Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I think this thread will easily descend into a They Lied and Here's the Link so I Can Prove It, but the bottom line is what do you want from either political party?
sethpayne wrote:beastie wrote:Question: One of Romney's primary ads has been claiming that Obama, on the sly, removed the work requirement from welfare.
True or False?
If I recall correctly this is true. My understanding is that Obama rolled back many of the Clinton welfare reform work requirements.
I could be wrong.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Man, if you could find the sauce that would be very interesting...
- VRDRC
beastie wrote:All politicians either lie or distort the truth.
beastie wrote:Question: One of Romney's primary ads has been claiming that Obama, on the sly, removed the work requirement from welfare.
True or False?
At the request of several governors -- including two Republicans -- the Obama administration announced in July that it would consider waiving certain federal welfare rules if states want to try out "demonstration projects" that would boost employment among recipients of welfare, formally known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The program is run by states within federal rules.
So where did the notion of a major welfare reform overhaul come from?
Where it didn't come from is Washington but rather from Utah, Nevada, California, Connecticut and Minnesota.
These states, some with Republican governors, asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.
The Obama administration cooperated, granting waivers to some states from some of the existing rules.
The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."
In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same.
beastie wrote:Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Man, if you could find the sauce that would be very interesting...
- VRDRC
Turns out I read it on a thread on this board.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 67#p621867
sethpayne wrote:beastie wrote:Question: One of Romney's primary ads has been claiming that Obama, on the sly, removed the work requirement from welfare.
True or False?
If I recall correctly this is true. My understanding is that Obama rolled back many of the Clinton welfare reform work requirements.
I could be wrong.
“[I]f a governor proposes a plan that undercuts the work requirements established in welfare reform, the plan will be rejected,” Sebelius wrote. “No plan that undercuts the goal of moving people from welfare to work will be considered or approved.”
“In 2005, 29 Republican governors requested ‘[i]ncreased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit’ so they might more ‘effectively serve low-income’ Americans. Certain elements of the proposal endorsed by the 2005 Republican governors were very far-reaching and would not be approved under the Department’s proposed waivers.”
Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, was a signatory to that letter. It was also signed by other prominent Republican governors and recent presidential candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Mark Sanford, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman.
I was in China when Mitt launched his Senate campaign in 1994. When I arrived home, the tape on my answering machine was full of messages from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and so forth, all saying, “We know that you’re a Mormon feminist and a political scientist and you’re in his ward. You’ve worked in Massachusetts politics around women’s issues. Please talk to us.” I immediately called Mitt’s home, and Ann answered. She encouraged me to go down and visit with him at the campaign office. When I entered the office, there was a table to my right where I saw women from the ward working. I said, “Hi,” and he asked, “What brings you here?” I told him I was interested in politics, that I heard he was taking a pro-choice stance, and that I was wondering if, as a Democrat and fellow Mormon, maybe I could work for him. I wanted to understand his stance better. “Yes, I’m definitely for choice,” he said. And I said, “Great, we agree on that.” Then, he said, “In Salt Lake, they told me it was okay to take that position in a liberal state.” I said, “That doesn’t make me quite as happy. I’d rather know you really believe it.”