Does welfare make people lazy?

[bedowin62]

The 1996 welfare reform law required that a portion of the able-bodied adults in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — the successor to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program — work or prepare for work. Those work requirements were the heart of the reform’s success: Welfare rolls dropped by half, and the poverty rate for black children reached its lowest level in history in the years following.

But the Obama administration has jettisoned the law’s work requirements, asserting that, in the future, no state will be required to follow them. In place of the legislated work requirements, the administration has stated, it will unilaterally design its own “work” systems without congressional involvement or consent. Any state will be free to follow the new Obama requirements “in lieu of” the written statute.

The administration has provided no historical evidence showing that Congress intended to grant the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or any part of the executive branch the authority to waive the TANF work requirements. The historical record is clear and states the opposite; as the summary of the reform prepared by Congress shortly after enactment plainly says: “Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.”

 

[Luissa]

obama loosened welfare eligibility restricitions; it had the effect of gutting the work requirement that CLINTON signed into law under the welfare reform bill. when obama did that states had no choice but to ask the whole work requirement be waived; because obama made it moot



libs are losers who lie to themselves

Sure. You have a link backing that up?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[bedowin62]

obama loosened welfare eligibility restricitions; it had the effect of gutting the work requirement that CLINTON signed into law under the welfare reform bill. when obama did that states had no choice but to ask the whole work requirement be waived; because obama made it moot



libs are losers who lie to themselves

Sure. You have a link backing that up?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

i already provided it. google is your friend leftard

 

[ClosedCaption]

obama loosened welfare eligibility restricitions; it had the effect of gutting the work requirement that CLINTON signed into law under the welfare reform bill. when obama did that states had no choice but to ask the whole work requirement be waived; because obama made it moot

libs are losers who lie to themselves

The 1996 welfare reform introduced work requirements into the largest federal cash assistance welfare program, replacing the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The reform required able-bodied adults to work, prepare for work, or look for work in order to receive benefits. Though the law received much criticism from the left, it worked: Stagnant welfare rolls decreased by half within five years of the law’s implementation, employment among low-income Americans soared, and child poverty rates plummeted.

From Heritage Foundation

what in your reply disproves my point genius?

Not You Spiderman.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's silly to think that paying people to do nothing will make them lazy.

Would you say that paying people ANY amount of money will cause them to become lazy and stop looking to better themselves?

What if they were only being paid $10 month? Would $10/month be enough to cause someone to stop working and stop trying to improve their situation?

what if you were an idiot who uses straw man arguements because you are on the wrong side of the issue?

should people take you seriously?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

We both know your best tactic is to answer nothing definitively, so that you can weasel your way out later on with "I never said that".

But for once in your miserable existence, use your brain and answer a question definitively.

 

[bedowin62]

Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.


Read more: Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.
The Heritage Foundation explains that:

“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”


Read more: Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[DGS49]

In one of my former lives, I was a trust officer for a large urban bank. For those who don't know (and in the simplest possible terms), a "Trust" is a large pile of money that some wealthy person gives to a bank, with instructions to dole it out judiciously to some person in his family. Maybe it's a son or a nephew or a neice. But regardless, in most cases, the Trust provides a flow of income that in many cases is enough to live, but maybe not to live as well as the "Beneficiary" would like.

Part of the deal is that the beneficiaries can communicate with me (the Trust Officer), but the discretion to pay out the money is basically mine. When they have an unusual expense, they can come and say, for example, "My daughter is getting married next month and I need some extra money to pay for the wedding."

The point is, these people (beneficiaries of these trusts) are the laziest, most worthless people you would even want to meet. Many, many times I would want to say, "If you need more money to live in the manner you want, GO OUT AND GET A FUCKING JOB!"

But for most of them, that was not even something they could conceive of. Even a part-time job would have made the difference between living comfortably and whining with me over the phone every month about how they couldn't live adequately on the check from the trust fund.

I don't care who you are talking about, giving them a steady, guaranteed income is something that will make them lazy and worthless as shit.

 

[buckeye45_73]

LOL, you really think corporations create jobs? Hahaha.

So you're ok with handouts, just not to people who need it. Got it.

No they are just big empty buildings who make things magically. they don't have any employees.

They have employees. That doesn't mean they create the jobs.

But you're a simpleton, so maybe you need a picture drawn for you?

Wait they have employees but don't create jobs. Are you really retarded? Who fills the jobs? robots? aliens? animals? noooo, employees do. The only reason you separate the two, are sometimes you have jobs that aren't filled, so you're looking for more employees, but other than that, the two are synonymous.


I cant wait to hear a libtard explanation on this....

 

[bedowin62]

No they are just big empty buildings who make things magically. they don't have any employees.

They have employees. That doesn't mean they create the jobs.

But you're a simpleton, so maybe you need a picture drawn for you?

Wait they have employees but don't create jobs. Are you really retarded? Who fills the jobs? robots? aliens? animals? noooo, employees do. The only reason you separate the two, are sometimes you have jobs that aren't filled, so you're looking for more employees, but other than that, the two are synonymous.


I cant wait to hear a libtard explanation on this....

IT'S THE UNICORNS..................... the unicorns did it

libs are morons who lie to themselves about everything

 

[Zander]

No they are just big empty buildings who make things magically. they don't have any employees.

They have employees. That doesn't mean they create the jobs.

But you're a simpleton, so maybe you need a picture drawn for you?

Wait they have employees but don't create jobs. Are you really retarded? Who fills the jobs? robots? aliens? animals? noooo, employees do. The only reason you separate the two, are sometimes you have jobs that aren't filled, so you're looking for more employees, but other than that, the two are synonymous.


I cant wait to hear a libtard explanation on this....

You didn't build that....

 

[RDD_1210]

No they are just big empty buildings who make things magically. they don't have any employees.

They have employees. That doesn't mean they create the jobs.

But you're a simpleton, so maybe you need a picture drawn for you?

Wait they have employees but don't create jobs. Are you really retarded? Who fills the jobs? robots? aliens? animals? noooo, employees do. The only reason you separate the two, are sometimes you have jobs that aren't filled, so you're looking for more employees, but other than that, the two are synonymous.


I cant wait to hear a libtard explanation on this....

Jobs are only created when there is a need. A need is only created when there are consumers with money willing and able to spend. No consumers, no job creation. Like I said, it's the purchasing power of a healthy middle class that drives job creation. Companies just fill that need, not create it.

Get it yet? Of course you don't. You wear a name tag to work.

 

[RDD_1210]

And the peanut gallery scampers off....

 

[Againsheila]

So this is the pattern Iamwhatiseem and Spiderman says some shit. I ask them to prove it. They either insult and/or refuse to prove it.

Calls everyone stupid for not believing them

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling you lazy because no one who works considers filling out a form worth getting paid for.

You apparently know nothing about bureaucracy. Doctor's don't get paid unless they fill out the forms, or have their receptionist fill out the forms. I can't think of a single business where they don't fill out forms, and get paid for them.

 

[Againsheila]

So this is the pattern Iamwhatiseem and Spiderman says some shit. I ask them to prove it. They either insult and/or refuse to prove it.

Calls everyone stupid for not believing them

Is that any different than 95% of the "true conservatives" on this site?

I repeat I have looked and can find no requirement that welfare recipients apply for jobs in exchange for benefits please post a link to the regulation stating so if you can find it.

I believe that's not for so called "welfare" but for unemployment benefits, you definitely have to be applying for jobs. They don't consider you actually unemployed unless you are actually looking, no matter how hopeless it is.

 

[Spoonman]

LOL, you really think corporations create jobs? Hahaha.

So you're ok with handouts, just not to people who need it. Got it.

No they are just big empty buildings who make things magically. they don't have any employees.

They have employees. That doesn't mean they create the jobs.

But you're a simpleton, so maybe you need a picture drawn for you?

yea you're right. they don't create jobs. people just show up for to the buildings and they give them a paycheck.

 

[Spoonman]

They have employees. That doesn't mean they create the jobs.

But you're a simpleton, so maybe you need a picture drawn for you?

Wait they have employees but don't create jobs. Are you really retarded? Who fills the jobs? robots? aliens? animals? noooo, employees do. The only reason you separate the two, are sometimes you have jobs that aren't filled, so you're looking for more employees, but other than that, the two are synonymous.


I cant wait to hear a libtard explanation on this....

Jobs are only created when there is a need. A need is only created when there are consumers with money willing and able to spend. No consumers, no job creation. Like I said, it's the purchasing power of a healthy middle class that drives job creation. Companies just fill that need, not create it.

Get it yet? Of course you don't. You wear a name tag to work.

that healthy middle class is now funding obamacare. there goes their spending power.

 

[The T]

Wait they have employees but don't create jobs. Are you really retarded? Who fills the jobs? robots? aliens? animals? noooo, employees do. The only reason you separate the two, are sometimes you have jobs that aren't filled, so you're looking for more employees, but other than that, the two are synonymous.


I cant wait to hear a libtard explanation on this....

Jobs are only created when there is a need. A need is only created when there are consumers with money willing and able to spend. No consumers, no job creation. Like I said, it's the purchasing power of a healthy middle class that drives job creation. Companies just fill that need, not create it.

Get it yet? Of course you don't. You wear a name tag to work.

that healthy middle class is now funding obamacare. there goes their spending power.

Not only that? They're being destroyed while the politicians claim to care about them on one hand while the dagger goes in their backs with the other.

 

[The T]

No they are just big empty buildings who make things magically. they don't have any employees.

They have employees. That doesn't mean they create the jobs.

But you're a simpleton, so maybe you need a picture drawn for you?

yea you're right. they don't create jobs. people just show up for to the buildings and they give them a paycheck.

Indeed. It's a simple concept that businesses exist to provide goods and services and so that the employer AND employees profit from providing it...but is just so far beyond comprehension for so many...it's just frightening.

 

[Moonglow]

Additionally, when someone gets a job no one has the option of "working enough to keep getting welfare". Either you work when scheduled or hit the road

I own a business, do you? No you don't... In fact I'm wondering if you have ever worked.

I schedule people not by what I would like them to work but rather what they are available to work. I have to find people that care less about parties on the weekends but oddly they might have kids... kids they have to pick up from school or do whatever the fuck they want to do with them. Meaning no, no single employee that I have works any hours I schedule simply because I want them to work certain hours.

Maybe I should run my business like a liberal and just fire people that can't work the hours I tell them too... Like CC would do.

When I ran my business, if you did not work I put someone in your place to work and you found a new job....

 

[Moonglow]

Unfortunately, in 2004, the Welfare-to-Work program ended, but during the time this program was active millions of Americans lives were changed for the better.

US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

Now who ended welfare to work???