Welfare Reform

The results are in, and the poverty rates have droped by as much as 11% according to TIME magazine, experts cite the policies of Clinton to provide welfare only temporarily and to encourage employment.

Clinton sucked.  He was worse than Bush.  Fuck, at least Bush supports the 2nd amendment.  Clinton is just neo-con/neo-liberal (whichever you think is more accurate) garbage.

>>1 Clinton tried to avoid signing that welfare reform, but the republicans made him sign it. This bipartisan solution helped America substantially. Clinton was marginally better than Bush.

>>2
>Fuck, at least Bush supports the 2nd amendment.

Which is totally serious business. If you can't have an assault rifle at home, the world is going to end.

>>2
"Fuck, at least Bush supports the 2nd amendment."

Yeah, you just go right on believing that.

>>5

"Yeah, you just go right on believing that."

LOL? He does.  He appointed pro-2nd amendment people to the supreme court, he appointed a pro-2nd amendment ambassador to the U.N. who recently defended the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment from a recent ploy by the U.N., and he has not vetoed a single pro-gun bill that made it to his desk so far that I know of.  Furthermore, if you look at his record back when he was governor of Texas, he has a squeaky clean record of supporting the 2nd amendment there as well - not to mention the fact that he happens to be an NRA member himself. 

>>4
Yeah who gives a fuck about the Bill of Rights & the constitution.

>>4
http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/
You should see this movie.

>>6 Did you know there are more than one amendment? As if a gun is going to protect anyone from the crusade on drugs or stopping Bush's new war tribunal from throwing people in jail without a jury. Too much weight on the guns here, you make libertarians look like San Fransiscans. Sad and unpatriotic.

>>9
"Did you know there are more than one amendment?"

Of course.  The 2nd is the most important though.

"As if a gun is going to protect anyone from the crusade on drugs"

It would if there was enough dissent against the War on Drugs, and enough people who took up arms.  Secondly, the democrats, whom you seem to support, aren't looking for drug reform, they want to step up funding on the 'war on drugs' just like the conservatives.  There is no difference between either major party on this issue.

"or stopping Bush's new war tribunal from throwing people in jail without a jury."

As for other civil liberties like this? Firstly, without the 2nd amendment, they are undefendable on a widespread scale, and secondly, the democrats are simply too spineless to really oppose these anyway.  An overwhelming majority of the democrats voted for the Patriot Act, just like the republicans.  Want the figures? I have them here.

Here is a list showing the senate vote on the infamous Patriot Act. 

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

THANKS DEMOCRATS FOR STANDING UP FOR MY CIVIL LIBERTIES, LOL!



"Too much weight on the guns here, you make libertarians look like San Fransiscans. Sad and unpatriotic."

Guns are the most important right in the Bill of Rights.  Without the right to defend your rights, all the others are up in the air at best.

>>10 Point about using guns to defend the others, but this would mean sacrificing other rights in the short term for one of them, and this is why I am more left than right, though I am making an effort to reconcile with the libertarians.

>>10 makes an interesting point.

If there was enough dissent against the war on drugs and people armed, it would end.  We have the guns, we just don't have the dissent.  That's something that a lot of the pro-gun people here seem to be overlooking.  Gun rights are useless for protecting all other rights if you don't have the will to do so.

After all, America is probably the most pro-gun country in the world and yet we seem to be continually losing civil liberties.

An armed populace ensures protection against tyranny, but it does not ensure protection of liberty.

>>12
"If there was enough dissent against the war on drugs and people armed, it would end.  We have the guns, we just don't have the dissent.  That's something that a lot of the pro-gun people here seem to be overlooking.  Gun rights are useless for protecting all other rights if you don't have the will to do so."

Don't you understand the significance of this? It means that the fact that our populace is armed to the teeth would prevent the government from doing something TOO irritating to the general population.  This is a very, VERY good effect. 

"After all, America is probably the most pro-gun country in the world and yet we seem to be continually losing civil liberties."

Right, but you forget a few things.  First of all, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil liberty.  Secondly, as mentioned before, civil liberty loss will only continue as long as it is -allowed- by the gun owners and general population.  As mentioned before, the guns are a last resort that ensure the govt won't do anything -=too=- ridiculous.  It means that they have to keep a reasonable number of the population happy, or else.

"An armed populace ensures protection against tyranny, but it does not ensure protection of liberty."

Exactly, and this is precisely why the 2nd amendment is so important. 

>>13
What if the gun owning populace supports the tyrant?  What of liberty then?

Sure, armed population keeps the government from doing things "too ridiculous", but then they just take baby steps.  They won't outright destroy civil liberties, but they will restrict them and contort over long periods of time.  Until eventually totalitarianism isn't seen as "ridiculous".

Gun rights don't protect against tyrants, only unpopular ones.  To believe that most gun owners will protect liberty is to make a grave mistake.

>>14 " To believe that most gun owners will protect liberty is to make a grave mistake." You need facts here, because that is a very generalizing and insulting statement. But I agree that while gun-opposers doesn't have adeqaute faith in their fellow gun-owning citizens, gun-supporters has too much faith in them. In short, as long as the guns stay inside America I oppose any attacks on the 2nd, but that doesn't mean I think gun manufacturers, gun shops et. al can do whatever. There are too many unregistered guns in America and way too many suicides (studies show that suicide rates go up as gun control goes down, another paradox that makes this issue much harder to resolve).

>>15
"There are too many unregistered guns in America and way too many suicides (studies show that suicide rates go up as gun control goes down, another paradox that makes this issue much harder to resolve)."

lol.  I don't care about unregistered guns.  We shouldn't have a gun registry to begin with.  Canada's gun registry hasn't solved a single crime in almost a hundred years, wastes a hell of a lot of money, is a bureaucratic mess in general, and attempting its dismantlement is finally underway by a more sensible conservative government elected recently. 

As for suicide, who cares? I don't think it is right to punish America's lawful 90 million gun owners for the sake of a small minority who don't know how to parent their children.


>>14
"What if the gun owning populace supports the tyrant?  What of liberty then?"

If support is that widespread for that leader, he would likely be able to win in a democratic manner anyhow.

"Sure, armed population keeps the government from doing things "too ridiculous", but then they just take baby steps."

You make it sound like this isn't important.  The 2nd amendment is the most important right of them all.  The facts are that without it, there is the good chance that you CAN't fight for your other rights at all.  Gun control is evil.. it disarms the people before governments, leaving them open to whatever hideous policy the government decides to enact.  Sure, the citizenry might not succeed, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna make it any easier for a potential tyranny to win by letting the 2nd amendment slip through my fingers.

"They won't outright destroy civil liberties, but they will restrict them and contort over long periods of time.  Until eventually totalitarianism isn't seen as "ridiculous".

Sounds like what they did with gun control.  Now, anyone who supports legalization of all arms is seen as being on the 'radical fringe'.  I guess they think the founders were on the 'radical fringe' as well.

'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

What part of 'infringed' don't they understand? It is so fucking clear and simple.  The right to carry is also obviously protected as well, since it says 'keep -and bear- arms'.

"Gun rights don't protect against tyrants, only unpopular ones."

If the tyrants are so popular, they'd likely be able to win elections normally anyways, so this is redundant.

"To believe that most gun owners will protect liberty is to make a grave mistake."

I think that's quite a big assumption.  You might want to read this. 
http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

>>15
"studies show that suicide rates go up as gun control goes down,"
It is the person's body.  They own it.  Property rights entail the rights of use, and disposal.  They can do with their bodies as they please, which includes destroying them.

>>5
The difference between the democrats and republicans on the 2nd amendment is monumental.. idk where the fuck you get these stupid ideas.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=205

This began with welfare reform, especially the quite succesful one of '96. Now, before Clinton reluctantly signed it through there had been two instances where both reps and dems had lamented a proposed reform. Reps because the only way they govern is to make every public institution so shitty and ineffective that it has to be stripped cold turkey, and the dems because they are rigid and whiny. Now, the reps tried attaching poison pills to the reform twice before Clinton finally made it through, and the country is now reaping the benefits. It would have been better still if Clinton could have made the reform he actually wanted. There was nothing bipartisan about it, it wasn't the best possible reform and it sure as hell wasn't grace of the right. The reason so many welfare rolls have declined is because people have been kicked off, and now they can't get jobs because Bush hasn't handled the economy as much as he has given it incompetent backrubs. I try to see things from a libertarian perspective but I believe in a marginal, steady dismantling of government and its extensions. Kicking people off without giving them a way to climb on by themselves is not conscionable.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2006/08/welfare-deform-sad-anniversary.html

>>19
"This began with welfare reform, especially the quite succesful one of '96."

Thanks to the overwhelming pressure of the republicans at lower levels of government, and to the great dismay of *a lot* of democrats.

"Now, before Clinton reluctantly signed it through there had been two instances where both reps and dems had lamented a proposed reform. Reps because the only way they govern is to make every public institution so shitty and ineffective that it has to be stripped cold turkey,"

The public institutions shouldn't be there anyway.

"and the dems because they are rigid and whiny."

Haha, yeah.  They realize they are wrong on guns, and that nobody supports them, but they are changing their position on this issue slower than cold molasses in January.

"Now, the reps tried attaching poison pills to the reform twice before Clinton finally made it through, and the country is now reaping the benefits."

The benefits of a more conservative economic outlook.

"It would have been better still if Clinton could have made the reform he actually wanted."

Which was? I think its doubtful Clinton would have given us anything really good if he was entirely in charge.. being the radical liberal that he is and all.  The conservative reforms were, unless I'm mistaken, brought on by the pushing of conservatives in government.  The democrats resisted this beneficial change with quite a deal of vehemence.

"There was nothing bipartisan about it, it wasn't the best possible reform and it sure as hell wasn't grace of the right."

You think the left was responsible for the welfare reform? Well, whatever.  Regardless of whether or not it was the 'grace of the right' or not is kindof beside the point, as the reform pushed welfare in a more conservative direction, rather than the liberal monstrosity we had beforehand. 

"The reason so many welfare rolls have declined is because people have been kicked off, and now they can't get jobs because Bush hasn't handled the economy as much as he has given it incompetent backrubs."

Bush's tax cuts were a huge boon to the economy.  We need another Reagan/Kennedy (contrary to popular belief, BOTH slashed taxes...regardless of the fact that Kennedy was a dem).  And also, this 'they can't get jobs' attitude is something I strongly disagree with.  I have personal relatives who I've seen act horribly irresponsibly, land on welfare, and is now screwing around mooching off relatives, 'unemployed' due to the fact that she just didn't feel like going to work anymore.

"I try to see things from a libertarian perspective but I believe in a marginal, steady dismantling of government and its extensions. Kicking people off without giving them a way to climb on by themselves is not conscionable."

Then vote for the libertarian party, or it'll never happen.  (if you really *mean* this)

"The benefits of a more conservative economic outlook." Poor syntax of me, in reality they tried to hamper welfare reform as much as the dems.
"Bush's tax cuts were a huge boon to the economy.  We need another Reagan/Kennedy (contrary to popular belief, BOTH slashed taxes...regardless of the fact that Kennedy was a dem).  And also, this 'they can't get jobs' attitude is something I strongly disagree with.  I have personal relatives who I've seen act horribly irresponsibly, land on welfare, and is now screwing around mooching off relatives, 'unemployed' due to the fact that she just didn't feel like going to work anymore." Here is a pdf that says you're wrong, and ten nobel laureates have said that Bush's tax cuts were the wrong way to go. http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/gale/200203.pdf That's that woman again, isn't it? Get me more facts rather than anecdotes that may or may not be apocryphical in nature.
"Then vote for the libertarian party, or it'll never happen.  (if you really *mean* this)" I live in Sweden, and I'll probably never want to move to America as long as it is not secular, non-democratic and as long as the CIA persists.

>>20 Also, who in their right minds think that combining giant tax cuts while gov. spending is going into the stratosphere is good for growth? If you want the tax cuts to persist you're not a deficit hawk, you're a deficit turkey.

>>22
"Also, who in their right minds think that combining giant tax cuts while gov. spending is going into the stratosphere is good for growth? If you want the tax cuts to persist you're not a deficit hawk, you're a deficit turkey."

I never said that increased spending + cuts specifically was a good idea.  I DID* say the cuts were a good idea, which they were.  The economy has recently taken a massive upturn for the better, and government revenues surged enough that the deficit actually went down recently, thanks to supply-side economics and Bush's tax cuts.  Sure, I'd rather we spent in a more responsible manner, but this is beside the point.  The cuts themselves work.  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjA0YWQwYWFmMzMxOTJkNzc2NDFlMDc3MjIwMDE4OGY=
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JackKemp/2006/08/08/tax_cuts_are_right_for_the_21st_century

>>23 "The economy has recently taken a massive upturn for the better" Mmhm! http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/swa06_ch08_international.pdf
"The cuts themselves work." Aha. Ahahahahah. Aaaahahahahahaha... http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf

>>24
"http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf";

This report is made of fail.  It was released in 2005, we didn't see the economic upturn until very recently. 

>>24 Yes.. continuing.  My articles are all recent, yours is from 2005.  We've seen an upturn in the economy -=recently=-.  This is particularly surprising considering the massive toll taken on the economy by 9/11, and the various high-power hurricanes that have been devastating the lower regions of our country over the last few years.  The fact that the economy has improved anyway shows just how much the cuts helped.

Who really fucking cares, all the tax cuts in the world do total shit if you don't have a social movement to encourage migration into the middle class.

>>27
Yes they do.  People's personal interest and 'greed' as some like to call it.. drive them to succeed and to buy things which make them happy. 

JUST GOTTA LOVE THOSE FIREARMS! SO MUCH FUN!