It's the economy stupid.

Unless we want to:

Pass laws restricting abortion (please ignore this)
Or go after immigrants
Or debate welfare
Or we want a balanced budget, which most economists think would hurt the current economy
Or overturn Obamacare


And in order to advance this one goal (and the other six) we cannot sacrifice the following:

The tax cuts which were supposed to be temporary stimulus, but which did not stimulate.

Defense. (every last dime is critical to our safety)

But we will sacrifice the following:

Commitment to full medical coverage for seniors. We would like to cap the government's contribution, not sure whether it will be enough.

And in any case, win or lose, we will:

Impose Republican principles on the 90% democratic population of the District of Columbia, because we can.

Anonymous wrote:You mean Romney's father was on welfare when he was a child during the great depression, right?

Mitt Romney lived in a wealthy suburb and his father was a CEO when Mitt was a child, and a public figure by the time Mitt was 12.

The point would be that strategic government aid kept George Romney's human capital from being destroyed so that he had a chance to exercise his talent and energy later on.

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.

Hey dipshit - do your research. The changes were requested by a large group of REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS who wanted more flexibility of approach in trying to move people into work. He gave them what they wanted and now they are FLAT OUT LYING about it to score political points in an election. It is SHAMEFUL. Stop propagating lies.

boom goes the dynamite aka welfare work requirement attempted to be gutted by Obama. Shit's hitting the fan with a vote soon.

"Congress can hold votes on President Obama's controversial welfare policy, government investigators said Tuesday.

The decision will allow the GOP to link Democrats to a policy they say "guts" welfare's work requirement. Fact-checking organizations have dismissed this claim, which GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney uses frequently against Obama. "


http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/247439-gao-congress-can-vote-on-obamas-welfare-changes

You mean Romney's father was on welfare when he was a child during the great depression, right?

Mitt Romney lived in a wealthy suburb and his father was a CEO when Mitt was a child, and a public figure by the time Mitt was 12.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget that welfore reform was passed in a bipartisan fashion under a DEMOCRATIC administration.

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.

Hey dipshit - do your research. The changes were requested by a large group of REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS who wanted more flexibility of approach in trying to move people into work. He gave them what they wanted and now they are FLAT OUT LYING about it to score political points in an election. It is SHAMEFUL. Stop propagating lies.