GOP, The WORK act and "War on Moms"

We almost always disagree...but glad to see you in the mix..

Originally posted by xuenchen

Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required "work activity" that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

How long has this been the "current" law ?

Since welfare "reform".

Originally posted by xuenchen
Is it Federal or do some States have different policies.

Federal law prohibits states from recognizing parenting activities as work activities when implementing TANF assistance.

Originally posted by xuenchen
I wonder why it took Congress so long to look at the problem.
What's the reason for this language ?

Can someone find the current law language.

Thanks to welfare reform, recipients of federal benefits must prove to a caseworker that they have performed, over the course of a week, a certain number of hours of "work activity." That number changes from state to state, and each state has discretion as to how narrowly work is defined, but federal law lists 12 broad categories that are covered.

Raising children is not among them.

According to a 2006 Congressional Research Service report, the dozen activities that fulfill the work requirement are:

(1) unsubsidized employment
(2) subsidized private sector employment
(3) subsidized public sector employment
(4) work experience
(5) on-the-job training
(6) job search and job readiness assistance
(7) community services programs
(8) vocational educational training
(9) job skills training directly related to employment
(10) education directly related to employment (for those without a high school degree or equivalent)
(11) satisfactory attendance at a secondary school
(12) provision of child care to a participant of a community service program

The only child-care related activity on the list is the last one, which would allow someone to care for someone else's child if that person were off volunteering.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


Thank you for answering Indigo5.

I will be honest, I need to read up a bit on what else you posted, but will. Plus I have to run and get my kids in a bit.

Lets broaden the scope of this a bit, because I am truely interested on your thoughts.

I have never saw this as a stay at home mom vs working mom thing (husbands too) but as a huge slam on anyone who is a stay at home parent, heck even a parent.

I have a huge issue with the wording of the bill. I don't think these things should be limited to a certain sect of socity like I have previously posted. I also think anyone who can afford not to worry about this to be excluded.

I just have a very hard time with this excluding tons of families that can benefit from a bill like this.

And lets be honest here, we have all seen or have known those taking advantage of a system that are horrid parent/s, and those who have truely needed assitance that are wonderful parent/s.

Maybe I am totally going chick on this thread and not seeing it as black and white.. I see a huge area of grey.

On one hand I am very thankful my family didn't have to seek out these services out, but on the other hand, my children have been denied certain things because we were not 'lower income' or lived in the 'wrong zip code' (buzz words for lower income)

I will also admit that perhaps I am seeing farther down the road with this, then what the bill is actually covering. If so please let me know, and I will bow out.

Originally posted by Justaposter

Lets broaden the scope of this a bit, because I am truely interested on your thoughts.

I have never saw this as a stay at home mom vs working mom thing (husbands too) but as a huge slam on anyone who is a stay at home parent, heck even a parent.

If we are talking about Rosen's comments...I never saw it as either of the above.

Anybody that reads Rosen's full comments understands that she was saying that Ann Romney doesn't understand the economic struggles of the average American woman and "She has never worked a day in her life" is an expression of speech. Rosen chose poor wording and got her ass kicked for it. BUT she is on TV mouthing off, her profession is PR for Gods sake and she walked right into that rhetorical spin trap. So she deserved some of the flack...but to actually believe she was knocking stay-at-home moms? Nope.

Originally posted by Justaposter

I have a huge issue with the wording of the bill. I don't think these things should be limited to a certain sect of socity like I have previously posted. I also think anyone who can afford not to worry about this to be excluded.

I just have a very hard time with this excluding tons of families that can benefit from a bill like this.

This bill specifically amends TANF...Welfare. A stand alone bill benefiting society at large would/excluding only those who have sufficient wealth where they don't need the assistance would never pass.

Many countries in Europe have 1 year to 18 months Maternity or Paternity leave legislated at the federal level.

The average Maternity leave that employers afford in the USA is 12 weeks.

We could expand on that and that would be a good idea and would help, but it wouldn't help the woman with five kids whose husband/provider walks out on her. She doesn't have an employer to pay Maternity.

Originally posted by Justaposter
And lets be honest here, we have all seen or have known those taking advantage of a system that are horrid parent/s, and those who have truely needed assitance that are wonderful parent/s.

All the stats I could find show that only 25% of Americans officially leaving below the poverty level are recieving Welfare right now and during the economic downturn, millions have been dropped from the rolls or hit with insane requirements to prove eligability.

Originally posted by Justaposter
On one hand I am very thankful my family didn't have to seek out these services out, but on the other hand, my children have been denied certain things because we were not 'lower income' or lived in the 'wrong zip code' .

Recieving welfare is more complex than I think most Americans understand. Yes my wife stays home, hard decision and we downgraded our lifestyle significantly to make it happen. It continues to cost us in many unexpected ways. I am still OK with Moms in tougher circumstances being recognized for thier work as mothers.

reply to post by Justaposter


Also see here..

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Kimberly E. Kaplan recently received a notice telling her that she and her three children were about to lose their monthly welfare benefit of $584 because they had reached the time limit on cash assistance and she had not made adequate efforts to find work.

Ms. Kaplan, 43, is required to work 20 hours a week, but is seeking a hardship exemption. Her 4-year-old son, Landon, has psychological and behavioral problems, and she said that “it’s a full-time job to take care of him.”


.....

Ronald T. Haskins, who helped write the 1996 law as an aide to House Republicans, said, “There’s definitely a problem.”

“Many states have been too slow to take destitute families back on the rolls,” Mr. Haskins said.

www.nytimes.com...

So this thread has 2 pages and discusses a serious subject....and the thread with the guy claiming people can live inside whales is 363 pages long. Makes perfect sense

The funny thing is, they go ape# over Rosen's non-issue comments, but ignore every single post highlighting how the GOP is ACTIVELY taking away women's rights. Impressive display of how political brainwashing makes people ignore facts

reply to post by Indigo5


Thanks Indigo! I really do appreciate the links.

reply to post by Justaposter


This is relevant to our discussion ...It shows what percentage of families officially living in Poverty recieve TANF benefits (welfare benefits post welfare reform). Nearly 75% of families officially living in poverty are denied benefits or not accepted on the rolls. I am having a hard time believing the "welfare cheat" mythology. I am sure it exists someplace, but as difficult as it is to qualify for benefits despite being poor, I think it is a rhetorical bit more than anything else.

The GOP screams about the "Welfare State" all the while more and more families that require actual help have been denied or dropped from the rolls.



www.cbpp.org...

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Don't be surprised that the conservatives on ATS will avoid this thread like the plague...

Geez...you were not kidding.

No, not kidding at all...hopefully if we can keep this thread going they will be forced to respond...so let's get this on the front page.

I do see a couple Conservatives here...but you and I both know those are the ones I'm talking about. The ones that focus on manufactured issues and propaganda will never show their face in a "real issue" thread.

reply to post by jimmyx

ann romney staying home to raise her 5 kids= good mother, good family values, worked hard

single unemployed welfare mother staying home to raise her 5 kids=terrible parenting, bad moral values, lazy

republican hypocrites= priceless

According to Romney's 2010 tax filing, they had four housekeeper's on staff and one cook, and according to the interview her son gave, they always had a housekeeper and nanny when growing up. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does undermine Ann Romney's claim that she can relate to "working mom's".

What it really boils down it, is which party is producing the policies more favorable to working mothers. It's clearly the Democrats. The only policy we see from the GOP is how to expand their wealth to the detriment of working families.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Found this from ontheissues...a non partisan website that tracks congressmen/congresswomen's voting...

John Boehner on Welfare & Poverty

2003

Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Welfare Reauthorization Bill: Vote to pass a bill that would approve $16.5 billion to renew the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal 2008 and call for new welfare aid conditions.

The bill raises the work requirements for individuals getting assistance from 30 to 40 hours per week.
...

The bill also provides an additional $1 billion in mandatory state child care grants and provides $200 million annually for marriage promotion programs.

www.ontheissues.org...

You got love it...ups the requirement of hours worked for stay at home moms, while at the same time tosses out $200 Million to "marriage promotion programs"!

Boehner to stay at home moms ....Go to work and find a man damnit! Or no help for you!

And also this from the GOP contract with America...John Boehner signed the Contract

Don't use contraception, no condoms in school, no sex-ed, and abortion is murder!

But when you do have and keep that baby, you are sh*& out of luck, you irresponsible leech!!! Get to work...Lazy, immoral stay-at-home moms!

The Personal Responsibility Act:
Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

www.house.gov...

REALLY???? "Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers"

WTF kind of effed up drugs are the GOP on. This is the actual wording of thier "Contract to America"

That's right...teenage moms who make the insanely difficult choice to to keep thier child rather than get an abortion...are just doing it for the easy cash!!! You know that money every month that barely covers diapers...9 months of pregnancey, missing school and a lifetime of responsibility for the big payday!!!

That is how the GOP view women.

I want the GOP to tell me again about the dignity of Motherhood.

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Justaposter

 

This is relevant to our discussion ...It shows what percentage of families officially living in Poverty recieve TANF benefits (welfare benefits post welfare reform). Nearly 75% of families officially living in poverty are denied benefits or not accepted on the rolls. I am having a hard time believing the "welfare cheat" mythology. I am sure it exists someplace, but as difficult as it is to qualify for benefits despite being poor, I think it is a rhetorical bit more than anything else.

The GOP screams about the "Welfare State" all the while more and more families that require actual help have been denied or dropped from the rolls.

www.cbpp.org...

edit on 18-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

And let's not forget the MILLIONS of working poors...they are excluded from the official "poor" category, even though they don't make enough to actually live on.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by jimmyx

 

ann romney staying home to raise her 5 kids= good mother, good family values, worked hard

single unemployed welfare mother staying home to raise her 5 kids=terrible parenting, bad moral values, lazy

republican hypocrites= priceless

According to Romney's 2010 tax filing, they had four housekeeper's on staff and one cook, and according to the interview her son gave, they always had a housekeeper and nanny when growing up. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does undermine Ann Romney's claim that she can relate to "working mom's".

What it really boils down it, is which party is producing the policies more favorable to working mothers. It's clearly the Democrats. The only policy we see from the GOP is how to expand their wealth to the detriment of working families.

She had 5 (!!!) nannies

A dog could raise kids with the help of 5 nannies!!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
She had 5 (!!!) nannies

That we know of...The Romney's have hired Illegal Immigrants before. Last time he got busted, those illegals ended up back in Guatemala before the press could find them and a reporter had to chase them down there.

The newspaper sent a team of reporters to Guatemala after getting a tip that Romney had hired a landscaping company notorious for using illegal immigrants. They tracked down three former landscapers who claimed to have been in the United States illegally when they worked on Romney's lawn.

One of them, Rene Alvarez Rosales, said he worked for Romney eight years landscaping his lawn, occasionally getting a "buenos dias" from Romney himself. Others told the Globe of casual encounters with Romney over the years, during which he had never inquired about their status.

Romney’s first response to reporters’ questions about the matter: "Aw, geez."

www.politifact.com...

reply to post by Indigo5

One of them, Rene Alvarez Rosales, said he worked for Romney eight years landscaping his lawn, occasionally getting a "buenos dias" from Romney himself.

Wait...Romney spoke Spanish instead of English? Somebody check his birth certificate

Originally posted by Indigo5
We almost always disagree...but glad to see you in the mix..

Originally posted by xuenchen

Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required "work activity" that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

How long has this been the "current" law ?

Since welfare "reform".

Originally posted by xuenchen
Is it Federal or do some States have different policies.

Federal law prohibits states from recognizing parenting activities as work activities when implementing TANF assistance.

Originally posted by xuenchen
I wonder why it took Congress so long to look at the problem.
What's the reason for this language ?

Can someone find the current law language.

Thanks to welfare reform, recipients of federal benefits must prove to a caseworker that they have performed, over the course of a week, a certain number of hours of "work activity." That number changes from state to state, and each state has discretion as to how narrowly work is defined, but federal law lists 12 broad categories that are covered.

Raising children is not among them.

According to a 2006 Congressional Research Service report, the dozen activities that fulfill the work requirement are:

(1) unsubsidized employment
(2) subsidized private sector employment
(3) subsidized public sector employment
(4) work experience
(5) on-the-job training
(6) job search and job readiness assistance
(7) community services programs
(8) vocational educational training
(9) job skills training directly related to employment
(10) education directly related to employment (for those without a high school degree or equivalent)
(11) satisfactory attendance at a secondary school
(12) provision of child care to a participant of a community service program

The only child-care related activity on the list is the last one, which would allow someone to care for someone else's child if that person were off volunteering.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

" 'The only child-care related activity on the list is the last one, which would allow someone to care for someone else's child if that person were off volunteering.' "

That one IS ironic for sure !!

I suppose the only question is why don't both people involved simply "take care of each others kids" while volunteering.

And the example with the women with a disabled child should definitely be an exception.
I wonder why she is even required to work 20 hours. And is child care provided for that person while "working" ?

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Kimberly E. Kaplan recently received a notice telling her that she and her three children were about to lose their monthly welfare benefit of $584 because they had reached the time limit on cash assistance and she had not made adequate efforts to find work.

Ms. Kaplan, 43, is required to work 20 hours a week, but is seeking a hardship exemption. Her 4-year-old son, Landon, has psychological and behavioral problems, and she said that “it’s a full-time job to take care of him.”

Did she ever get the hardship exemption ?


This all goes back to the theory of creating "guaranteed" jobs for people receiving assistance.
(The child care would be provided for free and "worked" by other qualified recipients)


It seems to me too that this (parenting not counting towards "work time") was challenged in court in some States ?
(looking for examples....)

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Good idea...but it won't happen.

This entire "war on women" controversy is nothing but the GOP deflecting from their own anti-women stance. They are VERY actively trying to cut women's rights:

1) Reproductive rights
2) Equal pay rights (just introduced another bill for that recently!)
3) Workplace rights and choice of work

You'd have to be blind to not realize what's going on. I challenge any GOP followers to point out where exactly the Democrats have or are planning on cutting women's rights. I got 3 above and can get a lot more specific if you want.

I'm not a conservative, but I'll bite:

1) All women have the right to reproduce at any time, unless they are found to be a danger to themselves or children. Please show us where conservatives try to cut a woman's right to reproduce.

2) I'm pretty sure the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is still in effect. If local, state, or federal authorities are not enforcing that law, perhaps you should write someone at your local police, state police, or FBI. Conservatives, however, have nothing specifically to do with the enforcement or non-enforcement of the law.

3) Not sure what you're talking about there unless you're talking about OSHA and workplace safety, in which case see #2.

This entire Rosen crap is blown out of proportion on purpose to distract people from what the GOP is really doing. If you listen to the entire interview instead of just her one sentence, you realize that she was replying in context. They said Mrs Romney is well placed to understand the struggle of average US women...and Rosen replied with the TRUTH.

Mrs Romney:

- had 5 (!!!!) nannies to take care of her children. That makes it pretty clear she didn't have to go through the same struggles as the average American woman.

- never had to work a single day next to raising her kids with 5 nannies!

- never had money problems.

I noticed you quite cleverly left out her multiple sclerosis. It's quite debilitating, I hear. How about you? You ever heard that? I wonder if Ms. Rosen has.

The hilarious part is, the Democratic leadership is so weak and afraid of confrontation in an election year, they chose the easy route (aka just caving in) instead of having a rational debate about what was actually said.

Agreed. From the top (especially the top) down, there is zero leadership and 100% weakness in the Democratic party. They cave every time to the will of their empty pockets...just like the GOP.

EVEN if you take her words in ill spirit, they are still just words.

Like Rush's "just words"? Riiiiight. Keep towing that party line!

You'd have to be a complete fool to vote for the GOP if you're a woman...unless you really wanna go back to the 50s

You'd have to be a fool to vote for either party if you're human.

/TOA

2) I'm pretty sure the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is still in effect. If local, state, or federal authorities are not enforcing that law, perhaps you should write someone at your local police, state police, or FBI. Conservatives, however, have nothing specifically to do with the enforcement or non-enforcement of the law.

Except of course, where the GOP has already repealed the Equal Pay acts in their states.

• Gov. Scott Walker repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay law
  
• What War On Women? Repealing Equal Pay Laws

Republicans in Michigan have also set their sites on repealing it's Equal Pay act.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

2) I'm pretty sure the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is still in effect. If local, state, or federal authorities are not enforcing that law, perhaps you should write someone at your local police, state police, or FBI. Conservatives, however, have nothing specifically to do with the enforcement or non-enforcement of the law.

Except of course, where the GOP has already repealed the Equal Pay acts in their states.

• Gov. Scott Walker repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay law
  
• What War On Women? Repealing Equal Pay Laws

Republicans in Michigan have also set their sites on repealing it's Equal Pay act.

Except of course, it's a federal law that states can't repeal. Information is all over the place. Glean it and type smart stuff.

/TOA

reply to post by xuenchen


Again...We sit on opposite sides of the fence and have had some loud disagreements in the past, but I respect that you are posting and present on a thread that doesn't offer you "easy punches" to throw. It shows intellectual courage. I starred your posts for that alone.....now if you would just stop with the right wing spin ops