You dang right--- I DON'T WANT HIM TO SUCCEED! That would

• AP: "Analysis: Obama Beats First National - Marmann
  • Obama Haters will hate this post. - They don't WANT him to succeed.
    • You dang right--- I DON'T WANT HIM TO SUCCEED! That would - be a disaster for this country!!!!! nm
      • Treasonous words - tsk, tsk...
        • No dear, that would be words of wisdom!! - MsMT
    • Remember... - ZvilleMT
      • So what you're saying is - Scamp
      • Context is crucial. - dy
    • You don't get it. If Obama succeeds, many feel - with economic policies, country will fail.!.nm
    • And just what claims are those prey tell.....-see message - IMHO
    • Why would anyone want socialism/communism to succeed - I sure don't
      • Count me as one who WOULD like to see them succeed (sm) - nm
    • You always seem to forget - Trigger Happy
    • You libs are as predictable as the tides. LOL nm - meisme
      • Like YOU'RE not? - LOL!!!
    • I think it is ludicrous for anyone..........sm - m
      • Obama is not the country - Scamp
      • I guess it depends on how you look - Trigger Happy
        • You have a good point there..........sm - m
    • I know. The Obama administration (sm) - Marmann
      • It is such a horrible thing when - Trigger Happy
        • you are 100% right on! - hmmm
      • I agree... - It IS sad!
        • No. No no! Look how liberals treated Palin? - Most hateful bunch of people..shameful.nm
        • I absolutely HAVE seen such hatred - Scamp
        • I am not of the pub party. - Trigger Happy
          • You are so right. I think it is puppy-love.. - or fairytale. Reality will hit eventually.nm
  • Looks as if Obama made it worse. - Sunflower
    • Gotta love the reasoning of these pirates - Scamp
    • Well you know if there is a worse outcome - hmmm
    • So what do you suggest? That he do nothing? - Ridiculous post!
      • How about the simple fact that - Trigger Happy
      • I did not the write the post, CNN did. - Sunflower
  • I read it was the Pentagon who asked to - Obama to go ahead with the SEALs
    • Isn't that the way it's SUPPOSED to work? - Marmann
      • You've got some of it right - mt
    • That's the way that works - nm - Amanda

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.

In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.

Three in four families on welfare are headed by unmarried women. As a result, employment rates for all single women rose 25% before declining slightly since 2001. Earnings for the poorest 40% of families headed by women doubled from 1994 to 2000, before recession wiped out nearly half the gains. Poverty rates for children fell 25% before rising 10% since 2000.

"It was a profoundly important philosophic shift," says Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt, who was governor of Utah when the law was implemented. "This was ... one of the few things in a decade you can look at and say the world really changed."

read ur post again.  U R talking about it like its true.  Maybe U can't see it but i can.

Both Suzy Orman and Jim Cramer were on the Today show and they thought it was a good deal which, I might add, surprised me.

I wonder what will happen now.

There goes my 401K!

These people are my heros..Protestors are my heros!  True patriots one and all.