Originally Posted by Bucco

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.

Originally Posted by Bucco

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"

Originally Posted by buggyone

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

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 !

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.

Originally Posted by dklassen

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.

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

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?

Originally Posted by dklassen

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"

"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?

Originally Posted by buggyone

"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)

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

Originally Posted by billethkid

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

Originally Posted by buggyone

"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

Originally Posted by rubicon

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.

Originally Posted by dklassen

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.