Obama welfare waiver

**PhillyGuy05** · 08-28-2012, 12:56 PM

anyone have any information on what the waiver is/means? everything i keep finding is just about romneys attack in response

**Templeton** · 08-28-2012, 02:30 PM

In a nutshell, Romney realized he wasn't going to win "The battle of Ideas" so he and his advisers decided a to go with a divisive racially tinged attack. See article from evil, traitorous RINO Andrew Sullivan:

Last Call For The Race Card - And Bill Clinton's Opportunity - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast

**Sailaway** · 08-28-2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy05

anyone have any information on what the waiver is/means? everything i keep finding is just about romneys attack in response

I'm guessing you're mostly seeing getting HuffingtonPost/NY Times propaganda. The below story goes into some detail about the pros/cons of such a proposal.

It's apparently a method for STATES accepting Federal money to exempt recipients from Welfare-to-Work programs.

Obama's welfare waiver: Gutting rules or tweaking? | Fox News

**jdhill** · 08-28-2012, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Templeton

In a nutshell, Romney realized he wasn't going to win "The battle of Ideas" so he and his advisers decided a to go with a divisive racially tinged attack. See article from evil, traitorous RINO Andrew Sullivan:

Oh please... Obama had three significant "ideas" implemented during his term in office... 1. the stimulus; 2. Obamacare; 3. the Afghanistan troop build-up. You've now a better chance of hearing him sing Al Green songs than talk about any of these train wrecks.

**Politburo** · 08-28-2012, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sailaway

It's apparently a method for STATES accepting Federal money to exempt recipients from Welfare-to-Work programs.

An apparent lie.

The Secretary is only interested in approving waivers if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits.

TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03

**Sailaway** · 08-28-2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Politburo

An apparent lie.

As is the race card the Democrats are playing, since whites comprise almost as many welfare recipients as blacks, and far more than any other race.

Characteristics and Financial Circumstances - FY 2009

**Bixbyte** · 08-28-2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Sailaway

As is the race card the Democrats are playing, since whites comprise almost as many welfare recipients as blacks, and far more than any other race.

Characteristics and Financial Circumstances - FY 2009

_____
It must be ELECTION TIME?
Full moon and all the Politicians are out.
Save the fetus and no money to support the welfare mommies.
If Mommy fails to feed the baby cause their aint no $$$.
Baby dies and mommy is fed in jail.
I am all for the plan.
It is 1899 and that is the Republicans.
Woman no vote.
Prince .... "PARTY LIKE IT's 1899.
_____

**Sailaway** · 08-28-2012, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Bixbyte

_____
It must be ELECTION TIME?
Full moon and all the Politicians are out.
Save the fetus and no money to support the welfare mommies.
If Mommy fails to feed the baby cause their aint no $$$.
Baby dies and mommy is fed in jail.
I am all for the plan.
It is 1899 and that is the Republicans.
Woman no vote.
Prince .... "PARTY LIKE IT's 1899.
_____

It is. Breed like rabbits and expect everyone else to pay for it 'cause mommy won't keep her legs closed and the Democrats think everyone else owes her the world for that.

Hey, nothing to complain about, since that's a perfectly sustainable situation, to which Democrats can attest.

**Bixbyte** · 08-28-2012, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sailaway

It is. Breed like rabbits and expect everyone else to pay for it 'cause mommy won't keep her legs closed and the Democrats think everyone else owes her the world for that.

Hey, nothing to complain about, since that's a perfectly sustainable situation, to which Democrats can attest.

______________________________________________

How many are you adopting?
Got to save the children. Cause mommy did not close her legs.
Or they became preggie by "Legitimate Rape"
They were asking for it.
It is the Republican way.
___________________________________________

**Dayman** · 08-28-2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Sailaway

I'm guessing you're mostly seeing getting HuffingtonPost/NY Times propaganda. The below story goes into some detail about the pros/cons of such a proposal.

It's apparently a method for STATES accepting Federal money to exempt recipients from Welfare-to-Work programs.

Obama's welfare waiver: Gutting rules or tweaking? | Fox News

Sailaway doesn't want you to read left slanted media (propaganda is an inaccurate term), but he wants you to read right slanted media instead.

Because he agrees with it so therefore it is right.

**annie** · 08-28-2012, 05:12 PM

Obama's Welfare Waiver: Gutting Rules Or Tweaking? : NPR

If you remember the episode of It's Always Sunny where Mac and Charlie go to the welfare office (actually the health center across from Clark Park) and attempt to get some welfare-to-work "slaves," the lady behind the desk pulls out a giant binder of regulations to follow and they loose interest in the endeavor.

The waiver program would allow states to try changing or reducing some of the regulations that they feel are counter-productive to actually getting people into jobs. The NPR story cites work regulations that make it hard for people to complete job training or education programs that would actually putting them into fields that pay a living wage. The waiver is something Romney sought while governor of Massachusetts. States rights, reducing impractical regulations, and trying things that might help people get off welfare sooner - really a recipe for a freakout on the right.

**Dayman** · 08-28-2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by annie

Obama's Welfare Waiver: Gutting Rules Or Tweaking? : NPR

If you remember the episode of It's Always Sunny where Mac and Charlie go to the welfare office (actually the health center across from Clark Park) and attempt to get some welfare-to-work "slaves," the lady behind the desk pulls out a giant binder of regulations to follow and they loose interest in the endeavor.

The waiver program would allow states to try changing or reducing some of the regulations that they feel are counter-productive to actually getting people into jobs. The NPR story cites work regulations that make it hard for people to complete job training or education programs that would actually putting them into fields that pay a living wage. The waiver is something Romney sought while governor of Massachusetts. States rights, reducing impractical regulations, and trying things that might help people get off welfare sooner - really a recipe for a freakout on the right.

Your entire post is invalid since white Democrats listen to NPR.

**Bixbyte** · 08-28-2012, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by annie

Obama's Welfare Waiver: Gutting Rules Or Tweaking? : NPR

If you remember the episode of It's Always Sunny where Mac and Charlie go to the welfare office (actually the health center across from Clark Park) and attempt to get some welfare-to-work "slaves," the lady behind the desk pulls out a giant binder of regulations to follow and they loose interest in the endeavor.

The waiver program would allow states to try changing or reducing some of the regulations that they feel are counter-productive to actually getting people into jobs. The NPR story cites work regulations that make it hard for people to complete job training or education programs that would actually putting them into fields that pay a living wage. The waiver is something Romney sought while governor of Massachusetts. States rights, reducing impractical regulations, and trying things that might help people get off welfare sooner - really a recipe for a freakout on the right.

OUR STATE cut the money for the Day Care program to help those in need to get out of welfare.

**Templeton** · 08-28-2012, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dayman

Sailaway doesn't want you to read left slanted media (propaganda is an inaccurate term), but he wants you to read right slanted media instead.

Because he agrees with it so therefore it is right.

That's why I linked to an article written by a conservative. I guess Sullivan isn't conservative enough.

**Templeton** · 08-28-2012, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by jdhill

Oh please... Obama had three significant "ideas" implemented during his term in office... 1. the stimulus; 2. Obamacare; 3. the Afghanistan troop build-up.

Then why doesn't he discuss any of these topics, rather than running on lies? It's because, as I said, he can't win the debate.

**Sailaway** · 08-28-2012, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dayman

Sailaway doesn't want you to read left slanted media (propaganda is an inaccurate term), but he wants you to read right slanted media instead.

Because he agrees with it so therefore it is right.

Foxnews is pretty fair and balanced - not perfect, but decent; HuffPo and the NY Times isn't. But, I'm assuming you can read to understand that difference. Or that your compass isn't so f---ed up that you think anything short of Mother Jones/MoveOn/HuffingtonPost is "right-wing" and maybe even then.

**Sailaway** · 08-28-2012, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bixbyte

______________________________________________

How many are you adopting?
Got to save the children. Cause mommy did not close her legs.
Or they became preggie by "Legitimate Rape"
They were asking for it.
It is the Republican way.
___________________________________________

\
Probably far more than you, by way of my taxes. Of course, when they grow up, odds are they'll pop a "cap in 'yo azz" and you'll blame everyone else but your fellow Welfare Queens and they mad parentin' skillz.

**Dayman** · 08-28-2012, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Sailaway

Foxnews is pretty fair and balanced - not perfect, but decent; HuffPo and the NY Times isn't. But, I'm assuming you can read to understand that difference. Or that your compass isn't so f---ed up that you think anything short of Mother Jones/MoveOn/HuffingtonPost is "right-wing" and maybe even then.

This is where Sailaway's attack strategy fails him, seeing as I am voting Johnson and have donated money to Johnson's campaign in addition to the campaign of a PS member who is a registered R earlier this year. But he just goes off and assumes whoever attacking him is a Democrat even though in my case it's farcical since I am a fairly libertarian individual.

Fox News is far more right than the NY Times is left. Huffpo is left. The others I never look at (MSNBC annoys me too). I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC. I read RT and Al-Jazeera occasionally to get the non-Anglo viewpoint on things. I pick up the NYT once a week or so. I read multiple outlets because I get a plurality of viewpoints.

Fox News has the highest percentage of pure made up BS (Terrorist Fist Jab) and comes close to being a propaganda outlet. My dislike of Fox News isn't because of its political viewpoints but because it's wrong more than the other outlets. I am a stickler for accuracy and hate hyperbole and exaggeration (which is why I frequently have to post correcting you since you buy into a black and white political spectrum). I'm equally as critical of BS that comes up in left leaning or libertarian outlets. I even get mad at Reason.com which is very politically similar to me when they run anarchist claptrap disguised as libertarianism.

**thoth** · 08-28-2012, 08:05 PM

But c'mon, fox news SAYS they're "fair and balanced", so, uh, they are.

Originally Posted by Dayman

This is where Sailaway's attack strategy fails him, seeing as I am voting Johnson and have donated money to Johnson's campaign in addition to the campaign of a PS member who is a registered R earlier this year. But he just goes off and assumes whoever attacking him is a Democrat even though in my case it's farcical since I am a fairly libertarian individual.

Fox News is far more right than the NY Times is left. Huffpo is left. The others I never look at (MSNBC annoys me too). I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC. I read RT and Al-Jazeera occasionally to get the non-Anglo viewpoint on things. I pick up the NYT once a week or so. I read multiple outlets because I get a plurality of viewpoints.

Fox News has the highest percentage of pure made up BS (Terrorist Fist Jab) and comes close to being a propaganda outlet. My dislike of Fox News isn't because of its political viewpoints but because it's wrong more than the other outlets. I am a stickler for accuracy and hate hyperbole and exaggeration (which is why I frequently have to post correcting you since you buy into a black and white political spectrum). I'm equally as critical of BS that comes up in left leaning or libertarian outlets. I even get mad at Reason.com which is very politically similar to me when they run anarchist claptrap disguised as libertarianism.

**Sailaway** · 08-28-2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dayman

This is where Sailaway's attack strategy fails him, seeing as I am voting Johnson and have donated money to Johnson's campaign in addition to the campaign of a PS member who is a registered R earlier this year. But he just goes off and assumes whoever attacking him is a Democrat even though in my case it's farcical since I am a fairly libertarian individual.

And I've supported Ron Paul. But you yourself have described yourself as 'liberal.'

Fox News is far more MODERATE. Huffpo is FAR left. The others I never look at (MSNBC annoys me too). I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC. I read RT and Al-Jazeera occasionally to get the non-Anglo viewpoint on things. I pick up the NYT once a week or so. I read multiple outlets because I get a plurality of viewpoints.

This kind of demonstrates relativity: Since you're far, far to the left - ultra-liberal, maybe Progressive, not quite radical though - you might find the NY Times and NPR to be more or less in line with your views, HuffPo & MoveOn maybe a bit to the left.

BTW, Fox News is the more balanced than the networks:

http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_1_18_12.html

And, on the subject of making their content up, that's for the NY Times and Huffington Post. In fact, HuffPo just recently had to apologize for manufacturing claims against Fox News.