Romney’s welfare ad is accurate

[naturegirl]

Heritage Foundation said so....

We got it

And Obama told you, so it's gotta be right. We understand. Poor thing.

 

[beretta304]

Heritage Foundation said so....

We got it

"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."


Do you eat your young too?

 

[Greenbeard]

Heritage Foundation said so....

We got it

"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."


Do you eat your young too?

Let's try this: Can you point to an 1115 waiver request from a state in response to ACF's memo and identify something in it you find offensive or that you believe would "gut" any provision of existing law if approved?

I'd love to see exactly what it is that's upsetting you so.

 

[beretta304]

Heritage Foundation said so....

We got it

And Obama told you, so it's gotta be right. We understand. Poor thing.

You have to love these people. The authors as well as their own libs say it, but a couple of clowns on a message board who lean so far left that they fall over are better informed on the details than the principals.

Then they razz me as if I actually wrote the refutation.

Deflect, distract and convolute...it's all they have.

 

[EriktheRed]

Heritage Foundation said so....

We got it

"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."


Do you eat your young too?

Let's try this: Can you point to an 1115 waiver request from a state in response to ACF's memo and identify something in it you find offensive or that you believe would "gut" any provision of existing law if approved?

I'd love to see exactly what it is that's upsetting you so.

Nothing's upsetting him. He's just likes being a rightwingnut troll so he posts wingnut sites defending this bullshit.

 

[beretta304]

"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."


Do you eat your young too?

Let's try this: Can you point to an 1115 waiver request from a state in response to ACF's memo and identify something in it you find offensive or that you believe would "gut" any provision of existing law if approved?

I'd love to see exactly what it is that's upsetting you so.

Nothing's upsetting him. He's just likes being a rightwingnut troll so he posts wingnut sites defending this bullshit.

I should just accept it like an Obamatron and sheepishly believe it because the Messiah's minions say so.


What are you hacks going to do after Romney's elected? Let me guess, nah, I don't have to..we already know...more of the same.

 

[beretta304]

"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."


Do you eat your young too?

Let's try this: Can you point to an 1115 waiver request from a state in response to ACF's memo and identify something in it you find offensive or that you believe would "gut" any provision of existing law if approved?

I'd love to see exactly what it is that's upsetting you so.

Nothing's upsetting him. He's just likes being a rightwingnut troll so he posts wingnut sites defending this bullshit.

I do see though that you added a lot to the conversation and why wouldn't your Ad hominem attack not be construed as trolling. Beats me. You come into the thread attack me not on substance but with sophomoric insults but heck...I'm the troll.

 

[Greenbeard]

Let's try this: Can you point to an 1115 waiver request from a state in response to ACF's memo and identify something in it you find offensive or that you believe would "gut" any provision of existing law if approved?

I'd love to see exactly what it is that's upsetting you so.

Nothing's upsetting him. He's just likes being a rightwingnut troll so he posts wingnut sites defending this bullshit.

I should just accept it like an Obamatron and sheepishly believe it because the Messiah's minions say so.

Cool, you haven't just "accepted" anything.

So which state's 1115 waiver request is proposing something you consider offensive to the work requirements? And what is it?

 

[Jackson]

"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]


.

A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office noted that some states meet them with a generous interpretation of what counts as work — including “personal journaling,” “smoking cessation,” “weight loss promotion” and “helping a friend or relative with household tasks and errands.”

These aspects of “work” is met daily from people who hold down real jobs at the same time. Why make this a Job in it’s own right? That’s not a real world scenario.
Read more: Is Obama trying to erase welfare work mandates? - San Antonio Express-News

 

[edthecynic]

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

CON$ervoFascists are pathological liars.

 

[EriktheRed]

Just last week, the Rmoney camp was standing by their ad, but there was no mention of this position during the RNC and since then, Mittens hasn't brought it up in any speeches. The ad has reportedly not been aired anywhere since then, either.