Romney ad: Obama’s welfare changes “nuts”

posted at 10:41 am on August 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Team Romney launched another attack on Barack Obama’s executive-order changes to the 1996 bipartisan welfare reform, quoting a leading Virginia newspaper that called the changes “nuts”:

National Journal calls this an escalation:

Mitt Romney’s campaign on Monday escalated its attack on President Obama’s welfare policy, releasing a new TV ad that cites a Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial that alleges the president is trying to end work requirements for welfare and calls that decision “nuts.”

“One of the most respected newspapers in America called it ‘nuts,’ saying, ‘If you want to get more people to work, you don’t loosen the requirements – you tighten them,” a voiceover says.

The ad alleges that Obama “quietly” ended work requirements for welfare, effectively “gutting” former President Bill Clinton’s 1996 bipartisan welfare reform bill. The ad is referring to a memo from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius informing states that the administration was willing to waive federal work requirements if the state welfare programs could come up with their own plans to improve employment outcomes.

The inclusion of the influential Virginia newspaper is hardly an accident, either.  It’s going to be a tough state for both campaigns, and a must-win for both as well.  References to media support probably play better with the Republican base, which usually doesn’t expect it, and independents who probably put more stock in it, than to Democrats.  In this case, that’s probably enough.

The Hill reports that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan plan to expand on the welfare attack today:

Still, the Romney campaign is looking to press the president on the issue, believing it could resonate with working class voters. According to the Romney campaign, the presumptive nominee and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are expected to hammer the welfare issue at a town hall in New Hampshire on Monday.

The Obama administration and campaign tried to defend itself from the attack:

The Obama Administration has argued that the waivers are intended to give states greater flexibility in the implementation of the program, and noted that the memo specifically advises that only plans that will put more welfare recipients to work would be considered….

The Obama campaign released an ad of their own earlier this month defending against the attacks.

“See this? Mitt Romney claiming the president would end welfare’s work requirements? The New York Times calls it ‘blatantly false.’ The Washington Postsays, ‘The Obama administration is not removing the bill’s work requirements at all,’” the narrator says.

There are three problems with this defense.  First, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.  Second, having the RTD come up with the same analysis as the Romney campaign at least provides Romney some third-party support for his argument.  Third, Team Obama have been making personal attacks against Romney for months; the official campaign suggested that Romney had committed felonies that he was hiding with his tax returns, and the super-PAC run by Obama’s former White House aide all but claimed that Romney killed the spouse of a laid-off worker of a company owned by Bain.  Voters aren’t likely to be terribly sympathetic to whining over arguable misrepresentation of an executive order.  At least that’s a legitimate area of Obama’s public-policy record, unlike Obama’s attacks on Romney over Seamus the Roof-Riding Dog.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Go get ‘em Mitt!

GhoulAid on August 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

It is uplifting for the Republican ticket to stay on the offensive.

GaltBlvnAtty on August 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Yeah I’ve seen too many pundits nodding their heads when Obamites call Mitt’s claims ‘blatantly false’. Nice to have a third party backing them up but would have been better if they’d been out of the gate a little sooner.

CitizenEgg on August 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Yeah I’ve seen too many pundits nodding their heads when Obamites call Mitt’s claims ‘blatantly false’. Nice to have a third party backing them up but would have been better if they’d been out of the gate a little sooner.

CitizenEgg on August 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Attack. Keep attacking. Make TFGRP own every last chunk of the mess he and his minions have created.

Bishop on August 20, 2012 at 10:47 AM

There are three problems with this defense. First, if you’re explaining, you’re losing . . . . .

excerpt: Ed Morrisey

.
The other two problems are legit, but I’ll stop with the first one.

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Mitt should’ve mentioned how obama abused his power once again to gut the work requirements.

Also paint him as a extreme leftist since he can’t even agree with clinton on the need for work requirements for a handout.

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Mind = blown.

Keep up the pressure. I can send a few more dollars.

Washington Nearsider on August 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Are they going to do commercials about how the Obama administration is using our tax dollars to encourage illegal aliens to sign up for food stamps? Or about how they’re using our tax dollars to file lawsuits against U.S. employers on behalf of illegal aliens?

AZCoyote on August 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM

At least that’s a legitimate area of Obama’s public-policy record, unlike Obama’s attacks on Romney over Seamus the Roof-Riding Dog.

I like Obama’s constant references to Seamus. It reveals the petty bully that he is.

Happy Nomad on August 20, 2012 at 10:50 AM

The big issue to me is not that he “gutted work requirements” for welfare, it’s his method that really bothers me.

He has repeatedly bypassed Congress and the Constitution through executive orders. Why this hasn’t raised the ire of the folks is beyond me. Odumbo, first Emperor of the US.

RedCrow on August 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I would like to see them do a spot that ties this to our present economy and explains why so many people need welfare

paulrtaylor on August 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I really hate how the Romney campaign feels the need to throw the term “middle class” into practically every ad and speech now. To me, it’s insulting. Not nearly to the degree that Democrats us it, but insulting nonetheless.

There is no middle class. There is no 1% or 99%. We’re Americans. We don’t buy into the Left’s slicing of America into little voting blocs…

Common Sense Floridian on August 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Nice to see the RTD get some love.

I’m surprised this attack is getting so much traction. Guess more people support welfare to work than I thought.

changer1701 on August 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

The big issue to me is not that he “gutted work requirements” for welfare, it’s his method that really bothers me.

He has repeatedly bypassed Congress and the Constitution through executive orders. Why this hasn’t raised the ire of the folks is beyond me. Odumbo, first Emperor of the US.

RedCrow on August 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Both issues bother me, but you’re right at bypassing Congress once again is an outrage!

I’m shocked that Romney didn’t mention this. So many opportunities out there of absuing authority — Fast and Furious (why is Mitt afraid to touch this?), Gibson Guitars, telling illegals under 30 they can stay while ignoring Federal law.

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

The Obama administration and campaign tried to defend itself from the attack:

welcome to Monday, fellas.

ted c on August 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

A very good ad. The opening scene showing former President Bill Clinton signing the welfare reform law puts Obama at odds with Clinton, and might win votes for Romney from former supporters of Bill Clinton (in 1996) and Hillary Clinton (in 2008).

Steve Z on August 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM

It is nuts. “Here’s your welfare check, don’t bother ever looking for a job again” is stupid on a level that makes Biden sound like the founder of Mensa.

Bishop on August 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I really hate how the Romney campaign feels the need to throw the term “middle class” into practically every ad and speech now. To me, it’s insulting. Not nearly to the degree that Democrats us it, but insulting nonetheless.

There is no middle class. There is no 1% or 99%. We’re Americans. We don’t buy into the Left’s slicing of America into little voting blocs…

Common Sense Floridian on August 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM

That’s politics.

Too bad no one has the balls to say that the top 1% pay about 40% of the bill. That if we confiscated all the wealth from the rich it still would barely cover a third of the debt.

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The ad alleges that Obama “quietly” ended work requirements for welfare, effectively “gutting” former President Bill Clinton’s 1996 bipartisan welfare reform bill.

National Journal should know better. Clinton vetoed the Republican Congress’ first two efforts and the final legislation only became “bipartisan” when Clinton caved. To call it “Clinton’s” welfare reform, when he had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, across the line, is a bit much.

TXUS on August 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I really hate how the Romney campaign feels the need to throw the term “middle class” into practically every ad and speech now. To me, it’s insulting. Not nearly to the degree that Democrats us it, but insulting nonetheless.

There is no middle class. There is no 1% or 99%. We’re Americans. We don’t buy into the Left’s slicing of America into little voting blocs…

Common Sense Floridian on August 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Ideally he wouldn’t have to, but there’s been so much talk about the middle class and how squeezed they are that he probably feels he needs to speak directly to them.

changer1701 on August 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Both issues bother me, but you’re right at bypassing Congress once again is an outrage!

I’m shocked that Romney didn’t mention this. So many opportunities out there of absuing authority.

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I think I actually prefer the subtle “obama quietly ended work requirements” line. It implies that he’s bypassing normal constitutional procedure without being in-your-face about it. It leaves the viewer to draw the their own natural conclusion which will stick with them much longer than simply being told about it.

Either way, it’s a good ad and I like the constant drip, drip of Willard’s strategy.

More please.

Lost in Jersey on August 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I’m shocked that Romney didn’t mention this. So many opportunities out there of absuing authority — Fast and Furious (why is Mitt afraid to touch this?), Gibson Guitars, telling illegals under 30 they can stay while ignoring Federal law.

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Yeah. I didn’t mean I agreed with him, just that this rule by diktat is more outrageous. I’d be just as angry about it if it were a republican doing something I agreed with.

No offense to any here, but we have a definite lawyer problem in this country. (Remember one man’s haggling over the meaning of the word “is”?) When, somehow–I don’t understand it, a president can enact law through EOs, and it’s no big deal!? We’ve got problems.

RedCrow on August 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I think I actually prefer the subtle “obama quietly ended work requirements” line. It implies that he’s bypassing normal constitutional procedure without being in-your-face about it. It leaves the viewer to draw the their own natural conclusion which will stick with them much longer than simply being told about it.

Lost in Jersey on August 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM
</blockquote

I disagree. Who is being targeted with these ads? Independents? Disgruntled Democrats? Many of them may not draw that conclusion or be willing to give obummer the benefit of the doubt instead of drawing their own conclusion as you say.

The fact that obummer has once again abused his power needs to be screamed from the rooftops. Remember how the left tried to attack Bush as a tyrant? We need to show how obummer really has turned us into a soft tyranny.

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

You should’ve posted this a couple hours later, when Obama welfare voters are getting out of bed.

RBMN on August 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Speaking of nuts…

Who does the following 10 Sociopath red flags remind you of???…

10 signs for spotting a sociopath

#1) Sociopaths are charming.
#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. #3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse.
#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences.
#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and “win” at all costs.
#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them.
#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving.
#8) Sociopaths speak poetically.
#9) Sociopaths never apologize.
#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it.

PatriotRider on August 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Hahahaha:

Quote of the Day – August 20, 2012

by Keith Koffler on August 20, 2012, 9:51 am

“And worst of all, under Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan, seniors for the first time would be charged co-payments for trips to the Fountain of Youth.”

- Barack Obama

A note from our attorneys: This is not a real quote

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/

Cody1991 on August 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM

To call it “Clinton’s” welfare reform, when he had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, across the line, is a bit much.

TXUS on August 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Well, it was called the Clinton surplus, too. (But, it wouldn’t have happened were it not for Gingrich and the GOP controlled Congress.)

Lol. Never thought I think this, but I miss the Clinton White House. Never thought that he hated America.

RedCrow on August 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Rip Rip Ree
Hit ‘em in the knee!
Rip Rip Rass
Hit ‘em in the other knee!

Naturally Curly on August 20, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Yeah. I didn’t mean I agreed with him, just that this rule by diktat is more outrageous. I’d be just as angry about it if it were a republican doing something I agreed with.

No offense to any here, but we have a definite lawyer problem in this country. (Remember one man’s haggling over the meaning of the word “is”?) When, somehow–I don’t understand it, a president can enact law through EOs, and it’s no big deal!? We’ve got problems.

RedCrow on August 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I understood what you meant and agree completely.

It’s a shame Romney has basically ignored obummers multiple abuses of power, especially Fast and Furious…

I wrote an editorial to a local paper on fast and furious and Romney can’t even mention it? Why not? What’s he so afraid of??

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM

There are three problems with this defense. First, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Here is the problem with that “problem”…it’s wrong.

If you are explaining clumsily, than you will lose…but if you explain with common sense, you win.

Reagan was a master at that, and Ryan does it well…you have to educate the public because the MSM won’t, can’t, and the dems are nothing but bumper stickers.

So you have to explain, that doesn’t mean talk down, are lengthy, but continuous sound bites…what’s the old joke about eating an elephant, you do it one bite at a time.

The budget is boring…except when Ryan explains it, and Mitt can and will learn that gift. I can see the change already.

If you have to explain, explain on your terms, and talk to the people not the press, and you will win…every time you will win.

Cut out the journalist, and answer the people’s questions…

right2bright on August 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Where is Congress? This clown of a President thinks he can change laws without congress. Are there any men left in DC?

Wade on August 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Keep going for the jugular

Mr thin skin wont know what hit him

cmsinaz on August 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Ok, fine, though I personally don’t feel aggrieved by this issue so much; it seems like old hat to me. But, more importantly, over the next 2 weeks, I think we need to concentrate our ad resources on winning the Medicare Battle. That is the central battle that has to be won… right a way.
On Medicare you could make the point in ads that I made: We can sharply raise Medicare taxes so the current program will not go bankrupt. But the President is not proposing that. So the choice is not between premium support and doing nothing; the choice is between premium support and across-the-board rationing – for all seniors. I think also that the younger generations will choose us if they consider that stark choice.

anotherJoe on August 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I can’t wait until Romney accepts the nomination so that he begin to unload his warchest with these kinds of ads. Maybe he’ll even have enough to buy his own pre-World Series infomercial!

The Count on August 20, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Romney is clearly doing what McLame failed to do in 2008. He is taking the fight to Obama and all indications are, he has no intention of kneecapping his own running mate. I would be much happier if Romney were to use Obama’s other problems and gaffs more frequently.

But then again, Romney can’t really use his campaign money yet either. Here’s hoping that once the GOP Convention official names him the GOP Candidate he starts bring up those other issues up with brutal frequency and efficiency. Romney needs to hammer the living daylights out of Obama over Fast and Furious, over the New Black Panthers, and for gods sake Romney beat Obama about the head and shoulders with What does “You didn’t build that” really mean?

SWalker on August 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Hey, remember when folks here swore that if he was the nominee, Romney would be McCain 2.0 and just roll over and not fight?

Yeah? Yeah.

Every day, it’s a new attack ad from the guy. I can’t wait until after the convention, when he’s free to REALLY start the Romney Death Star lasers firing.

Vyce on August 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I understood what you meant and agree completely.

It’s a shame Romney has basically ignored obummers multiple abuses of power, especially Fast and Furious…

I wrote an editorial to a local paper on fast and furious and Romney can’t even mention it? Why not? What’s he so afraid of??

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Because internals show that medicare (important for the swing states like Florida) is more important, much more, than Fast and Furious.

You have to pick your battles…if you are in a war you pick your battles, you have limited resources.

Right now they are hammering the dems on Medicare, what has always been the dems territory, and they are beating them to death on the subject, the dems are going to lose one of their major policy issues for the past couple of decades…this is huge.

Issa is handling Fast and Furious, let’s keep the focus, Medicare, and the budget/economy…

Unless you have spent a couple of million on polls and you know different…

right2bright on August 20, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I am pretty sure that ad must be racist. It mentions Obama and welfare.

That’s racism.

myiq2xu on August 20, 2012 at 11:16 AM

The Obama Administration has argued that the waivers are intended to give states greater flexibility in the implementation of the program, and noted that the memo specifically advises that only plans that will put more welfare recipients to work would be considered….

BS. The reform has been law for 16 years. Either the welfare recipients work, or they don’t. There’s no need for “greater flexibility” unless you are trying to ease work requirements.

visions on August 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Romney is clearly doing what McLame failed to do in 2008. He is taking the fight to Obama and all indications are, he has no intention of kneecapping his own running mate. I would be much happier if Romney were to use Obama’s other problems and gaffs more frequently.

But then again, Romney can’t really use his campaign money yet either. Here’s hoping that once the GOP Convention official names him the GOP Candidate he starts bring up those other issues up with brutal frequency and efficiency. Romney needs to hammer the living daylights out of Obama over Fast and Furious, over the New Black Panthers, and for gods sake Romney beat Obama about the head and shoulders with What does “You didn’t build that” really mean?

SWalker on August 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM

THIS ^^^^^

Nice blog post btw!

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Because internals show that medicare (important for the swing states like Florida) is more important, much more, than Fast and Furious.

You have to pick your battles…if you are in a war you pick your battles, you have limited resources.

Right now they are hammering the dems on Medicare, what has always been the dems territory, and they are beating them to death on the subject, the dems are going to lose one of their major policy issues for the past couple of decades…this is huge.

Issa is handling Fast and Furious, let’s keep the focus, Medicare, and the budget/economy…

Unless you have spent a couple of million on polls and you know different…

right2bright on August 20, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I still think you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Especially over something so serious. We’re talking about a border patrol agent getting killed and over 300 dead Mexicans. Extreme corruption and the associated cover up.

Again unless I’m missing something, Romney hasn’t even mentioned it right?

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 11:21 AM

When Romney becomes president and issues waivers to states from the mandatory purchase of insurance under the all powerful Obamacare will he be strengthening the program or weakening it?

ThorFather on August 20, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Here’s the problem with O’s imperial welfare action in a nutshell: If it’s so great why did they need an exec order?

Buy Danish on August 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM

My question is, if the executive order isn’t meant to allow states to loosen the work requirements for welfare recipients if they so choose, what is it meant to do?

Saying “only plans that will put more welfare recipients to work would be considered” doesn’t explain anything to me, because states wouldn’t need waivers just to have more welfare recipients go to work.

J.S.K. on August 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Good ad. If you piss off the people paying taxes, and show them Obama wants to take their hard-earned dollars and just give it to people, that is a recipe for success.

And yes, if you are explaining things, you are losing. Nice job of Romney and Ryan to go on the offensive, and take the issue off having to explain the tax code to a nation that just simply will never understand it.

milcus on August 20, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Saying “only plans that will put more welfare recipients to work would be considered” doesn’t explain anything to me, because states wouldn’t need waivers just to have more welfare recipients go to work.

J.S.K. on August 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM

BINGO. They want to loosen standards for definition of “work” so more recipients can be eligible for welfare by claiming they are “working”.

Buy Danish on August 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM

A a lib I know admitted this the other night…

’3 years ago he lost his job. Started unemployment with extensions… and went to sleep for 2 years. Now, he CAN’T get a job… for all the predictable reasons, and due to Obama’s economy. (well he didn’t mention the Obama economy, I did)’

Normally, workers will work and the lazy moochers will TRY to mooch. Distort the system through unchecked unemployment and welfare and moochers WILL mooch, and some outta work workers will become moochers.

Requirement is the way to go.

I’ve often thought that after some short grace period… free riders should have to show up and for example spend three days a week in a library reading (or some such) to continue to receive the benefit. The other 2 days should be spent looking for work.

RalphyBoy on August 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I’m liking these recent ads, BUT … I sure wish they’d start tossing in the word(s) ILLEGAL(LY) when it’s true !!!
Shoot, this Welfare act ITSELF contained the stipulation that the work requirement COULD NOT BE REMOVED !!!
Didn’t the O just break that law ??
Is it considered too MEAN to include these facts ? too petty ??
Sheesh .. fight with both fists, guys.

pambi on August 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Politico is defending Obama big time against this ad natch…. claim independent’ groups have debunked mitts claims

cmsinaz on August 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Lol. Never thought I think this, but I miss the Clinton White House. Never thought that he hated America.

RedCrow on August 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I would’ve gladly given the Big Dawg a third term instead of what we got, the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers. Well, anyway, he’s about to get his ass handed to him and none too soon.

TXUS on August 20, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Lol. Never thought I think this, but I miss the Clinton White House. Never thought that he hated America.

RedCrow on August 20, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Clinton only stuck his d1ck in an intern. Obama sticks his in everyone.

lorien1973 on August 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Tommy Thomson, who worked hard for passing the Clinton/Gingrich welfare act, and is now running for sen. in WI, said he’d sue Obama over his EO changes.

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM

The Obama Administration has argued that the waivers are intended to give states greater flexibility in the implementation of the program, and noted that the memo specifically advises that only plans that will put more welfare recipients to work would be considered….

Yes, except that those plans that “put more welfare recipients to work” are being allowed to define “work” to include things like getting a massage, going to a psychotherapy session, etc. — instead of going to an actual job.

AZCoyote on August 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Good ad, effective. Speaking the truth too.

mrscullen on August 20, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Remember, as Obama himself once reminded us, words matter.

That’s why Obama and his minions are always working so hard to change the definition of words to make them mean whatever best suits their purposes. And in this instance, it suits their purposes to have as many people as possible dependent on government handouts.

AZCoyote on August 20, 2012 at 12:02 PM

The focus groups must have found it is effective to attack Barry for gutting the work requirement for welfare recipients.

bayview on August 20, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Can anyone point me to the actual executive order from Obama that guts the work requirement? I was having a discusion the other day about this, and found out that I couldn’t back it up. I found the HHS memo, but that grants waivers.

Wyrd on August 20, 2012 at 12:39 PM

“‘If you want to get more people to work, you don’t loosen the requirements – you tighten them,”

Hence another Obomwa policy implemented with thought, purpose, and intent…

Seven Percent Solution on August 20, 2012 at 12:47 PM

“… Seamus the Roof-Riding Dog.”

Ed, I swear, every time I read that I start laughing out loud.

It is just too funny!

Romney needs to pick up that meme as well as a little laugh can’t hurt the campaign and I think a lot of the American people would get just as much a hoot out of it as I do.

BTW, who came up with that? You? If so, congrats.

Just too funny.

Tenwheeler on August 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Can anyone point me to the actual executive order from Obama that guts the work requirement? I was having a discusion the other day about this, and found out that I couldn’t back it up. I found the HHS memo, but that grants waivers.

Wyrd on August 20, 2012 at 12:39 PM

The waivers allow states to get around the work requirements. That is how both sides can claim they are right in this matter.

I think it was CO (?) that wanted to allow people to get benefits for 6 months without working. (This confirms Romney’s point).

Other states want to make it harder to get benefits without working. (This confirms Obama’s point).

lorien1973 on August 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Bypassing Congress and legislating from the oval office is illegal.

Does there need to be a more specific law that Obambi can ignore?

TerryW on August 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM

grants waivers.

Wyrd on August 20, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Um…..

Tenwheeler on August 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Thanks Lorien, Appreciate the background.

Wyrd on August 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

lorien1973 on August 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Indeed. One can also easily add/assume what the philosophies and inclinations of both sides are. Obama panders to his base constituents. Yes, many of them are white, so spare me the “racism” bla, bla, bla…not you lorien, the gnats around here.

Schadenfreude on August 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Obama created no favors for the welfare class. He just stole their dignity again by shutting a door to self-reliance, but that would mean lost votes for the liberal plantaion masters, so he chose to steal their route to dignity again.

Don L on August 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM

“… Seamus the Roof-Riding Dog.” ….Romney needs to pick up that meme ….

Tenwheeler on August 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

How about “The left wants to put poor Seamus back in chains?”

Don L on August 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM

The ad is great. I thought that the tone Romney used in approving the ad made it end on a perfect note.

Laurence on August 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Too bad no one has the balls to say that the top 1% pay about 40% of the bill. That if we confiscated all the wealth from the rich it still would barely cover a third of the debt.

LevinFan on August 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Penn & Teller did a good one on this in their “Bullsh!t” show. Actually if you confiscate ALL of the total wealth of ALL of the wealthiest Americans (Billions of $), you can’t even cover 1 year of current federal spending (Trillions of $).

dentarthurdent on August 20, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I think it was CO (?) that wanted to allow people to get benefits for 6 months without working. (This confirms Romney’s point).

Other states want to make it harder to get benefits without working. (This confirms Obama’s point).

lorien1973 on August 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Wouldn’t surpirse me since the Dims in Denver/Boulder area pretty much control Colorado government – although the House is Republican controlled (33/32) and the Senate only has marginal Dem control (20/15). The only things saving us so far are a lot of our Dims aren’t entirely as bad as the Dims in other states, and TABOR keeps their spending in check – although they keep trying to undermine or eliminate it.

dentarthurdent on August 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Keep up the heat Mittster……

crosshugger on August 20, 2012 at 3:07 PM

IF only he would make regulations on energy companies and business as easy as getting welfare…..

nazo311 on August 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM

More than 500 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romney’s economic strategy – TheDC

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/#ixzz248DMRSGD

Oh, my God! 500 more racists. What a terrible world we live in!

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 20, 2012 at 7:26 PM

The reason both parties aren’t outraged at the abuse of EOs is that they both like it when one of their own uses it to pass things their Congress critters would rather not sign off on. Can’t convince the serfs that an EPA is a good thing? No problem, have Nixon do an EO. ditto for depth of education etc. Oboobi went overboard with his EOs and rather than end the abuses, they console themselves with “just wait till our Guy gets back in the WH.

A pox on both parties.

AH_C on August 21, 2012 at 12:50 AM