G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Forum » Quick Board » Archives » Archive through July 24, 2012 » Welfare Reform « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

1324
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 10:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

So the other day, my father called me and our conversation ultimately ended up on politics, as usual (we tend to agree). An interesting topic, which I missed somehow, was welfare reform. According to him (and a LITTLE bit of internet coverage), Obama has essentially allowed the welfare reform act of 1996 to fall by the wayside. You'll remember, that this bill was a compromise between Bill Clinton and the Republican controlled congress at the time.

Bottom line: states will have the 'flexibility' to regulate welfare as they see fit (if there are confines, I've yet to find them tabulated). The key sticking point for the right (and myself) is that the new language would allow for welfare recipients to sit and collect without actively looking for a new job. Of course, supporters tout that flexibility is good and that states don't HAVE to change the job hunt requirement. They also purport that why look for a job when there are no jobs?

Needless to say, I think this is a really big issue. I hate to ask this in a public forum, but inquiring minds want to know from those who hopefully do: what is the deal with this?

Conjecture aside, does the welfare system need THIS kind of flexibility? Or, as I fear, are we just giving another nod to the state-controlled livelihood that we seem so destined to be approaching?

Discuss.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kyrocket
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 10:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I'm going to go against my rule of posting in political and/or religious threads here and tell you what I see everyday and leave it at that. I personally know of a handful of families in my town of 7K who are second or third generation welfare. They will not work, except maybe for cash on the occasional odd job. They milk the system for everything they can. I also see others popping out kids just to get more money from the gov. Then there are those who are just lazy. As you can surely guess there are drugs involved in almost every case.
As far as work goes, we are very fortunate to have several factories within a five mile drive, one in particular starts out in the $10 - $12 range and needs 120 people right now to work. They can't find enough people to pass a drug test to fill their need. The gov. has made it easy for those who just want to eek by in life, want nothing more than to live in poverty and draw food stamps to do just that. I don't know what it's like elsewhere but this is what I see locally every day. Does welfare need an overhaul? Most definitely. What's the answer? I have no idea, but I know where I'd start.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fb1
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 10:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

...Obama has essentially allowed the welfare reform act of 1996 to fall by the wayside...

To which I would add: ...by presidential decree, in total defiance of the law.


quote:

Ending Welfare as We Know It: Obama Once Again Attempts To Grow The Culture Of Dependency Through Bureaucratic Tyranny
By Arnold Ahlert, July 16, 2012


Last Thursday, in another assault on the democratic process that has become standard operating procedure for the Obama administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a policy directive that purports to grant states more "flexibility" in implementing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In reality, the policy change eviscerates the federal works requirements that were the essential ingredient of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act signed into law by president Bill Clinton in 1996 after painstaking, bipartisan efforts achieved through the democratic process.

"President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract," Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said in a statement. Jordan also characterized the move as a "blatant violation of the law."

...Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, and one of the original authors of the reform bill, called this strategy "a brazen and unwarranted unraveling" of the law that "ends welfare reform as we know it." Orrin Hatch (R-UT) also expressed his displeasure. "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," he said.

...Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney offered his take on the change as well. "President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare," he said, further noting that "the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life."

...No doubt it is -- just as there is virtually no doubt the president is trying to break that linkage for naked political gain. Much like last week's revelation that the Department of Agriculture was actively soliciting Spanish-speaking people to join the food stamp program (a gambit they dropped after an expose by the Daily Caller) this move smacks of nothing more than the latest effort to increase the size of the dependency class that Democrats consider essential to their political well-being.

...Yet there is no ignoring the reality that [these changes are] being implemented by decree. It reveals the utter bankruptcy of an administration that knows it can't get Congress to implement its ideologically suspect agenda. Thus, their "solution" for congressional intransigence is reduced to three words: Congress be damned.

Read more: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/14123




Buying more votes, by presidential fiat, at the expense of creating even more of a dependency-based population, at the ultimate expense of our American Republic.

Is this yet another example of "hope and change," Mr. Obama? Well, I dearly hope we change presidents this coming November...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fb1
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 11:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)


quote:

Fatal Misstep?
By Mona Charen, July 17, 2012


Until this week, the Obama campaign's strategy of interest group payoffs and demonization of Romney seemed, if tawdry, at least a possible route to re-election. The president's promises to deliver more and more "free" stuff for carefully selected grantees -- adorned in the language of sticking up for the "middle class" -- appeared to have a chance of success.

But the decision to embrace one of the least popular Democratic positions of the past 100 years -- opposition to the work requirement for welfare recipients -- is inexplicable politically. It's also illegal and imperious.

...Why did Obama do it? Why issue new regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services (in bold violation of the law) granting waivers to states to alter work requirements? Obama's election notwithstanding, there is little reason to think that the nation has moved left on the welfare issue. Most working Americans, including most poor Americans, believe that paying people for idleness is wrong.

Obama is trying to persuade Americans that while he has expanded food stamps to unprecedented levels, extended unemployment insurance to 99 weeks, vastly increased the already overwhelmed Medicaid program, created a new trillion dollar entitlement with Obamacare and expanded the size of the federal government to a percentage of gross domestic product not seen since World War II, that he is not the dependency president. By stepping back into history to embrace the Democrats' nemesis -- unrestricted welfare -- he has clinched the argument for the opposition.

Read more: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/14136


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 12:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

On a related topic of collecting unemployment insurance, my wife, along with numerous co-workers got laid off this year. One of her co-workers signed up for college courses to help build her skills to make herself more marketable in this difficult job market. Her ex-employer is good enough to provide good education benefits to their laid-off workers. Meanwhile she is still actively searching for a new job. She has bills that need to be paid after all.

One of the questions on the unemployment certification is if you are taking any education courses while unemployed. Nothing about how it's being paid for. She answered honestly that she was taking classes and they denied her unemployment claim because of that. This is a person who has worked all her life and wants to work into the future and is trying to take personal responsibility to make themselves a better worker and the state of IL is penalizing her for it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Strokizator
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 01:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I think this is admission by Obama that he's a failure at stimulating the job market. "Yeah, don't bother looking for a job, there ain't any".

Here's another tidbit of information. In June, 80,000 people found a job but 85,000 went on disability for a net loss of 5000 jobs. In the last 3 years 2.6 million found jobs while 3.1 million went on the govt disability dole. What a POS this guy is.
http://tinyurl.com/cp6m22s
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 01:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

In June, 80,000 people found a job but 85,000 went on disability for a net loss of 5000 jobs.

That doesn't even account for the shrinkage of the job market due to an expanding population. I think that's supposed to be in the 250-300k per month range.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pkforbes87
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 03:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Sifo, UI claims can be approved for those attending school full time. The process is slow and painful, but it is possible. My experience is as a Missouri resident and a veteran. I'm sure each situation and state process is different, but I'd be more than happy to share what I know with you and your friend, just shoot me a PM.

Also, first hand experience has shown me that welfare programs are designed to help those who do not help themselves. My future kids & grandkids are screwed unless drastic changes happen soon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fb1
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 03:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

...welfare programs are designed to help those who do not help themselves...

I would add: ...and to insure an obedient, loyal, and dependent constituency.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Daves
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 06:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

...welfare programs are designed to help those who do not help themselves...

I would add: ...and to insure an obedient, loyal, and dependent constituency.

BINGO!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ferris_von_bueller
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 08:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Seriously, do any of you believe the necessary changes have a shot in hell of becoming reality?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cityxslicker
Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 10:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

there are jobs posted.... I am betting that putting on line and not filling them is 'creating' a job, and earns that corporation a tax bene of some sort.

I have over the last three years, submitted three to five resumes a DAY to positions across the country. I have had response from less than 12.
Between Taleo X, Kenexa and key word search widgets - I am convinced it is worthless endeavor to submit a resume to a US based company. They don't answer it - don't read it, admittedly an HR generalist... or their intern lackey will spend 37 seconds scanning a resume for a position they posted. For a proposal and RFP that they did not post - pftt, forget about it.

Why isn't America working ? Check your HR departments.
Conversely - I email and respond to postings in any of the FSU, Russia, or India - and I get an interview - about half of those I end up with a contract free lance work - nothing permanent - but without them, indeed, I would be out of work

and as for welfare - I will NEVER qualify.
I am white, middle aged, no kids, not disabled, not criminal and not a protected entitlement class for anyone.
(and as I will never qualify for it, I do not believe I should have to pay for it - same with Social Security )

Plus I have entirely too much drive and pride to ever sit on my azz and nuzzle the gov't teet.
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration