• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another Dishonest Welfare Ad From Romney

pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It seems Romney is really into dog whistle politics :roll:

 
pbrauer said:
It seems Romney is really into dog whistle politics :roll:

Click to expand...



that's because the guy you worship is a dog of a politician who has given the country the bone
 
Political ads being inaccurate is nothing new, everyone does it, its become the new standard in politics. Of course when you hear it from most people, its only the other guy who lies and twists the truth. Arguing over political ads is stupid.
 
You beat me to it ^^^^

Romney's ad is 100% true. Obama gutted the work requirements illegally and he did it over a weekend. It wasn't this major announcement. They wanted to keep it a secret for a reason.

Shameful
 
LowDown said:
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
Click to expand...


Talk about dishonesty!

The first paragraph of the NYT editorial that the Daily Caller says supports Romney false claims
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.
Click to expand...


You guys are funny, so willing to believe anything negative about the President

:lamo:lamo
 
I find it hilarious that Romney is playing the card; "Oh Obama is just sligging mud and lies card". Cmon Romney your adds have been more dishonest than Obama's. Its pretty pathetic ads this election season, but hey what can you expect from a country that believes corporations are people, taxing the rich is socialism and class war, and Obama is a secret communist muslim?
 
pbrauer said:
It seems Romney is really into dog whistle politics :roll:

Click to expand...


This isn't going to be a nice election from either side. It will be all class warfare this and socialism that, and neither side will actually say anything of importance the entire time.
 
Exactly right. It's about entitlements now. Those looking for their next handout vs. those reeling from the latest government extortion.
 
LowDown said:
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
Click to expand...

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/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

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.
 
Last edited:
Anagram said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good on you for being able to dislike the man's Presidency but do so from a basis of facts.
 
pbrauer said:
Okay, The Daily Caller is a lying sack...
Click to expand...

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:

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
Click to expand...

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?
 
LowDown said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.​
 
pbrauer said:
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.​
Click to expand...

DHHS appears to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. How can exempting people from work requirements for up to 6 months "move 20% more people from welfare to work"? Sorry if I have absolutely no faith in what Obama officials say, but it is a cynicism that many of us have earned honestly. Can you say "Fast and Furious"? How about "Gulf of Mexico drilling permits"? How about "we didn't know anything about that Soptic guy."
 
Somerville said:
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
Click to expand...

Talk about not reading the OP link:

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.
Click to expand...

While you're laughing, hold on to your ***. It might fall off. ;)
 
Last edited:
The term "gut" is an adjective and left up to interpretation. The FACTS are that what Obama signed, permits the DHS to REMOVE work requirements. He DID NOT remove this, he turned this back to the states where they can work with DHS to REMOVE work requirements to receive welfare. That's the Truth. Read the DHS memorandum that clearly states what Obama opened up. This ABC News article does a good job breaking it down. I'm not saying I don't like the states rights aspect to this. I'm just stating that Obama opened the door to remove the work requirement and that is a FACT. The advertisement is NOT dishonest.

" The Secretary is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment."

TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03
Fact Check: Does Obama Want to ‘Gut’ Welfare Reform? - ABC News
 
You may not like the Daily Caller but what about the NYT? What about the letters from Utah and Nevada. Nevada EXPLICITLY asks to waive for 6 months those hardest to employ. Like I've said, it doesn't matter how many facts you show a Liberal, their brain cannot overrule their heart. I think I'll call it LIDD, Liberal Intellectual Dishonesty Disorder, and you sir, OP (PBauer) have LIDD extremly bad!
 
Somerville said:
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
Click to expand...


NYT EDITORIAL and FALSE go hand and hand together. NYT is a mouthpiece for the Obama RE-Election effort
 
TurtleDude said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, not really like either of those things, as Obama did try to close Gitmo and did try to end the top Bush tax cuts, but was thwarted by Congress in both cases. Romney's flip-flop is a purely political lie.
 
TurtleDude said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom