[talaniman]

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have worked for years with poor people. I have seen welfare recipients without number who could work (were healthy) but did not. And yes, the money is given to other persons. Who do you think they give it to, their dogs?? Earned income credit checks, food stamps (SNAP), which can be used in restaurants in many states, TANF checks go out to individuals (and your wonderful President Obama rescinded the work requirements of that act), and of course housing and health insurance supplements, not to mention free cell phones that your favorite president handed out. It is not uncommon for a single mom, with three kids from different fathers, to be getting all of the above while her boyfriend is living with her and also getting benefits. With all due respect, you just don't have your facts straight.

Maybe it makes you feel better to imagine that the feds don't take money from some Americans to give to others, but that is exactly what is happening.

Honestly, the more you post, the more I think you have very little experience in working with the poor. Might be wrong about that, but it sure seems that way.

I just have to keep throwing the facts at you don't I

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/do...elfare-reform/

Maybe you can fact check yourself before you call my facts, experience, and character into question and saves me the unwanted task of lumping you into the same category as the guy you held your nose for and made him president.

[jlisenbe]

I just have to keep throwing the facts at you don't I.

This is from the article you linked. " Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating (emphasis mine) them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement...And it won’t “gut” the 1996 law to ease the requirement. Benefits still won’t be paid beyond an allotted time, whether the recipient is working or not...The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office."

So in what possible universe does that back up your original claim? You said, "recipients MUST work if healthy," but your article states, "The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office." And this is your version of backing up your statement???

I said Obama dropped the work requirement. Your article states that the feds were allowing states to eliminate the work requirements. So I think I'll stick with my response. The truth remains that the feds take money from some Americans to give to other Americans. Your article now makes it clear that many of them don't work. Thank you for that reference.

If I have ever questioned your character, then that was wrong of me. I don't mean to question your character at all. I highly question your data and conclusions, and I still wonder if you have ever spent much time trying to work with poor people.

[jlisenbe]

More facts.

"The 1996 welfare reform law required that a portion of the able-bodied adults in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — the successor to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program — work or prepare for work. Those work requirements were the heart of the reform’s success: Welfare rolls dropped by half, and the poverty rate for black children reached its lowest level in history in the years following.

But the Obama administration has jettisoned the law’s work requirements, asserting that, in the future, no state will be required to follow them. In place of the legislated work requirements, the administration has stated, it will unilaterally design its own “work” systems without congressional involvement or consent. Any state will be free to follow the new Obama requirements “in lieu of” the written statute.

The administration has provided no historical evidence showing that Congress intended to grant the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or any part of the executive branch the authority to waive the TANF work requirements. The historical record is clear and states the opposite; as the summary of the reform prepared by Congress shortly after enactment plainly says: “Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.”


The members of Congress closely involved in drafting this law have asserted that Obama’s action contradicts the letter and intent of the statute. For 15 years after welfare reform was enacted, no waivers of work requirements were issued by HHS. No such waivers were discussed because it was clear to all that Congress had never provided the department with such waiver authority."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.71de2837b5c3

[tomder55]

tal I am more worried of Google and their violations of privacy than any illegal hack by Russian pajama boys .

[talaniman]

What part of 29 out of a hundred welfare recipients are eligible to work in 2009 is it you cannot grasp? How many times must you be told that the majority of public assistance recipients are working poor families, the old, handicapped, and their children. Republicans governors requested the waiver, crafted it and asked for more flexibility in their STATE SPECIFIC plans. Obama gave it to them. The Dufus took it away, or is trying.

Of course I have MORE facts for you!

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-2018-...-reform-614410

IQUOTE] Indeed, when one actually looks at the data from some of these safety net programs, it becomes clear that so-called able-bodied adults are a minority of the participants. For example, 64 percent of those receiving food assistance in 2012 were children, people with disabilities or the elderly,

according to the Congressional Research Service

. And 53 percent of those receiving public housing benefits had either elderly or disabled heads of households...

… Even congressional Republicans are criticizing the domestic spending cuts in the president’s budget as “draconian” and downplaying their overall significance. At the same time, however, GOP lawmakers are weighing doing something very similar to Medicaid, the government-funded health insurance program for low-income, elderly and disabled Americans, as what the president is proposing for food assistance. The American Health Care Act that Republicans pushed through the House on May 4 would roll back Medicaid’s expansion under Obamacare, which allowed working-age men and childless women to participate for the first time. Republicans want to return the limits to women with children. The House legislation also would slash federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $880 billion and put the onus on states to cover the rest. Trump embraced that approach in his budget, adding another $600 billion-plus in Medicaid cuts on top of it.
Some Senate Republicans, however, are squeamish about those Medicaid proposals, for the very same reasons that progressives criticize them and other parts of the Trump budget. They worry a rollback in funding and eligibility will hurt their most vulnerable constituents, particularly in states that chose to expand the program under Obamacare. And they want to see a very different version of health care legislation come out of the Senate.[/QUOTE]

And from 2012,

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...reform/260931/

[talaniman]

@JL

I can see where you would agree with the writer of this article, been reading his right wing Heritage Foundation stuff for years. I do not agree with his article. No surprise there huh?

Unfortunately my free reading for WP is over the limit at this time. So I defer commit on this specific fact you presented.

Sorry.

[talaniman]

tal I am more worried of Google and their violations of privacy than any illegal hack by Russian pajama boys .

By George Tom, your bulb may not be that bright on some things, but at least it's working on a basic level. I did away with Facebook and twitter accounts a few years ago. All these new privacy policies bear reading.

[jlisenbe]

Of course I have MORE facts for you!

You said work was a requirement. Your article said work was not a requirement and that states did not have to require recipients to work. Your conclusion was wrong. End of story.

[talaniman]

Read the law for yourself

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/able-b...endents-abawds

SNAP rules require all recipients meet work requirements unless they are exempt because of age or disability or another specific reason. (Children, seniors, and those with disabilities comprise almost two-thirds of all SNAP participants.) Forty-three percent of SNAP participants live in a household with earnings.

Some of these working individuals are ABAWDs, or able-bodied adults without dependents. ABAWDs must meet special work requirements, in addition to the general work requirements, to maintain their eligibility.

You obviously misunderstood what you read.

[paraclete]

You obviously misunderstood what you read.

Seems to be an ongoing problem

[jlisenbe]

I'll just stick with this. It's a quote from your link and written in plain and clear English. It states as plainly as it can that states can eliminate work requirements. It is not a case of misunderstanding what it clearly declares. You just don't want to admit that your original statement was not correct.

This is from the article you linked. " Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating (emphasis mine) them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement...And it won’t “gut” the 1996 law to ease the requirement. Benefits still won’t be paid beyond an allotted time, whether the recipient is working or not...The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office."

You said, "recipients MUST work if healthy," but your article states, "The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office." And this is your version of backing up your statement???

BTW, children are not counted in that 29% as they do not receive cash assistance. Their parent(s) do, but not the children.

[jlisenbe]

Having shown that the TANF work requirements have been eliminated in many states, you now switch to SNAP. Oh well, from the link you provided.

The time limit on ABAWDs is part of the law that governs the operation of SNAP. It has been part of the law since 1996. Under the law, States can request to temporarily waive the ABAWD time limit when unemployment is high or when there are not enough jobs available.
Due to the economic downturn, many States qualified for and chose to waive time limits in all or part of the State. (Even when ABAWD time limits are waived, general work requirements still apply.) Some parts of the country still have waivers in place.

So states are able to waive the time limit, which is 3 months without a job. This law clearly exempts single women who have children living at home. And at best, the work requirement is only for part-time work of 80 hours a month, and even that can be waived if the person is engaged in some sort of job training programs or "workfare". A work requirement of 80 hours a month is ridiculous.

My original statement was this, and I am happy to stick with it: "Earned income credit checks, food stamps (SNAP), which can be used in restaurants in many states, TANF checks go out to individuals (and your wonderful President Obama rescinded the work requirements of that act), and of course housing and health insurance supplements, not to mention free cell phones that your favorite president handed out. It is not uncommon for a single mom, with three kids from different fathers, to be getting all of the above while her boyfriend is living with her and also getting benefits. With all due respect, you just don't have your facts straight." I would only amend the part about Mr. Obama rescinding work requirements. That is generally true, but evidently not true in all 50 states.

My solution is simple. If you are mentally and physically healthy, then you get nothing other than the amazing opportunity to live in a country that is still very much the land of opportunity. You had access to a free high school education, and many areas, including mine, have free or low cost access to community colleges. Take advantage of all that. Work hard. Learn everything you can. Don't be stupid and have children out of wedlock. Studies clearly show that people who follow those simple guidelines only rarely end up in poverty. Be a grown up person and support yourself. Avoid debt like the plague. Take advantage of the many low cost/free health clinics which are supported by private means or local governments. Do not expect someone else to pay your bills.

[talaniman]

What surprised me most is that it was local republicans that asked the then President Obama to allow states to be more flexible with their programs because of economic conditions in their states, and account for those that needed more services to address their own personal circumstances, and as written the waiver never rescinded them, that's your right wing spin that your head is exploding over.

Recipients have little control over their hours, and a flood, or fire victim, has nothing to work with so expecting those kinds of people to your line no matter what is more than a bit draconian. You keep coming back to those females with many kids by many daddies, and living with a boyfriend and I have no doubt you may know a few in that category, I certainly do, but I find it not the huge case you try to make it, and an unfair assessment of the typical recipient. Fascinating you can take one thing you don't like, and blow it up as a crisis. You and The Dufus certainly love your "hyperbole" descriptions in common. That thinking was right out of the 70's with welfare queens that drove Cadillacs.

Of course you offered no FACTUAL evidence of Obama RECINDING the work requirement, except right wing talking points that are part of the fear mongering lies to the uniformed. The whole narrative is to divert resources from needy poor people to rich guys and If you look at the proposed Dufus budget submission, that's exactly where he makes deep cuts to social safety net programs, while cutting rich guy taxes. Maybe you could work on that holier than thou and stop foisting your ideas of morality on the rest of us while holding your nose for a lying, cheating dufus. Like the rest of us are going to stand for it, when we obviously have the numbers.

Your premise that you and only you know best is what fueling your misguided false narrative of being a victim of the liberals, when in reality you seek to stop the progress of a nation that you feel thumbs it nose at you and your ideas instead of holding our noses and getting with your program. Man you got life and BS all mixed up.

[jlisenbe]

Of course you offered no FACTUAL evidence of Obama RECINDING the work requirement,

Other than the article you linked to?

You see, this is why I get frustrated in talking with you. YOUR OWN ARTICLE STATED IT, as did the article I linked to.

stop foisting your ideas of morality on the rest of us

So exactly what is it that you are doing if not that? The difference is, I am not after your money. You want to spend the money of others, and in so doing believe that you are standing on the moral high ground. If you really want to help poor people, you will sacrifice and do so. Then you will have something to talk about.

Recipients have little control over their hours,

What?? They don't control the 168 hours a week they have? Then who does? And if that is true, then how is it that most of us managed to work a minimum of 40 hours a week to make it?

and a flood, or fire victim, has nothing to work with so expecting those kinds of people to your line no matter what is more than a bit draconian

In my own city, there was a tornado a couple of years ago. The winds had scarcely died down before people began to show up to cut trees, repair houses, provide shelter, food, and clothing, and on and on it went. People naturally respond to those kinds of things. It's the other 999 days out of a 1,000 that my statement referred to.

[talaniman]

jlisenbe;Other than the article you linked to?

You see, this is why I get frustrated in talking with you. YOUR OWN ARTICLE STATED IT, as did the article I linked to.

I understand your frustration, I really do, since you ignore the whole economic conditions of the region or state or realize that the waiver is conditional with submission of a plan that promotes getting a job. Clearly the fact that all states or locales have NOT achieved that low unemployment, I know regions where it's still 10% though not statewide but locally. Nor have the jobs AVAILABLE in that region to even enforce such a condition as must work. To impose such conditions you know cannot be met are NOT SMART, effective or even HUMAN. Intentional CRUELTY is your position?

IF it is then you just keep being FRUSTRATED, that's YOUR problem to deal with. Need help with that? Simply not cherry picking and twisting the FACTS!

So exactly what is it that you are doing if not that? The difference is, I am not after your money. You want to spend the money of others, and in so doing believe that you are standing on the moral high ground. If you really want to help poor people, you will sacrifice and do so. Then you will have something to talk about.

Just trying to get you to understand that we put money in the pot through taxes and its no longer just yours to control your way. You elected guys to disperse it. If you don't like how they do the job on your behalf boot them out. That's how things are done here.

What? They don't control the 168 hours a week they have? Then who does? And if that is true, then how is it that most of us managed to work a minimum of 40 hours a week to make it?

The boss does. Ask him why he has everybody on a part time schedule at minimum wage. Workers don't make the schedule, nor can they make a job available. You should be grateful that you live where jobs are available. Do you also schedule your own hours?

In my own city, there was a tornado a couple of years ago. The winds had scarcely died down before people began to show up to cut trees, repair houses, provide shelter, food, and clothing, and on and on it went. People naturally respond to those kinds of things. It's the other 999 days out of a 1,000 that my statement referred to.

You didn't do it in a day but kudos for your efforts o help others. I refer to real people in tough situations be it by their own flaws or just victims of circumstance.

[jlisenbe]

jlisenbe;Other than the article you linked to?

Other than the article that you linked, which you amazingly continue to ignore, here are some more.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/...right-restore/
https://www.heritage.org/welfare/rep...lfare-overview
https://www.heritage.org/welfare/rep...workfare#_ftn5
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defaul...irements_0.pdf
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...rticle/2536341

Most interesting comment: " The TANF work requirements are actually too lenient. In the typical month, half of able-bodied recipients receive a welfare check while doing no activity whatsoever."

So you can see, if you're willing to look, that your original statement, "recipients MUST work if healthy", is simply not correct, and not even close to being correct.

Now you might argue that Obama did not completely do away with TANF work requirements, and that I went too far when I said he rescinded them. That would be a fair statement. He changed them and relaxed them, but did not completely abandon them. But when you say that recipients MUST work, you are plainly wrong. It was not that way before Obama, and it became worse under his policies.

The boss does.

Uhm...if they have a boss, then they have a job. Good for them. If need be, get two jobs, but do not count on someone else to pay your bills.

[paraclete]

taken down