Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:46 AM
TalkingDog (8,494 posts)
You're on your own, kids.
The death of American liberalism as a significant moral force can be traced to the point in 1996 when President Bill Clinton signed legislation that effectively ended the main federal anti-poverty program and turned the fate of welfare recipients, 70 percent of whom were children, over to the tender mercies of the states. With a stroke of the pen, Clinton eliminated what remained of New Deal-era compassion for the poor and codified into law the “tough love” callousness that his Republican allies in the Congress, led by Newt Gingrich, had long embraced.
The ensuing wave of state-imposed eligibility restrictions was designed to replace the war on poverty with a war on welfare recipients, with the result that in this time of economic crisis the poor have nowhere to turn. It also allowed states to play in a meanness derby, cutting the welfare rolls and forcing many of the desperate to cross state lines to locales where they might survive. “My take on it was the states would push people off and not let them back on, and that’s just what they did,” said Peter B. Edelman, who resigned from the Clinton administration over this issue and who told the Times for the recent article, “It’s been even worse than I thought it would be.”
During his campaign, Santorum, who on Tuesday dropped out as the standard-bearer for pro-life family values, turned to Clinton’s draconian welfare law as a source of deep spiritual guidance: “It didn’t just cut the rolls, but it saved lives” and granted the poor “something dependency doesn’t give: hope.”
Well, glory be, hope is on the rise. A recent and well-documented Indiana University study concludes that the number of Americans living beneath the poverty line has risen 27 percent during the recession, leaving 46 million former fetuses living large on a new hope diet.
1 replies, 569 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
You're on your own, kids. (Original post)
Response to TalkingDog (Original post)
Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:51 AM
TalkingDog (8,494 posts)
1. If you don't want to read the whole thing, I'll paraphrase the best line in the whole piece
so as not to break the 4 paragraph rule.
"We" means not only Pro-fetus/Anti-Child Republicans, but likewise those calling themselves "Progressives” instead of “Liberal”. Because a perception that one should be concerned for the poor stands in the way of their opportunistic politics.