Morning Bell: Obama’s Imperial Presidency Guts Welfare Reform

[Gina]

So the guy who wagged his finger at the SCOTUS claiming that no law passed by Congress has been or should ever be overturned guts legislation signed by Billy Jeff after having been lawfully passed by Congress?

And at the same time violates the Constitution (again)?

If this had been a Republican Maxine Waters would have been leading the charge to draw up articles of impeachment.

Obama not only gut welfare reform but also is ignoring DOMA, another BJ thing. I sure wish Hillary would resign and announce she's running against Obama.

[txradioguy]

Obama not only gut welfare reform but also is ignoring DOMA, another BJ thing. I sure wish Hillary would resign and announce she's running against Obama.

Let's not forget his ignoring of the appointment clause.

But hey...when you view the Constitution as a "fundamentally flawed document"...you can do anything you want to transform this country as he wants to do.

[Gina]

Let's not forget his ignoring of the appointment clause.

But hey...when you view the Constitution as a "fundamentally flawed document"...you can do anything you want to transform this country as he wants to do.

Yes it's living and breathing, and fluid.

[Odysseus]

You are repeating the arguments, adding more superfluous words, and trying to make this about me personally, as always.

In this paragraph you blame Obama for unemployment and claim that Obama's policies are responsible for the lack of job creation. If that is true, how can you expect welfare recipients to simply find jobs to receive benefits?

If the unemployment rate is a result of Obama's policies, then a welfare recipient being willing to work and looking for a job isn't enough, because the jobs aren't available. That makes this entire welfare-to-work program impossible.

The logic behind the welfare-to-work program is that there are jobs available, and that welfare recipients simply aren't trying to get them.

How can you have it both ways? There are not enough jobs available because of government policies, but welfare recipients only have themselves to blame and they can find work if they tried. This "logic" is entirely inconsistent and you have no addressed the inconsistency.

I'll repeat it again. Maybe the next time you post a wall of text you'll get around to addressing the point: Conservatives believe that there are not enough jobs available because of government policies, but welfare recipients only have themselves to blame and they can find work if they tried. How is this possible?

This may be the closest that you have ever come to a lucid argument. I did address the point. The fact that you don't agree doesn't make it any less vakid. If unemployment were at .05%, Obama still would have gutted the work requirements, because Democrats have always opposed them. They want the safety net to be a hammock.

However, you do have a point, in that jobs are harder to come by, thanks to Obama and his policies, and that it is more difficult (but not impossible) for entry-level applicants to find work. However, one of the requirements of the welfare programs was that recipients look for work, and document it, just as unemployment recipients must, in order to keep benefits. By gutting that requirement, Obama has eliminated the incentive to try to get off of welfare. This is, of course, a self-serving function, since the poor job market reflects badly on his policies, and thus the more that people try to find jobs, the more frustrated that they will get with him, but that's simply another benefit of gutting the requirements.

And, before you argue that we are consigning welfare recipitents to a frustrating and futile search for jobs as a condition of their receiving welfare, allow me to remind you that the people who pay for their welfare have to deal with the greater frustration of being taxed to support strangers while we struggle to make ends meet.

They shouldn't be on welfare forever, but simply cutting people off because there is a work requirement and no jobs available isn't the answer either.

I agree that having many people on welfare and having people on welfare for very long periods of time isn't a good thing. I agree that welfare should be reformed with the goal of getting people back on their feet. I can even agree that having some requirements of welfare recipients is one part of a solution, but not on it's own. A welfare to work program that simply requires people on welfare to magically find jobs (even when everyone agrees there are not enough jobs) doesn't work. It creates more problems than it solves.

But before the welfare reforms were enacted, that was exactly what happened. They were kept on welfare forever. The reforms imposed a time limit and a work requirement, and the result was a boom in employment as welfare recipients reacted to new incentives. If Obama felt that either requirement was unfair, he had both houses of congress in his party for two years and could easily have changed the law. Or, he could go to the Republicans in congress and make the case that the job market justifies a temporary moratorium on the work requirements, and let the issue be debated. Instead, he waited until just before the election to make a unilateral (and unconstitutional) decree. Do you approve of government by decree?

[txradioguy]

The welfare rolls dropped by 50% since 1996 because of the work requirement.

And drones like WeeWee think this is a bad thing.

Tell me again how the left and the Democrat Party is the party of the "working man"?


Remind me again how important this President thinks creating jobs really is.

[Wei Wu Wei]

This may be the closest that you have ever come to a lucid argument. I did address the point. The fact that you don't agree doesn't make it any less vakid. If unemployment were at .05%, Obama still would have gutted the work requirements, because Democrats have always opposed them. They want the safety net to be a hammock.

However, you do have a point, in that jobs are harder to come by, thanks to Obama and his policies, and that it is more difficult (but not impossible) for entry-level applicants to find work. However, one of the requirements of the welfare programs was that recipients look for work, and document it, just as unemployment recipients must, in order to keep benefits. By gutting that requirement, Obama has eliminated the incentive to try to get off of welfare. This is, of course, a self-serving function, since the poor job market reflects badly on his policies, and thus the more that people try to find jobs, the more frustrated that they will get with him, but that's simply another benefit of gutting the requirements.

And, before you argue that we are consigning welfare recipitents to a frustrating and futile search for jobs as a condition of their receiving welfare, allow me to remind you that the people who pay for their welfare have to deal with the greater frustration of being taxed to support strangers while we struggle to make ends meet.


But before the welfare reforms were enacted, that was exactly what happened. They were kept on welfare forever. The reforms imposed a time limit and a work requirement, and the result was a boom in employment as welfare recipients reacted to new incentives. If Obama felt that either requirement was unfair, he had both houses of congress in his party for two years and could easily have changed the law. Or, he could go to the Republicans in congress and make the case that the job market justifies a temporary moratorium on the work requirements, and let the issue be debated. Instead, he waited until just before the election to make a unilateral (and unconstitutional) decree. Do you approve of government by decree?

There are other issues that come along with a work requirement for welfare recipients. A major one is childcare. Single parents are far more likely to be at or near the poverty line. If a single mother needs to find a job to get welfare benefits, and her job has evening hours, who will take care of her children?

Conservatives agree that a lack of quality parenting is detrimental to a child's upbringing, and results in maladjusted adults later in life. If we can agree that this is true, doesn't putting work requirements on single parents exacerbate this problem?

I can see the reasoning behind work requirements, and I don't entirely disagree with it, but if the job market is unfavorable to the person in question and they have children, there are unintended consequences that may result in more problems and more welfare recipients when their children reach adulthood.


I think there should be some requirements, but it can't just be requirements. If the government were to invest in free child care services for low-income families, job training programs, free night classes and more, it would go a long way to solving the problem. It would cost more in the short term, but the long term result would be the next generation would be less likely to be dependent on welfare.

If we made childcare services, vocational and skills training, public transportation vouchers, and other support systems available, then I could get behind requiring welfare recipients to either find work, or attend job training, or attend classes, or do community service etc. Requirements alone won't solve the problem, all they do is throw people off of welfare and into a life of poverty. Then one can take a quick glance at the numbers and say "well the welfare numbers are down", even though the bigger problem is still there. This applies for time limits also. If a person is on welfare and they look for a job but they simply can't find one, a time limit that kicks them off doesn't address the problem.

Of course, even if all of these suggestions were implemented, that still wouldn't entirely solve the problem. If there are no jobs available, or the only jobs available are very low-wage jobs with no benefits, all of the job training in the world won't fix the issue of poverty. However, it's a comprehensive step in the right direction.

[Odysseus]

There are other issues that come along with a work requirement for welfare recipients. A major one is childcare. Single parents are far more likely to be at or near the poverty line. If a single mother needs to find a job to get welfare benefits, and her job has evening hours, who will take care of her children?

And this is my obligation because...?

Conservatives agree that a lack of quality parenting is detrimental to a child's upbringing, and results in maladjusted adults later in life. If we can agree that this is true, doesn't putting work requirements on single parents exacerbate this problem?

Possibly, but having a single mom at home, collecting a check, not working and demonstrating a poor example, doesn't make for better parenting.

I can see the reasoning behind work requirements, and I don't entirely disagree with it, but if the job market is unfavorable to the person in question and they have children, there are unintended consequences that may result in more problems and more welfare recipients when their children reach adulthood.

There are unintended consequences for everything, like subsidizing single parenthood, which is what the Great Society did in the first place. Out-of-wedlock births were 5.3% of total births in 1960. In 2005, that number was 40%. Throwing money at single mothers has resulted in an increase in single mothers. Welcome to supply and demand.

I think there should be some requirements, but it can't just be requirements. If the government were to invest in free child care services for low-income families, job training programs, free night classes and more, it would go a long way to solving the problem. It would cost more in the short term, but the long term result would be the next generation would be less likely to be dependent on welfare.

First off, let's stop calling this investment. You aren't talking about investment, you are talking about income transfers, from responsible people to irresponsible people. Second, the federal government already subsidizes services for child care (http://bsure.hubpages.com/hub/Get-Go...ay-for-Daycare), job training programs (47 programs at the federal level, at last count http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1192.pdf), free night classes (and day classes, college course, you name it...http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal...ducation.shtml), etc. It doesn't solve the problem, it just wastes money. What you don't understand is that actions have consequences, and by trying to soften the consequences of bad decisions, we've subsidized and expanded the range of bad decisions available to people. Throwing more money at the problem won't solve it, it will just make it worse.

If we made childcare services, vocational and skills training, public transportation vouchers, and other support systems available, then I could get behind requiring welfare recipients to either find work, or attend job training, or attend classes, or do community service etc. Requirements alone won't solve the problem, all they do is throw people off of welfare and into a life of poverty. Then one can take a quick glance at the numbers and say "well the welfare numbers are down", even though the bigger problem is still there. This applies for time limits also. If a person is on welfare and they look for a job but they simply can't find one, a time limit that kicks them off doesn't address the problem.

We already do all of that, and you're not behind it, so why should we throw more money into it?

Of course, even if all of these suggestions were implemented, that still wouldn't entirely solve the problem. If there are no jobs available, or the only jobs available are very low-wage jobs with no benefits, all of the job training in the world won't fix the issue of poverty. However, it's a comprehensive step in the right direction.

We have implemented them. They made it worse. Next suggestion?

[Bailey]

There are other issues that come along with a work requirement for welfare recipients. A major one is childcare. Single parents are far more likely to be at or near the poverty line. If a single mother needs to find a job to get welfare benefits, and her job has evening hours, who will take care of her children?

Conservatives agree that a lack of quality parenting is detrimental to a child's upbringing, and results in maladjusted adults later in life. If we can agree that this is true, doesn't putting work requirements on single parents exacerbate this problem?

I can see the reasoning behind work requirements, and I don't entirely disagree with it, but if the job market is unfavorable to the person in question and they have children, there are unintended consequences that may result in more problems and more welfare recipients when their children reach adulthood.


I think there should be some requirements, but it can't just be requirements. If the government were to invest in free child care services for low-income families, job training programs, free night classes and more, it would go a long way to solving the problem. It would cost more in the short term, but the long term result would be the next generation would be less likely to be dependent on welfare.

If we made childcare services, vocational and skills training, public transportation vouchers, and other support systems available, then I could get behind requiring welfare recipients to either find work, or attend job training, or attend classes, or do community service etc. Requirements alone won't solve the problem, all they do is throw people off of welfare and into a life of poverty. Then one can take a quick glance at the numbers and say "well the welfare numbers are down", even though the bigger problem is still there. This applies for time limits also. If a person is on welfare and they look for a job but they simply can't find one, a time limit that kicks them off doesn't address the problem.

Of course, even if all of these suggestions were implemented, that still wouldn't entirely solve the problem. If there are no jobs available, or the only jobs available are very low-wage jobs with no benefits, all of the job training in the world won't fix the issue of poverty. However, it's a comprehensive step in the right direction.

Very easy way to stop all those problems, stop having kids out of wedlock. Single motherhood is the root of all the problems with crime, drugs etc. Wait to get married and have kids then..

[txradioguy]

Very easy way to stop all those problems, stop having kids out of wedlock. Single motherhood is the root of all the problems with crime, drugs etc. Wait to get married and have kids then..

The current program (TANF) a.k.a. Welfare Reform was supposed to stop this practice. The old ADFC was the program that paid you more for the more kids you had regardless of whether you knew who the father was or not.

Now Obama has gutted the program..even after legislators tried to block any maneuver to do so by where they placed the "must work/look for work" provisions in the bill back in 1996.

If the black and hispanic communities would honestly take a look at what this President and the so called "rights" groups are doing to them as a whole...Obama would be lucky to get 15% of the total minority vote in this election.

Instead they'd rather get their free cheese than their God given freedom.

[Gina]

The welfare rolls dropped by 50% since 1996 because of the work requirement.

And drones like WeeWee think this is a bad thing.

Tell me again how the left and the Democrat Party is the party of the "working man"?


Remind me again how important this President thinks creating jobs really is.

Link
Obama’s Jobs Council in 30 Seconds


The explanation is replayed with a screen billing a legs-up-on-the-desk president’s schedule for the last six months: “10 golf trips, 106 fundraisers, 0 jobs council meetings.”

sigh