obAMATEUR Expands the Dependent Class AGAIN and Bypasses Congress!

Let’s look at this pResident’s accomplishments:

  • Government takeover of 17% of the economy and your health care.
  • Doubling the number of Americans on food stamps.
  • Spanish soap operas to encourage Hispanics to sign up for food stamps.

And now……

Since the beginning Obama intended to reverse the welfare reforms made by the Republican majority when Clinton was president.  Those reforms freed millions of Americans from their government dependency.  This is not the direction in which Obama wants to travel.

The Obama administration via the Department of Health and Human Services has essentially rewritten the rules established by the welfare reform law of 1996.  The new policy, as per the Obama administration, will no longer require welfare recipients to work in order to maintain their benefits.

(For those who cannot connect the dots)FROM THE MEMO:

Waivers will be granted only for provisions related to section 402.

Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402.

Section 402 describes state plans—reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the many requirements established in the other sections of the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.

The new Obama dictate asserts that because the work requirements, established in section 407, are mentioned as an item that state governments must report about in section 402, all the work requirements can be waived. This removes the core of the TANF program; TANF becomes a blank slate that HHS bureaucrats and liberal state bureaucrats can rewrite at will – or mealy mouthed words as “innovation”..

Therefore, states and other bureaucracies can DEFINE WORK as they attempted before but were overridden.

Over the years, the definition of “work” began to deteriorate and in 2005, Congress tried to reign in the definition of what constitutes “work” in order to receive welfare.   Barack Obama, a Senator at that time, was opposed to this effort – no surprise there.

Here is a SENATE report as to what states have attempted to define as work:

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=47ada91c-07ac-4c7f-bc20-182df03d2654

Some of these include:
1.    Bed rest
2.    Personal care activities
3.    Massage
4.    Exercise
5.    Journaling
6.    Motivational reading
7.    Smoking cessation
8.    Weight loss promotion
9.    Participating in parent teacher meetings
10.  Helping a friend or relative with household tasks and errands

These are what casper tried to pass off as “innovation”. How Sec. of HHS can grant waivers to states that have these activities (or whatever else) in their innovative plans (Section 402).

So, when he says “moving in the right direction”, I guess this is it – EXPANDING the dependent class!

Question is, does this pResident have the authority to do this – reverse law WITHOUT CONGRESS!  I mean this has never stopped him before!!

The Heritage Foundation reminds us of the growing list of Obama administration actions that it has taken to circumvent the legislative process.

  • Even though the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the President’s cap-and-trade plan, his Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide, the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
  • After the Employee Free Choice Act—designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls—was defeated by Congress, the National Labor Relations Board announced a rule that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
  • After an Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would regulate the Web anyway, even despite a federal court’s ruling that it had no authority to do so.
  • Although Congress consistently has barred the Department of Education from getting involved in curriculum matters, the Administration has offered waivers for the No Child Left Behind law in exchange for states adopting national education standards, all without congressional authorization.
  • Since it objects to existing federal immigration laws, the Administration has decided to apply those laws selectively and actively prevent the state (like Arizona) from enforcing those laws themselves.
  • Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those laws.
  • DOJ also has announced that it would stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act or defending it from legal challenge rather than seeking legislative recourse.

These are the actions of a RULER, not a leader. It’s too bad more Americans haven’t focused on the words of Valerie Jarrett – the head of Obama’s transition team – days before his inauguration:  “We will be ready to RULE from day one.”

ImageImage

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “obAMATEUR Expands the Dependent Class AGAIN and Bypasses Congress!

  1. neocon1 July 16, 2012 / 9:11 pm

    Psalm 109:8

  2. patriotdad1 July 17, 2012 / 12:33 am

    Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those laws.

    Huh?

    The Obama administration has unleashed an interagency cannabis crackdown that goes beyond anything seen under the Bush administration, with more than 100 raids, primarily on California pot dispensaries, many of them operating in full compliance with state laws.

    Since October 2009, the Justice Department has conducted more than 170 aggressive SWAT-style raids in 9 medical marijuana states, resulting in at least 61 federal indictments, according to data compiled by Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.

    • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 3:10 am

      a felon drug head depriving other drug heads of their fix…….ROTFLMAO!!!!

    • tiredoflibbs July 17, 2012 / 6:23 am

      uh, “patriot”, obAMATEUR promised not to use federal resources against medical marijuana, here he is in a May 2008 interview with Oregon’s Willamette Week:

      “Would you stop the DEA’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers?

      I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism.”

      So he lied? There’s a surprise.

      Attorney General Holder…claimed to be implementing Obama’s promise to stop harassing state-sanctioned medical marijuana suppliers. “The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law,”Holder declared during a March 2009 session with reporters in Washington. “Given the limited resources that we have,” he said during a visit to Albuquerque three months later, the Justice Department would focus on “large traffickers,” not “organizations that are [distributing marijuana] in a way that is consistent with state law.”…

      Alarmed by [a DEA official’s threats against dispensaries in Colorado], Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) asked Holder at a May 2010 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee whether they were “contrary to your stated policy.” Yes, Holder said, “that would be inconsistent with the policy as we have set it out…if the entity is, in fact, operating consistent with state law and…does not have any of those factors” mentioned in the Ogden memo [such as “sales to minors,” “sale of other controlled substances,” and “financial and marketing activities” inconsistent with state law]. He said those criteria would determine “whether or not federal resources are going to be used to go after somebody who is dealing in marijuana.”

      So Holder is saying yes that they are implementing his promise, but just going after those who violate both state and federal law. If he was NOT ignoring federal law and enforcing it (as to his sworn oath) then ALL SUPPLIERS, GROWERS AND DISPENSARIES of medical marijuana would be subject to the “crackdown”, BUT SADLY THEY ARE NOT!

      What? No comments about any others successful attempts at circumventing Congress and federal law? Try again drone!

  3. Jeremiah July 17, 2012 / 12:49 am

    Where’s that transparency thing that Obummer “promised”?

    I hope soon when November gets here!!!

  4. Jeremiah July 17, 2012 / 12:52 am

    Obummer has broken the law by every count in that list…and he needs impeached. Thrown down from his throne!!! And decency restored to our nation’s headquarters!!!!

    • Canadian Observer July 17, 2012 / 6:22 am

      If the President has committed impeachable offences, Jeremiah, I don’t understand why Congress has not yet started the impeachment process.

      What is wrong with the GOP anyway? They had no problem going after President Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky; why in the world are they so reluctant to do the same with President Obama since, as you say, he has broken the law by every count and is accused of being a liar as well?

      Perhaps you should contact your Congress representative to find out what the holdup is.

      • tiredoflibbs July 17, 2012 / 6:34 am

        You don’t understand CO? Well, given your unintelligent posts I can understand why!

        It’s simple. Right now, if you DISAGREE with the pResident, DISAGREE with his policies and criticize the pResident, you are labeled a racist! According to the proggy looters in DC, anyone who disagrees with him is doing so only because he is black!

        Imagine if they decided to impeach him? I am sure you could imagine that…. probably not, since you are one of thousands of mindless drones out there regurgitating the dumbed down talking points.

      • sue July 17, 2012 / 7:13 am

        Canadian,
        In the U.S. the impeachment of a President is started in the House of Representatives which at this moment is controlled by Republicans. The House would make a list of charges and then it goes to the Senate for trial. The Senate is controlled by the democrats who will never under any circumstances find this particular president guilty of anything simply because he has a D behind his name and as others have noted the cries of racism would begin. Especially since they too have ignored the constitution. An example of this is the fact that they have not passed or even introduced a budget in over 3 years which they are required to do by the Constitution.
        Also if the president was impeached the vice-president then becomes president and nobody wants Biden to be president.

      • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 8:00 am

        cO

        I don’t understand

        thats right, YOU dont stooge.

      • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 8:03 am

        Sue

        Also if the president was impeached the vice-president then becomes president and nobody wants Biden to be president.

        I would take the village idiot any day over the drug addled marxist muslim kenyan and the Mooch.

      • sue July 17, 2012 / 8:29 am

        Neocon,
        True enough. I would add though that the village idiot and Bidon are one and the same. Which is why I believe Obama picked him just in case the rest of his party decided to turn on him they’d think twice.

      • dbschmidt July 17, 2012 / 12:23 pm

        I see CO is stuck on stupid again as it was not “lying” but lying under oath (perjury) that he was impeached on. Big difference.

      • dbschmidt July 17, 2012 / 12:24 pm

        And as a BTW note–do not forget the Obstruction of Justice charge. Actually there were four charges and he was impeached on only two.

      • Mark Edward Noonan July 18, 2012 / 12:32 am

        Canadian,

        There is just no chance that 20 Democrat Senators would join 47 GOP Senators to convict the President after an impeachment trial. This holds true unless Obama murders someone on the White House lawn on live television…and even then it’d be a dicey prospect of getting to 67 votes for conviction. The Democrats will sink or swim with Obama no matter what he does for the same reason the Democrat powers-that-be stampeded to him even though Hillary was outpolling him at one point in the 2008 primary: they are fearful that if they don’t back him to the hilt then African-American voters will stay home at election time. That event would not only ensure Obama’s defeat but would also cost the Democrats anywhere from 20-40 additional House seats and an untold number of State legislative seats. Its a simple calculation – Obama means high African-American turnout, no Obama means low African-American turnout and that means that no matter what Obama does, the Democrats won’t call him to account for it.

        But you do hit close to a fact of American government that almost all foreigners and Americans miss: the President is an elective monarch. Once every four years we elect a king and four years later we have the choice of chopping off his head (by defeating him for re-election) or giving him another four years as king. It was Hillaire Belloc who noted that the concept of America as a democracy is laughable while it was Winston Churchill – writing of the days of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Czar Nicholas II and Emperor Franz Josef – who noted that, in practical terms, the autocratic powers of the President are not exceeded anywhere on the globe (they would be, though, by the madness of the Leninist, Hitlerite and Maoist regimes).

        To be sure there are things a President officially can’t do – but if he then goes ahead and does them, what can be done? Only impeachment – and the bar is set massively high for that action (majority vote in the House, super-majority vote in the Senate) and so its only come up three times in American history (Andrew Johnson in the 1860’s, Nixon in the 1970’s and Clinton in the 1990’s). There was a slight chance it would work against Johnson (but it ended up not working); it would have worked against Nixon (and thus his resignation) and it never had a chance of working against Clinton…because the Democrats were determined to find him not guilty in the Senate regardless of the facts of the case. Because of the partisan nature of politics and given the requirement for 67 votes in just about any conceivable situation you would have to convince members of the President’s own party to convict him for impeachment to be successful and that would only be forthcoming if the members of his party felt that his continuance in office would be more damaging than removing him via impeachment (and with the drubbing the GOP took in the wake of Nixon’s resignation in 1974 probably a lot of GOPers then – and both sides, now – figured it wouldn’t have been any worse had they stood by Nixon and defeated an impeachment vote).

        The only real check upon the President is his term in office and his own conscience. The term is locked in iron – even if a President tried to continue himself in office after the expiration of his term he wouldn’t be able to do it because the military of the United States would no longer recognize such a man as Commander in Chief once his authority expired on January 20th at noon (I guess there is a chance a President could so suborn the military that they would back him, but I doubt it…certainly not all of the military and thus such an event would not so much be the illegal extension of a Presidential term but the start of a civil war). For the conscience part we’ve been lucky – good, bad and indifferent, the men who have occupied the White House have felt a deep responsibility to the institutions of the United States. In this, the example of Washington is vital: he never abused his power and he voluntarily relinquished it after his second term even though he could have continued on until his death (and, at one point, probably could have got himself crowned king of the United States). At least, we’ve had such men until now: I really do honestly hate to say it, but I believe Obama has nothing but contempt for the institutions of the United States and sees our nation as fundamentally flawed and unless he can whip it in to the shape which pleases him, he’ll just keep running roughshod over the laws and traditions of the United States.

  5. Jeremiah July 17, 2012 / 1:56 am

    You know, bypassing congress should fall on the level of treason!! You think I’m kiddin’?? Well, if Obummer gets away with enough things, he’ll practically have it a communist nation by november. you watch and see!!!

    • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 2:57 am

      nov

      time to put the trash out by the curb

  6. GMB July 17, 2012 / 8:56 am

    I would like to comment on this thread. However here, since no one can do anything on their own anymore and we all need the help of government to survive, I will first ask the police, the fire protectors, the water treatment folks, the county highway maintainers, and last but not least, potus barky, what I should say.

    Please stay tuned for an important post from The Green Mountain Communications Corporation for the most important post you will ever read. Since this post will decided on by a committee of collectivists please be prepared to be standing by for what will probably be the rest of your life.

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled doldrums.

    • watsonredux July 17, 2012 / 1:50 pm

      GMB, please tell us how it goes with the police. We’d truly love to know.

  7. irisspirit July 17, 2012 / 10:51 am

    Sue, I wouldn’t be calling anyone a “village idiot” until they learned how to spell “Biden”.

    • Count d'Haricots July 17, 2012 / 12:27 pm

      Well, Thank G*d the Spelling Nazi showed up!

      How can we discuss the substance of the subject without someone to pick apart the composition, diction and syntax.

      carry on, you are making a difference.

      • irisspirit July 17, 2012 / 1:23 pm

        Is there some reason you can not write God? What do you have to write it “G#d? I thank God everyday.

      • tiredoflibbs July 17, 2012 / 1:48 pm

        wow, velma you will question anything but the topic of the thread.

        Don’t hurt yourself doing all that ducking and dodging!

      • Count d'Haricots July 17, 2012 / 1:35 pm

        I’ll answer that since you’re ignorant; it is a sign of respect. We do not use the name of G*d for mundane things, nor do we place it where it might be deleted, discarded or destroyed.

        Deuteronomy 12:3-12:4.

    • tiredoflibbs July 17, 2012 / 12:31 pm

      “Sue, I wouldn’t be calling anyone a “village idiot” until they learned how to spell “Biden”.”

      Says velma who misspelled “perjury” and “advice” while claiming to be a lawyer!!

      Too funny…..

      • Count d'Haricots July 17, 2012 / 12:38 pm

        Don’t forget “indict”.

      • irisspirit July 17, 2012 / 1:25 pm

        You are such a simpleton tired. Such a simpleton!

      • tiredoflibbs July 17, 2012 / 1:46 pm

        “You are such a simpleton tired. Such a simpleton!”

        Says the catty woman who started it all!!!

        I am not the one who claims to be a lawyer and misspells such simple legal terms as perjury, indict or advice…… THEN berates others for misspelling!!!

        It would be the equivalent of an electrical engineer misspelling “volt” or “amp”.

        Well, I guess if you wanted to post here that is all you could come up with, since you refuse to address the topic. Addressing the topic would expose you to unpleasant facts and force you face reality and perhaps question your obAMATEUR fantasy!!!

        The country should be so lucky!

    • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 4:09 pm

      biden bidon schmiden BFD,
      the best part is, EVERYONE knew who the VILLAGE IDIOT is despite the spelling LOL

    • GMB July 17, 2012 / 6:04 pm

      Are you sure you read the memo Casper? Read again please. The barky administration will now issue waivers to the states as to what qualifies as work.

      Pretty much the end there right?

    • tiredoflibbs July 17, 2012 / 6:09 pm

      Obviously, casper as GMB points out you did not read the attachments to find how the obAMATEUR circumvented the law.

      The information is there if you are willing to look and comprehend! – either you simply overlooked it or were intellectually dishonest and refused to acknowledge it.

      I can’t make you do either.

      • casper July 17, 2012 / 6:42 pm

        Purpose of the memo:

        “HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.

        States led the way on welfare reform in the 1990s — testing new approaches and learning what worked and what did not. The Secretary is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment. In providing for these demonstrations, HHS will hold states accountable by requiring both a federally-approved evaluation and interim performance targets that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes. States must develop evaluation plans that are sufficient to evaluate the effect of the proposed approach in furthering a TANF purpose as well as interim targets the state commits to achieve. States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project.

        The demonstration authority provided by section 1115 and sound evaluation of approved projects will provide valuable knowledge that will help lead to improvements in achieving the purposes of the TANF program.”

        OMG, They want states to come up with better ways to improve employment outcomes for needy families.

      • casper July 17, 2012 / 7:06 pm

        Tired,
        Maybe it’s this part that upsets you:

        “The Information Memorandum outlines the types of waivers that will and will not be considered. The Secretary is only interested in approving waivers if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits. “

      • GMB July 17, 2012 / 7:23 pm

        Under the new waiver system, underwater coed naked hula dancing, will now be considered work but only for those with a degree in transitional cross cultural tribal ebonics.

        Werx fur mee!!!

      • casper July 17, 2012 / 7:26 pm

        “Under the new waiver system, underwater coed naked hula dancing, will now be considered work but only for those with a degree in transitional cross cultural tribal ebonics.”

        And you found that where?

      • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 7:30 pm

        GMB
        underwater coed naked hula dancing,
        sounds like the forkers….ewwwwwww

        catspuke……if nothing changed why did the POS issue an EO?

      • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 7:32 pm

        catspuke making his usual feeble circular argument for 6th graders.
        grow up caspy and GROW a brain, for a “teacher” you are the dumbest rock in the box containing millions.

      • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 7:44 pm

        here are the results of holder, Ubama, je$$e , $harpton, water$, wright, NOI, NBBP and dozens of others………..fanning the flames of entitlements and hatred.
        get ready for Nov because it is going to be UGLY….

        ‘Flash rob’ by 30-40 black youths targets Troutdale Albertsons

        Massive ‘Flash Mob’ of 300 Terrorizes, Robs Florida Walmart After Local Party Broken Up by Police

        PS
        they aint canadians……..

  8. GMB July 17, 2012 / 7:46 pm

    To: The Feds
    From: State of De Nile
    Subject: Wavier request.

    Dear Feds,
    We here at the State of De Nile hereby request a TANF waiver under section 402. We believe that participants are gaining valuable life and work skills by sitting on top of polls.

    Thank You
    Governor Moonbeam

    To: Governor Moonbeam
    From: The Feds
    Subject: Waiver request.

    Request is granted, make sure the participants know who greased their palms with those dead white presidents!!

    Thanks
    barky o’chimpstick

    Section 1115 of the Social Security Act provides authority for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consider and approve experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects which, in the Secretary’s judgment, are likely to assist in promoting the objectives of Title IV-A. Section 1115 allows for waiver of compliance with section 402 of the Social Security Act to the extent and for the period necessary to enable a state to carry out an approved project.

    • casper July 17, 2012 / 7:58 pm

      GMB,
      Good job, you actually read the memo. However, this is also included.

      “The Secretary will not use her authority to allow use of TANF funds to provide assistance to individuals or families subject to the TANF prohibitions on assistance.”

      • GMB July 17, 2012 / 8:02 pm

        That only applies to people who are prohibited from receiving assistance. HHS could in theory extend anyone already on TANF for however long they want to, as long as the state has asked for a waiver.

        Votes for Sale!! Get your votes here!!!

      • casper July 17, 2012 / 8:08 pm

        “That only applies to people who are prohibited from receiving assistance. HHS could in THEORY extend anyone already on TANF for however long they want to, as long as the state has asked for a waiver.”

        Except for this:

        “The Secretary will not use her authority to allow use of TANF funds to provide assistance to individuals or families subject to the TANF prohibitions on assistance.”

        At least now we are actually discussing the original memo.

      • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 8:10 pm

        OOPSY

        GMB

        I’ll take 10, all pre voted for gore Ubama of course……
        meanwhile back at da crib…..(aka formerly the ranch)

        The Latent Function of Welfare Un-Reform
        Bill Schanefelt

        There has been much gnashing of teeth over the fact that the Obama Administration’s recent decree on welfare reform means that practicing yoga or bed rest would count as work for purposes of admitting people to welfare rolls, but there well may be another purpose of the action-intended or unintended.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/the_latent_function_of_welfare_un-reform.html#ixzz20vbLn7Sd

    • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 8:12 pm

      Do Obama’s Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern?
      By Warren Beatty

      President Barack Hussein “kill list” Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO), and he is not even through his first term. He is creating a wonderland of government controls covering everything imaginable, including a list of “Emergency Powers” and martial law EOs. And while Obama is busy issuing EOs to control everything inside the US, he has been issuing EOs to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our US Constitution.

      And comments by North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue and former OMB director Peter Orszag only contribute to this pattern.

      Is it now time to start connecting the dots? Obama signed EO 13603 on March 22, 2012. Then he signed EO 13617 on June 25, 2012, declaring a national emergency. Then he signed EO 13618 on July 6, 2012.

      In EO 13603, entitled, “National Defense Resources Preparedness,” Obama says (among other things) that [we must]:

      be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

      Obama has the power, through this EO, to “nationalize” (not seize) private assets in order to protect national interests. Further, the EO effectively states that he can:

      1. “identify” requirements for emergencies

      2. “assess” the capability of the country’s industrial and technological base

      3. “be prepared” to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat

      4. “improve the efficiency” of the industrial base to support national defense

      5. “foster cooperation” between commercial and defense sectors

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/do_obamas_executive_orders_reveal_a_pattern.html#ixzz20vcdugNU

  9. GMB July 17, 2012 / 8:25 pm

    Casper, then what are waivers for and why the eo?

    “The Secretary will not use her authority to allow use of TANF funds to provide assistance to individuals or families subject to the TANF prohibitions on assistance.”

    There will be no prohibition on assistance to anyone where the state has requested and fed has approved a waiver.

    It is pretty much that simple.

    You are a teacher and you don’t speak burocratese? 😛

    • casper July 17, 2012 / 8:30 pm

      The waivers are to allow states to try something different within the system.

      “You are a teacher and you don’t speak burocratese?”

      I’m a teacher, not an administrator.

      • GMB July 17, 2012 / 8:43 pm

        Well we are making some progress here.

        “The waivers are to allow states to try something different within the system.”

        Yes like classifying kite flying as a work experience to justify extended benefit periods.

        All perfectly acceptable under barkys new eo.

      • casper July 17, 2012 / 8:47 pm

        GMB,
        So you are against states innovating?

      • Amazona July 17, 2012 / 9:31 pm

        casper—seriously?

        You are seriously disinterring that pathetic old Lib tactic of rephrasing what someone said, inaccurately, to imply something never said or intended?

        Wow. You need a new Lefty handbook. I think even the Left dropped that non-starter a long time ago.

        GMB, the tipoff is the leading word “SO”.

        Example: I’d like to see more of our oil come from domestic drilling.

        SO you don’t care if we destroy our country?

        It’s just about the lamest tactic the Left has ever used, and I am surprised to see it dragged out again. And so clumsily, too.

        But then, this is casper…..

      • casper July 17, 2012 / 10:00 pm

        “Amazona July 17, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

        casper—seriously?

        You are seriously disinterring that pathetic old Lib tactic of rephrasing what someone said, inaccurately, to imply something never said or intended?”

        Considering you are a master of that tactic, I guess you would know.

        Of course it’s easier to attack me than read the original memo and stick with the topic of the thread.

      • Amazona July 17, 2012 / 10:38 pm

        Oh, casper, you silly silly thing, you.

        I did not refer to the memo, and you know it. Even you can figure that out.

        No, I was referring to your use of a tired old Lefty tactic, which is to pretend to be referring to something someone said, and to start off a comment with “SO,……” and then stick in something the other person never said.

        Do try to keep up, cappy.

        I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU said.

        Not the memo.

        Are you truly that dense, or did your sabbatical from this blog and the regular spankings you got for your goofy efforts last so long you forgot any lessons you might have learned?

        Do not try that here, do not try that again, because just like we used to do before, we will call you on your silliness.

        So, drop the faux outrage over my not referring to the memo. Get this through your head. I did not refer to the memo because I was not talking about the memo.

        I referred to a tactic you tried, because I was talking about a tactic you tried.

        You coyly simpered “So you are against states innovating?” when no one said any such thing, you got called on it, and now you are trying to change the subject.

        And playing the Poor Me Victim Card at the same time.

        All you need for a hat trick is to call me a racist.

      • neocon1 July 17, 2012 / 10:40 pm

        No catspuke
        your stupid circular arguments might make you the brightest bulb in the 7th grade, to us it proves you to be the Fn Moron we know you are.

  10. casper July 17, 2012 / 10:50 pm

    Amazona,
    You might try reading the memo, since it’s about states innovating and is what this thread is based on.

    • Amazona July 17, 2012 / 11:01 pm

      If you want to call the ability of a state to classify absolutely any activity as employment, based on the claim that it might somehow some time in some place in some way make it easier to get a job, “innovation” then you go right ahead.

      In the meantime don’t try your lame Lefty semantic games here.

      And check with rico—he might want his dictionary back.

      • casper July 17, 2012 / 11:14 pm

        “If you want to call the ability of a state to classify absolutely any activity as employment, based on the claim that it might somehow some time in some place in some way make it easier to get a job, “innovation” then you go right ahead.”

        And that is where in the memo?

        //MODERATOR: Where? Waivers will be granted only for provisions related to section 402. Section 402 contains, as you call it, “innovation” by the states. States can redefine what is considered work. This is, at least the second time, it has been spelled out for you.

      • Amazona July 17, 2012 / 11:23 pm

        casper, please quit whining.

        I find the tactic of saying “SO, blahblahblahblahblah” offensive.

        You use it. I told you it was lame.

        Get over it. I am not going to say gee, cappy, now I think it is a legitimate tactic.

        You said it because you thought it was a witty and compelling “gotcha”. I find it juvenile and tired.

        Move on.

      • casper July 17, 2012 / 11:29 pm

        I guess attacking me is more important than reading the memo the thread is based on.

      • Amazona July 18, 2012 / 12:41 am

        I guess you never quit whining, do you?

      • Amazona July 18, 2012 / 12:46 am

        OK, casper–enough

        I apologize. I overreacted. When you immediately started back in with the same gotcha mentality that you used to exhibit here, I snapped back to my old irritation at it.

        I should have known better. I should have known that once you get a whine going, get latched onto what you think is a gotcha, you will never let it go, but I persisted in trying to explain to you that I was talking about you and not the memo.

        It is my fault. I should have learned something from our prior encounters.

        You are completely right. If I had intended to post about the memo, I should have posted about the memo.

      • tiredoflibbs July 18, 2012 / 8:08 am

        Ama, don’t beat yourself up. That is exactly what cappy did. He tried to deflect from the meaning, change the narrative and then played the victim – similar to what the whiner in chief does!

        I don’t know if cappy is being intellectually dishonest or just doesn’t get it. My belief is towards the former – after having it spelled out several times he does what you accurately stated. Cappy is focused on the words of the memo and not their meaning. to him if the memo, did not state it verbatim that the secretary can waive work requirements then it’s not there and the meaning of the words has no “meaning”.

      • Amazona July 18, 2012 / 9:44 am

        tired, I really should have thought it through before commenting on the old “SO…..” tactic. But it’s such a pet peeve of mine, seeing it used over and over again, that it trips my trigger. When I’ve seen it pulled on TV it is always said with a smug simper, as if the speaker believes he or she has just scored a big ‘gotcha’ so I admit to reading that simper into the written word as well.

        casper is the perfect illustration of a big fish in a very small pool, but in his case the pool is a bunch of young and impressionable middle-schoolers. So he has been able to pontificate about his distortions of American history, the Constitution, and politics in general, without any disagreement or bounceback.

        So he came here, expecting to get away with the same nonsense, and ran into the wall of knowledge and impatience at his antics.

        But worse, far far worse, after being smacked down by me so often, I learned that one of the people I regularly saw when in Casper Wyoming on business had a child in one of his classes, and had others before this one who had been “taught” by him.

        Uh-oh. Now there was feedback to a PARENT about the crap he had been feeding the kids, and that is when he got panicky. This happened during a period when we were arguing about the Constitution, and he was having a wall-kicking temper tantrum over his insistence that anyone who believes in the Constitution as written really wants the return of slavery and women to lose the vote.

        (I know, I know—-and he is a TEACHER!. Or at least employed by a school system in that role.)

        I mildly asked if parents and the school board know what he tells his students about our Constitution and what it means, and he freaked out, squealing that I was “threatening” him, that I was a “stalker”, and that I was trying to “get him fired”.

        I found this panicked response to be very telling. Even though he knew how I had stumbled upon his identity, even though I had obviously never made any kind of a threat, he squealed about this for weeks. But what struck me was his conviction that if I WERE to inform the parents and school board of what he had been teaching these children, he could be fired.

        That told me that he was always fully aware that he was going against the actual meaning of the Constitution and the facts of our history and our rule of law, but thought he could get away with it because only the children could report him, and they had no reason to doubt what he told them.

        This episode firmed up my opinion of casper as not just a blissfully ignorant dupe, but a profoundly dishonest one who was purposely teaching children things that are, at their core, unAmerican.

        And it is this contempt for him that influences my reactions to what he says.

      • Count d'Haricots July 18, 2012 / 12:50 pm

        Amazona,

        I am profoundly disappointed to learn this of Casper.

        For my entire academic life I held teachers in low regard for this very reason; societal misfits reduced to bullying impressionable children with the venom collected over a lifetime. Venom and quiet rage at being ever so slightly behind his peers; one step off of being able to relate and function among them, never singled out for acknowledgement of self-deluded feats turning instead to their inferiors to gain the feeling of superiority denied.

        For my “second career” I was convinced to pass CBEST get teaching credentials and obtain a position at a high school teaching business, marketing and accounting. My worst fears were realized as the majority of my peers fit perfectly into the poorest end of the spectrum I imagined. Oh, there were a few dedicated educators; an English teacher who failed students who didn’t meet the standard; an auto shop teacher who spent countless hours after class with students going well beyond the curriculum for the love of teaching; the algebra teacher that didn’t allow a single student to leave his class until he was convinced he made every effort possible to get through to the kid.

        Most were like Casper; having worked at menial dead-end jobs, never attaining anything close to accomplishment, until such time they can complete a degree program, taking their distorted view of life and success into the classroom and commiserating with children over the unfairness of it all. I was counseled by these malcontents that I was trying too hard, teaching is a game of numbers they said; push as many kids through, don’t let them dictate the pace or the content; enjoy the enormous amount free time you have, and get through each year until retirement.

        This personality/intellectual defect is why teachers expend so much of their energy giving themselves awards and congratulating one another on imagined accomplishments while their successive charges grow ever more ignorant and increasingly disheartened at life’s prospects.

        I was successful by the teachers’ standards, achieve the imprecise “Teacher of the Year” award from the District after 4 years, quit in disgust and started my “third career.” My opinion of teachers is even lower now; Casper’s story has only confirmed that already stumpy estimation.

  11. Cluster July 18, 2012 / 7:26 am

    Casper,

    Why would the states have to try something different? And if some states get to try something different, why not let every state? That would follow the spirit of the constitution.

    • neocon1 July 18, 2012 / 5:55 pm

      cluster

      this regime hates the constitution.

  12. GMB July 18, 2012 / 10:29 am

    Caper, as a general principle I am against any and all federal welfare programs. There is no basis for them in our Constitution. None.

    Money that is sent to feds and then sent back to the states waste how much in extra levels bureaucracy? Federal tax rates should be reduced and that money never collected by the feds.

    The states may waste it however they want.

    • neocon1 July 18, 2012 / 5:54 pm

      GMB

      Right on the money

      • neocon1 July 18, 2012 / 6:07 pm

        Arpaio: Obama birth record ‘definitely fraudulent’

      • neocon1 July 18, 2012 / 6:24 pm

        The kneepadding MSM squealing about raaaacism……AGAIN…LOL

        MSNBC Host Accuses Limbaugh of Racism for Saying Obama Used to Do Drugs

        “Look, pal, when I was out creating jobs, investing in businesses and growing this economy, you were at Columbia smoking weed and snorting coke.”

        ————————————————————————————-
        I guess the racist white half of Ubama wrote the book against his black half.

      • GMB July 18, 2012 / 7:05 pm

        States like Florida and Texas would be big winners. Kalifornia and the peoples republic of illinois would be big losers even with the extra money.

        Sad commentary on my home state. They wish their finances were in is as good as shape as Greece’s.

  13. Chippy55 July 18, 2012 / 7:36 pm

    Obama has to buy votes any way he can for one simple reason: if he loses in November he is giving up all of the protection that surrounds him including the best armed force in the world. Sure he’ll have a few Secret Service agents as protection for 10 years but then what, move back to Kenya?
    The reason he is concerned is that there are about 600 million followers of bin Laden who are angry with Obama, and not even the $25 million reward offered by the U.S. Government could entice any of them to give up bin Laden. Also, there were at least 2 or 3 sovereign nations, IMHO the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which aided and abetted bin Laden as he crisscrossed the borders, and Syria may have been involved. Since Obama isn’t concerned with the southern border, and we know that there are at least 15 different nationalities of illegals coming through, the odds are extremely high IMHO that some of those coming across are cells. And we know from history that those cells will stay underground for years before they decide to act. It’s just another conundrum that defines Liberalism, like promoting abortion. The downside to those 53 million Liberals (don’t kid yourself, only a Liberal woman would have an abortion) who chose to kill the life growing inside them is that you have to replace all those lost votes. Hence, you have to open the borders, and open the jails.

    • apirocks July 18, 2012 / 8:42 pm

      don’t kid yourself, only a Liberal woman would have an abortion

      LOL. Wishful thinking on your part. Conservative women have abortions. Of course they regard their case as “exceptional” but you have your head in the sand if you think only liberal women have abortions.

      • Jeremiah July 18, 2012 / 9:09 pm

        Conservative women have abortions.

        They might call themselves Conservatives, but they aren’t.
        Just like women who call themselves “Christians” who get abortions. They’re not Christians.

      • Jeremiah July 18, 2012 / 9:10 pm

        They want to talk it, but they don’t want to walk it.

    • neocon1 July 19, 2012 / 7:27 am

      Yikes rosie…..LOL

Comments are closed.