Republican presidential candidate John Kasich has promoted himself both as a friend of the working poor and as a foe of Hillary Clinton, but as House Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s, he worked with the Clintons to roll back welfare programs, helping double extreme poverty in America.
In 1996, the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans worked hand in hand to pass what they called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, colloquially known as “welfare reform.”
The legislation famously “ended welfare as we know it,” replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The newly created TANF placed a time limit on how long the federal government would extend financial assistance to poor families.
Kasich was one of the legislation’s prime movers. After clashes between Clinton and the Republicans over earlier versions of the bill, Kasich introduced what went on to become the final legislation in June 1996. By late July, the administration and the Republicans had solved their disagreements, and a conference bill coasted to passage by a 328-101 vote (Bernie Sanders, another presidential contender, opposed it).
“It was pretty amazing today to watch the president of the United States come on television and say that he was going to, in fact, sign this welfare bill,” Kasich boasted on the House floor on July 31, 1996.
He invoked the civil rights era to tout the cutbacks in funding to the poor, saying:
We marched 30, 40 years ago because we thought people were not being treated fairly, and we march today for the very same reason. What I would say, and maybe let me take it back and say many of my friends marched. I was too young, but I watched, and I respect it. What I would suggest at the end of the day, however, is that we all are going to have to stand up for those who get neglected in reform, but frankly this system is going to provide far more benefits, far more hope, restore the confidence in the American people that we have a system that will help those that cannot help themselves and at the same time demand something from able-bodied people who can. It will benefit their children, it will help the children of those who go to work.
One of the leading dissenters in the House was Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. “The bill we are considering today is a bad bill. I will vote against it and I urge all people of conscience to vote against it. It is a bad bill because it penalizes children for the actions of their parents,” he thundered. “This bill, Mr. Speaker, will put 1 million more children into poverty. How, how can any person of faith, of conscience, vote for a bill that puts a million more kids into poverty? … What does it profit a great nation to conquer the world, only to lose its soul? Mr. Speaker, this bill is an abdication of our responsibility and an abandonment of our morality. It is wrong, just plain wrong.”
Kasich’s response to opponents of the bill was terse: “People are not entitled to anything but opportunity. You can’t be on welfare for generations.”
Kasich explained: “America has been crying for this bill now for a generation. They’re sick of generational dependency and, frankly, they wanted a fundamental change. I’m glad the president’s going to sign the bill, and I want to compliment him for that.” He concluded: “And this is one of those successes that when we get old and we’re all in our rocking chairs, we’re going to look back and say, ‘Thank God we were able to make America a little bit better.’”
Bill and Hillary Clinton both advocated strongly for the changes.
President Clinton used the story of a black mother named Lillie Harden he had met in Arkansas during a panel on welfare reform. He touted her story of going from being on AFDC for two years to getting a job at a supermarket. He cited her response to a question about what she liked best about being off of welfare: “When my boy goes to school and they say what does your mama do for a living, he can give an answer.”
Clinton invited Harden to the signing ceremony of the bill, and also cited her during his debate later that year with Bob Dole. “I want to make more people like that woman, Lillie Harden. So I’ve got a plan to do it. And it’s just the beginning,” he said.
Hillary Clinton was involved with publicly advocating for passage and implementation of welfare reform in her role as first lady. In a Newsweek cover story in 1993, she weighed in on the upcoming welfare reform debate.
“How do we as a society address the 15-year-old mother on welfare? What do we owe her? Can we demand a set of behavioral standards from her?” asked the interviewer. “Sure, I’ve been talking about that since 1973,” replied the first lady. “You know, I am one of the first people who wrote about how rights and responsibilities had to go hand in hand.”
“When you talk about moving someone to work from welfare in two years, what happens to people who don’t want to work? Would you impose sanctions?” followed up the interviewer. “Oh, I think you have to. What happened in Arkansas is that people who refused for whatever reason to participate had their benefits cut,” she replied.
Hillary Clinton continued to defend the welfare cutback over the years. “Too many of those on welfare had known nothing but dependency all their lives, and many would have found it difficult to make the transition to work on their own,” she wrote in a 1999 op-ed. In a 2002 interview she said the policy has resulted in recipients “no longer” being “deadbeats — they’re actually out there being productive.”
Hillary Clinton’s advocacy for welfare reform strained her relationship with her mentor and former boss, Marian Wright Edelman, the head of the Children’s Defense Fund. After the signing of the bill, Edelman wrote that “President Clinton’s signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.”
During an interview on Democracy Now in 2007, Edelman described her changed relationship with the Clintons, saying, “Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics.”
During her 2008 campaign for the presidency, Clinton defended the policy, saying, “Welfare should have been a temporary way station for people who needed immediate assistance. It should not be considered an anti-poverty program. It simply did not work.”
Journalist Jason DeParle followed up with Lillie Harden nine years after she had briefly been part of the national discourse. He discovered that she had a stroke in 2002. She was unable to get on Medicaid because she was no longer on welfare, and she couldn’t afford her $450 monthly bill for prescription drugs. “It didn’t pay off in the end,” she said of her work. Harden died in March 2014, at the age of just 59.
The misery Harden experienced was similar to that of millions of other Americans who lost access to a crucial government lifeline. This past fall, a pair of researchers published a book looking at extreme poverty in America, defined as living on less than $2 a day. They found that 1.5 million American households — including 3 million children — are now living at or under this threshold.
While no one policy alone explains this shocking number of Americans in extreme poverty, the authors do note that the number has doubled since 1996, the year that welfare reform was signed into law.
“By 1996, welfare was putting a sizable dent in the number of families living below the $2-a-day threshold,” wrote authors Kathryn J. Edin, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University, and H. Luke Shaefer, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan. “As of early 1996, the program was lifting more than a million households with children out of $2-a-day poverty every month. Whatever else could be said for or against welfare, it provided a safety net for the poorest of the poor. In the late 1990s, as welfare reform was gradually implemented across the states, its impact in reducing $2-a-day poverty began to decline precipitously. By mid-2011, TANF was lifting only about 300,000 households with children above the $2-a-day mark.”
Zooming in on one state, Mississippi, the researchers wrote that the TANF rolls there “have seen an astonishing decline, more so than in most other places. As of 1965, the program was serving 83,000 residents, and that number grew to nearly 180,000 at its peak. By 2002, however the rolls had plummeted to only 40,000 and by the fall of 2014 that figure had fallen even further, to only about 17,000 statewide, around 0.6 percent of the state’s population.”
Neither Kasich nor the Clintons have indicated they would be willing to revisit the decision to “end welfare as we know it.” There appears to be agreement that the 1996 law was the right step forward for America — proof that despite laments about a lack of bipartisanship, there is an issue elites in both parties can agree on: cutting back a lifeline to the poor.
Top photo: The Seashore Mission in Biloxi, Mississippi, which serves homeless and indigent people.
Zaid Jilani,
New tip worth following: Alarming declines in numbers of social service recipients amidst growing poverty – food stamps, TANF, WIK, social security benefits, etc – would be found with research. The story behind these falling figures signifies an American dirty war in progress, whereby previously ghettoized populations are denied all aid before they can only die. Please, check it out!
You mention Sanders opposed it, but according to the link he didn’t oppose it with a VOTE! He didn’t even vote! For OR against!
does that include corporate welfare, too ? like the bail out of private GOLDMANSACHS ? bail out of GM ? etc.
Highly relevant:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_days_of_revolt_chris_hedges_jill_stein_take_on_politics_20160216
Now, I’ve always thought that ol’ Billy C was the best Republican president ever, but, that Hillary, now… She just may give that old man of hers a run for his money in the how-many-people-can-we-fuck-without-them-knowing-it department he’s such a master at.
Because AFDC was working so well keeping or helping families out of poverty. Learn a little history before you write (or believe) tripe like this. Is this really the logic of the modern mind?
And of course, the “go-to” line when there’s no *real* logic to the (in this case omitted) solution, “think of the children”.
Good reading. The Clinton’s and the Catholic Church (respectfully) carry some the same characteristics of hypocrisy.
Great article, Zaid.
Also of interest was that it was strictly forbidden in the Clinton Administration to utter the phrase:
“corporate welfare”
in public. Unfrigging believable to anyone who wasn’t paying attention to their actions back then, of course.
1. Blaming people for being poor, and having no real answer, so removing a system that worked, seems cruel to me.
2. Hillary mentioned 15 year old mothers, which the USA has in HUUGE abundance compared with other “developed” nations, and the sexual obsessions restricting women and girls’ access to sex education, contraceptives,and of course abortion as a last resort, are partly the reason.
3. Even if people “don’t want to work” they deserve to remain alive.
4. Huge subsidies go to oil companies, banks, people who “invest” in tax havens, but that is not punished like welfare for the poor.
Well at least the bankers still get endless welfare.
Good for them; we need more of the same. It is well known that a large % of those on public assistant are cheaters; some outragiously cheaters, others to a lesser extent but cheaters, nevertheless.
Between Welfare, WIC, SNAP and other Governement assistant programs, plus massive fraud on Medicare and Medicaid, the Government is cheated out of several hundred billion dollars. We need the Government to create an organization dedicated 100% to weed out all the cheaters; laws needs to be drastically revised and the penalties for cheating need to have some real teeth that can bite hard. For example, people who allow their address to be used by someone to collect benefits, they lose the house, no excuses; in the case of those who allow tens of thousands of foreign nationals (illegals) to use an address: you lose the house and get a $10,000 fine per individual who used the address. I guarantee, they will start thinking good and hard.
Look on the bright side, there are more millionaires and billionaires than ever before and it won’t be long before there is a trillionaire!
“(Kasich) worked with the Clintons to roll back welfare programs, helping double extreme poverty in America.”
+
“While no one policy alone explains this shocking number of Americans in extreme poverty, the authors do note that the number has doubled since 1996, the year that welfare reform was signed into law.”
=
Kasich caused poverty… do you see the logical fallacy? No? Let me make it more clear: AFDC was not a solution to poverty. Taking AFDC away did not cause the poverty. TANF is not a perfect program either but it’s better (I think) than AFDC.
TI is getting dangerously close to just being a liberal rag. You want to bash the Republican candidates? Have at it. I think they suck also. But in the process of showing us why they suck, why not use logic instead of blind ideology?
Not sure I follow. Based on the premise that welfare reform caused poverty, the logic seems to work.
If Kasich–>welfare reform and welfare reform–>extreme poverty, then Kasich–>extreme poverty is not a logical fallacy. You seem to be questioning the premise rather than the logic. In other words, you want to say the argument is unsound, but you are asserting it is invalid. An argument can be internally consistent but still wrong.
20-years on, how many of the child victims of TANF are housed in Americas jails and prisons? Billary et al found it more politically convenient and lucrative—for themselves and their fellow aristocrats—to militarize domestic police forces and incarcerate these children for the better part of their natural lives. What do you know, but up pops the private prison industry, police killings of unarmed 20-somethings skyrocket, the “War on Drugs”, “three strikes policies”, overcrowded prisons, and on and on—all to taxpayers’ much greater expense, of course. As an American with all 5 senses functioning and active, it is obvious, embarrassing, disgusting and terrifying.
If the end is efficiency, it is certainly worth considering whether we are better off with AFDC-type welfare rather than TANF+other consequences of childhood poverty. That is a complicated question to sort out, though, and is well beyond the average bear, er, voter. Many opponents of welfare feel the way they do because of their personal notions of fairness (as do the proponents).
As an aside, note that the war on drugs, mandatory minimums, etc. really got going under Reagan, and of course welfare reform was under Bill Clinton. I agree there is a connection, but “…up pops…” is a bit ahistorical.
John Kasich and the Clintons Collaborated on Law That Helped Halve Dependancy
Spot on, Ed. No one has a right to the fruits of someone else’s labor.
“No one has a right to the fruits of someone else’s labor.”
Except employers?
Only employers of slaves. Employers of free men pay wages.
Employers have the right to the fruits of their own labor, which includes returns to entrepreneurship.
Nice to see a touch of true Marxism, though. I thought all you guys were dead.
“Nice to see a touch of true Marxism, though.”
I’m willing to bet that you haven’t read nearly enough of Marx’s work to have a clue what does or doesn’t constitute Marxism.
As for equating “entrepreneurship” with labor . . . I have to take a break now; I feel a little nausea developing.
Read every word of it (of the manifesto and Das Kapital — can’t say I read his newspaper articles) multiple times. I’ve also read his predecessors (you know, the people he plagiarized) like Saint-Simon. So you’re actually talking to someone who has read it, yes. One of my degrees is in political economy, and I teach history of thought as we speak at the graduate level. So say/argue I’m wrong, but don’t attack my studying — you’ll lose that way.
I didn’t “equate” entrepreneurship with labor, which you might be able to infer by my having used a different word.
Anyway, nice talking to a true Marxist, like I said. You guys weren’t too agreeable in the past, either, so I’m doubly sure I’ve found a remnant in you, good sir.
Golly gee Professor, I don’t think slaves have employers. They have owners. You wrote: “Employers have the right to the fruits of their own labor, which includes returns to entrepreneurship.” This sentence DOES place “returns to entrepreneurship” , directly into the category of “the fruits of ones labor”. The truth is, what you refer to as “returns to entrepreneurship” is really “the right of interest” and it’s only relationship to labor is one of exploitation. In addition, your sentence suggests some consistent and significant relationship between employer and entrepreneur. Worse, it conflates entrepreneurship with financial investment. Read all the Marx you want, and boast on comment boards about your adjunct gig at The University of Phoenix to your heart’s content. You’re a poser.
Awww. I so wanted you to like me.
Interest and returns to entrepreneurship are distinct. Interest is the price of a loan. Returns to entrepreneurship are commonly equivalent profits, or a net gain from bringing a good or service to market.
You’re splitting hairs, but in my defense, my comments did not conflate investment and entrepreneurship, or at least I do not see the source of your inference that I conflate them. I would, however, argue that employers and entrepreneurs are closely related in practice, but an entrepreneur can employ no one in some cases and an employer (e.g. the government) can not be an entrepreneur in some cases. Be that as it may, a common definition of entrepreneur (this from dictionary.com, but pick your own poison if you want) is “an employer of productive labor; contractor.”
But I appreciate your (best?) effort on the stuff that wasn’t ad hominem. And I also appreciate the fact that there is in fact more than one Marxist still alive. I encourage you to investigate for yourself Marx’s (or anyone else’s) definition of “exploitation” to see whether there is any “there” there.
Execept the 1/10 of 1% ers? plus the Wall Street Bank Robbers et al.????
If you call plunging 1.5 million people into extreme poverty decreasing dependency. I guess if they starve to death or die of exposure or illness due to lack of medical care that they’re no longer dependent…
C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N
KASICH is an extremist. Do not be fooled.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kasich%20site%3Amotherjones.com&oq=kasich&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65.1647j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8&gs_l=navquery.3…18494.19210.0.19670.6.6.0.0.0.0.59.304.6.6.0….0….1.64.navquery..4.2.115.7NXoKGRtwwM&ved=0CCUQ2wFqFQoTCK3NvPrArMgCFQiZiAodvo8JyQ&ei=yAoTVq3JM4iyogS-n6bIDA
Womens Health
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/planned-parenthood-john-kasich_us_56bb7998e4b0b40245c4f47c
He hates government and tries to fool you with politeness
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kasich-policies_us_56bb4749e4b08ffac1235368
At the time, I remember the Clinton’s using a dressed down language to describe welfare whose sentiments came directly from Reagan which were vicious in their racism and classism. One of the effects today as I understand it is the rather large reduction in food stamps. When untold people lost their jobs over the last 15 years or so, there was very little in the way of food stamps for our unemployed countrymen and women while the banksters got hundreds of billions. And disgustly the last Dem controlled senate cut back food stamps four billion dollars.
The general thing about welfare is that right wingers and their Dem party affiliates do believe in it,. What they do is disagree who should get it. The single mother with two children? Nope. The bankster. Yes.
Yes, corporate welfare is an abomination. We had a candidate in 2008 and 2012 that wanted to end it (and would have), but he was “unelectable” for some reason.
As for the rest of your points, attributing “vicious..racism and classism” is more a way to admit you can’t argue the merits of the case than a way to win an argument. As a matter of two facts, though, the welfare reform accomplished in 1996 was an issue well before Reagan, with loud calls to reform especially during and immediately after Johnson’s “Great Society” bullshit. I have a bumper sticker in my office from the era: “Join the Great Society, Go on Welfare.” So people working for a living at the time understandably had some qualms. AFDC was started by FDR in the 30s, and he always had political opponents on this and other New Deal issues, obviously. Second, please try to refrain from making stuff up re: foodstamps (what in the modern day is SNAP). They were available to all eligible people throughout the Great Recession. Any deficits in the program were just added to our federal deficit, so exactly no one had any less available than before or since. In fact, participation went up about 50% during the recession and benefits (per person) increased over 25%. So you’re just wrong on that. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
328 without a conscience vs. 101 with a conscience? what a government? A society ran by businessmen (scrooge?) for they’re profit, at whatever expense it is, to other people, creatures, whatever. no one else seems to have a voice? For the rich, by the rich.
It could be that some people thought that welfare reform would help the poor. Of course, it’s much easier for you to impugn people’s motives than to confront their arguments. Lemme guess — you’re voting for Sanders? (Rhetorical.)
I am 63 and have spent most of my life in Ohio with stints in Colorado and Florida. I worked on all of former Ohio Congressman and Strickland’s campaigns including his run against Kasich who clearly won. My positions exposed.
What we know about Kasich is that soon after he took office he turned down federal funds in the pipeline (Strickland’s efforts) for a mass transit rail system from Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Cinci. Turned down the funds to create more jobs and an eye to the future for mass transit in Ohio.
Next on his list was trying to take down collective bargaining for federal workers which was defeated. And I am proud to say I worked hard with union members (many of them who had voted for Kasich) to defeat Kasichs SB 5. Spent many hours at the Ohio State house talking with those against Kasich’s efforts was amazed about how little young people knew about the history of unions http://www.workingamerica.org/states/OH/SB-5-Issue-2-and-the-Battle-We-Won
My most recent experience with Kasich’s privatization efforts has to do with my 87 year old mother who we are doing our best to keep at home because that is what she wants. My parents (WWII dad deceased a few years ago, ready to go) were both hard working blue collar workers. Never ever asking the government for anything (had to talk my dad into getting a really good wheel chair from the VA). Paid their taxes, bought a house with a 30 year mortgage, raised four kids…basically both of them worked their ever loving asses off. So as they entered their elderly years and my dad had a horrible fall landing in the health care (only in the hospital once in his life when he was born) system they went through their life savings fast paying for assisted living (we tried to bring him home but was a stubborn old coot and did not co-operate as he said he would) and then nursing home cost at 6-9000.oo a month (he was in several different nursing homes) So they went through their savings in three years.
So now my mother living at home on 1400.oo a month (I help her with other cost) we turned to Area on Aging for in home health care help. This is the first time my parents turned to the government for any assistance during their lives. She was on a program called Passport which provided for someone to come in a few days a week as well as food delivery. Then she was moved up to ComCare (I believe that is the name of the program) Which in turn means more in home health care hours and other benefits. Although unbeknownst to us her traditional medicare coverage was switched (again without asking us) to a medicare/medicaid program. At first they switched it all over to medicaid but I called and said she was not able to see the family doctor under the program they had switched her to. What I found out is that the program that had been overseen by Area on Aging (federal government) had been switched to a private for profit health care distribution of services companies called Molina and Buckeye which is a experimental program being driven by the Kasich administration. From talking with many of the health care providers at Area on Aging and some of the therapist etc their take is that this program is a disaster and from what I saw I had to agree. Lots of tangled webs, duplication of processes etc. Seems Kasich is trying to shift another government run program over to private for profit health care companies. For my aging peer group at home services is going to be a gold mine for these companies.
Hope you dig into this Kasich program in Ohio. I do believe his effort to privatize this industry. http://medicaid.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Resources/Reports/Annual/ODM-Annual-Report-SFY15.pdf
There is a lot of remarkably uninformed comments here and I see it as a failure of journalism to create a focused dialogue. End of life issues in America are criminal and a government who supports business at the expense of working Americans is clearly at fault. The nursing home industry (with government support) is a hugely profitable area sucking money from the dying. Other developed countries stare at the United States in absolute disbelief. They cannot imagine this and do not understand why Americans tolerate this immorality.
Being on welfare for generations wasn’t always the choice of the people involved. It is far harder to live with and on public assistance. They only “reformed” welfare they didn’t create any real pathways to not need welfare. The job training programs were a joke and they cut money for daycare so single mothers on welfare couldn’t get training or school.
It was clear to me in the 70s that the government valued business over the people when assembly line jobs were being exported and the government had customs duty programs to support this (the 807 duty exemption). Soon the export of jobs to cheaper countries was generalized. European countries reacted with alarm and set up programs to save jobs. Not America. The final blow to any manufacturing jobs in America was Bill Clinton’s NAFTA. As my dad said, “You can be smart or you can be stupid, but stupid is harder.”
“How do we as a society address the 15-year-old mother on welfare? What do we owe her? Can we demand a set of behavioral standards from her?” asked the interviewer. “Sure, I’ve been talking about that since 1973,” replied the First Lady. “You know, I am one of the first people who wrote about how rights and responsibilities had to go hand in hand.” Responsibility is very important to Hillary. That’s why Chelsea grew up helping the staff clean the White House, do the dishes, mow the lawn… what? Oh….
I used to volunteer where many 15 year old mothers came with their babies and sisters and friends.
Just to set the record straight I was moved by how much they loved and sacrificed for their little ones. They always were clean and cute.
The well to do who came were often dressed very stylishly while the children were in dirty t-shirts with slogans.
The worst is not the 15 year old mothers…the worst is that the fathers are absent when those children get older and need protection from the streets. The welfare system caused a lot of that…it was a huge flaw that destroyed black families and self respect.
I often wondered if that wasn’t a reason for it, it was so successful doing it.
However, the checks for these little mothers helped them a great deal. The welfare queen Reagan held up for scorn was only a small percentage compared to the corporate handouts and enormous growth in the federal govt. in his administration. Washington DC ballooned in the 1980s.
My point is…please get to know lots of people…don’t rant in a fortunate ghetto. Circulate among our people…there’s much to love and respect.
You can’t be on welfare for generations unless you are a corporation. Then you can drain the treasury all you want.
Roughly 45,000 Americans have died each year since 9/11 because they lacked access to medical care. Our congress and big insurance companies are far more proficient killers of Americans than all the jihadis on earth, and we should really start defending ourselves and our families against their predations.
Great comment. I wonder how the great number of deaths, I read 200,000 per year recently, from medical error can be a additional factor.
Emphasis added.
“People are not entitled to anything but opportunity.”
[and we control that too]
Yes, the opportunity to work for slave wages at any job you can find working in unsafe conditions and still starve. The opportunity to be homeless when you can’t pay your medical bills… there’s SO much opportunity out there! Thanks a bunch, Kasich and Clinton.
In the US, no one has to starve to death. Simply commit a crime and you will be looked after in prison.
The problem is that courts are reluctant to sentence juvenile offenders to prison; hence the large number of children living in poverty. This is why Hillary Clinton’s work is still unfinished. As President, she can pass laws to remove the artificial distinction between adults and children. It is needlessly divisive – we are all human beings after all.
Once the prisons are filled with children, these child poverty statistics, which for the richest country in the world are frankly embarrassing, will go away.
Let’s not forget that the privatizing of
Government, Education, and Prisons
will make the consolidation of all three into one of
the main jobs programs.
That way child labor and “education”
will be one and the same and Walmart will have its
products produced near at hand.
What we call prisons today will be transformed into
proud centers of enterprising capitalists who can only
hope someday to achieve the greatness of Lloyd Blankfein.
All while money is created by typing on keyboard numpad daily.
…..ditto….
….. but many of prisons are now filled with children – ignored, abused, used to increase revenue through private prisons which are partnered with States….
….and, it has become tiresome to hear Hilary interject into her speeches commentary about being a “mother and a grandmother”…..every day I see many mothers and grandmothers pushing carts down the street with the remains of their personal belongings…..Hilary needs to get out more, like out of her “neighborhood” and her limo…
Furthermore, based on the principle of extended application, it is clear that none of us would ever have to worry about starving if we all go to prison. Other than having to invent and maintain robot guards, I see no drawbacks to this proposal.
In general democrats are stupid people because they will follow any leader with a D after his name once he is elected and they will support whatever he does, no questions asked even if he implements extreme right wing policies.
They will support him as a liberal and a man of the people no matter what he does. They are like the people in Ionesco’s play, “The Leader”. No one has understood this better than the Clinton’s although Hillary is probably feeling she may have gone to far in courting the big bankers. The important thing is to look like a strong leader and to do the dirty work with impunity.
When Hillary gives Sanders’ stump speech, nobody asks her how she’s going to pay for all of it, because it’s understood that she’s lying and posing. Sanders has to explain in detail how he’s going to do it because it’s understood that he really means it. This is the democratic party today.
You are so right. Hopefully we can make some changes with the popular momentum.
Great point. Nobody asks Hillary to explain how she will pay for safety net programs, healthcare, student loan debt reliefe, etc, because everybody knows she is lying.
Some still-relevant Democrats who voted Yea on this vile legislation:
Russ Feingold
Harry Reid
Joe Biden
John Kerry
Barbara Mikulski
Vic Fazio
Thank you. People didn’t seem to notice when Bill Clinton described himself as a “New Democrat” — a distinct, neoliberal branch of the Dem Party that continues working to root progressive ideology out of the party. Tragically, liberal media looked at the consequences of the war on the poor, and decided to ignore it. They now implicitly (but powerfully) preach that our deregulated capitalism is so successful, that everyone is able to work, there are jobs for all, therefore no need for poverty relief. Meanwhile, they redefined “poor” as those who are fortunate enough to have a minimum wage job (the min. wage is roughly double what our former welfare aid provided). Disappearing the rest.
In real life, not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there aren’t jobs for all. The US shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 people who are seeking jobs. What do you think happens to those who are left out? Most low wage workers are walking on a tightrope, one job loss from losing everything. Once you no longer have a home address, phone, bus fare — you’re out. You can’t get a job.
We have no way to determine how many are in deep poverty today, and even liberal media have had no interest in examining what conditions are like for the truly poor. Bill Clinton made it cool to turn our backs on those who aren’t of current use to employers.
John Williams’ Shadowstats alternate unemployment rate is at about 23%.
John Williams’ work, BTW is really good stuff. If you have reason to need or want to keep up with these things and “don’t trust the government” (you definitely should not), his reports are well worth the cost.
Hillary Clinton touts herself as a progressive, and most of the media so classify her. I really don’t understand what “progressive” means, obviously, because to me other than her pro-choice stance she’s George W. Bush in drag.
One of the most intriguing aspects of US politics is that labels that may have definite meanings in other countries have malleable ones here. Thus today HC can speak before the ACLU and call herself a progressive, and tomorrow before the KKK and call herself a strict constructionist conservative. Stop someone on the street and ask them what the word “socialist” means, or to name one, and they will probably name Marx because they cannot distinguish between communism and socialism. We have terms like neo-liberal and neo-conservative, which effectively mean the same thing, something the original Benito called a fascist. This is why whenever you read a post ranting about liberals or conservatives, you know the author has no idea what he or she is writing about.
Welfare starts from a fundamental principle of humanism. Every human being has right to live a dignified life, being respected by family community, at a level of sustenance and shelter assuring satisfaction of fundamental spiritual and material needs, human needs and eliminating propaganda of false wants such a money which we do not need but were conditioned to want not as means but as ends .
But this means complete remaking of society from its foundation, an impossible task to implement short of global calamity and destruction of the entire system of power.
May I remind you sir that “crucial government lifeline” comes from confiscating the fruits of the labor of people like me. I would not begrudge assistance to the needy if it was private charity instead of funds stolen by “government” at the point of a gun, literally. I already give food assistance thru my church and would be able to be more generous if .gov was vastly scaled back and it’s wasteful taxation ended. This includes the foreign adventurism the U.S. empire is currently engaged in. We do not need to police the globe, other people’s troubles are none of our business. If citizens want to help privately, as in Doctors Without Borders, that is their right. Socialist policy such as a “guaranteed income” has never and will never work. Central planning will never work. Strip thepower to create currency from the hands of the central banksters and end their hold on government. End Keyensian banking practices and theft through inflation. The people, as individuals, should determine what is done with what they have earned thru their labor.
“Strip power from the banksters” – there is, for me, a serious doubt that this can be done under the current structure of our country. Money controls elections as well as the government. Money owns the media. There is no serious dialogue because both political parties are in bed with money and that runs the country. Looking at elections, a majority of Americans have accepted their servitude and tune out.
How much were costs reduced in exchange for the extra million in extreme poverty?
Two dollars a day for a million people is $730,000,000.
So, AFDC minus TANF is what?
How many lives were shortened?
How many treatable health conditions became expensive emergencies?
How many more went to prison?
Clearly there were additional costs incurred due to kicking all those people off welfare.
So what were the actual (if any) savings?
The other impacts are harder to figure out, but it costs a hell of a lot more than $2 a day to lock someone in prison.
This article is an eye opener for anyone to understand why the United States today needs Bernie Sanders’ future to believe in because we don’t have a present reality to be proud of especially regarding the high numbers of children living in poverty with children living on $2 a day for basic necessities.
I was moved when Bernie Sanders answered a woman in Milwaukee, who asked, “My father gets just $16 in food assistance per month as part of Medicaid’s family community program in Milwaukee County for low-income seniors. How will you as president work to ensure low-income seniors get their basic needs met?” SANDERS: “ OK. You know, you judge a nation not by the number of millionaires and billionaires it has, but by how you treat, we treat, the most vulnerable and fragile people in our nation. And by those standards, we’re not doing particularly well.” And then Bernie Sanders reaffirmed that his administration would expand social security to ensure that the woman’s father can get his basic needs.
Commenters on this excellent article in INTERCEPT don’t get that people in poverty need assistance. Even the septuagenarian who worked at the New York City Department of Social Welfare wants to still “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and not help the children in need. I also worked for the NYC Department of Welfare at that time in the 1960s and I learned that all the ‘clients’ on my big caseload were people in need, and the meager welfare check helped them. There was Robert Farmer who lived in one room over a garage and instead of utility money got coal money for his small coal stove. He tried to give the Dept. of Welfare the money back for his household budget because the welfare check provided for two sets of utensils and he was only one man. His mother had been born a slave and he came from the south and had worked in a factory in NYC. He was unemployed and sick. So many faces come before me after all these years, the babies, the mothers, the elderly women and men, the single fathers, and disabled. Also a lot of the social workers were returning Peace Corps volunteers who believed they made a difference by working for the welfare department. My supervisor had come into the job in the New Deal – beginning way back in the 1930’s. And now to read this article and have it all spelled out in black and white what Hillary Clinton stands for in relation to children in poverty – to be confronted with the ignorance and hardheartedness of my contemporaries, I am ashamed for them.
I believe that Bernie Sanders will put us back on the right track to a future we can believe in.
There is a GESTAPO functioning in the current American government and we can thank the Clinton’s for it. This is additional to our incarceration efficiency which is also the result of the Clinton’s.
Title IV E of the Social Security Act was amended by the “welfare reform of 1996.” Originally, this was the government debt collectors used to collect the public assistance money used by, I believe, individuals that weren’t qualified to use it. In other words welfare fraud. It was amended to make the Dept. of Child Support Services this new debt collecting agency. If your a family, 2 parents & child/children, needing public assistance due to loss of work or whatever and the parents are NOT MARRIED, the agencies that handled the assistance applications will refer that families application to the Dept of Child Support Services (DCSS) for collections. The DCSS will get a court order to make the father pay every penny back that the government gave in assistance. MARRIED couples with children on welfare don’t qualify for debt collections. MARRIED people with kids can use all of the welfare available without DCSS involvement but if that couple separates the father, most of the time, gets hammered to pay for every penny used. The DCSS gets incentive payments based on performance. The Constitution has no room in their courtrooms. The Dept. of CHILD Support Services cares NOTHING about CHILDREN. Its about the incentives. This agency is the most disgusting unAmerican thing filled with Femi-nazi’s and all around assholes. They have the authority to destroy people and families and they do. Any court case that DCSS is involved in lacks all of the Constitutional protections. Imagine a court case that never ends? What a fucked up thing the Clinton’s created!
The Clinton family needs to be locked up for crimes against the people. They are disgusting people, TYRANTS! Anyone who supports them are fucking idiots and don’t deserve to live in the U.S..
Read “Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA” by Terry Reed.
Ha! Woops, it appears my error rate is due. TITLE IV-D is the authority that provides DCSS with the ability to screw you not TITLE IV-E.
Scalia is dead?!
@ avelna2001
Yep. It appears so. Died on a ranch in Texas.
As a human–condolences to his family and friends. As a human, citizen and lawyer–can’t say I’ll be shedding any tears, ever. The man’s judicial philosophy was pernicious and short-sighted. His personal values suspect. His rulings, although every once in awhile defensible and correct [like a stopped clock], on the whole a function of his debased personal values and short-sighted judicial philosophy.
Can’t say I’ll miss him in any way. Too bad Pres. Obama probably won’t be able to push through his replacement before his term ends. Can’t imagine the Senate not figuring out a way to stonewall anyone Pres. Obama might nominate. Pres. Obama should nominate someone qualified anyway and use it against the GOP in the upcoming election.
Yes, condolences to family and friends, but I believe that the country will be better off without him, or anyone like him, on the Supreme Court. He was not an honest or honorable jurist.
Obama already has a short-list of nominees who have already been completely vetted.
Congress is on an official recess, therefore Obama can legally announce a recess appointment, and he should.
The stars aligned for Obama on this one and he, as any Republican president, should take advantage of the opportunity and name someone tomorrow.
I hope GOD has judged him with kindness that he denied me and my offspring when he uttered these hurtful words as a Supreme Court Justice:
“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well,” he said, as opposed to “a slower-track school where they do well.”
And he was a Catholic by faith , so am I. Christianity has been shamelessly used to do massive damage to humans, other living beings and other things on planet earth !
Seems so, and unexpected. Died at a Texas resort.
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-reported-dead.html/
Going to be considerable trouble. Two major cases — the Friedrichs public-employee union case and the religious Zubik v. Burwell are due for a ruling by end of term in June.
Then, of course, there’s going to be a big nomination fight, and probably the risk of 4-4 decisions into next year if that seat hangs open.
In some ways, more of a vacancy than, say, Clarence Thomas. Scalia could be surprisingly libertarian on certain matters of habeas or evidence.
“Then, of course, there’s going to be a big nomination fight, and probably the risk of 4-4 decisions into next year if that seat hangs open.”
Oh, yeah, at least one big fight. And this should make the presidential and Senate seat races even more entertaining.
Coram and RR: Do you really think McConnell & Co. trust Anthony Kennedy enough to leave the vacant seat unfilled for a year?
It’s a gamble. I doubt if they want to give Obama any appointment this side of Roy Moore.
Ha!
At the moment, I’m gonna be an incrementalist (I know, guys, I know). Have my fingers crossed that the empty seat will result in a tie on Friedrichs and leave labor alone for at least a brief interval.
Ah the blessing of a tyrant pig dead…glory be to God.
Kasich just got my vote then. Welfare should not be used as a cradle to grave subsidy. Those who refuse to work hard to support themselves and their family frankly don’t deserve to be coddled and supported by others’ money taken at the point of the taxman’s gun.
Let voluntary charitable organizations take care of them or, better yet, let these people stand up and take responsibility for themselves.
Plenty of dollars for the criminal neocons to spend on planes, ships, bombs, missiles and more foreign aid to bribe them to help get their way but no money for people or critical infrastructure like roads and bridges?? Is this that compassionate conservatism in action (again) or just another DemocRATic boondoggle gone…astray (again), that we’ve all heard so much about? Whatever you call it, it’s two authors belong in an unemployment line or better yet in a prison somewhere where the rest of us are safe from their ongoing antics and crimes.
Many studies on poverty had demonstrated that the best way for people to get out of poverty is to have married parents who work, even if they make minimal wage and do not have much money. Thus being born out of wedlock and often not knowing who your dad is, is a very poor prognosis for your future life..
It is misdirected compassion of our welfare system that creates poverty, as it resulted in 75% of black and 45% of white babies born out of wedlock and are lucky if their mother is not an alcoholic or drug addict. Often young girls drop out of high school and have babies which they are unable or unwilling to take care of, and then those kids end up on the street or foster care.
B. Hussein Obama had tripped expenditures for food stamps and doubled the numbers of recipients, in addition to giving free phones and other perks to drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes…
America was built on 4 corner stones of independence, self-sufficiency, meritocracy and fee market all of which had been chipped away by our misdirected compassion. Thus more [poverty and more dysfunction…and eventually such socialism will stop as the government will run out of other people’s money as we did rapidly under B. Hussein Obama who was bribing voters with perks, just as Bernie sander does.
The problem with welfare is that it’s a program. What people need isn’t a handout that, for a time, they might depend on, and then at another time, they somehow end up deprived of. What people need is a right that they can plan around and rely on. That means, for example, that the person receiving welfare, or rather, a better successor, needs to know that he or she can work, live with a man, or whatever else seems like a good idea at the time, and still have a basic income to fall back on.
When welfare is replaced by basic income, people who rely on basic income are not on a fringe of society any more. They may be dreamers, playboys, tourists, artists, or forum trolls, but they are not at risk of being stamped out by society as an unclean thing, a pox on the earth, simply because nobody with money found a use for them.
It is true, of course, as Churchill said, that “We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” The thing is, the U.S. doesn’t need to tax itself into prosperity – it’s already fabulously wealthy. The problem is, that wealth doesn’t benefit everybody, and almost anyone with enough bad luck or some minor defect of character gets thrown in the trash.
Having people work may be an important social goal, but to me it looks like it’s getting less and less important all the time. Everyone is worried about robots and illegals taking over their jobs. There’s no fear that if we don’t have enough people the harvest won’t get taken in and the fire will run out – the only fear is that the people who own the robots will do away with everyone else. So we don’t need a system that wields the whip of life and death over people to get them to work. We need INCENTIVES to work. Incentives like, whether you live in a big house or a little apartment, eat at a fancy restaurant or out of a bag of chips. Those are incentives, and they’re enough. To Hell with the rest of the coercion, right back where it came from to begin with.
I agree with your post but before all that, a QUALITY EDUCATION is key. Not to attack your post but like the recollection in the article, neither mentions education as part of the solution. Education being: vocational, retraining, K-12, pre-school etc.
Unfortunately, having restructured the US as an “information economy,” we have shipped away many of the well-paid jobs that used to be available to people not of an academic bent.
It’s a matter of inescapable reality that many humans are not and never will be suited for work requiring what we (rather ignorantly and arrogantly) refer to as “higher” education. We have made those folks, as the Brits say, surplus to requirements — a recipe for ongoing inequity, discontent and social unrest.
Until global techno-industrial finance capitalism burns itself out (and, alas, many of us with it), as it ultimately must, Wnt’s proposal for a basic income as a matter of right is exactly the right thing to do.
Of course, since the ruling oligarchy doesn’t want to share . . .
Two things. Minor:
As the Brits say, redundant.
Major:
Doesn’t a right have to be universal by definition? Correct me if I’m wrong (seriously). Somehow what you mean by “right” is that SOME people have a right to OTHER people’s resources. I’m not arguing against the sentiment, I’m just arguing that welfare can’t be a “right” if it by construction gives some people something that was taken from others. Obviously, not everybody can simultaneously have the “right” to other people’s stuff. Maybe it is a “right of the poor.”
LBJ’s War on poverty (paying people to stay poor) was/is a multi-trillion disaster.
Following up with the Hart-Celler act only made it worse.
All for votes.
Jest CANT $wallow CLINTON KasichDealas !
Great piece, particularly the part that detailed what happened to Harden as it touches on the issue of affordable healthcare as well. But Kasich, the republican establishment candidate du jour, has a plan. Thats to give people more hugs. Hey, are you underinsured and paying your premiums means living paycheck to paycheck and even trying to meet your high deductible would bankrupt you? Aw shucks, heres a hug!
I think instead of putting people in welfare for donkeys years it will be better service to them and to humanity in general to arm them with SMG’s and send them to Iraq and Syria to kill some ISIS folks and, while they are at it, to kill some Turkeys as well. This welfare business has got to stop. The Saudis are finding out what mess they are dealing with now that crude oil has become practically free.
Gee, what a slightly in-depth, wholly under-educated critique! When it comes to critical thought, you are like the fourth little piggy, you have none! Please, read a book!
Well, putting the unwanted poor in the army is an old standby, dates back to the genteel meatgrinder of the first World War. But the Islamic terrorists seem to have the better approach on this one – they tell people their families will get some cash if they blow themselves up. Then they use them to take over areas and get more cash, and leave more refugees fleeing with nothing whose kids will eventually do something to help the family. It works … we just don’t like it. More to the point, the rich don’t like it, because with so many bombs going off eventually one might go where it’s not supposed to.
You certainly have a point or maybe two points there about the bombs. No wonder it’s not a great idea. That is why I suggested the guns. They can do some guaranteed damage to ISIS and Turkeys.
You certainly have a point or maybe two points there about the bombs. No wonder it’s not a great idea. That is why I suggested the guns. They can do some significant damage to ISIS and Turkeys.
“More to the point, the rich don’t like it, because with so many bombs going off . . .”
You mean, of course, except for the rich who make money making bombs. For them, the more the merrier.
So why are you still alive? they should have put you on such an Army and have you as the point man. You could have died serving your country, you could have been a hero. At least, that way one could say: General Hercules did something useful out of his miserable life. If you have children; they should have been put in the same position and be the point men.
Because going somewhere and mindlessly killing a lot of people will miracuously make their relatives and friends like you and they will totally not fight for their cause even more.
Seriously, though; the US should have learned from Vietnam. No matter if you are right or wrong in invading a country, as long as you don´t get the people there to view you as the good guys and offer them perspectives for their lives after the war, they will keep fighting. And killing civilians never makes people there like you.
When will Bernie Sanders meet with the nation’s neediest, as Bobby Kennedy did during his brief campaign? When will Bernie Sanders expand his talking points to include seriously addressing poverty and homelessness? When will Bernie Sanders alter (and improve) his speaking style by moving from shouting into having sincere, thoughtful talks (as in “fireside chats”) with the American people?
Doug Giebel
Big Sandy, Montana
I worked for the NYC Department of Welfare for 6 months in 1966, in Spanish Harlem. Except for maybe 10% of my caseload, it was a disaster. It didn’t do the clients any lasting good, nor the community, creating 2nd and 3rd generation dependances. Like I said, about 10% were in need and were mostly 1st timers, usually young.
My conclusion at the time was shut it down, and find other ways to help children in poverty conditions with pre-natal and early health care, school breakfasts and lunches (that aren’t sugar & grease lethal), general adult health care (this is where the 10% were in need), and jobs, dammit.
Would you support reparations for poor, mainly minority communities hit hardest by financial disaster? Reparations as in targeted investment in ghettos?
I wouldn’t call it reparations; I would call it assistance in employment, health, and education…it wouldn’t signal out any special group and would apply to all. Of course, many, many would be beneficial minorities in urban centers.
Commenters on this excellent article in INTERCEPT don’t get that people in poverty need assistance. Even the septuagenarian who worked at the New York City Department of Social Welfare wants to still “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and not help the children in need. I also worked for the NYC Department of Welfare at that time in the 1960s and I learned that all the ‘clients’ on my big caseload were people in need, and the meager welfare check helped them. There was Robert Farmer who lived in one room over a garage and instead of utility money got coal money for his small coal stove. He tried to give the Dept. of Welfare the money back for his household budget because the welfare check provided for two sets of utensils and he was only one man. His mother had been born a slave and he came from the south and had worked in a factory in NYC. He was unemployed and sick. So many faces come before me after all these years, the babies, the mothers, the elderly women and men, the single fathers, and disabled. Also a lot of the social workers were returning Peace Corps volunteers who believed they made a difference by working for the welfare department. My supervisor had come into the job in the New Deal – beginning way back in the 1930’s. And now to read this article and have it all spelled out in black and white what Hillary Clinton stands for in relation to children in poverty – to be confronted with the ignorance and hardheartedness of my contemporaries, I am ashamed for them.
Peace Shertzy. What turned my mind at the time was I had never seen such misery and the Welfare system just bumped along alleviating none of it. I repeat: Peace Sister.
“The job of journalists…is trying to be responsible when telling their viewers and readers what government officials are saying and to assess whether there is evidence for it” Glenn Greenwald
Obviously that job does not apply when it comes to Sanders:
“John Kasich and the Clintons Collaborated on Law That Helped Double Extreme Poverty” Feb 13, 2016
“Henry Kissinger’s War Crimes Are Central to the Divide Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders” Feb 12, 2016
“Hillary Clinton’s Congressional Black Caucus PAC Endorsement Approved by Board Awash in Lobbyists” Feb 11, 2016
“Lobbyists, Consultants Fret Over Bernie Sanders Victory” Feb 10, 2016
“Why Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein Called Bernie Sanders “Dangerous” Feb 8, 2016
“Top Hillary Clinton Advisers and Fundraisers Lobbied Against Obamacare and Dodd-Frank” Feb 8, 2016
“Here’s What Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speaking Contract Looks Like” Feb 5, 2016
“Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Brawl Over His “Insinuation” That She’s Corrupt” Feb 5, 2016
“Hillary Clinton Won’t Say if She’ll Release Transcripts of Goldman Sachs Speeches” Feb 4, 2016
“Insiders Predicted That Bernie Sanders Would Be No Threat to Hillary Clinton” Feb 2, 2016
“Top Hillary Clinton PAC Donation Amounts to 222,000 Bernie Sanders Donations” Feb 1, 2016
“The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism” Jan 31, 2016
You are so right, especially now that it is established the Bernie Sanders is as creepy as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Obama made homosexuality very acceptable to everybody, and I am sure both Bernie and Hillary will make bestiality socially acceptable. How abhorrent! Yuk! I am pretty sure you truth&lies;Idiot belong to that community.
Don’t you short-dicks get tired of being so wrong all the time? Just curious.
If *only* there were part of the vast media that would step up the plate and be critical of Sanders and give Clinton a break.
Let’s see, until a month ago, you couldn’t see hide nor hair of Bernie on ANY media. Maybe they should have considered him an actual threat. It was the Clinton machine that called for the media blackout, now they have to pay the price. Now, the media wants a race and know she’s still ahead so they’re going to prop him up to keep the race going. And poor sHillary, my a$$! She’s got plenty of that sweet Wall St. cash. You make your bed, you lie in it! She’s grown, she made her decisions, deal with it!
This is at least the fourth time you’ve posted that in at least three comments sections here. Please stop spamming.
Go straight to Greenwald and ask him to ban me. You may call me Lenk whatever the hell that name means if you want to. As an incredible idiot you cannot seem to notice that you and TI make my point every time you call those who disagree with you “troll” or “spammers”.
BTW It has been at least 10,000 times you have posted your rants about Israel. Please stop spamming.
And yet Rep. John Lewis just endorsed Hillary for president when the Congressional Black Caucus announced its endorsement of her the other day.
the CBC PAC board endorsed Clinton, not the CBC itself. big difference
It was a the PAC of the Congressional Black Caucus, not the CBC itself that endorsed her, so there’s a big difference. The board that made the decision has more lobbyists on it than elected officials. Some of the members of the CBC have made it clear that they played no part in this decision.
It is no coincidence at all that newspapers report today of a new finding that the lifespan for the high incomes is increasing compared with the rest of us. In the 70s it was 1.2 years, it is now nearly six years. The Clintons, like their Republican friends, joined with the financial elite to spend less on public health and programs to end poverty. With all that extra money, they decide to get involved with Iraq. All the American kids killed, wounded or emotionally scarred (not to speak of the 4 trillion wasted) and today’s NYT front page headline: “Resentment by Sunnis dims hope of unity in Iraq.” It was something completely obvious on Day Number One and Hillary and her laughing husband are entirely guilty of involvement is this outrage. How morally unhinged it is that she is running for President and people intend to vote for her?
Clinton really ought to be viewed by the Republican establishment as the ideal Republican candidate for president – a Rethug who has the potential to actually be elected.
Maybe they do think of her that way, and the clown show is just a cover for the queen fascist.
I’m old enough to remember vividly the competition between Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. And, old enough to remember – and to have been able to vote – in the presidencies from Nixon forward. Just wanted to use this space to commend The Intercept and its writers (present author especially!) for doing the necessary journalistic work heading into this election. Kudos to all for bringing this – not so distant – history forward.
Couldn’t agree more. I was watching msnbc with my wife just now, and we both lamented the sorry state of journalism today.
I was born when, as Bette Midler put it, Ike was in Mamie.
Ummm….. JFK followed Eisenhower in the White House. He ran against Nixon. Or, are you perhaps referring to another type of competition, as when JFK was a Democratic senator and Ike was a Republican in the White House.