Obama guts welfare reform

[regulator 0]

Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of unilaterally gutting welfare reform after the Department of Health and Human Services quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program's strict work requirements.

HHS made the announcement in a policy memo Thursday, news that slipped well below the radar amid a raucous day on the presidential campaign trail. But a few prominent GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill picked up on the change, and accused the administration of overhauling one of the most important bipartisan agreements of the past several decades.

"President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract" Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, said in a statement. He also called the move a "blatant violation of the law."

Mitt Romney on Friday spoke up on the change, saying: "President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare." He said "the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life."

How exactly the HHS change will play out is unclear. In Thursday's policy directive, the department said the states may seek a waiver from the work component of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, in order to "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

HHS stressed that any alternative should still aim to get welfare recipients into gainful employment. Any plan that "appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families," will not be approved, the memo said.

But HHS is suddenly allowing for more flexibility in a program known -- and in many circles, lauded -- for its rigid framework. Currently, states have to have 50 percent of their caseload meet certain work participation requirements, though there are ways around that as many states fall short.

The latest department directive suggested alternative plans could "combine learning and work" to fulfill the work requirement, or let "vocational educational training or job search /readiness programs" count as well.

The hard-fought welfare reform agreement in 1996 was struck between the Bill Clinton administration and a Republican-led Congress. It is still considered a signature legislative achievement from that period.

The number of people on TANF has decreased dramatically since 1997, but roughly 4 million people are still enrolled according to federal figures. The change comes in the middle of a competitive election fight between Obama and Romney.

Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, have written to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking for a more detailed explanation of the change and her authority for making it. Both expressed concern that the change would strip the crux of the 1996 welfare reform deal.

"This ends welfare reform as we know it," Camp said in a statement.

"I'm disappointed that after years of sitting on their hands and failing to propose any significant improvements to the TANF programs, the Obama Administration is once again over-stepping their authority and attempting to circumvent Congress through an unprecedented bypass of the legislative process," Hatch said.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/republicans-accuse-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform-with-quiet-policy-change/#ixzz20WSFNXp8

[regulator 0]

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

Fox news trying to change the subject of the day blowing a non-story totally out of proportion.

It's going to backfire when it's pointed out that most welfare recipients are just people like you and me who either can't work for health reasons, have no means of transportation to go to work because austerity measures are gutting their public transportation systems, or are unemployed due to the crash that was caused by the Masters of the Universe in 2008.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

I love how suggesting people support themselves becomes let them die.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

I love how suggesting people support themselves becomes let them die.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are people who can't support themselves. When you demonize them by calling them lazy and "worthless" as a group - for purely political and ideological reasons - and deny them access to the safety net, that is exactly what you are saying.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

I love how suggesting people support themselves becomes let them die.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are people who can't support themselves. When you demonize them by calling them lazy and "worthless" as a group - for purely political and ideological reasons - and deny them access to the safety net, that is exactly what you are saying.

"vast majority" source please?

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

I love how suggesting people support themselves becomes let them die.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are people who can't support themselves. When you demonize them by calling them lazy and "worthless" as a group - for purely political and ideological reasons - and deny them access to the safety net, that is exactly what you are saying.

Social Security covers those that are mentally and or physically disabled and unable to work.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Social Security covers those that are mentally and or physically disabled and unable to work.

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. That is entirely irrelevant to this article, which is about TANF and the requirements for states in that program. That is a totally and completely separate program from Social Security.

Usually when politicians talk about "welfare" they are talking about TANF.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[jcd11235 0]

In Thursday's policy directive, the department said the states may seek a waiver from the work component of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, in order to "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

HHS stressed that any alternative should still aim to get welfare recipients into gainful employment. Any plan that "appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families," will not be approved, the memo said.

It looks like the waivers are intended to allow individual states to be laboratories of democracy, to allow them to test programs that might more effectively put aid recipients back to work.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[muff528 3]

Are these folks (who were required to look for jobs under the TANF welfare reforms) included in the unemployment numbers? If so, can they now be "un-included" in unemployment calculations?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Are these folks (who were required to look for jobs under the TANF welfare reforms) included in the unemployment numbers? If so, can they now be "un-included" in unemployment calculations?

You're asking about the details of state regulations that have yet to be written.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Are these folks (who were required to look for jobs under the TANF welfare reforms) included in the unemployment numbers? If so, can they now be "un-included" in unemployment calculations?

You're asking about the details of state regulations that have yet to be written.

No. I'm asking whether these folks have typically been included in the "officially reported" unemployment rates and, if so, whether or not they will continue to be included even if they not now required to seek a job as a condition of their continued participation. Nothing to do with regulations. Either they have been counted or they have not. I'm just asking the question because I don't know.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are these folks (who were required to look for jobs under the TANF welfare reforms) included in the unemployment numbers? If so, can they now be "un-included" in unemployment calculations?

You're asking about the details of state regulations that have yet to be written.

No. I'm asking whether these folks have typically been included in the "officially reported" unemployment rates and, if so, whether or not they will continue to be included even if they not now required to seek a job as a condition of their continued participation. Nothing to do with regulations. Either they have been counted or they have not. I'm just asking the question because I don't know.

Currently, as I understand it, if they are unemployed and actively seeking employment, they are ideally counted in the unemployment rates. I say ideally, because the actual counting methods may miss (or overcount?) some small percentage of them.

There is no way of knowing if the same counting procedures will be continued in states that develop alternative programs under a waiver, since those programs have yet to be developed or approved.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

politicians?

--
Rob

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

I love how suggesting people support themselves becomes let them die.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are people who can't support themselves. When you demonize them by calling them lazy and "worthless" as a group - for purely political and ideological reasons - and deny them access to the safety net, that is exactly what you are saying.

when Clinton signed the bill in 96 within a short period of time ( as opposed to the program being in place for 4 decades) those on the welfare role dropped by half

The bill worked
The bill eliminates Obama voters however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Are these folks (who were required to look for jobs under the TANF welfare reforms) included in the unemployment numbers? If so, can they now be "un-included" in unemployment calculations?

Good point. Since the number of unemployed is a campaign issue, this is a way to make the % of unemployed look lower than it really is. If this is true, it's really pathetic and it shows how desperate Obama is.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just what we need...a bunch of worthless people unwilling to get jobs to support themselves living off the goverment.

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

I love how suggesting people support themselves becomes let them die.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are people who can't support themselves. When you demonize them by calling them lazy and "worthless" as a group - for purely political and ideological reasons - and deny them access to the safety net, that is exactly what you are saying.

when Clinton signed the bill in 96 within a short period of time ( as opposed to the program being in place for 4 decades) those on the welfare role dropped by half

The bill worked
The bill eliminates Obama voters however

The bill didn't work.
Your second statement makes no sense.

[wmw999 2,602]

The bill did work. However, it picked off low-hanging fruit, and got some fruit that wasn't ready to be picked along with it.

Just as a company continually reducing the bottom 10% of performers will eventually get rid of some really excellent long-term employees for ones who have shown short-term promise, welfare reform won't keep reducing the poor until they go away. Poor people (along with lazy people, unlucky people stupid people, etc) will always be with us.

Personally, I think that allowing the states some leeway is probably good. "rigid guidelines" generally end up being basically like zero-tolerance policies. Better to let people closer to a problem have some leeway.

In order to "fully solve" unemployment and poverty,(quotes deliberate, it's an insoluble problem), we have to change human nature, get rid of stupid, lazy, unlucky people, people with parents who did a lousy job, lots of hyperactive kids who don't do well in school -- you get it. All those people who used to be manual laborers, cowboys, family farm hands, and the like. Those jobs hardly exist any more, and hte kind of people who used to do them still need work, or welfare, or I guess just to go off and die

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

Because "Let them be hired" is NOT a good solution, eh? True - Biden told us that employers aren't important. This is merely an expansion of that policy statement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Let 'em DIE! Fuck yeah!!!

Because "Let them be hired" is NOT a good solution, eh? True - Biden told us that employers aren't important. This is merely an expansion of that policy statement.

It is absolutely not a good solution in many cases. Who's going to hire them? Especially if they live in an urban area with 20% unemployment and have no car and no public transportation is available.

Of course there are some people, I guess, who really are too stupid and/or lazy to get a job. What's your solution for these people? Who's going to hire them (especially if there are no more government jobs available)? Have you hired any stupid/lazy people lately? Wouldn't you want to exclude stupid/lazy people from your firm's work environment?

"Let them be hired" has a nice ring to it, but it is not a workable solution, since "job creators" really have no interest in hiring the stupid/lazy people in the first place. No, "Let them be hired" is not a good solution when there are no jobs available.

By cutting people off of vital assistance, you condemn them to live like desperate, starving animals. They have kids. Their kids will grow up in desperation too. Do you think it's in our country's best interest to have huge numbers of stupid/lazy people living in desperation like animals just across the railroad tracks? We think we're saving money by not feeding them and providing them with basic health care and education. But what we don't realize is that while the stupid/lazy people might be perfectly happy to stay put, starve to death, and wallow in their own filth, the smart one's are going to figure out ways to go and take your stuff!

It's too bad that slavery is illegal, otherwise that would solve the problem, wouldn't it? You could then provide all those stupid/lazy people with food, housing, basic medical care in return for their labor.

Another option, which is legal, would be to make sure that there are lots of petty, and/or victimless crimes on the books that you could use to round up a significant number of them and keep them in prison. That would be an excellent solution, assuming that it's cheaper to keep them in prison than to give them public assistance in cash. Even better yet, you could have them all in prison and then contract their labor out to private corporations and farmers in the area who have run out of illegal aliens to hire.

It's definitely a problem to have so many stupid/lazy citizens to have to deal with isn't it? What do you think might be a viable Final Solution to this problem that wouldn't involve you having to contribute any of your hard-earned cash?