Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Freeman wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?
There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.
States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?
But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?
All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.
The way he constructed his campaign ads about it was completely disingenuous and, IMO, unethical. It does not present anything close to reality.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Freeman wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?
There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.
States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?
But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?
All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Freeman wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?
There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.
States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?
But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?
All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Freeman wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?
There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.
States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?
But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?
The way he constructed his campaign ads about it was completely disingenuous and, IMO, unethical. It does not present anything close to reality.
All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Freeman wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?
There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.
States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?
But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?
Anonymous wrote:Freeman wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?
There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.
Freeman wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?
Freeman wrote:Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?
Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.
Anonymous wrote:yes and the did something about it instead of being on welfare for generations. There is a big difference.