Is compassion returning to conservatism?

[TexasTiger 13,017]

What about my... Liquor Tax?

How much of that you pay is totally up to you.

[Tiger Al 0]

I'd say that based on the conversations I've been having with rather socially conservative Christians, the article is spot on. In embracing the GOP because they were the only party that seemed to give a rip about our moral and social concerns, we feel like we bought in too much to other parts of the GOP agenda that weren't congruent with biblical principles, particularly in the area of economics. As with most things, it's not as simple as saying that since the Republicans may have been wrong in aspects of those areas that the Dems are the automatic choice, but hopefully Christians overall are starting to wake up and realize that the real power lies in being true to the Gospel, not loyal to one party or another.

So, how do like-minded folks reconcile their views with those of the two parties? Could they support pro-choice candidates tolerant of homosexuals if that candidate otherwise represented most of their views, or, are those positions deal-breakers? Would they be more likely to support pro-choice republicans like John McCain or pro-life Democrats like Lincoln Davis?

[BamaGrad03 0]

So, how do like-minded folks reconcile their views with those of the two parties? Could they support pro-choice candidates tolerant of homosexuals if that candidate otherwise represented most of their views, or, are those positions deal-breakers? Would they be more likely to support pro-choice republicans like John McCain or pro-life Democrats like Lincoln Davis?

I'll answer that. Even though Im a hardcore republican...the "pro life" party line has not accomplished much. The far right wingers are so bent on all or nothing on abortion...they ultimately dig in and get nothing done. While they are sitting up there refusing to make any compromise, no unborn childrens' lives are saved.

So I would vote for a pro choice candidate who was willing to make efforts to drastically reduce the rate of abortions. (See Ford in Tennessee...that guy had a great platform)

[DKW 86 7,440]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVmM...TNhMDY2YmM0OTM=

Welfare Reform Made Interesting

Work Over Welfare is an amusingly told story of an important reform.

By Kate O'Beirne

The dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty that we have witnessed over the last ten years is remarkable; even more remarkable, perhaps, is a recently published book recounting the reform of federal policy, the most sweeping in decades, that led to these improvements. In providing a lively account of the personalities, policies, and politics that shaped the landmark welfare-reform legislation, Ron Haskins has produced an engaging primer on the complicated and arcane legislative process. In Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, the account of how a bill becomes a law receives a remarkably entertaining treatment, and the book should find an appreciative audience well beyond his fellow academics.

Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, spent 14 years on Capitol Hill as the Republicans’ resident expert on social welfare policy. As would be expected, he has a thorough command of profuse research findings and a detailed knowledge of the intricacies of scores of federal welfare programs. More remarkable is how he is able to make his specialized knowledge accessible and interesting to non-experts, a group that included the members of Congress who had to be instructed, inspired, and corralled in order to deliver “a truly radical policy.”

The Republican welfare reform bill that finally passed and was signed by President Clinton in 1996 overturned thirty years of failed national welfare policy that subsidized persistent poverty and rising rates of illegitimacy. Haskins’ detailed account of how reformers changed the terms of debate, marshaled their arguments, recruited allies, overcame obstacles, and withstood presidential vetoes and demagogic attacks in order to successfully challenge an entrenched welfare establishment has heroes and villains, humor and suspense. At odds in the high stakes battle were Republicans and Democrats, governors and Congress, Capitol Hill and the White House, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton. The chances of passing a controversial and complicated reform were slim.

Haskins reminds us that years of preparation preceded a 1994 GOP majority that was not only in a position to implement reform, but was also committed to a reform that would demand an end to an open-ended entitlement and would require work in exchange for welfare. Because Haskins was intimately involved in every stage of the reform, his readers are treated to an insider’s candid account of the contentious meetings behind closed doors and the careful choreography that played out in congressional hearings.

The bill ultimately passed Congress with large bipartisan majorities (328 to 101 in the House), but it frequently seemed a hopeless enterprise. Success has many fathers, and Haskins gives credit to a number of them; he acknowledges the indispensable intellectual groundwork done by conservative foundations and policy experts like Charles Murray and Robert Rector and liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and he also gives credit to President Clinton, who was willing to buck his congressional allies and some of his own appointees in order to “end welfare as we know it.” The two champions of reform, though, who can most claim responsibility for the reform are Representative Clay Shaw and Senator Jim Talent — and here is another reminder of why the defeat of these talented and committed legislators this November was so regrettable.

Over the past ten years, welfare rolls have been cut by more than half. Today, a record number of single mothers are gainfully employed, and black child poverty is at an historic low. Ron Haskins deserves plenty of credit for the improved prospects of our nation’s poor; he also deserves praise for capturing so well the fascinating and important story of how meaningful welfare reform finally happened.

— Kate O'Beirne is the author of Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports, now in paperback.

So let me get this right. Clinton was elected in 1992 with the Dems in control of both houses and does zilch FOR his promised welfare reform. He loses the House and Senate for 12 years in 1994. The Republican Congress cornered him into signing Welfare reform during the 1996 campaign.

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

Reforming welfare

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.

http://clinton6.nara.gov/1996/08/1996-08-2...ll-signing.html

Q Mr. President, some of your core constituencies are furious with you for signing this bill. What do you say to them?

THE PRESIDENT: Just what I said up there. We saved medical care. We saved food stamps. We saved child care. We saved the aid to disabled children. We saved the school lunch program. We saved the framework of support. What we did was to tell the state, now you have to create a system to give everyone a chance to go to work who is able-bodied, give everyone a chance to be independent. And we did -- that is the right thing to do.

And now, welfare is no longer a political football to be kicked around. It's a personal responsibility of every American who ever criticized the welfare system to help the poor people now to move from welfare to work. That's what I say.

This is going to be a good thing for the country. We're going to monitor it and we're going to fix whatever is wrong with it.

Q What guarantees are there that these things will be fixed, Mr. President, especially if Republicans remain in control of Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: That's what we have elections for.

He wasnt exactly excited about keeping his promise to "end welfare was we know it." practically blamed his having to sign the bill on the Dems not getting elected to enough Congressional offices.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

What about my... Liquor Tax?

How much of that you pay is totally up to you.

I pay zero.

[Tiger Al 0]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVmM...TNhMDY2YmM0OTM=

Welfare Reform Made Interesting

Work Over Welfare is an amusingly told story of an important reform.

By Kate O'Beirne

The dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty that we have witnessed over the last ten years is remarkable; even more remarkable, perhaps, is a recently published book recounting the reform of federal policy, the most sweeping in decades, that led to these improvements. In providing a lively account of the personalities, policies, and politics that shaped the landmark welfare-reform legislation, Ron Haskins has produced an engaging primer on the complicated and arcane legislative process. In Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, the account of how a bill becomes a law receives a remarkably entertaining treatment, and the book should find an appreciative audience well beyond his fellow academics.

Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, spent 14 years on Capitol Hill as the Republicans’ resident expert on social welfare policy. As would be expected, he has a thorough command of profuse research findings and a detailed knowledge of the intricacies of scores of federal welfare programs. More remarkable is how he is able to make his specialized knowledge accessible and interesting to non-experts, a group that included the members of Congress who had to be instructed, inspired, and corralled in order to deliver “a truly radical policy.”

The Republican welfare reform bill that finally passed and was signed by President Clinton in 1996 overturned thirty years of failed national welfare policy that subsidized persistent poverty and rising rates of illegitimacy. Haskins’ detailed account of how reformers changed the terms of debate, marshaled their arguments, recruited allies, overcame obstacles, and withstood presidential vetoes and demagogic attacks in order to successfully challenge an entrenched welfare establishment has heroes and villains, humor and suspense. At odds in the high stakes battle were Republicans and Democrats, governors and Congress, Capitol Hill and the White House, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton. The chances of passing a controversial and complicated reform were slim.

Haskins reminds us that years of preparation preceded a 1994 GOP majority that was not only in a position to implement reform, but was also committed to a reform that would demand an end to an open-ended entitlement and would require work in exchange for welfare. Because Haskins was intimately involved in every stage of the reform, his readers are treated to an insider’s candid account of the contentious meetings behind closed doors and the careful choreography that played out in congressional hearings.

The bill ultimately passed Congress with large bipartisan majorities (328 to 101 in the House), but it frequently seemed a hopeless enterprise. Success has many fathers, and Haskins gives credit to a number of them; he acknowledges the indispensable intellectual groundwork done by conservative foundations and policy experts like Charles Murray and Robert Rector and liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and he also gives credit to President Clinton, who was willing to buck his congressional allies and some of his own appointees in order to “end welfare as we know it.” The two champions of reform, though, who can most claim responsibility for the reform are Representative Clay Shaw and Senator Jim Talent — and here is another reminder of why the defeat of these talented and committed legislators this November was so regrettable.

Over the past ten years, welfare rolls have been cut by more than half. Today, a record number of single mothers are gainfully employed, and black child poverty is at an historic low. Ron Haskins deserves plenty of credit for the improved prospects of our nation’s poor; he also deserves praise for capturing so well the fascinating and important story of how meaningful welfare reform finally happened.

— Kate O'Beirne is the author of Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports, now in paperback.

So let me get this right. Clinton was elected in 1992 with the Dems in control of both houses and does zilch FOR his promised welfare reform. He loses the House and Senate for 12 years in 1994. The Republican Congress cornered him into signing Welfare reform during the 1996 campaign.

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

Reforming welfare

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.

http://clinton6.nara.gov/1996/08/1996-08-2...ll-signing.html

Q Mr. President, some of your core constituencies are furious with you for signing this bill. What do you say to them?

THE PRESIDENT: Just what I said up there. We saved medical care. We saved food stamps. We saved child care. We saved the aid to disabled children. We saved the school lunch program. We saved the framework of support. What we did was to tell the state, now you have to create a system to give everyone a chance to go to work who is able-bodied, give everyone a chance to be independent. And we did -- that is the right thing to do.

And now, welfare is no longer a political football to be kicked around. It's a personal responsibility of every American who ever criticized the welfare system to help the poor people now to move from welfare to work. That's what I say.

This is going to be a good thing for the country. We're going to monitor it and we're going to fix whatever is wrong with it.

Q What guarantees are there that these things will be fixed, Mr. President, especially if Republicans remain in control of Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: That's what we have elections for.

He wasnt exactly excited about keeping his promise to "end welfare was we know it." practically blamed his having to sign the bill on the Dems not getting elected to enough Congressional offices.

You're beating a dead horse. We've already established that Clinton was the last president to enact meaningful welfare reforms. What have the "furious" conservatives, who've had total control of the legislative and executive branches, done since then?

[TexasTiger 13,017]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVmM...TNhMDY2YmM0OTM=

Welfare Reform Made Interesting

Work Over Welfare is an amusingly told story of an important reform.

By Kate O'Beirne

The dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty that we have witnessed over the last ten years is remarkable; even more remarkable, perhaps, is a recently published book recounting the reform of federal policy, the most sweeping in decades, that led to these improvements. In providing a lively account of the personalities, policies, and politics that shaped the landmark welfare-reform legislation, Ron Haskins has produced an engaging primer on the complicated and arcane legislative process. In Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, the account of how a bill becomes a law receives a remarkably entertaining treatment, and the book should find an appreciative audience well beyond his fellow academics.

Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, spent 14 years on Capitol Hill as the Republicans’ resident expert on social welfare policy. As would be expected, he has a thorough command of profuse research findings and a detailed knowledge of the intricacies of scores of federal welfare programs. More remarkable is how he is able to make his specialized knowledge accessible and interesting to non-experts, a group that included the members of Congress who had to be instructed, inspired, and corralled in order to deliver “a truly radical policy.”

The Republican welfare reform bill that finally passed and was signed by President Clinton in 1996 overturned thirty years of failed national welfare policy that subsidized persistent poverty and rising rates of illegitimacy. Haskins’ detailed account of how reformers changed the terms of debate, marshaled their arguments, recruited allies, overcame obstacles, and withstood presidential vetoes and demagogic attacks in order to successfully challenge an entrenched welfare establishment has heroes and villains, humor and suspense. At odds in the high stakes battle were Republicans and Democrats, governors and Congress, Capitol Hill and the White House, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton. The chances of passing a controversial and complicated reform were slim.

Haskins reminds us that years of preparation preceded a 1994 GOP majority that was not only in a position to implement reform, but was also committed to a reform that would demand an end to an open-ended entitlement and would require work in exchange for welfare. Because Haskins was intimately involved in every stage of the reform, his readers are treated to an insider’s candid account of the contentious meetings behind closed doors and the careful choreography that played out in congressional hearings.

The bill ultimately passed Congress with large bipartisan majorities (328 to 101 in the House), but it frequently seemed a hopeless enterprise. Success has many fathers, and Haskins gives credit to a number of them; he acknowledges the indispensable intellectual groundwork done by conservative foundations and policy experts like Charles Murray and Robert Rector and liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and he also gives credit to President Clinton, who was willing to buck his congressional allies and some of his own appointees in order to “end welfare as we know it.” The two champions of reform, though, who can most claim responsibility for the reform are Representative Clay Shaw and Senator Jim Talent — and here is another reminder of why the defeat of these talented and committed legislators this November was so regrettable.

Over the past ten years, welfare rolls have been cut by more than half. Today, a record number of single mothers are gainfully employed, and black child poverty is at an historic low. Ron Haskins deserves plenty of credit for the improved prospects of our nation’s poor; he also deserves praise for capturing so well the fascinating and important story of how meaningful welfare reform finally happened.

— Kate O'Beirne is the author of Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports, now in paperback.

So let me get this right. Clinton was elected in 1992 with the Dems in control of both houses and does zilch FOR his promised welfare reform. He loses the House and Senate for 12 years in 1994. The Republican Congress cornered him into signing Welfare reform during the 1996 campaign.

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

Reforming welfare

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.

http://clinton6.nara.gov/1996/08/1996-08-2...ll-signing.html

Q Mr. President, some of your core constituencies are furious with you for signing this bill. What do you say to them?

THE PRESIDENT: Just what I said up there. We saved medical care. We saved food stamps. We saved child care. We saved the aid to disabled children. We saved the school lunch program. We saved the framework of support. What we did was to tell the state, now you have to create a system to give everyone a chance to go to work who is able-bodied, give everyone a chance to be independent. And we did -- that is the right thing to do.

And now, welfare is no longer a political football to be kicked around. It's a personal responsibility of every American who ever criticized the welfare system to help the poor people now to move from welfare to work. That's what I say.

This is going to be a good thing for the country. We're going to monitor it and we're going to fix whatever is wrong with it.

Q What guarantees are there that these things will be fixed, Mr. President, especially if Republicans remain in control of Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: That's what we have elections for.

He wasnt exactly excited about keeping his promise to "end welfare was we know it." practically blamed his having to sign the bill on the Dems not getting elected to enough Congressional offices.

You're beating a dead horse. We've already established that Clinton was the last president to enact meaningful welfare reforms. What have the "furious" conservatives, who've had total control of the legislative and executive branches, done since then?

Exactly. BTW, Kate O'Beirne is as partisan a hack as there is. Also, her husband is a Bushco lackey who has played a major role in screwing up Iraq by placing Bushco loyalty above competence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1600193_pf.html

The fact is, the legislation passed followed the broad outlines of what Clinton had laid out in his campaign. Clinton and Dole are both pragmatist who believe in the obligations of governance.

All Bush and the Republicans congress did is expand a prescription drug program that fails to place adequate controls on spending.

Rhetoric is just talk. Facts are facts.

[DKW 86 7,440]

The fact is, the legislation passed followed the broad outlines of what Clinton had laid out in his campaign. Clinton and Dole are both pragmatist who believe in the obligations of governance.

All Bush and the Republicans congress did is expand a prescription drug program that fails to place adequate controls on spending. That I agree with, some govt programs are just 100% crap. The feds have no business being involved in this.

Rhetoric is just talk. Facts are facts.

Delusion is Delusion. The "facts" are that Clinton had no intention of passing this stuff. He did ZERO in the first two years of his administration on this. The Reps called his bluff and sent him three bills ultimately JUST AS THE ARTICLES SAY, and then he, in true Clinton fashion, blamed his having to sign the bill on the Dems. The Republican congress passed this, not the Dems...

The Reps that did not live up to the talk are now unemployed. They will soon be replaced...by Conservatives that will do as they promise.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Delusion is Delusion.

And you are it's Master!

[DKW 86 7,440]

Delusion is Delusion.

And you are it's Master!

And you are its love slave...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I'd say that based on the conversations I've been having with rather socially conservative Christians, the article is spot on. In embracing the GOP because they were the only party that seemed to give a rip about our moral and social concerns, we feel like we bought in too much to other parts of the GOP agenda that weren't congruent with biblical principles, particularly in the area of economics. As with most things, it's not as simple as saying that since the Republicans may have been wrong in aspects of those areas that the Dems are the automatic choice, but hopefully Christians overall are starting to wake up and realize that the real power lies in being true to the Gospel, not loyal to one party or another.

So, how do like-minded folks reconcile their views with those of the two parties? Could they support pro-choice candidates tolerant of homosexuals if that candidate otherwise represented most of their views, or, are those positions deal-breakers? Would they be more likely to support pro-choice republicans like John McCain or pro-life Democrats like Lincoln Davis?

Sorry, I missed this post earlier.

Well, there is still a general mistrust of someone with a "D" behind their name. They think that in many cases, even if the candidate's personal views on abortion are in line with theirs, that they will be pressured to fall in line with the party on most of the important votes. So the willingness to branch out is in the early stages.

Personally, given those choices, I'd vote for Davis in a heartbeat, though John McCain has stated rather pro-life positions since the 2000 campaign. But being a Tennessean, I'm familiar with Lincoln Davis' record and would be very comfortable with him. It's also why I voted for Harold Ford Jr. this past election...I liked his ideas and his support of the Democrats For Life 95-10 initiative (sponsored by Lincoln Davis in the House) as I felt they were some practical steps that would really reduce abortions rather than just talk about it.

[Tiger Al 0]

The fact is, the legislation passed followed the broad outlines of what Clinton had laid out in his campaign. Clinton and Dole are both pragmatist who believe in the obligations of governance.

All Bush and the Republicans congress did is expand a prescription drug program that fails to place adequate controls on spending. That I agree with, some govt programs are just 100% crap. The feds have no business being involved in this.

Rhetoric is just talk. Facts are facts.

Delusion is Delusion. The "facts" are that Clinton had no intention of passing this stuff. He did ZERO in the first two years of his administration on this. The Reps called his bluff and sent him three bills ultimately JUST AS THE ARTICLES SAY, and then he, in true Clinton fashion, blamed his having to sign the bill on the Dems. The Republican congress passed this, not the Dems...

The Reps that did not live up to the talk are now unemployed. They will soon be replaced...by Conservatives that will do as they promise.

Why do you keep avoiding my question? Clinton signed the bipartisan Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. He could've vetoed it. He didn't. He signed it. Anything beyond that is speculation and wishful thinking on your part. If he was gritting his teeth in anguish as he signed it that wouldn't change the fact that he signed it into law. Move on.

What have the "furious" conservatives done since then? For six years they've had total control of the legislative agenda and seemed to be more "furious" at the less than 1/1000th of one percent of people who burn American flags. Why? The Terri Schiavo situation warranted more action by the "furious" ones than welfare reform. Why? Have the "furious" conservatives been so overwrought with their anger that they can only do nothing about something that makes them so..."furious?" What's up with that???

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The fact is, the legislation passed followed the broad outlines of what Clinton had laid out in his campaign. Clinton and Dole are both pragmatist who believe in the obligations of governance.

All Bush and the Republicans congress did is expand a prescription drug program that fails to place adequate controls on spending. That I agree with, some govt programs are just 100% crap. The feds have no business being involved in this.

Rhetoric is just talk. Facts are facts.

Delusion is Delusion. The "facts" are that Clinton had no intention of passing this stuff. He did ZERO in the first two years of his administration on this. The Reps called his bluff and sent him three bills ultimately JUST AS THE ARTICLES SAY, and then he, in true Clinton fashion, blamed his having to sign the bill on the Dems. The Republican congress passed this, not the Dems...

The Reps that did not live up to the talk are now unemployed. They will soon be replaced...by Conservatives that will do as they promise.

Why do you keep avoiding my question? Clinton signed the bipartisan Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. He could've vetoed it. He didn't. He signed it. Anything beyond that is speculation and wishful thinking on your part. If he was gritting his teeth in anguish as he signed it that wouldn't change the fact that he signed it into law. Move on.

What have the "furious" conservatives done since then? For six years they've had total control of the legislative agenda and seemed to be more "furious" at the less than 1/1000th of one percent of people who burn American flags. Why? The Terri Schiavo situation warranted more action by the "furious" ones than welfare reform. Why? Have the "furious" conservatives been so overwrought with their anger that they can only do nothing about something that makes them so..."furious?" What's up with that???

The "furious" "conservatives" do nothing but furiously fault Clinton for not fully feeling his proactive decision to do something to reform welfare-- as he had promised. After 6 years of TOTAL Republican rule, and nothing but runaway spending to show for it, all they got is blaming President Clinton who actually had a record of fiscal accomplishment, which, BTW, included a reduction in the deficit/increase in the surplus for each of his 8 years, regardless of who controlled Congress.

Funny how these guys who complain that all Dems have is disagreeing with Bush, can do nothing else but fault Clinton for everything, even when they agree with what he actually did!!