Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Obama and Welfare work mandate

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 2:16:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From what I understand, Obama wants to drop the mandate to require welfare recipients to actively look for a job. The work requirement will now be discretionary by the states.

Is this an attempt to artificially lower reported unemployment numbers?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 4:34:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.

Which is still a huge step in the wrong direction. Obama made it optional for government agencies to enforce the work requirements.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 4:50:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.

"But a new Obama program does not end welfare-to-work mandates. To the contrary, it strengthens the requirements by granting waivers to states seeking to make the work requirements more successful. The waivers would be granted to pilot programs that are individually evaluated; HHS is not proposing a blanket national change to welfare law."

Essentially. He is shifting control from the federal government to the states. Can't wait to see how conservatives make this seem like a bad thing when it is straight conservative policy. More power to the states.
Sapere Aude!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 6:50:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 4:50:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.

"But a new Obama program does not end welfare-to-work mandates. To the contrary, it strengthens the requirements by granting waivers to states seeking to make the work requirements more successful. The waivers would be granted to pilot programs that are individually evaluated; HHS is not proposing a blanket national change to welfare law."

Essentially. He is shifting control from the federal government to the states. Can't wait to see how conservatives make this seem like a bad thing when it is straight conservative policy. More power to the states.

You know what is funny is that it was mostly the conservative states that were asking for this. But in a strange twist as soon as Obama agrees with conservatives they launch campaigns against him for agreeing to what they once supported. Why does this sound familiar?
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 6:54:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 4:50:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.

"But a new Obama program does not end welfare-to-work mandates. To the contrary, it strengthens the requirements by granting waivers to states seeking to make the work requirements more successful. The waivers would be granted to pilot programs that are individually evaluated; HHS is not proposing a blanket national change to welfare law."

Essentially. He is shifting control from the federal government to the states. Can't wait to see how conservatives make this seem like a bad thing when it is straight conservative policy. More power to the states.

Here is the thing, welfare is supported by federal money. That means if New York cuts the work requirements it still affects Texas, because Texas still has to pay at least part of the bill. If the states had to pony up all the money for welfare themselves, then I'd be all for this. Federal money corrupts the concept of states rights.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:02:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:54:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:50:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.

"But a new Obama program does not end welfare-to-work mandates. To the contrary, it strengthens the requirements by granting waivers to states seeking to make the work requirements more successful. The waivers would be granted to pilot programs that are individually evaluated; HHS is not proposing a blanket national change to welfare law."

Essentially. He is shifting control from the federal government to the states. Can't wait to see how conservatives make this seem like a bad thing when it is straight conservative policy. More power to the states.

Here is the thing, welfare is supported by federal money. That means if New York cuts the work requirements it still affects Texas, because Texas still has to pay at least part of the bill. If the states had to pony up all the money for welfare themselves, then I'd be all for this. Federal money corrupts the concept of states rights.

This..... It does no good to allow a state to reduce the programs' spending within their state, without reducing the money the state puts into the program. Obama is essentially saying, "You can choose not to use it, but you still have to pay for it." Pretty ballsy seeing as it is a power reserved for the states.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:23:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:02:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:54:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:50:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.

"But a new Obama program does not end welfare-to-work mandates. To the contrary, it strengthens the requirements by granting waivers to states seeking to make the work requirements more successful. The waivers would be granted to pilot programs that are individually evaluated; HHS is not proposing a blanket national change to welfare law."

Essentially. He is shifting control from the federal government to the states. Can't wait to see how conservatives make this seem like a bad thing when it is straight conservative policy. More power to the states.

Here is the thing, welfare is supported by federal money. That means if New York cuts the work requirements it still affects Texas, because Texas still has to pay at least part of the bill. If the states had to pony up all the money for welfare themselves, then I'd be all for this. Federal money corrupts the concept of states rights.

This..... It does no good to allow a state to reduce the programs' spending within their state, without reducing the money the state puts into the program. Obama is essentially saying, "You can choose not to use it, but you still have to pay for it." Pretty ballsy seeing as it is a power reserved for the states.

You're assuming that reducing the sum spent is the only possible thing that a State could do. If, with waivers as a component, a State was able to craft a program/s that more efficiently got people from welfare to work (on a $ per $ basis), then the positive result would be more people working, which is of benefit to the local economy, tax revenues, etc.

So, it is a step in the direction of States' rights. Maybe it's not to the extent that you'd like, but that doesn't change anything.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:41:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:23:34 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:02:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:54:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:50:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.

"But a new Obama program does not end welfare-to-work mandates. To the contrary, it strengthens the requirements by granting waivers to states seeking to make the work requirements more successful. The waivers would be granted to pilot programs that are individually evaluated; HHS is not proposing a blanket national change to welfare law."

Essentially. He is shifting control from the federal government to the states. Can't wait to see how conservatives make this seem like a bad thing when it is straight conservative policy. More power to the states.

Here is the thing, welfare is supported by federal money. That means if New York cuts the work requirements it still affects Texas, because Texas still has to pay at least part of the bill. If the states had to pony up all the money for welfare themselves, then I'd be all for this. Federal money corrupts the concept of states rights.

This..... It does no good to allow a state to reduce the programs' spending within their state, without reducing the money the state puts into the program. Obama is essentially saying, "You can choose not to use it, but you still have to pay for it." Pretty ballsy seeing as it is a power reserved for the states.

You're assuming that reducing the sum spent is the only possible thing that a State could do. If, with waivers as a component, a State was able to craft a program/s that more efficiently got people from welfare to work (on a $ per $ basis), then the positive result would be more people working, which is of benefit to the local economy, tax revenues, etc.

So, it is a step in the direction of States' rights. Maybe it's not to the extent that you'd like, but that doesn't change anything.

Its a step in the direction of states rights? So making a state pay for a program that they don't want to participate in and the Federal government has no authority to implement, is a direction towards state rights?

Did they take 2 steps backwards before taking a step forward?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:51:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:41:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:23:34 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:02:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:54:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:50:13 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/13/2012 4:31:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/13/2012 3:53:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Actually, I think it was a lie spread by a Romney TV ad.
http://www.politifact.com...

Okay so apparantly its a discretionary from the fed to give the states discretion to end work for welfare.

"But a new Obama program does not end welfare-to-work mandates. To the contrary, it strengthens the requirements by granting waivers to states seeking to make the work requirements more successful. The waivers would be granted to pilot programs that are individually evaluated; HHS is not proposing a blanket national change to welfare law."

Essentially. He is shifting control from the federal government to the states. Can't wait to see how conservatives make this seem like a bad thing when it is straight conservative policy. More power to the states.

Here is the thing, welfare is supported by federal money. That means if New York cuts the work requirements it still affects Texas, because Texas still has to pay at least part of the bill. If the states had to pony up all the money for welfare themselves, then I'd be all for this. Federal money corrupts the concept of states rights.

This..... It does no good to allow a state to reduce the programs' spending within their state, without reducing the money the state puts into the program. Obama is essentially saying, "You can choose not to use it, but you still have to pay for it." Pretty ballsy seeing as it is a power reserved for the states.

You're assuming that reducing the sum spent is the only possible thing that a State could do. If, with waivers as a component, a State was able to craft a program/s that more efficiently got people from welfare to work (on a $ per $ basis), then the positive result would be more people working, which is of benefit to the local economy, tax revenues, etc.

So, it is a step in the direction of States' rights. Maybe it's not to the extent that you'd like, but that doesn't change anything.


Its a step in the direction of states rights? So making a state pay for a program that they don't want to participate in and the Federal government has no authority to implement, is a direction towards state rights?

Did they take 2 steps backwards before taking a step forward?

No, but that's clearly not what's happened, as TANF began in 1996. What's actually occurred is that States are paying for a program and Obama is granting them more autonomy with respect to its implementation. Hence, the subject-matter of this discussion, ie: the waiver issue, is a step in the direction of States' rights, albeit not a huge one.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper