Poll: 83 percent support welfare work requirement

July 18, 2012
Joel Gehrke
Commentary Writer

President Obama’s Health and Human Services Department undermined the work requirement legislated in the 1996 welfare reform bill, but 83 percent of Americans disagree with the president on that position.

“Most Americans think there are too many people on welfare who should not be getting it and believe overwhelmingly that those who do receive welfare benefits should be required to work,” Rasmussen Reports, a conservative pollster, announced today.

Eighty-three percent of Americans surveyed support a work requirement as a condition of receiving welfare, while just seven percent oppose the requirement, Rasmussen said.

Read more: http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-83-percent-support-welfare-work-requirement-that-obama-gutted/article/2502471

Plus I think it makes the people themselves feel better. Do you feel better sitting home all day on the couch watching TV? Or accomplishing a task and learning new skills.

It is more expensive to hire people to do actual work than simply loading debit cards, but I think it is better for society.

I know one woman who lost her job and frankly lost all ambition and will. Stays up until 2AM and then sleeps in. Can't even accomplish simple housework around the house. No motivation at all.

83% of Polish people support welfare work?

If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
If you teach a man to fish, he will spend a lifetime drinking beer and drowning worms. - LOL 7-19-2012

LOL wrote: 83% of Polish people support welfare work?

If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
If you teach a man to fish, he will spend a lifetime drinking beer and drowning worms. - LOL 7-19-2012

good one

As usual, yet another *** post by the Toad. The memo by HHS simply allows individual states to request flexibility in setting the work requirements. It does not undermine the requirement for work, it just allows individual states to suggest changes, such as in job training, etc. that better fits their state rather than the one size fits all federal requirement.

Of course if Toad and his toadies actually read the memo, they would know better. but then there would be no "outrage".

Something the Dog Said wrote: As usual, yet another *** post by the Toad. The memo by HHS simply allows individual states to request flexibility in setting the work requirements. It does not undermine the requirement for work, it just allows individual states to suggest changes, such as in job training, etc. that better fits their state rather than the one size fits all federal requirement.

Of course if Toad and his toadies actually read the memo, they would know better. but then there would be no "outrage".

Coming to liberal states soon: "
"in the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as 'work.' These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama Administration has abolished those standards, we can expect 'work' in the TANF (welfare) program to mean anything but work."

Blazer Bob wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: As usual, yet another *** post by the Toad. The memo by HHS simply allows individual states to request flexibility in setting the work requirements. It does not undermine the requirement for work, it just allows individual states to suggest changes, such as in job training, etc. that better fits their state rather than the one size fits all federal requirement.

Of course if Toad and his toadies actually read the memo, they would know better. but then there would be no "outrage".

I'm glad you are enjoying my posts! :woo hoo:

otisptoadwater wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: As usual, yet another *** post by the Toad. The memo by HHS simply allows individual states to request flexibility in setting the work requirements. It does not undermine the requirement for work, it just allows individual states to suggest changes, such as in job training, etc. that better fits their state rather than the one size fits all federal requirement.

Of course if Toad and his toadies actually read the memo, they would know better. but then there would be no "outrage".

I'm glad you are enjoying my posts! :woo hoo:

Of course, it simply continues to reinforce my opinion of the intelligence of conservatives.

Good to hear back from you! It's wonderful that you want to discuss this topic.

Thanks, it is great that you avoid discussing it. Have you no thoughts to share with us on this topic now that your OP has been totally rebuked? Or just accepting that you and your toadies have no clue about what you cut and paste?