• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tom Coburn: Obama 'Getting Perilously Close' To Standard For Impeachment

Deuce said:
Which court has declared it unlawful?

More like ran out of ways to change the subject or dodge questions.
Click to expand...

The Truth About Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Welfare Reform ...

US News & World Report | News & Rankings | Best Colleges, Best Hospitals, and more › Opinion › Peter Roff‎
Sep 24, 2012 - President Obama does not have the authority to remove the work requirement from welfare.

The Government Accountability Office, an independent federal agency, has weighed in on the side of the GOP—at least as far as Obama's authority to waive the tough work requirements that are the cornerstone of the new law is concerned.
In early September the agency issued a report that stated the waivers the administration had announced could not be accomplished unilaterally and needed, instead, to be submitted to Congress for approval.:peace
 
Boo Radley said:
No, we don't. He broke no law. It was legally presented to him, and legally waived. It's stupid to call it a lawless regime.
Click to expand...

The Truth About Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Welfare Reform ...

US News & World Report | News & Rankings | Best Colleges, Best Hospitals, and more › Opinion › Peter Roff‎
Sep 24, 2012 - President Obama does not have the authority to remove the work requirement from welfare.

The Government Accountability Office, an independent federal agency, has weighed in on the side of the GOP—at least as far as Obama's authority to waive the tough work requirements that are the cornerstone of the new law is concerned.
In early September the agency issued a report that stated the waivers the administration had announced could not be accomplished unilaterally and needed, instead, to be submitted to Congress for approval.:peace
 
Boo Radley said:
It's what the states asked him to do. So they thought he did. But laws don't have to be enforced. For example, a police officer doesn't have to stop you for speeding.
Click to expand...

The president doesn't have the authority to say which legislation is to be implemented and which isn't.
 
Deuce said:
Which court has declared it unlawful?

More like ran out of ways to change the subject or dodge questions.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the president has the authority to dissolve congressional legislation?
 
apdst said:
The president doesn't have the authority to say which legislation is to be implemented and which isn't.
Click to expand...

Guess he does. But feel free to challenge it.

“In times of reduced funding, waivers may be the best method to allow states to find effective and efficient approaches to assist the unemployed to find and keep work,” the Utah Department of Workforce Services wrote to federal welfare officials last year.
Republicans criticized the new policy shortly after it was implemented on July 12. That prompted Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican who supports Romney, to issue a July 17 press release “defending Utah’s waiver request for state flexibility to achieve work-related outcomes for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients.”

Does Obama’s Plan ‘Gut Welfare Reform’?


Romney’s ad says, "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

That's a drastic distortion of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/
 
Jack Hays said:
GAO already did. See my #153.
Click to expand...

I did.

A more nuanced view comes from Ron Haskins, who was instrumental in crafting the original law. He told our colleagues at Wonkblog that the concept of the waivers is a good one, though the process used by the administration was unfair. “It might not be illegal,” he said. “But [HHS] didn’t even consult with the Republicans. They knew the spirit of the law, and they violated that.”

In other words, we are mainly talking about a process foul and poor coordination with Congress. One of the main critics of the waivers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), conceded as much when the Salt Lake Tribune noted that the administration said it was responding to a request from the Republican governor of Hatch’s state.

“Hatch does not believe that HHS has the legal authority to waive TANF work rules,” Hatch spokesman Matt Harakal told the Tribune. “This is a completely different issue than giving states flexibility through a regular reauthorization of TANF.”

It is also important to note that no waivers have yet been issued. The Romney campaign ad goes much too far when it suggests Obama has already taken action to “drop work requirements.” The ad further states that “under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and you wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.”

Here, the Romney campaign is asserting an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules, but it is certainly not based on any specific “Obama plan.” (The Romney campaign often cries foul when Obama offers his own interpretation of still-vague Romney plans.) What really matters are the plans submitted by governors — and, as our colleague Greg Sargent noted, the two Republican governors seeking waivers issued statements saying they were not planning to weaken work requirements.

Spin and counterspin in the welfare debate - The Washington Post
 
Boo Radley said:
I did.

A more nuanced view comes from Ron Haskins, who was instrumental in crafting the original law. He told our colleagues at Wonkblog that the concept of the waivers is a good one, though the process used by the administration was unfair. “It might not be illegal,” he said. “But [HHS] didn’t even consult with the Republicans. They knew the spirit of the law, and they violated that.”

In other words, we are mainly talking about a process foul and poor coordination with Congress. One of the main critics of the waivers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), conceded as much when the Salt Lake Tribune noted that the administration said it was responding to a request from the Republican governor of Hatch’s state.

“Hatch does not believe that HHS has the legal authority to waive TANF work rules,” Hatch spokesman Matt Harakal told the Tribune. “This is a completely different issue than giving states flexibility through a regular reauthorization of TANF.”

It is also important to note that no waivers have yet been issued. The Romney campaign ad goes much too far when it suggests Obama has already taken action to “drop work requirements.” The ad further states that “under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and you wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.”

Here, the Romney campaign is asserting an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules, but it is certainly not based on any specific “Obama plan.” (The Romney campaign often cries foul when Obama offers his own interpretation of still-vague Romney plans.) What really matters are the plans submitted by governors — and, as our colleague Greg Sargent noted, the two Republican governors seeking waivers issued statements saying they were not planning to weaken work requirements.

Spin and counterspin in the welfare debate - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

GAO said the administration acted illegally. End of story.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
GAO said the administration acted illegally. End of story.:peace
Click to expand...

That's not what they said. They said Obama should have allowed congress the opportunity to weigh in. That's not exactly the same as illegal or lawless.
 
Boo Radley said:
Guess he does. But feel free to challenge it.

“In times of reduced funding, waivers may be the best method to allow states to find effective and efficient approaches to assist the unemployed to find and keep work,” the Utah Department of Workforce Services wrote to federal welfare officials last year.
Republicans criticized the new policy shortly after it was implemented on July 12. That prompted Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican who supports Romney, to issue a July 17 press release “defending Utah’s waiver request for state flexibility to achieve work-related outcomes for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients.”

Does Obama’s Plan ‘Gut Welfare Reform’?


Romney’s ad says, "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

That's a drastic distortion of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says Barack Obama
Click to expand...

No, the president doesn't have the authority to dissolve legislation. It's why we have 3 branches of government.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's not what they said. They said Obama should have allowed congress the opportunity to weigh in. That's not exactly the same as illegal or lawless.
Click to expand...

So, if a president decides not to enforce the civil rights act, you're gona be cool with it?
 
Mason66 said:
Haven't we Heard for the last 5 years that if you have a problem with something Obama did, it was because of his race?

If Obama did something another President did, you don't have the right to be against it because you will be called a racist.

Why should we discount the color of his skin in this discussion then?
Click to expand...
I know. I'm so tired of being called racist merely because I disagree with Obama. As far as I'm concerned, there's no one more racist than those who throw around that label as cavalierly as they do in the Obama context. It isn't the color of his skin that causing the impeachable behavior; it's his world view, his disdain for the law, his disgust for the Constitution and his hatred of everything that made this country what it once was before he usurped the throne. But it isn't just him; it's all his minions and those who for the past century have been undermining everything good and decent in this nation - ironically, people who a hundred years ago were avidly and despicably racist themselves. It's truly shameful what's going on under our very noses...
 
Anthony60 said:
I agree. Just because he can't be impeached because the democrats would never vote to impeach, doesn't mean he hasn't committed impeachable offenses. It needs to be said, and Colburn is right to say it.
Click to expand...
Ah..yup.
 
Why haven't Republicans in the House brought up impeachment charges?
 
apdst said:
No, the president doesn't have the authority to dissolve legislation. It's why we have 3 branches of government.
Click to expand...

It's not dissolved. And this was the states asking for it, not Obama.
 
apdst said:
So, if a president decides not to enforce the civil rights act, you're gona be cool with it?
Click to expand...

Very different situations. One, the welfare, has a rationale that seeks to help for a limited time. The other, civil rights, can only hurt.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not dissolved. And this was the states asking for it, not Obama.
Click to expand...
Like when the Republican Governor of Nebraska asked Obama to delay authorizing the Keystone Pipeline.

People with ODS blamed Obama for doing what the governor asked the, and now they're blaming Obama for this too.
 
reinoe said:
Like when the Republican Governor of Nebraska asked Obama to delay authorizing the Keystone Pipeline.

People with ODS blamed Obama for doing what the governor asked the, and now they're blaming Obama for this too.
Click to expand...

You say ODS like it is a real thing.
 
j-mac said:
As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
Click to expand...

He can get away with it because absolutely no one is going to impeach the first "black" President.
 
reinoe said:
Like when the Republican Governor of Nebraska asked Obama to delay authorizing the Keystone Pipeline.

People with ODS blamed Obama for doing what the governor asked the, and now they're blaming Obama for this too.
Click to expand...

Obama's stupidity is always someone else's fault, huh?

If a Republican told Obama to chase cars down the street, I bet he would do it and the Libbos would be like, "but...but...the Republicans told him to do it!"
 
Oftencold said:
He can get away with it because absolutely no one is going to impeach the first "black" President.
Click to expand...
So the Republican controlled House is willing to engage in hated reverse racism and lack the courage to enact the will of the people: the people who demand an impeachment.
 
apdst said:
Obama's stupidity is always someone else's fault, huh?

If a Republican told Obama to chase cars down the street, I bet he would do it and the Libbos would be like, "but...but...the Republicans told him to do it!"
Click to expand...
So you see, it's a damned if he does damned if he doesn't situation when dealing with people who have a tantrum even after they get exactly what they want.

If Obama gives the Republicans what they want then he's dumb. If he ignores Republicans then he's being an obstructionist. It's impossible to work with Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom