Pat Ryan

Unnecessary dependency is not just unwise, it is a moral question.

We should focus on results. We should focus on how many people get off public assistance--because they have a good job.

Government should not displace these efforts; it should support them.

We are losing this War on Poverty, and we need to know why.

I think what we have forgotten is that fathers are real important to their children.

If we are really interested in self-sufficiency and upward mobility for children and for families, is waiving that work requirement something that is going to get us to a positive end?

Our goal in all of this is to create the greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of individuals.

We have taken over that responsibility, and I think we need to be very careful about how we provide programs to families.

I think that Sister Simone knows this. There are matters of prudential judgment.

In this country, the condition of your birth should not determine the outcome of your life.

If we get men work, we can start to solve some other problems.

This isn't about cutting spending. This is about improving people's lives.

the answer simply is not to remove the safety net and say we are not going to do anything on jobs, but to build those ladders of opportunity back for our families across America.

This is not about cutting spending, this is about improving people's lives.

The condition of your birth shouldn't determine the outcome of your life.

The law was sold on the pretext that it would not add to the deficit, that if you liked what you had, you could keep it with respect to your health insurance.

Was there an analysis that looked into whether or not with the advent of ObamaCare and the imposition of the law employers are going to start dropping coverage?

What we are asking for is share that with us so we see what you saw which helped lead to this decision to delay the employer mandate.

There are serious consequences for applicants who misrepresent their employer coverage, applicants who receive tax credits for which they are ineligible, they will have to pay them back when they file their taxes.

So make health insurance more expensive, and then subsidize it so the consumer does not feel the price as much.

I cannot see that this ruling right here will do nothing more than further explode the cost of this thing.

Most employers are sitting around the table thinking, 'Well, if my competitor is going to drop health insurance and put their employees in the exchange...'

If this is not a case for the need to simplify government, I do not know what is. This law is literally just unraveling before our eyes. I do not know how you can conclude that this is not a total fiasco.

Yes, and so we see estimates where anywhere from 20 to 60 million people could have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance over a long period of time and gotten dumped into the exchanges.

I look at page 35, and I see basically a case made for a budget increase.