Why It's Easy to be a Liberal

[FollowTheWay]

Clinton vetoed the welfare bill twice. He certainly didn't want it.

If you can actually prove that I'd be very surprised. The ball in in your court.

 

[InTheLight]

If you can actually prove that I'd be very surprised. The ball in in your court.

I lived through it and remember it well, but don't take my word for it. I hope you accept the Washington Post as a reliable source.

Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division

President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

Yesterday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

Gone were the Marine Band and Democratic congressional leaders who had attended bill-signing ceremonies earlier this week for bills increasing the minimum wage and making health insurance more accessible. Republicans, who had prodded Clinton for months to sign a welfare bill, refused to give him credit. And the divisions among Democrats over the legislation were readily apparent.

Even as Clinton signed the measure, women's groups and advocates for the poor protested along Pennsylvania Avenue, vowing to carry their dispute to the Democratic convention in Chicago next week.

Whatever divisiveness it has inspired, the bill's enactment is likely to be remembered as a defining moment for Clinton, who vetoed two previous versions and battled with himself over whether to reject this measure as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm

 

[FollowTheWay]

I lived through it and remember it well, but don't take my word for it. I hope you accept the Washington Post as a reliable source.

Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division

President Clinton signed historic welfare legislation yesterday that rewrites six decades of social policy, ending the federal guarantee of cash assistance to the poor and turning welfare programs over to the states.

Yesterday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

Gone were the Marine Band and Democratic congressional leaders who had attended bill-signing ceremonies earlier this week for bills increasing the minimum wage and making health insurance more accessible. Republicans, who had prodded Clinton for months to sign a welfare bill, refused to give him credit. And the divisions among Democrats over the legislation were readily apparent.

Even as Clinton signed the measure, women's groups and advocates for the poor protested along Pennsylvania Avenue, vowing to carry their dispute to the Democratic convention in Chicago next week.

Whatever divisiveness it has inspired, the bill's enactment is likely to be remembered as a defining moment for Clinton, who vetoed two previous versions and battled with himself over whether to reject this measure as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082396.htm

I do accept the Washington Post as a great newspaper, right after the New York Times in the U.S. Where does this article say that president Clinton vetoed this bill?

 

[FollowTheWay]

The Post article says:

"Yesterday, he labeled the measure "far from perfect," criticizing provisions that reduce spending on food stamps and deny aid to many legal immigrants. But he offered an explanation why he was signing it. "We can change what is wrong," Clinton said. "We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right."
And he suggested his decision to accept the bill should remove welfare from the political arena. "The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. . . . This is not the end of welfare reform, this is the beginning. And we have to all assume responsibility."


He accepted the idea of welfare reform from his inauguration on. There were issues in his mind about this "far from perfect" bill but he felt that the overriding "opportunity to do what is right."

 

[InTheLight]

I do accept the Washington Post as a great newspaper, right after the New York Times in the U.S. Where does this article say that president Clinton vetoed this bill?

Article days he vetoed two previous versions and battled with himself to accept this version.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Article days he vetoed two previous versions and battled with himself to accept this version.

Once again, he accepted the idea of welfare reform from his inauguration on. There were issues in his mind about this "far from perfect" bill but he felt that the overriding "opportunity to do what is right."

 

[InTheLight]

Once again, he accepted the idea of welfare reform from his inauguration on. There were issues in his mind about this "far from perfect" bill but he felt that the overriding "opportunity to do what is right."

So he had good intentions and went with a solution not caring whether or not it would work. I believe I stated this was a trademark of liberals earlier in this thread.

 

[FollowTheWay]

So he had good intentions and went with a solution not caring whether or not it would work. I believe I stated this was a trademark of liberals earlier in this thread.

This is the way you have to work politics when one party, the Republicans, state that their only objective is to block everything president Obama does. It would be nice if they could offer alternatives but that's not their priority.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is the way you have to work politics when one party, the Republicans, state that their only objective is to block everything president Obama does. It would be nice if they could offer alternatives but that's not their priority.

Keep saying it. Maybe you will actually believe it.

 

[poncho]

This is the way you have to work politics when one party, the Republicans, state that their only objective is to block everything president Obama does. It would be nice if they could offer alternatives but that's not their priority.

The alternative would be a constitutional republic with a government limited to the powers the constitution authorizes but neither party wants any part of that.

 

[FollowTheWay]

So he had good intentions and went with a solution not caring whether or not it would work. I believe I stated this was a trademark of liberals earlier in this thread.

A democracy requires a "meeting in the middle." Neither extreme should get its way. That's why Republicans has been unwilling to do anything in the last two congresses except try to block everything the Democrats propose. They don't want a democracy. They want for everything to go their way.

 

[Revmitchell]

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Every representative should do what their constituents sent them there to do.

 

[poncho]

If we could ever drop all the bull about democrats vs republicans and be honest with ourselves for just one stinking minute we might come to the conclusion that . . . we actually live under an oligarchy.

Only the top 1% are represented by congress. The people have little to no say so there is no democracy here and no constitutional republic when both parties can violate the constitution to carry out their respective agendas. Both of which profits the 1%.

The only thing that happens when either party violates the constitution is the opposing party grumbles the people gripe and the beat goes on towards a totalitarian government.

I know, I know, shut up Poncho we like bashing the other side to much to give a hoot about what the real problems (elitism and fascism) are. Besides all we know how to do is bash the other side so we can't even begin to think outside that box.

 

[Rolfe]

Why It's Easy to be a Liberal

One does not need to think.