Romney's Latest Ad...

[Templar]

Says that the President "gutted" welfare reform, allowing people to not meet the requirement to work.

Politifact this morning said that is a "pants on fire" lie.

What do you all think?

[128vertinnoho]

Everyone knows it is a lie. It would be one thing if this lieing ad was from one of the Super PACs, but these are ads produced by the Rmoney campaign. Mitt's been lieing all his life, so he may not even think this is a lie. Afterall, he believes in magic underwear........

[xbook]

It's another blatant lie, not surprised at all. The entire Rmoney campaign is a ball of lies and dishonesty. Yet, you won't find the right-wingers call him out on it. The part I get a chuckle out of is that he was one of the governors that requested the waiver.

Christian Science Monitor Calls Romney Claims False

[Templar]

Waiting for the likes of css and folks to come and chime in...

[Fox128i]

Both sides lie or at the very least take on a liberal version of the truth. Not the least bit surprised to see this during an election cycle.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yet, you won't find the right-wingers call him out on it.

Why won't left-wingers do the same? Why won't companies selling a product tell you both the advantages and disadvantages of using their product? Dumb statement. True, but pointless.

[128vertinnoho]

I notice that our con members here are avoiding this thread like the plague!

[mspeasl]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

I notice that our con members here are avoiding this thread like the plague!

My dear old Grandmother told me 60 years ago that "Those who live in a glass house shouldn't throw stones". Your boy is doing his share of throwing stones also. One gives what you get

[128vertinnoho]

Originally Posted by mspeasl

My dear old Grandmother told me 60 years ago that "Those who live in a glass house shouldn't throw stones". Your boy is doing his share of throwing stones also. One gives what you get

Obama is endorsing ads that are blatant lies? I don't think so!

[jtvr4]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

Obama is endorsing ads that are blatant lies? I don't think so!

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Or are you delusional? I'm a little new to these forums but i'm noticing a pattern with your posts. You generally act like a child with an Obama flag. I get it, you're a die hard partisan. That's great.

On topic. Both sides will stretch the truth or falsify subjects. The worst i've seen are from the super PAC on the Obama side and Biden himself. Some of those ads/speeches are simply pulled out of thin air and have nothing to do with anything Romeny has done. Unfortunately for the Obama compaign nobody is on the same page and it's really starting to show. Stephanie Cutter, Jen Psaki, Jim Messina need to be fired and it's still not to late to replace Biden.

I'll post this: http://factcheck.org/2012/08/does-ob...elfare-reform/

The ad has been called out by Ron Haskins for mis information. Who's also a Republican.

On a side note does anyone have the new federal requirements that are in Obamas reform plan?

[128vertinnoho]

Originally Posted by jtvr4

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Or are you delusional? I'm a little new to these forums but i'm noticing a pattern with your posts. You generally act like a child with an Obama flag. I get it, you're a die hard partisan. That's great.

On topic. Both sides will stretch the truth or falsify subjects. The worst i've seen are from the super PAC on the Obama side and Biden himself. Some of those ads/speeches are simply pulled out of thin air and have nothing to do with anything Romeny has done. Unfortunately for the Obama compaign nobody is on the same page and it's really starting to show. Stephanie Cutter, Jen Psaki, Jim Messina need to be fired and it's still not to late to replace Biden.

I'll post this: http://factcheck.org/2012/08/does-ob...elfare-reform/

The ad has been called out by Ron Haskins for mis information. Who's also a Republican.

On a side note does anyone have the new federal requirements that are in Obamas reform plan?

So, you agree that Obama does NOT lie in his ads......and that Rmoney is a big fat liar.......thanks!

[jtvr4]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

So, you agree that Obama does NOT lie in his ads......and that Rmoney is a big fat liar.......thanks!

Bravo on another compelling post. I'll go ahead and add you to the ignore list. I came to talk to adults not their children.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by 128vertinnoho

So, you agree that Obama does NOT lie in his ads......and that Rmoney is a big fat liar.......thanks!

Did you even read the post, or did you forget your meds again?

[rgrovr]

I really don't want to have to do the Dems homework on this one as to why this is nothing but gutting welfare reform from its current state with no authority under the law to do so. Let it be said that if the Pre-1996 welfare rolls could've used this new accounting measure, it would've looked like we had no probs to solve before Clinton signed the measure in 96.

I'll give you a hint.. a 20% increase of ppl leaving welfare in order to allow for waivers against the work requirement can easily be met at the same time significantly increasing the people coming onto to welfare.. laughingly easy.

The Romney ad is more than factual. The progressives can attempt to figure it out if you are open to have a discussion on it.

[straight_six]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

I really don't want to have to do the Dems homework on this one as to why this is nothing but gutting welfare reform from its current state with no authority under the law to do so. Let it be said that if the Pre-1996 welfare rolls could've used this new accounting measure, it would've looked like we had no probs to solve before Clinton signed the measure in 96.

I'll give you a hint.. a 20% increase of ppl leaving welfare in order to allow for waivers against the work requirement can easily be met at the same time significantly increasing the people coming onto to welfare.. laughingly easy.

The Romney ad is more than factual. The progressives can attempt to figure it out if you are open to have a discussion on it.

Not sure who your patronizing post is aimed at; as pointed-out by the OP, the ad was deemed to be a bald-faced lie. If you're challenging that conclusion, you need to direct your comments to that, rather than using this as an opportunity to disparage democrats, progressives, or the general "thinking population".

[Templar]

Originally Posted by straight_six

Not sure who your patronizing post is aimed at; as pointed-out by the OP, the ad was deemed to be a bald-faced lie. If you're challenging that conclusion, you need to direct your comments to that, rather than using this as an opportunity to disparage democrats, progressives, or the general "thinking population".

Agreed.

Politifact pointed out and showed proof it is a lie. I'm not interested in the OPINION that the ad isn't a lie.

If you can post some facts/evidence on how Obama is gutting and removing the work requirement for welfare (like the ad states), then be my guest. I guess is that no one here can

[rgrovr]

Sure - I'll do your homework for you then since it seems none of you actual read the HHS proposal. In summation it states:

HHS will exempt states from the federal work requirements if they increase by 20 percent the number of TANF (Welfare as its known) cases that lose eligibility due to increases in earnings, a measure called “employment exits.”

There a couple of reason this measure of improvement of 20% of "employment exits" is actually counterproductive to ensure folks actually get off welfare and head to work:

1. The measure can be met just by better record keeping by states. Many number of TANF recipients leave the program each month for unknown or unspecified reasons. The states could meet the 20% threshold just by keeping more accurate data on current exits, not by actually improving it.

2. Exits will increase as the economy recovers strength. So almost every state will hit a 20% percent threshold of employment exits as the econonmy picks up steam. In doing so, they then would have no need to mandate the work requirement for anyone after they meet the threshold or if we hit another recession after a short "recovery"

3. Caseload size drives employment exits. In general if more folks come onto welfare, Caseload size gets larger - the more folks also are getting jobs or "employment exits" So you could have 100 people come onto welfare and 20 of them got jobs - now the other 80 don't need to meet the work requirement.

4. 20 percent increase in getting jobs or "employment exits" is insignificant. States avg. caseload is 40,000 cases. Each state averages 600 employment exits per month. So with the new rule, a state can be fully exempt from the work standards if it raises employment exits from 600 to 720.

So this new "meaningful" measure would exempt 39,000 other families from welfare-to-work requirements because 120 more people got jobs???

This is pretty transparent method to see that while the sound bite sounds all well and good, "If states improve people getting jobs by 20%, they have more flexibility in the TANF mandates" - it is really just a waiver from work requirements if they can meet a trivial threshold of improvement.

Read the whole rule here at the HHS website to make your own decisions.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

Sure - I'll do your homework for you then since it seems none of you actual read the HHS proposal. In summation it states:



There a couple of reason this measure of improvement of 20% of "employment exits" is actually counterproductive to ensure folks actually get off welfare and head to work:

1. The measure can be met just by better record keeping by states. Many number of TANF recipients leave the program each month for unknown or unspecified reasons. The states could meet the 20% threshold just by keeping more accurate data on current exits, not by actually improving it.

2. Exits will increase as the economy recovers strength. So almost every state will hit a 20% percent threshold of employment exits as the econonmy picks up steam. In doing so, they then would have no need to mandate the work requirement for anyone after they meet the threshold or if we hit another recession after a short "recovery"

3. Caseload size drives employment exits. In general if more folks come onto welfare, Caseload size gets larger - the more folks also are getting jobs or "employment exits" So you could have 100 people come onto welfare and 20 of them got jobs - now the other 80 don't need to meet the work requirement.

4. 20 percent increase in getting jobs or "employment exits" is insignificant. States avg. caseload is 40,000 cases. Each state averages 600 employment exits per month. So with the new rule, a state can be fully exempt from the work standards if it raises employment exits from 600 to 720.

So this new "meaningful" measure would exempt 39,000 other families from welfare-to-work requirements because 120 more people got jobs???

This is pretty transparent method to see that while the sound bite sounds all well and good, "If states improve people getting jobs by 20%, they have more flexibility in the TANF mandates" - it is really just a waiver from work requirements if they can meet a trivial threshold of improvement.

Read the whole rule here at the HHS website to make your own decisions.

Sources on the actual proposal? The link you posted says nothing about it, except waivers to a certain section which isn't specific to the work requirement (which is a different section).

I'll wait...

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by Templar

Sources on the actual proposal? The link you posted says nothing about it, except waivers to a certain section which isn't specific to the work requirement (which is a different section).

I'll wait...

From CNNMoney..

States must guarantee that the proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Straight from the Secretary's mouth as it relates to how to achieve for the waivers from the HHS link I posted earlier. Read the TANF memorandum and her statement on what will constitute a waiver tells you the whole story.

Now if you're ready to have a reasoned discussion on the facts.. we can talk.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

From CNNMoney..



Straight from the Secretary's mouth as it relates to how to achieve for the waivers from the HHS link I posted earlier. Read the TANF memorandum and her statement on what will constitute a waiver tells you the whole story.

Now if you're ready to have a reasoned discussion on the facts.. we can talk.

What's also from the CNN article:

Recipients would still have to get jobs or prepare for work, but states can now apply for waivers of the original requirements.

The part you quoted earlier is also interesting. You first stated:

HHS will exempt states from the federal work requirements if they increase by 20 percent the number of TANF (Welfare as its known) cases that lose eligibility due to increases in earnings, a measure called “employment exits.”

Looking for some sort of source where HHS says it will exempt states from the work requirement. Nothing you have posted (except some quote with no source) has said that. All that has been said is that states can apply for waivers, which may allow other things to count toward the work requirement, but it's up to the STATE, not Obama. And the state has to prove that those changes will increase the welfare to work percentage by 20%. Again, nowhere does it say anything is removing the work requirement.

You're the one being unreasonable. Stop it with the little attacks. I'm trying to get you to post facts, not partisan lies and opinion based nonsense. Funny how offended some of you people get when you have no proof and are just grasping at straws.

The fact still remains, Romney's ad says it removes the work requirements and that is a lie.

I'll sum it up for you again, maybe you'll figure it out. SHOW ME SOMETHING THAT SAYS IT REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT TO WORK. Everything you've showed me so far shows the complete opposite.

[rgrovr]

Right from the HHS memorandum:

While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.

Section 407 stipulate the work requirements as defined by Congress (with no with authority under the law to allow for HHS to waive - which is another convo).

Section 402 is the reporting requirement states need to provide to the Fed. gov't on their TANF programs. (that portion of the law is WAIVABLE which is ironic.)

If you read the statement by HHS - its basically saying, since we can waive the reporting requirement (and only temporarily at that as per the law), we can then re-stipulate work requirements from another section on criteria we have yet to determine. To include, and I say again for effect - "..definitions of work activities and engagement"

I can't spell it out any more than that. I guess this may be one of those "Don't believe your lying eyes" type of moments for the Dems on this board.

[Bingobimmer]

Really???? Lies in a presidential election!!!!! It goes both ways and I am at the point I don't care who wins the election anymore. Politics...