That is completely untrue. Those coal plants were profitable and had decades of use left in them when Obama’s regulations forced them to shut down or convert to NG.
Converting coal fired plants to NG or replacing them with NG fired plants is an enormously expensive proposition and they didn’t make those choices until they were forced to do so for a reason.
No, it has failed simply because so many have participated and for a great many they are comfortable with what is provided. In any given population there will be somewhere around 10-25% that will never do anything more than what is required to have the basics and since the gov’t is providing them food, water, housing, healthcare and a cash stipend they are “comfortable” where they are.
The whole system needs to be revamped, subsidizing poverty only gives us more of it.
Make welfare solely a hand up with work, education, job training etc and keep it limited to two years max, not just two years at a time, but max.
We aren’t “helping families” by teaching them to be dependent on the gov’t or by encouraging sloth and laziness by paying them for it.
It’s their money to start with.
No, 'Tax cuts" simply mean you get to keep more of what you earn. “Tax Credits” for the most part go to people who aren’t paying income tax to start with, or exceed whatever those in the lower brackets pay after their deductions are counted.
The latter is a direct cost to taxpayers.
The money belongs to those who earn it, not the gov’t.
Obama killed the work requirement for welfare, I’m not sure if republicans have gotten it put back in yet.
The only welfare program that required work was TANF which is only a small part of the total package of welfare programs available.
Sigh.
Learn something for a change.
… .What is it that the administration’s July guidance suddenly seeks to change? At the core of the 1996 law are “participation rate requirements” that ensure that 30 to 40 percent of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in any of 12 different “work activities” for 20 to 30 hours per week. The administration would exempt states from this requirement and encourage them to operate under alternative performance measures. For example, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said that to bypass federal workfare requirements, a state would have to “move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance.”…
But Obama was not satisfied with rolling back the work requirement just for the food stamp program. On July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an “information memorandum” inviting states to apply for waivers to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
Buried in that memo was a single paragraph functionally gutting the federal welfare system’s overall work requirement.
The old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program also had nominal work requirements. But thanks to pages and pages of loopholes in the statute, any governor could use those loopholes to evade the work requirement.
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act changed all that by vastly simplifying what did, and did not, qualify as “work” for welfare’s work requirement.
It also set strict new work-participation rates for states that, if not met, would lead to reduced federal funding. It was these strict new welfare-to-work requirements that the Left always hated. …
So they put the definition of “work activities” for determining welfare eligibility in a separate section of the bill, Section 407, and explicitly said that Section 407 could not be waived.
But that is exactly what the Obama welfare memo did. It claimed that Section 1115 of the welfare reform law, a section granting the HHS secretary the power to grant waivers for state “demonstration projects,” also empowered waiving Section 407.
Notably absent from Section 1115’s list of sections of the welfare reform law that the HHS secretary may waive is Section 407.
Once Section 407 was killed, states were free to redefine “work” under the welfare law. In the past, states have successfully labeled such activities as “personal journaling,” “motivational reading” and “weightless promotion” as “work,” thus allowing them to receive full federal funding without actually getting anyone off welfare and into a job. If the Obama welfare memo stands, the 1996 welfare reform law will have been repealed by executive fiat. …
An opinion piece in the Post written by a fellow at the Heritage Foundation AND the Examiner! That’s quite a find.
The facts are the facts so of course you have to attack the source since you don’t like the facts.
Like I said, learn something for a change.
My facts are better than your “facts.” As you’ve been told, stop getting such ■■■■■■ sources.
Your “facts” are crap, the Obama administration did exactly what I said it did and you know it, now go troll someone else.
Funny fella.
Facts??? From an opinion piece by the Heritage Foundation and an Examiner article that is part of a series titled “With the Stroke of a Pen: How Obama abuses executive power to make the law of the land”???
No kidding. His sources are notoriously terrible.
The Food Stamp program had a welfare requirement?
I’m confused.
I thought TANF was the only welfare program that had that, & more needy families actually get Food Stamps than TANF.
So tax your future children for your benefit today. Well done.
We already give away free money. It’s called welfare. I’m surprised that Sir Richard has no heard of it.
There’s a five year lifetime limit on that.
Kind of like dems who want open borders and lock their doors…
Sort of. “Welfare” is not terribly specific. Sort of a catch all term. As a society, we’ve shied away from handing out cash. TANF still does but in the welfare reforms of the 90s it got scaled way back from its predecessor program. Most “welfare” isn’t cash. It’s housing subsidies, food stamps, etc.
The idea being that we already shell out a lot of money for the needy but in programs where we’ve decided what they should spend it on. As a conservative, maybe you’d agree that the individual actually knows how to spend the money more wisely for their individual situation. So why not just take all our welfare spending and turn it into cash and see what happens? There are some compelling reasons to get behind it.
Hannity Community
The official community forum of Sean Hannity. Join the conversation with fellow conservatives on the issues that matter most.