Is Unemployment Planned???

[PoliticalChic]

One step at a time.

I’m not done with that right-wing propaganda pimp, Robert Rector. We’ll move on to Newt Gingrich in due time. By the way, if need be, I’ll print out that paper, and rebut each point with “data”, that’s not a problem. Statistics can be massaged by anybody that’s trying to prove a thesis.

In 2009, if not mistaken, the government set the poverty threshold for individuals at around $11,000 and $22,000 for a family of four. US Census data indicates around 34 million Americas, that’s roughly 12% of the population, is living in poverty – the numbers have been increasing yearly. Perhaps Robert Rector, the Heritage foundation’s resident poverty expert, could attempt to survive on $11,000 per year.

Our ruling class apologist, Robert Rector, also neglects to mention the reason people aren’t starving to death in the streets is a direct result of government programs, such a Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps and SCHIP. This is somehow proof that the poor are solely dependent on government in his myopic worldview. I wonder if he feels the same way about tax-deductible donations to the Heritage Foundation or corporate welfare subsidies for multinationals or the one percent. I doubt it.

"The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents."
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf


True or not?

Fix the URL, I'm getting redirected here:

File Was Not Found - PolicyArchive

You are correct....link no longer seems to work.

Try this one:

The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report

 

[PoliticalChic]

So the problem with the unemployed is a plot in the 1930's to give unemployed welfare to make them lazy and that way a Soviet styled Bolshevism govt. could take over the US govt.?
Talk about your meandering mind of a journalists starving for readers so he can pay to have his butt massaged in bed.

Did you miss this part of the OP?


" In 1934, William A. Wirt testified in Congress that officials of FDR's Agriculture Department planned on retarding economic recovery to speed the revolution, and so they can rebuild America in the Soviet's image. "Wirt claimed he had "discovered" evidence of a plot within FDR's administration to launch a Bolshevik takeover of the United States..... "....." The Washington Monthly"


You know that it is a fact that FDR's program retarded recovery....don't you?




Actually, the dots connect nicely.


a. The psychological effect of unemployment

b. The use of that effect, the crisis, to manipulate the electorate...

c. FDR shredded the Constitution....and got away with it due to a & b above.

d. Obama using Keynesian Stimulus as a pretense....it is known not to be as successful as cutting spending...

e. The vid is the kicker!



Now....don't tell me that a smart guy like you, Drop-Draws, was taken in by propaganda???

Except for the fact that FDR was no communist or Bolshevik, The reason why, communism, socialism and fascism, it was looked on in favor during the Great Depression was it's ability to grow and prosper when capitalism had one again failed, same with Japans form of govt.
It is not the govt. that keeps companies from hiring full time.

"Except for the fact that FDR was no communist or Bolshevik,..."

So....you believe him to be a dupe?

Roosevelt's New Deal was riddled with communists....paid agents of Stalin. At a dinner party, a number administration officials spilled the beans, spoke openly about the plans to cause a revolution so they can rebuild America in the Soviet's image.

"[William A.] Wirt claimed he had "discovered" evidence of a plot within FDR's administration to launch a Bolshevik takeover of the United States..... garnering all kind of media attention, and even testifying before Congress about his evidence of a "concrete plan" for the overthrow of the U.S. government crafted by members of FDR's "Brain Trusters."

"Roosevelt is only the Kerensky of this revolution," he quoted them. (Kerensky was the provisional leader of Russia just before the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.) The hoodwinked president would be permitted to stay in office, they said, "until we are ready to supplant him with a Stalin." The Washington Monthly


Wirt testified in April, 1934.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I admit I usually don't read what you write because while you start out with an issue worth discussing, you seem to always devolve into right wing disproven propaganda. And once again, you didn't disappoint. I got all the way to here:

Liberal hand-outs, i.e., welfare, is the cause of unemployment

Now I've been accused of attacking Republicans, but simply pointing out what their leaders are actually saying is not an attack. Like this video of Rick Santorum. Posting that, apparently is considered an "attack".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

Most people that get food stamps are working full time or belong to a household where someone in the household is working full time. Welfare has a work requirement that was passed under Bill Clinton. Republicans have turned "American helping American" into "liberal handouts" and it's this propaganda that will insure the current Republican Party will be marginalized until it straightens up and gets past this nonsense and bullshit they can't seem to stop spouting.

The fact that people will attempt to vote into office a pioneer of outsourcing who moved one of his businesses to China the very month of the election, a man who ran on a platform of cutting education in this country and bringing immigrants with degrees to this country. The fact that people who need jobs wanted to make this man president proves the propaganda has turned their brains to duck shit. There isn't any other possible explanation.

Now, some are complaining that immigrants with degrees will take their jobs. Only they don't have the education to compete for those jobs because Republicans don't like "elites" and "education is for snobs". Pushing an agenda of such complete and utter bullshit has hurt that party terribly and only now a very, very few are beginning to "wake up". But they are so late to the party, they are now shrieking "revolution" like some idiot corner sitter sporting a dunce cap.

And I have personal experience with "government help". I was in the military and the GI bill helped me go to college. And even working full time and getting the GI bill, I still ended up owing $56,000.00. And I even got a grant for Americans of Italian Descent and I was grateful for every cent. And it meant every night when not at school, studying until midnight. And every weekend almost from getting up to going to bed studying.

And I admit, I don't talk like other engineers whose mom and dad paid for their education and left them with degrees without owning a cent. My English isn't as "polished". Sometimes I'm "mocked", until we start talking engineering. Then everyone shuts up and listens. Believe it. I'm the only engineer I know who will get so into the job and during the meeting will say **** or bullshit. I don't do it on purpose, but I sometimes forget the sensitivity of the "gentile".

Listen to this moron:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIa4VdtKlO0

Like everyone has parents with money. So getting help from your parents is "OK", but getting help from a government you pay for is "liberal handouts"? Who could be so brain damaged they swallow this swill? Besides Republicans I mean? But it's not the death of the party. It will change. But it will take a good ten years. They went from the "Party of Ideas" to a "Pile of crap". They will swing back the other way once they get tired of not having meaningful jobs. And making coffee is NOT a meaningful job. It's a job. A minimum wage job. But it's not meaningful. And I suspect many actually consider it "demeaning". And if you have the talent for more and know you do, then it probably is.

Good job!

Notwithstanding the errors and outright untruths, it is a post one can get their teeth into.

Rep on the way!
Actually...it deserves its own OP status...but just a few notes:

1. "Most people that get food stamps are working full time or belong to a household where someone in the household is working full time."
This alone reveals that there is a design for the program beyond helping folks who need help. It fits neatly into the premise of the OP. The "design" is that food stamps actually become a business subsidy. Some companies just can't pay all that much. But at least someone has a job.

2. " Welfare has a work requirement that was passed under Bill Clinton."
...which was illegally obviated by Obama. That's a bullshit lie. Some Republican governors asked Obama to make an "exception" clause because you can't go for job training and get welfare. Now, with federal approval, you can. It's "common sense" and Romney tried to get Obama on that but some Republican governors had to step in and "educate" Romney. The campaign wasn't that long ago. How could you forget something that made such "news"?????

3. "liberal handouts"
As proven in #1 above. GOP Lt. Gov Andre Bauer said "feed the poor and they will breed" and who was it that said "hungry children work harder"? It pains me that so many Republicans see helping the poor as "liberal handouts". It only proves right wingers kneel at the Altar of the Church of the Heartless Bastard.

4. " a pioneer of outsourcing "
I provided an OP showing that Obama was a leader in outsourcing, including loan guarantees to corporations in other nations. And what did he get for it? There is always a deal. Remember when Republicans held millions of unemployed hostage to get the Bush Tax cuts (or subsidies) for the rich extended? And yet, Republicans hammered him for extending the tax cuts. He wasn't willing to let millions of Americans suffer. Republicans are and they will still sleep very well at night. Worse, many of those lost their jobs under Bush and the Republicans when so many jobs were sent to China.


5. " a man who ran on a platform of cutting education in this country"
Link? How many times to I have to link to this? You know, I look at the links right wingers post. I want to see if they actually have something or are they simply spewing nonsense. Listen, just so you don't think it's a trick, go to Youtube, put in "Romney Philadelphia teachers class size" or "Romney wants fewer Police, Firemen and Teachers". Fewer teachers, larger class size means cuts to education.

6. "...don't have the education to compete for those jobs because Republicans don't like "elites" and "education is for snobs"."
The education industry is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. That's a bullshit lie to avoid education. Many teachers have no political agenda. Many are into academia and nothing else. I think right wingers use that excuse because education is difficult and they simply don't have what it takes.


7. ".... the GI bill helped me go to college. And even working full time and getting the GI bill,..."
We need the same bill in education today....we call it the 'voucher plan.' No, that's stupid. That would only help the wealthy. If you don't have any money, you can't pay into a plan. And when I was in the military, I certainly didn't have much money and some of those guys were sending money back to needy families.


8. " And it meant every night when not at school, studying until midnight. And every weekend almost from getting up to going to bed studying."
Same here. If you have an education, how are you so easily taken in by Ayn Rand right winger bullshit.


9. "will say **** or bullshit. I don't do it on purpose, but I sometimes forget the sensitivity of the "gentile".
I don't. Lucky you. Speaks nice, but with a heart as hard as stone.

10. "Like everyone has parents with money. So getting help from your parents is "OK",..
Did you know that Governor Romney gave away the money he inherited?
A successful businessman, just what the nation needed.....
...instead, you gave us a community organizer, socialist ideologue who manages to keep unemployment high while doling out food stamps. More ignorant bullshit while idolizing the wealthy. Obama didn't have a father who was a governor and an Auto exec and him you demean and idolize Romney who was a terrible bully in school and tortured the family dog. What does that say about you?


All in all, good effort.

Not yours. Endless repetition of the most ignorant BS the right wing has to offer. A good 10 years. That's how long it will take before that unfortunate party recovers from your kind.

Gee.....so very sorry to see an individual so filled with anger, hate, and envy that they are blinded to the truth.


Just about everything you wrote is untrue.


And you forgot to say 'thank you' for the rep.
You're welcome.



Have no fear:
I'll continue to point you in the right direction.

 

[rdean]

Good job!

Notwithstanding the errors and outright untruths, it is a post one can get their teeth into.

Rep on the way!
Actually...it deserves its own OP status...but just a few notes:

1. "Most people that get food stamps are working full time or belong to a household where someone in the household is working full time."
This alone reveals that there is a design for the program beyond helping folks who need help. It fits neatly into the premise of the OP. The "design" is that food stamps actually become a business subsidy. Some companies just can't pay all that much. But at least someone has a job.

2. " Welfare has a work requirement that was passed under Bill Clinton."
...which was illegally obviated by Obama. That's a bullshit lie. Some Republican governors asked Obama to make an "exception" clause because you can't go for job training and get welfare. Now, with federal approval, you can. It's "common sense" and Romney tried to get Obama on that but some Republican governors had to step in and "educate" Romney. The campaign wasn't that long ago. How could you forget something that made such "news"?????

3. "liberal handouts"
As proven in #1 above. GOP Lt. Gov Andre Bauer said "feed the poor and they will breed" and who was it that said "hungry children work harder"? It pains me that so many Republicans see helping the poor as "liberal handouts". It only proves right wingers kneel at the Altar of the Church of the Heartless Bastard.

4. " a pioneer of outsourcing "
I provided an OP showing that Obama was a leader in outsourcing, including loan guarantees to corporations in other nations. And what did he get for it? There is always a deal. Remember when Republicans held millions of unemployed hostage to get the Bush Tax cuts (or subsidies) for the rich extended? And yet, Republicans hammered him for extending the tax cuts. He wasn't willing to let millions of Americans suffer. Republicans are and they will still sleep very well at night. Worse, many of those lost their jobs under Bush and the Republicans when so many jobs were sent to China.


5. " a man who ran on a platform of cutting education in this country"
Link? How many times to I have to link to this? You know, I look at the links right wingers post. I want to see if they actually have something or are they simply spewing nonsense. Listen, just so you don't think it's a trick, go to Youtube, put in "Romney Philadelphia teachers class size" or "Romney wants fewer Police, Firemen and Teachers". Fewer teachers, larger class size means cuts to education.

6. "...don't have the education to compete for those jobs because Republicans don't like "elites" and "education is for snobs"."
The education industry is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. That's a bullshit lie to avoid education. Many teachers have no political agenda. Many are into academia and nothing else. I think right wingers use that excuse because education is difficult and they simply don't have what it takes.


7. ".... the GI bill helped me go to college. And even working full time and getting the GI bill,..."
We need the same bill in education today....we call it the 'voucher plan.' No, that's stupid. That would only help the wealthy. If you don't have any money, you can't pay into a plan. And when I was in the military, I certainly didn't have much money and some of those guys were sending money back to needy families.


8. " And it meant every night when not at school, studying until midnight. And every weekend almost from getting up to going to bed studying."
Same here. If you have an education, how are you so easily taken in by Ayn Rand right winger bullshit.


9. "will say **** or bullshit. I don't do it on purpose, but I sometimes forget the sensitivity of the "gentile".
I don't. Lucky you. Speaks nice, but with a heart as hard as stone.

10. "Like everyone has parents with money. So getting help from your parents is "OK",..
Did you know that Governor Romney gave away the money he inherited?
A successful businessman, just what the nation needed.....
...instead, you gave us a community organizer, socialist ideologue who manages to keep unemployment high while doling out food stamps. More ignorant bullshit while idolizing the wealthy. Obama didn't have a father who was a governor and an Auto exec and him you demean and idolize Romney who was a terrible bully in school and tortured the family dog. What does that say about you?


All in all, good effort.

Not yours. Endless repetition of the most ignorant BS the right wing has to offer. A good 10 years. That's how long it will take before that unfortunate party recovers from your kind.

Gee.....so very sorry to see an individual so filled with anger, hate, and envy that they are blinded to the truth.


Just about everything you wrote is untrue.


And you forgot to say 'thank you' for the rep.
You're welcome.



Have no fear:
I'll continue to point you in the right direction.

There is nothing I wrote that I can't prove. And how speaking the truth is "anger, hate, and envy" is a total mystery to me.

But look at you.

Saying Obama ended the work requirement. You can't prove that because it's a lie.

Liberal handouts - like food stamps for working people on a small salary. So you want them to work hungry? That makes you evil.

Did you even bother to look up Romney's position on education?

Military voucher plan. Right after I left the military, they went to a voucher plan where those serving paid into an account and the government matched the money when they went to college. How much were these guys making? Remember McCain when he said if you pay soldiers to much, they won't stay in the military? Like so many Republicans, his heart is stone. Such policies are not good for the country.

And let me say once again: idolizing the wealthy. Obama didn't have a father who was a governor and an Auto exec and him you demean and idolize Romney who was a terrible bully in school and tortured the family dog. What does that say about you?

As far as pointing me to the right direction, I will never kneel at the alter of the Church of the Heartless Bastard. That takes a special kind of minion that I'm just not. Sorry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not yours. Endless repetition of the most ignorant BS the right wing has to offer. A good 10 years. That's how long it will take before that unfortunate party recovers from your kind.

Gee.....so very sorry to see an individual so filled with anger, hate, and envy that they are blinded to the truth.


Just about everything you wrote is untrue.


And you forgot to say 'thank you' for the rep.
You're welcome.



Have no fear:
I'll continue to point you in the right direction.

There is nothing I wrote that I can't prove. And how speaking the truth is "anger, hate, and envy" is a total mystery to me.

But look at you.

Saying Obama ended the work requirement. You can't prove that because it's a lie.

Liberal handouts - like food stamps for working people on a small salary. So you want them to work hungry? That makes you evil.

Did you even bother to look up Romney's position on education?

Military voucher plan. Right after I left the military, they went to a voucher plan where those serving paid into an account and the government matched the money when they went to college. How much were these guys making? Remember McCain when he said if you pay soldiers to much, they won't stay in the military? Like so many Republicans, his heart is stone. Such policies are not good for the country.

And let me say once again: idolizing the wealthy. Obama didn't have a father who was a governor and an Auto exec and him you demean and idolize Romney who was a terrible bully in school and tortured the family dog. What does that say about you?

As far as pointing me to the right direction, I will never kneel at the alter of the Church of the Heartless Bastard. That takes a special kind of minion that I'm just not. Sorry.

"Saying Obama ended the work requirement. You can't prove that because it's a lie."



Comin' right up:


1. "Obama kills welfare reform

2. 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).

3. ....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.

4. ....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.

5. “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.”
Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com



So....the pretend-senior lecturer in Constitutional Law- cum-socialist President had "no lawful authority" to eviscerate the welfare bill.

You down wit' dat?


"....You can't prove that because it's a lie."

Just proved it.

Now....don't forget: I never lie.




Still no 'thank you'?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unemployment is encouraged under Obama

Democrats tell us that unemployment stimulates the Obama Economy

Obama supporters have government as male head of household

 

[rdean]

Gee.....so very sorry to see an individual so filled with anger, hate, and envy that they are blinded to the truth.


Just about everything you wrote is untrue.


And you forgot to say 'thank you' for the rep.
You're welcome.



Have no fear:
I'll continue to point you in the right direction.

There is nothing I wrote that I can't prove. And how speaking the truth is "anger, hate, and envy" is a total mystery to me.

But look at you.

Saying Obama ended the work requirement. You can't prove that because it's a lie.

Liberal handouts - like food stamps for working people on a small salary. So you want them to work hungry? That makes you evil.

Did you even bother to look up Romney's position on education?

Military voucher plan. Right after I left the military, they went to a voucher plan where those serving paid into an account and the government matched the money when they went to college. How much were these guys making? Remember McCain when he said if you pay soldiers to much, they won't stay in the military? Like so many Republicans, his heart is stone. Such policies are not good for the country.

And let me say once again: idolizing the wealthy. Obama didn't have a father who was a governor and an Auto exec and him you demean and idolize Romney who was a terrible bully in school and tortured the family dog. What does that say about you?

As far as pointing me to the right direction, I will never kneel at the alter of the Church of the Heartless Bastard. That takes a special kind of minion that I'm just not. Sorry.

"Saying Obama ended the work requirement. You can't prove that because it's a lie."



Comin' right up:


1. "Obama kills welfare reform

2. 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).

3. ....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.

4. ....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.

5. “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.”
Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com



So....the pretend-senior lecturer in Constitutional Law- cum-socialist President had "no lawful authority" to eviscerate the welfare bill.

You down wit' dat?


"....You can't prove that because it's a lie."

Just proved it.

Now....don't forget: I never lie.




Still no 'thank you'?

You didn't prove jack shit. It may have come from the "Hill", but the source was he Heritage Foundation. And it doesn't even say the work requirement was ended which is what you "FALSELY" claimed.

factcheck.org : Does Obama's Plan Gut Welfare Reform??

Republicans criticized the new policy shortly after it was implemented on July 12. That prompted Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican who supports Romney, to issue a July 17 press release “defending Utah’s waiver request for state flexibility to achieve work-related outcomes for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients.”

Exactly what I was saying.

And even from your link the news is not good. For you:

The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement.

And lying ass right wingers even try to suggest education would include "hula hoop". How ******* stupid. And they believe it. I'm sure you believe it.

Instead of helping Americans learn something to get them OFF welfare, Republicans think just letting them starve or kicking them to the curb will somehow motivate them. If they don't have the skills, what is it they are expected to do?

Like Coach: I've been on welfare and food stamps. Anyone help me out? No!

Oh, and get this:

Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program, told us the Obama administration should not have unilaterally changed the work-requirement rules. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform” is “very misleading.”

“I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform,” said Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families. “Each state has to say what they will do and how that reform … will either increase employment or lead to better employment” of recipients.

I will accept your apology. If your kind can apologize to BP, they can apologize to me.

 

[rdean]

Unemployment is encouraged under Obama

Democrats tell us that unemployment stimulates the Obama Economy

Obama supporters have government as male head of household

Prove it or retract.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is nothing I wrote that I can't prove. And how speaking the truth is "anger, hate, and envy" is a total mystery to me.

But look at you.

Saying Obama ended the work requirement. You can't prove that because it's a lie.

Liberal handouts - like food stamps for working people on a small salary. So you want them to work hungry? That makes you evil.

Did you even bother to look up Romney's position on education?

Military voucher plan. Right after I left the military, they went to a voucher plan where those serving paid into an account and the government matched the money when they went to college. How much were these guys making? Remember McCain when he said if you pay soldiers to much, they won't stay in the military? Like so many Republicans, his heart is stone. Such policies are not good for the country.

And let me say once again: idolizing the wealthy. Obama didn't have a father who was a governor and an Auto exec and him you demean and idolize Romney who was a terrible bully in school and tortured the family dog. What does that say about you?

As far as pointing me to the right direction, I will never kneel at the alter of the Church of the Heartless Bastard. That takes a special kind of minion that I'm just not. Sorry.

"Saying Obama ended the work requirement. You can't prove that because it's a lie."



Comin' right up:


1. "Obama kills welfare reform

2. 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).

3. ....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.

4. ....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.

5. “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.”
Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com



So....the pretend-senior lecturer in Constitutional Law- cum-socialist President had "no lawful authority" to eviscerate the welfare bill.

You down wit' dat?


"....You can't prove that because it's a lie."

Just proved it.

Now....don't forget: I never lie.




Still no 'thank you'?

You didn't prove jack shit. It may have come from the "Hill", but the source was he Heritage Foundation. And it doesn't even say the work requirement was ended which is what you "FALSELY" claimed.

factcheck.org : Does Obama's Plan Gut Welfare Reform??

Republicans criticized the new policy shortly after it was implemented on July 12. That prompted Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican who supports Romney, to issue a July 17 press release “defending Utah’s waiver request for state flexibility to achieve work-related outcomes for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients.”

Exactly what I was saying.

And even from your link the news is not good. For you:

The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement.

And lying ass right wingers even try to suggest education would include "hula hoop". How ******* stupid. And they believe it. I'm sure you believe it.

Instead of helping Americans learn something to get them OFF welfare, Republicans think just letting them starve or kicking them to the curb will somehow motivate them. If they don't have the skills, what is it they are expected to do?

Like Coach: I've been on welfare and food stamps. Anyone help me out? No!

Oh, and get this:

Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program, told us the Obama administration should not have unilaterally changed the work-requirement rules. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform” is “very misleading.”

“I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform,” said Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families. “Each state has to say what they will do and how that reform … will either increase employment or lead to better employment” of recipients.

I will accept your apology. If your kind can apologize to BP, they can apologize to me.

Yeah....I did prove it....and sans the vulgar language.


Obama is all about making Americans more dependent on big government.

Some folks see right through him.

Of course there are some who will respond to every indignity with
"Please sir, may I have another??"

That would be you.



Now, to eviscerate your misunderstanding: "And even from your link the news is not good. For you:

The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. "

Congress did so in 1996. The Welfare Reform bill that helped so many get off welfare.

Obama claimed the right to obviate that requirement via executive order/waiver.
He wants 'em right back on the plantation.


I can see I will have to post another OP comparing Obama and Stalin.....I'll look forward to your response.

 

[AmazonTania]

Unemployment is encouraged under Obama

Democrats tell us that unemployment stimulates the Obama Economy

Obama supporters have government as male head of household

Prove it or retract.

The unemployed, unlike the rich whom this president has just bowed to, are, in fact, the job creators. - Former Countdown Host Keith Olbermann

"The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Hm, a failed network cable news anchor and a failed House Majority Leader advocating the same failed ideas for the economy. Far too stupid to be a coincidence.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Amazon states:

Hm, a failed network cable news anchor and a failed House Majority Leader advocating the same failed ideas for the economy. Far too stupid to be a coincidence.

Jesus, that was a stupid, prejudiced, partial statement. Any proof that ue insurance payments do NOT stimulate demand?
Any proof at all that cutting off ue insurance would not cause more ue?

I know that you do not want to suggest that payments to the unemployed, which are immediately spent, would have an OBVIOUS impact on demand in the economy. What I would like to know is WHY you want to believe something so obviously wrong.

Lets look at a bit of the material out there, which we should all understand assuming we have actual brain activity:
"Question: Why Are Federal Unemployment Benefits the Best Way to Boost the Economy?
Answer: Obviously, unemployment benefits provide a lifeline to the jobless when they need it most. By giving those without jobs enough money to supply the basics of life, these benefits help prevent the rampant breadlines and tent cities seen during the Great Depression of 1929.
Unemployment benefits also help economic growth. Those who are unemployed use the money to buy basics, including shelter, food, and clothing. As a result, every dollar spent on unemployment benefits stimulates $1.64 in economic demand, according to a Moody's Economy.com study. How can $1 create $1.64? That's because of the ripple effect. For example, a dollar spent at the grocery store pays not only for the food, but also helps pay the clerk's salary, the truckers who haul the food, and even the farmer who grew it. They also buy groceries with their salaries, which pays more staff, and on it goes.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfed...its-Are-The-Best-Way-To-Boost-The-Economy.htm

That is a really simple explanation. You can google unemployment insurance and aggregate demand and cbo, and get lots of the same information. And, if you want to see statements saying that ue payments are a bad thing, as you suggest, I can only find those statements in sites like red state. Complete nut case conservative sites. Or from far right wing opinion writers.

So, where is the information that you seem to believe is out there that proves that ue insurance payments are a "failed policy". I am anxiously awaiting you pointing out some source that actually goes along with that statement. And perhaps an explanation of why you made it.

 

[AmazonTania]

Jesus, that was a stupid, prejudiced, partial statement. Any proof that ue insurance payments do NOT stimulate demand?
Any proof at all that cutting off ue insurance would not cause more ue?

I know that you do not want to suggest that payments to the unemployed, which are immediately spent, would have an OBVIOUS impact on demand in the economy. What I would like to know is WHY you want to believe something so obviously wrong.

The discussion isn't about creates more unemployment or creates demand. Perhaps you should re-read the context of the discussion. And if you deem it necessary, read it three times.

That is a really simple explanation. You can google unemployment insurance and aggregate demand and cbo, and get lots of the same information.

That's just an explanation. It doesn't explain real world events very well, or at all for that matter. It also seems to have escaped you that this is currently a depression. Extended Unemployment benefits may be good for normal circumstances, such as a normal recession, but in a depression normal business cycle theory does not necessarily apply.

So, where is the information that you seem to believe is out there that proves that ue insurance payments are a "failed policy". I am anxiously awaiting you pointing out some source that actually goes along with that statement. And perhaps an explanation of why you made it.

The real world, more in particularly, America.

 

[Flopper]

The US and the western countries abandoned full employment as national policies after the Great Depression. I blame the monetarists – and their reactionary allies in Congress – for changing goal posts. The problem is, in their current state, modern capitalist economies simply cannot achieve full employment due to terrible macroeconomic policies.

A responsible policy would be for the government to spend enough to achieve full employment and steer around any bottlenecks in the overall economy. Most of these bottlenecks are directly responsible for most time periods of inflation during the modern era.

The US should no longer leverage unemployment to control inflation. This model is problematic to say the least. We should replace NAIRU with be a national employment buffer stock.

Interesting post, however full employment can not be obtained in our economy regardless of economic policy. Yes, policies can be made that will drastically reduce cyclic employment and reduce structural employment but you will always have unemployment. In the world today there are only two major economic powers, China and South Korea who have achieved a sustainable unemployment as low as 3%. I think US economists see 5% as being the lowest sustainable rate in the US.

 

[Rshermr]

Amazon, you seem to have missed that YOU made the comment about unemployment insurance payments, and I responded to what YOU said. So, are you saying that unemployment does not have to do with the economy? Or that unemployment payments do not have to do with the economy? If so, you are wrong. And, if it were so, then it would have been you who made the turn away from the topic of the thread.

And the statement that this is a LONG recession is both true and false, depending on what indicators you are looking at. Corporate america is doing quite well. But, why you think that the statements that you originally addressed were incorrect would then be odd. Since they were made when the recession was not that old. Beyond that, you seem to be making up your own rules. Any one out there, perhaps in the way of a non partial economist, or the cbo, who agrees that ue payments are not stimulative??? You seem to be out there on your own, and really showing your ignorance.

It is, as I thought, that you can not find an impartial source. Because you made it up from whole cloth, or simply posted from some conservative partial site. America would be the answer from someone who can not find any support from her ignorant and partial statements.

 

[AmazonTania]

Amazon, you seem to have missed that YOU made the comment about unemployment insurance payments, and I responded to what YOU said. So, are you saying that unemployment does not have to do with the economy? Or that unemployment payments do not have to do with the economy? If so, you are wrong. And, if it were so, then it would have been you who made the turn away from the topic of the thread.

I don't understand what you are trying to say there, but I haven't said nor suggested either of those. Again, if you deem it necessary read the context of the discussion in full. This generally helps if you plan on engaging others, as you so often do...

And the statement that this is a LONG recession is both true and false, depending on what indicators you are looking at.

In terms of business activity, the recession is long. Nothing false about it.

Corporate america is doing quite well. But, why you think that the statements that you originally addressed were incorrect would then be odd. Since they were made when the recession was not that old. Beyond that, you seem to be making up your own rules. Any one out there, perhaps in the way of a non partial economist, or the cbo, who agrees that ue payments are not stimulative??? You seem to be out there on your own, and really showing your ignorance.

It is, as I thought, that you can not find an impartial source. Because you made it up from whole cloth, or simply posted from some conservative partial site. America would be the answer from someone who can not find any support from her ignorant and partial statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Another individual or entity's opinion in this case is irrelevant and has no barring on the facts. The only thing relevant in this current economic predicament is the evidence at hand. All anyone needs to do when determining the evidence is look outside the window, or open a newspaper every once in a while.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unemployment is encouraged under Obama

Democrats tell us that unemployment stimulates the Obama Economy

Obama supporters have government as male head of household

Prove it or retract.

Val Jarett, Obama's Brain

White House: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy - Katie Pavlich

Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi: Unemployment Benefits Biggest Stimulus for Economy | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

George Soros's mouthpiece

UPDATED: Pelosi was right: Economists say unemployment insurance stimulates the economy | Research | Media Matters for America

 

[itfitzme]

Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act

Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 27, 1978

All this discussion of government and employment, I expected some reference to "Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act". *By law, the federal government has certain mandated goals regarding employmemt and economic growth. *

Whether it is achieving those goals and what the "punishment" for failure to pursue said goals is another issue. *Never the less, the act does allow laws to be enacted towards the stated goals and outines the scope.

Humphry Hawkins Full Employment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An Act to translate into practical reality the right of all Americans who are able, willing, and seeking to work to full opportunity for useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation; to assert the responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable programs and policies to promote full employment, production, and real income, balanced growth, adequate productivity growth, proper attention to national priorities, and reasonable price stability; to require the President each year to set forther explicit short-term and medium-term economic goals; to achieve a better integration of general and structural economic policies; and to improve the coordination of economic policymaking within the Federal Government."

"In brief, the Act:

Explicitly states that the federal government will rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve the four goals.

Instructs the government to take reasonable means to balance the budget.

Instructs the government to establish a balance of trade, i.e., to avoid trade surpluses or deficits.

Mandates the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to establish a monetary policy that maintains long-run growth, minimizes inflation, and promotes price stability.

Instructs the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to transmit an Monetary Policy Report to the Congress twice a year outlining its monetary policy.

Requires the President to set numerical goals for the economy of the next fiscal year in the Economic Report of the President and to suggest policies that will achieve these goals.

Requires the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to connect the monetary policy with the Presidential economic policy.

If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a "reservoir of public employment." These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector."

It seemed relevant.

 

[itfitzme]

Unemployment is encouraged under Obama

Democrats tell us that unemployment stimulates the Obama Economy

Obama supporters have government as male head of household

Prove it or retract.

Val Jarett, Obama's Brain

White House: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy - Katie Pavlich

Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi: Unemployment Benefits Biggest Stimulus for Economy | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

George Soros's mouthpiece

UPDATED: Pelosi was right: Economists say unemployment insurance stimulates the economy | Research | Media Matters for America
...

Yeah, saw this bs the other day. Are you disingenous or simply an idiot?

Saying that, among the different methods for achieving economic improvement, unemployment benifits are the best, isn't the same as saying that unemployment is the best.

What it is saying is that unemployment benifits are better than tax cuts.

You may not agree with that, but how about we don't flat out lie, okay cupcake?

You're the one responsible for the general impression that conservatives do lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act

Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 27, 1978

All this discussion of government and employment, I expected some reference to "Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act". *By law, the federal government has certain mandated goals regarding employmemt and economic growth. *

Whether it is achieving those goals and what the "punishment" for failure to pursue said goals is another issue. *Never the less, the act does allow laws to be enacted towards the stated goals and outines the scope.

Humphry Hawkins Full Employment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An Act to translate into practical reality the right of all Americans who are able, willing, and seeking to work to full opportunity for useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation; to assert the responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable programs and policies to promote full employment, production, and real income, balanced growth, adequate productivity growth, proper attention to national priorities, and reasonable price stability; to require the President each year to set forther explicit short-term and medium-term economic goals; to achieve a better integration of general and structural economic policies; and to improve the coordination of economic policymaking within the Federal Government."

"In brief, the Act:

Explicitly states that the federal government will rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve the four goals.

Instructs the government to take reasonable means to balance the budget.

Instructs the government to establish a balance of trade, i.e., to avoid trade surpluses or deficits.

Mandates the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to establish a monetary policy that maintains long-run growth, minimizes inflation, and promotes price stability.

Instructs the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to transmit an Monetary Policy Report to the Congress twice a year outlining its monetary policy.

Requires the President to set numerical goals for the economy of the next fiscal year in the Economic Report of the President and to suggest policies that will achieve these goals.

Requires the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to connect the monetary policy with the Presidential economic policy.

If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a "reservoir of public employment." These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector."

It seemed relevant.

Y'know....there's music that goes along with this post:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqowmHgxVJQ]The Big Rock Candy Mountain - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rshermr]

Amazon, you seem to have missed that YOU made the comment about unemployment insurance payments, and I responded to what YOU said. So, are you saying that unemployment does not have to do with the economy? Or that unemployment payments do not have to do with the economy? If so, you are wrong. And, if it were so, then it would have been you who made the turn away from the topic of the thread.

I don't understand what you are trying to say there, but I haven't said nor suggested either of those. Again, if you deem it necessary read the context of the discussion in full. This generally helps if you plan on engaging others, as you so often do...

And the statement that this is a LONG recession is both true and false, depending on what indicators you are looking at.

In terms of business activity, the recession is long. Nothing false about it.

Corporate america is doing quite well. But, why you think that the statements that you originally addressed were incorrect would then be odd. Since they were made when the recession was not that old. Beyond that, you seem to be making up your own rules. Any one out there, perhaps in the way of a non partial economist, or the cbo, who agrees that ue payments are not stimulative??? You seem to be out there on your own, and really showing your ignorance.

It is, as I thought, that you can not find an impartial source. Because you made it up from whole cloth, or simply posted from some conservative partial site. America would be the answer from someone who can not find any support from her ignorant and partial statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Another individual or entity's opinion in this case is irrelevant and has no barring on the facts. The only thing relevant in this current economic predicament is the evidence at hand. All anyone needs to do when determining the evidence is look outside the window, or open a newspaper every once in a while.

Right. And forget that the economic predicament is undefined by you. What predicament are you talking about??? Recession?? Long since over, according to the cbo. And the stock market. And corporate profits. Unemployment??? Not over. Down, but not over. And stimulus helped, per the cbo, in a big way. Non stimulus efforts, like eliminating unemployment payments, HURT, according to the cbo. So, you do not like authoritative studies based on data analyzed by economists?? In that case, just go live in your own world. It is not the real world. But it does have the advantage of letting you believe what you want to believe.
Me??? If it is you or the cbo, my money is on the cbo every single time. And you, of course, will be of the same opinion as the bat shit crazy conservative web sites, every single time.

Which makes trying to discuss anything with you impossible. You are incapable.