I don’t care what it costs us. It’s money paid to help poor people. If that’s not “welfare” then I’m the Wizard of Oz.
But it doesn’t even matter, since the OP claims that Republicans have succeeded in ending welfare. That’s factually incorrect regardless of what one calls Medicaid. Don’t be distracted by the side show.
It’s funny how people here rush in to defend something that is factually incorrect. Is it that hard to admit that someone on your side, politically, is wrong? Would you jump through hoops to defend something stupid posted by a conservative poster?
Incorrect. The OP claims that proposals to end welfare have become so mainstream that even Democrats don’t question them. That’s not the same thing as claiming that “Republicans have succeeded in ending welfare.”
In a different post, RitterSport said that “Long term welfare has been eliminated.” That is also not exactly the same as “Republicans have succeeded in ending welfare.”
I personally think that both claims are wrong: many Democrats definitely would question – and fight to oppose – proposals to end welfare, and some forms of long term welfare still exist.
Those are all social programs, but Welfare to Work programs and “end welfare as we know it” referred to income assistance only.
Bill Clinton and the Republicans ended “welfare as we know it” by putting in strict time limits (maybe lifetime limits?) for how long you can receive welfare. It put an end to traditional welfare, which, in theory, could be collected indefinitely.
To be totally clear, I disagreed already with the OP’s suggestion that the Republicans really want to eliminate the judiciary, I disagree that they ended welfare (since obviously TANF still exists). I didn’t think the OP was really worth rebutting.