Obama is ending work requirement in welfare

I thank my partner for the timely response. Before I begin my closing summary, I will attempt to rebut a few of my partners arguments. First among these is this: My opponent tries to hard to discredit the validity of my argument because I lacked citations from left-wing articles used basically as filler in my previous post. This a classic case of form over matter because his argument holds no water here.I was not accusing my partner of neglecting to include citations, or for presenting only one side of the subject. I was, and still am, accusing him of plagarism, and of attempting to pass the work of the staff at Breitbart.com off as his own. If this was an inadvertent act of absent-mindedness, then I am willing to accept the explanation. However, I am in no way questioning the validitiy of the arguments presented on the grounds that I dissaprove of the identity of the person making the argument.The Question of FlexibilityMy partner attempts to argue that allowing states the flexibility to include more strict work requirements is a means by which weaker requirements are to be implemented. It is an obvoiusly absurd argument. As each of the fact-checking websites that I used as sources, and the Huffington Post article that my partner plagarized, all pointed out - the waiver will only be granted if the state-level work requirements are stronger than the current federal requirements. Far from "ending the work requirement," this rule only allows the work requirement to become stronger. Under the new rules, it is actually illegal to weaken these requirements. (See the sources I listed above for proof of this.)A waiver of section 402 is a waiver of the (a) work requirement for welfare.Of course it is. But this act does not "end the work requirement in welfare." This act removes federal restrictions that would otherwise limit the work requirement to no more than what had been required under federal law. Many states may have work requiements that are more stingient than the Federal requirements, and now - thanks to President Obama - these states are not required to weaken their own standards.What does the new rule actually say?The new rules allow states to apply for a waiver that may allow them to bypass certain specific work requirements imposed by the federal government as a prerequisite for receiving block grants to assist them with support for the needy. However, in order to have the waiver request approved, the state must develop a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment" than those demanded by the federal regulations. [1]Making the work requirement "more efficient or effective" is not the same thing as "gutting" or "ending" the requirement. According to FactCheck.org: “I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform,” said Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families. “Each state has to say what they will do and how that reform … will either increase employment or lead to better employment” of recipients. The Obama policy responds to state officials who say they can improve job placement and retention if freed from the time-consuming process of documenting and verifying that recipients are engaged in those work activities. “In times of reduced funding, waivers may be the best method to allow states to find effective and efficient approaches to assist the unemployed to find and keep work,” the Utah Department of Workforce Services wrote to federal welfare officials last year.” [1] Therefore, my closing summary:The waivers in question must, by law, be awarded only to those states that have developed a "more efficient or effective" means of getting welfare recipients back to work. This is the opposite of ending the requirements.[1] http://www.factcheck.org...