[NeedKarma]

"Congress specifically shielded TANF from the waiver process to keep work requirements intact, this administration unilaterally overwrote the will of congress."

That sir is fact.

This is what's in that information memorandum:

HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.

Does that look like "Obama ended welfare work requirements"? Of course not.
You just can't take what your right-wing blogs say as gospel - you have to do your own research and go to the sources.

[speechlesstx]

TDoes that look like "Obama ended welfare work requirements"? Of course not.

Did Mitt Romney kill a steelworker's wife? At least this has a measure of truth - Obama's HHS did specifically, unilaterally, overwrite Congress' express intent to keep the work requirements intact.

You just can't take what your right-wing blogs say as gospel - you have to do your own research and go to the sources.

I'm really bored with that smug cliché of yours. Yaaaaawwwwwnnnn...

[speechlesstx]

And by the way, I don't put a whole lot of stock in Politifact and WaPa as fact checkers. Politifact has leaned way leftward for a long time and WaPo's fact checker called Romney a liar for saying a president who didn't go to Israel didn't go to Israel.

[NeedKarma]

And by the way, I don't put a whole lot of stock in Politifact and WaPa as fact checkers. Politifact has leaned way leftward for a long time and WaPo's fact checker

I quoted the actual government memo.

[speechlesstx]

I quoted the actual government memo.

I know, after citing Politifact as proof.

[speechlesstx]

Let's forget for a moment that in response to Romney attacking the welfare changes that the left has given a full throated lie that Romney is racist for doing so, and get to the facts. Turns out the NY Times unwittingly validated the claim the Obama gutted work requirements.

The smoking gun is always in the last place you look: I had some serious doubts about Mitt Romney’s ad attacking Obama’s welfare “waivers”–until I read the New York Times editorial denouncing it. Now I know Romney’s ad isn’t as accurate as I’d thought. It’s much more accurate.

The Times notes that one of the states proposing waivers from the 1996 welfare reform’s work requirements is Nevada–indeed, Nevada was cited by the Obama Health and Human Services department when it quietly announced its plan to grant waivers on July 12 .** Here’s how the Times describes what Nevada wants to do:

[Nevada] asked to discuss flexibility in imposing those requirements. Perhaps, the state asked, those families hardest to employ could be exempted from the work requirements for six months while officials worked with them to stabilize their households. [E.A.]

“Exempted from the work requirements for six months.” That’s not just “weakening” work requirements–the safe, milder charge I chose to make a couple of days ago. It’s explicitly tossing them out the window for an extended period–“to allow time for their barriers to be addressed and their household circumstances stabilized”, in Nevada’s words.***

For those six months it’s also, unaccountably, exactly what Romney says will happen in his ad:

You wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.

Romney’s admakers will have to do better than that if they want to earn their Pinocchios.

P.S.: And here I thought my friend Jonathan Alter was a victim of the liberal cocoon when he rushed to Twitter a few days ago to idiotically declare that the waivers “don’t weaken work requirements.” But it turns out the truth is so obvious you don’t even have to leave the cocoon to find it. All you have to do is read what the New York Times says while denying it. I apologize to the cocoon. ****

__________

**–As part of HHS secretary Sebelius’ subsequent damage-control effort, she hinted that “it appears some of the policies enumerated in the letters [from Utah and Nevada] would not be eligible for waivers under our policy.” She wouldn’t say which ones, though. I’d argue that HHS original statements, which Sebelius did not repudiate, are a better indication of HHS’ intent than her later PR backpedaling. The Times certainly thinks Nevada’s proposal is alive and well.

***–Here are the exact words in Nevada’s letter:

TANF Performance Measures and Possible Waiver Opportunities …

Exempt the hardest-to-employ population for a period of time (i.e. six months) to allow time for their barriers to be addressed and their household circumstances stabilized; …

Note that “six months” isn’t an upper limit on the “exempt” period. Could be sixteen months. Note also that the NYT makes it sound as if Nevada might actually be requiring welfare recipients do something during this period–”while officials worked with them.” But the actual Nevada letter doesn’t say anything except that they need “time for their barriers to be addressed.”

More generally, Nevada proposes a broad, excuse-laden “progression” system in which all recipients with “employment barriers” are given “more time and assistance”–translation, more welfare with fewer obligations to work or train for work or look for work. What are “employment barriers”? They include lack of child care, transportation, drug addiction, “special needs such as clothing and tools,” and lack of “job seeking/retention skills.” Obesity can also be a “barrier.”

****–Maybe that’s why Newt Gingrich, apparently wrongly, said there was “no proof” that Obama might be “be comfortable sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing.” He’s not in the cocoon.

Told you so: "Congress specifically shielded TANF from the waiver process to keep work requirements intact, this administration unilaterally overwrote the will of congress."

I love being right.

[NeedKarma]

Told ya so: "Congress specifically shielded TANF from the waiver process to keep work requirements intact, this administration unilaterally overwrote the will of congress."

I love being right.

We aren't debating whether congress overwrote something, the topic was Romney saying that Obama "ended welfare work requirements". He clearly didn't.

[paraclete]

Letting the facts get in the way of the hyperbole again, how tiresome

[excon]

Hello again,

So, Texas DOES discriminate, says a federal court... Who knew?

excon

[speechlesstx]

We aren't debating whether congress overwrote something, the topic was Romney saying that Obama "ended welfare work requirements". He clearly didn't.

Dude, you can't read can you.

[NeedKarma]

Dude, you can't read can you.

If you have nothing to offer maybe you can comment on excon's post.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again,

So, Texas DOES discriminate, says a federal court... Who knew?

excon

As if no other party in power configures redistricting to their advantage? Dude, get serious. I vividly recall when Democrats were in power here the redistricting maps they drew were insane. What's even more insane is the latest being overthrown on discrimination because Hispanics can't vote for Hispanics? What, they have to vote for someone of their skin color?

That's the same goofy nonsense some Hispanic jackwagon of an attorney in our city has been trying to do for years, create single member districts so everyone can vote along racial lines. What?? Why?? I helped vote in a Hispanic county commissioner this year and a Hispanic city commissioner last year, so who's the racist, those who don't give a crap about what color you are or those who do?

[NeedKarma]

As if no other party in power configures redistricting to their advantage? Dude, get serious.

Do you realize that that is your answer to every single transgression by a conservative?

[speechlesstx]

Do you realize that that is your answer to every single transgression by a conservative?

Do you realize that most of your responses are irrelevant? But please feel free to show us every single one of those answers you're referring to.

[NeedKarma]

Do you realize that most of your responses are irrelevant? But please feel free to show us every single one of those answers you're referring to.

You never notice that? Whenever a conservative gets caught doing a no-no your response is pretty much always "they all do it" or show an example of a liberal doing the same thing, usually accompanied with a 'get over it" type of statement. But yet your life here is spent searching out liberal no-nos. Do you see anything odd here?

[speechlesstx]

You never notice that? Whenever a conservative gets caught doing a no-no your response is pretty much always "they all do it" or show an example of a liberal doing the same thing, usually accompanied with a 'get over it" type of statement. But yet your life here is spent searching out liberal no-nos. Do you see anything odd here?

I don't consider you a reliable source for anything but nonsense, just like this. Back it up with something besides your gibberish or back off.

[NeedKarma]

Nah, I'll just wait until you do it again.
You want to call nonsense or irrelevant whenever I catch posting disinformation, that's your choice.

[speechlesstx]

Nah, I'll just wait until you do it again.
You want to call nonsense or irrelevant whenever I catch posting disinformation, that's your choice.

Just another baseless piece of gibberish. You're behavior here borders on creeping you know.

[NeedKarma]

How so Steve?

[excon]

Hello again,

First, their redistricting was found to DISCRIMINATE, now their voter ID law has been BLOCKED. Poor Texas..

The court held,

that Texas had failed to show that the statute would not harm the voting rights of minorities in the state. In addition, the judges found that evidence indicated that the cost of obtaining a photo ID to vote would fall most heavily on African American and Hispanic voters.

Who could have guessed THAT?

Excon