On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:47:19 -0400, "Cathy F." <clfr (AT) adelphia (DOT) net>
wrote:


Please tell us what Clingoon did that was positive...


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:59:19 -0500, "dh" <dh (AT) stargate (DOT) com> wrote:


Oh?

You mean you Dims are going to come up with a reason to vote FOR ya?

Let us know what those ideas are....so we can change our idea of the
Dim party....


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'

Scott in Florida, 8/19/2006,6:53:16 AM, wrote:

He exhibited behavior that allowed countless new jokes to be created.

--
"I do not belong to any organised political party: I'm a democrat." ~
Will Rogers

On 19 Aug 2006 11:15:07 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

LOL...he did that!

A joke of an administration for sure....

Who was that terrorist buddy of his he had at Camp David all the time?

The one that the French medical system killed (the same kind of
medical system his lovely wife wanted to force on America?)....

A friend of mine called me from one of those famous clubs in downtown
Washington and asked if a blow job was considered cheating.

According to Billy Bob Clintoon...it wasn't even sex....

ROFL


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'

Scott in Florida, 8/19/2006,6:53:16 AM, wrote:

One good thing I can think of was Welfare Reform. I am not sure who
spearheaded that effort though.

On 19 Aug 2006 13:55:04 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Of course the Republicans....

Clintoon tried not to sign it a number of times...

He finally did and the problem is on the way to being solved.

Thanks Dims for your version of slavery (The War On Poverty) that
ruined many generations.

The Dims have DIM ideas that don't work.


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:14:36 GMT, Scott in Florida
<askifyouwant (AT) mindspring (DOT) net> wrote:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4198669

The Welfare reform miracle
By Rich Lowry

What is the American Public Human Services Association? It is the
association of state, federal and local welfare directors formerly
known as the American Public Welfare Association, from the days back
before "welfare" had a bad name.
This month marks the 10th anniversary of the most extraordinary
cultural and policy shift in recent American life -- the revolution
wrought by President Clinton's signing of a welfare-reform bill in
August 1996. Pro-work reforms of welfare had been bubbling up from the
states since the early 1990s, but the federal legislation completed a
change in philosophy that rippled into the lives of single mothers,
changing them dramatically for the better.
If the kind of social progress brought by welfare reform had been
caused by a liberal policy, its architects would be enjoying Kennedy
School sinecures and lionizing portrayals in a major motion picture.
But the rebels who changed the welfare status quo were conservative
intellectuals and officeholders. The only tribute to them is the
facts, recounted in congressional testimony by the Heritage
Foundation's Robert Rector, the intellectual godfather of reform, and
in a new book, "Work Over Welfare," by Ron Haskins, a former staffer
on a key congressional committee.
Welfare caseloads have dropped 60 percent since the passage of
welfare reform. Was that just the result of a strong economy? No.
Caseloads didn't decline significantly in any of the eight periods of
economic expansion from the 1950s to the mid-1990s. From 1953 to 1994,
the number of families on welfare dropped in only five years, and two
years in a row only once. By 2005, welfare caseloads had been
declining for a stunning 11 straight years.
Work requirements, and the message sent by reform that dependence
is unacceptable, got former recipients into the work force. "From 1993
to 2000 the portion of single mothers who were employed grew from 58
percent to nearly 75 percent," Haskins writes. Among never-married
mothers, the most disadvantaged group, employment grew by 50 percent.
"Employment changes of this magnitude over such a short period for an
entire demographic group are unprecedented in Census Bureau records,"
he adds.
If a mother is on welfare, it basically guarantees that she will
be poor. If she has a job, she will probably have more income, and her
children will be better off. So, child poverty dropped


every year between 1994 and 2000. In 1995, the black child poverty
rate was a little higher (41.5 percent) than it had been in 1971 (40.4
percent). Welfare reform sent it plummeting to 30 percent by 2001,
when "the poverty rate for black children was at the lowest point in
national history," Rector writes.
Welfare reform also had a small positive effect on the
illegitimacy rate. In the debate over reform, politicians spoke out
against out-of-wedlock childbearing, and the reforms themselves
marginally decreased the disincentives for mothers to marry. The
out-of-wedlock birthrate had skyrocketed from roughly 8 percent in
1965 to more than 32 percent in 1995. This rate of increase slowed,
and among blacks the rate declined very slightly, from 69.9 percent in
1995 to 68.2 percent in 2003.
Welfare reform, then, has affected the lives of millions of
people. If the 1999 poverty rate had still been at 1990 levels, there
would have been another 4.2 million poor mothers and children. If the
illegitimacy rate had continued at its pre-reform pace, another 1.4
million children would have been born out of wedlock. Some of the
gains of welfare reform were lost in the 2001 recession, but reform
has created a fundamentally different and better dynamic in the
nation's anti-poverty policy.
More worrisome is that the success of the 1996 law has relieved
pressure on policymakers to keep states from backsliding on enforcing
work requirements. And the ultimate reform in poverty policy won't
come until government encourages marriage among the women who now
become single mothers. If that seems a hopelessly ambitious cause, a
little more than a decade ago people said the same about reforming
welfare.

--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'

Scott in Florida wrote:

" .dbu," <howard (AT) dynoisadork (DOT) com> wrote

For minute starters, he pronounces "nuclear" correctly. And doesn't utter
words that don't exist. ;-P I keep telling myself that *hopefully* Bush
isn't only as intelligent as his lack of a command of the English language
would lead one to believe.

For more important starters, how about the budget surplus? Which has since
become a _huge_ deficit.

He surely didn't do anything about terrorism only
Yes, unfortunately Bush has done something about it - the hatred of the
terrorists towards the US & its western allies has escalated; he's managed
to further fuel that hatred via his policies/actions. The man's
appararently incapable of re-thinking a plan if it isn't working. He calls
it "Staying the course"; I call it supreme stubborn-ness, with stupidity
mixed in.

Cathy

.dbu, wrote:

You're either joking or thinking of Reagan since it's well known that
the Bush administration spends far more money on polls than Clinton's
ever did and does everything according to how issues poll within his
far right political base.