I didn't spin anything

I actually included what the waiver STATES (fact)


people are free to interpret it however they choose,,,

The "interpretation" isn't at issue. The fact that the requirement to work was waived by Obama, "is".

the requirement still stands

that's why its called a 'waiver'

its an exception to the rule, the rule being the requirement

and the waiver also has , what?

requirements,,,

lol

example: kids must attend school

however, there are 'waivers' parents can apply for to homeschool which REQUIRES they document curriculum and progress and that it be the equivalent (or better) Than the school system


example: kids must have inoculation

however, there are 'waivers' parents can apply for to forego inoculation for their child(ren) which REQUIRE they document their religious or philosophical objection and acceptance of the responsibility for any consequences,,,

Ahhh, the spin and endless straw arguments ...

Example: Clinton says "you must work to get welfare". Welfare drops.

Obama says "You don't need to work to get welfare". Welfare rises.

Facts ... not opinion, not spin, not bologna.

I understand, but I Was talking about snap specifically

other programs all have their own requirements

snap spending was 80 billion

except you quoted something Clinton didn't say and something else Obama didn't say,,lol

your statement 'welfare drops' is not provable without defining what is being referred to as 'welfare' and in what way it 'dropped'

'welfare rises' is true of food stamps, but not a true correlation to the waiver, as they were rising BEFORE the waiver program was implemented due to an economic recession

I still stand with Brokeback offering states bonuses to those increasing their caseloads.

I kept sending faxes for 2 1/2 years before states would consider drug testing.

Actually what you are saying is both correct and really misleading. What Reagan did differs from what Clinton did and Obama is doing. You have to understand the dynamics of the situation. There was no war during Reagan’s tenure; skirmishes but no war. With Clinton we were getting over Operation Desert Storm. There was also the economic situation during each presidency. Ii was/is different for a number of reasons. But more than anything neither Reagan, Clinton, or Obama . . . and we can both Bushes for good measure had the same set of circumstances during their administrations. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue but an economic one. And let me add that it is not the president in office but rather the congress holding office during the presidency that matters. And I’m not saying this just to contradict you because that’s senseless. I’m trying to get you to see that so long as you keep believing it’s one party over the other that’s causing the issues the longer we’re going to have the issues. Solutions solve problems not blame.

Solutions solve problems not blame.


nicely put

will you be running for President someday? or,, congressman maybe..lol

You know I've actually thought about it. As a small business owner I have a fundamental understanding of both the struggle to survive and the desire to maximize my earnings while lowering my operational cost.

I wish you luck

you seem to have a well balanced interest in people on both the side of the employers and the employee,,

Thank you so much and you know, the simple fact having a well balance interest is basically understanding that we all need and we all want. So how can we, as a nation, fulfill both the need and wants of our citizens?

I will put together a form letter and post it here demanding states investigate, at random, applications and current welfare recipients to insure taxpayers aren't getting shafted and recipients have everybody they list as recipients and are not fraudulent in their claims.

Enough faxes, phone calls, letters and emails, the better.

how would they go about doing that?

when you apply, you provide birth certificates and social security cards which they have to document and if forged is already a FEDERAL CRIME,,,

so how else would they 'insure' all recipients are present on the date of application?

would the children be required to come in with the applicant? to stay home for a home inspection?

Any and all applicants for state or federal aid signs away their right to privacy.

Fed or state has the right to inspect, at any time, without notice, the residence of any applicant or recipient.

That's what slave do. They sign away their rights.

My letter will demand, yes, demand, states do their job and investigate for fraud.

All is fair. Bank statements, utility payments, internet usage, internet costs, anything that's paid out must have an income equal or in excess of what's paid out.

Let's say, a person or family claims they receive, as income, 1.500.00 per month. Then, the state sees expenses paid out to be 4,000.00 per month.

Simple math says FRAUD.

how will they pay for all this investigating?

cutting off the nose to spite the face huh?

and what of work requirements being met, even those who are working (volunteering, attending training)should not have privacy?

even those with children should not have privacy in their home?

should employers likewise require employees to sign away their right to privacy?

so, needing financial assistance should delegate one back to slave status? really?

sad.

They who signed an application for welfare signed away any and all rights.

does that include corporations, and medicare recipients, the elderly, the children, the disabled, vets?

all the people who sign up for some type of assistance can be considered on 'welfare'

and

needing help really means that people should not have rights in your opinion?

wow

Don't confuse SS and vets/disabled vets benefits as welfare!

Without vets we'd all be British or god knows what, they offer their lives in contract for promised rewards from a grateful nation, and SS is paid into your entire working life, held in "trust" by the gov't at interest until collected for retirement. NOT entitlements, earned incomes!

Corporate welfare and foreign aid are by far the worse drain on the economy, then add the public need and you have an unsustainable future.