Leftist media outlets still lying about Obama's gutting of welfare reform

[M.D. Rawlings]

Jewish World Review Aug 30, 2012
NEW YORK TIMES FACT CHECKERS: BED REST IS WORK!
By Ann Coulter

Poor Mickey Kaus. He's the liberal intellectual (not an oxymoron -- he's the last known living "liberal intellectual") lefties on TV are usually stealing from, but now that this welfare reform maven has concluded that Romney's welfare ad is basically correct, liberals refuse to acknowledge his existence.

The non-Fox media have formed a solid front in denouncing Romney's welfare ad for daring to point out that Obama has gutted the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform bill.

The New York Times claims that Romney's ad "falsely" charges Obama with eliminating work requirements. CNN rates the ad "false." Underemployed hack Howard Fineman says Romney's ad "is just flat out wrong on the facts" and "that every fair analyst, every fact checker" has said it's "just factually wrong."

The Rest of the Article: Ann Coulter: NEW YORK TIMES FACT CHECKERS: BED REST IS WORK!

 

[Katzndogz]

The work requirement is still there. Work has been redefined. Bed rest is work. Getting a massage is work. Meditation thinking about work is work.

 

[Conservative]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/248196-not-the-headlines-you-want-right-before-an-election.html#post6018728

In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010, according to the CRS report, issued in the form of a memo to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Though the weakening of the economy would have led to an increase in food stamp usage with or without a waiver, the doubling of the use of food stamps by the able-bodied population without dependents exceeded the 43 percent increase in food stamp usage among the broader population over the same 2008 to 2010 time frame. This gives more weight to the idea that the waiver fueled the food stamp growth among the population it affected, beyond where it would have been even in a weak economy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Naturally, lefties don't care that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 doesn't allow for waivers, that the reason for its success is that one must be actively lworking in order to get assistance. Period. Never mind that there is no provision allowing the president to waive these requirements, that under the Constitution any such waivers would ordinarily require a congressionally approved amendment to the Act. And never mind most of all that this piece of legislation did more to reduce the poverty rate in this country (especially reducing the number of children living in poverty) than any other governmental action in the last 80 years!

Lefty just prattles about how much he cares; the actual outcomes of his arrogant little tyrannies be damned! Inevitably it's about creating a constituency of dependents. The moral and institutional destruction of dependency on this country are irrelevant to him.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Didn't Clinton kick your asses enough on that? Do you have to have it kicked all over again?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-says-obama-administration-trying-boos/

Our ruling

Clinton said in his convention speech that the Obama administration "agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment."

That's an accurate recap of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to strengthen welfare-to-work efforts by letting states try different approaches based on their residents’ needs. That’s important too -- the waivers would be considered for individually evaluated pilot programs. HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

The waiver offering was spurred by requests from several governors, including Republican governors, and Sebelius explicitly stated that only requests that "demonstrate clear progress" toward enhancing employment will be approved by HHS.

Clinton’s statement is accurate. We rate it True.

 

[Old Rocks]

PolitiFact | Rick Santorum repeats Romney claim that Obama is ending work requirement in welfare

Our ruling

Santorum said that Obama "showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare."

The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law. And there have been no comments by the Obama administration indicating such a dramatic shift in policy.

Santorum falsely claims that Obama has waived welfare’s work requirement entirely. The remark is inaccurate and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance. Pants on Fire!

 

[Old Rocks]

And all that repeat the lie are liars.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just stupid.

And ...................... since when does Mann Coulter represent headlines?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

LOL. Didn't Clinton kick your asses enough on that? Do you have to have it kicked all over again?

PolitiFact | Bill Clinton says Obama administration trying to boost work in welfare

Our ruling

Clinton said in his convention speech that the Obama administration "agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment."

That's an accurate recap of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to strengthen welfare-to-work efforts by letting states try different approaches based on their residents’ needs. That’s important too -- the waivers would be considered for individually evaluated pilot programs. HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

The waiver offering was spurred by requests from several governors, including Republican governors, and Sebelius explicitly stated that only requests that "demonstrate clear progress" toward enhancing employment will be approved by HHS.

Clinton’s statement is accurate. We rate it True.

Question: what does the debatable accuracy of Clinton's statement (relative to the administration's actual goals as opposed to its stated goals) have to do with the accuracy of Romney's statement?

Answer: Nothing.

LOL!

It just flies right over your head, no doubt, because you keep computing the rationalization for the waiver as a refutation of Romney's observation that Obama issued the waiver. Doh!

The bizarre thinking processes of the leftist mindset on display.

Hogwash. The leftist media are dissembling. Clinton is dissembling. You're dissembling.

Romney is right. He is telling the truth. Saying that his statement is false is clearly false.

Obama by executive order allows states to waive the work requirement. Period. The point is that many Americans don't know that, wouldn't like it and/or wouldn't give a damn about the rationalizations.

Kick our asses? Let the American people get a hold of this and let's see whose asses get kicked over this issue.

Idiots. Liars. All you're really saying is that, yes, Romney is right when he says that Obama waived the work requirement, but, wait a minute, he's lying . . . because the Administration waived the work requirement for this or that reason. . . .

LMAO!

But of course, the Administration does not give a damn about any credible plans to increase employment. Eyewash. Rationalization. Bureaucrat speak.

Truth:

As Kaus explains, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius has interpreted the welfare law to allow her to waive work requirements "subject only to her opinion" as to what will serve the purposes of the law.

By viewing the work requirements as optional, subject to her waiver, Kaus says, the law has been "altered dramatically": "Old system: Congress writes the requirements, which are ... requirements. New system: Sebelius does what she wants -- but, hey, you can trust her!"

. . . Kaus points out that the HHS memo announcing that Sebelius could allow waivers from work for "job training," "job search" or "pursuing a credential" unquestionably constitutes "a weakening of the work requirement." He adds that it's also "unfair to the poor suckers who just go to work without ever going on welfare -- they don't get subsidized while they're 'pursuing a credential.'"

In a follow-up post, Kaus pointed out that the Times' own editorial denouncing the Romney ad inadvertently revealed that Sebelius was proposing a lot more than "job search" exemptions from the work requirement.

Both the Times and an HHS memo cheerfully propose allowing hard-to-employ "families" -- which are never actual families, by the way -- to be "exempted from the work requirements for six months." Or more than six months. It's up to Sebelius: "Exempted."​

So who is lying, and who is stupid? You idiots are processing the truth of Romney's statement in your very own, utterly imaginary refutation! You're processing the rationalization of the waiver precisely the way the leftist media conditioned you to process it. Brainwashed ninnies.

Now ya see it. Doh! Now ya don't.