Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:who is on welfare for generations?

also, who wants to be on welfare for the majority of their lives?

finally, do you even know how much welfare/unemployment provides someone anyway? people act as if you receive six figures on public assistance and live in plush neighborhoods and drive SUVs.

public assistance isnt the fabulous life. stop acting as if people want to live on that and even more importantly live great off the public dime. its totally wrong

When I was living in NYC after college and working at a Big 6 firm (yes, I know I'm dating myself here), the value of welfare benefits received for the average single mom with three kids was more than I was making.

In fairness to that mom, you only had to feed yourself and you had a starter job where the opportunity was in the career trajectory. You traded tough hours and not great pay for a chance at a high earning career.

Anonymous wrote:Before reform, the average welfare recipient was a recently divorced, white mother of two young children who was off the rolls within two years.

30% of women receiving welfare were caring for a disabled family member. In those cases, work requirements increase costs because the recipient's caregiving must be replaced at full cost.

+1

The generations of people on welfare is more of a European phenomenon.

The work requirement waivers were requested by governors (Republican ones mostly) because with the downturn, they couldn't get people into jobs to enforce the work requirement. There just weren't enough jobs.

Anonymous wrote:You want to dog Romney's parents? Let's talk about Obama's parents then - let's start with his father. What a winner!

Typical wingnut misses the point.

They aren't bad people for taking welfare. The son is a bad person for badmouthing welfare, knowing his family needed it not so long ago.

Before reform, the average welfare recipient was a recently divorced, white mother of two young children who was off the rolls within two years.

30% of women receiving welfare were caring for a disabled family member. In those cases, work requirements increase costs because the recipient's caregiving must be replaced at full cost.

Anonymous wrote:yes and the did something about it instead of being on welfare for generations. There is a big difference.

Most people are not on welfare for generations.

Anonymous wrote:Romney's take on the waiver is about as true as the thread title implying that Mitt's family was on welfare when he was a child. That was George Romney's family, not Mitt's.

BTW, should we be ramping up the Latino vote for Mitt because he's a Chicano? After all, George was born in Mexico.

Okay Romney's father was born in Mexico and Obama's father was born in Kenya. Because Obama's father was born in a foreign country, people claim that he is not an a American citizen. No one, according to romney, has ever asked for his birth certificate. I bet mitt was born in Mexico. Where is his original, long form birth certificate. He is a foreigner born into a strange religion.

Double standard. Hypocrites. Rackets. The entire lot of them. What's the difference between Mitt's father andObama's father in that regards.

You want to dog Romney's parents? Let's talk about Obama's parents then - let's start with his father. What a winner!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I respectfully disagree. For many on the right, the non-waiveable nature of the work requirements was the heart of the deal. It's not a lie to say that the change gutted that core requirement. Differences in perspective about what is important does not make arguments a lie.

NP here. The attack openly suggested that Obama waived all work requirements, not that governors will be able to apply to for more flexibility in shaping their work requirements. You're in denial if you think that's the same thing.

To whom do you give the credit for the flexibility that has been given to governors re this work requirement?

Anonymous wrote:who is on welfare for generations?

also, who wants to be on welfare for the majority of their lives?

finally, do you even know how much welfare/unemployment provides someone anyway? people act as if you receive six figures on public assistance and live in plush neighborhoods and drive SUVs.

public assistance isnt the fabulous life. stop acting as if people want to live on that and even more importantly live great off the public dime. its totally wrong

When I was living in NYC after college and working at a Big 6 firm (yes, I know I'm dating myself here), the value of welfare benefits received for the average single mom with three kids was more than I was making.

Anonymous wrote:who is on welfare for generations?

also, who wants to be on welfare for the majority of their lives?

finally, do you even know how much welfare/unemployment provides someone anyway? people act as if you receive six figures on public assistance and live in plush neighborhoods and drive SUVs.

public assistance isnt the fabulous life. stop acting as if people want to live on that and even more importantly live great off the public dime. its totally wrong

Are you kidding? I know 3 of my husband's immediate family who are proud of their wonderful welfare lifestyle.

First cousin grew up in a KY housing project. Lived in the same section 8 apartment her entire life. She did a brief 6 year stint in the military, got knocked up twice by a married man, got out of the military and has been living in the same projects right down the street from her childhood home for the past 6 years. When asked what she was going to do when child support stopped..."I guess I'll have to get a job if my check (welfare I guess?) doesn't go up."

Next cousin (NOT a sibling of cousin #1) lives in the same section 8 village with her 6 (yes SIX!) kids and hubby. They see the doctor more than the rest of my family can afford to, because they have "the card". Neither parent has worked for the past 4 years. Cousin has been a student, living on pell grants and hubby does bike repairs on the side for extra money.

Next cousin (sibling to #2) just got a $4000 pell grant check somehow and is buying a car with it. I didn't even know you could get pell grant checks, I thought it just paid tuition, but I guess not. He lives at home and uses his $200/month food stamps to support the rest of the family living there.

They are all more than happy to live off welfare as long as they possibly can. I can't believe they're not embarrassed to all be able-bodied (all younger than 30-35) and living and raising a family in such a God-awful place. But they're proud they're able to be "stay at home parents" and "getting an education" on someone else's dime.

I don't think they live plush lifestyles at all. In fact, I know from visiting them 20 years ago, they're living in roach infested hell-holes. But they don't care, because they've got Obama phones, and $15 power bills, and no co-pay doctor visits, and huge groups of welfare friends outside their houses, and they're not busting their asses at work, but rather had their kids down at the water park every day this summer because some church member was nice enough to donate a few pool memberships last year.

I see this first hand, so it's hard for me to separate out that there's really people out there that are just using it as a short term crutch. And it's really naive for you to believe there aren't people taking advantage and enjoying that crappy lifestyle.

Romney's take on the waiver is about as true as the thread title implying that Mitt's family was on welfare when he was a child. That was George Romney's family, not Mitt's.

BTW, should we be ramping up the Latino vote for Mitt because he's a Chicano? After all, George was born in Mexico.

From FactCheck.Org. Part of a larger piece that describes what is really going on - which is nothing like what has been described:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked.

So governors of states just won't be able to help themselves? They'll be mysteriously compelled to apply to the Federal government to give free money to poor people forever without them having to ever leave their couch? And the Feds will just go along with this because god knows Obama opened up the floodgates so who are they to show any judgment?

You sound like that guy who sued the government after he was paralyzed in a car accident caused by his own drunk driving because the guard rail wasn't strong enough. Waa-waa - no one else has any control over their behavior except Obama - not governors, not state and federal officials and certain not voters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I respectfully disagree. For many on the right, the non-waiveable nature of the work requirements was the heart of the deal. It's not a lie to say that the change gutted that core requirement. Differences in perspective about what is important does not make arguments a lie.

NP here. The attack openly suggested that Obama waived all work requirements, not that governors will be able to apply to for more flexibility in shaping their work requirements. You're in denial if you think that's the same thing.

Obama made it possible for the requirements to be waived. You're in denial if you think that is not a big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I respectfully disagree. For many on the right, the non-waiveable nature of the work requirements was the heart of the deal. It's not a lie to say that the change gutted that core requirement. Differences in perspective about what is important does not make arguments a lie.

NP here. The attack openly suggested that Obama waived all work requirements, not that governors will be able to apply to for more flexibility in shaping their work requirements. You're in denial if you think that's the same thing.