Paul:We need less big government, but we need the govt to tell us how many kids poor people can have

Think you can say "Umm"'a few more times? Might help make your point a little better.

 

Nope. What he did was place the decision on whether or not to require the work provision of the law in the hands of the state governments. The state governments asked for it so they could substitute the job requirement for other provisions such as attending school or receiving work training. The states also had to provide a plan that met goals showing that they were actually putting people to work and not just writing them checks every week or the waiver would be revoked. Bottom line: it was a way to recognize that not every situation is the same and this gave the states some flexibility to use this with other tools in an effort to put people back to work. In effect, what Obama did was continue what Bush started a few years previous when the waiver was granted to a handful of states.

Right after Romney starting telling everyone that Obama gutted the law, the (Republican) Governor of Utah publicly set him straight...

 

Aside from all of that, let me ask this: What does one hope to gain by cutting food stamps and assistance from people who have kids but can't afford them? Are we supposed to be teaching them a lesson by letting their kids go hungry? Are we going to become a nation of people who allow our citizens to starve?

Shouldn't we be looking at why they can't afford food in the first place?

 

I understand that it is up to the States to decide after the waiver was issued and that was in the linked article. Here in New York, that graft and fraud as well as the low motivation to work is expanding. I do agree we should be looking as to why they can't afford food in the first place and Winston points out that jobs are important. The problem is the system is being gamed and more children when already on assistance is not the answer, which is what the original statement by Paul was about. I forgot to throw an Umm in, sorry

 

That is all fine and dandy. The first place we can begin to look is personal responsibility.

 

I didn't bother with CNN or mediamatters but took this from the factcheck link you posted -

{Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.}

The whole point when this first came about was that States can eliminate them which was not part of the original law. Now cruising the internet can be construed as looking for work. And welfare has not been eliminated by 20% like HHS said was the goal. Instead participation has gone up the last 5 years. So, partisan fact checkers are not different than the writer's opinion which has proved to be more on the correct side of things.

 

I actually agree with him on this point. Too many kids out there that aren't cared for.