Does welfare make people lazy?

[bedowin62]

if it was a requirement; and obama is "allowing states to change it", change it meaning it went from a requirement to not being a requirement; then he's DROPPING it as a requirement

you're simply an idiot who knows nothing but to lie to himself

 

[ClosedCaption]

And Obama suspended most all of those through waivers.
Additionally, he lowered the paper requirements and/or delayed them for applying for SNAP and other programs.
You are a decade and a half behind.

Really? Because the article from Heritage says the opposite. Strange huh?

Your talking points arent stronger than reality idiot

left-wing moron; your talking point is idiotic like you are; the article you're citing from the Hertiage foundation doesnt say whay you're claiming it is saying

you didnt even read it

 

[bedowin62]

Really? Because the article from Heritage says the opposite. Strange huh?

Your talking points arent stronger than reality idiot

left-wing moron; your talking point is idiotic like you are; the article you're citing from the Hertiage foundation doesnt say whay you're claiming it is saying

you didnt even read it

i dont have to leftard; if it WAS a REQUIREMENT; but now it ISNT; parsing it as "allowing states to not follow what was a REQUIREMENT is useful only to left-wng morons deceiving themselves

 

[ClosedCaption]

left-wing moron; your talking point is idiotic like you are; the article you're citing from the Hertiage foundation doesnt say whay you're claiming it is saying

you didnt even read it

i dont have to leftard;

if it WAS a REQUIREMENT; but now it ISNT; parsing it as "allowing states to not follow what was a REQUIREMENT is useful only to left-wng morons deceiving themselves

 

[bedowin62]

you didnt even read it

i dont have to leftard;

if it WAS a REQUIREMENT; but now it ISNT; parsing it as "allowing states to not follow what was a REQUIREMENT is useful only to left-wng morons deceiving themselves

no answer

typical

 

[Spiderman]

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?

10 a month?

If you were really trying a reduction to the absurd you should have used 1 cent a month.

Fine, 1 cent. Is that enough to demotivate someone from bettering themselves?

If it's a clear cut answer, then say so.

yes

 

[ClosedCaption]

i dont have to leftard;

if it WAS a REQUIREMENT; but now it ISNT; parsing it as "allowing states to not follow what was a REQUIREMENT is useful only to left-wng morons deceiving themselves

no answer

typical

Here is the part where you act like a republican and take personal responsibility. The answer is in the article. I'm not going to put you on my lap and read it to you.

Teach thyself fool

 

[RDD_1210]

10 a month?

If you were really trying a reduction to the absurd you should have used 1 cent a month.

Fine, 1 cent. Is that enough to demotivate someone from bettering themselves?

If it's a clear cut answer, then say so.

yes

Wait, so you're saying that being given 1 cent a month is enough to cause someone to stop trying to better themselves?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Fine, 1 cent. Is that enough to demotivate someone from bettering themselves?

If it's a clear cut answer, then say so.

yes

Wait, so you're saying that being given 1 cent a month is enough to cause someone to stop trying to better themselves?

Yes, now that you've backed him in a corner the liar has to keep lying even to the point of absurdity.

Now they all scamper off to make sure their talking points make it out without a scratch

 

[RDD_1210]

yes

Wait, so you're saying that being given 1 cent a month is enough to cause someone to stop trying to better themselves?

Yes, now that you've backed him in a corner the liar has to keep lying even to the point of absurdity.

Now they all scamper off to make sure their talking points make it out without a scratch

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that's not what he meant. But who knows....no one with an ounce of honesty or reasoning ability would say yes to that question.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wait, so you're saying that being given 1 cent a month is enough to cause someone to stop trying to better themselves?

Yes, now that you've backed him in a corner the liar has to keep lying even to the point of absurdity.

Now they all scamper off to make sure their talking points make it out without a scratch

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that's not what he meant. But who knows....no one with an ounce of honesty or reasoning ability would say yes to that question.

Thats the whole point and thats why he said yes

 

[Spiderman]

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

Here it is [MENTION=45418]Spiderman[/MENTION].

Since google is hard for you I'll include the link: House Votes to Restore Welfare Work Requirements

Next time you try to find something like Welfare to Work Requirement heres a hint: Go to google and type in "Welfare to Work" **** face

House votes to restore....
doesn't that mean the requirements were abolished.





http://www.welfareinfo.org/

One has 2 years in which to find work. So one can be paid for doing nothing for 2 years.

the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid

 

[ClosedCaption]

From Heritage Foundation

Here it is [MENTION=45418]Spiderman[/MENTION].

Since google is hard for you I'll include the link: House Votes to Restore Welfare Work Requirements

Next time you try to find something like Welfare to Work Requirement heres a hint: Go to google and type in "Welfare to Work" **** face

House votes to restore....

That means the requirements were abolished.

So now you see there were requirements. Good. Now you can stop saying you dont see it or dont know about it.

Now we all know a house vote does not make a law don't we?

Did it pass the senate and did Obama sign the bill into law?

If he didn't then there was no restoration of work requirement s were there?

Now dont miss the link from Fact Check and the Republican who created the reform in 96. You'd be surprised. Dont miss it ok?

 

[ClosedCaption]

And Obama suspended most all of those through waivers.
Additionally, he lowered the paper requirements and/or delayed them for applying for SNAP and other programs.
You are a decade and a half behind.

Hilarious isn't it...the kid read the headline and assumed it meant that the work requirement was reinstated.
I think his understanding of how the government works is limited to what Comedy Central tells him.

Hilarious yes.

s Obama “dropping work requirements,” as Romney’s ad claims? No. He is allowing states to change the work requirements, but he is not dropping them. The changes could be made to a variety of federal requirements, including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”
A lot will depend on what a state proposes and how it is implemented. There is nothing inherent in the waivers that guts work requirements.
In explaining the new policy, George Sheldon, the acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, wrote: “Waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved.” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote a July 18 letter to Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah saying the department’s “goal is to accelerate job placement,” requiring states to commit to a plan that will “move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance.”
It’s understandable that some Republicans simply may not trust Sebelius and Sheldon. There is a lot of mistrust between the Democrats and Republicans on the issue of welfare — and the way the administration implemented the new policy has not helped.

See I present facts you present "lol"s

Pay attention heres the part you'll like

Ron Haskins was the Republican staff director of the Subcommittee on Human Resources for the House Ways and Means Committee from 1995 to 2000. Now at the Brookings Institution, Haskins’ biography states that he was “instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.”
Haskins said Republicans at the time drafted the welfare law so that the executive branch could not waive work-participation rules. Obama’s unilateral action has understandably angered some Republicans who believe the administration lacks the authority to issue waivers, he said.
However, Haskins also said that the new waiver policy does not “gut welfare reform.” He cites two reasons: The federal government will continue to hold states accountable for moving people off welfare and into jobs, and the states have a tremendous financial incentive to use the new waiver authority to improve employment outcomes.

Does Obama?s Plan ?Gut Welfare Reform??

Have fun running around telling yourself that this cant be true. Calling this guy a RINO, saying Fact check website looks funny, anything! Just hurry and dismiss information that might harm your bubble

[MENTION=45418]Spiderman[/MENTION]

 

[Ame®icano]

One has 2 years in which to find work. So one can be paid for doing nothing for 2 years.

I can't say they don't look for a job, but something's telling me they prey not to find it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

One has 2 years in which to find work. So one can be paid for doing nothing for 2 years.

I can't say they don't look for a job, but something's telling me they prey not to find it.

yeah because they are living it up

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And Obama suspended most all of those through waivers.
Additionally, he lowered the paper requirements and/or delayed them for applying for SNAP and other programs.
You are a decade and a half behind.

Hilarious isn't it...the kid read the headline and assumed it meant that the work requirement was reinstated.
I think his understanding of how the government works is limited to what Comedy Central tells him.

Hilarious yes.

s Obama “dropping work requirements,” as Romney’s ad claims? No. He is allowing states to change the work requirements, but he is not dropping them. The changes could be made to a variety of federal requirements, including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”
A lot will depend on what a state proposes and how it is implemented. There is nothing inherent in the waivers that guts work requirements.
In explaining the new policy, George Sheldon, the acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, wrote: “Waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved.” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote a July 18 letter to Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah saying the department’s “goal is to accelerate job placement,” requiring states to commit to a plan that will “move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance.”
It’s understandable that some Republicans simply may not trust Sebelius and Sheldon. There is a lot of mistrust between the Democrats and Republicans on the issue of welfare — and the way the administration implemented the new policy has not helped.

See I present facts you present "lol"s

Pay attention heres the part you'll like

Ron Haskins was the Republican staff director of the Subcommittee on Human Resources for the House Ways and Means Committee from 1995 to 2000. Now at the Brookings Institution, Haskins’ biography states that he was “instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.”
Haskins said Republicans at the time drafted the welfare law so that the executive branch could not waive work-participation rules. Obama’s unilateral action has understandably angered some Republicans who believe the administration lacks the authority to issue waivers, he said.
However, Haskins also said that the new waiver policy does not “gut welfare reform.” He cites two reasons: The federal government will continue to hold states accountable for moving people off welfare and into jobs, and the states have a tremendous financial incentive to use the new waiver authority to improve employment outcomes.

Does Obama?s Plan ?Gut Welfare Reform??

Have fun running around telling yourself that this cant be true. Calling this guy a RINO, saying Fact check website looks funny, anything! Just hurry and dismiss information that might harm your bubble

Your splitting hairs.
Guess what?
Red states will not change the work requirements...blue states will.
And gosh...what do you know...that is exactly what is happening.
Regardless of semantics...the proof is in the pudding.
The current welfare roles (2013) is over 3 million families. Highest since welfare reform.
However - there are a whooole lot more social programs than there were in 1961. Helluva lot more.
When you factor that in...there has never been a time in our history where the current percentage of people receiving social assistance than now.
Granted...Bush gave away a lot also.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hilarious isn't it...the kid read the headline and assumed it meant that the work requirement was reinstated.
I think his understanding of how the government works is limited to what Comedy Central tells him.

Hilarious yes.



See I present facts you present "lol"s

Pay attention heres the part you'll like

Ron Haskins was the Republican staff director of the Subcommittee on Human Resources for the House Ways and Means Committee from 1995 to 2000. Now at the Brookings Institution, Haskins’ biography states that he was “instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.”
Haskins said Republicans at the time drafted the welfare law so that the executive branch could not waive work-participation rules. Obama’s unilateral action has understandably angered some Republicans who believe the administration lacks the authority to issue waivers, he said.
However, Haskins also said that the new waiver policy does not “gut welfare reform.” He cites two reasons: The federal government will continue to hold states accountable for moving people off welfare and into jobs, and the states have a tremendous financial incentive to use the new waiver authority to improve employment outcomes.

Does Obama?s Plan ?Gut Welfare Reform??

Have fun running around telling yourself that this cant be true. Calling this guy a RINO, saying Fact check website looks funny, anything! Just hurry and dismiss information that might harm your bubble

Your splitting hairs.
Guess what?
Red states will not change the work requirements...blue states will.
And gosh...what do you know...that is exactly what is happening.

Great so at least you can stop saying

You won't get the answer Spidey, as usual the low information bobble heads do not know that Obama removed the work requirement.

Because he didnt remove the work requirement. A google search would've shown you that

Now Since you said that blue states are removing the requirement (Not Obama like you said earlier) can you show any proof of that?


Of course you cant

 

[RDD_1210]

Hilarious yes.



See I present facts you present "lol"s

Pay attention heres the part you'll like



Does Obama?s Plan ?Gut Welfare Reform??

Have fun running around telling yourself that this cant be true. Calling this guy a RINO, saying Fact check website looks funny, anything! Just hurry and dismiss information that might harm your bubble

Your splitting hairs.
Guess what?
Red states will not change the work requirements...blue states will.
And gosh...what do you know...that is exactly what is happening.

Great so at least you can stop saying

You won't get the answer Spidey, as usual the low information bobble heads do not know that Obama removed the work requirement.

Because he didnt remove the work requirement. A google search would've shown you that

Now Since you said that blue states are removing the requirement (Not Obama like you said earlier) can you show any proof of that?


Of course you cant

Go easy on them. Backing up their claims isn't something that is required as a part of their cognitive process.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Your splitting hairs.
Guess what?
Red states will not change the work requirements...blue states will.
And gosh...what do you know...that is exactly what is happening.

Great so at least you can stop saying

You won't get the answer Spidey, as usual the low information bobble heads do not know that Obama removed the work requirement.

Because he didnt remove the work requirement. A google search would've shown you that

Now Since you said that blue states are removing the requirement (Not Obama like you said earlier) can you show any proof of that?


Of course you cant

Go easy on them. Backing up their claims isn't something that is required as a part of their cognitive process.

Right, I'm sure I'll get a response about how I'm a poopy head or have the booger touch or some other childish bullshit

In two pages he went from "Obama removed the requirement" to "ok he didnt but".

Now if he didnt know or wasnt sure, why the **** did he outright lie about it? Makes no sense.