PDA

View Full Version : Obama guts welfare reform


Guest
07-13-2012, 12:20 PM
Yet another executive order side stepping congress, he removes work requirements. The law Bill Clinton signed was specifically written to keep that from happening. But he did it anyway.

King Obama does it again.

Guest
07-13-2012, 12:28 PM
One has to wonder what Obama real agenda is given that he governs by fiat and has more than doubled the number of czars that report to him. I believe that two things need to change in Washington. 1) an elimination of czars and 2) if a president claims executive priviledge he /she must do so providing in what manner executive priviledge is necessary...enough information to saisify a neutral that it would place the country in peril

Guest
07-13-2012, 01:42 PM
This man is out of control totally. He is fulfilling all the things that I, not just me, predicted would happen if he were elected in 2008. This is like a nightmare...the man is running this country as if here were a king instead of a president and simply doing them in the name of this election year. We all know that he lies and now he reduces himself and the office to stuff like this.

This is Obama in all his glory...this is how he managed to be successful neighborhood organizer..he simply did what he wanted and dared you to stop him....in your face all the time if you dare challenge him.

I could cut and paste my remarks from 2008 on this forum. He has now gone over the edge. And he does it IN YOU FACE....YOU CANT STOP ME..that is and has been his attitude about congress, including the Democrats, since he came into office. He is simply pandering now and the h#$$ with the country...he wants and needs votes and will do whatever is necessary. I recall reading in the Chicago Tribune archives of what they called, and I will skip the word used as a preamable, .....tactics. This was before and while he was running for state senate.

Guest
07-13-2012, 01:47 PM
Yet another executive order side stepping congress, he removes work requirements. The law Bill Clinton signed was specifically written to keep that from happening. But he did it anyway.

King Obama does it again.

Which Executive Order was this and when was it signed? I could not find it on the recent ones signed.

Guest
07-13-2012, 01:52 PM
Which Executive Order was this and when was it signed? I could not find it on the recent ones signed.

"Obama Ends Welfare Reform As We Know It
By Robert Rector & Katherine Bradley
July 12, 2012 7:00 P.M.
Comments
43

This afternoon, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive undermining the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that have been the foundation of that law — one of the most successful domestic policy reforms in the 20th century.

Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The underlying concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.

Obama Ends Welfare Reform As We Know It - By Robert Rector & Katherine Bradley - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-know-it-robert-rector)

Not just this one but the ongoing barrage of these to pander votes and increase our debt

Guest
07-13-2012, 01:58 PM
"In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” Welfare reform instituted work standards to block these dodges. Now that the Obama administration has abolished those standards, we can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work.

Obama’s new welfare decree guts sound anti-poverty policy. The administration tramples on the actual legislation passed by Congress and seeks to impose its own policy choices — a pattern that has become all too common in this administration."

Obama Ends Welfare Reform As We Know It - By Robert Rector & Katherine Bradley - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-know-it-robert-rector)

Guest
07-13-2012, 03:01 PM
Even though Clinton had to be pulled kicking and screaming to sign the welfare reform bill, it became one of his big bragging points. I wonder how he feels about Obama gutting it?

Guest
07-13-2012, 03:07 PM
Changes to the law give states extra flexibility - flexibility the the states themselves have asked the federal government for. Not exactly what you would call 'gutting the law'.


Obama administration defends welfare changes - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/obama-administration-defends-welfare-changes-128889.html)

Guest
07-13-2012, 03:08 PM
It's true Buggy. Is it sticking in your craw? It made my decision for me on which way to go come November. Enough is enough.

Guest
07-13-2012, 03:27 PM
Even though Clinton had to be pulled kicking and screaming to sign the welfare reform bill, it became one of his big bragging points. I wonder how he feels about Obama gutting it?

It has been hailed for years as a great example of working together for the common good....Clinton and a Republican congress.

The guts and basic tenant was the work clause which he now has gotten rid of with an obscure clause.

Do you not wonder why all of this is happening in an election year ? All these "needed" things...these "right things to do" JUST NOW BECAME SO...the last 3 years they were fine ?

Guest
07-13-2012, 03:29 PM
He is for sure trying to insure the vote of those who will not work.

Guest
07-13-2012, 05:44 PM
probably because there's no work to be had! i was roundly criticized on another thread because i called generational welfare slavery...well, this is certainly not going to help recipients better themselves!

Guest
07-13-2012, 09:31 PM
These wubers only read the headline but not the material inside the information.

Does this sound like "gutting" to you?



"When the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program was established as part of welfare reform in the 1990s, it was intended to give states flexibility to design effective programs to help parents move from welfare to work. Today, however, Federal rules dictate mind-numbing details about how to run a welfare-to-work program. Most States and experts agree that these aren’t helpful. Here’s one example: under current TANF rules, many states report that their caseworkers are spending more time complying with federal documentation requirements than helping parents find jobs. We need state workers spending less time filling out data reports and more time helping parents find employment.

The new policy we announced will allow states to test new, more effective ways to help parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. States can apply for waivers of federal requirements that get in their way. These waiver applications will be available for public review.

This new flexibility will strengthen welfare reform rules and the effectiveness of state efforts to connect families with work. Waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved. Waivers that seek to avoid time limits or other federal restrictions on when assistance may be provided will not be approved."


In short, wubers, it gives more power to the States - which is what all of you are saying what should be done.

Guest
07-13-2012, 10:49 PM
it is pretty simple to understand that he has waived the requirement for those on welfare to get a job.

Now they do not have to....just collect welfare from now on and get in line right behind all the folks getting un-employment for as long as he has been in office. There are two groups for sure that might vote for him if there are any voters in those groups.

Increasing food stamp rolls......

just what is the incentive under Obama to help one's self? There is none!

OK supporters tell me why it is OK to keep increasing the give aways. Are you prepared to have your income reduced to provide for those who will not work?

btk

Guest
07-14-2012, 07:07 AM
These wubers only read the headline but not the material inside the information.

Does this sound like "gutting" to you?



"When the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program was established as part of welfare reform in the 1990s, it was intended to give states flexibility to design effective programs to help parents move from welfare to work. Today, however, Federal rules dictate mind-numbing details about how to run a welfare-to-work program. Most States and experts agree that these aren’t helpful. Here’s one example: under current TANF rules, many states report that their caseworkers are spending more time complying with federal documentation requirements than helping parents find jobs. We need state workers spending less time filling out data reports and more time helping parents find employment.

The new policy we announced will allow states to test new, more effective ways to help parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. States can apply for waivers of federal requirements that get in their way. These waiver applications will be available for public review.

This new flexibility will strengthen welfare reform rules and the effectiveness of state efforts to connect families with work. Waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved. Waivers that seek to avoid time limits or other federal restrictions on when assistance may be provided will not be approved."


In short, wubers, it gives more power to the States - which is what all of you are saying what should be done.

To reply to your question directly...YES, it sounds like total gutting of the entire principle involved in the bill. The WH response you quote is so general and leads you to believe this will create jobs or somehing. It will allow more flexibility for sure.....

Guest
07-14-2012, 08:01 AM
To reply to your question directly...YES, it sounds like total gutting of the entire principle involved in the bill. The WH response you quote is so general and leads you to believe this will create jobs or somehing. It will allow more flexibility for sure.....

No, it does NOT sound like the bill was gutted at all. It merely transfers some of the authority to the states- which is what the conservatives want the federal government to do. Now, it is done in one particular case, and the conservatives are saying it is gutted. TOTAL NONSENSE!!

Just too much partisan hatred from the conservatives. No matter what Pres. Obama does, the conservatives will show their partisan hatred.

Guest
07-14-2012, 08:12 AM
This man is out of control totally. He is fulfilling all the things that I, not just me, predicted would happen if he were elected in 2008. This is like a nightmare...the man is running this country as if here were a king instead of a president and simply doing them in the name of this election year. We all know that he lies and now he reduces himself and the office to stuff like this.

This is Obama in all his glory...this is how he managed to be successful neighborhood organizer..he simply did what he wanted and dared you to stop him....in your face all the time if you dare challenge him.

I could cut and paste my remarks from 2008 on this forum. He has now gone over the edge. And he does it IN YOU FACE....YOU CANT STOP ME..that is and has been his attitude about congress, including the Democrats, since he came into office. He is simply pandering now and the h#$$ with the country...he wants and needs votes and will do whatever is necessary. I recall reading in the Chicago Tribune archives of what they called, and I will skip the word used as a preamable, .....tactics. This was before and while he was running for state senate.

Bucco: I share your view and had when Obama was running in 2008. This sort of activism by him had long ago convinced me that if the "birthers" have it wrong chronlogically they certainly have it right philosphically. As obama's half brother has stated publicly Obama has always viewed america's action as nothing more than colonialism and he is doing all he can to reduce America's position among nations. Just take one look at the defense cuts he wants to make. he's living us naked to our enemies. Do you believe the folks in Virginia especially in Virginia Beach, Hampton, Norfolk, etc are going to be happy about the hundres of thousand pink slips he delivered to them on his rounds their this past week "Obama the Destroyer"

Guest
07-14-2012, 09:25 AM
No, it does NOT sound like the bill was gutted at all. It merely transfers some of the authority to the states- which is what the conservatives want the federal government to do. Now, it is done in one particular case, and the conservatives are saying it is gutted. TOTAL NONSENSE!!

Just too much partisan hatred from the conservatives. No matter what Pres. Obama does, the conservatives will show their partisan hatred.

Gotta disagree....there used to be rules to be followed as dictated in the bill.....now the feds are saying to the states...ignore them if you want...get a waiver.

The guts of this was this working thing and if you think it is not going to increase the rolls simply using imagination as to what constitutes "work"

I very seldom use Wiki for any link but in a bit of a hurry this morning but this sentence from there AND I SUGGEST YOU READ A BIT ON THE INTENT OF THIS BILL and the work rules...

"A central pledge of Clinton's campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients."

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act)

This is a big deal and I also suggest that you do some reading on the obscure clause and language used to do this...you had to search to usurp the true meaning of this and they did it !

Guest
07-14-2012, 10:30 AM
Two reasons, more votes in Nov and more people dependent on the government pure and simple. That's his only motivation. Of course the followers of Obama's empire will defend it, they are government sheep.

Guest
07-14-2012, 12:09 PM
Two reasons, more votes in Nov and more people dependent on the government pure and simple. That's his only motivation. Of course the followers of Obama's empire will defend it, they are government sheep.


... and the Democrats will prevail in November and the wubers will gnash their teeth.

Guest
07-14-2012, 05:33 PM
Obama supporters....how about an answer to the question:

Are you in favor of the federal government giving people receiving or applying for welfare the option of not having to look for a job? And why?

Once upon a time there was a program called WPA...those who could not find work had to work on public projects sponsored by the government to get paid. Many roads, bridges and other facilities were built during that era....I don't know the exact dates but think it was around the years of the wall street crash. I am sure those stout hearted Americans never ever even gave it a thought to just collect the money and do nothing. What incentive does a free loader have to do anything.....but sign the back of the check?
btk

Guest
07-14-2012, 06:02 PM
Are you in favor of the federal government giving people receiving or applying for welfare the option of not having to look for a job? And why?


Here, I'll answer for them. Yes. Because to do otherwise would be mean. Make the rich pay for them if they don't want to work. They have too much money anyway. How can you expect a single mom with 6.5 kids at home to go out an get a job? All those kids aren't her fault! I mean there's 4 different fathers who aren't working either. What the heck are they supposed to do without government help?

Guest
07-14-2012, 06:22 PM
Here, I'll answer for them. Yes. Because to do otherwise would be mean. Make the rich pay for them if they don't want to work. They have too much money anyway. How can you expect a single mom with 6.5 kids at home to go out an get a job? All those kids aren't her fault! I mean there's 4 different fathers who aren't working either. What the heck are they supposed to do without government help?


Many folks on here trying to justify the man in the WH actually searching and looking into small print to find a way to do this....they say it gives the states more flexiblity. They say the states asked for it but as of yet they havent brought out any of their stooges to say they did...they can....but anyway...

The day this was announced...two men that I value the opinion of who had not heard the announcement...BOTH Democrats of the highest order...responded almost not quite with the same words and I will paraphrase..

"Who the h#$$ needs flexibility in work rules regarding welfare"

Guest
07-14-2012, 10:25 PM
"Once upon a time there was a program called WPA...those who could not find work had to work on public projects sponsored by the government to get paid. Many roads, bridges and other facilities were built during that era....I don't know the exact dates but think it was around the years of the wall street crash. I am sure those stout hearted Americans never ever even gave it a thought to just collect the money and do nothing."

Very amusing that a wuber would give high credit to the Works Progress Administration. The WPA was created in 1933 by an Executive Order signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

I was under the impression that conservatives believe Franklin Roosevelt was the grandfather of socialism in the US - now being carried on by Pres. Obama. And yet, BTK praises the WPA. Is this possibly that he did not know the WPA was one of the alphabet administrations created by "The Socialist" or is he really a closet Democrat?

Guest
07-14-2012, 10:40 PM
"Once upon a time there was a program called WPA...those who could not find work had to work on public projects sponsored by the government to get paid. Many roads, bridges and other facilities were built during that era....I don't know the exact dates but think it was around the years of the wall street crash. I am sure those stout hearted Americans never ever even gave it a thought to just collect the money and do nothing."

Very amusing that a wuber would give high credit to the Works Progress Administration. The WPA was created in 1933 by an Executive Order signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

I was under the impression that conservatives believe Franklin Roosevelt was the grandfather of socialism in the US - now being carried on by Pres. Obama. And yet, BTK praises the WPA. Is this possibly that he did not know the WPA was one of the alphabet administrations created by "The Socialist" or is he really a closet Democrat?

The Kool-Aid must be really strong in the Obama Worship Compound. How can cutting the work requirements standards from Welfare be a good thing?

It's in the President's interests to have increasingly more people dependent on the government, and thus on him. It's a disgusting and UnAmerican turn of events.

Also once again Emperor Obama, in the fourth year of his imperial presidency, feels he has the power to change a part of a duly passed law of the Congress without getting Congressional approval.

(This is why I laugh at those who say he needs 67 votes to get a treaty passed. He'll just claim the power to do so, and Buggy and all the rest of the disciples will dutifully support that contention)

Guest
07-15-2012, 07:07 AM
I love how some of you supporters will take one single line from another post, then turn around and make it into something they would have others believe was said.

I specifically stated (I know specifics are very hard for some to deal with!!!) WPA had a requirement for participants to work to get paid. I made the statement to support my non support today of the Obama game playing with people on welfare by eliminating the requirement to have to work to get paid.

Nice try once again to take something I said and turn it into something you would others to think I said. Ans as I have said many, many times before you are entitled to your opinion, however you are not entitled to change my statements or my intents. Fortunately many who frequent this forum know your style and disregard your partisan snipping.

By the way, as usual you did not answer the question posed....typical off message distraction first and always.

How about answering the question? Do you support the federal government handing out money to those who choose not to work? And why?

The first part requires only a simple yes or no. The second part is license to tout your position.

btk

Guest
07-15-2012, 07:26 AM
By the way, as usual you did not answer the question posed....typical off message distraction first and always.

How about answering the question? Do you support the federal government handing out money to those who choose not to work? And why?

The first part requires only a simple yes or no. The second part is license to tout your position.

btk

Please...answer the question...curious minds would really like to know:pray:

Guest
07-15-2012, 07:28 AM
"Once upon a time there was a program called WPA...those who could not find work had to work on public projects sponsored by the government to get paid. Many roads, bridges and other facilities were built during that era....I don't know the exact dates but think it was around the years of the wall street crash. I am sure those stout hearted Americans never ever even gave it a thought to just collect the money and do nothing."

Very amusing that a wuber would give high credit to the Works Progress Administration. The WPA was created in 1933 by an Executive Order signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

I was under the impression that conservatives believe Franklin Roosevelt was the grandfather of socialism in the US - now being carried on by Pres. Obama. And yet, BTK praises the WPA. Is this possibly that he did not know the WPA was one of the alphabet administrations created by "The Socialist" or is he really a closet Democrat?

What you guys are omitting is that, unlike the perpetual unemployment benefits/welfare payments given out now, the WPA only allowed an individual to work six months. Further if for some reason they couldn't work (illness) they lost their turn. Today thanks to Democrats we have people living at or above the poverty level who have never worked a day in their lives. Remember at or above the poverty level here in America means they are well fed, own auto flat screen TV and have AC

I know I know another Republican white guy with no compassion. Real compassion is giving an individual a hand up so that it lead to self-reliance and hence integrity, self respect but mostly pride in themselves

Guest
07-15-2012, 08:09 AM
I know I know another Republican white guy with no compassion. Real compassion is giving an individual a hand up so that it lead to self-reliance and hence integrity, self respect but mostly pride in themselves

Well said.

Guest
07-15-2012, 09:10 AM
Here, I'll answer for them. Yes. Because to do otherwise would be mean. Make the rich pay for them if they don't want to work. They have too much money anyway. How can you expect a single mom with 6.5 kids at home to go out an get a job? All those kids aren't her fault! I mean there's 4 different fathers who aren't working either. What the heck are they supposed to do without government help?

Darn right, Darryl. I agree with you that as soon as a woman has one child out of wedlock that she should be sterilized that same day. That will cut down on them durn illegimate kids that is eatin' up all our food stamp money.

Find them deadbeet dads and force them to have vacsectomies and to git jobs and to stay away from their iPhones, Cadillacs, drugs, and high def TV's which is all paid fer by us rich, God fearin' people.

As fer workin', get all them illegimate kids workin' at the sneaker factories we could bring back to the country from China iff'n we had enuf illegimate kids to work them fer $2 a day. Heck, that is a job creatin' idea fer the next Administration.

Guest
07-15-2012, 09:36 AM
Darn right, Darryl. I agree with you that as soon as a woman has one child out of wedlock that she should be sterilized that same day. That will cut down on them durn illegimate kids that is eatin' up all our food stamp money.

Find them deadbeet dads and force them to have vacsectomies and to git jobs and to stay away from their iPhones, Cadillacs, drugs, and high def TV's which is all paid fer by us rich, God fearin' people.

As fer workin', get all them illegimate kids workin' at the sneaker factories we could bring back to the country from China iff'n we had enuf illegimate kids to work them fer $2 a day. Heck, that is a job creatin' idea fer the next Administration.

sorry...this is hard to follow...I recognize the sarcasim but not the point being made nor the direction toward the subject

Guest
08-08-2012, 09:37 AM
This is now back in the news so thought would revisit it....

"This afternoon, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive undermining the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that have been the foundation of that law — one of the most successful domestic policy reforms in the 20th century.

Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The underlying concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.

The welfare reform law was very successful. In the four decades prior to welfare reform, the welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline. But, in the four years after welfare reform, the caseload dropped by nearly half. Employment surged and child poverty among blacks and single mothers plummeted to historic lows. What was the catalyst for these improvements? Rigorous new federal work requirements contained in TANF."

Obama Ends Welfare Reform As We Know It - By Robert Rector & Katherine Bradley - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-know-it-robert-rector)

Guest
08-08-2012, 10:33 AM
This is now back in the news so thought would revisit it....

"This afternoon, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive undermining the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that have been the foundation of that law — one of the most successful domestic policy reforms in the 20th century.

Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The underlying concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.

The welfare reform law was very successful. In the four decades prior to welfare reform, the welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline. But, in the four years after welfare reform, the caseload dropped by nearly half. Employment surged and child poverty among blacks and single mothers plummeted to historic lows. What was the catalyst for these improvements? Rigorous new federal work requirements contained in TANF."

Obama Ends Welfare Reform As We Know It - By Robert Rector & Katherine Bradley - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-know-it-robert-rector)

I do not understand why you bring up an old post but no harm in that at all if you want to do it.

I also do not understand what conservatives and a conservative "think tank" like Heritage Foundation have a problem with the Federal government giving more power to the States. I always thought that was one of the things that conservatives wanted. They seem to want less Federal regulation and more power being granted to States. This is what was done.

Guest
08-08-2012, 10:38 AM
I do not understand why you bring up an old post but no harm in that at all if you want to do it.

I also do not understand what conservatives and a conservative "think tank" like Heritage Foundation have a problem with the Federal government giving more power to the States. I always thought that was one of the things that conservatives wanted. They seem to want less Federal regulation and more power being granted to States. This is what was done.

Obviously you have not been reading the news. Romney has an ad out on this subject,and if you read completely the analysis of this particular executive order, you would find that those who work in the field do not understand the why and since it was never discussed in any house of congress (it was a directive by the President) and he does not take questions from anyone any more, we are a bit confused as to why !

WH spokes people say it will help but most experts do not agree. States have asked for some leadway at times, but this is a basic ingredient of our welfare system done with no conversation...he decided, he made a presidential edict so thats it.

Guest
08-08-2012, 11:22 AM
From what you wrote, I can only tell you are upset at Pres. Obama doing this by a directive instead of going through Congress. Congressional approval would be almost impossible as we have seen on just about every action proposed by Pres. Obama. If the Senate passes something, the House rejects it and vice versa. Sometimes, the best way is by Executive Order.

Also, as I stated before, I also do not understand what conservatives and a conservative "think tank" like Heritage Foundation have a problem with the Federal government giving more power to the States. I always thought that was one of the things that conservatives wanted. They seem to want less Federal regulation and more power being granted to States. This is what was done.

Guest
08-08-2012, 11:45 AM
The Repubs are now whining about and attacking the very thing they requested of the Obama administration; including Romney and Huckabee among others. It is fake outrage. :ohdear: