Why should I vote Democrat?

[A18]

There's no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

[A18]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

[A18]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

[A18]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

Without the government, the ultra-rich will develope and aristocracy, and class mobility will dimish heavily.  The poor will be born poor and have naught the ability to move up.  Neutrality is in itself plutocracy.

Plutocracy is rule by the rich. Class mobility is irrelevant to plutocracy.

Government does not give people the ability to move up, nor does non-intervention make anyone else more likely to be born 'poor.'

[A18]

No, even if I am not a CEO, there's still no reason for any decent person to vote Democrat.

Basically the Republicans screw over everyone except the CEOs and other ultra rich people with their policies.

No, non-interventionism doesn't screw anyone over, by definition. I think what you meant to say is, they don't screw over the CEOs and other ultra-rich people like the Democrats do.

Decent people don't actively attack other people.

Without the government, the ultra-rich will develope and aristocracy, and class mobility will dimish heavily.  The poor will be born poor and have naught the ability to move up.  Neutrality is in itself plutocracy.

Plutocracy is rule by the rich. Class mobility is irrelevant to plutocracy.

Government does not give people the ability to move up, nor does non-intervention make anyone else more likely to be born 'poor.'

Yes is does.  Government can provide the ability to bring people up in so many ways.  We can provide quality education, which is a huge influence on future salary.  We can provide free child care for single mothers, so they can go out and get a job.  We can provide healthcare to working families, so they don't have the incentive to quit their job and draw welfare and medicare, and so also we prevent diseases early on so they don't become worse and cause that person to be a drain on society.

That's not giving them the ability to move up. That's just moving them up.

What you have described is absolutely sick, and is the very definition of screwing people over. Doing nothing does not screw anyone over. That's why it's nothing.

[A18]

Which party passed the largest welfare reform bill in history in 1996?

The GOP. Almost contained Medicaid reform too until Clinton threatened to veto it.

[A18]

Which party passed the largest welfare reform bill in history in 1996? Which party got the highest amount of people off welfare? Which party forced people to work to receive any federal assistance? The answer to all three questions is the same. Convenient how you left that out, huh?

And where are all these lazy welfare mothers with 8 kids? Where are all these hedonistic slackers you talk about? They only exist in the minds of Republicans.

Yes, the answer is the Republicans.  The Republican Congress passed the welfare reform bill, and Clinton reluctantly signed it, after vetoing it twice.  If you think the Democrats favored those policies, you are living in a dream world.  It was only the Republicans taking control of congress that made welfare reform possible.

Correct.

Welfare Reform Act

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll383.xml
Republicans: Yea 230, Nay 2
Democrats: Yea 98, Nay 98
Independent: Nay 1

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00262
Everyone to vote no was a Democrat.

[A18]

A Democrat president signed the Welfare Reform Bill. He didn't have to.

He signed a Republican bill that his own party never would have passed if they had controlled congress.  He signed it because he was told he'd lose the election if he didn't.

That doesn't mean that the Democratic party is responsible for welfare reform.  Interesting how Democrats now take credit for something they opposed as cruel, mysogynistic, etc. at the time it was proposed.

Clinton could have vetoed it.

It got way more than a two-thirds majority in both houses.

[A18]

Here's the final vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll383.xml