Originally Posted by Templar
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.
I spelled it out for you baby-style as for the actual clause that says HHS can take proposals from the States on the DEFINITION OF THE WORK REQUIREMENT.
Plain as day in front of your eyes that the Administration will take proposals on redefining the work requirement. It is already defined in section 407. What pray tell is it going to change to?? You dense enough to argue that the WhiteHouse is going to make it TOUGHER to stay on welfare?? Lol.
I also like how after asking for "Facts", I slapped them all over the place on actual real issues with the 20% waiver target and none of them get refuted on his silly this metric is.
I can care less about your affiliation when you don't argue in good faith. I've already read all the "Opinions" from the media. Why do I need those when I can read the actual rule??