"Hillary's father's gravestone toppled on day she announced her run., by Radiowalla Tea Party Patriot May Vote for Hillary Because (wait for it) the GOP Will Repeal His Obamacare, by Steven D You won't see Hillary Clinton in the same light ever again, by BlankBeat
Tea Party Patriot May Vote for Hillary Because (wait for it) the GOP Will Repeal His Obamacare, by Steven D
You won't see Hillary Clinton in the same light ever again, by BlankBeat
There is a tendency, when examining police shootings, to focus on tactics at the expense of strategy. One interrogates the actions of the officer in the moment trying to discern their mind-state. We ask ourselves, "Were they justified in shooting?" But, in this time of heightened concern around the policing, a more essential question might be, "Were we justified in sending them?" At some point, Americans decided that the best answer to every social ill lay in the power of the criminal-justice system. Vexing social problems—homelessness, drug use, the inability to support one's children, mental illness—are presently solved by sending in men and women who specialize in inspiring fear and ensuring compliance. Fear and compliance have their place, but it can't be every place.
What’s rarely talked about in this debate is that the 1990s overhaul of the welfare system attempted to do just that. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, signed by President Bill Clinton cited marriage, along with job preparation and work opportunities, as one of the key methods for reducing welfare dependence. Many observers at the time assumed the law would lead to more marriage among poor people, either by eliminating incentives to keep households’ incomes low in order to qualify for benefits or by making women more dependent on men to help pay the bills. In a 2008 paper for the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Deborah Roempke Graefe and Daniel T. Lichter examined the results of the law, looking at 1995 and 2002 data from the National Survey of Family Growth. What they found is that women—even the most disadvantaged women—were no more likely to marry after welfare reform than before. They note that other studies also came to the same conclusion.
In a 2008 paper for the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Deborah Roempke Graefe and Daniel T. Lichter examined the results of the law, looking at 1995 and 2002 data from the National Survey of Family Growth. What they found is that women—even the most disadvantaged women—were no more likely to marry after welfare reform than before. They note that other studies also came to the same conclusion.