Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Hillary called people on welfare "deadbeats" [View all]
To the left she was a traitor, willing to sell out the women and children she professed to care more about.
"There were people in the White House who said, 'just sign anything,' you know," the New York senator said in an interview. "And I thought that was wrong. We wanted to do it in a way that kept faith with our goals: End welfare as we know it, substitute dignity for dependence, but make work pay."
She sits now in the seat filled then by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y. The famous expert on poverty and welfare famously predicted that there would be deeper impoverishment, and greater suffering, of perhaps a million more children after welfare revision. Moynihan could not have foreseen the outcome: A robust economy that helped the legislation to work, just about the way it was supposed to.
The welfare rolls have been cut in half. Child poverty has dropped.
Poverty overall is down. Work, overall, is up.
"Now that we've said these people are no longer deadbeats -- they're actually out there being productive -- how do we keep them there?" Clinton said.
http://staugustine.com/stories/041602/opi_646964.shtml"There were people in the White House who said, 'just sign anything,' you know," the New York senator said in an interview. "And I thought that was wrong. We wanted to do it in a way that kept faith with our goals: End welfare as we know it, substitute dignity for dependence, but make work pay."
She sits now in the seat filled then by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y. The famous expert on poverty and welfare famously predicted that there would be deeper impoverishment, and greater suffering, of perhaps a million more children after welfare revision. Moynihan could not have foreseen the outcome: A robust economy that helped the legislation to work, just about the way it was supposed to.
The welfare rolls have been cut in half. Child poverty has dropped.
Poverty overall is down. Work, overall, is up.
"Now that we've said these people are no longer deadbeats -- they're actually out there being productive -- how do we keep them there?" Clinton said.
70 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
They used that to sell "progressive liberalisation" of services to the deveoping countries
Baobab
May 2016
#8
The plaintive, wholly unverified cry of an anonymous internet poster with a dash of
cali
May 2016
#59
probably not they have no shame. They are implying you are employed by David Brock
rbrnmw
May 2016
#63
I know. Let's export thousands of jobs and import millions of foreign workers. That will help poor
Akicita
May 2016
#33
That was the OLD Democratic Party. In the new, corporate-owned Democratic Party...
Yurovsky
May 2016
#64
Is there any reason you didn't boldface "Poverty overall is down" and "child poverty has dropped"?
YouDig
May 2016
#3
Because welfare reform was an attack on working class people and I wanted to bold that out.
Cheese Sandwich
May 2016
#7
Aha, the actual fact that poverty and child poverty dropped while employment went up is
YouDig
May 2016
#9
poverty goes up and down. Welfare reform was a structural change, permanent.
Cheese Sandwich
May 2016
#10
Well when Clinton was cutting welfare didn't he care that if the economy collapsed then people
Cheese Sandwich
May 2016
#14
His policies greatly reduced poverty. He couldn't forsee that Bush would wreck the economy after
YouDig
May 2016
#21
"couldn't forsee"? - The economy always goes up and down in cycles every few years. That's basic.
Cheese Sandwich
May 2016
#23
No, 10-years of decreasing and then 10 years increasing poverty is not predictable.
YouDig
May 2016
#36
PNTR was not passed until very late in the Clinton years. To be real it had a huge effect.
Cheese Sandwich
May 2016
#40
because bernie supporters don't care about helping the poor evidently, only nitpicking words.
MariaThinks
May 2016
#30
I didn't say that you were a deadbeat, nor the mother in NC. I doubt Clinton would either.
maxsolomon
May 2016
#54
Because it's so much better to sell out your country for millions.
Waiting For Everyman
May 2016
#12
Whatever. If you want to dance around it and try to justify it, go ahead.
Cheese Sandwich
May 2016
#37
You hate Reagan for "welfare queens" but jwirr can't similarly loathe Clinton for deadbeats?
riderinthestorm
May 2016
#68