Originally Posted by buggyone

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

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

Originally Posted by Bucco

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

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.

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.

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.