Ironworks Gaming Forum - Barack Obama

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Barack Obama (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77166)

Re success without hard work -- I did mention Clarence Thomas, didn't I? Did you read about him in my subsequent posts.

As for the welfare reform, I recall Clinton being the insistent one. I remember the speeches during the time, and every day my wife gets the privilege of working with urban baby-mommas who bitch about Clinton and the fact they have to get up off their arse at least 2 days a week or lost their welfare due to his reform program. I recall him doing the smart political thing and letting what he saw as an imperfect (but better than before) bill pass into law, and then trying to reopen it and change the parts he didn't like (with little success -- showing he was willing to accept something that was not exactly what he wanted, a nice bipartisan gesture).

Anyway, that's how I remember it. I am only drawing on memory here -- I don't have the gumption to go research this so we can argue about the past. Right now, I'm reserving my real time expenditures for present concerns, not past.

THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

Quote:

1994

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Republicans have taken Congress and the West Wing since then, but government is bigger, there has been no historic change, and the new majority ain't done shit.

Quote:

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

Riiiiight. Ain't happened.

Quote:

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

Largely not done. *cough* Congressional pensions vs. Social Security. *cough*

Quote:

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

Nope. Arthur Anderson maybe?

Quote:

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

Nope.

Quote:

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

Hell no.

Quote:

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

Don't think so.

Quote:

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

Not enough info. I worked in state government, and all committee meetings ARE open there. If the feds do it differently, well, there's one more reason to string 'em up.

Quote:

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

NO.

Quote:

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Quote:

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT

An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in-sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT

Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT

A $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT

No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT

Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT

Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT

"Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT

A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.

None of these things were done. Those proposed were done so in a limp-wristed way. And, note that I'm not just discussing the 104th Congress, I'm allowing these fools the full benefit of history, all the way through four rules of Republican rule.

They all spend like idiots. Both sides. Take your pick: corporate welfare or public welfare -- there is no other option.

Boyo, John D. -- citing the Contract with America? THANKS FOR THE AMMO!!! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I'll lay off for a moment and allow you time to remove your foot from your mouth.

Further Research indicates:

Reforming welfare
The stage was set by 1996. Even Bill Clinton, a Democratic President, had promised to "end welfare as we know it" in his State of the Union Address. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.

One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive.

Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).

Outcome
Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. For instance, they claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit might turn to mendicancy or crime. They also felt that too little money was devoted to vocational training. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that though the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession.

Supporters held that the five-year limit was a necessity, that allowing states to experiment would result in improving welfare, and that the number of people affected by the five-year limit would be small. These controversies have not been fully resolved.

The consequences of welfare reform are still being debated today. Welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly in the years immediately after the passage of the bill. The original bill was set to expire in September of 2002; as of July, 2004, Congress had passed 7 temporary reauthorizations, generally of 3 months. Debate continued over Republican attempts to increase the amount of hours that recipients would need to work.

T.L. I have NO problem being wrong on the Contract with America,(edit: though #3 of the second bunch of Items comes close to the welfare reform act.) it seems My 'ole grey matter hard drive has got a virus, your refreshing of the info will alow me to wipe that virus, and now be right, no big deal, life goes on. ;)

Now who introduced the welfare reform act? Who are the authors of record? I'm to lazy to refresh the 'ole grey matter, plus beings how it's a legal thingy and you am a lawyer you'd know where to look to find it faster. Why was it politicly right for a Dem President to do something Non-Dem? (Remember the policy of trianglation ;) ) Because the people of the USA had just in 1994 delivered what in technical political terms can only be discribed as a "Good Old Fashioned Ass Woop'n" to the Dems. President Cliton to his credit saw the hand writing on the wall, I'm glad he did, as I have stated on several occasions before. He gets credit for signing the act not for cerating the act unless you can provide differant info. As I have just shown I have NO problem being wrong. Again why did President Clinton campaign on reforming the Welfare reform act in the 1996 presidental campaign?

[ 08-06-2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

I honestly think Clinton thought it was the right thing to do -- but Clinton was notorious for fretting over the opinion polls, and was very succeptible to what we the people wanted (which may be why I liked him so much). I do applaud him for going against the party a good bit. Without each other's support, both he and the Republican majority would have been dead in the water on this one, so let's just agree that they all got together and did the right thing -- proving that every now and then the stars come into alignment, even where Congress is concerned. ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I honestly think Clinton thought it was the right thing to do -- but Clinton was notorious for fretting over the opinion polls, and was very succeptible to what we the people wanted (which may be why I liked him so much). I do applaud him for going against the party a good bit. Without each other's support, both he and the Republican majority would have been dead in the water on this one, so let's just agree that they all got together and did the right thing -- proving that every now and then the stars come into alignment, even where Congress is concerned. ;)

Agreed. Even a bunch of blind Hogs can find an accorn evey once in a while. ;)

Don't get me wrong while I believe President Cliton is and was a lying SOB, (based on things I heard he say long before an intern ever got on her knees) but he can not be accussed of being stupid. Infact as much as it pains me to admit it I believe he could find his rear.

[ 08-06-2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

Alan Keyes to challenge Barack Obama in Illinois

Sigh. I used to have a lot of respect for Mr. Keyes. Former Ambassador, ran twice for President, excellent orator. Big problem, though.

He's from Maryland.

Bigger problem. He raked Hillary over the coals when she ran for Senate in New York.

Illinois is a cesspool. I thought Mr. Keyes would've known better than to get involved. [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

*Point of View from Inside the Cesspool*

Mr. Keyes has secured something special for his race, something that come November will only have happened thrice ever.

Why is raking Hillary over the coals such a big problem for a Republican? I thought it was a rite of passage, in fact.

You're missing the point. It's one thing to trash Hillary for something, quite another to later do the same thing. I vote Republican because I cannot stand the Democrats, but when there becomes no difference...

Hell with it, I'm voting for the third party candidate. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

Alan Keyes trashed Hillary for being a carpetbagger when she ran for the Senate in NY in 2000, being that she wasn't from NY.

Now Keyes will look like a hypocrit for doing just about the same thing

The only difference is that Hillary truly sought to run in NY. Keyes has been drafted to run in Illinois after Ryan was forced to withdraw and the GOP had no one to take his spot on the ticket.

The Illinois Senate race may have the best debates of the year with Keyes and Obama.

Okay, thanks for clarifying what Keyes was being taken to task for.

This is not a new Republican trick. Leahey in Vermont had a carptetbagger from Massachussetts try to unseat him, and the local population replied by electing the venerable Fred Tuttle, the "Man with a Plan," in the primaries. It was one of the best showings of solidarity I've ever seen. Plus, it was great to watch the Tuttle/Leahey debates where everything Fred said was "I agree with Mr. Leahey." :D

So, the Democrats are not the only ones to use carpetbaggers. ;) As D-Bear said:

Quote:

but when there becomes no difference...

HELLO!! "When" is now.

Timber, I wouldn't call it a "trick" per se. It's more like a very annoying example of where laws written by lawmakers favor the lawmakers, not the people whom they are supposed to represent.

These short residency requirements seem more like a Politician's Full Employment Act.

Well, let's be real about it. If you can come from outside the state and carry such a burden, as all areas disfavor outsiders to some degree, and still win, then what is there to complain about? Do you need more RULES barring entry into a competition that is already balanced against outsiders and for incumbents?

BTW, the junior Senator from New York has done right by her constituency, from all the feedback I've been getting. In fact, I'm damned jealous that I moved away just as she became the Senator for my area. I'd love to have her be my Senator, because if there's one lady that gets what the hell she wants when the hell she wants it, it's her.

Timber, IMHO, the residency requirement for any elected position should be EQUAL to the length of the term for the office being sought. That is, if you run for a Senate seat with a 6 year term, then you should have to be a resident of that state for 6 years prior to the date of the election.