New Discoveries?
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/27/2007 9:32 PM:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:36:42 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

Umm..Jon, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican Congress
that had been beating the Dems over the head for years to get rid of the old
system of paying unwed teenagers to stay home and make babies.
And, you can point to a web page that documents that... we're
waiting. Oh, Fox news doesn't count.

Just do a Google search on "welfare reform" Clinton and Republican. You'll
quickly come up with a plethora of stories of how he vetoed 2 bills passed
by the Republican majority before deciding he'd had enough and signing the
third amid dire predictions from the left wing of his party..

The record is pretty clear that Clinton made a firm promise to
overhaul welfare. The GOP tried to take advantage and it backfired.
Their version was vetoed twice and headed toward a third, when under
pressure from Republican moderates the conservatives backed down and
Clinton won.

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:36:42 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

Umm..Jon, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican Congress
that had been beating the Dems over the head for years to get rid of the old
system of paying unwed teenagers to stay home and make babies.

And, you can point to a web page that documents that... we're
waiting. Oh, Fox news doesn't count.

Just do a Google search on "welfare reform" Clinton and Republican. You'll
quickly come up with a plethora of stories of how he vetoed 2 bills passed
by the Republican majority before deciding he'd had enough and signing the
third amid dire predictions from the left wing of his party..

You mean Clinton wasn't in the "left wing" of his party??? I'm shock,
shocked to hear such a thing.

http://www.greens.org/s-r/12/12-15.html

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

On 27 Mar 2007 17:35:46 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,

But not at McDonalds... that's my point.

So, what point are you

What factory Jon. I'm curious about a factory that is organized that
has minimum wage jobs and you can be" promoted" to a union job. In a
non right to work state.

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

Jon, I can remember the name of every organization I've worked for
going back fifty years. What's the problem?

It is unusual for a factory in a forced union state like California,
to have very low end and low paid jobs that are outside the bargaining
unit. Being involved in the collective bargaining process for many
years, I'm just trying to understand how that could happen.

I understand you had to join the Union. California is not a right to
work state.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?


Nope, could have didn't want to, no plans to stay. Boss at the time
was one of the best people and hardest workers I have ever known.
He would have made me a store manager had I wanted it. I didn't.

Well then it's moot, since you didn't stay.

Point is not moot. Point, stated one more time is that you can move
on or move up from any job. The key is to take one in the first
place, work well, and build on it, either with that organization
within the capacity for promotion or with the next one. Anyone can do
that if they "choose" to do so.

That's what the subject was about, do you remember.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

How is it his fault. You can't answer by saying he lacks individual
repsonsibility. Specifically what has he done to create a group of
people who are unemployable by choice. You made the statement, back
it up.

Huh? Now you're losing it.


Nope, completely lucid. You make constant reference in your posts to
Bush being the direct cause to everything bad in the world. The
conclusion that can be drawn is that you hate him like most liberals
do. I'm just trying to find out if you know something specific that
links him directly to a centuries old problem of people who lack the
individual iniative or personal responsibility to support themselves.
People who are able, but make a choice not to work.

That is the topic. I'm not talking about those who cannot because of
some mental or physical issue, just those who choose not to prepare
themselves or who refuse to take a job.

Once again, you made the claim, so back it up. Let's have the facts.

New Discoveries?
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/28/2007 10:33 AM:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:04:45 -0400, Jeff said:

The record is pretty clear that Clinton made a firm promise to
overhaul welfare. The GOP tried to take advantage and it backfired.
Their version was vetoed twice and headed toward a third, when under
pressure from Republican moderates the conservatives backed down and
Clinton won.

Jeff, I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. You can tell fairy tales to
little kids about the issue first coming up in 1992. But some of us have
much longer memories.

Sure thing, turnip. Most of that is basic public record. The only
slightly subtle point is that Newt's version of the bill had coupled
welfare reform with major changes in Medicaid. Moderate Republicans
led by John Ensign and Dave Camp sent a letter to Gingrich and he
finally gave in, and removed the Medicaid portion. Clinton had stared
down the GOP and they folded.

The bill still had strings, such as a restriction on legal immigrants
getting federal bennies, and a reduction in food stamps. For this
reason, the left wing complained. Clinton's famous cabinet meeting
comment was "This is a decent welfare bill wrapped in a sack of ****."
However, as a compromise, it was good, and Clinton deserves the
credit for getting it through.

By the way, two years later most of the food stamp programs were
restored, so this was pretty much a total victory for Clinton.

New Discoveries?
 

* Dave wrote, On 3/28/2007 12:25 PM:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:45:43 -0400, Jeff said:

this was pretty much a total victory for Clinton.

If you mean he finally was dragged to what the Republicans had been pushing
for years before, I suppose you can so characterize it. A bit like the
famous proposal to get out of Vietnam--"let's just declare victory and go
home."

Go ahead and spin your tales. As I say, some of us have longer memories.

The record is real clear, Clinton made welfare reform part of his 1992
platform. Its true that the left wing of the Democrats had blocked
reform for a long time, but by the same token, the right wing
Republicans were trying to go for a lot more than basic reform.

The bottom line is that it was Bill's version we ended up with, not
Newt's.

Hey Dave, you're covered in turnips!

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:35:46 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

Jon, I can remember the name of every organization I've worked for
going back fifty years. What's the problem?

I looked it up... National Pen... I had lots of jobs in college. g

It is unusual for a factory in a forced union state like California,
to have very low end and low paid jobs that are outside the bargaining
unit. Being involved in the collective bargaining process for many
years, I'm just trying to understand how that could happen.

I have no idea. That's the way it was. I actually tried to organize
the envelop stuffers and pen stampers at one point... looked up the
procedure in the library, then started calling established unions when
I realized how difficult it would be. Mostly, they weren't
interested. The company had a lot of non-English speakers... probably
illegals... who knows. Anyway, the company found out someone was doing
this and went around saying they were going to give people lie
detector tests. Most of the "American" workers told them to f*ck off,
so it didn't go anywhere.

I understand you had to join the Union. California is not a right to
work state.

Yah... nice job actually. Fun except for the ink smell.

Point is not moot. Point, stated one more time is that you can move
on or move up from any job. The key is to take one in the first
place, work well, and build on it, either with that organization
within the capacity for promotion or with the next one. Anyone can do
that if they "choose" to do so.

Ah, but sometimes, in fact most of the time, at a minimum wage job
that's just not possible. Anyone cannot do it if they choose anymore
than I can fly a kite in the midddle of a busy street... g

That's what the subject was about, do you remember.

Nope.

Nope, completely lucid. You make constant reference in your posts to
Bush being the direct cause to everything bad in the world. The
conclusion that can be drawn is that you hate him like most liberals
do. I'm just trying to find out if you know something specific that
links him directly to a centuries old problem of people who lack the
individual iniative or personal responsibility to support themselves.
People who are able, but make a choice not to work.

Everything bad? No. Just a major attempt at the ruination of this
great country.

That is the topic. I'm not talking about those who cannot because of
some mental or physical issue, just those who choose not to prepare
themselves or who refuse to take a job.

And, I'm saying that is a very small minority of those who do minimum
wage jobs.

Once again, you made the claim, so back it up. Let's have the facts.

Just did.



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Sure thing, turnip. Most of that is basic public record. The only
slightly subtle point is that Newt's version of the bill had coupled
welfare reform with major changes in Medicaid. Moderate Republicans
led by John Ensign and Dave Camp sent a letter to Gingrich and he
finally gave in, and removed the Medicaid portion. Clinton had stared
down the GOP and they folded.

That's Turnip Esquire to you Jeff!

The bill still had strings, such as a restriction on legal immigrants
getting federal bennies, and a reduction in food stamps. For this
reason, the left wing complained. Clinton's famous cabinet meeting
comment was "This is a decent welfare bill wrapped in a sack of ****."
However, as a compromise, it was good, and Clinton deserves the
credit for getting it through.

Hillary did it.

By the way, two years later most of the food stamp programs were
restored, so this was pretty much a total victory for Clinton.

He's quoting Newt... the guy who was cheating on his wife (#2 or #3?)
while claiming he was after Clinton for lacking family values. I
remember him.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:24:05 -0400, Jeff said:

The record is real clear, Clinton made welfare reform part of his 1992
platform.

For those who don't believe the world began with the Johnny-come-lately in
1992, let me recommend
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...99/gipper.html

Or if you don't like a single source, a quick Google search of Reagan and
"welfare reform."

No bias there... "The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland
University is a conservative think tank in Ashland, Ohio, dedicated by
Ronald Reagan on May 9, 1983."

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 11:25:41 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

For those who don't believe the world began with the Johnny-come-lately in
1992, let me recommend
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...99/gipper.html

Or if you don't like a single source, a quick Google search of Reagan and
"welfare reform."

No bias there... "The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland
University is a conservative think tank in Ashland, Ohio, dedicated by
Ronald Reagan on May 9, 1983."

Don't say I didn't give you alternatives. Did you do the search I suggested?

Some... looks like Clinton did the right thing, even though he angered
some left-leaning groups.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

New Discoveries?
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 11:23:39 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

He's quoting Newt...

Who's quoting Newt?

And what relevance to the discussion has Newt's marital history?

If you don't know, do the research!


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com