Romney's Relentless Push for Independents Waters Down His Welfare Reform Argument

rushlimbaugh.com ^

[Tennessee Nana]

[Marcella]

“Romney may need to bring a rock-ribbed conservative like Paul Ryan on the ticket to send a strong message about what kind of agenda he will have”

If Romney chooses Paul Ryan it will be to shut him down - get him away from the budget and his austere cuts.

[StAnDeliver]

"Next, you win back your conservative audience by pretending to be outraged and taken by surprise by things that were either predictable or utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. This way you can have your cake and eat it too."

This latest thing -- concern trolling masquerading as show prep -- yesterday, Monday, and the Monday before it (it's actually getting to be a regular Monday feature). He's so put off by this Fluke thing and having to grovel a bit (FreedomWorks has notably, predictably stepped up into some prime air time).

Just needs to stop mailing in every third show...

[montag813]

The real outrage is not Palin’s exclusion but McCain’s INclusion as an RNC speaker. He proved he is an out-and-out traitor with his defense of the Muslim Brotherhood and attack on fellow Republicans trying to merely investigate MB ties to officials.

[montag813]

That said this welfare reform thing is a crock. Obama did not strip the work requirement. Reading is hard. And trust me my hate for Obama is quite real but this entire argument is b.s.

I do NOT trust you...you have only been here for 3 months. You must earn our trust....especially when you DEFEND OBAMA. Not a good start.

[TheRhinelander]

Yes, exactly. So the line, “gutting the work requirement” is not true. It’s more complicated than that. I support the original law and the federal rules on the work requirement. I do not support Obama’s executive order. That said, the argument needs to be framed correctly. When we dumb things like this down we open ourselves up to “they’re lying about this” and they would be half correct.

[Williams]

Appreciate your points, but they (Washington Post and Obama) are not even half correct. The Washington Post knows that Americans will be VERY upset to know the work requirement has been removed from welfare reform. So they have to come up with, well it’s left to the states.

This is federal welfare and the REQUIREMENT has been removed. States can now ignore it, and states want as much money flowing in to their people as they can get. So the states will allow people to get welfare without working. The work requirement by the federal government is gone.

In addition to paying off his supporters, Obama is doing this to remove more people from the work force, in an effort to reduce the official unemployment numbers.

Dick Morris explained the whole purpose of the welfare reform they negotiated was to create work requirements that the states could not get around. Welfare reform is now gone as is the work requirement.

As I further have heard it explained, this was illegal because the law was written in a way to prevent the executive from doing this. Obama is removing the requirement because he is allowed to adjust reports the states make to the federal government. Just because he can adjust their reporting requirements, he is using that to change not just what they report but the substance of what they are doing.

The Romney ad is completely accurate and further based on direct experience the existing work requirement already was being evaded.