“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated. "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
Which states have applied for a waiver, and what has the effect been? You've already been shown how this characterization is inaccurate according to HHS. The waiver requires a state to increase employment activities by at least 20%. They aren't eliminating the requirement via waiver. The requirement is to replace the requirements with a different set of requirements to see if better outcomes can be had. Hell, Mitt Romney signed a letter in 2005 to the Senate supporting this concept, but he was happy to attack Obama over it in 2012. (but let's face it, Romney being on all three sides of any issue isn't exactly new)
You made a claim that states are acting as though the requirement is gone. Show evidence of this. Show me one state that has seen a decrease in work outcomes for welfare after implementing some change under this waiver.
Your article is from September of last year. As of March 2013 no states had even requested a waiver.
Last edited by Deuce; 08-25-13 at 01:55 PM.
One of you will end up here next!