Socialist Obama ends work requirement for welfare

[koshergrl]

She's not gullible, she's hypocritical. And dishonest.

 

[Care4all]

Buying votes from the dumbmasses.

hmmmmm, really? me thinks you are the one playing dumb on this...the T

Obama didn't advertise this measure...he didn't go out and tell all of the people on welfare that he was doing this...they don't even know it.....maybe now they might know about it because of the ruckus and tantrums those in the right wing blogosphere and FOX are reporting on this....so I have no idea why you said what you said, other than just trying to get in a partisan jab.

all he did was respond to the request of the State Governors, both Republican and Democratic alike, who wanted more flexibility to actually get people to work as the program intended. the governors still have to meet most all federal requirements, will still be fined if they don't meet them, and the Governors, if asking for a waiver, have to present their new plan to the Feds, and will be monitored going forward.

There is much more to it....the program's work requirements are not GUTTED, some of the reports and requirements of paperwork, that took the Welfare/social workers away from their primary goal of getting people back to work, now can be modified by the State Governors, with fed approval, so that those working the TANF program can actually spend more time helping those on the program find a job.....and other things that governors feel would work best in their states during this recession.

a WAIVER given, is also a WAIVER that can be taken back.

NONE OF THIS IS PERMANENT.

it shouldn't have been done AT ALL. What part of imperial overreach by this president don't you understand? He is acting outside the Constitution, and should be called out on this an a myriad of thngs.

And remember? the INCOME TAX wasn't supposed to be permanent either.

Sorry Care...I like you...but you're gullible.

I don't think I am being gullible, I read all that I could on the subject, including all of the conservative blogs and fox on this, and you all are the ones that are being played....just read up more on it, pretty please.

 

[JoeB131]

But how can the president via HHS or HHS arbitrarily change any law that was voted on by Congress?

What is the point of Congress if Departments are going to grant waivers to their laws?

Because the law as written allows for waivers to be granted by HHS if requested by the states...

which many of htem have because NONE of them are hitting their requirement right now.

 

[hortysir]

Where is the authority to overwrite a congressionally-passed law?

Or to amend said law?

 

[JoeB131]

Where is the authority to overwrite a congressionally-passed law?

Or to amend said law?

The law allows HHS to grant waivers if the states request them..

So, nope, he's within the law. Sorry.

 

[hortysir]

Where is the authority to overwrite a congressionally-passed law?

Or to amend said law?

The law allows HHS to grant waivers if the states request them..

So, nope, he's within the law. Sorry.

I'd say "Thanks", but do you have something to support that?

 

[JoeB131]

Where is the authority to overwrite a congressionally-passed law?

Or to amend said law?

The law allows HHS to grant waivers if the states request them..

So, nope, he's within the law. Sorry.

I'd say "Thanks", but do you have something to support that?

Obama administration proposes welfare-to-work waivers | syracuse.com

The administration said the waiver program is a response to concerns from state officials — Republicans as well as Democrats — that the work requirements in the law are too rigid and create bureaucratic hurdles to actually placing welfare recipients in jobs. Officials say the program does not violate the underlying law because of a provision that allows waivers of state plans.

In its memo to the states, the administration said no waivers will be allowed that could reduce access to employment, nor will they permit exceptions to time limits on welfare assistance. Waivers can be revoked if the experiments don’t work out. Still, a state can seek a waiver to cover its entire welfare population.

You're welcome...

 

[Neotrotsky]

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".

Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change | Fox News

Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change

Published July 13, 2012

Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of unilaterally gutting welfare reform after the Department of Health and Human Services quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program's strict work requirements.

HHS made the announcement in a policy memo Thursday, news that slipped well below the radar amid a raucous day on the presidential campaign trail. But a few prominent GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill picked up on the change, and accused the administration of overhauling one of the most important bipartisan agreements of the past several decades.

"President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract" Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, said in a statement. He also called the move a "blatant violation of the law."

Mitt Romney on Friday spoke up on the change, saying: "President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare." He said "the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII]Chapter - It's Free Swipe Yo EBT (Explicit) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hortysir]

The law allows HHS to grant waivers if the states request them..

So, nope, he's within the law. Sorry.

I'd say "Thanks", but do you have something to support that?

Obama administration proposes welfare-to-work waivers | syracuse.com

The administration said the waiver program is a response to concerns from state officials — Republicans as well as Democrats — that the work requirements in the law are too rigid and create bureaucratic hurdles to actually placing welfare recipients in jobs. Officials say the program does not violate the underlying law because of a provision that allows waivers of state plans.

In its memo to the states, the administration said no waivers will be allowed that could reduce access to employment, nor will they permit exceptions to time limits on welfare assistance. Waivers can be revoked if the experiments don’t work out. Still, a state can seek a waiver to cover its entire welfare population.

You're welcome...

My, my, aren't you selective in your quoting!


You made the rather proud declaration:

**** The law allows HHS to grant waivers if the states request them..

So, nope, he's within the law.****

While, right there, in your own source-link there is this little nugget
vvvvvvvvvvv

In a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the two lawmakers demanded an explanation, saying the work requirements have remained untouched for 16 years and may not be waived. “No other administration ... has ever arrived at the conclusion that TANF work requirements can be waived,” said the two lawmakers.

So, ya see, it was never in the original legislation.


But let's not let a teeny thing like "checks and balances" stop our dear leader from signing his way through any inconvenient law he happens to stumble across.

 

[francoHFW]

And the Pub Propaganda Machine blares "Socialist Obama ends welfare work requirement", 10 pages of BS orgs, pundits, and websites, and you dupes just love repeating the stupid lies....You unbelievable chumps....

 

[hortysir]

And the Pub Propaganda Machine blares "Socialist Obama ends welfare work requirement", 10 pages of BS orgs, pundits, and websites, and you dupes just love repeating the stupid lies....You unbelievable chumps....

With the stroke of his pen, he granted states the option to waive when it was never a waive-able item in the law.

he's not King.

 

[Care4all]

horty, don't you view the way those lawmakers replied a bit strange or aloof?

Their statement is to HHS:

“No other administration ... has ever arrived at the conclusion that TANF work requirements can be waived,” said the two lawmakers.

If the original bill SAID specifically that there could be no waivers for work requirements, why wouldn't the lawmakers just quote the law, instead of just saying.....paraphrased...''duh...ummm...but, but, but.... it's never been done before, mommy....''

also, I'm not certain if you realize this but even in this statement in the clip you pasted....coming from the 'lawmakers''....

saying the work requirements have remained untouched for 16 years and may not be waived.

just because a waiver for that area has not been touched before IN NO WAY makes that part of the law immune to waivers.... and the part in red highlighted... in law, to make it binding and never ever to be broken or changed or waived or modified, instead of may not being in that phrase, it would have been written shall not.

so, once again, this is hot air and more than likely just partisan politics on the part of those unidentified 'lawmakers'' quoted.

And granted, every time President Bush did something like this with his numerous executive orders, it irked me to no end, but he kept getting a 'pass' for it....it was supposedly within his duties, from all that I had read on it.

IF it is written in the actual law that work requirements SHALL NOT be waived, then YOU are right, and I'll have to eat my words on this....

 

[francoHFW]

Blown out of all proportion- no waiver of work rules has even been imagined FCS.....no wonder you morons think there's going to be a civil war- change the channel- you're brainwashed, un-American tools/haters...

 

[oreo]

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".

Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change | Fox News

Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change

Published July 13, 2012

Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of unilaterally gutting welfare reform after the Department of Health and Human Services quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program's strict work requirements.

HHS made the announcement in a policy memo Thursday, news that slipped well below the radar amid a raucous day on the presidential campaign trail. But a few prominent GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill picked up on the change, and accused the administration of overhauling one of the most important bipartisan agreements of the past several decades.

"President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract" Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, said in a statement. He also called the move a "blatant violation of the law."

Mitt Romney on Friday spoke up on the change, saying: "President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare." He said "the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life."

What can we expect--a couple of weeks ago he was singing to the hysterical--fainting crowds to get VOTES--and now he's so desperate he's going after the WELFARE crowd--LOL.

I am just waiting for him to do some type of dance routine--or give another perfectly pronounced speech from Lunar 1.--

 

[JoeB131]

I'd say "Thanks", but do you have something to support that?

Obama administration proposes welfare-to-work waivers | syracuse.com

You're welcome...

My, my, aren't you selective in your quoting!


You made the rather proud declaration:

**** The law allows HHS to grant waivers if the states request them..

So, nope, he's within the law.****

While, right there, in your own source-link there is this little nugget
vvvvvvvvvvv

In a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the two lawmakers demanded an explanation, saying the work requirements have remained untouched for 16 years and may not be waived. “No other administration ... has ever arrived at the conclusion that TANF work requirements can be waived,” said the two lawmakers.

So, ya see, it was never in the original legislation.


But let's not let a teeny thing like "checks and balances" stop our dear leader from signing his way through any inconvenient law he happens to stumble across.

The very fact the states have requested waivers indicates the law as written allows them... Sorry.

Just because a couple of lawmakers say they don't think there are any, doesn't mean all that much.

I'm sure they can file a lawsuit. You guys have done so well in the courts lately..

 

[OODA_Loop]

Need to transition to work-based welfare and prevent those gaming the system.

 

[JoeB131]

Need to transition to work-based welfare and prevent those gaming the system.

I agree.

But do you know who would scream about that the loudest?

All of the unions that represent governmetn workers.

I'd have no problem having these folks tasked with such work as cleaning up graffitti, picking up trash in parks and along highways, and so on.

Probably include some vocational retraining as part of it to. Of course, part of the problem is that if they learned these schools in primary education, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Care4all]

Need to transition to work-based welfare and prevent those gaming the system.

I agree.

But do you know who would scream about that the loudest?

All of the unions that represent governmetn workers.

I'd have no problem having these folks tasked with such work as cleaning up graffitti, picking up trash in parks and along highways, and so on.

Probably include some vocational retraining as part of it to. Of course, part of the problem is that if they learned these schools in primary education, it wouldn't be an issue.

About 40%-50% of the people on welfare are children I believe I just read, then a good portion of the rest, are their mothers, then there are some seniors.

In my State anyone single or anyone married with no children, do not qualify for Welfare, TANF, unless you are destitute perhaps, not even sure if you can then. Oh, one exception, if you were a Senior in my state you could qualify for welfare...but i believe our new republican governor is trying to kill that...and cut 37,000 people that are on welfare now...or maybe it was 37,000 people that are on Medicaid now, to balance the budget...but there is huge resistance by the public and Democrats who are fighting the governor on this...so we will see.....

I don't think you can put the children to work on the highways picking up trash, and if you have their mother's do it, there would have to be some sort of child care provided which could cost more....but it still might be worth it, to get some of these women in the "work" mode. The measures in Gingrich / Clinton Welfare is 50% of the adults on welfare working, and a bunch of other requirements, for States to get Federal Welfare money to add to their state welfare monies spent...States requesting a waiver to the fed plan have to present their own plan, and the fed has to approve it.


See, I think, which is probably unconstitutional but anyway...I think we should force the father's of these mothers with children on welfare, TO WORK for the mother of their children and their children to receive welfare. THAT actually might make a difference and cut down on the struggling single motherhood moms!


Really, I do think it would be good as you all have stated to get the people on their 5 year limit of welfare, on to a job right away, whether it be one for the State, or in the private sector.

 

[daveman]

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.

It's racist to expect people to work in exchange for public money.

Or some horse crap like that.

 

[hortysir]

Care and Joe.

First off, the lawmakers are barely 'unidentified'.

“They have arrogated to themselves complete control over this program, and they did it through what’s essentially foul play,” Robert Rector, a nationally known social policy expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Friday. Rector, who helped draft the original legislation, said the administration’s move amounted to an end-run around the law’s work requirement and therefore violates the law.

So, now, let's take a look at the language of the bill's text as it pertains to Waivers.
Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

(2) WAIVERS GRANTED SUBSEQUENTLY-

• • • `(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if any waiver granted to a State under section 1115 of this Act or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State plan under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996) is submitted to the Secretary before the date of the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and approved by the Secretary on or before July 1, 1997, and the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the waiver will not result in Federal expenditures under title IV of this Act (as in effect without regard to the amendments made by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) that are greater than would occur in the absence of the waiver, the amendments made by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (other than by section 103(c) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) shall not apply with respect to the State before the expiration (determined without regard to any extensions) of the waiver to the extent the amendments made by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 are inconsistent with the waiver.

• • • `(B) NO EFFECT ON NEW WORK REQUIREMENTS- Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a waiver granted under section 1115 or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 407 to the State.