Obama Was Against Welfare Reform Before He Was For It

I found this article rather interesting and thought I'd share it with all my friends here on ATS. Obama in his ads claims credit for Welfare reform, but this article sheds a little more light on the matter.

Another day, another reversal by Barack Obama on a major issue. Obama’s newest ad titled “Dignity“, claims that Barack Obama slashed the welfare rolls by 80 percent. He was referring to the Republican crafted welfare reform which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. While it is true that welfare roll did reduce dramatically after the legislation passed, it is odd that Obama would consider this as something he could put on his resume.

For starters, Obama was not elected to the Illinois State Senate until 1997, so even had this been Statewide legislation (which it was not), Obama would not have had the opportunity to vote on it. The question then would be, how would Obama have voted if given the opportunity? As ABC News reminds us this morning, Obama would have voted against welfare reform.

Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.

“I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare,” Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. “Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems.”

Full Article

reply to post by LLoyd45


Good for him. He's now for it.

you know, human beings once thought the earth was flat too....
infact some still do.


We learn as we progress. Barack Obama knows this.

What does it mean to be a conservative? "sticking to tradition"?

Well....if our current situation has anythign to do with conservative tradition

ill tell you where they can shove their conservatism.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by LLoyd45

 

Good for him. He's now for it.

you know, human beings once thought the earth was flat too....
infact some still do.


We learn as we progress. Barack Obama knows this.

What does it mean to be a conservative? "sticking to tradition"?

Well....if our current situation has anythign to do with conservative tradition

ill tell you where they can shove their conservatism.

Barack seems to have an awful lot of learning to do doesn't he? Maybe the White House isn't the right place for him to do it though..

Maybe he should just finish out his Senate term he accepted, and try again in 2012 when he's a little more learned and experienced.

[edit on 7/11/08 by LLoyd45]

reply to post by LLoyd45


One could make the same argument for McCain, no doubt?

In fact....anyone running for president (write-in's included) has not a single day experience as being president.

Shocking.

So we should...not vote?

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by LLoyd45

 

One could make the same argument for McCain, no doubt?

In fact....anyone running for president (write-in's included) has not a single day experience as being president.

Shocking.

So we should...not vote?

McCain has been around for over thirty years opposed to Barack's eight. I'd say he's got the court advantage.

Just to clarify, I'm not a John McCain supporter, but I do believe in giving the old warhorse his dues.

reply to post by LLoyd45


his dues as in the presidency?

What is he qualified in? Yelling, screaming, bickering, cussing, insulting, and using racial slurs?

Its no doubt im not a mccain fan. yes, he served in the military, and i didnt. Good for him props for her service.

But that doesnt make him qualified, if that is what your "dues" comment is in reference to.

Barack Obama doesnt have the "experience" (i call it corruption ) that McCain has, and i believe thats a Good thing.

Lets see what a fresh mind can do with with this country.

we've seen what Bush has done
and McCain = same

Sorry, but i dont give anyone their dues unless they've earned them.
Mccain gets my respect for serving, but he doesnt get my vote.

If it only took service dedication to run for POTUS, then i'd agree, Mccain is our man. But commander in chief isnt the only job for the president, as well as having x number of years in the US senate.


to use that philosophy, we should only elect a politician who has black/latino/white heritage. He or she should be atheist, christian, muslim, and catholic rolled into one, with a brief background in jehova's witness

They should have lawyer experience, since they'll be working with law makers

they should have a law degree, a degree in philosophy, served in the military with top awards, and have a management degree, but only make ~ 17,000 per year


did i leave anyone out?

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Barack Obama doesnt have the "experience" (i call it corruption

) that McCain has, and i believe thats a Good thing.

No corruption? Well, I wouldn't go that far.

Its awfully hard to find the positive in a candidate with so little experience in doing ANYTHING. He's been in school most of his life. He was a community organizer in Chicago. Big deal. He's a first term Senator that's got a total of about 150 days in the Senate, most of which have been spent running for President. He's never run a business, never served, and clearly is in over his head on most important topics. He has some very troubling associations, such as former Weather Underground member Bill Aires. He's the worst candidate the Democrats could have nominated. This guy's an empty suit.