Obama seeks to undo welfare reform, remove work requirements

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Brown

Just curious:

Does anyone think that work (or seeking of work) ought NOT be required of welfare recipients?

I don't think anybody's saying that.. What we're trying to point out here is that Obama has done what I believe most conservatives would typically want to see, i.e. the state having control over state affairs.. But now this is supposed to be a bad thing? And it's not like the work requirement has been completely removed.. They've just given the states more flexibility..

[Vacherie Saint]

Originally Posted by Beast

Saw this today..

Romney Claims Obama Guts Welfare Work Requirements By Doing Precisely What Romney Requested in 2005! - Forbes

I heard this earlier today and tried to open your link, but its not working. I think this latest line might be a little dishonest. Here is a link from 05 talking about Romney's proposals to strengthen the work requirement in Mass.

Tougher welfare standards weighed | CapeCodOnline.com

Also, I think whta's being lost in this debate is Obama's abuse of executive authority. He's going to end up in court again over this one.

[Vacherie Saint]

Originally Posted by Beast

I don't think anybody's saying that.. What we're trying to point out here is that Obama has done what I believe most conservatives would typically want to see, i.e. the state having control over state affairs.. But now this is supposed to be a bad thing? And it's not like the work requirement has been completely removed.. They've just given the states more flexibility..

What is the benefit of doing this? Flexibility is an awful vague reason.

Blue states will waive the requirement. You know it and I know it. You can couch this as a "states rights" issue, but it would be a huge logic fail.

This is just more of Obama trying to sew up his base. Everything he has done since he launched his 2012 campaign has been aimed at mobilizing the base. Dream act, reversing his stance on gay marriage, African American education office, and now this.

He is taking a Bush 2004 strategy; essentially giving up on moderates and trying to win on high base turnout and name recognition.

[bearze34]

Originally Posted by Richard

I will have to read more on this, but if the work requirement is removed from TANF, I believe it will be a grave mistake. IMO, the TANF work program is a very successful program, one I worked in for several years and I have seen the benefits first hand. I can't imagine the reasoning behind this move.

It isn't that it is removed it is the definition of work that has changed. Now, running errands can be considered work. Oh, btw, the statement that two of the most conservative Govenors in the country were clammoring for these changes is another outright lie in a long list of them by Team Obama. A little research will go a long way.

[texasjefe]

Romney raising welfare reform as an issue is only relevant or interesting to his base. I really don't think independents care about Mitt Romney's philosophy on welfare reform. But, when you're hiding you tax avoidance, you gotta come up with something.

[Brown]

Originally Posted by Beast

I don't think anybody's saying that.. What we're trying to point out here is that Obama has done what I believe most conservatives would typically want to see, i.e. the state having control over state affairs.. But now this is supposed to be a bad thing? And it's not like the work requirement has been completely removed.. They've just given the states more flexibility..

Ignoring romney's rhetoric, I thought it was clear that Obama wanted to give the states control over the issue.

So as a liberal, does this irritate you or do you support Obama's position?

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Brown

Ignoring romney's rhetoric, I thought it was clear that Obama wanted to give the states control over the issue.

So as a liberal, does this irritate you or do you support Obama's position?

No, it doesn't irritate me.. I have no problems with the states having the ability to craft the work requirements towards their citizens.. If this had never been done, I wouldn't have screamed about the need for it..

I'm kinda meh on the issue overall.. Do I believe there should be a work requirement? Most definitely.. Do I think it will hurt to allow states more control? Probably not..

I'm sure HHS has heard from the reps at the state level that they have barriers to helping people find legitimate work.. Yes, we all know that the economy isn't where any of us would like it, so I'm sure that plays a part in it (ie less jobs to be had and more competition for them)..

Ultimately, we all want these people to get on their feet, hold down jobs and support themselves.. And I'm sure, no matter what rhetoric you hear, they want that for themselves too..

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Vacherie Saint

What is the benefit of doing this? Flexibility is an awful vague reason.

Blue states will waive the requirement. You know it and I know it. You can couch this as a "states rights" issue, but it would be a huge logic fail.

This is just more of Obama trying to sew up his base. Everything he has done since he launched his 2012 campaign has been aimed at mobilizing the base. Dream act, reversing his stance on gay marriage, African American education office, and now this.

He is taking a Bush 2004 strategy; essentially giving up on moderates and trying to win on high base turnout and name recognition.

Typically Blue states are the ones that provide most federal tax dollars that end up supporting programs like welfare.. Red states, like my own and yours, end up taking out some multiple of what they put in..

So is it safe to assume ya'll are upset over this due to a fear that there will be more welfare queens running around on the government dime?

[Beast]

BTW, the link to the Forbes article and the RGA letter PDF still work for me..

[deauxmfan]

As a worker in the system, I have conflicting views on the situation. If the requirements were relaxed so to speak it would make my life easier. But in the long run it hurts the clients.

What a lot of people don't realize is there is a 60 month time limit on welfare benefits. Not food stamps, but cash. If within 5 years a person can't find employment, they're no longer eligible regardless of circumstances. Are there those people that can't pull it together in that time frame? Yes. Whether that's a failure on our part, the part of the educational system, or genaral laziness who knows. It all depends on the person.

In my opinion, the system as whole fails on the most basic levels. Education is the key to not having the welfare system as we now know it. The amount of people that come through my office that can barely read on a third grade level is shocking. But how in the hell do you give someone the motivation to do better if they've never known anything different? And if you do manage to come up with the motivation, keeping someone on track through a basic remediation program in their 20's is almost impossible.

And on my end, we don't have the resources to really make this happen. We're pitifully understaffed, everyone carries a caseload that would make 2-3 caseloads in a perfect world, and the situation is not improving. We hire 6 people and lose 12. It's a no win situation the whole way around.

I've said before that welfare is a generational problem. We will not see change in our lifetime. True change will be a result of education and children that have seen their parents do better as a result.

[Jimbo]

To heck with it. Open the coffers and raise taxes through the stratosphere. It's all paper anyway, you can't eat it and it won't keep you warm at night or keep the rain off your head. Welfare is not a generational problem, it is a cultural problem that does not get squashed by generational change, it remains and grows. Yes I am particularly bitter tonight but the future does indeed look bleak. Police state go!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by deauxmfan

As a worker in the system, I have conflicting views on the situation. If the requirements were relaxed so to speak it would make my life easier. But in the long run it hurts the clients.

What a lot of people don't realize is there is a 60 month time limit on welfare benefits. Not food stamps, but cash. If within 5 years a person can't find employment, they're no longer eligible regardless of circumstances. Are there those people that can't pull it together in that time frame? Yes. Whether that's a failure on our part, the part of the educational system, or genaral laziness who knows. It all depends on the person.

In my opinion, the system as whole fails on the most basic levels. Education is the key to not having the welfare system as we now know it. The amount of people that come through my office that can barely read on a third grade level is shocking. But how in the hell do you give someone the motivation to do better if they've never known anything different? And if you do manage to come up with the motivation, keeping someone on track through a basic remediation program in their 20's is almost impossible.

And on my end, we don't have the resources to really make this happen. We're pitifully understaffed, everyone carries a caseload that would make 2-3 caseloads in a perfect world, and the situation is not improving. We hire 6 people and lose 12. It's a no win situation the whole way around.

I've said before that welfare is a generational problem. We will not see change in our lifetime. True change will be a result of education and children that have seen their parents do better as a result.

You may very well be right about the problems not resolving in our lifetimes. But during my time running the TANF Work Program, I believed it was doing more good for the people in the program than any I had seen in almost 20 years. The old AFDC was a cruel joke, but this program actually offered some hope in changing people's lives for the better. In just over two years, I helped hundreds get jobs and educational opportunities that they had been unable (or unwilling) to secure on their own, while teaching them workplace skills and how to get and retain a job. When I started teaching the classes and getting jobs for people, I would have over 50 start with me each month. The program was so successful that in two years they had to find other things to do with my time, because I would only get one or two to start the month and I would have a job for them in the first day or two. Retention in the jobs was not good, but clients came to realize that they had an opportunity to get a job, keep their benefits for a time, take advantage of transportation allowances and move away from dependency on the government. Not every situation was as successful as mine was, but IMO, the program should be expanded and enhanced.

[deauxmfan]

Originally Posted by Richard

You may very well be right about the problems not resolving in our lifetimes. But during my time running the TANF Work Program, I believed it was doing more good for the people in the program than any I had seen in almost 20 years. The old AFDC was a cruel joke, but this program actually offered some hope in changing people's lives for the better. In just over two years, I helped hundreds get jobs and educational opportunities that they had been unable (or unwilling) to secure on their own, while teaching them workplace skills and how to get and retain a job. When I started teaching the classes and getting jobs for people, I would have over 50 start with me each month. The program was so successful that in two years they had to find other things to do with my time, because I would only get one or two to start the month and I would have a job for them in the first day or two. Retention in the jobs was not good, but clients came to realize that they had an opportunity to get a job, keep their benefits for a time, take advantage of transportation allowances and move away from dependency on the government. Not every situation was as successful as mine was, but IMO, the program should be expanded and enhanced.

Where did you work? Always curious to swap battle stories lol.

I've always felt that in the long run we do more good than harm. We may have 20 people that can't make it through but there are usually another 40-60 that do what they're supposed to, or at least make enough of an effort that you feel like it's ok.

The problem is that instead of expansion and enhancement, we're moving backwards. Transporation and child care have both been cut within the past year. Those are the major barriers, especially in parishes without public transportation.

[deauxmfan]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

To heck with it. Open the coffers and raise taxes through the stratosphere. It's all paper anyway, you can't eat it and it won't keep you warm at night or keep the rain off your head. Welfare is not a generational problem, it is a cultural problem that does not get squashed by generational change, it remains and grows. Yes I am particularly bitter tonight but the future does indeed look bleak. Police state go!

In a sense, you're correct. It is a cultural problem in that some people have never known anything different. Welfare is what grandma did, it's what mom did, and people know it's an option. I've said before in another thread though that the grant for a mother and one child is $188/month. The number of people actually receiving that is much smaller than you would think.

Taxes, police state, bitterness, whatever you want to call it, feel free. In the end, feeding a family or helping keep their utiltiies on is ok with me. Granted, food and electricity aren't rights granted under the Constitution, but as fellow Americans these are services we can all recognize are necessary. If a kid grows up hungry and consistently with nothing, how does that benefit us as a society?

[Saintshizzle]

Originally Posted by Brown

Ignoring romney's rhetoric, I thought it was clear that Obama wanted to give the states control over the issue.

So as a liberal, does this irritate you or do you support Obama's position?

Gingrich inadvertently took the wind out of Romney's tactic and the thread title. He got Cooped last evening.

To your point: Why do you think that people who may have liberal leaning want states to lose all power to the federal govenment? That's absurd. People have different views on different topics. There are somethings that should be in the hands of the Feds and some left up to the states.

Example: I am the owner 4 handguns, 2 shotguns, a 308 and a 30.06...plus a 22 long that i potshot out my back door sometimes. All that said, I believe that gun control should be in the hands of the Feds, not each individual state (some of them are just damn looney with their laws). I would like the laws to be like driver's license...where I could go state to state, knowing what the requirement regarding GC is in that state. Even if that means I lose my carry license. It needs to be unified, because there are no wars in this country. We have our guns because we love them, thats all, and the 2nd amendment gives the right. But, unification would go a long way in this matter...so that is an area where we wont leave it up to the states. It makes more sense.

For welfare, each state is different economically. Therefore, why not power down when it comes to an issue like this? It makes more sense.