| Democratic National Convention; Charlotte, NC Sept 4-6 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 3 2012, 11:12 PM (7,662 Views) | |
| LTC8K6 | Sep 5 2012, 10:21 PM Post #181 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/how-is-contraception-a-political-issue.php How Is Contraception a Political Issue? |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 5 2012, 10:37 PM Post #182 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/26/whs_carney_refuses_to_name_the_capital_of_israel.html Just a month ago, Jay Carney would not say "Jerusalem" at all... |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Sep 5 2012, 10:38 PM Post #183 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Is it just me - or is "Arithmetic" the worst possible thing the DEMS want to raise? Obama has been President for 1.33 % of all our Presidential Representation, yet he has added over 33% of all the debt on the books. In 1.33 % of the time, he's added 33% of all debt. I don't see how that is not raised, even by this corrupt Press Corpse. |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Sep 5 2012, 10:43 PM Post #184 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
It would have passed on the first reading if they put g-d d--n America instead of just god... |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 5 2012, 10:45 PM Post #185 |
|
Unfortunately Obama may have just buried us too deep. By the time he leaves office on Jan 21, 2013 he will have run up close to 6 Trillion in debt. For what? High Unemployment? |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Sep 5 2012, 10:47 PM Post #186 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. They want to give him four more years to Finish off America. . |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Sep 5 2012, 10:48 PM Post #187 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
At the rate we are going it might not take 4 years. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 5 2012, 11:11 PM Post #188 |
|
If you'll think back, the Democratic strategy was to NOT offer a plan, only critic the GOP plans offered. They had wasted the entire second year on Obamacare and had to hope they could just blame the GOP for anything that came up. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Sep 5 2012, 11:23 PM Post #189 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Did Bill Clinton mention how the Crash to the Economy was precipitated by the Home Ownership push for anyone that had a pen? All the DEMS thought Subsidized Federal Housing was the way to go. Let's see if anyone has the guts to bring that up. . |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 5 2012, 11:33 PM Post #190 |
|
Why would he mention his involvement in the housing crash? Edited by kbp, Sep 5 2012, 11:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Sep 5 2012, 11:55 PM Post #191 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Clinton said the waiver of work requirements by Obama's HHS Secretary was prompted by requests from Republican Governors. The problem is those GOP Governors say it's not true and never happened. Two say it's blantantly false and a third says they never requested or suggested any waiver tied to work (was not related to waiving work nor related to work). And it looks for all the world Obama overstepped his boundaries and made that change without the proper authority. "By Matthew Harakal WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and U.S. Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee recently said a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis confirms the Obama Administration circumvented Congress to waive bipartisan welfare work requirements. The GAO analysis, requested by Hatch and Camp, found that the Obama Administration’s recent decision to unilaterally grant itself the authority to waive federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirements - a critical element of the welfare reform enacted in 1996 - qualify as a rule that must be submitted to Congress and that is subject to review – and potential disapproval – under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). “Despite the Obama Administration’s attempts to unilaterally undo welfare work requirements, this analysis is unequivocal that any changes must be submitted to Congress,” said Hatch. “Circumventing Congress, as this White House has done, is a flagrant abuse of our system of checks and balances and an insult to American taxpayers. Work requirements were a critical part of the landmark 1996 Welfare Reform law and should not be scrapped by the Obama Administration." "President Obama has a long history of opposing tough work requirements in welfare,” said Camp. “Despite his latest attempt at an end-run around Congress, this GAO report clearly states that the Administration must submit this rule to Congress for review before it can take effect. Work requirements were the centerpiece of welfare reform, and we cannot allow that progress to be undone." |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Sep 6 2012, 12:00 AM Post #192 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. And from WAPO (blog): Obama needs to explain himself on welfare By Jennifer Rubin President Obama’s effort to call criticisms of his decision to offer waivers to states on the welfare work requirements, in contravention of the express language of the statute, “lies” has failed. For one thing, the criticisms are well founded. For another, the criticisms are working. We’ve reviewed many times how the fact checkers missed the boat in assessing Obama’s welfare law modification. Mickey Kaus reminds us that one of the main defenses for Obama’s move is faulty: [T]he oft-cited CNN-”fact check” of Romney’s welfare ad makes a big deal of HHS secretary Sebelius’ pledge that she will only grant waivers to states that “commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work.” CNN swallows this 20% Rule whole in the course of declaring Romney’s objection “wrong”: The waivers gave “those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work.” Why, it looks as if Obama wants to make the work provisions tougher! Fact-check.org cites the same 20% rule. I was initially skeptical of Sebelius’ 20% pledge, since a) it measures the 20% against “the state’s past performance,” not what the state’s performance would be if it actually tried to comply with the welfare law’s requirements as written, and b) Sebelius pulled it out of thin air only after it became clear that the new waiver rule could be a political problem for the president. She could just as easily drop it in the future; and c) Sebelius made it clear the states don’t have to actually achieve the 20% goal–only “demonstrate clear progress toward” it. . . . Turns out it’s not as big a scam as I’d thought it was. It’s a much bigger scam. For one thing, anything states do to increase the number of people on welfare will automatically increase the “exit” rate–what the 20% rule measures–since the more people going on welfare, the more people leave welfare for jobs in the natural course of things, without the state’s welfare bureaucrats doing anything at all. Raise caseloads by 20% and Sebelius’ standard will probably be met. (Maybe raise caseloads 30% just to be sure.) So what looks like a tough get-to-work incentive is actually a paleoliberal “first-get-on-welfare” incentive. But the point of welfare reform isn’t to get more people onto welfare. It has been the case this political season, as Kaus points out, that “the MSM’s fact-checkers often don’t know what they’re talking about.” Their errors, of course, invariably run in liberals’ favor. But now that a fuller picture has emerged of both the legislative history and potential impact of the change, shouldn’t these truth-tellers be checking themselves? Both sides in the presidential race seem to think the attacks on Obama are working. Republicans have been encouraged to run more ads and make their attack a regular fixture in the nominees’ stump speeches. Democrats also think it is imperative for Obama to address the issue. The difficulty for Obama is two-fold. First, he is on record opposing the 1996 welfare work requirement. And second, if he wanted to remove any doubt that the work requirement will be a permanent fixture in our welfare system, he could have clarified or repealed the change and then gone to Congress to properly amend the statute after a full hearing on whatever problem he thought needed to be fixed. Democrats might have convinced themselves that shouting “Liar!” is a cure-all; it’s not and Obama better be prepared to explain his action. In the simplest form, if it wasn’t broken, why “fix” the work requirement? By Jennifer Rubin | 11:30 AM ET, 09/04/2012 Bill Clinton was passing Big-Fat Whoppers. Edited by Mason, Sep 6 2012, 12:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 6 2012, 12:21 AM Post #193 |
|
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html Memo from George Sheldon, Acting Assistant Secretary - Family Assistance 7/12/12 ...Two states – Utah and Nevada – submitted written comments that specifically identified waivers as one mechanism for testing new approaches to promoting employment and self-sufficiency, and a number of others states – including California, Connecticut, and Minnesota - have asked about the potential for waivers. ******************* http://www.lvrj.com/news/sandoval-nevada-didn-t-ask-for-waiver-on-welfare-program-165482836.html ..."Nevada is very interested in working with your staff to explore program waivers that have the potential to encourage more cooperative relationships among the state agencies engaged in economic stimulus through job creation, employment skill attainment and gainful employment activities," he said. He also talks about "exempting the hardest-to-employ population for a period of time (six months)" ******************* http://utahpolicy.com/bookmark/19959423-Herbert-Explains-Welfare-Waivers-Request ...One of the Republican governors who sought waivers to welfare's work requirements said Monday he doesn't like the way the Obama administration is trying to grant that request, but Utah Gov. Gary Herbert declined to endorse Mitt Romney's claim that the initiative guts the 1996 welfare reform. "The idea of flexibility is something that all states want to have," Herbert told The Huffington Post. Indeed, the Utah Department of Workforce Services wrote two letters to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeking "waiver authority" so that the state's welfare officials could focus more on outcomes -- such as getting people jobs -- than on assembling data to meet narrow prescriptions in the law. Read more: Utah Policy - Herbert Explains Welfare Waivers Request ******************* Mason, it looks like the 2 Rep states, of the 5 listed, did ask for waivers. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Sep 6 2012, 01:34 AM Post #194 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Clinton's speech is series of lies, fabrications, half-truths, and misrepresentations. . Edited by Mason, Sep 6 2012, 05:36 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Sep 6 2012, 05:30 AM Post #195 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Bill's Arithmetic - he applauds Obama's plans and budgets which are well known for using the same money twice. How does that formula look in Arkansas Arithmetic? . |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







9:49 AM Jul 11