Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Hillary Clinton's Dishonesty

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 12:50:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
She flip flops to the majority opinion too much she doesn't really seem to be genuine and is only out for votes
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:23:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I think the primary issue people have with her is adherence to populist views and general lack of sincerity; to be fair, there's some examples of her actually lying as well.

Lies themselves however are obviously not uncommon among politicians, and I would say that she doesn't really lie any more than the average U.S politician--once again, it's just the lack of conviction that she appears to show. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing as just because someone presents themselves passionately and expresses the views that are meaningful to *them*, it certainly doesn't mean that they're the right person to lead a country--in that respect, I would say that Hilary is the most mature out of all the candidates.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
coal
Posts: 104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:45:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

The first Clinton lie that comes to mind is her characterizing Bernie Sanders as ignorant, based on his interview with known piece of trash newspaper, the New York Post.

The reality is that everything he said was not only literally accurate (and the Post was wrong) which has been confirmed even by such notable anti-Bernie sources as the New York Times, and others, but also comprehensive. Sanders not only was right about what he said, he said everything that needed to be said, but Hillary is trying to spin that interview into something it's not.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 2:25:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

The Bosnia story is probably the most famous and damning example.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 4:36:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

Oh pulease, have you been living under a rock or what?

http://www.politifact.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.nationalreview.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 4:47:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
They all lie, but we expect our politicians to be better at not getting caught, that is where she falls short.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 12:15:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 4:47:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
They all lie, but we expect our politicians to be better at not getting caught, that is where she falls short.

We are so used to dishonest politicians that when somebody like Bernie comes along telling it like it is, straight forward, no lies....everybody thinks he must be crazy.

It's a sad state of affairs when honesty practically disqualifies you from serving the people.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:07:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:15:40 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/7/2016 4:47:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
They all lie, but we expect our politicians to be better at not getting caught, that is where she falls short.

We are so used to dishonest politicians that when somebody like Bernie comes along telling it like it is, straight forward, no lies....everybody thinks he must be crazy.

It's a sad state of affairs when honesty practically disqualifies you from serving the people.

I seriously hope isn't stupid enough to believe half the crap he says, but it wouldn't surprise me.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:51:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:15:40 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/7/2016 4:47:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
They all lie, but we expect our politicians to be better at not getting caught, that is where she falls short.

We are so used to dishonest politicians that when somebody like Bernie comes along telling it like it is, straight forward, no lies....everybody thinks he must be crazy.

People dont think Sanders is crazy for "being authentic" and "being straight forward".... People think he's crazy because only a crazy person would believe that Sanders could actually get any of the legislation he is campaigning on through Congress as fractured as it is..... There's also some people who think Sanders is crazy for thinking that the ideas he is campaigning on are good ideas to begin with
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:57:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

If this election is any indication, being anywhere close to 'the norm' compared to other politicians is now a cardinal sin, meaning that unless you are almost completely different from a DC politician, you're 'unelectable'...... Democrats who are against Clinton seem to be against Clinton simply because she dont fit into their irrationally high standards that they suddenly have for presidential hopefuls, or politicians in general..... Elizabeth Warren isnt even good enough for progressives anymore just because she hasnt endorsed Bernie as quickly as Bernie fans want her to, and I bet when Bernie drops out and endorses/campaigns for Hillary against Trump, half of Bernie's fanbase will accuse him of being a sellout and compare him to Judas or something.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 2:08:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 1:07:55 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/7/2016 12:15:40 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/7/2016 4:47:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
They all lie, but we expect our politicians to be better at not getting caught, that is where she falls short.

We are so used to dishonest politicians that when somebody like Bernie comes along telling it like it is, straight forward, no lies....everybody thinks he must be crazy.

It's a sad state of affairs when honesty practically disqualifies you from serving the people.

I seriously hope isn't stupid enough to believe half the crap he says, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I seriously hope you aren't stupid enough to think I said anything but that I believe he's sincere and honest, but it wouldn't surprise me of course.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 2:39:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 2:08:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/7/2016 1:07:55 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/7/2016 12:15:40 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/7/2016 4:47:59 AM, Wylted wrote:
They all lie, but we expect our politicians to be better at not getting caught, that is where she falls short.

We are so used to dishonest politicians that when somebody like Bernie comes along telling it like it is, straight forward, no lies....everybody thinks he must be crazy.

It's a sad state of affairs when honesty practically disqualifies you from serving the people.

I seriously hope isn't stupid enough to believe half the crap he says, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I seriously hope you aren't stupid enough to think I said anything but that I believe he's sincere and honest, but it wouldn't surprise me of course.

It seemed like you were implying his honesty disqualified him from office, when in reality it is his adolescent and naive world view. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 3:01:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to tbe the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

What you are looking for, where cash = influence, was best seen with her dealings with the payday loan and low end credit card people.

I'll look up some of it when time permits, but Warren has talked about this in the past. Clinton's record is not very clean on her dealings with banking. Take for whatever ypi like. Not necessarily cash buying votes, but she is sure a third way democratic
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 3:12:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

Am I not in a great place to read this article, but I am sure it contains some of the information I am recalling.

Elizabeth Warren Recalls a Time When Big Donors May Have Changed Hillary"s Vote
http://billmoyers.com...
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 6:02:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 1:23:31 AM, Emilrose wrote:
I think the primary issue people have with her is adherence to populist views and general lack of sincerity; to be fair, there's some examples of her actually lying as well.

Lies themselves however are obviously not uncommon among politicians, and I would say that she doesn't really lie any more than the average U.S politician--once again, it's just the lack of conviction that she appears to show. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing as just because someone presents themselves passionately and expresses the views that are meaningful to *them*, it certainly doesn't mean that they're the right person to lead a country--in that respect, I would say that Hilary is the most mature out of all the candidates.

The first part is a far. More eloquent way to say what I've been trying to say
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 10:00:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Good because if you did you might end up on their special list...

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 10:03:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

I believe Hillary is less authentic than Bernie, but a lot more Authentic than Trump.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 4:13:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 10:03:03 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

I believe Hillary is less authentic than Bernie, but a lot more Authentic than Trump.

That's the thing though isn't it? At least with Bernie we know what we are getting. Hillary has gone back and forth on things over the years, which she is allowed to do. People change, but the general consensus is that she is just following the votes, and that isn't outright lying (she does lie though) but if she is just pandering her voters, what the heck is she? Maybe its a good thing. Maybe she uses polls to always represent the majority, and it doesn't matter that she has not solid values of her own, because that's exactly what a democratic system is supposed to accomplish anyway.

Again though, What is she? A puppet? A power driven woman? What we need?

No one knows. While she seems more reliable and stable then trump, and might have debatably "better policies" then Sanders a lot of people believe she has no actual policy. What you hear from her is what a very well run voting machine has determined you want to hear.

http://www.politico.com...
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:03:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 1:23:31 AM, Emilrose wrote:
I think the primary issue people have with her is adherence to populist views and general lack of sincerity; to be fair, there's some examples of her actually lying as well.

Lies themselves however are obviously not uncommon among politicians, and I would say that she doesn't really lie any more than the average U.S politician--once again, it's just the lack of conviction that she appears to show. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing as just because someone presents themselves passionately and expresses the views that are meaningful to *them*, it certainly doesn't mean that they're the right person to lead a country--in that respect, I would say that Hilary is the most mature out of all the candidates.

I completely agree. I think one of the things that bothers me the most about voters in general is the amount of weight everyone puts on the appearance of passion as opposed to a rational assessment of the candidates experience and ability to do the job.

But regarding Hillary it seems clear to me that her lack of apparent authenticity is really what is behind all of this, the rest is just political opposers taking advantage of this by calling her a liar at every turn so much that it just sticks with the average voter, even if they don't quite know why.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:07:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 4:36:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

Oh pulease, have you been living under a rock or what?

http://www.politifact.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.nationalreview.com...

Not sifting through a plethora of youtube videos, nor have you provided a reason why any of them should be taken seriously. I mean really, you can find literally thousands of youtube videos that claim George Bush took down the World Trade center. Give me one video that succinctly makes the case and I'll consider spending my time on it.

Regarding Politifact, instead if just pointing me to the page you want me to see how about pointing me to the page that compares all the major candidates? If you had actually done that you would see that Hillary's percentages are no different than any other candidate, except Trump whose percentage of lies is off the charts.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:22:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:
Looking ahead to the general election, the thing that seems to be the biggest problem with Clinton's candidacy is her trustworthiness. But frankly, the only seemingly compelling arguments I have heard on this came from Fox news so I don't give it much credibility.

Bernie Sanders has made a big deal talking about her taking campaign contributions from special interests but what I find telling about his argument is the fact that as much time as he spends talking about who she is taking money from, he seems to spend no time talking about what she has actually done in favor of those interests or any she has ever received money from.

I watch her talk and I get why people don't feel she is as authentic as a Bernie or a Trump, but does anyone have actual facts to show that she is any more dishonest than any typical politician?

And before you say anything please remember that correlation =/= causation. Yes a candidate might do something because of a special interests contributions, but special interests might also contribute to a candidate who advocates policy positions that would favor them. If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

I have no link to the specific information that I would like to present at the moment, but will look for one which could take some time. The research that I compiled about the Welfare Reform Act, was during the 90's after The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 had taken effect. I was looking for loopholes (being a non law schooled single mom) in how TANF $$ was allotted to states and was wondering if there were any federal regulations with which they needed to be administered.

"States Take Over Daily Welfare Operations

It is now up to states and counties to establish and administer welfare programs they believe will best serve their poor, while operating within the broad federal guidelines. Funds for welfare programs are now given to the states in the form of block grants, and the states have much more latitude on deciding how the funds will be allocated among their various welfare programs." http://usgovinfo.about.com...

The problem I had was that in WI, under Gov. Tommy Thompson, TANF funds were being administer by private corporations that were allowed to take the block grants and keep any interest that they earned on investing those grants rather than distributing those moneys that were supposed to allotted to aid the needy.

Bill Clinton and wife, passed the bill that gave states the rights to administer federal block grants with virtually no federal regulations on how that money was to be allotted. Some of these corporations in WI profited immensely, before Jim Doyle was elected as governor and made changes to how TANF were distributed. I don't have info on how other states reformed welfare, but I'd be interested to know if the Clintons had any vested interest in any of those companies.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 5:07:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:33:30 AM, Double_R wrote:

If that's where you are going please demonstrate a causal link.

Here are some links about welfare privatization when the Clintons were in office:
[http://legis.wisconsin.gov...]
[https://aspe.hhs.gov...]
[https://aspe.hhs.gov...]