Pocahontas? So What?

[scottw]

you can never have enough "programs"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So when President Bill Clinton kicked millions of people off welfare, was he widely regarded by liberals as not wanting to help poor people? Or, again, is it only immoral when conservatives do it?

you should read the article I linked...that guy clearly has it figured out....you dump a ton of money in the community...give everyone a guaranteed income "a regular check from the government with no strings attached".... give everyone free or subsidized housing and other amenities including a car, a "a jobs guarantee: using federal finance"...set up accounts for them and put money in there for them and give them bonuses if they use it properly...for new arrivals...a "stocked" investment account upon birth...and viola!...no more poverty....I like it...never been tried before

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You do know that when Clinton "kicked" people off welfare he put in other programs to help them vs the items that I mentioned above which will be replaced by what?

Yes, and the program that he sent those people to, was called "your free ride is over, now go get a job in the private sector, which is booming thanks to the fact that I slashed taxes".

Paul, his welfare reform, helped REDUCE spending, and generate a surplus. If he merely moved those people from one public program to another, it wouldn't have saved us money.

Sorry to interrupt a good liberal rant with facts.

[PaulS]

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Paul is right, and millions of people simply moved from one federal entitlement program to another, how did it decrease spending and generate a surplus?

His welfare reform wasn't called "moving people from one federal program to another". It was, literally, called "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act".

The point was to recognize that people on welfare too long, lose the initiative to work.

And it worked. Clinton and Gingrich did an amazing job.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said Clinton's welfare reform just switched people from one program to another. That's not remotely true. You made it up. His program said that no one could receive welfare for more than 2 consecutive years, and no more than 5 years of benefits in a lifetime, and required that recipients be looking for work. His program moved many people from welfare to the workforce. Most people consider that a good thing.

[scottw]

have they announced the ceremony date yet to give Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Russell Simmons, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, John Conyers, Charlie Rose...it's hard to keep up,,, and anyone else... their lifetime achievement awards?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, indeed. I said that the point of the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform was to get people off federal assistance, you and Paul disagree, and I am the one in denial.

I’m a republican. Yet I can admit that Bill Clinton did some things that were extremely beneficial to the country. You say that’s devoid of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

this is good....


Cherokee genealogists have pored through her family history to find that “None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears.” To add insult to injury, despite Warren’s public claims of Native American heritage, she has decidedly avoided talking with Native leaders and, in 2012, refused to meet with a group of Cherokee women at the Democratic National Convention.

https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-...-c1ec6c91b696/