2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe WORST THING Hillary Clinton Has Ever Done
"..Today, over two decades later, Hillary Clintons policies remain conservative. She continues to sit at the right-wing of the Democratic Party. Clinton may have claimed in the debate that she is a progressive, but her actions have long contradicted her words..."
Politicians are often said to be skilled in the art of talking out of both sides of their mouths. This was exemplified in the first 2015 Democratic presidential debate, on the evening of Oct. 13. When asked which enemy he was most proud of, former Maryland Governor Martin OMalley boldly declared the NRA. The problem is OMalley took $40,000 from the NRA in 2012, according to disclosures obtained by The Intercept. Yet OMalley is not the only candidate who says one thing and does another.
This is true Clinton not only worked with Childrens Defense Fund (CDF), a non-profit advocacy organization that seeks to help American youth; she served as the head of its board. Later in the debate amid her hawkish rhetoric Clinton twice more mentioned her work with CDF, wielding it as an example of her purportedly progressive policies. The problem with Clintons claims, however, is that she betrayed children as First Lady. Under the guise of welfare reform, the Clinton administration worked with Republicans to gut social services, ignoring their own senior officials warnings that, by doing so, they would be plunging over a million children into poverty. Bill Clinton ran in 1992 on the campaign promise to end welfare as we know it. In 1996, he with the wholehearted support of Hillary succeeded, passing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA). PRWORA was based on legislation first proposed by Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. The act was opposed by the left-wing of the Democratic Party, but the Clinton administration joined hands with Republicans and conservative Democrats to push it through.
As part of PRWORA, the Clinton administration axed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children federal assistance program, which had been created 61 years before by the Social Security Act, in the New Deal. They replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which was drastically weaker and as the name stresses temporary. Hillary, as First Lady, advocated strongly for the restructuring of welfare. Her former co-workers at CDF, on the other hand, were infuriated. CDF founder and President Marian Wright Edelman declared that President Clintons signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children. Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics, the CDF president told Democracy Now in a 2007 interview. At the time, CDF profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so, Marian Wright Edelman explained.
Three senior officials on welfare policy resigned from the Clinton administration in response to Bill and Hillarys scrapping of welfare. Peter Edelman, a legal scholar who at the time served as an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, told The New York Times, I have devoted the last 30-plus years to doing whatever I could to help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in the opposite direction. Wendell Primus, another high-ranking official in the department, quit in protest as well. A scientific study he had overseen showed that, because of PRWORA, more than a million children would fall into poverty. Peter Edelman disclosed that this study was personally handed to President Clinton, but was ignored. To remain in the Clinton administration then, Primus maintained, would be to disown all the analysis my office has produced regarding the impact of the bill.
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/the_worst_thing_hillary_clinton_has_ever_done/
marym625
(17,997 posts)Kick to the moon!
No Child Left Behind. That says everything I need to know
Okay, not everything but certainly very important
Segami
(14,923 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)when she was First Lady. My history teacher, a yellowdog Democrat who could hardly hide his glee at Nixon's imminent downfall during the Watergate Hearings that we watched in class, and who took me to my first Jefferson-Jackson Day picnic, was absolutely livid about Hillary's "meddling", as he put it. Apparently, he was told that his classes, which were taught in large part based on contemporary letters, newspaper articles, photographs, etc., had to follow an approved textbook, which, of course, leaves out a lot of embarassing or otherwise unwhitewashed details.
marym625
(17,997 posts)You should do an OP about this. People need to know she has changed one iota. And that's not good.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And wasn't it veto-proof?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"It Takes a Village" spent a decent amount of time talking up how great it was to not be on government assistance.
As for veto-proof, that was after Bill Clinton backed it. It's not clear it would have been veto-proof if Bill Clinton opposed it.
And "but I'd take political damage when they override my veto" is a pretty weak defense for impoverishing tens of millions.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And then went on to create 25 million jobs.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)As for this:
Nope. The dot-com boom did. Bill Clinton had the fortune of being in office when boom happened, and to be leaving office as it busted.
To claim Bill Clinton created those jobs is a bit like claiming "Reagan created 1 million jobs in one month". It's an often-repeated talking point from the right. But 700,000 of those jobs were the end of a strike, not newly employed people.
If you want to give Bill Clinton credit for the dot-com boom jobs, you also have to give him credit for all the job losses in the dot-com bust. You also have to credit Reagan for those 1 million jobs.
Bernie voted to protect the gun industry. THE GUN INDUSTRY!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)against the pile of bodies from poverty to see which is more horrific.
And keep in mind, many you want to put in the first pile belong in the second.
Both Clintons loved the idea of killing welfare. Tens of millions are suffering and dying for it. Once you do that, you no longer have the moral authority to lecture others.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Allllllll the way down in paragraph 2.
What would you like to change the subject to this time? How about bombing the Serbs? You could bring it up while not being aware of any statements Hillary Clinton made about it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)More nefarious than 33,000 gun deaths a year. Wait, no, that's not hilarious. It's sad. "Piles of bodies".
Gee, he created 25 million jobs.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And that's without looking into how many of those 33,000 died due to poverty.
Here's the source for 45,000 poverty deaths per year. You might recognize the author.
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=ab15c0c2-3b58-4382-a98c-6c5a20c227d2
Already covered. He was in office at the right time. You can't cite any specific policy that actually created the dot-com boom. You're also neglecting to subtract the jobs lost due to the dot-com bust.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)The poster with which you are "debating" has a problem with facts.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)No, but Bernie's vote is in fact helping the gun industry immune from 33,000 deaths a year.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He also increased the 33,000 you are so upset about. It's hard to have people dying due to guns used in a turf war between rival gangs when people are not turning to gangs out of poverty-induced desperation. And thanks to tough-on-crime and drug war legislation championed by the Clintons, those gangs needed a lot of recruits.
As for the supposed immunity, you have the problem that a manufacturer of a non-defective, legal product is not liable when that product is used to kill people. Whether it's a washing machine or a gun.
The plan was to file a lot of SLAPP lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The suits would all fail, because the gun manufacturer isn't liable - the gun wasn't defective, it had plenty of safety warnings, and it was sold to a licensed dealer. But somehow, the expense of defending against the suits would magically put all gun manufacturers on the planet out of business.
The people behind this plan also neglected to deal with actually paying for these lawsuits, or any successful counter-suits. Essentially meaning their plan was to visit financial ruin on people already devastated by a gun death. Because nothing says compassion like destroying someone's life twice.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And poverty rates plummeted.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Bill Clinton managed to not have to "pay the piper" while he was in office. That doesn't mean his acts ended when he left office.
And Bernie's magic wand will cure poverty.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Eventually, you might be willing to take that step.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Soul crushing poverty, eating restaurant patron leftovers to graduating college with 2 degrees in economics and one in film. I know a thing or 2 about poverty. Have a nice day.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And given your utter unfamiliarity with poverty statistics and the welfare reform law you are supporting, you better brush off the statistics from that econ degree.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)good work.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....other than by suicide.
I never thought I'd see the day on Democratic Underground where a person would show a preference between one form of death and another.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Add up other causes that take a lot longer than malnutrition, and it's 45,000 people per year dying from poverty.
Well, that's what happens when you try to pivot to gun deaths when one's "destroying welfare was great!!" talking point doesn't pan out.
George II
(67,782 posts)"I will gladly measure the piles of bodies from the gun industry against the pile of bodies from poverty to see which is more horrific."
So you're trading the lives of 10,000+ per year for 1800, using some created statement that I never said, "destroying welfare was great!!".
And it's not even close to the 45,000 - if you checked the link I gave you, the rate of death in the US due to "malnutrition" (which actually isn't even just starvation but bad diets due to culture) is 0.58 per 100,000. Assuming 320,000,000 people in the US, that calculates to 1,856.
But it's ludicrous to even attempt to equate or rate the types of deaths as you did:
"I will gladly measure the piles of bodies from the gun industry against the pile of bodies from poverty to see which is more horrific."
So you'd gladly see 10,000 people shot to death in lieu of 1,856 people dead due to malnutrition.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I know, it's hard to wrap your head around the idea that not everyone is talking only with you.
JaneyVee was claiming welfare reform was great. When that didn't pan out, she tried to change the subject to guns. Problem is 33,000 people die per year from guns, and 45,000 people die per year from poverty. And that 33,000 includes a lot of poverty-caused gun deaths - people turning to crime in desperation.
Then you showed up to be the white knight, along with numbers!! Small numbers to prove how evil everyone else is!! Because according to you, the only way to die from poverty is malnutrition. Lack of medical care? More polluted environment? Higher risk automobiles? Higher risk jobs? Nah, the only way for poverty to shorten a life is to starve to death.
George, you are making an incredibly dumb argument in an attempt to rescue another incredibly dumb argument.
As for 45,000, the study is linked above. If you'd bothered to read the thread before riding in on your white horse, you might have found out why it wasn't only deaths from malnutrition.
George II
(67,782 posts)Christopher Harper-Mercer was not living in poverty nor were his victims
Adam Lanza was not living in poverty nor were his victims
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not living in poverty nor were their victims
Jared Loughner was not living in poverty nor were his victims
James Holmes was not living in poverty nor were his victims
Dylann Roof was not living in poverty nor were his victims
I could go on, but blaming gun deaths and gun violence on poverty is, as you termed it, incredibly dumb (psst, "dumb" means unable to speak!).
In many of those cases and more, the perpetrator was actually fairly well off as were their victims.
It's been fun....................belay that, no it hasn't.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)job of reducing poverty or gun deaths, you are sadly mistaken. We are where we are because of the conservative billionaires and their puppets. Why you want to continue that is beyond comprehension.
A Goldman-Sachs sponsored Admin will not give a crap about gun deaths or poverty.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)who could be in the cabinet!!! Its been said more than once that if Hillary took a dislike to you, you had to go.
She was given a marquee humanitarian cause (healthcare) as her public policy face while she exerted her Goldwater Republican values on policy behind the scenes.
Bill even boasted that America gets "two for the price of one", that Hillary was essentially Co-President.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)Eliminating the safety net for Lillie Harden did not transform her family the way Clinton boasted. The pride she had in getting a job gave way to the harsh socioeconomic realities of her life.
The same was true for many others across the countrythe loss of government aid did not instantaneously create living wage jobs with benefits, but rather sunk them further into poverty..."
Hydra
(14,459 posts)In no better way could the RW Third Wayer's BS be summed up- they sold that woman out and increased crime at the same time...just to push a BS meme that being a mother is not enough, you have to be a wage slave to feel good about yourself.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,138 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Hmm...
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Of course, spanking does rhyme with banking.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But, that is okay because he won't win the primary and we can finally get something done about guns in this country.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)whom?
Unknown Beatle
(2,677 posts)So you'll vote for someone that is one of many that is responsible for going to war with Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But you won't vote for someone that you say is a gun nut?
Wow, nice priorities you have there.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)Without any links or proof this is just a bunch of guilt by association bs.
Not to mention that childhood poverty actually decreased in the 90's.
So you have any actual FACTS to back up your hit job?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)'Cause it has a lot to say about how important it is to not be on government handouts...
(In addition to a raft of public statements, and including it's "success" in her 2008 campaign)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Ya'll act like people prefer handouts over work. Work gives you Social Security, a pension, and a stable retirement.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)'Cause that "government handouts bad" talking point would be quite at home there.
We offshored a huge swath of the good-paying jobs in this country, thanks to policies like NAFTA. (Who signed that again?)
Government handouts were all that kept poverty from being far more destructive and deadly. And then people like the Clintons worked hard to take those evil, socialist government handouts away.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Or are 45 million people just too lazy to live?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Because they use safety nets when needed. Your comments perpetuate the myth of permanent class of people living on welfare with no desire to work.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The vast majority of that 45 million are the same ones from last year, and will be the same ones next year.
Also, Bill Clinton's plan has a lifetime cap on benefits. Which means if you manage to work out of poverty, but fall back in later, you have no safety net. Guess what happens to the majority of people who manage to work their way out of poverty?
No, that would be your position. That's why you keep talking about 'people who need it' and your ludicrous claim that people do not remain in poverty.
We either need much higher pay, or we need a massive welfare system. And much higher pay is a short-term stopgap before automation strips us of most jobs.
But that's the future. This thread is about what Bill Clinton did, and Hillary Clinton supported.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)You can't say there's a lifetime limit while saying it's not fluid. Obviously people are going in and out of the system. If not the number would be 200 million by now don't you think?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)
If 30 million people are in poverty their entire lives, why would that now mean there are 200 million people in poverty? There's still 30 million.
Poverty is so stable it is generational - people in poverty tend to have children who remain in poverty. Only a small portion manage to work their way out of poverty and stay out of poverty.
So you are completely unfamiliar with poverty statistics and TANF.
The law places a 5-year lifetime limit on what used to be welfare. And the vast majority of people below the poverty line stay there. That's kinda why TANF was a really bad idea.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)get good jobs and off welfare using welfare-to-work. It didn't work in many other cases because the GOP did not live up to their promises to fund the necessary programs to make it work. It is still a great idea to be off welfare...or else why are ALL the politicians talking about raising wages and creating jobs to move people up the economic ladder? More wealth for minorities was created under the Clinton administration than the past decade preceding his terms in office.
And if you read Hillary's book you might come to the conclusion that it does take a village to raise children in a good sound environment...but the village is missing.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)but we don't have higher wages. Instead, we cut welfare as if we had higher wages, and eagerly awaited for the higher wage fairy.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Welfare was cut when we didn't have (and still don't have) living wages.
The charade that was played out in order to cut welfare went against the studies cited in the OP. We KNEW what the outcome would be.
Bill and Hillary sounded EXACTLY like right-wing Republicans when they pushed this welfare reform through in the '90's. They used their language to do it.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)... and did NOT increase child poverty ...
What would you call it?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The time limit expired after Bill Clinton left office. Stats during Bill Clinton's term don't show what happened.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)All you've got so far is words from your keyboard which ain't no better than words from my keyboard. I included a graph which charts childhood poverty which stayed under its 1993 peak through 2013. So far you can't touch that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And keep in mind, roughly 1992-2000 was the dot-com boom, when incomes actually went up.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)... went up 1% over the next few years and then dropped again, and leveled off for a couple of years until the great recession hit.
1. that's pretty good and probably a reasonable fluctuation.
2. You've got nothing linking that to BILL Clinton's policies (much less Hillary's).
3. In the 10 years since the reforms poverty, dropped and ended up a full percentage point lower. That's 2 drops and 1 increase.
3.a So why is that bad?
3.b And if their policies had such a great effect on poverty, why don't the Clintons get credit for the 2 drops?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)politics, politics....you can call it love, I suppose....love of money, power and domination.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)jalan48
(13,968 posts)What was it Freud said about feces and money?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)elleng
(131,861 posts)he 'took' from NRA as Chair of Dem GOVERNOR's Association!
'The fundraising took place while OMalley served as the chairman of Democratic Governors Association, a nonprofit group designed to help elect Democrats win statehouses. OMalley led the DGA as its top fundraiser and was retained as finance chair following his term as chair.'
Relevant fact HERE: 'OMalley said that as governor of Maryland, he signed gun control legislation by leading with principle, not pandering to the NRA.'
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Push number N4 and you get......
Push number A14 and you get....
Push number C26 and you get....
Push number N4 again, and you get... N4 again, just like the last time...carbon copy, or rather a ripped copy. :> )
Divernan
(15,480 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Gonzalo
(13 posts)It is getting interesting and closer.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Light and breezy with just a hint of ego maniacal oligarch!!! SENSATIONAL!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Bring in the spouses of the candidates. Now it must be time to get on with the show.
Oh, BTW, bookmarking for later reference.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Yep, the same Koch brothers who's father built his financial empire on Joseph Stalin's money that Fred Koch did business with.
And they tell us they think that Bernie is such an unelectable candidate just because he's a "socialist" even if he had less connections with communist DICTATOR Joseph Stalin than the Republicans and DLC Democrats do.
pnwmom
(109,049 posts)It was more progressive than Obama's or Biden's or Kerry's.
And Biden and Kerry joined her in voting for the IWR. Obama didn't have to be concerned about that vote because he wasn't in the Senate yet.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)RandySF
(60,784 posts)Bernie is a much better man than many of his supporters deserve.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)she would have been asked, after mentioning The Children's Defense Fund, why she worked so hard to go against the goals of that Organization using her status as First Lady to do so, boasting that he had 'worked hard to get the votes needed to pass the poverty inducing Welfare Reform Bill.
Followed by the question 'why did you NOT listen to those who provided with evidence that this bill would plummet even more Children into poverty'?
And we still don't know where she stands on that Republican legislation today.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)Married Bill.