Originally Posted by rgrovr
Right from the HHS memorandum:
Section 407 stipulate the work requirements as defined by Congress (with no with authority under the law to allow for HHS to waive - which is another convo).
Section 402 is the reporting requirement states need to provide to the Fed. gov't on their TANF programs. (that portion of the law is WAIVABLE which is ironic.)
If you read the statement by HHS - its basically saying, since we can waive the reporting requirement (and only temporarily at that as per the law), we can then re-stipulate work requirements from another section on criteria we have yet to determine. To include, and I say again for effect - "..definitions of work activities and engagement"
I can't spell it out any more than that. I guess this may be one of those "Don't believe your lying eyes" type of moments for the Dems on this board.
No, you're drawing wild conclusions from a vague statement. It's another "well this might happen if this and that happens which might make this turn that way and...." Typical wild assumptions being drawn from silly Republicans that are just trying so hard to blame everything on Obama so they can have their boy Mitt try and do better (which he won't.)
Section 402 is not a "reporting requirement." The funny thing is, you even said yourself that Section 407 cannot be waived, and they have no intention of waiving it. The fact remains that this proposal allows the States more flexibility to choose other ways to IMPROVE the program. The key is that they MUST improve welfare to work by 20%. Removing the work requirement doesn't do that.
I know you can't spell it out, because it doesn't exist. You still haven't shown me where anything says the actual work requirement is removed, like the Romney ad states, and I know you won't be able to. But I mean you're pulling everything else out of thin air, so I figured you'd show me some sort of article that pulls that statement out of the abyss as well.
Here's some reading for you. Don't hurt yourself...
For the record, I'm a registered Republican, in the US Army, and a lifetime NRA member. I believe myself to be pretty conservative, but when someone blatantly lies (either side) I find it hard to stand side-by-side with them.