Karl Marx

Remove all ads!

You obviously haven't met the people I have. Some of them use communism, marxism, socialism, and fascism interchangably. They have no idea what any of them actually mean.

Different types of 'welfare' to vastly different degrees, though.

 

Chandos, why are you so dense about NOG making a difference between welfare and corporate welfare?

Yes, both use the word welfare, but all the sources I've seen cited so far just re-emphasize the point NOG's been making. Corporate welfare should be compared to hidden tax cuts or handouts to corporations that don't really 'need' them per se, but it keeps them (for example) interested in keeping their work force in the US instead of outsourcing it. And that's not welfare, that's an incitatement program.

Wouldn't it just be easier to keep the word welfare for stuff that keeps the hungry from starving, homeless from having to sleep under bridges and the socially challenged from becoming total outcasts, pretty please?

 

Why are you so dense that he and I see it from two different points of view, which largley illustrate our political differences?

The political argument over social welfare was that the people getting it, did not really need it either, that they were just getting hand-outs. NOG knows this political argument just as well as I do. He knows the term "welfare queens," and its meaning in the dialogue over welfare. In your case, you just are unfamiliar with American politics. The quesion of the people who really "NEEDED" it never meant much in the political discussion over social welfare.

Again, if bothered to look at the sources, you would see that corporate welfare is extended to companies because it supposedly "creates jobs." You know just well as I do that NOG was trying to pin "welfare" on Democrats politically so you can cut the bull, SR.

 

Actually, I had never heard of the term 'welfare queens'. I've heard 'welfare state'. Is it similar?

 

Seriously, NOG? Never heard of "Welfare Queen"? It's a lying slut who takes money from hard working individuals and then proceeds to live a higher standard of living than those who are supporting her lazy butt. The term is particularly pejorative in reference to women* like the Octomom who have babies for the welfare the tots generate, but I can tell you from experience that there are plenty of men who pull this same crap.

Welfare state (IMHO) means a politico-social system wherein people turn to the govenrment first to solve their economic woes. Right-leaners like myself advocate a system that encourages taking care of yourself to the best of your ability before asking for help, and then asking for help from family, friends, non-government organizations, and then lastly the government.

Those corporate bastards who paid themselves huge bonuses should be just as villified as the supposed welfare queens.

*IIRC, many of the examples of the Ghetto Queens driving Cadillacs financed by money from the rest of us driving Pintos turned out to be hoaxes.

 

LKD, I was delivering mail for the USPS in bad neighborhoods while between jobs. Trust me, their are Ghetto Queens and Kings everywhere. They are driving Cadillac Escalades while several in the household are collecting checks on the 1st or 15th. Most of them have homes that are not worth as much as their cars and their kids look like they have missed several meals lately and have very bad teeth. Talk about effed up priorities.

 

Okay, I admit my ignorance on US politics about the division you guys have been discussing about, but I still fail to see how welfare becomes something completely different when seen from another point of view. It's still giving money to where the lack of it would cause biggest suffering - in theory at least.

There has been numerous cases of welfare fraud here in Sweden as well - "the land of the best welfare ever on this planet" according to themselves - but it hasn't turned the blowtorches on the welfare SYSTEM but the leeches that abuse it. And now the welfare services are on a crusade of their own smoking out the leeches, unavoidable collateral damage causing much ill-will and bad publicity to the current regime. Which, incidentally, is the Moderate party, the antagonist of the Socialdemocratic party here...

 

That's the thing about the social welfare system here: I don't think even a lot of moderate/conservative Republicans objected to it for those who were temporarily in need of it. However, the system became so costly and full of fraud and abuse that they saw it as no longer benefiting those who were in need. As a liberal/progressive, it didn't bother me in the least to see the Republicans reform the system, a reform which was also supported by some Democrats, including President Clinton. Republicans wrote the current social welfare system, so they mostly own it. That's political reality.

 

Chandos, Clinton vetoed the Reform bill twice. A bill that passed both the House and the Senate. I don't think that's 'support'. I think that's finally giving in to a political necessity.

 

I think you need to understand the history of what happened. Bill Clinton ran as a presidential candidate promising to "end welfare as we know it." He had, and was working on drafting his own welfare reform plan. And he was trying to get some of his own ideas into the plan, but was largely unsuccessful, but it was the amount of Democratic support for reform, which caused Bill Clinton to sign the bill. He supported the overall idea of welfare reform, and as I mentioned he ran on it as a major feature of his presidency. Despite the fact that it was a Republican controlled house and senate, it was the support of Democrats, which got the Republican bill passed.

I think you should take a closed look at that, NOG. Because your statement tried to make it appear as if Bill Clinton did not support welfare reform. While there were specifics from his own plan that he wanted in the final legislation, and he did veto the bill twice, he signed it because of Democratic support for it and it appeared after the final revisions that he was not going to get what he wanted from his own plan into the bill.

Unless, you had a different point for focusing on that sliver of my comment, which was not my major point, btw, I'm not really sure what your point was. Were you saying that the bill was entirely Republican? Or were you saying that the Democrats and Bill Clinton did not want to reform welfare? Explain your point.

 

Chandos, we went over this earlier. Clinton ran on a platform of Welfare Reform, but then he never did anything about it. He went 4 years without promoting anything along those lines. Then, finally, the Reps in Congress decided that if he didn't do it, they would. The first bill passed, but he vetoed it. The second bill was little different, and he vetoed it again. Finally, the Reps made some significant concessions to the Dems (weaker reforms than the Reps wanted), and Clinton signed it. The most liberal Dems still saw it as a concession, but many Dems at the time saw it as the only way to salvage AFDC from the Reps.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like he really supported it to me. More like he knew he couldn't get away with refusing it any more.

It looks to me like the typical contest of powers. The Reps wanted to all but kill welfare (they may have wanted to keep a little, but not much). The Dems wanted to keep AFDC as it was. This had been going on for years between the two parties, but finally the public was starting to sway significantly to the Rep side (reform of some drastic sort or another). The Dems saw the writing on the wall and, through a Dem president, managed to blunt the blow that welfare took.

As you pointed out earlier, this confrontational system produced a pretty good TANF program. Not perfect by any means, and I don't think anyone's ideal, but something that really works. I don't think you can really call the existing system any single party's legislation, though.

 

That's not what happened: Welfare reform was part of the Republican Contract With America.

As I often comment, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But I don't agree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html

Show me. I'd like to see what you believe (or are saying they wanted to kill and to keep).

I'm glad you finally see that. Finally.

 

You mean the one in 1994? Two years after Clinton promised it and two more years before it was passed?

The Rep position is pretty well summed up by:

while the Dem position is pretty well summed up by:

 

...And your point would be?

That was what I was responding to.

How so? The quote says "liberals," not Democrats.

 

The majority of Dems are liberals and the majority of Reps are conservative. When independants don't come into the equation, the Dem=Liberal and Rep=Conservative comparison is strong. Not 100%, but strong.

Yes, and you responded with 'That's not what happened'. I was showing that it was what happened. You seemed to be arguing that the Reps' decision to pursue health care reform was a result of this 'Contract with America' policy, and not a reaction to Clinton's inaction. My point was that it was part of the 'Contract with America' as (and indeed the entire Contract was in some way) a reaction to Clinton's inaction.

 

Just how many Democrats are actually liberals?

Clinton explained himself very well, at least in my opinion, on what happened with welfare reform. You are free to disagree, but Clinton did not matter in the crafting of the Contract with America. If you read the actual "contract" it explains itself:

See? It had nothing to do with Clinton's own welfare reform. It was part of a larger issue for them, of "personal responsibility." As others have commented, you should take the time to do your research on these matters. It would save us all some time.