none of it reaffirms your position that those on assistance SHOULD Be treated further like slaves by signing away all of their 'privacy'

or that by being on assistance government officials are given authority to enter ones dwelling at their will

they don't have any additional right than they do with those not on assistance, to come into their dwelling, UNLESS the dwelling is government owned,,

those on assistance have the same 'rights' as those in other financial contracts, to meet the conditions of that contract

welfare covers many different programs, only the housing program is tied to ones home or privacy within it.

the suggestion made that merely needing assistance should relegate one to fewer rights to privacy than anyone else is a preposterous one,,

All I read was blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah.

Nothing backing up the BS.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS ARE SLAVES.

ABLE-BODIED NEED TO BE KICKED OFF THE SYSTEM.

I read, some time ago, a poster saying as long as they are on unemployment, they wouldn't take any job they felt was beneath them.
Now, I'm reading posts that they won't take jobs as long as welfare supports them.

HMMMMMM!

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!

employers want the 'right' employee, and employees seek the 'right' job

the 'any job' mentality is senseless and doesn't bare much fruit

I don't expect employers to accept ANY employee and I don't accept a potential employee to just apply for ANY job

may be interested to know that none of the job counselors I have seen support the idea that people should just take 'any' job either

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...

I didn't spin anything

I actually included what the waiver STATES (fact)


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

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,,,

Did you actually read the waiver? What does it state? What is in Section 402? Are you discussing Social Security Act 1115 or 1115A? How does this relate to 42 U.S. Code � 1315?

What does kids attending school have to do with it? Is that part of Title 42 US Code?

ahh,, ,continuing the bigoted stereotypes of the welfare queen and the lazy impoverished

isn't that cute,,

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.

lol

well ya know what, sometimes those shows will do actual RESEARCH so that their terminology is correct,,,and an actor may pick up some of it

but they still wont be a REAL DOCTOR,,

What is a "real" doctor?

I included the relevant portion of what the waiver STATES

the portion which RELATES to the question I was answering

the document can be reviewed on ones personal time using the references provided in the memo here

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203