HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Hillary Clinton (Group) » Some Facts About the 1996...

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 07:01 AM

Some Facts About the 1996 Welfare Reform Act

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

First it was not a Bill Clinton bill like Sanders and other Clinton critics would have people believe. It was the brainchild of Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich.

Second Bill Clinton vetoed two previous bills that came to his desk to sign. He held out for three much needed amendments. Just what were those additions?

Foodstamps-Clinton managed to preserve national standards and the guarantee that the poor will obtain food stamps. Congress had called for letting the states do whatever they wanted with food stamp money and program eligibility requirements.


Child Care - Clinton succeeded in strengthening day care support for children of welfare recipients. Congress had been demanding much deeper cuts.


Medicaid - Clinton demanded and won the fight to guarantee Medicaid coverage, which generally helps the disabled and poor children. Congress wanted to let states do whatever they wanted with Medicaid, including taking Medicaid funds and using them for other purposes.


I am not here to defend the bill but it was going to pass and with enough votes to override his veto. If the Clinton's cared so little about the non rich why did they fight so hard to include the above provisions.

See the linked post here:
http://nwcitizen.com/oldsite/usa/welfare-reform.html

21 replies, 2759 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Some Facts About the 1996 Welfare Reform Act (Original post)
Tommy2Tone Feb 2016 OP
Cha Feb 2016 #1
Snarkoleptic Feb 2016 #2
Lucinda Feb 2016 #4
Snarkoleptic Feb 2016 #5
Lucinda Feb 2016 #6
Snarkoleptic Feb 2016 #7
Lucinda Feb 2016 #8
pandr32 Feb 2016 #14
Snarkoleptic Feb 2016 #15
Tommy2Tone Feb 2016 #10
romana Feb 2016 #11
Lucinda Feb 2016 #12
Tommy2Tone Feb 2016 #13
Lucinda Feb 2016 #16
Snarkoleptic Feb 2016 #17
wysi Feb 2016 #18
Snarkoleptic Feb 2016 #19
DemonGoddess Feb 2016 #20
Snarkoleptic Feb 2016 #21
Lucinda Feb 2016 #3
Starry Messenger Feb 2016 #9

Response to Tommy2Tone (Original post)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 07:23 AM

1. Mahalo for this enlightening OP, Tommy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy2Tone (Original post)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 08:56 AM

2. So he misplaced his veto pen the third time this turd landed on his desk?

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snarkoleptic (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 09:05 AM

4. It says they had enough votes to override his veto, so he added what protections he could. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 09:42 AM

5. Whatever happened to taking a principled stand?

Would it have been so bad to veto, let Republicans fight to override and have them own this?
I think not.

Not everything should be up for negotiation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snarkoleptic (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 09:48 AM

6. Good grief. He managed to protect food stamps, childcare, and medicaid.

You would have let all those people suffer? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 09:52 AM

7. Ah, the old "half a loaf" argument.

As I said, not everything should be up for negotiation.
If the republiClowns wanted it that badly, make them fight for, and own it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snarkoleptic (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 09:53 AM

8. No thanks. I don't agree with playing games with peoples lives. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:52 AM

14. Exactly!

I think these lurkers have little idea about what they are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 01:57 PM

15. Bill apparently did, which is why he campaigned on "ending welfare as we know it".

Had he vetoed the thing, the override would have given us exactly what we got, but the albatross would hang around the necks of Gingrich and his merry band of miscreants.
It landed on his desk during a re-election cycle, so he signed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:06 AM

10. Fight the good fight?

I just don't get the Bernie fans?

They were going to destroy food stamps and medicaid. This mentality is why we can't elect Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy2Tone (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:08 AM

11. Ideological purity

Ideological purity is great in abstraction, but the minute you insist on applying it to the real world people suffer. Not worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy2Tone (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:12 AM

12. Representative Government. We have it, some don't seem to know what it is.

We don't always get everything we want, by design.

Never thought I would ever hear someone on DU basically say to throw those poor suffering people to the curb. And the other guys can own it!

Sure don't want a POTUS that would ever consider it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:20 AM

13. Yes and they ignore the 22 million jobs the Clinton's created

Oh and I say the Clinton's because if they are going to blame Hillary for every thing Bill did then I give her credit for all the great things he did.

Also during their eight years more people moved above the poverty line since they have been keeping track.

I know that doesn't fit the right wing talking points narrative that are used here at DU but those pesky facts get in the way of their arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy2Tone (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 02:00 PM

16. Facts ARE tricksy things some times!

And I'm with you, if she's getting the blame, I'm giving her the credit too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 02:10 PM

17. Had the pugs overriden Clintons veto, we would have gotten the same bill we ended up with.

The only difference would be that THEY would own it. Not sure how that's me advocating "throw those poor suffering people to the curb".
Bill campaigned on "ending welfare as we know it" and was out of political room to stall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snarkoleptic (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 04:39 PM

18. You're wrong

As Tommy outlined above, the provisions protecting food stamps, Medicare and child care for welfare recipients would not have been part of it had they overridden the veto. Medicare (for example) would now be a relic of the past in red states, replaced with nothing, had that Congress gotten what they wanted.

This kind of compromise is how representative government, or at least responsible representative government, works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wysi (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 07:10 PM

19. Oh, I see now...

Protecting entitlement programs by cutting them, sounds reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snarkoleptic (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 07:39 PM

20. Surely you're aware

that the people who make use of these programs don't generally feel entitled to them. I speak from experience. We hit a bad patch, and ended up applying. I reported everything I made, of course, so as things started turning better, I got less and less of my "entitlement". Let me tell you something. It is unpleasant to have to live your life under a microscope because you are trying to get assistance for your children. Sure, as with anything, there are going to be people who abuse the system. The system which is set up to HELP those who are in need. A few bad apples do not make the rest of the people who've ever had to do this, entitled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemonGoddess (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 11:05 PM

21. Surely you're aware

that I'm defending these programs, while apologists up-thread are making excuses for Bill Clinton campaigning for, and following-through on massive cuts to them.

In this context, entitlement is a government program guaranteeing access to some benefit by members of a specific group and based on established rights or by legislation.
Somehow "the very serious people" have decided that entitlement is a dirty word and benefits must be undermined and/or eliminated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy2Tone (Original post)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 09:01 AM

3. Thank you very much! Great information!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy2Tone (Original post)

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 09:58 AM

9. It really was a shitty Congress.

They gutted the National Endowment of the Arts too--Clinton managed to hang on to community arts funding, but grants to individual artists were halted. Not as life-endangering as the cuts outlined in the OP, but I just wanted to add to the flavor of the times. The Reaganites were still driving their agendas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread