Leftist media outlets still lying about Obama's gutting of welfare reform

Discussion in 'Politics' started by M.D. Rawlings, Sep 19, 2012.

  1. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Jewish World Review Aug 30, 2012
    NEW YORK TIMES FACT CHECKERS: BED REST IS WORK!
    By Ann Coulter


    Poor Mickey Kaus. He's the liberal intellectual (not an oxymoron -- he's the last known living "liberal intellectual") lefties on TV are usually stealing from, but now that this welfare reform maven has concluded that Romney's welfare ad is basically correct, liberals refuse to acknowledge his existence.

    The non-Fox media have formed a solid front in denouncing Romney's welfare ad for daring to point out that Obama has gutted the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform bill.

    The New York Times claims that Romney's ad "falsely" charges Obama with eliminating work requirements. CNN rates the ad "false." Underemployed hack Howard Fineman says Romney's ad "is just flat out wrong on the facts" and "that every fair analyst, every fact checker" has said it's "just factually wrong."

    The Rest of the Article: Ann Coulter: NEW YORK TIMES FACT CHECKERS: BED REST IS WORK!
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
  2. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    The work requirement is still there. Work has been redefined. Bed rest is work. Getting a massage is work. Meditation thinking about work is work.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/248196-not-the-headlines-you-want-right-before-an-election.html#post6018728



     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Naturally, lefties don't care that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 doesn't allow for waivers, that the reason for its success is that one must be actively lworking in order to get assistance. Period. Never mind that there is no provision allowing the president to waive these requirements, that under the Constitution any such waivers would ordinarily require a congressionally approved amendment to the Act. And never mind most of all that this piece of legislation did more to reduce the poverty rate in this country (especially reducing the number of children living in poverty) than any other governmental action in the last 80 years!

    Lefty just prattles about how much he cares; the actual outcomes of his arrogant little tyrannies be damned! Inevitably it's about creating a constituency of dependents. The moral and institutional destruction of dependency on this country are irrelevant to him.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    LOL. Didn't Clinton kick your asses enough on that? Do you have to have it kicked all over again?

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-says-obama-administration-trying-boos/

    Our ruling

    Clinton said in his convention speech that the Obama administration "agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment."

    That's an accurate recap of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to strengthen welfare-to-work efforts by letting states try different approaches based on their residents’ needs. That’s important too -- the waivers would be considered for individually evaluated pilot programs. HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

    The waiver offering was spurred by requests from several governors, including Republican governors, and Sebelius explicitly stated that only requests that "demonstrate clear progress" toward enhancing employment will be approved by HHS.

    Clinton’s statement is accurate. We rate it True.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    PolitiFact | Rick Santorum repeats Romney claim that Obama is ending work requirement in welfare

    Our ruling

    Santorum said that Obama "showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare."

    The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law. And there have been no comments by the Obama administration indicating such a dramatic shift in policy.

    Santorum falsely claims that Obama has waived welfare’s work requirement entirely. The remark is inaccurate and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance. Pants on Fire!
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    And all that repeat the lie are liars.
     
  8. LoneLaugher
    Online

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,658
    Thanks Received:
    6,457
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,456
    Just stupid.

    And ...................... since when does Mann Coulter represent headlines?
     
  9. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Question: what does the debatable accuracy of Clinton's statement (relative to the administration's actual goals as opposed to its stated goals) have to do with the accuracy of Romney's statement?

    Answer: Nothing.

    LOL!

    It just flies right over your head, no doubt, because you keep computing the rationalization for the waiver as a refutation of Romney's observation that Obama issued the waiver. Doh!

    The bizarre thinking processes of the leftist mindset on display.

    Hogwash. The leftist media are dissembling. Clinton is dissembling. You're dissembling.

    Romney is right. He is telling the truth. Saying that his statement is false is clearly false.

    Obama by executive order allows states to waive the work requirement. Period. The point is that many Americans don't know that, wouldn't like it and/or wouldn't give a damn about the rationalizations.

    Kick our asses? Let the American people get a hold of this and let's see whose asses get kicked over this issue.

    Idiots. Liars. All you're really saying is that, yes, Romney is right when he says that Obama waived the work requirement, but, wait a minute, he's lying . . . because the Administration waived the work requirement for this or that reason. . . .

    LMAO!

    But of course, the Administration does not give a damn about any credible plans to increase employment. Eyewash. Rationalization. Bureaucrat speak.

    Truth:

    As Kaus explains, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius has interpreted the welfare law to allow her to waive work requirements "subject only to her opinion" as to what will serve the purposes of the law.

    By viewing the work requirements as optional, subject to her waiver, Kaus says, the law has been "altered dramatically": "Old system: Congress writes the requirements, which are ... requirements. New system: Sebelius does what she wants -- but, hey, you can trust her!"

    . . . Kaus points out that the HHS memo announcing that Sebelius could allow waivers from work for "job training," "job search" or "pursuing a credential" unquestionably constitutes "a weakening of the work requirement." He adds that it's also "unfair to the poor suckers who just go to work without ever going on welfare -- they don't get subsidized while they're 'pursuing a credential.'"

    In a follow-up post, Kaus pointed out that the Times' own editorial denouncing the Romney ad inadvertently revealed that Sebelius was proposing a lot more than "job search" exemptions from the work requirement.

    Both the Times and an HHS memo cheerfully propose allowing hard-to-employ "families" -- which are never actual families, by the way -- to be "exempted from the work requirements for six months." Or more than six months. It's up to Sebelius: "Exempted."​


    So who is lying, and who is stupid? You idiots are processing the truth of Romney's statement in your very own, utterly imaginary refutation! You're processing the rationalization of the waiver precisely the way the leftist media conditioned you to process it. Brainwashed ninnies.

    Now ya see it. Doh! Now ya don't.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012

Share This Page