. And you're not the only one who cares.

But it is a problem that poverty is perceived as not terribly sexy. We need some sexy movie star or other celebrity to take up this issue. George Clooney has gotten into the Darfur crisis, for example. Hey, you never know.

But the one thing those of us to whom this issue matters must NOT do is give up and stop aggitating about it. I certainly don't intend to.

[bobbolink]

63. There are a handful of people on DU I"m grateful to for speaking out.

But, I know that you know that it's mostly a forgotten issue. I won't go into all that here.

And, yes, "stars" can advocate for Dafur, and related, because it's in another part of the world. I would be very surprised if he ever spoke out for those of us dying of poverty in the good ole US of A. It just doesn't happen.

While looking up poverty quotes one time, I came across something from a comedian whose name is now escaping me. He said that he cares about homelessness. I've kept that, as it might possibly come in handy at some point.

Dang.. the mind just won't cooperate. He used to be a standup comic, I think, then he was on Barney Miller. His character was rather a smartass detective, if I remember correctly. Does that ring any bells?

At any rate, he stands out in his uniqueness for caring about poverty here in Murka.

[hedgehog]

12. I remember being very dubious about Clinton when he got the

nomination in 1992, then very relieved by some of his campaign promises. I figured between the Child Tax Credit and the promise that college money would be around for kids who did volunteer work over the summers my family would be OK. Well, by the time the full child care credit kicked in, four of my kids were ineligible and I hate to tell you how much I've borrowed to send my kids to the state universities. Clinton was always a good talker, but I never saw him delver much. His failure to carry through disillusioned a lot of people about the entire political system, I'm afraid.

[David Zephyr]

14. They didn't "ram" it down his throat. He gladly signed it.

He pandered and caved in when he should have stood up to the bullies. I'm with Marian Wright Edelman and her husband, Peter, who showed real principle.

Bill Clinton did a horrible thing. No one forced him to do it.

"I worry deeply about the absence of a safety net for those children and families when an economic downturn comes," says Marian Wright Edelman, chairman of the Children's Defense Fund. Her husband, Peter Edelman, left a high-ranking post in the Clinton administration to protest welfare reform."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-22-welfare.htm

[bobbolink]

59. Thank you! Yes, what he did was horrible.

Those who are big fans of Clinton want him to be some vision of perfect, so they don't want to see what he did to poor people in general. That has been part of why poverty is NO LONGER a Dem priority, and I blame him for that.

He has blood on his hands the same as *!! Just different blood...

Thanks for the quotes by the Edelmans! :thumbsup:

:hi:

[Individualist]

24. That's a no brainer. He's DLC.

No one had to shove it down his throat.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Watch the last 2 episodes of season 3 of the West Wing

Or read The Conscience of a Liberal, written by the guy in your avatar. Raygun convinced the middle class that welfare queens take their hard earned money. Thus Clinton decided that he could win over middle class voters by "ending welfare as we know it". IMO, Welfare had some serious problems and reform was necessary, but without the healthcare coverage for all Americans that was supposed to pass as well, I think that it was morally reprehensible to pass that bill.

Clinton should've demanded that the GOP congress pass a healthcare package along with the Welfare Reform bill. Then he could accuse them of dragging their feet in the election when they refused.

[calimary]

62. That would have been a good move - FORCE the GOP congress`

to pass universal health care IN EXCHANGE for the welfare "reform" bill they wanted to badly. Make them give something if they're gonna get something. Quid pro quo. I'm reminded of another "West Wing" episode wherein these three televangelst extremists got their noses out of joint. They met with Toby and Josh insisting on apologies. They got those. Then the snippy, petty woman in the group blurts out - "okay, whaddo we get?"

Clinton should have done that. And as far as that "welfare queen" myth, that's ANOTHER buzz phrase bomb we absolutely HAVE TO diffuse. If I might humbly repost the following thread (which is now archived, but I still think it's worth revisiting) - for, well, shall we say, ideas on an "Extreme MEME-over"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2918082&mesg_id=2918082

This, IMHO, is work we simply MUST undertake. We have to counter-act some 26 YEARS of brainwashing that started with the accursed reagan era and the wording/reframing strategies of newt gangrene and frank luntz. They have a 26 YEAR head start. But that doesn't mean we just give up and let them rail away, unchallenged. We need to view this as something of a "50 State Strategy" of our own.

It's GOT to be done. Otherwise people will knee-jerk their way, subconsciously, into the same old cheapskate, stingey thinking that it's all about welfare queens and imaginary rip-off artists, instead of CONTRIBUTING TO THE COMMON GOOD.

[mitchum]

52. Because he's a judas goat with a DLC brand

[bobbolink]

60. **Are they better off? **

For those of you who insist on praising Clinton for this mess, look at this:

"Are they better off? Government statistics indicate that the decline in families living below the poverty line has not been nearly as steep as the decline in the welfare rolls. The number of welfare families dropped from 4.4 million in 1996 to 2.2 million last year. But the decline in the number of female-headed families living in poverty is less dramatic: from 3.8 million in 1996 to 3.1 million in 1999. "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-22-welfare.htm

IN other words, people were dropped from Welfare, and have no other means of support, but clearly didn't leave the poverty level!! WHat else does it take to get all of you who think this was so great to understand?

[bobbieinok]

64. republicans were furious in 96 - they claimed Bill stole their issue

As I recall, Dick Morris (who had been a republican advisor; who was caught with a prostitute) went to work for Bill to help him win in 96. Morris is apparently often on cable programs as a 'democratic party advisor,' which is very marginally 'true.'

Marian Wright Edelman's husband left Bill's team over his 'welfare reform.' Others did too. The whole welfare thing was an eery ghost at the 96 Democratic Convention.