• 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

Boo Radley said:
Actually there as well. A single payer more adequately pays for Medicare and Medicaid patients with proper funding.

But it certainly costs us less. And puts more money in our pockets, which certainly doesn't hurt the economy.
Click to expand...

:lol: :doh Have you suddenly become senile? Read the post(s) to which I replied - they were not discussing UHC, your favorite diversion, but Obama waiving the work requirement law for welfare.
 
Deuce said:
Provide any evidence of this. Bad faith? You're making a broad claim that work requirements are basically gone, and I'm just to take your word for it? :lamo
Click to expand...

How Obama has gutted welfare reform - Washington Post

articles.washingtonpost.com › Collections › Welfare Reform‎
Sep 6, 2012 - To be exempt from the federal work requirement, a state would have to ... The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ...

"The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. It is replacing that requirement with a standard that shows that the pre-reform welfare program was successful and the post-reform program a failure. If that is not gutting welfare reform, it is difficult to imagine what would be.":peace
 
ttwtt78640 said:
:lol: :doh Have you suddenly become senile? Read the post(s) to which I replied - they were not discussing UHC, your favorite diversion, but Obama waiving the work requirement law for welfare.
Click to expand...

True.. I did think I was in the other discussion. My bad.

but it's not a diversion, it's what I believe. But I will go back and try to put it in context.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Cheaper for who? Obviously not for the federal gov't. The states are naturally quite happy to take "free" federal assistance money (to be spent in their state) without having to match it with state money for education or job training expenses.

The executive branch does not write the law. Simply because Obama is too lazy, or lacks legislative support, does not not relieve him of the need to enforce the law as written and funded by congress.
Click to expand...

Cheaper for the states. It doesn't help any of us to let the states fold or make them what neither has the money to do. It has nothing to with Obama, or laziness, or anything of that ilk. It has to do with surviving the current situation.
 
Boo Radley said:
True.. I did think I was in the other discussion. My bad.

but it's not a diversion, it's what I believe. But I will go back and try to put it in context.
Click to expand...

It may well be what you belieive, and we all know that, but UHC is not the topic and has nothing to do with PPACA, or even this entire thread.
 
bubbabgone said:
Whoa there partner ... who's "we" ... and did you think that through?
Click to expand...

People of the United States of America. I used we to be inclusive. None has to be stupid.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It may well be what you belieive, and we all know that, but UHC is not the topic and has nothing to do with PPACA, or even this entire thread.
Click to expand...

I did say I did error in what thread I was in. In the other UHC is part of the topic.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, we don't. And it's pure stupidity to suggest so.
Click to expand...

Tsk tsk. I'm sure Senator Coburn will be hurt by your remark.

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.[SUP][/SUP] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Tsk tsk. I'm sure Senator Coburn will be hurt by your remark.

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.[SUP][/SUP] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.:peace
Click to expand...

Not concerned about his feelings, or yours or mine. But it's stupid. Waivers are legal. Obama did not initiate this on his own. It is nothing more than problem solving. So, the comment is stupid.
 
Jack Hays said:
How Obama has gutted welfare reform - Washington Post

articles.washingtonpost.com › Collections › Welfare Reform‎
Sep 6, 2012 - To be exempt from the federal work requirement, a state would have to ... The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ...

"The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. It is replacing that requirement with a standard that shows that the pre-reform welfare program was successful and the post-reform program a failure. If that is not gutting welfare reform, it is difficult to imagine what would be.":peace
Click to expand...

As expected. Just repeating the same old crap.

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:
Boo Radley said:
Not concerned about his feelings, or yours or mine. But it's stupid. Waivers are legal. Obama did not initiate this on his own. It is nothing more than problem solving. So, the comment is stupid.
Click to expand...

I believe the legality is the point of the debate. We live under a lawless regime.
 
Deuce said:
As expected. Just repeating the same old crap.

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%.

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.
Click to expand...

No state has had its waiver authority revoked.QED:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
I believe the legality is the point of the debate. We live under a lawless regime.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
People of the United States of America. I used we to be inclusive. None has to be stupid.
Click to expand...

Please explain ...
sounds like you're suggesting that it's a good & accepted practice for folks in high elected office like, say, Barack Obama, to have our DOJ NOT enforce laws he kinda doesn't approve of because he was elected by half of we the people of the United States of America?

Was that an accurate summary of your position?
 
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...

Why? Because the "lawless regime" won't prosecute itself?
 
j-mac said:
Ah, my poor misguided friend. The house is indeed passing bills. It is the court liar, I mean jester, I mean Harry Reid who is blocking the Senate from voting on them. You should change the channel, Rachel Maddow is lying to you.
Click to expand...

Don't watch rachel, so your bias is showing. The House is passing bogus bills that don't stand a chance of making it passed the President or sustain the veto. Passing highly partisan bills is not getting work done but grand standing.
 
Jack Hays said:
No state has had its waiver authority revoked.QED:peace
Click to expand...

Um, no, that's not how the waivers work. A state has to apply for one with a specific plan in mind to be approved or not approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom