Hillary Clinton’s Family Values

[Cheese Sandwich]

Hillary Clinton’s support for policies like welfare reform belie her claim to be a champion of children.

Hillary Clinton is well-versed in child welfare issues, having devoted much of her career to them, and her views, at first glance, seem progressive. Her popular 1996 book, It Takes a Village, starts from the premise that “children will thrive only if their families thrive and if the whole of society cares enough to provide for them.” She emphasizes the need to give parents “the physical, financial, and emotional support they need to raise children well,” and argued that government “cannot retreat from its historic obligations to the poor and vulnerable.”

But these words are difficult to reconcile with Clinton’s actions in her long political career. Most troublesome is her support for the 1996 “welfare reform” act, which replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

In a chapter she wrote for a 1979 book on children’s rights, she urges the development of “a family policy in this country that provides stigma-free assistance to families in trouble.” Yet TANF is one of the most stigmatizing programs we have.

Under TANF, many states maintain a “family cap” rule, which denies benefits to any additional children born to a mother receiving assistance from the program. For “approved” children, arbitrary time limits are placed on the receipt of benefits, regardless of whether their needs outlast the time limits. And if mothers fail to comply with job-training, job search, and work requirements, it is their children who see their benefits reduced or get kicked off the program.
...

more: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/hillary-clintons-presidential-election-takes-village/

[MineralMan]

1. So Hillary's support for SCHIP and CHIP was of no importance?

Really? This is a hit piece on Hillary that ignores her many initiatives in support of children. I'm sure you know better than this.

If not, you should take the time to learn better.

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. As a Hillary Clinton supporter you must know that she has certain flaws like supporting TANF

welfare reform. I'm sure you know no candidate is perfect. You can admit that Clinton has this as part of her history.

This is nothing like a "hit piece". It's a perfectly well reasoned criticism written by a retired professor who has spent his entire life studying child welfare and welfare policy.

[MineralMan]

3. If all you list is something with which you disagree, then you

are not being honest. That is the case with this article.

And, for your information, I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter. I will, however support Clinton if she is the nominee. I will also defend Democrats against biased articles in the media.

There is no candidate with whom I agree 100%. Never has been. Never will be. I'm a Democrat, though, so I support Democrats, and will never present biased, partial reports on any Democrat. That's what this article is.

[Cheese Sandwich]

5. Nice try changing the subject to distract away from Hillary's support of this vile welfare reform

[MineralMan]

6. Screw that.

Those who publish hit pieces against someone who is very likely to be the Democratic nominee for President are not my friends.

Does Hillary Clinton have faults? Of course she does. This is from 1996. She's done many other things since then that have demonstrated her concern for children's welfare and well-being. Ignoring those for something that happened almost 20 years ago is the worst sort of crap I can imagine.

People who only post negative information are doing a disservice to the Democratic Party. We are going to have a difficult enough time in 2016 without sabotaging our own party. I often question the actual political position of those who don't recognize that.

Hillary Clinton will probably be the Democratic nominee for President. Who will you support then?

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. I see negative threads and hit pieces against Bernie Sanders here every day.

Do you leap to his defense ?

[L0oniX]

10. LOL ...in our dreams.

[MineralMan]

24. I do come to his defense. Here's my latest such post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6877733

I doubt very seriously that you have read all of my posts on DU.

[L0oniX]

27. You're right. I don't stalk you.

[MineralMan]

31. That reply was not directed to you. Look at the post again.

I have never accused you or anyone else of stalking. People read DU, so it's only natural that they reply to posts. If I post, I expect replies.

But, I did not reply to you in the post you're responding to. I replied to Cheese Sandwich. If I reply to you, it will be about something you wrote, not something someone else wrote.

[lovemydog]

41. +2

And happy father's day to you.

I feel same as you. Hit pieces against any of our party's candidates are really bad form. No, this does not mean that come criticism of each candidate's positions isn't warranted. But outright smears like 'Hillary doesn't care about children' or 'Bernie doesn't care about civil rights' are just absolute bullshit. I hope all can read and think critically and understand that democrats have no business trashing other democrats with bullshit hit pieces.

[MineralMan]

43. Well, it's part and parcel of Internet discussions during primaries.

I defend all Democratic candidates when people are posting biased crap against them. All of the candidates who have any chance of winning the nomination. We will all have to give our support to the nominee, or we'll have a Republican President starting in 2017. How will people who have maligned a candidate unfairly switch to supporting that candidate?

It makes no sense whatsoever. It's a losing strategy, and we have so much to lose.

[Cheese Sandwich]

47. Every day on here there is a post that basically accuses Sanders of being offensive to

someone.

Like this is a perfect example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026880168

[MineralMan]

48. Yes. And?

I do not read all posts on Democratic Underground. Of those I do read, I reply in maybe 10% of them. DU is a busy place.

[Cheese Sandwich]

50. That's cool. Here's another one...

Basically this one accusing Bernie Sanders of not caring about racism and sexism.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6881531

[L0oniX]

8. Enjoy what looks like attempts to keep the truth out ...because it's old news.

Mean while I'll stay with the person who has not wavered nearly as much over the last 30 years. The long run counts for much. Not so much for the calculating fence sitters.

something that happened almost 20 years ago is the worst sort of crap I can imagine

Gee ...was her Iraq war vote long enough ago that we can safely ignore that too?

[MineralMan]

25. You can consider or ignore anything you wish.

Candidate Clinton, herself, says that vote was a mistake. A mistake made by many Democrats, too. Not by Bernie Sanders, though.

This was a reply to your post.

[L0oniX]

26. "A mistake made by many Democrats" Ah yes ...the ol strength in numbers excuse.

[MineralMan]

33. In this post, I AM replying to you, not to Cheese Sandwich.

Yes, many Democrats voted for IWR. Most of them, including Hillary Clinton, realized later that that vote was a mistake. That was a very difficult time for most elected officials, and sentiments among the public ran high. GWB lied. That does not excuse those votes for IWR. It does, however, explain why so many Democrats did vote for it. As I said, Bernie Sanders did not. He deserves full credit for that, and he has that credit from me.

[L0oniX]

34. I agree ...it was a lemming vote.

Only one had the guts to face the consequences of their conviction ...Bernie. He risked being attacked for a supposed lack of patriotism.

[MineralMan]

36. Yes. He did, and deserves much credit for that, which I am happy to

give him. I was pissed off that so many Democrats voted for it, too. I understood why they did, but it still pissed me off. I also listened to them later, when they admitted that it had been a mistake to do so. I've made many mistakes in my life, as well.

[Autumn]

18. How is it a hit piece when it talks about her support on the issue with her words

from her published work?

[lovemydog]

40. +1

[Autumn]

9. Someone who has information on her history will be along to

re butt the OP or not. You can say the article is not honest but it does go into detail on what parts of welfare reform Hillary backed one of which was TANF in her memoir, Living History . If you can point out what is dishonest about the article please post the information. That will go along way to clearing up any confusion on her stand on this issue in a civil manner.

[L0oniX]

13. Hey you know ...if its info about what happened 20 years ago it's ancient history and an attack.

I gotta wonder sometimes at these feeble attempts to quash history from the record ...like everyone is loving revisionism.

[Autumn]

15. She posted support for part of Welfare Reform in her book Living History

it's not an attack. It's relevant to the discussion.

[L0oniX]

16. You must have missed my new invisable sarc tag.

The sarc is for the person you were responding to.

[Autumn]

20. So I did

[aspirant]

11. You should practice what you preach

You presented a biased, one sided piece on Cali's time-out by not advising DU'ers to lighten up on the alert button and it finally got locked

[MineralMan]

29. In that thread, I also posted about my own alerts and jury service.

If you read that, you would have learned that I would never vote for a fifth hide for any long-time DUer. I was pretty clear about that. I also do not alert on posts like the one of hers that was hidden. That's not how I do things. I post in threads, instead of alerting, except for really egregious personal attacks. The hidden post was nothing I would have alerted on, and I would have voted to leave it, but I'm not on DU that early in the morning.

[L0oniX]

14. "I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter" & "are not being honest". Please don't spread confusion.

[MineralMan]

35. Again, I am replying to YOU in this post.

I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, and invite you to attend our precinct caucuses on March 1, 2016 at Harding High School in St. Paul, MN, where you will see me caucus for him. In fact, I invite all DUers to attend as observers. They won't be able to vote or participate, but all are welcome to observe.

Please do not imply that I am lying. It's rude.

[L0oniX]

37. Don't waste your time trying to get me to believe you are for Bernie.

[MineralMan]

39. What you believe or do not believe is of minimal interest to me.

What I will not do is attack any Democratic candidate who might be the nominee. I think that's a very bad idea. You will do as you please. But whether you believe that I support Bernie Sanders is of absolutely zero interest to me. I don't care if you believe me. People at our precinct caucus and the following state senate district convention will believe me. They actually know me.

Believe whatever you please. I promise not to waste my time.

[JaneyVee]

4. Who was President in 1996?

[Autumn]

12. Bill Clinton was the President, but Hillary, his wife supported part of his

Welfare Reform. That she discussed her support for part of that reform in her book Living History, makes her opinion on it relevant.

[Thinkingabout]

19. What did Clinton's welfare reform attwmpt to do?

[Autumn]

21. Read Bill's memoirs, he went into detail there. Some of us remember because we are old enough to

remember. The article gives Hillary's point of view and her support for parts of it that were published in her book, Living History.

[Thinkingabout]

23. I know what the reform did, I was wondering if you knew.

What portion do you object?

[Autumn]

28. My objections to it are not relevant, I'm not running for office. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

32. Gotcha, doesn't seem to matter the reforms was training and assisting ablebodied

People from welfare to the workforce. It was teaching a man to fish story.

[Autumn]

38. if you approve that's your prerogative. Other's don't see it that way. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

44. Guess this is one area where I differ on socialism.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Are you familiar with Hillary's work with children?

Did you know Hillary worked for the Children's Defense Fund? I am really surprised to see you posting about Hillary and her support of children. She went door to door trying to find out why children were nit attending schools. Children's issued is one of her strong points.

[SidDithers]

22. ...

Keep trying.

Sid

[L0oniX]

30. *

[SixString]

42. I've never cared for how she co-opted "It Takes A Village".

[Cheese Sandwich]

45. That's interesting.

I never thought of that as a problem before. I was actually a big fan of that book and took the message seriously. But like the author of this piece says sometimes Hillary's actions haven't matched up with the words.

[wyldwolf]

46. Like FDR, RFK and Jimmy Carter?

FDR

To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14890

Bobby Kennedy

Bobby Kennedy was the original New Democrat, the first to realize that lifelong existence on a dole is demeaning and dehumanizing. In 1966, Kennedy argued that the welfare state had “largely failed as an anti-poverty weapon,” because it had “destroyed family life.” He contended that only through “hard and exacting” work could poor people achieve upward mobility.

It would be rash to assert that Bobby Kennedy would unquestionably have supported welfare reform had he lived. Nevertheless, RFK’s criticisms of welfare certainly resemble those later voiced by proponents of welfare reform.

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/revisionist_history

Bobby Kennedy, You Were No Bobby Kennedy
https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/01/09/reviews/000109.09wilent.html

"He was critical of some of the fundamental assumptions of the great society liberalism of the time," said Mr Beran. "He declared - before anyone else in his party was willing - that the heritage of the New Deal was fulfilled and that the methods and techniques of the welfare states weren't working."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/106887.stm

Jimmy Carter

Fundamental welfare reform is necessary. The problems with our current chaotic and inequitable system of public assistance are notorious. Existing welfare programs encourage family instability. They have few meaningful work incentives. They do little or nothing for the working poor on substandard incomes. The patchwork of federal, state and local programs encourages unfair variations in benefit levels among the states, and benefits in many states are well below the standards for even lowest-income budgets.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29606

[LWolf]

49. She has a long history

of disconnecting her walk and her talk. If I only listened to what she said, I'd think her to be a lot more liberal/left than she actually is.

As someone in another thread pointed out, if she's elected to the WH, the Rs will go nuts painting her as a liberal lefty, which will further marginalize the actual left, and push this nation even further to the right. I don't see any hope in the next decades if that happens.

In '08, Democrats nominated someone based on his supposedly liberal "not DLC" credentials. Shit, they didn't even pay attention to his talk, let alone his walk, or they would have known better. That mighty wave of hope and optimism has long since receded, leaving us high and dry. Will it happen again? Will voters get caught up in image over substance? Time will tell. I'm hoping not.