A pitch to return 'incentive' to work in welfare programs

Sen. Mike Lee attempts to address 'absence of opportunity' in welfare programs in 'Welfare Reform and Upward Mobility Act'

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html

Ironically, the welfare system was improved during the Clinton years but Obama has undone most, if not all, of the gains.

sounds good until for about 24 percent receiving assistance without kids


as for the rest

48.7% are children (cant work)
8% are elderly (already worked)
19.8 % are disabled (unable to work)
23.6 are well bodied without children (ABLE TO WORK)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/09/23/who-receives-food-stamps-and-why-it-is-critical-to-continue-their-support/




the other program for FAMILIES with children already has a work requirement in Nevada, Im not sure how many other states have it

exactly how did Obama do that?

Obama and Clinton both opened the doors to helping people without the people being required to do anything except claim the monies by applying for subsidies without participation ( work study) Reagan cut many programs that offered help but no work and the roles for assistance dropped and people were forced to work and become more self reliant Today a culture of entitlement where people believe someone( GOVT) should provide assistance as so many women are heads of households and men do nothing and pay nothing to help rear their children and the school is then left to be in loco parentis ( substitute parent) this is not tenable and the schools cannot replace two parents attending to their children but instead drop off at free day care. get food stamps, housing subsidies, and medical assistance all at working peoples expense.The degree of poverty for children in houston is at 20% and likley representative of other large metropolitan areas wherein local state and federal programs enable many to live without contributing..

Able Bodied Back-peddlers.

They whine about maybe having to get off they dead butts and help lift themselves out.

Why should incentive have to be forced?

Clinton capped benefit eligibility down to 3-5 yeas per LIFETIME
Obama did nothing different but allow STATES the option to come up with their OWN plans if they provided better results

I don't know of the evidence that people were forced to become more 'self reliant' under Raegan, but I do recall homelessness skyrocketing in that period of time

the government is the people and all people need help sometimes and as a 'civilized' society we should care about helping our people,, if that's entitlement, and its a prevalent belief, Im glad that it is

It does suck that so many males neglect their kids (married and unmarried)

I am also glad to be a in society that cares enough about its kids to believe they should have shelter food and medical care,,,,

'contribution' comes in many forms

but FAMILIES need to be promoted again, FAMILY Units where there can be both a FINANCIAL and a EMOTIONAL support and hopefully not all by only one person

and JOBS need to be in better correlation with the EDUCATIONAL system and vice versa

kids need REAL Skills to prepare them to actually SURVIVE and THRIVE in the world and not just 'work' in it to line the pockets of others,,,

and JOBS need to be in better correlation with the EDUCATIONAL system and vice versa


what does this mean?

RING-A-DING-A-FREAKIN-LING!!!

I got yer back.

Let's review a little forgotten or, hidden history.

IBD: Obama Brings Back Welfare State

Monday, 23 Feb 2009

President Brokeback Obama is bringing ��the discredited welfare state back to life, bigger than ever.

Obama, the editorial said, is now going full steam astern, back to the wasteful, corrupt and corrupting �� practices that Democrat Bill Clinton got re-elected helping to end.

Quoting Heritage Foundation senior domestic policy analyst Robert Rector, who recently noted that ��for the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads," the editorial paints a bleak picture of what Americans can expect over the next four years.

it means there are too many degrees that just collect money and don't serve any purpose for people seeking a career or occupation

there is too much emphasis on extracurricular activity in public school and not enough on the skillset useful for thriving such as reading, writing, math, FINANCES and social skills


there are not enough jobs to meet the numbers looking for work, and there wasn't meant to be

but at a time when so many are starting to whinge about people not 'working' for a living,, I think that obviously needs to change too,,

I am glad you support my position on useless degrees.

You left out science.. Although, I am sure it wasn't intentional.

We have to acknowledge that there are students that aren't as gifted as others. Its just the way it is.

However, I feel that with the proper tutoring most every student can be taught to read and write. Also, they can be taught basic math skills and as you stated, handling finances.

Basic social skills such as being prepared for an interview is important.

Let's say that those 24% receive 10% of the total spending on welfare.

That equals roughly $50 billion for FY 2014..

Do you even have an idea let alone a clue as to where you're getting your information from? Can you for once stop reading the opinions of others incredibly bias and think for yourself. If you believe he's brought back the welfare state then explain based on what you've seen and know. Reading is fundamental . . . thinking is common sense! Do both but be critical when reading and forming opinions based on what you've read otherwise you come off looking like an idiot. And for the record I'm not saying you are wrong or right. I'm merely saying you sound a bit like an idiot quoting others.

THE VICTORY OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON in the 1992 presidential election
was supposed to launch a new era in American politics. The Clinton-Gore team
promised a New Covenant between government and the people that would
propel government beyond its past failings. Clinton sought to make government
strong enough to hoist and harangue the citizenry to higher ground, once and
for all. And there was little to fear from expanding government power because,
as Clinton promised, his would be the most ethical administration in history. 1
Yet, after nearly eight years of his rule, America is bedeviled by independent
counsels crowding Washington streets, cynicism as far as the eye can see, and
more hostility to government agencies across the board, from the Census Bureau
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The attempt to forcibly
lift people left government in the gutter at least in the minds of tens of millions
of Americans.
From concocting new prerogatives to confiscate private property, to championing
FBI agents right to shoot innocent Americans, to bankrolling the
militarization of local police forces, the Clinton administration stretched the
power of government on all fronts. From the soaring number of wiretaps, to
converting cell phones into homing devices for law enforcement, to turning
bankers into spies against their customers, free speech and privacy were
undermined again and again. From dictating how many pairs of Chinese silk
panties Americans could buy, to President Clinton's heroic efforts to require
trigger locks for all handguns in crack houses, no aspect of Americans lives was
too arcane for federal intervention.

The Clinton administration built its bridge to the twenty-first century by
filling every sinkhole along the way with taxpayer dollars. From AmeriCorps
projects that beat the bushes to recruit new food stamp recipients, to a flood
insurance program that multiplied flood damage, to programs to give the keys
to lavish new single-family homes to public housing residents, the Clinton
administration's record domestic spending produced record fiascoes. For Clinton,
the only wasted tax dollar was one that did not buy a vote, garner a campaign
contribution, or provide a chance to bite his lip on national television.
In the same way that the success of NATO's attack on Serbia was
measured largely by continual proclamations of record numbers of sorties
flown and record numbers of bombs dropped, so the Clinton administration
gauged its domestic policy successes by the number of new laws passed,
new programs enacted, and new activities prohibited by record fines levied
and record prison sentences imposed. Federal agencies issued more than
25,000 new regulations,criminalizing everything from reliable toilets to
snuff advertisements on race cars.
While the media focused primarily on the new benefits that Clinton
promised, little attention was paid to the swelling tax burden on working
Americans. Federal income tax revenue doubled between 1992 and 2000.2 The
total tax burden on the average family with two earners rose three times faster
than inflation.3 Though the IRS wrongfully seized hundreds of thousands of
Americans paychecks and bank accounts during Clinton's reign, almost all of
the agency's power survived unscathed.4
Faith in the coercive power of the best and brightest permeated Clinton
administration policymaking. More commands, more penalties, and more
handouts were the recipe for progress. The Clinton administration consistently
acted as if nothing is as dangerous as insufficient government power.
The history of the Clinton administration cannot be understood apart from
the president's personal view of government. Clinton portrayed government as
the Lone Ranger,or, more accurately, millions of Lone Rangers, each with a
sacred mission to rescue people whether they want to be rescued or not. For
Clinton, government was never merely a bunch of clerks in some drab office
vegetating toward a pension. Instead, government was a champion of national
purpose,5 the instrument of our national community, and a progressive
instrument of the common good. Clinton urged Americans in 1998 to commit
themselves to a new kind of government . . . to give all our people the tools to
make the most of their own lives. Clinton's invocation of government as toolmeister
ignored the abysmal record of federal job training, literacy, and other
programs purportedly created to help people help themselves.

Introduction to:
"feeling your pain"
The Explosion
and Abuse of
Government Power
in the
Clinton-Gore
Years
James Bovard

sound and feels familiar?

same Publication!
Many of Clinton's policies can be explained only by his belief in his own
moral superiority. For Clinton, the officially proclaimed intent of a specific
government policy or action far transcended whatever force government agents
use against citizens. And any protests about excessive force were met by appeals
to the rule of law,regardless of whether the law was on the side of federal
agents. The more people government brings to its knees, the fairer society
becomes simply because government power is the personification of fairness.
And the loftier the goal Clinton proclaimed, the more irrelevant private
collateral damage became. One visionary foreign policy speech was more
important than a thousand cluster bombs dropped on foreign civilians. Vigorous
denunciations of international terrorism were more important than the cruise
missiles that destroyed Sudan's only pharmaceutical factory. Continual invocations
of the children at every political whistle-stop mattered more than the
deaths of dozens of children after an FBI gas attack at Waco.
The Clinton recipe for public safety was: if politicians frighten enough of
the people enough of the time, then everyone will be safe. Because Clinton felt
government must constantly intervene in people's lives, people had to be
convinced that they are doomed unless politicians save them on a daily basis.
The result: constant efforts to alarm the citizenry on everything from health care
to speed limits, to secondhand smoke, to global warming, to garbage dumps, to
radon, to guns.
Clinton owes much of his popularity to his stealth statism.Clinton was
the master of intellectual shell games. In his 1996 State of the Union address,
he announced the era of Big Government is over. Yet, once he had won
reelection by campaigning as a moderate (or, in the words of presidential adviser
Dick Morris, campaigning as Pope,10 he opened the floodgates. In his 1997
State of the Union address, Clinton called for a national crusade for education
standards and federal standards and national credentials for all new teachers;
announced plans to build a citizen army of one million volunteer tutors to make
sure every child can read independently by the end of the third grade; called
for $5 billion in federal aid to build and repair local schools, a new scholarship
program to subsidize anyone going to college, a $10,000 tax deduction for all
tuition payments after high school, and federal subsidies for private health
insurance; demanded a new law entitling women who have had mastectomies
to stay in the hospital 48 hours afterwards; advocated a constitutional amendment
for victims rights; urged Congress to enact a law criminalizing any
parent who crossed a state line allegedly to avoid paying child support; and
proposed enacting juvenile crime legislation that declares war on gangs, hiring
new prosecutors, and increasing federal spending on the war on drugs. Clinton also announced plans to expand NATO and declare 10 American Heritage
Rivers (thereby effectively prohibiting thousands of landowners from using
their property along those rivers). Clinton, deeply concerned about American
ethics, also demanded that character education must be taught in our schools.�
(This demand was not repeated in later State of the Union addresses.)
In his 1999 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed more than 40
new laws and programs. Citizens applauded proposals for more government
regardless of how poorly existing government programs functioned and despite
the fact that most Americans personally distrusted Clinton at the time he sought
more power over them. In his 2000 State of the Union address, Clinton talked
for almost an hour and a half and, according to one estimate, proposed the
equivalent of $4 billion of new federal spending per minute.11
This book focuses primarily on the Clinton administration's domestic
policies and programs. A chapter on the war against Serbia is included because
that adventure vividly illustrates the Clinton administration's moralism and
arrogance. The Clinton presidency must not be judged solely on whether the
Senate convicted him on impeachment charges, or whether he and his wife were
shown to have obstructed justice during the Whitewater investigation, or
whether a federal judge fined him for perjury, or whether a clear link is discovered
between Chinese military front companies and Clinton's 1996 reelection
campaign. The danger of focusing narrowly on the best-known scandals is that
people may forget or fail to realize how much misgovernment occurred during
the 1990s. Far more Americans have been affected by IRS depredations, HUD ruined
neighborhoods, and FDA-denied drugs than by Clinton's personal
misbehavior. Many of the worst abuses of the Clinton administration never
appeared on the media's radar screen. Instead, they were buried in Inspector
General reports, General Accounting Office studies, or the proceedings of court
cases followed by few.
The Clinton administration changed the political fabric of this nation and
the political expectations of the American people and the American media.
Clinton's policies and rhetoric helped infantilize the American populace. The
entire political system was subtely transformed year by year, crisis by crisis,
hoax by hoax.
Clinton's administration was far from unique in its contempt for constitutional
or taxpayer rights. Most of the pernicious trends in federal policy started
long before Clinton's arrival in Washington. President Franklin Roosevelt was
as voracious for power as was Clinton. Lyndon Johnson was more successful in
passing sweeping laws to swell the federal government. The Bush administration
was as feckless in its resolution to terminate failed government programs,and even President Ronald Reagan was far more tolerant of wasteful government
spending than many of his fans recall.
The fact that the Clinton administration championed so many flawed
programs and policies does not mean that good government would have resulted
if the Republican Party held the White House. The Republicans controlled both
houses of Congress for six of the eight years of Clinton's administration. Most
congressmen of both parties showed little understanding of, or curiosity about,
how federal programs were functioning.
This is not an attempt to pass final judgment on the Clinton administration.
Such an effort must await the unraveling of numerous cover-ups and the
surfacing of further flaws in new programs and policies. Instead, it is an effort
to present many details and key issues that must be part of a broad assessment
of the impact of the Clinton administration on America.
Once a president leaves office, his record usually quickly blurs. All that is
recalled are a few high points, a few catch phrases, and a few indictments. The
rest is swept under the rug of failing memories and the spin-doctoring of
supporters and detractors. Americans cannot understand the nation's political
course without recognizing the follies and fiascoes of the recent past, the constant
expansion of government programs and power, and the resulting momentum
for ever more coercion.

Quite interesting indeed!

MsHarmony, you always seem to have no knowledge of anything that looks bad for Obama and yet you pretend to be knowledgeable of almost anything that defines him. The number of websites dedicated to answer your question is endless. The coverage on mass media was relentless. The facts speak for themselves.

Here a website, almost identical to most, which covers the issue.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/13/obama-administration-guts-work-requirements-for-clinton-era-welfare-reform/

Obama administration guts work requirements for Clinton-era welfare reform
posted at 11:21 am on July 13, 2012 by Rob Bluey

The landmark welfare reform law President Bill Clinton signed in 1996 helped move nearly 3 million families off the government dole — the result of federal work requirements that promoted greater self-reliance.

Yesterday the Obama administration gutted those federal work rules, ignoring the will of Congress by issuing a policy directive that allows the Department of Health and Human Services to waive the work requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. “The result is the end of welfare reform,” wrote Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley of The Heritage Foundation.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), author of welfare reform legislation, said in response to the news:

President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract. In exchange for taxpayer-funded TANF payments, the law calls on able-bodied adults to work, look for work, take classes, or undergo drug and alcohol counseling. It’s the tough love that gives people motivation to help themselves.

The administration’s decision follows other recent executive actions on immigration, marriage, religion, education and energy policies. In each case, President Obama has put his own “imperial presidency” ahead of Congress and federal law.

The latest maneuver is particularly alarming given the rising number of Americans who rely on the government for aid. Obama has dramatically increased welfare spending. TANF, the program in question, is just one of more than 70 welfare programs operated by the government at a cost of nearly $1 trillion per year.

Jordan, who leads the conservative Republican Study Committee, last year spearheaded a plan to reform welfare. The Welfare Reform Act of 2011 would require recipients of food stamps to work or prepare for a job, disclose the costs of total federal, state, and local welfare spending, and return welfare spending to its 2007 level once unemployment hits 6.5 percent.

The administration’s action goes in the opposite direction, Jordan warned: “By waiving the law’s requirements, President Obama will make it harder for Americans to escape poverty. He is hurting the very people he claims to help.”

UPDATE: In response to widespread criticism, the Obama administration is (predictably) dismissing the significance of its policy directive. George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, said the change will give states greater flexibility to spend more time assisting individuals and less time on paperwork.

Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy, an investigative journalism operation...

more like 20 billion though

spending on snap in 2013 was 80billion, and 24 percent of that is (roughly)

20 billion

total spending on all welfare programs for fiscal year 2014 will be $500 billion.

it has less to do with my lack of 'knowledge' and everything to do with the general lack amongst people to know the difference between 'opinion' and 'fact'

opinion words: 'gut' 'ignoring' 'the end of welfare reform',,,etc,,

these words are the authors PERCEPTION

the facts can be interpreted the way they chose to or the way others chose to,, but they would still be facts

there are just as many sites refuting the claim that welfare was gutted

but here is the FACTUAL wording of the waiver document

"Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.

States led the way on welfare reform in the 1990s — testing new approaches and learning what worked and what did not. The Secretary is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment"

Your attempts at "spin" are relentless.

The "facts" are that the requirement to work was waived.