Hillary: Pros and Cons, Facts and Fiction

Remove all ads!

Like many people on the right, you seem to be confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the unfortunate side effect of left-leaning social policy with the actual goal, which is to help the less fortunate get out of poverty and back on their feet, contribute to the economy and therefore returning the Government's investment in them. Mischaracterizations don't help.

Welfare is in need of drastic reform. It's far too easy to recieve indefinitely and it actually deincentivizes the lazy from changing their behavior. But to say that keeping people dependent on the government is the GOAL of Democratic social policy is inaccurate. So are ridiculous assertions stating that people driving BMW's in the projects (which is extremely rare and obviously more of an indication of criminal activity than excessive welfare mooching) as reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I wouldn't trade places with a welfare recipient for anything. I've known several. Their lives suck, and the people who game the system make it worse for everyone. But most of them truly need, and greatly appreciate, the help. Fix what's broken, don't throw it away.

edit: @ Maurtag,

Please provide us with one - just one - example where this is going on.

[ July 11, 2007, 17:43: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

You must be reading it as well, Aldeth. But I must confess, I have not read a word of it. It has been sitting here on my desk for about two weeks and I have not been able to even glance through it as of yet. Sounds as if I'm going to agree with much of it though. I've been rereading through Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English, using the gloss from the Riveside edition of Chaucer's complete works. But please, let us know what you think of Gore's new book.

But I think Gore has the potential to be a great prez, better than Hillary, to be back on topic.

Edit:

Alas, the history of Repulician regimes won't bear that statement in reality - Nice daydream though...

 

That's so 30 years ago. Bush may be called many things, but one of them isn't "pro small government". Quite to the contrary, the power of government - and that of the executive branch in particular - has done nothing but expand throughout Bush's presidency.

I read it last month on vacation. Overall, I liked the book, and agreed with much of what Gore had to say. However, I must question if Gore was really the author of the book. What I mean is, if Gore wrote that book he is either A.) a better writer than he is an orator or B.) for some reason never felt the need to talk about any of this when he was campaigning for President.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that the book is not just Bush-bashing. Granted, some of the worst actions of Bush have to be pointed out in keeping with the overall theme.

However, the point of the book is more to illustrate how the democracy currently at work in our nation is very different from the ones our Founders intended. The basic premise is that in order for democracy to prosper, it relies on the existence of a well-informed citizenry. Prior to about 40 years ago, most people got their news and information from a newspaper, which basically meant that the only thing you needed to be well-informed was to be literate and have some change in your pocket.

Starting in the 60s, most people started getting their news from TV. Which worked pretty well for a while. However, a lot of the news coverage today focuses on things like the lost girl in Aruba, Terri Schaivo, ever-changing meaningless colors of terror alerts, et. al. In other words, things that don't really make us any more informed of what is happening in government. When was the last time the nightly news reported on a great speach given in the Senate - or reported on anything that Congress does for that matter?

Basically, the point is the citizenry is no longer well-informed, because we decide who we vote for based on 30-second TV ads, and not what the politician is actively saying or doing.

[ July 11, 2007, 17:58: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

The principles of Universal Health Care are sound, and as Michael Moore argues in his most recent film, implementing such policies does not cause the end of life as we know it (I have yet to see this film, and likely won't, but I do know that's what he argues in the film, I have no idea how well he does so.)

I've lived in Canada all my life. I have been well served by the health care system that so many in the US like to demonize. I have no problem giving some of my money so that the very poor, very ill, or very unfortunate can get the medical care they need. I can't imagine anyone so heartless as to truly believe that a sick child should be turned away from a hospital and left to die because his parents don't have lotss of money.

That said, though, such programs are often bloated and inefficient, nopt to mention easy to take advantage of. I personally know an idiot who went to Hawaii while on welfare. That pissed me off no end. The idea of having the health care system finance some weirdos tattoos aggravates me, too.

What's all this got to do with Hillary? Well, if she as a baseline principle believes that sick people deserve help regardless of their income, I can see that's a good thing. HOW she goes about getting them that help is something else, particularly if it opens the door for people claiming their sex-change operations are "necessary medical procedures".

Fact is, though, is that while I firmly believe that a woman can be a great leader, and maybe Hillary even could be, I do not think that mainstream America will vote for a woman. The majority won't vote for a Black guy, either. I think that's a horrible thing, but I also think that's what'll happen -- racism and sexism are still alive and kicking worldwide.

 

DR, this must depend on what state you live in. Here in Iowa, you have to prove that you are actually applying for work and also utilize the state-run job programs. Not only that, but the period you can receive welfare is capped at 6 months. Total. If I'm on welfare for 6 moths after a layoff, find another job for 3 months and get laid off again, I will not be able to get government assistance in Iowa.

The major distinguishing factor about all the instances we've found where people abused welfare is that we caught them.....and held them accountable for it, too.

 

@DR, come to n.c. & i will take you to more than 3 dozen different housing projects where this is the norm. thats just in 1 county

drew, your confusing unemployment with welfare
there are many many people who have been on welfare for YEARS.
i know this personally as i have a no-account cousin who has been on welfare since the age of 18.
she is now 27 & has never worked a day in her life. she has 2 kids, for whom she gets EBT(foodstamps), childcare allotment, WIC(women & infant care), rent allotment in addition to her welfare every month.
also since she never married her better half she receives more foodstamps as a single mother.

he is also on welfare after getting a quack doctor to diagnose him as bipolar & to stressed to hold a job.

 

martaug - That's really a shame and it's too bad that people abuse a system that is supposed to aid those who can't help themselves, or are down on their luck. But much like the defence contractors who over-charge the government millions of dollars, we can't just throw out those programs (like the military defence of our country) because of the abusers and scammers. They exist at all levels, from white-collar, corporate scammers (who rake in millions) to welfare moms who could care less about their kids, or don't even respect themselves. We can't allow children to go hungry, just because their parents are losers.

 

@ Maurtag,

You made it sound as if ALL welfare recipients were that bad, rather than a few local bad spots. As has been said, the examples you cite are evidence that welfare needs to be reformed, especially on the state level - but not done away with. In states where the welfare system is broken, this is what happens. This is more the exception than the rule in most of the US, but it's common enough to be a concern. It appears that North Carolina would do well to adopt something similar to Iowa's model, as Drew explained it. If all states had such a no-nonsense policy, welfare wouldn't have the bad rap that it does (though I suspect many conservatives would still demonize it anyway).

Ok, maybe we need to start a welfare topic. This is supposed to be about Hillary Clinton. And I can assure you - when Hillary and other Dems talk about "the common good" and push social programs, the examples you cite would not be what they had in mind. While I agree that these abusers are deplorable, keep in mind that such abuses of the system piss EVERYONE off, not just conservatives.

 

I wonder - does she have any core supporters at all? I mean, I was following the news and they had something about a Giulianni supporter being connected with a prostitution ring. This guy seems to get in trouble on every angle, and still he is doing quite well in the Republican primary polls. OTOH, I don't see any scandals around Hillary, but some people - here and elsewhere - seem completely set against her. What gives?

 

I think he is as well. I have never been on welfare, but there was a time about 7 years ago that I was on unemployment. These rules may vary from state to state as well, but from how I understand it, the six month limit is pretty standard.

I was still living in Pennsylvania when I was on unemployment, and I remember some of the regulations. First, you had to have been employed at your previous job for a minimum of 16 weeks to qualify. Also, you had to go to the unemployment office at least once a week and apply for jobs in your field. Finally, unemployment gives you a royal screwing in terms of what kind of money you receive. When I was on it, the amount of money you get per month is either half of your previous salary, or $1500, whichever is LESS. For people who only go on unemployment for a brief period of time, that's not very good if you have bills to pay.

 

You should read "Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." While Al doesn't directly address the hostility the media has had towards Hillary Clinton since 1994 or so, I nevertheless think that, after reading the book, you won't be wondering anymore.

Yes and no. Very few states are going to be willing to give welfare to someone who doesn't work. I know that Iowa won't. In order to get welfare in Iowa, you have to either be working, drawing unemployment (which requires you to actively be looking for a job and participating in the state job program), or on SSI (not sure about SSI). Welfare exists for people who are working (or so disabled that they cannot work) but aren't making enough money for their household. They don't exist for losers who just don't want to work. For those who qualify, welfare is the difference between being able to have a roof over your head and living on the street.

[ July 12, 2007, 15:31: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Health Care Reform: khaavern -- all she did was 'try.' She did not succeed. She even set herself up for failure by specifically EXCLUDING anyone having anything to do with health care. I don't count a politician in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services as a health care provider.

She missed promised deadlines. Over and over.

When she finally delivered a product, it was so large and complex that very few people thought it could be implemented. She was unable to even gain support from her own party for the plan -- it was so underwhelming Health Care Reform never even got on the congress agenda for a vote.

This should have been a issue worked on in conjunction with health care providers. I believe her lack of insight in this is indicative of her overall judgement -- hence, I do not have confidence in her ability to lead.

 

Ostensibly, but the last 7 years' worth of legislation and White House agenda hardly bear that out.

By rightie I meant conservative, which Bush is not. I could go on and on about this, but its off topic.

Ah yes, Utopia, I've hear of that. Back to reality, welfare has good intentions, but way too many abuse the system. If there were tougher punishments for abuse, it would go along way to solving the problem. But first and foremost, I disagree with the redistribution of wealth. I work hard everyday, working 2 jobs to support my family. I see many who do nothing but have more and more kids to get a bigger check every month.

Regimes... hey this aint Cuba, but I hear its nice this time of year, you should give it a try. Micheal Moore gave it a great review.

Back on topic, to Hillary, you remember her dont cha... She may win the nomination, heck I'm sure many Republicans hope so, but I don't see her able to win the big one. This country may still be behind the times and won't vote for a women period. Plus she has too many skeletons in her closet (Bill has to add an extra wing to the house for his closet). Her socialistic agenda won't go far in middle America. That's why MoveOn is pushing for elimination of the Electoral College. Win CA, NY, PA, IL, and FL and screw the rest of the country.


Have fun with this one!!!

 

I hear that said all the time. I even hear about examples. What I haven't heard, though, is any examples that are actually true. Apocryphal stories do not a broken system make. Don't get me wrong.....I'm sure abuses exist....but when the politicians talking about all these "abuses" keep getting caught weaving their examples out of whole cloth or grossly exaggerating minor abuses, I'm inclined to believe that the abuses must be a lot rarer and less severe than people are saying. To quote Cuba Gooding Jr, "SHOW ME THE.....uh....PEOPLE ABUSING WELFARE!" I'll believe it when I see it.

 

All this discussion about welfare made me curious, so I looked at how much the government spends on it annualy. For 2006:

welfare ~ 250 billion
defense ~ 600 b
health care ~ 600 b (I assume this is medicare/medicaid here)
interest: 225 b

so the money spend on paying interest on the government debt is almost as much as it is paid on welfare. Number of americans living in poverty ~ 36 million (according to the Census Bureau).

I would think there are a lot of other things to worry about before welfare. And health care is one of them.

About Hillary' attempt to reforming health care: I admit I do not know the details (it was some time ago, after all). But from what recent stuff I read, I do not think you can lay the blame at her feet. Okay, so she might not have been very smart in dealing with the issue, but it is hard to make progress against a lot of entrenched interests. Hopefully this time the popular support for health care reform will be more pronounced.

 

Ok, here is something local:

Six women are facing federal charges, accused of lying to the Charlotte Housing Authority to get rent assistance they didn't qualify for.

Although they had jobs, five of the six reported no income on forms used to qualify for Section 8 housing, according to federal indictments released Thursday. The sixth underreported her pay, an indictment says. The women - three of them U.S. Postal Service employees - are accused of stealing $128,158 over five years from the U.S. Department...

Published on 2007-04-13, Page 1B, Charlotte Observer, The (NC)

 

Oh well, if they're found guilty, kudos for bringing up the example. Still, I doubt there is one branch, public or private, where abuse does not happen.

 

And they are being held accountable for it, too. What you have provided, here, is someone who tried to abuse the system......and got caught. Your example is proof that the system is working....not that it is broken. Now, if they pulled something like that and weren't being charged, you'd have a point.

 

Drew,
you made me belatedly get the point!

Take the those mythical single woman with four kids. As they don't really exist, the tough love applied to them is a non issue I mean, applied to whom? So what is all the outrage about?

That means I can call for capital punishment for the 'imaginary parking violators', and dismiss all arguments about such a measure being excessive with an elegant reference to their mythical character

Whenever talking heads start appealing to the 'mythical' or 'evident', listen closely. They're invariably glossing something over. Adjectives are warning signs in political speech.

 

I think you missed this part:

So they got away with it for 5 years. Now this is a locally supervised federal program, so there are 2 sets of checks and balances to oversee this program. After further review, the county oversees 843 cases of housing support, a lot yes, but one person could check the record of each case at least once a year. A social security number is all that is needed and a record check with SS (same government ya know)would show income being generated by the receipt of SS payments coming in from the employer (also the same government if most of these cases). Its just the government doesn't want to fix the problem because the people in charge of the program are paid to run the program, if they limited their customer base, then their jobs would also be limited. The system is corrupt because the government needs customers as much as the customers need the government. $10 says they get a slap on the wrist and don't have to pay back the stolen $$ or lose their gov't jobs.