• 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

Jack Hays said:
The difference of course is that states have been relieved of the requirement to show improved outcomes.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.

Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will require a federally-approved evaluation plan designed to build our knowledge base. TANF funds may be used to fund an approved evaluation and state funds spent on an approved evaluation may be considered state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures. In addition, terms and conditions will require either interim targets for each performance measure or a strategy for establishing baseline performance on a set of performance measures and a framework for how interim goals will be set after the baseline measures are established. The terms and conditions will establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet performance targets continues, termination of the waivers and demonstration project.
Click to expand...
TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 (Guidance concerning waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115) | Office of Family Assistance | Administration for Children and Families
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, now that you've pronounced on the legal question I guess there's no need for further discussion.:lamo

The difference of course is that states have been relieved of the requirement to show improved outcomes.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Feel free to show some evidence of that.
 
Deuce said:
The supposed waiving of welfare work requirements was completely false. In fact, what happened was giving more freedom to states than they had before, a request made by several "red" states in the first place. Ask Democrats for something, attack them for giving it to you, typical right-wing.
Click to expand...

Deuce, I was responding to an article in the Washington Post provided by Jack Hays that was discussing impeachment.. I have no idea what you are referring to here. Sorry.
 
Slyfox696 said:
TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03 (Guidance concerning waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115) | Office of Family Assistance | Administration for Children and Families
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Feel free to show some evidence of that.
Click to expand...

"Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will require a federally-approved evaluation plan designed to build our knowledge base. TANF funds may be used to fund an approved evaluation and state funds spent on an approved evaluation may be considered state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures. In addition, terms and conditions will require either interim targets for each performance measure or a strategy for establishing baseline performance on a set of performance measures and a framework for how interim goals will be set after the baseline measures are established. The terms and conditions will establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet performance targets continues, termination of the waivers and demonstration project."

Blah blah blah. The long way to say that the requirement was waived.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
"Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will require a federally-approved evaluation plan designed to build our knowledge base. TANF funds may be used to fund an approved evaluation and state funds spent on an approved evaluation may be considered state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures. In addition, terms and conditions will require either interim targets for each performance measure or a strategy for establishing baseline performance on a set of performance measures and a framework for how interim goals will be set after the baseline measures are established. The terms and conditions will establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet performance targets continues, termination of the waivers and demonstration project."

Blah blah blah. The long way to say that the requirement was waived.:peace
Click to expand...
.....you have to be joking. Seriously, you have to be putting us on right now. There is no way you can read what is written there and stick to your position.
 
Slyfox696 said:
.....you have to be joking. Seriously, you have to be putting us on right now. There is no way you can read what is written there and stick to your position.
Click to expand...

Au contraire. This is classic Washington non-language. It means "none of this is binding."

"Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will require a federally-approved evaluation plan designed to build our knowledge base." :peace
 
Dooble said:
The problem with that link is that everyone knows it's based on fiction.

Thanks for trying tho.
Click to expand...
Whoa. Did I say that? What an ass I am. I was kidding, though. They keep crossing me up. At first, it was a monkey. Now, it's a lemur. I just wish they'd make up their minds... science is somewhat inexact sometimes...
 
iliveonramen said:
I hope Republicans impeach him in the House. That worked fantastically for them with Clinton.
Click to expand...


You attribute his impeachment proceeding to partisanship ? Seriously ? He lied under Oath, committed perjury, something that would get our average American citizen in a whole bunch of hot water.

High crimes and misdemeanors....for Republicans only right ?
 
Jack Hays said:
Au contraire. This is classic Washington non-language. It means "none of this is binding."
Click to expand...
So in the face of the actual text, you go with the "well, I know what it REALLY means" argument. Interesting...
 
Jack Hays said:
No. The text says it's not binding.:peace
Click to expand...
The text says the waiver is only granted if the state can put together a plan to improve the existing plan and if it's approved by the federal government. If the plan developed by the state does not show improvement, the federal government can revoke the waiver.

The text also notes how HHS has legal ability to do exactly what they are doing. So I'm not sure if your argument is that Obama is violating Constitutional powers or if your argument is that the waiver says people don't have to work for welfare, but both would be wrong. To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to link to an obviously biased editorial, an editorial which blatantly misrepresented what happened with the welfare work requirement.
 
Slyfox696 said:
The text says the waiver is only granted if the state can put together a plan to improve the existing plan and if it's approved by the federal government. If the plan developed by the state does not show improvement, the federal government can revoke the waiver.

The text also notes how HHS has legal ability to do exactly what they are doing. So I'm not sure if your argument is that Obama is violating Constitutional powers or if your argument is that the waiver says people don't have to work for welfare, but both would be wrong. To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to link to an obviously biased editorial, an editorial which blatantly misrepresented what happened with the welfare work requirement.
Click to expand...

The text in your link includes no enforcement. There is none.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
The text in your link includes no enforcement. There is none.:peace
Click to expand...
The enforcement is the revoking of the waiver if the state does not meet its goal.

"The terms and conditions will establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet performance targets continues, termination of the waivers and demonstration project. "
 
Slyfox696 said:
The enforcement is the revoking of the waiver if the state does not meet its goal.

"The terms and conditions will establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet performance targets continues, termination of the waivers and demonstration project. "
Click to expand...

". . . continues . . ." Indeed. As I said, no enforcement. The work requirement is gone.:peace
 
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...

What the **** is the point?

Do we really need Biden as prez and a bunch of progressives talking ****?
 
Obama refuses to release his real birth certificate. Impeach him.;)
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
Obama refuses to release his real birth certificate. Impeach him.
Click to expand...

Nicolas%20Cage%20Laugh.gif
 
iliveonramen said:
I hope Republicans impeach him in the House. That worked fantastically for them with Clinton.
Click to expand...

Lying under oath, that's pretty much okay in your book? Yes, it was the House that was wrong here, not Clinton. That about right?
Most Presidents don't have to testify in court for these types of offenses.
 
EdwinWillers said:
I'm no lawyer either, but imho Coburn is spot on and I agree with you, he should've been impeached long ago.

How does he get away with everything he does? To me, that's simple; those who like him refuse to hold him accountable.
Click to expand...

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.
 
j-mac said:
Ever wonder why Harry Reid won't allow a single vote on any of those ACA bills sent up? Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Click to expand...

...because it is complete silliness. Its actually rather juvenile. The Cons continue to show why they have no business run things, because they have no ideas... there only platform is Anti-Obama. First its trying to make scandals out of nothing; then its voting 40 times to repeal legislation (a meaningless gesture); now its impeachment, as if impeachment is some type of do-over on an election. I thought the Cons were "strict constitutionalists" Please show me where in the Constitution or which of our founding fathers suggested that impeachment was a re-call procedure.

The Cons are continuing to marginalize themselves with their own pettiness...of course, they have no choice because they have no ideas.

Guess what? The discriminating voters in swing states see through this shallowness. This is exactly why the Cons have no shot at national office for the remainder of this decade.

US electorate to Conservatives: Get Serious!
 
humbolt said:
The same argument can be made from the opposing viewpoint. Few outside the liberal lean see the ACA as affordable at all, and care seems to be the last thing the legislation addresses.
Click to expand...

... as to the "jobs" bills...

".....Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, said some of the bills could create jobs, but that they would amount to more of an afterthought in terms of achieving broader policy goals.

"They are very narrowly targeted, and it gives the impression that maybe some of this is special interest really pursuing these, not really taking a macro view but a very, very micro focus in what the impact would be," Riccadonna said. For most of the bills in the package, "jobs are a second- or third-order effect, not the main priority...."

Most of them are just trying to reverse prior legislation. They are not serious jobs bills.

How many jobs bills have been passed by (R)s in the House since they took control of the House in Jan 2011? - Yahoo! Answers

As for the ACA, at the least the CBO says it is break-even to a small benefit. Note the letter from the CBO to Boehner letting him know the repeal of ACA would add to the deficit.

CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act
 
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...

Yep, one non-lawyer agreeing with another non-lawyer about.... the law. Have we moved forward?
 
Ray410 said:
That's completely false. We all know who whines endlessly about their terrible victim status and it's not Conservatives. Conservatives just want Liberals and the government to leave them alone and stay out of their lives. Even such a simple thing is apparently too much to ask for however.
Click to expand...

...unless, of course, we are talking about the press. No one whines louder about being a victim of the "liberal-biased" press (including such things as Wikipedia) as a Conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom