Romney’s welfare ad is accurate

[beretta304]

"One of the principal authors of the 1996 welfare reform, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and Douglas Besharov, who advised Hillary Clinton on the 1996 welfare reform law, say Romney’s ad is accurate."


"Andrew Grossman, also of Heritage, produced something the MSM “fact checkers” avoid: a specific and detailed explanation of how the new waivers will allow states to evade the work requirements."

"Even Ron Haskins, one of the reform bill’s authors now at the liberal Brookings Institution — cited far and wide for “blasting” Romney’s ad — doesn’t deny the Obama administration plans to waive the work requirements. He just says he supports waivers for “job training.” That’s not disputing the accuracy of Romney’s ads."


"And liberal Kaus — whom liberal hacks are usually plagiarizing from — has written a series of blog posts explaining in detail why the Times is wrong and Romney’s ad is not incorrect. True, he says the ad is “oversimplified,” but I think most people grasp that a 30-second ad will not provide the lush analytical detail of a Kausfiles blog posting."

"We know liberals are reading Kausfiles; why aren’t they stealing from him this time?"







Read more: Romney's welfare ad is accurate | The Daily Caller

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope. It is not.

Your support of Mr. Romney would not only be easier to defend, but also more genuine, if his campaign endeavored to be honest. As it is, you are forever straining and spinning.....looking for some somebody who can bloviate about the lie in such a way that you can make a lame attempt to justify it.

Why not demand a better, more honest effort from your guy and save yourself the trouble?

 

[g5000]

"One of the principal authors of the 1996 welfare reform, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and Douglas Besharov, who advised Hillary Clinton on the 1996 welfare reform law, say Romney’s ad is accurate."


"Andrew Grossman, also of Heritage, produced something the MSM “fact checkers” avoid: a specific and detailed explanation of how the new waivers will allow states to evade the work requirements."

"Even Ron Haskins, one of the reform bill’s authors now at the liberal Brookings Institution — cited far and wide for “blasting” Romney’s ad — doesn’t deny the Obama administration plans to waive the work requirements. He just says he supports waivers for “job training.” That’s not disputing the accuracy of Romney’s ads."


"And liberal Kaus — whom liberal hacks are usually plagiarizing from — has written a series of blog posts explaining in detail why the Times is wrong and Romney’s ad is not incorrect. True, he says the ad is “oversimplified,” but I think most people grasp that a 30-second ad will not provide the lush analytical detail of a Kausfiles blog posting."

"We know liberals are reading Kausfiles; why aren’t they stealing from him this time?"







Read more: Romney's welfare ad is accurate | The Daily Caller

The ad plainly says "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work, and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your checks."

That is a gigantic lie. Sorry.

Now, do you want to know the facts and read on, or do you want to blindly accept something as "true" when you really have no idea if it is true or not?

If you don't want to know any facts, stop reading now and continue on in your delusional fantasy, but don't expect the rest of us to.



Welfare requires you to perform a certain number of hours of work each week or spend time looking for a job to collect welfare.

The law defines what "work" is. Some things don't count as work or looking for a job. In fact, only the first six weeks you look for a job count as looking for a job. If you are unemployed for more than six weeks and keep looking for a job, that does not count.

Some types of training do not count, either. And that is where the states come in. They have been asking for some training to count, as well as some types of work that currently do not count.

Only someone with seven pounds of brain damage would believe that means "Obama has dropped the work requirements" or that "you wouldn't have to train for a job".


Romney is flat out lying.


Here is his lying ad:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F4LtTlktm0]Right Choice - YouTube[/ame]


.

 

[Greenbeard]

Jesus, get over it. I doubt even you're buying your own bullshit at this point.

There's no question at this point that the ads are fabrications. It's also not mysterious why he continues to run them anyway. If Mitt wants to race bait, that's his regrettable choice. After watching Governors Sandoval, Kasich, and Brownback either flat out refute Mitt's bullshit or weasel out of having to provide any comment on the truth content of Mitt's lies at all, it's clear to me there are plenty of folks in his party who aren't prepared to follow him down that road.

 

[auditor0007]

I"m just waiting for this to come up in the debates. That is when Obama needs to slam Romney with this. Voters who don't pay close attention to this stuff need to be made aware of how much Romney is lying and using 30 second soundbites filled with lies to try to win over voters.

 

[Listening]

"One of the principal authors of the 1996 welfare reform, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and Douglas Besharov, who advised Hillary Clinton on the 1996 welfare reform law, say Romney’s ad is accurate."


"Andrew Grossman, also of Heritage, produced something the MSM “fact checkers” avoid: a specific and detailed explanation of how the new waivers will allow states to evade the work requirements."

"Even Ron Haskins, one of the reform bill’s authors now at the liberal Brookings Institution — cited far and wide for “blasting” Romney’s ad — doesn’t deny the Obama administration plans to waive the work requirements. He just says he supports waivers for “job training.” That’s not disputing the accuracy of Romney’s ads."


"And liberal Kaus — whom liberal hacks are usually plagiarizing from — has written a series of blog posts explaining in detail why the Times is wrong and Romney’s ad is not incorrect. True, he says the ad is “oversimplified,” but I think most people grasp that a 30-second ad will not provide the lush analytical detail of a Kausfiles blog posting."

"We know liberals are reading Kausfiles; why aren’t they stealing from him this time?"







Read more: Romney's welfare ad is accurate | The Daily Caller

Thanks.

Yes, you can address the issue or you can be a hack (as seen by the stupid post that followed yours by the turd who never actually refutes anything...just stands there, sticks out her tounge and says "no it's not...no it's not...mommy...they aren't playing nice").

Welfare reform was pushed by the GOP and Clinton signed on (and pissed off the libs). Now Obama is seeking to wrong that right by changing it around.

And because Obama did it....the "head up the ass" left says....it must be good.

 

[g5000]

When the Obama SuperPAC ran that ad saying Romney was responsible for that guy's wife dying, David Axelrod was confronted on Meet The Press about it.

Do you know how Axelrod wiggled out of that? By attacking Romney's welfare ad in a loud and strident voice.

This is what happens when you blow up your integrity. Romney cannot whine about Obama's lies. He has lost that privilege.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama gutted the work requirement. There's no way around it. When taking a nap qualifies as work, there's no work requirement.

 

[Greenbeard]

Now Obama is seeking to wrong that right by changing it around.

Deep analysis.

Let me guess: you learned that from a 30-second TV spot!

 

[WillowTree]

IF obamer didn't change a thing in the work to welfare act why did he touch it at all? Why not let sleeping dogs lie? The answer? He did remover the work from the welfare.

 

[g5000]

IF obamer didn't change a thing in the work to welfare act why did he touch it at all? Why not let sleeping dogs lie? The answer? He did remover the work from the welfare.

See, that is what is at the bottom of the Romney lie. A giant fallacy of the excluded middle which you have so brilliantly displayed on his behalf.

Well done. You really should not speak from ignorance.

.

 

[plant]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

The change is that if the states have a better idea they can use it . If thy Try

weaking the work requirements you can not .

 

[Leweman]

Yep! it is accurate there is no federal work standard any more. Good news for California. Anything can be considered work now.

 

[Darkwind]

Obama and the USMB libs are desperately trying to spin this as a lie....

They are failing miserably. The reason for that is obvious.

The claim is truthful, while they are not.

 

[francoHFW]

RW idiocy. Even when they're totally wrong, they're right. LOL A brainwashed disgrace.

 

[candycorn]

Factcheck.org and politifact both says it was a dishonest ad. Oh wait, the GOP says that Factcheck.org and politifact are both dishonest now.

The difference between a 9/11 Truther and the common Republican is getting harder to see everyday.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once the Right has made up a lie that they like, you have to pry it from their cold dead hands to ever get rid of it.

 

[naturegirl]

It doesn't take long to figure out a lie, my neighbor that had a sinus infection is now disabled and collecting government benefits.

 

[beretta304]

"One of the principal authors of the 1996 welfare reform, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and Douglas Besharov, who advised Hillary Clinton on the 1996 welfare reform law, say Romney’s ad is accurate."


"Andrew Grossman, also of Heritage, produced something the MSM “fact checkers” avoid: a specific and detailed explanation of how the new waivers will allow states to evade the work requirements."

"Even Ron Haskins, one of the reform bill’s authors now at the liberal Brookings Institution — cited far and wide for “blasting” Romney’s ad — doesn’t deny the Obama administration plans to waive the work requirements. He just says he supports waivers for “job training.” That’s not disputing the accuracy of Romney’s ads."


"And liberal Kaus — whom liberal hacks are usually plagiarizing from — has written a series of blog posts explaining in detail why the Times is wrong and Romney’s ad is not incorrect. True, he says the ad is “oversimplified,” but I think most people grasp that a 30-second ad will not provide the lush analytical detail of a Kausfiles blog posting."

"We know liberals are reading Kausfiles; why aren’t they stealing from him this time?"







Read more: Romney's welfare ad is accurate | The Daily Caller

The ad plainly says "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work, and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your checks."

That is a gigantic lie. Sorry.

Now, do you want to know the facts and read on, or do you want to blindly accept something as "true" when you really have no idea if it is true or not?

If you don't want to know any facts, stop reading now and continue on in your delusional fantasy, but don't expect the rest of us to.



Welfare requires you to perform a certain number of hours of work each week or spend time looking for a job to collect welfare.

The law defines what "work" is. Some things don't count as work or looking for a job. In fact, only the first six weeks you look for a job count as looking for a job. If you are unemployed for more than six weeks and keep looking for a job, that does not count.

Some types of training do not count, either. And that is where the states come in. They have been asking for some training to count, as well as some types of work that currently do not count.

Only someone with seven pounds of brain damage would believe that means "Obama has dropped the work requirements" or that "you wouldn't have to train for a job".


Romney is flat out lying.


Here is his lying ad:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F4LtTlktm0]Right Choice - YouTube[/ame]


.

Why wouldn't anyone believe you over the authors of the bill? Afterall, what could they possibly know? They only wrote it.

 

[rightwinger]

Heritage Foundation said so....

We got it