Why isn't there any outrage on the left over 0bama removing the WORK clause from welfare entitlements?

You need to understand that the left did not like it when Clinton First signed it into law and that it has been a thorn in their side for over a decade, as well as that you now have a president that cares not one iota about the rule of law, the Constitution or the will of the American public .

But think about it, when you have a majority living in poverty and off the government it is easier to manipulate people. I remember back in 2000 speaking with many in the Black community where I lived, the rumor, the lie that was repeated constantly was if Bush was elected he was going to do away with welfare and I suspect this same issue will be an election day talking point, If Romney is elected he will RE-reform welfare and they will loose their benefits.

The government funded areas of my city have been ravaged by poverty for decades and the Democrats here in new York just keep on funding everything even though very little progress is made. You can not work and the state and city will build you a new house, pay your "rent", heat, child care, and on and on. Nothing changes. We have one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. But guess what? Immigrants from southeast Asia moved in, built businesses, improved the housing stock and neighborhoods, and proved that it can be done without government. Does that end it? of course not. They pay for votes and they know it. There are only 1900 registered Republicans in the city and the goal is to get that to zero.

America is the land of opportunity to my ietnamese and Burmese neighbors, but according to the Left, it's "oppressive and favors the rich". Meanwhile, the connected keep landing those lucrative government contracts. Unbelievable. They wonder why real taxpayers leave in droves while they subsidize only their contributors. Fair is a meaningless word to these people, yet they throw it around as if they understand it's meaning. Someone is getting fleeced!

They opposed the requirement in the first place.For decades the Welfare System has been nothing but a Democrat Vote Buying Scheme.Get as many loafers and leeches as possible,dependent on Taxpayer Money,then tell all the leeches that they will lose their free stuff if they elect anyone but Demonrats.

It has worked like a charm in the Inner Cities of America,hordes of Democrat Drone Voters on autopilot at the polling place,voting in Demonrats to keep the free stuff flowing.That is a major reason why so many of our cities have been utterly destroyed.Liberal Demonrats voted in time and time again by hordes of loyal leeches.Then Democrats get all their policies through in these cities,utterly destroying the schools,the infrastructure,and everything else.The budgets bloat,thae taxes on the productive citizens skyrocket,the Politicians live like Kings,and the leeches ignore the destruction around them as long as they have to put forth no effort to get their free stuff and live in their self imposed squalor.

August

"Giving states more flexibility" is a nice talking point to demonstrate that this is a move toward smaller government, but that's really smoke and mirrors. For those of you who are making this argument, are you saying that Obama is ceding to conservatives? Really?

Welfare reform is one of the signature accomplishments of the Clinton administration. Even though critics of the law said that it would be a disaster, they later recanted and said that it was doing exactly what it said it would do. Welfare rolls dropped substantially - by as much as 40% in some cases.

As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act "gives us a chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives."

Obama did this by executive order - skirting Congress once again. His removal of the work requirement (or offer to waive it) is not just offering flexibility in the interpretation of the law - it completely undoes the heart of the law.

Nevermind what the details are for a moment - is this a country where the president actually has that kind of authority? Don't forget - Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing Edwin Stanton without congressional approval. The conspirators in the Lincoln Assassination were tried and convicted by a military tribunal, and sentenced to an immediate hanging. An appeal was sent to the president by a majority of the officers of that tribunal, asking for clemency in the case of Mary Surratt, whose participation was questionable at best. Stanton, as Secretary of War, received this letter and was to deliver it to Johnson - but he withheld it until AFTER the hanging - at which point Johnson fired him. And was subsequently impeached.

Now Obama, by executive order, effectively REPEALS A LAW without even mentioning it to Congress. What has happened to our "tri-cameral system" of checks and balances? I suppose we're all against it if the Supreme Court (a bunch of unelected judges) challenges Obama, but we're all for it if they uphold Obamacare ... and we really don't need it if it's Obama making the decisions.

One might argue, as many liberals do, that this additional "flexibility" is because the work requirement is impossible to enforce in this economy, and that it is unconscionable for the government to withhold benefits because people cannot find work. On the surface, this does not seem unreasonable, and in fact it is a last ditch effort by a man who has been consistently unable to do anything about our economy and jobs situation.

In the end, it expands entitlement spending, it expands our welfare state, it broadens dependency on the government, it increases the number of loopholes people can use to get on this entitlement bandwagon, and more important - it brings votes to politicians who game the system for their own security. It does nothing to help people get off welfare, to help them find work.

Well he had shoes thrown at him in New Zealand. Those terrorist thugs that were protesting in a free Palestine rant did exactly that yesterday. I saw it on the 6pm news. They threw shoes at the embassy then stomped on the Israeli and American flags then set them on fire. It made me want to puke that these United Nations imports, than were forced onto my beautiful peace loving country, could bring their hatred of our allies over here and not observe our nations rules and regulations when it comes to racism and hatred. We can do without these little hoods and thugs creating their own little muslim oligarchies in New Zealand. Say no to the United Nations.

The addition to the entitlement society

Because the left wants to keep the people on the gov't dole! You can't keep people dependent on you if you actual require them to work to get assistance?!

few jobs... hard for people to get work, particularly people on welfare... I can see the need for such a thing in a recession...

after the recession ends, it should be repealed though...

Shhhh, Haven't you heard, that's the "Obama stash" people have been waiting for....

c'mon man, don't let the cat outta the bag.

The MEDIA certainly isn't.

Why is it that the people who are so quick to parrot talking points are too lazy to look up the facts for themselves? The article you linked to, while lengthy, is incredibly superficial in its analysis.