Newt Gingrich: I reformed walfare...

[bigdarryl]

REALLY!!! Newt

[havocmom]

1. And failed to make timely spousal supports to the wife I left when she had cancer

But, her church came through with enough dough to keep her power from being shut off.

Hey, new trophey wives are expensive. Can't fritter money away on the old model

[acmejack]

3. One of the great punk moves of all time!

What a man. Real sorry you're sick, honey. But in sickness and health & all that be damned! I'm outta here! Makes me wanna hurl.

[SpiralHawk]

5. "Nothing like a hot new young wife for your welfare." - Newt Moral Superiority Gingrich

"As I always say, when your wife is getting along in years, just toss her overboard for your hot young secretary. That's republicon family welfare values in action, wink wink, nudge, nudge."

- Newtie

[acmejack]

2. Just coming up here.

I can't wait to see this shitmound. Lizard man speaks...

[Ken Burch]

4. Clinton should NEVER have signed that bill.

Nobody who wanted the poor punished for accepting benefits they were legally entitled to was gonna vote Democratic anyway.

And a generation of family breakdown was on the heads of every politician who insisted on forbidding two-parent households from getting AFDC. If we could subsidise tobacco, we could've subsidised intact families.

The whole history of this issue was a bipartisan disgrace, from Moynihan to Newt.

[acmejack]

7. Couldn't agree more.

[Joe Bacon]

6. Newt, are you cheating on #4 yet?

You cheated on #1, #2 and #3, so who do you have on the side now?

[SoFlaJet]

8. HELLO...

ANd he balanced the budget...din't you hear him?I almost fell off my chair.I wonder what internet websites he'd like to have restricted...let's see....hmmm.... MoveOn, DU, The Huffington Post, Buzzflash...Daily Kos...what else?Free Republic? doubtful

[whistle]

9. Yes, Newt's program threw people out into the streets without any

....safety net:

<snip>
...legacy in politics and language
A major part of Gingrich's legacy as a politician has been in achieving the effective use of language and the news media to further political goals.

Gingrich took the chair of the Republican political action committee GOPAC in 1986 and transformed it into an effective vehicle for electing conservative candidates to office. This was accomplished in significant part by establishing and promoting a consistent language and theme for use by Republicans at all electoral levels. This theme, in Gingrich's own words, was that of "a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal welfare state", emphasizing "workfare over welfare" and promoting the idea that "we are the majority". GOPAC training tapes containing advice on "Newtspeak" were sent out to rising GOP political candidates throughout the country.

Similarly, GOPAC distributed a memo to freshman Republican House members. Entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," it listed a number of "optimistic positive governing words" that candidates could use when campaigning in order to "speak like Newt," (movement, opportunity, passionate, e.g.) and a parallel list of contrasting words, such as "bureaucracy, cheat, coercion, etc.," which it advised the candidate to apply to their "opponent, their record, proposals and their party."<13><14>

At the start of the Republican Revolution, Gingrich and GOPAC's efforts had succeeded in dictating the theme of national political debate at the time.

<snip>
The stage was already set by 1996. 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, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. 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 through no fault of their own might turn to begging 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 although 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 have been dramatic. As expected, welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly (57%) in the years since passage of the bill. Child poverty rates for African American families have dropped the sharpest since statistics began to be tallied in the 1960s; although critics argue that this is due more to overall economic improvement than to welfare reform, and that in any case the rate of child poverty in the United States is still far higher than in nations with greater welfare protections for the poor, although some would counter that this apparent disparity is due to misleading statistical analysis (measuring inequality rather than poverty) and that welfare rolls in the United States historically are much more closely correlated with government spending rather than economic fluctuations. The original bill was set to expire in September of 2002; as of July 2004, Congress had passed 7 reauthorizations. Debate continued over Republican attempts to increase the amount of hours that recipients should be required to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

[Lone_Wolf]

10. True...

the vast majority of welfare no goes to corporations and the uber-wealthy in the form of tax-cuts.