Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've seen this add recently and it actually got me curious enough to wonder about the facts behind it. Ad says Clinton passed Welfare reform that required recipients to work or be training for work, but that Obama quietly canceled it so that now you just get the check with out those requirements. Romney of course will put them back in place it says.

Dakka off topic seems to enjoy digging into the sides of political matters so I'm wondering what people might know of this or dig up on it?

I've no idea about the American side of things, but up here in the Great North, the cons have tried to pass something similar to this. You lose your welfare if you refuse to apply for job offers inside a certain distance from your residence.

My roommate's girlfriend, who works as a social worker and is on welfare 2-3 months of the year, was quite surprised to learn she'd have to go apply to the local strip club or lose her welfare.

Needless to say, it didn't pass.

You still have to search and apply for jobs while on unemployment.

My cousin has 4 kids, no husband, and has to take care of them constantly, Aslong as there is something like an opt out where you prove you cannt support a family on the money offered from those jobs, maybe, but other wise, a big fat NO!!!!

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

Eh... it wasn't a big deal.

When I was outta work, I had to go physically go to the state office, sit down in front of a computer to answer some basic question. Either "stated" that I'm looking or applied at "x' establishment. That was it. Not even 10 minutes.

Of course, they had a nice setup to help with my resume and got me face-to-face with potential employers.

But, it wasn't a stringent requirement (at least at my state).

There was no one there to interrogate me or actually go investigate whether or not I truly did apply for those jobs (truthfully, I did).

Not sure why Obama did that... it opened up an easy attack from Romney.

d-usa wrote:I'll just leave this here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

Ok, I was pretty much expecting it to be something like this. Thanks.

whembly wrote:Eh... it wasn't a big deal.

When I was outta work, I had to go physically go to the state office, sit down in front of a computer to answer some basic question. Either "stated" that I'm looking or applied at "x' establishment. That was it. Not even 10 minutes.

Of course, they had a nice setup to help with my resume and got me face-to-face with potential employers.

But, it wasn't a stringent requirement (at least at my state).

There was no one there to interrogate me or actually go investigate whether or not I truly did apply for those jobs (truthfully, I did).

Not sure why Obama did that... it opened up an easy attack from Romney.

He didn't do anything, the add is just a plain ol' lie.

youbedead wrote:
He didn't do anything, the add is just a plain ol' lie.

It isn't a lie, its spin. Bad, and horribly sloppy spin, but still just spin.

It's common practice in the UK for, say, biomedical graduates to be forced to apply for factory jobs or lose their benefits.

The world hates the unemployed. Sad but true.

AduroT wrote:

d-usa wrote:I'll just leave this here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

Ok, I was pretty much expecting it to be something like this. Thanks.

Bonus content: Orrin Hatch (R-UT) came out strongly against these waivers, which he called an "power grab". The waiver was first requested by Utah, his home state.

It's just a lie, and a really lazy one that basically shows zero respect for the intelligence of the US electorate.

The program just gives individual states a range of options in what they might require of welfare recipients. Basically it was realised that having federally set requirements meant that states were stuck just following those, even when they might have known of better options that suited the work requirements in their state. The kicker? Romney asked for flexibile schemes just like this when he was governor.

Seriously - Romney is campaigning against something he actually asked for as governor.

I mean, Bush used to lie all the time, but at least they were lies that took a fair bit of explaining, and you could kind of tell if the person having it explained to them didn't really want to get it because they wanted to hate on Democrat well then they wouldn't get it. So they were lies that worked to a large extent. But this lie, like a few Romney has attempted lately, is just lame.

Hold one. There's the state 36 week week unemployment and then there's the federal extension of 36 weeks on top of that for people who qualify. Its not a lie. Already been briefed to me on my out process.

edit
correction. 34 weeks for both

Welfare is not unemployment insurance. There's a massive difference.

dogma wrote:

youbedead wrote:He didn't do anything, the add is just a plain ol' lie.

It isn't a lie, its spin. Bad, and horribly sloppy spin, but still just spin.

In other words, a lie.

If it was a good spin, they wouldn't have to blatantly lie.

Heres another source that discredits the ad

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

sebster wrote:It's just a lie, and a really lazy one that basically shows zero respect for the intelligence of the US electorate.

The program just gives individual states a range of options in what they might require of welfare recipients. Basically it was realised that having federally set requirements meant that states were stuck just following those, even when they might have known of better options that suited the work requirements in their state. The kicker? Romney asked for flexibile schemes just like this when he was governor.

Seriously - Romney is campaigning against something he actually asked for as governor.

I mean, Bush used to lie all the time, but at least they were lies that took a fair bit of explaining, and you could kind of tell if the person having it explained to them didn't really want to get it because they wanted to hate on Democrat well then they wouldn't get it. So they were lies that worked to a large extent. But this lie, like a few Romney has attempted lately, is just lame.

I can agree... BOTH party is lazy...

Did ya see the one that Obama lamblasted Paul for not passing the farm bill? (psst, Congress did two weeks ago).

Both are sloppy...

Typical.

Jihadin wrote:Hold one. There's the state 36 week week unemployment and then there's the federal extension of 36 weeks on top of that for people who qualify. Its not a lie. Already been briefed to me on my out process.

edit
correction. 34 weeks for both

You're not paying attention. This isn't over the extension of unemployment, it's over the conditions in which states can pay welfare to people.

Your a "little" late there Sebster. Frazz already pointed that out

whembly wrote:I can agree... BOTH party is lazy...

Did ya see the one that Obama lamblasted Paul for not passing the farm bill? (psst, Congress did two weeks ago).

Meh, that's more like one of those half truths that takes some explaining. The reason its held up in the senate is Republican opposition to food stamp provisions and subsidies.

Claiming Reid should be able to make Republican senators vote for this thing because he's majority senate leader is, well, basically insane. Now, whether Ryan as the new VP candidate has any power to get Republican senators to vote for this is something of a stretch as well, but nothing like the nonsense Republicans are claiming about the issue.

Basically, the difference in this case between 'really lazy, stupid lie told by a guy who think you're all idiots' and 'spin, but not all that good a piece of spin' is Obama's use of 'congress'. It meant Obama was calling on Ryan to use his pull on Republican senators to pass this bill, but doing it in language that implied Ryan himself hadn't passed the bill.

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:I can agree... BOTH party is lazy...

Did ya see the one that Obama lamblasted Paul for not passing the farm bill? (psst, Congress did two weeks ago).

Meh, that's more like one of those half truths that takes some explaining. The reason its held up in the senate is Republican opposition to food stamp provisions and subsidies.

Claiming Reid should be able to make Republican senators vote for this thing because he's majority senate leader is, well, basically insane. Now, whether Ryan as the new VP candidate has any power to get Republican senators to vote for this is something of a stretch as well, but nothing like the nonsense Republicans are claiming about the issue.

Basically, the difference in this case between 'really lazy, stupid lie told by a guy who think you're all idiots' and 'spin, but not all that good a piece of spin' is Obama's use of 'congress'. It meant Obama was calling on Ryan to use his pull on Republican senators to pass this bill, but doing it in language that implied Ryan himself hadn't passed the bill.

Right... just 'nother day in DC... for you and me who's "in tune" with the beltway.

But him saying that on a campaign trail... just made him look bad. It was a head scratcher.

Just like Romney's refusal to release the tax returns. He's just being stuborn because "he doesn't have to". I'm willing to bet he's just embarrassed that he's stoopidly rich... But the thing is... we know that. Had it released it back then, no one would remember now.

All we're gonna see from here on out is elevated political gamesmanship.

Democracy is ugly... you can pry it from our undead claws...

But, what ever happened to "representing" your electorate for altruistic reasons? Ben Franklin (or was it Hamilton?) had a famous quote about this that is escaping me...