It seems Romney is really into dog whistle politics :roll:
Yeah, but the ad isn't dishonest. Obama really really is endorsing a plan that would take work requirements out of welfare. Sorry, but it's just true.
NYT proves Romney right on welfare | The Daily Caller
Mitt Romney’s campaign has hit new depths of truth-twisting with its accusation that President Obama plans to “gut welfare reform” by ending federal work requirements. The claim is blatantly false, but it says a great deal about Mr. Romney’s increasingly desperate desire to define the president as something he is not.
Okay, The Daily Caller is a lying sack...Yeah, but the ad isn't dishonest. Obama really really is endorsing a plan that would take work requirements out of welfare. Sorry, but it's just true.
NYT proves Romney right on welfare | The Daily Caller
Yeah, but the ad isn't dishonest. Obama really really is endorsing a plan that would take work requirements out of welfare. Sorry, but it's just true.
NYT proves Romney right on welfare | The Daily Caller
It seems Romney is really into dog whistle politics :roll:
Yeah, but the ad isn't dishonest. Obama really really is endorsing a plan that would take work requirements out of welfare. Sorry, but it's just true.
NYT proves Romney right on welfare | The Daily Caller
I disagree. The ad does seem to be dishonest when it states that "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check." It seems to me that this is just factually not true, and the reasoning used to refute it by politifact makes sense. As far as I can tell it actually seeks to improve the employment outcomes for those on welfare, and if it ends up working the way that Utah, Nevada, and the Health and Human Services have explained, it is one of the few things Obama has done during his presidency that I approve of.
It seems to me both sides have really ramped up the massively dishonest campaigning over the last few weeks.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/aug/13/bob-mcdonnell/bob-mcdonnell-says-obama-unwinding-welfare-work-re/
PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says Barack Obama
Edit: I do have concerns though, that these waivers could eventually be used to count activities as work that really aren't. That needs to be monitored closely. Until it does though, I can't say I have a problem with the policy.
Okay, The Daily Caller is a lying sack...
The Times notes that one of the states proposing waivers from the 1996 welfare reform’s work requirements is Nevada–indeed, Nevada was cited by the Obama Health and Human Services department when it quietly announced its plan to grant waivers on July 12 .** Here’s how the Times describes what Nevada wants to do:
[Nevada] asked to discuss flexibility in imposing those requirements. Perhaps, the state asked, those families hardest to employ could be exempted from the work requirements for six months while officials worked with them to stabilize their households. [E.A.]
“Exempted from the work requirements for six months.” That’s not just “weakening” work requirements–the safe, milder charge I chose to make a couple of days ago. It’s explicitly tossing them out the window for an extended period–“to allow time for their barriers to be addressed and their household circumstances stabilized”, in Nevada’s words.***
For those six months it’s also, unaccountably, exactly what Romney says will happen in his ad
Here is what he left out:But Mickey Kaus, who wrote the article for The Daily Caller, and who is a Democrat, and who ran for office as a Democrat, is saying:
I checked the sources, including the New York Times. They all say what Kaus said they said. They all appear to be fairly represented in his article.
Care to point out just exactly where he's being dishonest?
Here is what he left out:
Reacting to these kinds of requests, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo last month granting states some flexibility. If states can find better ways to get welfare recipients into jobs, they can extend training periods or grant certain kinds of exceptions. The department “is only interested in approving waivers if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs,” according to the memo. Kathleen Sebelius, the health secretary, said all waivers would have to move 20 percent more people from welfare to work.
Talk about dishonesty!
The first paragraph of the NYT editorial that the Daily Caller says supports Romney false claims
Read more: NYT proves Romney right on welfare | The Daily Caller
You guys are funny, so willing to believe anything negative about the President
:lamo:lamo
I had some serious doubts about Mitt Romney’s ad attacking Obama’s welfare “waivers”–until I read the New York Times editorial denouncing it. Now I know Romney’s ad isn’t as accurate as I’d thought. It’s much more accurate.
Talk about dishonesty!
The first paragraph of the NYT editorial that the Daily Caller says supports Romney false claims
You guys are funny, so willing to believe anything negative about the President
:lamo:lamo
Here's another Romney Etch-A-Sketch moment. Romney was for federal employment waivers before he was against them......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/rga_letter.pdf
sort of like Obama wanting to close Gitmo
end the Bush tax rates
etc etc etc
how many threads are you going to make this claim?
No one was blocking or forcing Romney to flip flop on the issues, like the Republicans did to Obama on Gitmo and the tax cuts. So your comparison is a false equivalency... as usual.sort of like Obama wanting to close Gitmo
end the Bush tax rates
etc etc etc
how many threads are you going to make this claim?