He campaigned on it in '92 but never worked on it after the election. After the Republicans took control of Congress in '94 they sent two welfare reform bills to the White House and Clinton vetoed them both. They sent a third shortly before the '96 election. Clinton was either going to sign it or hand the Republicans a major campaign issue. He signed it, reluctantly.
The Republicans forced his hand.
I bet we were in the red for a few years after Pearl Harbor, too.
Nope, just a wish there was a stockpile of Agent Orange.
Ya know, during this entire thread no one from either side of the discussion has brought up about the sealed records of all the things Bush had done in bussiness and all. Just an observation.
Yes true, but let's also be honest. The detals of the first bills were not the vision he had in 92. There were some but not many compromises by
96, so he signed it. The details matter. The media tends to fixate on the general. Like the title of a bill or the general subject of a bill. You almost never see ANY media discuss any significant portion of the details or the consequences of a particular bill or particular language in a bill.Jerry
And what a great idea that is! I work for FedEx and believe me they are not working. FedEX gets something like $18.50 per hour per person and pay them $11.00 per hour. I once had one person tell me that she was paid to be there, not to work! And no one seems to care (except those of us that have to pick up their share of the work.)
A lot of the exuberance was for tech stocks. Anybody and everybody who had a thought of a better computer system or software started up a company and found tons of investors willing to give them money to start up. They did not always work out, and some simply never got farther than the idea/investment phase.
Also, remember all the computer nerds that were making good money chasing down Y2K problems and installing new computers for that. After that bubble burst, many found themselves unemployed. (I know 10 who still do not have the income they had in Dec.,1999 but lost by Mar.,2000.)
Oops, same as above.
Burt
I was exposed to that program working with "clients" preparing to work.
Believe me, one thing they do not have and are not acquiring is a work ethic. There is a reason some people simply aspire to be on welfare.
However as a matter of public policy I suspect there is a significant social benefit to "on-the-job training".
Also when that program was implemented, county welfare buildings in CA (PRK) started vacating and being rented to commercil firms. That was an amazing outcome in a clearly socialist state.
Counties who fund these programs and their overhead costs suddenly had vast improvements in their budget.
My position is the less money that is run through governments at all and is being run through the private sector, even an inefficient jobs program is beneficial. Given the velocity of money is near 7 (a dollar is spent 7 times a year that enters the civilian sector), even if the first layer was actually counterproductive (your example), the resulting
7x increase in local GDP and increase in tax revenues from the more productive uses of those GDP activities, more than offsets.But that was only harmful to the risk investors themselves.
Crashing the entire market as a fix, screwed the entire rest of the economy and citizens that were keeping a safe distance from silicon valley!
Ditto.
Zathras of the Great Machine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
And how would YOU know about any of that alleged stuff?
Can you provide any details of this alleged stuff? (which I believe to be pure nonsense)
Zathras of the Great Machine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
Why would you want a defoliant?
(this oughta be good...)
He didn't have a vision of welfare reform in 1992, it was just something he said to get elected. If he had really wanted to end welfare as we knew it he would have pursued it in 1993 and 1994 when the Democratic party controlled the House and Senate.
has brought up about the sealed records of all the things Bush had done in bussiness and all. Just an observation.
Like I said, no one brought it up and I found that curious. I can't be the only person to have seen the long list of inept things attributed to Bush which was floating about on the net, which included mention of said documnets now sealed away in Daddy's archives. True or no, it was an interesting and amusing read. Besides, why ruin a perfectly good tale with the facts? Speech writers certainly don't. It's why the most popular Darwin Award is a fictional one too. No one ever strapped a JATO to their car.
As a varient on the old saying goes, if I have to explain, you won't get the joke anyway. And quip it was, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Even a quip like that can technically be considered a threat on the life of Da Prez and reason enough for them to come after you if they really want..
Regardless of why the U. S. went, I've seen enough atrocities in the last 18 months to justify going into Iraq.
Randy
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.