0F4LtTlktm0

The Clinton administration’s most notable achievement was welfare reform. Well, Clinton vetoed it twice before he finally signed it into law, but once everyone recognized that welfare reform was a resounding success he embraced it enthusiastically. Welfare reform succeeded in drastically reducing the welfare rolls, thereby cutting back on the culture of dependency. But Barack Obama loves dependency, so on July 12 he gutted welfare reform by eliminating work requirements from federal regulations. You can read about it here (http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/08/memorandum-0):Unfortunately, not everyone was enthusiastic about welfare reform. For instance, a man named Barack Obama took to the floor of the Illinois state senate to announce his opposition. A devoted believer in old-school, big-government liberalism, Mr. Obama had no interest in embracing the welfare reform package that linked welfare to work. Now as president, with an economy struggling, an election looming, and a dispirited liberal base in need of encouragement, he has decided to turn back the clock.

On July 12, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an extraordinary memorandum announcing that welfare reform’s firm and previously unquestioned work requirements were in fact merely optional and subject to the whim of the President and his Administration. Subsequent protestation that they will use their newly claimed discretion wisely is entirely beside the point. After fifteen years of successful reform built on the premise that work requirements are inviolable, President Obama apparently believes he can approve whatever “definitions of work activities” and “calculation of participation rates” he wants. And the memorandum makes clear that he hopes states will consider approaches that remove work participation rate requirements all together.

This policy change undermines the very premise of welfare reform.
Aren’t work requirements written into the statute? I thought they were. It is not clear how Obama can simply negate legislation that has been the law of the land since the mid-1990s. The Rise and Fall of Welfare Reform | Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-welfare-reform.php)

Soon the millionaires to be taxed to pay for for Obama's decision will be those making above $40k a year.

The Rise and Fall of Welfare Reform | Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-welfare-reform.php)


This was the one thing where President Bill Clinton betrayed us all, as it was Clinton's place to veto that hateful Republican sponsored Welfare reform, so Clinton betrayed all Americans by signing that inhuman legislation.

Us Democrats certainly do hope for President Obama to reverse the inhuman ignorance of that reform - and it is already long over due.



Soon the millionaires to be taxed to pay for for Obama's decision will be those making above $40k a year.


It might take a little bit of mathematics here - but millionaires are quite a bit more than $40k a year.

The $40k a year is really considered as lower middle class.

The Obama plan to raise taxes on millionaires ( $1M per year or more ) is a sensible and fair plan for improving the federal budget.

:coffee:

What would make sense is to get rid of the lazy that refuse to work, Trade them for Mexicans maybe, one illegal into the U.S, one lazy POS drain on society dropped off in some remote south American jungle to fend for himself.

This theory that the rich dont pay their fair share is bull, if they make a million and only pay 10%, they still pay 100k. If you make 100k and pay 25%, you only pay 25k

Who pays more for the services around them?

now, who does not pay their fair share? the leaches at the bottom that want free housing, free food, free healthcare, free cell phones, free internet, free spending cash. and in return they give??? not a damn thing to society.

I say its time to turn our backs on those that could yet refuse to work and just let the worthless bastards die. If they dont care enough to try and keep themselves alive, Im pretty much out of compassion to try and keep them alive either.

Give me a hard working illegal in exchange for a POS citizen any day of the week.

What would make sense is to...

...have a sane immigration policy that promotes the general welfare, IE, favors US citizens.

...have a sane economic policy that promotes the general welfare, IE, favors US citizens.

...have a sane energy policy that promotes the general welfare, IE, favors US citizens.

It's a bit much to just say 'screw you' to we, the people, when we are ALL suffering under immigration, economic and energy policies, from both parties, that promote the general welfare of corporations that could not care less about the general welfare nor US citizens. They'd sell anything to anyone made anywhere if it meant a better balance sheet.

Policy that is good for corporations is not necessarily good for the general welfare nor US citizens.

Policy that is good for the general welfare, IE, US citizens is, by definition, good for corporations.

:buddies:

...have a sane immigration policy that promotes the general welfare, IE, favors US citizens.

...have a sane economic policy that promotes the general welfare, IE, favors US citizens.

...have a sane energy policy that promotes the general welfare, IE, favors US citizens.

It's a bit much to just say 'screw you' to we, the people, when we are ALL suffering under immigration, economic and energy policies, from both parties, that promote the general welfare of corporations that could not care less about the general welfare nor US citizens. They'd sell anything to anyone made anywhere if it meant a better balance sheet.

Policy that is good for corporations is not necessarily good for the general welfare nor US citizens.

Policy that is good for the general welfare, IE, US citizens is, by definition, good for corporations.

:buddies:

All good ideas larry.. (crap, thats twice in a month.. )
However, the best way to get the change is from the people at the voting booth, the problem is that so many in the country right now dont care.
They dont care because they dont share in the burden, They pay no tax. and they sure are not going to offer up any of their money to pay for the services that they use.

Now imagine if they did pay tax, the outcry at any tax increase would be loud, social services would be cut, the budget would be cut, the deficit would start to go down.

look at it this way.
You and I go out to eat, I know walking in that we are using your credit card, IM eating free.. you are paying. (its only fair, you make more than I do)
Im not worried about the price of the meal, I might just get the Two Lobster and Two Steak dinner for 149.99 (Plus Gratuity)
Now, we go out and Im going to pay for my own? Meet me at McDonalds, I can get just as full for 6 bucks.

as long as the lazy non productive leaches are allowed to vote, and continue to get their free ride, nothing will change. Its why obama is creating more of them each day.

0F4LtTlktm0

The Rise and Fall of Welfare Reform | Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-welfare-reform.php)

Soon the millionaires to be taxed to pay for for Obama's decision will be those making above $40k a year.

Bill Clinton Calls Mitt Romney Welfare Reform Ad 'Especially Disappointing' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/bill-clinton-mitt-romney-welfare-reform_n_1754150.html)

The Obama plan to raise taxes on millionaires ( $1M per year or more ) is a sensible and fair plan for improving the federal budget.

:e:

:killingme:killingme Jimmy..please! Have you seen the estimated additional revenue?? It's a friggin joke! The whole "tax the rich more" mem is nothing more than a political stunt to appeal to economic illiterates.

They dont care because they dont share in the burden, They pay no tax...

Now imagine if they did pay tax, the outcry at any tax increase would be loud, social services would be cut, the budget would be cut, the deficit would start to go down.

.

Hey, I would have ended withholding taxes by now so we, the people, get the bill each and every month.

It is clearly unconstitutional to force anyone to collect for the federal government. Let them do it.

People DO pay taxes, we just don't see it enough. By design.

Hey, I would have ended withholding taxes by now so we, the people, get the bill each and every month.

It is clearly unconstitutional to force anyone to collect for the federal government. Let them do it.

People DO pay taxes, we just don't see it enough. By design.

again, this is a good idea. get a bill, pay the bill. as long as the bill is equal for all citizens.
Maybe send the bill to only those over the age of 21.

Then before any new spending can be put in place, people have to vote on an increase of their personal bill.

Hey, I would have ended withholding taxes by now so we, the people, get the bill each and every month.

It is clearly unconstitutional to force anyone to collect for the federal government. Let them do it.

People DO pay taxes, we just don't see it enough. By design.

another thing, I think I would have ended tax on business. Maybe by some slight chance they would expand and put more people into the work force.
Before you know it there would be a call center in the midwest answering calls from people in India.

nothing more than a political stunt to appeal to economic illiterates.


In that case:
Demographic Target: EPIC WIN!

In that case:
Demographic Target: EPIC WIN!

That.