Hillary Praised Kasich's Bill That Cruelly Harmed Kids & 1000s of Latinos & Increased US Poverty

[amborin]

“Ending welfare as we know it” was, with NAFTA, one of the pillars of Bill Clinton’s triangulation strategy of selling out the Democratic party and Democratic principles for his own political gain: 98% of Republicans voted for the bill, while 85% of Democrats voted against it. Its author was Republican presidential candidate John Kasich.

Hillary Clinton speaks in nearly every debate about her service with the Children’s Defense Fund, but she does not mention that her support of welfare reform ended her political relationship with CDF founder Marion Wright Edelman, who said of President Clinton’s signing of the bill that it “makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.”

The bill ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which had been created in the Social Security Act, and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which was much weaker and much more temporary.

Three senior officials in the Clinton Administration resigned over the legislation, including Peter Edelman, who wrote that while he had been in favor of reforming welfare for his entire career,

But the bill that President Clinton signed is not welfare reform. It does not promote work effectively, and it will hurt millions of poor children by the time it is fully implemented. What’s more, it bars hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants—including many who have worked in the United States for decades and paid a considerable amount in Social Security and income taxes—from receiving disability and old-age assistance and food stamps, and reduces food-stamp assistance for millions of children in working families.

Hillary defended the bill, saying “Too many of those on welfare had known nothing but dependency all their lives, and many would have found it difficult to make the transition to work on their own.” But Journalist and activist Barbara Ehrenreich remarked that it was “hard to miss the racism and misogyny that helped motivate welfare reform.”

Now we know that reform has been a disaster, doubling the number of children in extreme poverty, tripling extreme poverty for female-headed households, and keeping millions from lifting themselves out of desperate situations.

Still, Senator Clinton in 2002 said, “Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats — they’re actually out there being productive — how do we keep them there?” Yes, she said deadbeats.

A 2015 article in The Nation says of the bill, “it is hard to find a single way in which it hasn’t been a catastrophe for the vulnerable.”

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/22/1489185/-The-Definitive-Encyclopedic-Case-For-Why-Hillary-Clinton-is-the-Wrong-Choice

[Dragonfli]

1. That's because it is her nature to do so. The rest is focus group tested political rhetoric /nt

[dchill]

2. Hillary is a recipient of the ultimate welfare program...

On the government payroll advocating the termination of beneficial programs while using her influence to line her own pockets. She is a poster child for Narcissistic greed.

[cui bono]

3. Sadly, because all the rest of the GOP candidates are cuckoo, Kasich comes off as the sane one.

But his policies are extreme and very dangerous.

This is shameful.

.

[colorado_ufo]

4. Well said.

[griloco]

5. amborin, with all due respect, I challenge the authenticity

of your out-of-context "deadbeat" quote.


No. Hillary Clinton did not call people on welfare, "deadbeats." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251471986

[That Guy 888]

6. Check post 42 if you check that link. The quotes are legit, and NOT about "deadbeat dads"

It's about getting people off of welfare and back to work.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251471986#post42

also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/02/the_betrayal_that_should_haunt_hillary_clinton_how_she_sold_out_working_women_then_never_apologized/

...By contrast, examine Hillary Clinton’s comments defending welfare reform, assembled by Buzzfeed, in the late 1990s and early 2000s: Clinton wrote that “too many of those on welfare had known nothing but dependency all their lives.” She suggested that women recipients were “sitting around the house doing nothing.” She described the “move from welfare to work” as “the transition from dependency to dignity.” Or a “substitute dignity for dependence.” Put more simply, she stated, “these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive.”

In sum, she has frequently validated a pathologization of poor black women that has often served as a pretext for Republican assaults on the social safety net. She has not repudiated these remarks.

Indeed, Clinton has long embraced welfare reform, a policy more hostile to women than almost any other enacted recent decades. Passed by a Republican Congress, the bill was signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, eager to make good on his pledge to “end welfare as we know it.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/hillary-clinton-used-to-talk-about-how-the-people-on-welfare#.gjN8BJBlX

Hillary Clinton Used To Talk About How The People On Welfare Were “No Longer Deadbeats”

As first lady and senator, Clinton talked repeatedly about the transition from welfare to work as a “transition from dependency to dignity.”

...In another column, this time in March 2000, Clinton described the transition from welfare to work a “transition from dependency to dignity.”

“Since we first asked mothers to move from welfare to work, millions of families have made the transition from dependency to dignity. While many single mothers are doing a tremendous job of working and raising their children, they should not have to do it alone. It is up to Congress to pass these proposals, so that more fathers can share the responsibility of supporting their families, and so that every child has a chance to find the love and support of two parents.”

In an April 2002 interview with the Gettysburg Times, then-Senator Clinton reiterated the impetus behind her husband’s effort to “substitute dignity for dependence.” At the time, Congress was considering the reauthorization the 1996 law.

“There were people in the White House who said, ‘just sign anything,’ you know,’ the New York senator said in an interview. ‘And I thought that was wrong. We wanted to do it in a way that kept faith with our goals: End welfare as we know it, substitute dignity for dependence, but make work pay.’”

In that same interview, Clinton also said that people who had moved from welfare to work were “no longer deadbeats.”

“Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive—how do we keep them there?”

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[griloco]

7. still ooc. she's taking a shot at the rightwingers who call people deadbeats

and wants jobs that pay a living wage

“There were people in the White House who said, ‘just sign anything,’ you know,’ the New York senator said in an interview. ‘And I thought that was wrong. We wanted to do it in a way that kept faith with our goals: End welfare as we know it, substitute dignity for dependence, but make work pay.’”

From your own article.

[That Guy 888]

9. Is she including herself with the gop?

In that same interview, Clinton also said that people who had moved from welfare to work were “no longer deadbeats.”

“Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive—how do we keep them there?”

[griloco]

11. no, she's being sarcastic

[griloco]

8. note she doesn't call them deadbeats, she refers to others

by the use of "we've"

“Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being..."

My guess is you have no quote where she calls anything but non child support paying dads deadbeats

[That Guy 888]

10. Does it depend on what your definition of "is" is?

My guess is you have no quote where she calls anything but non child support paying dads deadbeats

My guess is that you're trying to be selectively blind.

“too many of those on welfare had known nothing but dependency all their lives.” She suggested that women recipients were “sitting around the house doing nothing.” She described the “move from welfare to work” as “the transition from dependency to dignity.” Or a “substitute dignity for dependence.” Put more simply, she stated, “these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive.”

Class pograms, are much more effective than class warfare, why should those disgusting poors be allowed to offer up any defense

[griloco]

13. The definition of is (split reply)

This was a phrase used to belittle Bill Clinton and now now by extension, me. It presumes there is but one definition of "is". However, there are several and a lawyer being deposed under oath would naturally want the iprecise meaning of the question he is answering.

Inasmuch as it was used by the malicious to appeal to those ignorant of the English language, you may wish to delete it from your list of clever repartees.

[That Guy 888]

14. It's as clever as pretending not to understand direct quotes.

[griloco]

15. and now that we know is has several meanings we won't be using

The definition of "is" anymore, will we?

The patronizing "we" Edit

The patronizing "we" is sometimes used in addressing instead of "you," suggesting that the addressee is not alone in their situation, that "I am with you, we are in this together." This usage is emotionally non-neutral and usually bears a condescending, ironic, praising, or some other connotation, depending on an intonation: "Aren't we looking cute?" This is sometimes employed by health care workers when addressing their patients, e. g. "How are we feeling today?"

[That Guy 888]

18. Perhaps you need to concentrate less on grammar, and expressions of unjustified butthurt

And concentrate on facts, rather than your personal beliefs about Clinton. I am glad that by implication you admit to pretending to be blind to direct quotes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."

[griloco]

21. the word I'm looking for is "deadbeat" nt

[That Guy 888]

23. “Now that we’ve said these people are no longer >>>>deadbeats<<<<"

“Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive—how do we keep them there?”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/hillary-clinton-used-to-talk-about-how-the-people-on-welfare#.gjN8BJBlX

You're claiming it was said to belittle republicans, AND that the "obscure" interviewer made up the quote for an inconsequential newspaper. Which is it? Actually I don't really care what you pretend to believe, you have provided no proof for your fan-based beliefs concerning Clinton. Unsubstantiated claims are not proof. Where is the retraction? Where is Clinton saying it was taken out of context?

<crickets> and bloviation

[griloco]

16. deadbeat

What is presented re: Hillary is one article from 14 years ago in an obscure newspaper by an unknown author.

What is not presented is a video of Hillary, an article authored by Hillary, or any incident of Hillary ever saying that people on welfare were deadbeats.

Now that we have failed to pin this assertion on Hillary we will cease asserting it, won't we? We probably should also apologize to Hillary and her supporters, shouldn't we?

[That Guy 888]

17. LOL, this is why Hillary is a perfect 1990's candidate!

In the 90's it was sooo easy to tell different things, even contrasting things to different groups in person. Even with direct quotes, true believers could claim their rep was misquoted, surely my congressional representative, senator, etc. wouldn't say that - I saw them in person, speaking my beliefs to my face with passion! If you wanted to see video of the politicians speeches, you had to go to a networks physical address for their video library, or maybe the candidates office might have some video available, the most carefully tailored complementary video.

That being said, it's 2016! Everyone has video on their smart phones, it's easy to see and hear when Clinton contradicts herself. It's also easy to hear when someone says neutral instead of "English Only!one!. It's easy to see when a perfectly normal FLOTUS arrival isn't anything like the opening minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Video lingers on youTube, and no politician can stop it.

What is presented re: Hillary is one article from 14 years ago in an obscure newspaper by an unknown author.

Lol the Gettysburg Times is the Daily Paper of Gettysburg Pennsylvania, not some random blogger, ROFL! Wow! I truly hope you're getting paid for this and this isn't some sort of cult of personality devotional exercise.

Now that we have failed to pin this assertion on Hillary we will cease asserting it, won't we? We probably should also apologize to Hillary and her supporters, shouldn't we?

Do you have at least 20 witnesses saying that it never happened? No? Did the reporter retract the statement? No? Then I guess the DIRECT QUOTE stands. Perhaps you should apologize for "catapultin' the propaganda".

[griloco]

22. tysm for affirming we & the vrwc can't find Hillary saying "deadbeat"

Maybe we mist this


The patronizing "we"

The patronizing "we" is sometimes used in addressing instead of "you," suggesting that the addressee is not alone in their situation, that "I am with you, we are in this together." This usage is emotionally non-neutral and usually bears a condescending, ironic, praising, or some other connotation, depending on an intonation: "Aren't we looking cute?" This is sometimes employed by health care workers when addressing their patients, e. g. "How are we feeling today?"

& lest we forget

[That Guy 888]

24. patronizing we (with NO proof) = "It depends on what your definition of "is" is."

you say patronizing goppers, I say co-opting their language and issues as both Clintons did and do.

[That Guy 888]

26. a bit off topic, but why pretend that I agree with your ridiculous fantasies in your titles?

Is it some sort of Jedi mind trick?

Does it work IRL?

For instance if you get pulled over for speeding do you say "Thank you so much for affirming that I was not speeding and that your radar gun did not show my car going 65mph in a 45mph zone.

Or maybe you walk up to your boss and say "Now that we know I'm getting a raise, we will talk about my promotion."

That would be sooo cool!

[griloco]

27. spoiler alert!...the "we" in my posts doesn't include "me"

[That Guy 888]

28. Ahh, much like facts in your posts

[amborin]

12. thanks for adding these!

[That Guy 888]

20. Thanks for the OP

[Octafish]

19. ''A catastrophe for the vulnerable.''

They can be retrained for new jobs, if only there weren't any.

[kgnu_fan]

25. K＆R

[AzDar]

29. K & R