Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Welfare reform is working. Here's why   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
23
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

914 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jul 2006 at 6:02 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



23 Comments     (+0 »)
 
wydok
2006-07-30 3:59:50 PM  
You see, this is the kind of leadership we need now: A bipartisan congress and president that can work together to make the U.S. a better place.

These are the same people that balanced the budget.

I'm not saying this is all because of Clinton. It takes an entire government to work out this well. Where the fark are those people now?
 
DistendedPendulusFrenulum
2006-07-30 4:12:51 PM  
wydok

Where the fark are those people now?

9-11 changed things; that stuff won't work anymore. Now we need more handouts to profitable corporations. We need to do away with due process of the law. And we need for Christianity to become the National Religion. If we just keep exploring for more oil, everything will be OK. Just look how successful the Bush Doctrine has been in the Middle East!

.
 
flaEsq
2006-07-30 4:28:08 PM  
leadership of Newt Gingrich, Clay Shaw, Rick Santorum, Jim Talent

Talk about yer rogue's gallery
 
superdolfan1
2006-07-30 4:47:43 PM  
DistendedPendulusFrenulum As long as you have that attitude, and not wydok's attitude, you, sir, are correct in saying that stuff won't work anymore
 
kronicfeld
2006-07-30 4:48:59 PM  
flaEsq: Clay Shaw

Tommy Lee Jones?
 
SilentStrider
2006-07-30 4:52:47 PM  
superdolfan1: As long as you have that attitude, and not wydok's attitude, you, sir, are correct in saying that stuff won't work anymore

psst

he was joking.
 
superdolfan1
2006-07-30 5:04:21 PM  
wydok It takes an entire government to work out this well. Where the fark are those people now?

Looking back ten years ago the only difference was a Republican congress and a Democrat president. The president tried to have an agenda and was shot down by Congress. Then a Republican president with an agenda comes in and the Republicans think "Hey, we now control everything". The Democrats, not liking this (which I don't disagree with, by the way) decided to torpedo anything and everything they could. And it worked.

This, of course, caused diviseness amongst the Republicans and Democrats and they all decided to act like little children and pout. If one side has an idea, then the other side is going to shoot it down, and vise versa.

Who's to blame? The person staring back at you when you look in the mirror. We put everyone of them there and we are keeping them there. Even if the Democrats take over Congress this fall, nothing will change. The damage has been done because of these career politicians. The solution would be term limits. Senators: 2 terms and you're gone. Congressmen: 4 terms and you are out of here.
Fresh meat on a regular basis, with fresh ideas. Sen. Kennedy, have a nice retirement. Sen. Hatch, go sing some songs. But see 'ya.

We need to put aside our politics and come together again as a people.
 
Nyoka
2006-07-30 6:55:59 PM  
Work harder, millions on welfare depend on you!
 
IlGreven
2006-07-30 8:37:44 PM  
I'm not saying this is all because of Clinton. It takes an entire government to work out this well. Where the fark are those people now?

I believe you can thank Karl Rove for getting rid of most of them. McCain's the only one he hasn't got, and now that McCain's talkin' out of both sides of his mouth, he doesn't need to.
 
Tadow
2006-07-30 8:38:53 PM  
Was the editor weeping as he wrote an article in praise of Clinton?
 
Bloody William
2006-07-30 9:09:45 PM  
Skwidd

Not fast enough.

*lights flamethrower, heads down to the projects*

Wow. There is a special place in hell for creepy motherfarkers like you.
 
LawrencePerson
2006-07-30 9:42:27 PM  
Funny how I submitted this exact same article with the title "Welfare Reform was passed 10 years ago-and it worked. "National surveys show almost every measure of child well-being has improved since the mid-1990s.""

Which got seven comments despite being red-lighted.

Quite curious.

If you want to read why welfare reform was necessary, I suggest reading Charles Murray's Losing Ground. If that hadn't been published in the 1980s, welfare reform would not have been passed in he 1990s.
 
saintstryfe [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-07-30 9:56:41 PM  
I don't like term limits as a rule - I think it's not fair to tell a group of people that they have to elect someone new.

But then again, 2 three-to-five-year terms as Governor, 5 two-year terms in the house, 2 six-year terms in the senate, and 2 four-year terms as President is 36-40 years as an elected representive. That's a pretty decent career, not including if you take time to do another job, like an appointment or a chairmanship or something like that.
 
superdolfan1
2006-07-30 10:19:11 PM  
sainstryfe I don't like term limits as a rule - I think it's not fair to tell a group of people that they have to elect someone new.

Do you believe that a "career" polititian like Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Hatch should be allowed to squash whatever oposition may arise because their campaign chest dwarfs the newby? I don't have a problem with a "good" candidate being able to stay, but the playing field needs to be level, and it will never be. Therefore, term limits should be instituted.

Why does the president have to leave after two terms? We all know that if it wasn't for the 22nd Amendment, Pres. Clinton would be enjoying his fourth term right about now, planning for his fifth. This was done for a reason which makes sense. The same should apply to other elected officials. Many states have also instituted term limits for governors.

Although your example is not only valid, but also brilliant, I don't think the particular person should not be entitled to pursue that path. The experience alone would be very helpful to him/her.

This is a very touchy post. Normally touchy or controversial posts draw lots of posters from both sides arguing with each other. This one has not. That could be for a few reasons. First, it may be that the article was completely valid and true and therefore no one could argue its merits. Second, it could be because no one has instigated the other side with pithy comments. Or, third, it could be that this is one issue that we can all agree on.
 
helioquake
2006-07-30 10:24:24 PM  
There is a very nice article in this week's "the Economist" about switching from welfare to workfare.
 
swahnhennessy
2006-07-30 11:07:55 PM  
helioquake: There is a very nice article in this week's "the Economist" about switching from welfare to workfare.


Those commies.
 
swahnhennessy
2006-07-30 11:11:54 PM  
LawrencePerson: If you want to read why welfare reform was necessary, I suggest reading Charles Murray's Losing Ground. If that hadn't been published in the 1980s, welfare reform would not have been passed in he 1990s.


Yeah, cite a co-author of The Bell Curve. No bias there!
 
Eochada
2006-07-31 1:52:37 AM  
Nature is biased sometimes.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-07-31 2:32:30 AM  
wydok: It takes an entire government to work out this well.

That's one option. Another is to have a Republican Congress pass welfare reform over the Democratic president's objections, and by a such a big majority a veto override was nearly certain, so the Democratic president not only bows to the inevitable and signs it, but also does his best to take credit for it as well.

Which is what actually happened.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-07-31 2:33:45 AM  
saintstryfe: But then again, 2 three-to-five-year terms as Governor, 5 two-year terms in the house, 2 six-year terms in the senate, and 2 four-year terms as President is 36-40 years as an elected representive.

There are no term limits in Congress, you know.
 
Aldon
2006-07-31 7:22:10 AM  
The CraneMeister

If Clinton objected to it so much as you say, then he would have vetoed it.

He didn't veto the bill and it shows that you can get things done(whatever the reason) with the right people in office, that is all people are saying.
 
AtheistPreacher
2006-07-31 9:55:32 AM  
*Applause*

As Cartman said "Get a job!"
 
garbag3mang
2006-07-31 11:31:09 AM  
Do you believe that a "career" polititian like Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Hatch should be allowed to squash whatever oposition may arise because their campaign chest dwarfs the newby? I don't have a problem with a "good" candidate being able to stay, but the playing field needs to be level, and it will never be. Therefore, term limits should be instituted.

Why does the president have to leave after two terms? We all know that if it wasn't for the 22nd Amendment, Pres. Clinton would be enjoying his fourth term right about now, planning for his fifth. This was done for a reason which makes sense. The same should apply to other elected officials. Many states have also instituted term limits for governors.

Although your example is not only valid, but also brilliant, I don't think the particular person should not be entitled to pursue that path. The experience alone would be very helpful to him/her.

This is a very touchy post. Normally touchy or controversial posts draw lots of posters from both sides arguing with each other. This one has not. That could be for a few reasons. First, it may be that the article was completely valid and true and therefore no one could argue its merits. Second, it could be because no one has instigated the other side with pithy comments. Or, third, it could be that this is one issue that we can all agree on.

No, the problem is not the "career" politicians. The problem with term limits, is it would require a total overhaul, one that would never take place, of the government. What would happen is without these "career" politicians, the lobbyists would run Washington, because there would be no seasoned professionals in office who would know how to handle them. The lobbyists would get anything, and everything, that they wanted, and there is not a thing that the people would be able to do.

Term limits are a great idea, but there is no way that they could logically be implemented that would honestly help the government to be less corrupted or run more smoothly.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More Fark for your buck

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.