Did you know Romney's family was on welfare when he was a child?

[Anonymous]

His mom is interviewed and talks about the family's poor beginnings:

http://www.politicususa.com/shame-liar-mitt-romneys-mother-talks-father-welfare.html

[Anonymous]

yes and the did something about it instead of being on welfare for generations. There is a big difference.

[Anonymous]

who is on welfare for generations?

also, who wants to be on welfare for the majority of their lives?

finally, do you even know how much welfare/unemployment provides someone anyway? people act as if you receive six figures on public assistance and live in plush neighborhoods and drive SUVs.

public assistance isnt the fabulous life. stop acting as if people want to live on that and even more importantly live great off the public dime. its totally wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes and the did something about it instead of being on welfare for generations. There is a big difference.

And yet it was a safety net when his family needed it.

[Anonymous]

I'm so proud of his family - they worked their butts off and are living the American dream.

U.S.A.!

[Anonymous]

Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

[Freeman]

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

[Anonymous]

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

Some of those who believe the lie will always believe it because they want to. Some believe it because it is so forcefully stated in those ads. The former will never vote for Obama, so I don't care what they believe (including our DCUM poster), but can the Dems ever convince those who are open minded, but are inundated with GOPaganda?

[Anonymous]

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.

States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?

But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.

States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?

But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?

All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.

States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?

But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?

The way he constructed his campaign ads about it was completely disingenuous and, IMO, unethical. It does not present anything close to reality.

All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.

States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?

But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?

All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.

His own Repub Governors said it was a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.

States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?

But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?

All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.

The way he constructed his campaign ads about it was completely disingenuous and, IMO, unethical. It does not present anything close to reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney hasn't suggested eliminating TANF, just reinstating the work requirement. I don't think that's inconsistent with having been on welfare as a child.

Reinstating what? The work requirement that was never eliminated?

There is all the difference in the world between a welfare program where the work requirements may not be waived, and one where they may be waived. Welfare reform was passed to implement the first approach; the Obama Administration has used an implausible interpretation of the statute to convert it into the second. Romney is not lying about this.

States get to choose not requiring work as one of many program options. That's what conservatives love, right? State's rights?

But not requiring someone to work may be a good thing. Perhaps a single mother who can't find child care? A single mom of a disabled child, regardless of age?

All you are saying is that you think the change in policy is a good one. Reasonable people can disagree about such issues. That doesn't make Romney's criticism of the change a lie.

The way he constructed his campaign ads about it was completely disingenuous and, IMO, unethical. It does not present anything close to reality.

I respectfully disagree. For many on the right, the non-waiveable nature of the work requirements was the heart of the deal. It's not a lie to say that the change gutted that core requirement. Differences in perspective about what is important does not make arguments a lie.