84 replies to this topic

[Startraveler]

Pyridium, on 08 August 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

With the stroke of the pen, Obama has "eliminated the work requirement" for people on welfare.

That's certainly what the Romney camp has been saying. But then they've never been shy about lying.

[WoIverine]

Pyridium, on 08 August 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Congrats on your win in Nov. Pres. Obama.  Just keep those checks coming.

Just curious, but why exactly should my tax dollars support those who are able to work, but choose not to? Please enlighten me on the fairness of that one. I'm sure everybody else will also agree with that philosophy.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 08 August 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[DieChecker]

Startraveler, on 08 August 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

That's certainly what the Romney camp has been saying. But then they've never been shy about lying.

Did President Obama, or did he not, sign an executive order to provide Welfare waivers to those not seeking work?

Because it seems like he did. Even House democrats are going on the Record as saying that this counters the spirit of the Clinton Era welfare reform law.

[DieChecker]

Pyridium, on 08 August 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

This will motivate the welfare class to vote for Obama this Nov.  Just another example of how Obama is "generating" enough votes to complete his second term and get rid of our "old" system and show us how a President should run this country.

I'm going to have to agree that this action has the underlying purpose of "buying" welfare votes. It is a very distasteful use of the executive order.

[Pyridium]

With just 90 days until the election, let's look at the picture painted for both candidates.

Obama gave every American, and documented illegals, the right to free health care.
Obama inherited a bad economy "created" by Bush.
Obama saved this country from a catastrophic depression.
Obama Ended the war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan.
Obama killed Bin Laden.
Obama gave "illegals" the right to apply for work permits.
Obama took away the work requirement for welfare.
Obama claimed support for same sex marriages.
Obama can run this country without congress passing a budget for his entire term, a first for any President.
Obama will change this country with just executive orders.  Even if an executive order is challenged, it will take years for the courts to decide.

RomneyHood wants to tax the poor and give breaks to the rich.
RomneyHood wants to abolish Obama care.
RomneyHood wants to take us back to greedy capitalism.
RomneyHood wants to reinstate the "work requirement" in welfare.
RomneyHood lied on his SEC reports and should be in jail.
RomneyHood lied about paying taxes for the past 10 years.
RomneyHood lied about hiding taxable income in overseas banks.
RomneyHood lied about his time at Bain.
RomneyHood helped kill the wife of a former, laid off, worker of a steel mill that went out of business and lined Romney's pockets with millions of dollars as a consulting fee.

How can Obama lose?

[DieChecker]

Pyridium, on 08 August 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

How can Obama lose?

Where again is the free healthcare? The law Obama signed simply is trying to make insurance more affordable, not free.

[WoIverine]

Pyridium, on 08 August 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

How can Obama lose?

If Romney selects Rand Paul as his VP, he may win.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 08 August 2012 - 09:42 PM.

[Startraveler]

DieChecker, on 08 August 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Did President Obama, or did he not, sign an executive order to provide Welfare waivers to those not seeking work?

Because it seems like he did. Even House democrats are going on the Record as saying that this counters the spirit of the Clinton Era welfare reform law.

No, he didn't sign an executive order. The Social Security Act has always offered the option of waiving portions of that law (under Section 1115) "in the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the [Act's] objectives . . . in a State or States." There are states that operate their entire Medicaid programs under 1115 demonstration waivers, for example.

Multiple states, including red states like Utah and Nevada, asked the administration for more flexibility in finding ways to more effectively meet the goals of welfare reform (e.g. you can actually read Utah's letter here). That doesn't mean "you just get a check," as Lyin' Mitt might say, it means loosening overly prescriptive federal rules for how states get people back to work.

So what the administration did was issue guidance that allows states who have a better idea to submit waiver applications under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act (as they already do when they want to experiment with improving other programs under the SSA, such as Medicaid). These are waivers for states, not people. HHS was extremely clear in that guidance that states don't get to reverse the welfare-to-work goals and approaches of the reform law. For instance:

Quote

As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.

Quote

Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs;

The guidance is also very clear that all waiver applications from states must have a robust plans for evaluating if the demonstration is successful at improving employment outcomes, and it has to have specific performance measures for showing that as it goes. If the state isn't meeting its goals and improving its employment outcomes for folks receiving assistance, the demonstration waiver gets terminated. In other words, the idea of the waiver is to increase the number of people on public assistance seeking or achieving employment.

There was a time when folks on the right argued that states knew better than the federal government how to achieve good outcomes in social programs; they just needed a little flexibility (with the requisite accountability for their outcomes, one presumes) to get out from the overly prescriptive yolk of federal rules and they could really dazzle us with their ingenuity.

I suppose that applause line has outlived its usefulness. Regardless, Romney now has spent two days lying about what's happening here and I expect he'll continue.

Edited by Startraveler, 08 August 2012 - 10:46 PM.

[DieChecker]

Thanks Startraveler. You alway seem able to crunch down the specifics of these things into reasonable posts.

So the whole "Obama is handing out free welfare" is just Election Year propaganda?

[Pyridium]

I agree that workers will be "charged" with healthcare if forced to purchase it.  Please tell me how much people on welfare will have to pay.  I understand that everyone will be covered, but will the poor also have to pay for it?

[Startraveler]

DieChecker, on 09 August 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

So the whole "Obama is handing out free welfare" is just Election Year propaganda?

Yes, that's the opposite of what the administration is doing. Romney has a tendency to say things that have no relation to reality.

[karmakazi]

Startraveler, on 10 August 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Yes, that's the opposite of what the administration is doing. Romney has a tendency to say things that have no relation to reality.

To be fair, that describes most politicians... especially at campaign time

[OverSword]

To be fair some people posting things on the internet seem to be proganda agents for one side or another.  It's amazing just how knowlegable some people seem to be when they apparently spend all of thier time in discussion forums.  It's almost like they are fulfilling an agenda isn't it? startraveller

Edited by OverSword, 10 August 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

Well done Pyridium! After reading all your posts on this topic I am impressed. I've never read a better protrayal of an ignorant, under educated, under informed, over opinionated, self indulgent, self involved, lazy, drain on society. It was great! Again, well done. I wish I had the ability to make a point so overwhelming clear. Your my hero.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Pyridium, on 08 August 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

RomneyHood wants to reinstate the "work requirement" in welfare.

How exactly is that a bad thing?
"Work for the Dole" is something that works (pardon the pun) well here. The "work" can be as simple as delievering meals to the elderly, working in an Op shop, I know someone who gets their dole by working at their kids school as an odd-jobs man (often in the "tuckshop" (the refectory))... it's a great way of getting work out of people who for whatever reason can't hold down a steady job but can contribute to the community.
We still have dole bludgers, but at least this way we're getting something out of them that might be beneficial to the wider community.