Good News for Arlos

[Martrae]

New Welfare Rule Friendlier to Students
Jan 26, 4:30 AM (ET)
By KEVIN FREKING


WASHINGTON (AP) - Welfare recipients who go to college will be able to use up to a year of classwork to meet the program's work requirements and will no longer need to have their homework supervised to have some of that time count as well.

The unsupervised homework provision, which also applies to vocational school and other educational activities, represents a change from rules put into place in 2006 for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. A copy of the final rule was obtained by The Associated Press. It will be published in the Federal Register next week.

The nation's governors had sought the changes, arguing the requirement that homework be supervised would increase state costs. The Bush administration had wanted as much supervision as possible, but eventually it conceded that most students aren't monitored as they do their homework.

"Since we're trying to imitate what real life is like, we thought we were asking a little too much there," said Sidonie Squier, director of the Office of Family Assistance, which is within the Health and Human Services Department.

Under welfare reform, adults getting cash assistance are generally required to work a minimum number of hours each week. The 2006 rule more strictly defined what constitutes work. The new rule incorporates the feedback it received.

The interim rule also did not count getting a bachelor's degree as a work activity. The new rule will allow recipients to count one year of college as a work activity. Some analysts say this is an important step in helping recipients get a better education.

"Long-term success will depend upon people getting better jobs, better skills, better wages," said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.

The rules did not incorporate the governors' request for more leeway in setting the work requirements for people with disabilities. Some participants with disabilities simply cannot meet the minimum 20 or 30 hours that's required, but states should still get credit for helping them, they said.

Half of the single-parent families participating in the TANF program must meet the work requirements or states could lose some federal funding.

"We recognize that many individuals with disabilities are capable of participating in productive work activities and encourage states to explore these capabilities, rather than focusing on their limitations," the final rule states.

The administration said it plans to expand its efforts to give states more technical assistance in helping them find full employment for disabled welfare recipients.

Squier rejected the notion that states could have more of an incentive to removed the disabled from the TANF rolls if their participation makes it harder for states to avoid financial sanctions.

"States really have a nasty little tendency to shove folks with a disability to the side because they're harder to work with," Squier said. "When you move them aside, that's a not-so-subtle form of discrimination."

But Schott said that giving states more leeway in serving the disabled increased the financial incentive to do so.

"There is a lot of lip service to states that they should serve families with disabilities, but the rules do not support that kind of language," she said.

About 2 million families per month get cash assistance, down from the historical high of 5 million families in the mid-1990s.

[Arlos]

Makes no difference to me, as I am not now, nor have I ever been on welfare.

I think it's a smart change, though, as it encourages people to get to school and pursue a degree that will ultimately help them far more than 20-30 hours a week working at McDonalds or something similar. Indeed, I'd like to see more money going towards things like pell grants and suchlike, to make it even more viable for people to attend school.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

[Arlos]

A better educated populace benefits all of society, and I'd think people who actually attend college and get a degree are far less likely to get involved in random crime, gangs, etc. than your average welfare recipient. Not to mention, once someone HAS a degree, they're very very likely to be able to find a good enough job to mean they no longer need to BE on welfare. (and heck, almost all 4-year colleges have some kind of day-care program in place, so even single parents can go to classes without paying an arm and a leg to have someone watch their kid(s).) So, doing everything possible to make it easy and viable for everyone, regardless of income, to be able to attend college is a win/win for everyone, I'd think. More education for everyone makes us liberals happy, taking people off welfare makes conservatives happy, what's not to like?

-Arlos

[Zanchief]

How is this bad?

[Tikker]

right wingers don't believe in helping other people

[Narrock]

right wingers don't believe in helping other people

That's a retarded statement.

[Martrae]

Who said it was bad?

[Tikker]

right wingers don't believe in helping other people

That's a retarded statement.

it is, and sadly, true

[Narrock]

right wingers don't believe in helping other people

That's a retarded statement.

it is, and sadly, true

It's not true. I'm conservative and I believe in helping other people. I know tons of conservatives who are very generous with their time and money in helping others less fortunate. So, I don't know if you're just being ignorant or just being an ass.

[Kramer]

it's not that off base, look at what pub's look to cut anytime the budget needs to get whacked to support the war on oil, err, wmd's, errr terror.... social service programs


most the republicans i know like to throw non-silver change at homeless people as they drive by and laugh out the window

[Naethyn]

right wingers don't believe in helping other people

Right wingers don't believe people shouldn't be helped, they just believe the government shouldn't have a role in said helpings.

[Martrae]

right wingers don't believe in helping other people

Right wingers don't believe people shouldn't be helped, they just believe the government shouldn't have a role in said helpings.

Exactly.

[Zanchief]

right wingers don't believe in helping other people

Right wingers don't believe people shouldn't be helped, they just believe the government shouldn't have a role in said helpings.

Exactly.

Ah yes, magic might be the best alternative.

[Harrison]

most the republicans i know like to throw non-silver change at homeless people as they drive by and laugh out the window

and I thought I knew some horrible people before I removed them from my life...

[Martrae]

Ah yes, magic might be the best alternative.

You know...the Amish are considered backwards by many. But when one of their houses burn down the community gets together and build them a new one. If one of them is sick, they take turns giving care. They are there for each other. And they will not take help from outsiders.

I think, in that respect, we are the backwards ones.

[Lyion]

I think it has more to do with the idiocy of the far left who wants to take as much money from as many people as possible and to spend it as they deem fit. I'm sure they can do so much more if you just take all the cash from everyone!

Liberal Fascism. Coming to a government near you today.

lf.jpg (11.69 KiB) Viewed 1569 times

[Zanchief]

Ah yes, magic might be the best alternative.

You know...the Amish are considered backwards by many. But when one of their houses burn down the community gets together and build them a new one. If one of them is sick, they take turns giving care. They are there for each other. And they will not take help from outsiders.

I think, in that respect, we are the backwards ones.

Great anecdote, but that really isn't relevant. Since you hate the government and don't want them to help anyone, who do you propose does something about it? We could just let the poor people live in worse conditions and shake our fists at them for not working harder. Seems pretty right wing to me.

Lyion, go find the clip of Stewart owning that nutjob on his show. He's so insane you'd probably love his book.

[Lyion]

you hate the government and don't want them to help anyone, who do you propose does something about it? We could just let the poor people live in worse conditions and shake our fists at them for not working harder. Seems pretty right wing to me.

No, we just prefer government be limited and help the truly needy.

This is in stark contrast to your goal of having the government support everyone, regardless of need or circumstance.

You want an open and bloated welfare state. We don't.

Seems pretty left wing and unreal to me.

[Martrae]

You really don't get it, do you? Before the government took over churches and local communities helped people. They helped by enabling people to help themselves...not by just giving them a handout. Job training, work programs, emergency assistance, temporary housing...all done by charities and by people who really know what's going on. Who's running a scam and who really needs help.

[Zanchief]

A yes, the church helping people out of course under the condition that they accept Christ into their hearts. Just like all those benevolent missionaries who travel to far off places and build water wells in small villages (as long as they build a church first). Turn your back on your beliefs and you get some rice!

I wonder if you were desperate for help if you'd let the church of Scientology help rebuild your house as long as your children took their dianetics test first.

No thanks, I'll take the governments assistants. No strings attached.

[Harrison]

No thanks, I'll take the governments assistants. No strings attached.

What do one night stands have to do with this?

No, but seriously, no strings attached?

Maybe not to those receiving it directly, but everyone else regardless of their feelings on the matter have to pay for this "assistants"? That sounds rather...dumb.

Benevolence is a choice, not a requirement from your fucking government.

[Zanchief]

Benevolence is a choice, not a requirement from your fucking government.

It is a choice. You make it when you vote.

[Lyion]

You make a choice when you choose to help someone.

When the government enforces socialism, that is not help, but removing freedom.

It's a shame you hate religion and completely miss the point of it, or you'd get community and not just be another hateful atheist who will never get the big of people.

Government rarely solves problems, it just ineffectively deals with them.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in Canada <and America> getting free fish, because due to their welfare nature they never have to learn to catch one.

[Martrae]

Let's compare. Churches pass the donation plate and whatever people feel they can afford is passed onto the church to help others with.

The government, on the other hand, forces you to pay what THEY feel you should pay. They set up a bloated department with so many rules and regulations that the workers there have no idea what's allowed or not. And they can send you to jail if you don't pay it.

With a church...if you don't like the way your money is handled, you can leave and find a new church.

With government...you have nowhere to go.

With a church you are asked to follow a few basic tenets of morality. If you fail in these tenets, you ask for forgiveness and possibly do a penance. In extreme cases you are asked to leave the church.

With government you are told to follow pages and pages and pages of laws and regulations. If you fail to do so you can get fined or sent to jail.

What was so bad about churches again?