2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Calls It: Hillary Clinton’s Support for Dismantling Welfare Created Rampant Poverty
Hugh Wharton | February 24, 2016
At a news conference on Wednesday in Columbia, South Carolina, Bernie Sanders criticized Hillary Clintons record on welfare reform, pointing to her support for a 1996 bill that he says was disastrous for poor families.
The bill dismantled the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and replaced it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The primary issues were that the new TANF program was not tied to inflation, had a five-year lifetime limit for recipients, and local governments could easily reallocate the funds for other state needs and ignore needy families.
Since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) has been passed, the number of families in extreme poverty has doubled, according to Sanders though some have claimed an increase as high as 150%.
As First Lady at the time, Clinton was instrumental in rounding up the votes to ensure the bills passage, which Bill Clinton signed into law.
Sanders also linked the subject of welfare reform and poverty to his fight for a higher minimum wage and his support for the $15 minimum wage. What we are going to do in this country if I have anything to say about it is to say if somebody works 40 hours a week, that person is not going to live in poverty. Today the minimum wage of $7.25 is nothing less than a starvation wage, he said.
In contrast, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly campaigned on only a $12 minimum wage increase, despite the $15 minimum wage being added as part of the official platform of the Democratic Party itself.
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-hits-hillary-clinton-on-welfare-reform-record/
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)He might even get another letter from David Brock tell him to knock it off
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Lol. They're something else.
840high
(17,196 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Pond Scum after what he did to Anita Hill to protect the Sexual Harasser Clarence Thomas. Did he think folks would just forget the 1990's?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)they would not be able to find him, because he his environment would be indistinguishable.
Chemisse
(30,821 posts)But it sure made it very hard for people to survive once they hit hard times.
charlespercydemocrat
(46 posts)I HOPE BERNIE SANDER WINS AND THINGS CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
MADem
(135,425 posts)twenty years?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Whatever she might have done.....
But she's no Hillary Clinton.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If I compare them at all, I'd say they did way more than most in that job in service to their nation, without a paycheck and with a lot of criticism, too.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)pureed like mashed potatoes!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)obsessed with wealth and power. $50,000,000 and counting. She supported the decision to dismantle welfare because she believes that people should learn to take care of themselves unless they are big banks.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Have a nice day, now...!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)by Big Money. I guess you side with Big Money. Most People in the world are uniting to fight the Oligarch run governments around the world. You can't continue to ignore the 16,000,000 American children living in poverty while HRC rakes in 50 million dollars from corporations and billionaires for services rendered or promised.
"Have a nice day, now...!" Really? You think being rude is cute? I see it as childish.
MADem
(135,425 posts)respond to your goading/baiting and inventive descriptions.
If I were being rude, I wouldn't have encouraged you to have a nice day--I would have said something that was actually rude.
It's an encouragement, not an order, though--if you don't want to have a nice day, have a crappy one. Makes no difference to me.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)with this all my life. You are not very good at it actually.
Sad that rudeness is all you have to try to distract from the fact that you are on the wrong side of this class war. If you think that the Goldman-Sachs god will trickle-down you, I think you are in for a shock. The Oligarchy doesn't love you.
Change sides, support the 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty in lieu of the Goldman-Sachs god.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Your accusations toward me, though--repeatedly, as you're doing--they might be viewed as rude.
"The oligarchy doesn't love you." Real sweet of you to tell me! Good thing I wasn't looking for their love! LOL!
I like the side I'm on--it's looking like a winner from where I sit.
Have a nice evening!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Hate to tell you but the People will prevail.
MADem
(135,425 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)anyone believes that a Goldman-Sachs presidency will actually help the 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty.
So let's guess why you choose the Oligarchy. Maybe you are comfortable with the status quo, but afraid to admit it.
Maybe you actually think that the Oligarchy knows what's best for us peons. Or maybe you support the trickle-down theory.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)a qualification for presidency. But if she does, we'll examine what she supported openly.
You can't have it both ways.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'd probably vote for her.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)enid602
(8,662 posts)Hen why isn't bringing back Aid for Dependants with Children part of his platform?
zentrum
(9,866 posts)dr60omg
(283 posts)He wants to make sure all Americans have access to health care as a right. He also wants to make sure that all Americans have access to child care (as in other countries) and that there is family leave time. Most of all he is demanding a living wage of 15 dollars an hour ... maybe people would not have suffered so horribly if the Clintons did not do what they did to poor families with children
senz
(11,945 posts)He voted against it and called it the grand slam of scapegoating legislation, correctly noting that it appeals to the frustrations and ignorance of the American people along a wide spectrum of prejudices.
Bernie is nearly always on the right side of the issues.
He'd make a great president.
madokie
(51,076 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)When he is elected our work will double. The Wealthy Fat Cats will throw everything at him. If one thinks that Obama got it hard from them it will be nothing like a real progressive.
Broward
(1,976 posts)on all aspects of her terrible track record.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Finally showed some spine in the last debate by bringing up the topic of HRC's admiration of Kissinger. Needs to keep swinging some sharp elbows. Hillary's campaign certainly isn't holding anything back.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Sorry, that horse won't trot.
senz
(11,945 posts)Didn't read the OP?
Now get on that horse and ride it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Let's just say that anyone can post anything online.
senz
(11,945 posts)That's where uncut got it from.
Here, read it yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/24/bernie-sanders-ties-hillary-clinton-to-poverty-caused-by-welfare-reform/
Oh, I know: you'll say, "The NYTimes? That's no good, I won't listen to that." Right?
Well why don't you just accept reality? Y'all love to count Hill's 8 years as FLOTUS on her "resume." So take the good with the bad.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)good-paying jobs, dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline, and remove barriers to sustainable home ownership.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/24/bernie-sanders-ties-hillary-clinton-to-poverty-caused-by-welfare-reform/
Sounds like a strong endorsement.
senz
(11,945 posts)trying to obfuscate the issue with a bunch of boilerplate Hill campaign verbiage.
And that's your "strong endorsement?"
Now don't be clutching at straws.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)There's the difference.
senz
(11,945 posts)for you:
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/22/john_lewis_staunchly_opposed_the_clintons_gutting_of_welfare_in_1996_yet_now_endorses_hillary_and_slams_sanders/
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)You and all the other DUers for Sanders who are so incredibly well-informed and so quick on the uptake when these muddle-headed Clinton supporters trip over their "talking points."
The difference is very telling!
Thank you for this particular exchange and for all your efforts to inform and educate!
senz
(11,945 posts)I learned what little I know of verbal sparring from watching a great master, beam me up scottie.
But your kindness is very much appreciated.
amborin
(16,631 posts)http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/12/how-bill-clintons-welfare-reform-created-a-system-rife-with-racial-biases/
would make a good OP to explain just how it so badly impacted black children
MADem
(135,425 posts)Blatantly partisan, and proud of it!
I wonder who thought that name was a good idea? It sounds a bit like a sex site catering to specific tastes, or something.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 368
You're welcome.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)is Camp Weathervane *really* trying to deny that she was instrumental in getting the bill to pass? *Really*?
noamnety
(20,234 posts)"Ive advocated tying the welfare payment to certain behavior about being a good parent. You couldnt get your welfare check if your child wasnt immunized. You couldnt get your welfare check if you didnt participate in a parenting program. You couldnt get your check if you didnt show up for student-teacher conferences."
appalachiablue
(41,188 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Her state department would not support efforts to raise the Haitian minimum wage to 65 cents an hour, because of the giant corporations that use Haitian labor to manufacture goods for export.
Imagine that. But it gets worse.
The Clinton Foundation solicited hundreds of millions of dollars for Haiti relief for displaced people. What was done with that money? Well, $175 million of it built a luxury hotel.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Everybody lived in mansions and drove around in Lincoln Town Cars.
Biggest problem anyone had was finding spaces to park those big babies when we went out to buy diamonds and caviar.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You really should get the talking points straight..
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Hill folk are discarding it because they don't like the source.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/24/bernie-sanders-ties-hillary-clinton-to-poverty-caused-by-welfare-reform/
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,506 posts)Thanks for the thread, amborin.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)according to David Brock.
By the way, my ears did indeed perk up when I heard that... and I have not been feeling well
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)and is what happens when Dems "triangulate" with the Third Way Koch Bros.
wing of what used to be the Democratic Party.
It is a fact that extreme poverty increased after "end welfare as we
know it" was enacted.
And yes, Bernie should do more of this.
The TPP is a really important issue in part because it is where
the left and right can agree. It is a wedge issue for us.
Bernie should be hammering on it as every opportunity.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)She's already triangulated away from the dems on minimum wage.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)International Business Times, 7-28-14
Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren: Big Differences, Despite Claims To The Contrary
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-big-differences-despite-claims-contrary-1640810
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)The suicide rate is off the charts.
In my city every so often you bear of homeless stepping in front of trains.
TheFarseer
(9,328 posts)We've got to 1. Get high paying jobs back in the country and to stop leaving. 2. Do something to make child care more affordable for people that want to work. I don't think the answer is to mandate that low skilled jobs are suddenly high paying jobs. I think minimum wage should be raised but to more than double it, I think, is a bad idea. Additionally, a safety net is completely necessary, but the true path to wealth is to get back in the work force eventually and get a good job.