Obama undermines welfare reform?

[Squiggle]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-robert-rector

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.

[...]

Obama’s new welfare decree guts sound anti-poverty policy. The administration tramples on the actual legislation passed by Congress and seeks to impose its own policy choices — a pattern that has become all too common in this administration.

What say you? Is this action somehow magically beneficial to the poor? Is Obama acting within his designated authority? More generally, how should welfare be handled?

[Dr Zoidberg]

I'm sorry if this sounds stupid (and it does) but could somebody please explain what exactly has happened? I read the article but not being familiar with US welfare policy, I don't quite understand what has happened and what the consequences will be.

[Tiberios]

Me too.

[The excited one]

I'm sorry if this sounds stupid (and it does) but could somebody please explain what exactly has happened? I read the article but not being familiar with US welfare policy, I don't quite understand what has happened and what the consequences will be.

is he like undermines the old policy and replace it with his better one or replace it with his one i mean its really confusing from what the article say

[removeduser_487563287433]

A massively subjective view from a teabagger site does not make truth.

/thread

[Dr Zoidberg]

A massively subjective view from a teabagger site does not make truth.

/thread

I suspected that was the case but I'm still interested to see the OP actually explain what has occurred.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Go on the squiggle. With an unbiased source if you're capable of that.

[Burnum]

Protip: The National Review had too fire two of it's journalists because of ties to white nationalist groups (and only after a public outcry, both them freely admitted their racist leanings years before they were fire).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Correction: racist teabagger site.

[Astaroth]

Tautology.

[Dave Strider]

The source isn't enough for a logical discussion considering it's a Teabagger site

[The excited one]

double posting OOPS

[MathiasOfAthens]

I wasnt quite sure what happened either and immediately I noticed the source was bias.

It sounds like Obama altered the requirements that welfare seekers seek a job in order to get welfare. In this economy its incredibly hard to find a job and that could leave welfare holders empty handed if they cant find a job after a couple months? IDK though... I shall read.

Is it this:

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.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gingri...rticle/2502084

Obama’s new rule “allows the Department of Health and Human Services to waive the work requirement at the heart of welfare reform,” as The Washington Examiner’s Byron York explains. “That reform, originally vetoed but later signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is widely viewed as the most successful policy initiative in a generation. Under it, the growth in welfare rolls was reversed and millions of people moved from welfare to work.”

I found a lot of angry republicans but not a lot of explanation from the administration. Rep for anyone who finds a reason why the administration wanted to remove the work requirement.

Actually I found this:

HHS informed states that they may “test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families,” rather than enforce the work requirements attached to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

Is this more like Deregulation? Allowing states free to create their own strategies?

[Imperial]

It sounds like Obama altered the requirements that welfare seekers seek a job in order to get welfare. In this economy its incredibly hard to find a job and that could leave welfare holders empty handed if they cant find a job after a couple months? IDK though... I shall read.

Welfare seekers just have to apply for a job every once an while to receive welfare. I know in Florida, you have to apply to 5 jobs every week that fits your background to continue receiving a welfare check.

[Dave Strider]

Welfare seekers just have to apply for a job every once an while to receive welfare. I know in Florida, you have to apply to 5 jobs every week that fits your background to continue receiving a welfare check.

Wait, is this what's already been happening, or what is going to happen if/when this happens?

Because this effectively eliminates the Welfare Queen arguement right here, if the latter.

[Imperial]

Wait, is this what's already been happening, or what is going to happen if/when this happens?

It has been happening in Florida for awhile now, I don't now what other states do with their unemployment benefits. It used to be just apply to 2 jobs a week, but over the past year they bumped it up to 5.

[Dave Strider]

It has been happening in Florida for awhile now, I don't now what other states do with their unemployment benefits. It used to be just apply to 2 jobs a week, but over the past year they bumped it up to 5.

And does this apply to all Welfare recipients? Or just unemployed ones? It'd be a bit silly if they gave the same ultimatum to employed Welfare recipients

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think what Obama has done is eliminated the Federal requirements, thus deregulating the system. States can still institute this requirement though?

[motiv-8]

I think what Obama has done is eliminated the Federal requirements, thus deregulating the system. States can still institute this requirement though?

I honestly didn't now there was any federal involvement. I thought it was handled through the states anyway.

A greater explanation.

Yeah, that's what us Proles wanted: another hyperbolic article from the same source but this time with less clear authorship. It features questionable historical memory (the welfare scene improved from 1996-200 because of a single piece of legislation? How about one of the most generally economically successful periods in all of American history, or at least a healthy mix of the two...) and the admittedly amusing sight of conservatives clamoring for federal government regulation just to score a political hit against Obama.

Sorry, sorry, ignorant stupid socialist word vomit there.

[Thorn777]

Well I guess they could have written 20 instead of 5 a week, and I guess they could have just gotten rice, beans, cartboards, and candles, instead of all that expensive nutrition and housing stuff, but then again I dont quite think that will make them lazy bums work either.

I think sterilization and taking away their voters right would really be a leap forward.