Socialist Obama ends work requirement for welfare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ShootSpeeders, Jul 13, 2012.

  1. ShootSpeeders
    Offline

    ShootSpeeders Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,483
    Thanks Received:
    1,724
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,220
    As with illegal aliens, we once again see Obozo brazenly ignoring laws passed by congress. He should be impeached for this. The constitution says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    So much for Obama trying to get people employed. he has just flouted the law to keep people on welfare, and make it easier to get on it without working.

    As I understand it? What he did was rid the law of the work requirement which is stipulated in the law.
     
  3. signelect
    Offline

    signelect BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Thanks Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +216
    Obama is insane, it is vote buying plain and simple and he doesn't want the worthless to have to prove who they are to vote either.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    Yep.
     
  5. ShootSpeeders
    Offline

    ShootSpeeders Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,483
    Thanks Received:
    1,724
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,220
    This is more racism. He wants to take from working whites and give to deadbeat blacks. It's NOT about getting votes since he has always had 95%+ of the black vote. Blacks are racist and always vote black but whites do NOT always vote white.
     
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,277
    Thanks Received:
    14,924
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,090
    Dictators never listen to Congress
     
  7. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    56,171
    Thanks Received:
    9,360
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,621
    It is against USMB rules to alter the quote of another user. Newby.

    I did not alter anyone's quote.

    ???
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  8. francoHFW
    Offline

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,572
    Thanks Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,646
    Could the Pub propaganda machine lie, spin, and exagerate the the "Sky is falling" BS any more?

    As usual, after 10 google pages of of BS Pub sites blaring "Obama guts welfare work requirement", you finally find some reality.

    It;s a waiver that states could ask for (they won't) for experiments they could try, AND NEVER MENTIONS WORK REQUIREMENTS.

    Pubs are totally FOS, so the dupes are too. Change the channel.

    How bout ONE real jobs bill, "jobs, jobs, jobs" a-holes?


    "Is there any information out there that refutes the apocalyptic Heritage take on HHS's new TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) waiver? Has the HHS "gutted" welfare reform?


    It's at least cracked open the door for the people who might gut it. Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley write that section 1115 of Social Security law gives HHS limited waiver authority. "The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, 'mandatory work requirements')," they write. "Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable."

    Section 115 allows waivers for any "experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of title I [education for the disabled], X [family planning], XIV [aid to the disabled], XVI [social security disability], or XIX [medical assistance], or part A or D of title IV [grants to state for child aid]." Nope, nothing there about work requirements.

    While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.
    Mickey Kaus, who owns this beat, ponders what it all means. The only non-"gutting" theory I can come up gives HHS rather a lot of credit. It cites waiver memos from Utah and Tennessee for proof that the states are ready for more flexibility. Those states aren't likely to weaken the standards of TANF work programs, are they? But I want to see what other states try and do here, and how they interpret this.


    The End of Welfare Reform
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    56,171
    Thanks Received:
    9,360
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,621
    The bolded part is what I quoted earlier that got modded. Fox News is saying the Republican Committee chair is a Democrat!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. swizzlee
    Offline

    swizzlee RedWhiteAndBlue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    727
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    on a mountain
    Ratings:
    +124
    Sorry, but I must support HHS on this.......

    If you read it carefully you would note that HHS "quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program's strict work requirements."

    I would be willing to wager that several states have already requested a waiver and that this is in response to those requests.

    When you consider the very high rate of unemployment in this country and that some states have been hit much harder, it is entirely reasonable for states to ask that "strict" rules be relaxed in one way or another.

    Would you really expect those on welfare to be denied the means to survive because s/he was unable and beyond his control to abide by rules so rigid in a bad economy that they can't be met?
     

Share This Page