Yes he was lobbying for more power at the state level, where it belongs. How evil of him.News flash, this change in the allocation of assistance programs was lobbied for by dozens of governors, including one Mitt Romney of Massachuets in the prior decade.
I will believe it when i see it.This stripping of the work requirement that so many have brayed and bemoaned endlessly about was simply a move that allows states to craft their own work requirements which can now include educational endeavors such as job training and trade focused classes. The states however, are not afforded this luxury unless they increase the work rolls of welfare recipents by 20%. A nod to states sovereignty and a move to increase the working rolls of welfare recipents, a Conservatives wet dream you would think?
I never said lavish. I said they should have their NEEDS seen to, and nothing more. Example: Food, water, shelter, clothing (not name brand). Not cable tv (or tv's in general), phones, cars, cigarettes ect ect ect.Key phrase in the quote you're responding to: Most could've predicted an aggregate rise in recipients and overall expenditures due to the conditions mentioned above, but the trick would be demonstrating the seemingly lavish lifestyle of welfare recipents that you portrayed in earlier posts, and claimed Obama responsible for.