Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 01 Jun 2012, 9:13 am

Post 28 Aug 2012, 8:38 am

I think this particular one is pushing it, DF. A reach. She never asserts in the ad that Romney was bad for her or her business, merely bad for job growth in Mass. generally and other sins like favoring the wealthy. There's nothing terribly deceptive or low here - certainly not compared to some other ads.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 28 Aug 2012, 9:20 am

I would say Romney trying to say Obama ended work requirements for welfare is pretty deceptive: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/politics/ ... index.html

I have heard that these welfare ads have appealed to white working-class women in swing states in focus groups. These types of ads have a racial component too, because whites tend to think blacks benefit more from welfare. So how low will Romney go?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Aug 2012, 9:48 am

Did Sebelius remove restrictions on state's work requirements? Is she part of the administration?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/obama-administration-defends-change-to-welfare-to-work-program/

YES. As to the racial component, why do you think it has a racial component? Is it because of the girl with President Clinton when he signed the welfare reform bill in 1996? I looked at the ad, and saw nothing about race. You are supposing facts not supported by evidence. [move to strike testimony]
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 28 Aug 2012, 9:55 am

bbauska: But isn't the 'change' actually to make it more flexible so that States can have more 'work' related welfare, not less?

Even some Republicans don't agree with the ads that there is really anything there that resembles a reverse to welfare reform.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Aug 2012, 10:10 am

Purple wrote:I think this particular one is pushing it, DF. A reach. She never asserts in the ad that Romney was bad for her or her business, merely bad for job growth in Mass. generally and other sins like favoring the wealthy. There's nothing terribly deceptive or low here - certainly not compared to some other ads.


So, she changed is supporting Obama because her business boomed during Romney's governance?

All she is is a face to spout the same, half-true "facts" of other Obama surrogates. She says she was "duped" by Romney, that he only cares about big business, but she did very well. So . . . what is she whining about?

Politifact, which tilts a bit to the left, rates all these claims about Romney's numbers "half-true." My point on that ad is that there is something else going on. She has no reason to go after Romney that can be traced back to her business--and that is what is implied.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Aug 2012, 10:44 am

No, Danivon. It is not.

Utah asked for a waiver to have more people working. Other states want the requirement relaxed. The problem is this:

IT IS A LAW!!!

President Obama is sidestepping the Congress in this. Welfare is a federally mandated program with federally mandated requirement put forth is the 1996 law. To waive those requirements (for either higher standards, or lower standards) is a legislative and constitutional problem. He swore to uphold the laws of the US. Is he doing that?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Aug 2012, 2:10 pm

b
He swore to uphold the laws of the US. Is he doing that?


Its done legally...
A memo from George Sheldon, the acting assistant secretary at HHS, said the department wanted to give states more flexibility in meeting those requirements. The memo notifies states "of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority ... to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ons-tenet/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Aug 2012, 3:17 pm

Yeah, about politifact . . . http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... on-editors

It's not too reliable. In fact, it's not reliable at all.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 01 Jun 2012, 9:13 am

Post 28 Aug 2012, 4:03 pm

Doctor Fate, on 28 Aug 2012, 11:10 am: wrote:Politifact, which tilts a bit to the left, rates all these claims about Romney's numbers...


Doctor Fate on 28 Aug 2012, 4:17 pm: wrote:[Politifact is] not reliable at all.

Too funny. In just 5.1 hours from citing them (albeit with a mild caveat) to condemning them. Why? Because Ricky cited them in the meantime. LOL.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Aug 2012, 4:21 pm

Shockingly, I read the article in the meantime.

So, LOL on that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Aug 2012, 1:27 am

Which is odd, because you did pretty much what the article tells conservatives to do when you cited politifact the first time... Of course the NR being completely politically neutral, it can be trusted to be totally objective on the matter.

Anyway, the real question is one of fact - does a waiver authority apply? It would surely be recorded somewhere in legislation or something.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Aug 2012, 5:09 am

I did take a look. The relevant law is in Title 42 of the US code. Chapter 7 is Social Security. Subchapter XI deals with genral provisions. The memo refers to section 1115 (which is found under section 1315 in the online version) which covers 'demonstration projects'. This allows the Secretary to 'waive compliance with any of the requirements of section 302, 602, 654, 1202, 1352, 1382, or 1396a of this title, as the case may be, to the extent and for the period he finds necessary to enable such State or States to carry out such project'.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1315

In this case, it is section 602 (as on the online version, 402 in the memo) which is under consideration. This specifically refers to the requirement to work and how it should be included in how a State sets up its program. In each case, there is a reference to applying section 607. Waiving the need to refer to 607 would be waiving a part of 602, and so is entirely consistent with the law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/602

So, unless someone can show otherwise, the waiver appears to be within 'THE LAW', rather than a breach of it. Neither the drafter of the memo, nor Karen Sibellius (let alone the President) appear to have broken any oaths.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Aug 2012, 3:58 am

Comments? Arguments against? Retractions?

Oh, and bbauska, you are misremembering the Presidential Oath again. The US President swears to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. The oath of office does not mention 'law'.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 30 Aug 2012, 6:37 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Aug 2012, 6:50 am

danivon wrote:So, unless someone can show otherwise, the waiver appears to be within 'THE LAW', rather than a breach of it. Neither the drafter of the memo, nor Karen Sibellius (let alone the President) appear to have broken any oaths.


It appears to be outside the law, actually:

Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115: section 402, which describes the reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the requirements established in the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.
The HHS directive asserts that because the work requirements (established in section 407) are an item that state governments must report on in section 402, and HHS has the authority to waive section 402, all of the work requirements can be waived. This removes the core of the TANF program; TANF becomes a blank slate that HHS bureaucrats and liberal state bureaucrats can rewrite at will.
Congressional Research Service: “There Are No TANF Waivers”
In a December 2001 document,[1] the non-partisan Congressional Research Service clarified that the limited authority to waive state reporting requirements in section 402 does not grant authority to override work and other major requirements in the other sections of the TANF law (sections that were deliberately not listed under the section 1115 waiver authority):
Technically, there is waiver authority for TANF state plan requirement; however, [the] major TANF requirements are not in state plans. Effectively, there are no TANF waivers.
If Congress had wanted HHS to be able to waive the TANF work requirements laid out in section 407, it would have listed that section as waiveable under section 1115. It did not. The HHS action to waive the TANF work requirement blatantly violates the intent and letter of the law.
Welfare Reform Under Clinton
The underlying concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid. The welfare reform law is often characterized as simply giving state governments more flexibility in operating welfare programs, but this is a serious misunderstanding. While the new law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) did grant states more flexibility in some respects, the core of the act was the creation of rigorous new federal work standards that state governments were required to implement.