How President Obama's Budget Will Demolish Welfare Reform

[PJABBER]

While many have been focusing on the health insurance debate and international security issues lately, there has been a creeping realization that the domestic agenda of President Obama and the Democrat One Party Congress now aims to substantially eliminate the very effective welfare system reforms of the Clinton Administration and others.

There is no stretch at all to consider that an overwhelming of welfare systems lies at the very core of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Specifically, by increasing the population's dependence on welfare and the absolute number of families on welfare, the current system of governance and societal support systems can be overwhelmed and provoke a crash that would leave the society open to revolutionary change.

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements, was a direct national response to the success of that revolutionary strategy in bankrupting New York State by 1975.

The current proposals, ensconced in the 2010 budgetary language, aim to make further welfare dependency easier to achieve. They also aim to eliminate the limited Federal programs which attempt to encourage a unitary family as the best means of escaping the welfare cycle.

TL;CNFLETR (Too Long; Could Not Focus Long Enough To Read) Summary -

The Obama budget is sending a clear message to members of high-risk communities: "Stay on welfare and don't get married." This message, however, is the very reason poverty continues to be a problem in the U.S. and why Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty failed. While there was brief success in reversing this trend after the 1996 welfare reform initiative, President Obama and his counterparts in Congress are intent on reviving the failed policies of the past and enslaving more low-income families onto welfare and into intergenerational poverty and government dependence.

February 25, 2010
How President Obama's Budget Will Demolish Welfare Reform
by Katherine Bradley and Robert Rector
WebMemo #2819

President Obama's budget seeks to overturn the fundamental principles of welfare reform. To accomplish this, his budget would:

• Create a new funding system to reward states for increasing the size of their welfare caseloads; and
• Eliminate the only remaining federal program to strengthen marriage at a time when the unwed birth rate is approaching 40 percent.

Congress is looking at opportunities to fulfill President Obama's request to undermine welfare reform. Specifically, it is considering attaching the President's request to extend and expand the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Fund to pieces of legislation currently moving through Congress. This anti-reform fund pays states "bonus" money for increasing the size of their welfare caseloads without any incentives to place people into jobs and off of the dole. If the TANF emergency fund is extended, the tremendous success of the 1996 welfare reform law will continue to be undermined, and the federal government will return to the failed pre-reform policy of rewarding states for increasing welfare dependence.

The Obama budget also eliminates all funding for the Marriage and Fatherhood grant program, which has served to advance and encourage healthy marriages in low-income communities and strengthen relationships between fathers and children. Despite the fact that the collapse of marriage is the prime cause of child poverty and welfare dependence, the Obama Administration plans to terminate all federal activity designed to strengthen marriage. Instead, Obama will dramatically expand the over $300 billion the government spends each year subsidizing single parenthood. His Administration will also continue government welfare polices that penalize lower income couples that do marry. Through these changes, the Obama Administration is endorsing the death of marriage in lower-income communities.

Reversing the Success of Welfare Reform

The old welfare system, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), paid states according to the size of their welfare caseloads. This practice of rewarding states financially for increasing their caseloads was ended by legislation included in the 1994 Contract with America, which transformed AFDC into the TANF program. Success of the program led to millions of families leaving the welfare rolls for gainful employment, and the child poverty rate dropped.

Last year, a little-known provision included in the stimulus package reversed the successful provisions of welfare reform and undermined the important work TANF had accomplished. The stimulus package created a new $5 billion program called the TANF Emergency Fund, which pays states 80 cents on the dollar for every new case that enters their welfare caseloads above the size of their caseloads in 2007 or 2008. This was a return to the old AFDC-style system that rewards states for growing caseloads instead of shrinking them. In addition, the federal matching rate is much higher in this new fund than in the old AFDC system.

Although touted as a "temporary" program, the TANF Emergency Fund has reappeared in the President's 2011 budget with an additional $2.5 billion in funding.[1]

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, where this program is administered, states have drawn down only $1.2 billion of the $5 billion allotted.[2] Yet the Administration wants to add another $2.5 billion, and Congress appears poised to act on this request in short order.

The proposal also increased the matching rate from 80 percent to 100 percent for one of the three eligible categories. Therefore, states would receive full reimbursement for a portion of their welfare caseloads. The size of TANF caseloads has been growing. It is natural to believe in an economic downturn that the safety net of the cash welfare would have an uptick; however, the new TANF Emergency Fund provides a clear fiscal incentive for states to increase the size of their welfare caseloads.

A Contingency Fund Already Exists

The President and Congress have attempted to justify the creation of the TANF Emergency Fund because of the current recession. However, this is a farce: The 1996 welfare reform law already included a $2 billion contingency fund for just these kinds of circumstances.

The structure of the fund was tied to increased unemployment in a state and intentionally avoided tying the additional funding to the size of the caseloads.

The new and expanded TANF Emergency Fund directly ties funding to caseload growth, not economic factors in the state such as unemployment. If the President and Congress were serious about helping states in this challenging economy, they could have just increased funding for the contingency fund. But they deliberately chose not to do this and instead took a course of action that reverses the success that welfare reform achieved and intentionally grows the size of the welfare state.

Like Obama, Congress Has Plans to Undo Welfare Reform

Shortly after the President's 2011 budget was released, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), an influential and high-ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over TANF, quickly moved to introduce legislation that not only would fulfill the President's request to extend and expand the TANF Emergency Fund but would go much further toward bringing back the old AFDC financing system.

Unlike the President's request, McDermott's bill does not limit spending on this program to an additional $2.5 billion. Rather, it includes an open-ended new entitlement that would allow the states to draw down "such sums" as necessary without being capped. The only limitation is that no state can receive more than 50 percent of its annual TANF block grant level.

The message that this bill sends to states is clear: The more people you put on your welfare rolls, the more money you will receive in reimbursement from the federal government. This is exactly the opposite structure of the 1996 welfare reform model that sent a fixed amount of money to states whether or not their caseloads grew.

At the moment, it is unclear whether Congress will act on the President's $2.5 billion request or the open-ended funding structure included in McDermott's bill. Either way, states will be actively rewarded with taxpayer funds for increasing the size of their welfare caseloads. Although both the President's request and McDermott's bill claim that the change will be extended for only one year, the reality is that Congress will almost certainly extend the program year after year after year--just as it is now extending the TANF Emergency Fund, which was created in last year's stimulus package.

Eliminating the Importance of Marriage in Low-Income Communities

Five years ago, President Bush signed into law the reauthorization of TANF, which created a new $150 million grant program to promote healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood in low-income communities. The tiny grant funded programs that taught relationship skills, the benefits of marriage, and the tools necessary to build strong marriages and promote the active involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. It also funded advertising campaigns to get out the message of marriage's importance and the benefits of such unions.

Unfortunately, President Obama's budget would terminate this program and in its place create another expensive jobs and employment program--a new $500 million program cleverly named the "Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund." However, summary documents from the Administration reveal that this is actually just another jobs program and has little to nothing to do with promoting healthy marriages in low-income communities.[3] Without strong marriage promotion, the familial and financial situations in high-risk communities will not improve any time soon.

Obama's Revival of Johnson's Failed War on Poverty

The Obama budget is sending a clear message to members of high-risk communities: "Stay on welfare and don't get married." This message, however, is the very reason poverty continues to be a problem in the U.S. and why Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty failed. While there was brief success in reversing this trend after the 1996 welfare reform initiative, President Obama and his counterparts in Congress are intent on reviving the failed policies of the past and enslaving more low-income families onto welfare and into intergenerational poverty and government dependence.

Katherine Bradley is Visiting Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society and Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010), Appendix, p. 492, at http://www.whitehouse.gov
/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hhs.pdf (February 25, 2010).

[2]U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children and Families, "Approved TANF Emergency Fund Applications by Category," January 27, 2010, at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
ofa/tanf/apprTANFemerfund.html (February 25, 2010).

[3]U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, "Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Justification," at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2011/TANF.pdf (February 25, 2010).

 

[Sclamoz]

There is no stretch at all to consider that an overwhelming of welfare systems lies at the very core of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Specifically, by increasing the population's dependence on welfare and the absolute number of families on welfare, the current system of governance and societal support systems can be overwhelmed and provoke a crash that would leave the society open to revolutionary change. [/SIZE]

The goal of Cloward-Piven was to draw attention to the failings of the welfare system and force reform by overloading it with recipients not what you're claiming. Obama increasing the budget for welfare runs counter to this idea, he's making the welfare system stronger not weaker.

I also like how the article you post complains about increased federal funding for welfare (during a recession no less!) and you claim hes trying to destroy the US by doing so but the article mentions cutting spending for another federal program that gives out money but somehow that's all part of the plot.

A Contingency Fund Already Exists

The President and Congress have attempted to justify the creation of the TANF Emergency Fund because of the current recession. However, this is a farce: The 1996 welfare reform law already included a $2 billion contingency fund for just these kinds of circumstances.

The structure of the fund was tied to increased unemployment in a state and intentionally avoided tying the additional funding to the size of the caseloads.

The new and expanded TANF Emergency Fund directly ties funding to caseload growth, not economic factors in the state such as unemployment. If the President and Congress were serious about helping states in this challenging economy, they could have just increased funding for the contingency fund. But they deliberately chose not to do this and instead took a course of action that reverses the success that welfare reform achieved and intentionally grows the size of the welfare state.

Here is the lame attempt at justification. Try harder Obama!!1! We know what you are really up to!

The original TANF law provided a $2 billion Contingency Fund, which allows states meeting economic triggers to draw additional funds based upon high levels of state MOE spending. The Recovery Act did not change this provision. Seven states received contingency funds in FY 2008, and eighteen states received contingency funds
in FY 2009. States may receive funds from both pools, but each state can receive no more than 50 percent of its annual block grant over the two-year period from the combination of the new Emergency Fund and the old Contingency Fund.However, HHS has reported that as of July 20, 2009, only $228 million remained in the Contingency Fund, and it is likely that the Contingency Fund will run out of money in early FY 2010.

On top of that, states have to qualify for this money.

How can a State qualify for funds from the emergency fund?

Eligibility under each category of funding is determined separately:

To qualify for the Emergency Fund based on increases in basic assistance, the state must have an
increase in assistance caseloads (combined TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) compared to the
equivalent quarter in the base year, FY 2007 or 2008, whichever had the lower average monthly
assistance caseload. The state must also have an increase in expenditures on basic assistance compared
to the equivalent quarter in the base year.

To qualify for the Emergency Fund based on increases in non-recurrent short-term benefits, the state
must have an increase in expenditures on such short-term benefits compared to the equivalent quarter in
the base year, FY 2007 or 2008, whichever had the lower total expenditures on such short-term benefits.

To qualify for the Emergency Fund based on increases in subsidized employment, the state must have an
increase in expenditures on subsidized employment compared to the equivalent quarter in the base year,
FY 2007 or 2008, whichever had the lower total expenditures on subsidized employment.

 

[NeoV]

I see that "Discoverthenetworks.com" is big today among the 'fear Obama' crowd today

 

[PJABBER]

The goal of Cloward-Piven was to draw attention to the failings of the welfare system and force reform by overloading it with recipients not what you're claiming. Obama increasing the budget for welfare runs counter to this idea, he's making the welfare system stronger not weaker.

I also like how the article you post complains about increased federal funding for welfare (during a recession no less!) and you claim hes trying to destroy the US by doing so but the article mentions cutting spending for another federal program that gives out money but somehow that's all part of the plot.

Here is the lame attempt at justification. Try harder Obama!!1! We know what you are really up to!

On top of that, states have to qualify for this money.

I believe you have to do more to understand the patterns and the mechanisms rather than look for some lock step adherence to this broad strategy that was outlined back in 1966 and started being implemented, successfully, in 1967.

Consider this - welfare system dependency is based on accessibility. The more of it there is, the more likely you will get dependency on it. The more attractive it is, the more will apply to receive it.

It is only a small step, subsequently, to reduce the eligibility parameters of this largess to beyond the ability of a social system to support the full population then eligible for the financial benefits. In effect, you offer a benefit to those in need and then expand the availability beyond the ability of the system to support the entitlement.

Welfare reform was predicated on several concepts. Work is better than charity, stable two parent families engender responsibility, short term support should not become long term dependency, support should lead to the productivity and pride of work as soon as possible.

ANYTHING that takes away from those tenets will function to help destroy the fabric of any social support mechanism and weaken the society that attempts it.

 

[PJABBER]

I see that "Discoverthenetworks.com" is big today among the 'fear Obama' crowd today

I do a lot of reading but don't always at first understand the backgrounds and the linkages, the interlinked support networks, the originators of the leftist philosophies and stratagems, the various players of the Left.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org has been an invaluable resource to gain both historic and current activity perspectives.

 

[Sclamoz]

I believe you have to do more to understand the patterns and the mechanisms rather than look for some lock step adherence to this broad strategy that was outlined back in 1966 and started being implemented, successfully, in 1967.

Consider this - welfare system dependency is based on accessibility. The more of it there is, the more likely you will get dependency on it. The more attractive it is, the more will apply to receive it.

I don't agree that welfare dependency is based on accessibility. Its based on lack of alternatives (jobs, education etc). Accessibility is required for a welfare program to function for those who need it.

It is only a small step, subsequently, to reduce the eligibility parameters of this largess to beyond the ability of a social system to support the full population then eligible for the financial benefits. In effect, you offer a benefit to those in need and then expand the availability beyond the ability of the system to support the entitlement.

Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything about changing eligibility. This just provides more money to individual states that request and need it as the previous emergency fund is going to run out, something your article glosses over. I like how offering a benefit to people in need(your words) is a conspiracy to you.

What you failed to pickup on or apparently don't want to acknowledge is the changes to the welfare system are due to necessity caused by the recession. Your very entertaining article says:

The President and Congress have attempted to justify the creation of the TANF Emergency Fund because of the current recession. However, this is a farce: The 1996 welfare reform law already included a $2 billion contingency fund for just these kinds of circumstances.

But it fails to mention:

The original TANF law provided a $2 billion Contingency Fund, which allows states meeting economic triggers to draw additional funds based upon high levels of state MOE spending. The Recovery Act did not change this provision. Seven states received contingency funds in FY 2008, and eighteen states received contingency funds
in FY 2009. States may receive funds from both pools, but each state can receive no more than 50 percent of its annual block grant over the two-year period from the combination of the new Emergency Fund and the old Contingency Fund.However, HHS has reported that as of July 20, 2009, only $228 million remained in the Contingency Fund, and it is likely that the Contingency Fund will run out of money in early FY 2010.

Even before Obama had time to put his devious plan into action the previous emergency fund was coming up short. Following your logic, you could make accuse former president Bush for following this strategy. He reauthorized TANF during his presidency which undoubtedly lead to greater accessibility to welfare (aka dependence!) and then preceded to collapse our economy, forcing further dependence on welfare. I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find similar patterns everywhere. I can't believe how deep this conspiracy goes!

 

[Slick5150]

I do a lot of reading but don't always at first understand the backgrounds and the linkages, the interlinked support networks, the originators of the leftist philosophies and stratagems, the various players of the Left.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org has been an invaluable resource to gain both historic and current activity perspectives.

How many hours per day would you say you go scouring for anything anti-Obama, and what % of what you find do you wind up reposting on here?

I'm going to guess 6 and 98%

 

[Zebo]

He needs these fools. 100 Billion (welfare) is cheap price for compliant stupid slaves and to be voters to give his real constituency a free ride and make them richer. Can't have rioting in the streets when he's funneling trillions to banks on the back of middle class. Much better to put them in some shack, kick em' down $400 mo and forget about them.

HC is also a Poison Pill, Agent Provocateur and my liberal friends are not seeing it.

A) written by insurance company and big pharma to guarantee their profits as 117 Million boomers hit medicare. They are going to lose millions of clients so they have to forces all Xers Ys and whatever you call today's children to buy their faulty huge overhead product. A product where CEOs make 150 million a year, where doctors pimping a day "seminar" get 10K and so forth.

B) Premiums will rise by at least 300% (like Mass) as they have to take everyone totally screwing middle class and small business and government who pays for those in the 0-$25,000 range

C) The Government and people will say UHC SUCKS!!!! Ads will run about Good old days and bill will be thrown away and never talked about for 100 years.

You're wrong about Obama PJ. He is a Classist indistinguishable from Bush. Look were his money came from, almost a billion! - big banks, Pharma, Insurance. Always follow the money! Look what he's said about Teachers in RI, a local deal, setup a committee to slash SS/Med, his appointments, his middle class "Cadillac" speech deriding these middle class benefits and wanting to tax them, etc. Juxtaposed to his going limp on any and all banking or insurance reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classism

 

[Siddhartha]

He needs these fools. 100 Billion (welfare) is cheap price for compliant stupid slaves and to be voters to give his real constituency a free ride and make them richer. Can't have rioting in the streets when he's funneling trillions to banks on the back of middle class. Much better to put them in some shack, kick em' down $400 mo and forget about them.

HC is also a Poison Pill, Agent Provocateur and my liberal friends are not seeing it.

A) written by insurance company and big pharma to guarantee their profits as 117 Million boomers hit medicare. They are going to lose millions of clients so they have to forces all Xers Ys and whatever you call today's children to buy their faulty huge overhead product. A product where CEOs make 150 million a year, where doctors pimping a day "seminar" get 10K and so forth.

B) Premiums will rise by at least 300% (like Mass) as they have to take everyone totally screwing middle class and small business and government who pays for those in the 0-$25,000 range

C) The Government and people will say UHC SUCKS!!!! Ads will run about Good old days and bill will be thrown away and never talked about for 100 years.

You're wrong about Obama PJ. He is a Classist indistinguishable from Bush. Look were his money came from, almost a billion! - big banks, Pharma, Insurance. Always follow the money! Look what he's said about Teachers in RI, a local deal, setup a committee to slash SS/Med, his appointments, his middle class "Cadillac" speech deriding these middle class benefits and wanting to tax them, etc. Juxtaposed to his going limp on any and all banking or insurance reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classism

Lets say you were POTUS of a country in the worst recession in decades. What would you do? Do me a favor and read up on Herbert Hoover before you answer this question.

Do you think anything should be done about the country's health care system?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can't blame Obama any more than most of the rest of the politicians who don't bother to understand cause and effect when it applies to legislation. Reform needs to be a priority. Increasing access without touching on the many problems of the system means it's already failed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Americans are dependent on work or welfare- take your pick. The frontier closed over 100 years ago.

So if Pjabber's capitalist sponsors would put more people to work, there'd be less welfare. Obviously, that's not happening.

Why would they? In the current situation, offshoring jobs increases ROI, and buying govt bonds gives safe haven for the funds acquired. Govt uses the bond money for welfare and for the military, to protect their international assets.

Putting Americans on the dole increases income at the top, and that's all that really matters when you're at the top, right?

 

[WHAMPOM]

While many have been focusing on the health insurance debate and international security issues lately, there has been a creeping realization that the domestic agenda of President Obama and the Democrat One Party Congress now aims to substantially eliminate the very effective welfare system reforms of the Clinton Administration and others.

There is no stretch at all to consider that an overwhelming of welfare systems lies at the very core of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Specifically, by increasing the population's dependence on welfare and the absolute number of families on welfare, the current system of governance and societal support systems can be overwhelmed and provoke a crash that would leave the society open to revolutionary change.

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements, was a direct national response to the success of that revolutionary strategy in bankrupting New York State by 1975.

The current proposals, ensconced in the 2010 budgetary language, aim to make further welfare dependency easier to achieve. They also aim to eliminate the limited Federal programs which attempt to encourage a unitary family as the best means of escaping the welfare cycle.

TL;CNFLETR (Too Long; Could Not Focus Long Enough To Read) Summary -

Seven cents of your tax dollar goes to Corporate Welfare while 0.0something% goes to the support of citizens that are in need of it. Just why are Corps reporting profits in the $Billions paying no taxes and getting GOV handouts?

 

[heyheybooboo]

 

[senseamp]

Yes, Obama is bringing back war on poverty with $2.5B program. You guys don't even care how ridiculous you sound, do you?

 

[halik]

Yes, Obama is bringing back war on poverty with $2.5B program. You guys don't even care how ridiculous you sound, do you?

If you actually look up the topic on hand, you wouldn't sound like you're talking about of your ass. Google "Clinton welfare reform" and get back to us.

 

[her209]

How many hours per day would you say you go scouring for anything anti-Obama, and what % of what you find do you wind up reposting on here?

I'm going to guess 6 and 98%

I believe he admitted to being a Republican shill.

 

[PJABBER]

Yes, Obama is bringing back war on poverty with $2.5B program. You guys don't even care how ridiculous you sound, do you?

PJABBER sez,

Welfare reform was predicated on several concepts. Work is better than charity, stable two parent families engender responsibility, short term support should not become long term dependency, support should lead to the productivity and pride of work as soon as possible.

ANYTHING that takes away from those tenets will function to help destroy the fabric of any social support mechanism and weaken the society that attempts it.

What part of this don't you understand?

 

[senseamp]

PJABBER sez,

What part of this don't you understand?

Have you checked unemployment rate lately? There are no jobs for people, we are extending unemployment bennies, which is welfare for the middle class. Welfare reform "worked" because of economic growth, but that is a transient, not permanent situation.

 

[PJABBER]

Have you checked unemployment rate lately? There are no jobs for people, we are extending unemployment bennies, which is welfare for the middle class. Welfare reform "worked" because of economic growth, but that is a transient, not permanent situation.

Are you a student at some liberal college?

Any work is better than no work, and this is true on many different levels. While you advocate that being jobless and being on the dole is a good thing, I argue quite the opposite. And the evidence is completely on my side.

The liberal think tanks and the welfare state apologists have regularly tried to de-link the positive outcomes of both comprehensive welfare reform and the concomitant impetus to go to work. The fact is that even those monumental efforts to justify a welfare state have failed in any meaningful way to disprove the effectiveness of the reforms that occurred.

Harvard Magazine - Understanding Welfare Reform

COSSA - Is Welfare Reform Working?

FRBSF - Did Welfare Reform Work for Everyone? A Look at Young Single Mothers

Manhattan Institute - Child Poverty and Welfare Reform: Stay The Course

City Journal - Welfare Reform Phase Two

 

[EagleKeeper]

Have you checked unemployment rate lately? There are no jobs for people, we are extending unemployment bennies, which is welfare for the middle class. Welfare reform "worked" because of economic growth, but that is a transient, not permanent situation.

There are jobs for people.

Those jobs may be "underneath" what they had or feel that they should have.

And some of those may pay less than the unemployment benefits taht they currently receive.

For one that is receiving welfare funds; they should be able to service the community in one form or another unless determined to be phycially unable or have family issues.

The government should provide traiing to upgrade their skills and get them out into an OJT slot where the training can be put to use.

If they refuse to do the service and/or training, cut them off.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's fantastic that people still do not understand the issues. There's a huge amount of fraud, people get kicked off for making two or three dollars too much a month rather than having some pro-rated benefit, and generics aren't mandatory. A woman who works for me was saying that she knows people who quit their jobs in order to keep their benefits if they come too close to the max. What incentive is there to get off the dole?

The system encourages poverty. Fix that, then come back asking to expand benefits. Hell, that one guy is still waiting for his AIDS meds because he can't find his card. One member stated that law trumps medicine and that if a provider aided someone contrary to law he should be punished. He got his wish.

What a cluster.

 

[Anarchist420]

Lets say you were POTUS of a country in the worst recession in decades. What would you do? Do me a favor and read up on Herbert Hoover before you answer this question.

Do you think anything should be done about the country's health care system?

Um, herbert hoover signed the largest tax increase in history, controlled wages, and just sat there while the Fed created bubbles so they could continue today.

FDR derived his whole New Deal from Hoover's policies.