HelenK2, per usual, discovered the newest Romney ad:

Helen shared this news in today’s open thread, which is filling up with many more critical finds by Helen and more NoQuarterUSA regulars.

Here’s a blurb on Romney’s new ad and commentary by TED CRUZ, Texas’s hot new U.S. Senate candidate:

Team Romney moved to take advantage of another gift from Barack Obama — this one not so much a gaffe but a strange strategic move by Obama and his administration. A month ago, Obama removed the work requirements and limitations on welfare, one of the few successful bipartisan efforts from Washington in the last generation. … Read all at Hot Air.

Don’t miss the Romney site’s new blog post, Ted Cruz: Rolling Back Welfare Reform Is Another Big Government Overreach.” Highlight:

“The most compelling reason behind the bipartisan welfare reform that we saw is that helping those receiving government assistance to get jobs, to stand on their own feet fundamentally transforms their lives. We are not doing anybody a favor by giving them welfare in perpetuity and making them dependent on government.” – Texas Republican Senate Nominee Ted Cruz

Texas Republican Senate Nominee Ted Cruz, Romney Senior Adviser Ed Gillespie, and Romney Deputy Policy Director Jonathan Burks
Press Conference Call
August 7, 2012

Click To Listen To The Entire Call:
Part One 
Part Two

Highlights From The “President Obama’s Dismantling of Bipartisan Welfare Reforms” Press Conference Call:

TED CRUZ: “Right now, we’re engaged in a national debate over big government solutions versus individual responsibility and I think this issue powerfully illustrates the different approaches between President Obama and Governor Romney.

In my view, there are three critical failings behind President Obama’s new policy on welfare. Number one, it’s fiscally irresponsible. At a time when our nation has sixteen trillion dollars in national debt, the idea that this president would eliminate one of the key requirements that reduced the welfare caseload and reduced federal government spending makes no sense.

Number two, it is yet another action of executive arrogance by this president—President Obama, if he disagreed with requiring welfare recipients to work or to seek work. He could have gone to Congress. He could have proposed new legislation. He could have tried to make the case to the American people. But he did not do that. He didn’t try to make the argument to anybody that work requirements were unnecessary or were counterproductive in welfare. Instead, he simply decreed it by executive order and this has been a pattern of this administration where they believe their own ideology trumps the views of the American people.

And the third critical failing of this new policy is that it hurts the recipients of welfare. The most compelling reason behind the bipartisan welfare reform that we saw is that helping those receiving government assistance to get jobs, to stand on their own feet fundamentally transforms their lives. We are not doing anybody a favor by giving them welfare in perpetuity and making them dependent on government.”

I have to hand it to the Tea Party and Sarah Palin. They found a real gem in Ted Cruz and overcame politics-as-usual in Texas. And Cruz’s background! I’m dashing or I’d add it here … I hope one of you will supply his brief bio.

  • lola828

    I love this ad. I love them quoting the Koch financed Heritage Foundation.

    Best part about this ad is that Romney requested many of the very same waivers to welfare reform when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Also, many other Republican states have done exactly the same.

    From the conservative Forbes magazine:

    “Romney Claims Obama Guts Welfare Work Requirements By Doing Precisely What Romney Requested in 2005!”


    You know you are off-base when conservative Forbes is even making fun of your television commercial. Romney cannot stop putting his foot in his mouth with regard to his own record.

  • mumphrey

    Here’s something I’d really like to know: How is it that you think that it’s just great for Romney to lie about things in this ad? Or any other ad? Why is it all right for your side to lie? Don’t you believe that telling lies is generally a bad thing? Or is that a standard you believe only others to abide by?

    Let’s say that President Obama ran an ad that said that Romney’s tax plan would raise the marginal rate on income up to $100,000 to 130%, would lower the rate on income from $100,000-1,000,000 to 0%, and lower the rate on income above $1,000,000 to -25%. So, according to this ad–which, to be clear, President Obama is not running, so don’t get all up in arms about the awful ad he’Romney’s tax plan–somebody making $20,000 a year would owe $26,000 a year in income tax, and somebody earning 100,000,000 would get a refund of $24,620,000.

    Now that isn’t Romney’s plan. (I don’t like his plan, but it isn’t as bad as that.) And if the president ran an ad saying that it was, that would be a lie. Wouldn’t you be screaming to high heaven if the Obama campaign ran an ad like that? And if not, then why is it all right for Romney to run an ad that lies about the president’s executive order? Do you people really believe that rules are only for other people to follow? Do you have any integrity? How can you defend this ad?

  • http://twitter.com/geffbeck jbeck

    You clowns, Bill Clinton has already refuted this silly piece of factually challenged nonsense. And BTW Romney himself requested this waiver! With enemies like you the Democratic Party needs no friends!



    backtrack bunch started looking for dirt on Rubio and Portman



    backtrack ads so sleazy now what will they be in October??



    laugh of the day

    per carney : being president restricts obama’s ability to campaign

    • getfitnow

      At least so far, it is interesting to see that the party that is always screaming for more diversity and touts being “inclusive,” blah, blah, blah, has the least diverse line up. The GOP has an interesting group–factions of the party, men, women, young/old, and dare I say ethnic/racial mix. And BTW, I don’t hear them bragging about it.



    when backtrack bunch used a dead lady in an ad against Romney the did not check the facts.
    after steelworker was laid off, his wife still had job and healthcare.

    • Dissentispatriotic

      His own spokespeople don’t even bring that major fact up when they are talking about all the ways the ad is a lie. To me, that’s one of the most significant lies! Wish he’d look into getting more effective communications staff.

      • getfitnow

        If you’re speaking of Romney, I agree. He needs more John Sununus.

  • mumphrey

    Sweet Jesus, you people are sickening. I don’t know whether you really are as dumb as you seem to be or whether you’re just lying about everything to make yourselves feel better. I suspect that you’re lying, since to be as dumb as you’d have to be to believe this, you’d be, as Wyatt Cenac put it, “potatoes with mouths”.

    You know that this is something that the Republican governors of New Mexico and Utah asked President Obama to do, but you’re too blinded by hatred to acknowledge that. You know that Republican governors, among them Romney, Mike Huckabee and Haley Barbour asked for this very leeway from President Bush 10 years ago, but, again, you don’t care, since if you own up to that, then you can’t slam President Obama.

    You commentariat on this site truly are a bunch of repellent, oozing, glistening slime molds. You really are. I just can’t fathom how utterly empty of any ethics or decency or intellectual honesty you’d have to be to peddle these lies.
    I don’t know whether you need some psychoanalysis or a few more Sundays in church or both, but you really are the dregs of this society. My life isn’t perfect by any stretch, but, damn if I don’t feel good knowing that I’ll go to my grave as being nothing like you.

    • beachnan

      You are the definition of “dumb as dirt”. Obama is the king of sleeze. You don’t like what we write-go elsewhere.

      • mumphrey

        If you want to call somebody dumb, you might want to look over your spelling first. That word you want is “sleaze”.

        • Flop_Flipper

          I could have sworn that Obots only knew how to spell the word racist. Will miracles never cease?

          Question of the day: How many Obots does it take to create a brain?

    • HARP2

      damn if I don’t feel good knowing that I’ll go to my grave as being nothing like you.


      I don`t wish you an early exit but if you could be a little more specific on the date as I have to book the hall and notify the caterer.

    • Flop_Flipper

      Did LOLA suddenly reincarnate with the ability to string more than two sentences together?

      And hey there mumphrey… I can slam Obama any time I like, about anything I like, whenever I feel like it. Even if I don’t feel like it for that matter.

      • mumphrey

        You sure can. But you’re still a hatelful liar if you peddle this crap. If you want to hate him because he’s black, then have at it. At least you’d get some small credit for being truthful. But when you lie about him, then you’re just contemptible.

        • Flop_Flipper

          Well at least you are being an honest Obot by playing the race card because I disagree with the Obamanation. I’ve sorta promised myself that I would try not to get too upset with fucking race baiting idiots. Bad for my health. Call me that again and I may likely break that promise.

    • Dissentispatriotic

      Why are you here, mumphrey, spending time with all the sickening people?



    I was reading some of the comments on backtrack and the scuzzbuckets trying to restrict the military vote.
    the way I read it , it is NOT veterans , it is active duty military many of which are overseas. You know trying to get the people in Afghanistan and Iraq the right to vote, while the scuzzbuckets here sue to restrict their right to vote.

    • win43

      Whether the DOJ wins that suit or not, active duty military will have the exact same voting rights in Ohio. So no, that’s really not what is going on.

      • HELENK2

        I would not trust holder’s dept of crime from here to the front door.
        also in the 2000 race in Fla the dems tried to have military absentee votes not counted. This is not new for them

        • buzzlatte3

          I imagine the military would love to see a change in CIC. Hell, the whole country wants a change in CIC. It’s obvious with Romney’s big take tonight and over the last three months.

  • Flop_Flipper

    My apologies to everyone. If I have “hijacked” this thread it was not my intention. Taking the proverbial chill pill. I keep forgetting that it’s useless arguing with an Obot.

  • Hokma

    So Romney’s campaign is to bring attention to Obama’s failed policies.

    The Obama campaign strategy is to call Romney a Felon (SEC violations), a Tax Cheat (didn’t pay for 10 years),, and now a Murderer (see new commercial about layed off worker’s wife dying of cancer and blaming Romney).

    Add to that the fact that the Obama campaign is suing Ohio for giving a few extra days for military to vote. Even if they were legally correct on this (which they are not) why are they only doing this in Ohio?

    Add to that the sudden investigation by the DOJ into Sheldon Adelson’s casinos.

    Axelgrease and Obama have significantly raised the bar on dirty trick campaigns and now make Nixon’s campaign look like nursery school antics.

    Based on polls there is the probability that the GOP will build their majority in the House and get the majority in the Senate. What makes that important is that all this abuse of office by Obama will come back at him if he is re-elected because the first order of business will be investigations leading to articles of impeachment..

    • win43

      Re: l’affair Ohio…

      Veterans ALREADY have the right to vote early in Ohio. Along with everybody else.

      What Ohio’s legislature wants to do now is take that right AWAY from everyone except veterans. So whether the DoJ stops Ohio from making this move or not, veterans are in the exact same position. Veterans aren’t affected by the DoJ’s action in any what whatsoever.

      Just another ludicrous Republican distortion (set off by another reprehensible Republican effort to make it harder to vote, by the way).

      • Hokma

        You are full of crap.
        ALL Ohio citizens were permitted to do in-person early voting until the Monday before the election.
        Ohio changed the law to the Friday before the election (only 3 days), except for military personnel because in many cases they are unable to know where they are going to be at any time.

        This clearly was an attempt by Axelgrease and Obama to surpress the vote of military who would likely not vote for him because they have no respect for him.

        • win43

          Tell me, what’s being taken away from veterans? What right did they have that has been taken away, or what right did Ohio try to give them that the Obama administration has blocked?

          Ohio is trying to shorten the early voting period for everyone BUT veterans, but for veterans the situation isn’t changing either way.

          You’ve swallowed a pail full of bullshit, friend.

          • Hokma

            If some left wing punk who is feeding off the government or their parent can’t find time to vote in about a 30 or 40 day period then tough. Military personnel don’t have those luxuries. The reason Ohio is changing the law is for administrative reasons and I am sure they would not mind having anyone vote the day before election day but they have to make an exception for military personnel – other states do and it has been supported in federal court.
            I would still like to know why the New Black Panthers were not prosecuted for their voter suppression in Philadelphia. Why did Holder put a lid on it? And why are the Dems so opposed to basic voter identification? Afraid those union people they’re shipping into battleground states will get caught?
            Like I said, Obama is making Nixon look like a choir boy. But we knew that from his run for US Senate.

            • win43

              So, you cannot tell me how veterans are in any way harmed by everyone having the exact same early voting period.

              Good, glad we cleared that up.

              • Flop_Flipper

                It’s obvious you are a lawyer. Nice try though.

                • win43

                  Sure, but so what?

                  I’m not interested in expanding the argument beyond my initial point, which is that the DOJ is not, in fact, “suing Ohio for giving military an extra few days to vote.” They’re suing them for taking away those days from everyone else, which is not at all the same thing.

                  • Flop_Flipper

                    The DOJ does not have the authority to determine what the voting laws in Ohio are. Every state is entitled to administer their voting schedule as long as it does not in any way violate someone’s right to vote.

                    Federal law does not have the authority to determine the schedule of early voting within the states. If I am wrong, then please provide the specific federal statute that enables what you consider to be this supposed federal power.

                    • Hokma

                      “The DOJ does not have the authority to determine what the voting laws in Ohio are”

                      Exactly right.

                • buzzlatte3

                  Oh is this the jerk that plays politics from his clerk desk at Dewey, Chetam, and Howe? Hmmmmmm. The jerk that showed an acceptance letter but not a diploma or a name? LOL! It’s Obama’s fake son!!!

              • Hokma

                Again, you are full of crap. This has to do with active military only – not veterans. and the reasons are crystal clear – just not for some left wing flamethrower who believes in voter suppression at all costs.

                Still haven’t answered about Holder’s abuse of the law by not prosecuting those Black Panther punks who were videotaped actually trying to supress votes from older white people.

                I am wondering just how many names Obama supporters are going to make up in key states.

      • Flop_Flipper

        I wholeheartedly agree with Hokma’s first sentence. Members of the military and their families do not have the luxury of knowing where and when they will be at any given time. Such is the nature of their job, something we ask them to do to keep us safe.

        This is the Obama Administration’s payback for being unable to extend weekend before the election voting to their loyal followers. It pissed them off. Now that we have a Republican Governor in Ohio we won’t be bullied into repeating the same ridiculous nonsense that occurred under a Democrat Administration here.

        • win43

          I’m not sure what your objection is, or what the “payback” is.

          Before Ohio changed the rules, everybody already had weekend before the election early voting rights. Then Ohio changed it, so that veterans could vote early until Monday, and everybody else only until Friday. The DoJ sued to change it back, so that everybody (including veterans) could still vote early until Monday.

          I agree with you that early voting for veterans and military personnel is important, and should be maintained. I just don’t see why that restricting early voting for everyone else.

          If the argument is that restricting early voting is, for some independent reason, good — that’s one thing. But trying to frame this as an attack on the military vote is cynical and wrong.

          • Flop_Flipper

            EVERY state has the right to determine what the rules concerning early voting are. Ohio has made it’s decision. Obama doesn’t like it and so he sues. Ohio’s decision does not in any way restrict early voting for everybody else. The position you propose isn’t cynical, it’s just plain stupid. And wrong.

            • win43

              Wait… how does a decision to take away two days of early voting not restrict early voting? Are we living in the same factual universe, here, or do you think the change to Ohio law is something other than what it was?

              • Flop_Flipper

                It is a change in the early voting policy of the previous Governor, a Democrat. It is not taking away two days of early voting, it is changing the days when early voting is allowed.

                I’m through arguing with someone that continues to spew the same ridiculous talking points. I live in Ohio. This has a direct effect on me and those I know and love. I don’t need some outsider criticizing something that every state in the country is entitled to do just because it doesn’t fit in nicely with what Obama wants.

                You and Obama are wrong.

                • win43

                  Again… I don’t see how it’s possible for you to say, with a straight face, that shortening the early voting period by two days “is not taking away two days of early voting.” That’s too obviously untrue, by its own terms, to merit further response.

                  Or are they adding two at the beginning to set it off? Serious question.

                  • Flop_Flipper

                    I’ll answer you with a question. Is there any federal law that states that individual States must have early voting for a specific period of time?

                    • win43

                      Of course not, and that’s entirely irrelevant. This isn’t about whether Ohio is meeting some standard of sufficiency. It’s about whether Ohio is creating a shorter period of early voting than it had previously.

                      If a state has, say, 30 days of early voting, and changes it to 28, how have that state not “[taken] away two days of early voting”?

                    • Flop_Flipper

                      And every state has the right to do it. At least I finally got you agree with that.

                    • win43

                      Okay… let’s go from 30,000 feet, so we can stop talking past one another.

                      1. States can determine their own voting schedules, and it’s fine to grant some conveniences to military members. We agree, here, clearly.

                      2. What Ohio has done does not affect military voters, only everyone else. The early voting period has been shortened for everyone else, and that’s what the DOJ is suing about — the suit has nothing to do with the military. I think we agree here, too.

                      3. Whether Ohio can, once it has established an early voting period, shorten that period for some people, is a question under the Voting Rights Act. Frankly I think this suit will come out the Democrats’ way, if at all, on some highly technical stuff rather than the VRA. On the VRA I think they lose — but it’s not an implausible claim.

                      Is all of that fair? If I’ve given the impression that I think the DOJ suit should definitely win, then I’ve given the wrong impression.

                      My objection — my ONLY objection — is to throwing up military members and veterans as a rhetorical club, when this whole dispute has nothing whatsoever to do with them.

                    • Garookie

                      You haven’t explained why those two days are sooooo important to Obama. Could it be that it doesn’t give them enough time to bus voters in, or have their people circulate around the various polling stations?
                      I agree with an earlier blogger, I’m opposed to taking away anybody’s vote as long as they only vote ONE time.

                    • win43

                      I’m guessing, but most likely it’s because black churches traditionally have big turnout drives the Sunday before the election.

                      Which, I’m guessing, is the real reason Republicans would like to take that weekend of early voting away.

                      Both sides are acting out of pure self-interest. Nobody’s being especially noble, here.

                    • Flop_Flipper

                      It’s probably because they have already put down a deposit on the buses and will lose it now. Sniff, sniff. Truly heartbreaking.

              • Dissentispatriotic

                Its the state law. If those who are just dying to vote cannot manage to make it to the polls in the many weeks of early voting leading up to the last weekend before the election, then they probably aren’t real motivated. The Obama Gang was hoping to do their “cash for your vote” walks through the neighborhoods, to do a little ‘knock and drag’ over the weekend, roust them out of their homes and drive them to vote.

    • Flop_Flipper

      And the Romney is a murderer ad leaves out just a few facts. Namely that Romney was running the Olympics when the plant closed, the plant was about to close before Bain came in and kept it alive, several steel mills closed due to cheap imports AND the guy’s wife died 5 years after it closed.

      I am not belittling the poor man’s pain. He is looking for someone to blame for his loss and Romney and Bain are an easy target. But no one can say with ANY certainty when his wife contracted cancer. I lost a cousin who was also a very close friend to cancer that came on suddenly and took his life out of nowhere. I lost a grandmother to cancer and an uncle. All of it appearing as if out of nowhere and ending their lives suddenly.

      Yeah, Romney is a Felon, A Tax Cheat and a Murderer. Uh huh, Right! I’m waiting for them to say that he is also a Mormon and use Harry Reid as an example for why being a Mormon is so evil. Actually, I’d kinda like to see that ad.

      • buzzlatte3

        I can imagine the head poobahs at church headquarters in SLC are about ready to send the dannites to Harry R’s front door.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1429578258 Cerry H Klaver

    These Obamacrats who keep arguing “well Romney did it” or “the Republicans supported it” really don’t get what happened. My personal fave is “the Republicans were for the private mandate, now that its from Obama, they are against it.” Did you miss the point of why Republicans had supported the individual mandate in the first place? They lobbied for an individual mandate to crush Hillarycare. Democrats in MA wanted the mandate in Romneycare. {spin, spin, spin}

    • win43

      So what you’re saying is, let’s talk about something else?

  • Dbb3

    You can run all the cynical lying Romney ads you want, your boy’s going down and you know it. You can bet Larry does even if he’s not yet ready to admit it.

  • binky354

    The National Memo says Romney Sinks To New Low With Blatantly False Ad

    • buzzlatte3

      Shouldn’t that read Obama sinks to new lying low for the whole of his life?

  • win43

    So, first, this XO doesn’t eliminate the work requirement. What it does is give states “waiver” authority, meaning they can make their own determinations about what activity satisfies the work requirement. This does NOT eliminate the work requirement — saying otherwise falls somewhere between a gross distortion and an outright lie.

    The funny thing is, Republican governors LOVE this kind of flexibility at the state level. They’ve asked Congress for it before, in fact. And once again, Mitt Romney REALLY doesn’t want anybody to remember things he did when he was an elected official…

    State support of waivers is not a new phenomenon. In 2005, 29 Republican governors, including Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee, asked Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, for more “flexibility to manage their TANF programs and effectively serve low-income populations.”
    Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work,” the letter read.


    Heh. C’mon, Mitt.

    • win43

      Here’s a really good summary in Forbes:


      Once again, it’s Republicans hyperventilating about something that they used to like, just because Obama did it.

      The cognitive dissonance must be getting downright deafening. Which, I suppose, is why this comment will be met with a predictable amount of ad hominem bile.

    • getfitnow

      “Team Obama objects to this criticism,
      noting that as governor of
      Massachusetts, Romney argued for waivers by state on enforcement.
      However, Romney argues that the waiver requests were intended to quantify the work requirement, not eliminate it altogether.” h/t-HotAir

      It does beg the question–why now and not when he had a majority in congress?

      • win43

        “Romney argues that the waiver requests were intended to quantify the work requirement, not eliminate it altogether”

        Okay… so, since the HHS order doesn’t “eliminate [the work requirement] altogether,” what is Romney’s point?

        At this point, he’s simply lying to the public about what this order does.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1429578258 Cerry H Klaver

        Because now Obama can look like a savior and put the onus of making people work while struggling under welfare on the republican governors.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/N4NSPJQH5LFRMKI5SRWCLYMQWU Aaron

        Well, surely Obama wants those jobs available for the dreamer illegals he’s promised to give work permits to.

      • mumphrey

        What difference does that make? You birthers are pathetic. You lie about something, and then when somebody who knows better points out that what you’re bleating about is a lie, you just come up with some other lame rea off. You don’t care why you bitch and moan, the reason means nothing to you. That’s why you’re willing to lie. You people are vile.

        • Flop_Flipper

          You birthers are pathetic.

          You aborters are the truly pathetic ones.

    • Flop_Flipper

      I may be slammed for doing so, but I find myself agreeing with you. This issue characterization is, in my opinion, reaching. And it is also contributing to class warfare, something I adamantly oppose.

      It is true that some people game the system and feel entitled that the government should support them. I’ve known a few in my life. But the vast majority of poor people aren’t that way because they are lazy. They don’t have opportunities to climb out of their poverty. And crap like this demonizes them for the failure of government to get out of the way and allow free enterprise to do what it does best.

      Obama has done enough silly and downright harmful things, that to allow ourselves to get caught up in petty little nonsense such as this is just foolish. The failure to enforce our immigration laws, to me, is perhaps the most egregious. But, this being an election year, and everyone on both sides vying for the Hispanic vote, it won’t even be discussed.

  • getfitnow

    Why would the man who’s never held a
    real job in his life (until the
    presidency) support a work requirement for others on the public dole?

    Go Mitt!

  • DianaLC

    Good ad! I just don’t see the reasoning behind dropping the work requirement. Oh Wati! Is it to buy more votes?

    • Propertius

      Because adding more jobseekers will make the unemployment numbers worse. As Larry has pointed out, the only thing keeping a lid on the unemployment numbers is the dropping labor participation rate.

      • DianaLC

        Good point! Maybe welfare recipients, like felons, should not be allowed to vote.

        • Flop_Flipper

          I sincerely hope you are joking.

          • Propertius

            As do I. Denying the most essential civil right based on economic circumstance would be reprehensible.

          • DianaLC

            I think it’s a joke to allow welfare without requiring people to try to work out of welfare. Above, I and propertius made the point that this new announcement from O could possibly be for votes and as a ploy to try to keep the unemployment numbers from going up even more (if they aren’t looking for work, they aren’t reported as unemployed.) I know there are many people who do try to climb up from welfare, so of course I was “snarking” if that is a word.
            But I am seriously angry about the many people—and don’t tell me they don’t exist–who take whatever “welfare” they can and do not expect to have to try to give back. Some–not all, of course–get their disability without being disabled, for example. Some just keep having their babies with no fathers for support and get their welfare–and are obviously not getting their “free contraception.” (I DO see that here.)
            Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen, and don’t tell me that I shouldn’t feel that they should then be able to vote for a candidate who will keep them in the system because that’s what they want–for whatever reason.
            Political correctness no matter where it comes from stops people from mentioning problems. The nanny state/welfare state IS a problem in an economy that is sinking fast.

            • Flop_Flipper

              For one thing, I sure as hell don’t support Obama. At all. Please don’t mistake my opinion that this is not an effective issue for Romney to be talking about as some sort of Obot conversion. Ain’t happening.

              I agree, people that receive welfare should be required to work. At the very least it will give them something productive to do with their lives. And perhaps they will learn a skill that may enable them to be lifted out of poverty. But it’s not always that simple, especially when so few jobs actually exist.

              I’ve seen people, I even know a few, that take advantage of government handouts when they are perfectly capable of fending for themselves. I’ve known some that refuse to even try, as if they are entitled to live off the taxpayer dime.

              My point is, and only is, that there is no requirement in this country to have a job to vote. There is no requirement in this country to own land in order to vote. Things like that aren’t American.

              I don’t support leaches and parasites, folks that don’t give a damn and couldn’t care less about our Constitution and our country. As long as they get them Obamabucks that’s all the hell they care about. They are scum in my opinion. But regardless, they are American citizens and by nature of that virtue are entitled to express their will through the ballot box. I may not like it, or them. But that is the way we do things in America and I love my country and wouldn’t have it any other way.

              I’m not Catholic, or Christian for that matter. But I will fight any Administration’s attempt to deprive them of their Constitutional rights. And I do this despite the fact that in some of their eyes I am either some lost soul in need of saving or in league with the devil and out to get them. I couldn’t care less. I believe in our Constitution.

              Yes, we can complain about the miscreants and rightly criticize their behavior. And as long as we equally criticize corporate welfare and other shady deals actively promoted by our corrupt politicians then I’m cool with it. All of it is sinking our economy and the promise we may leave future generations. But the main problem right now is Obama and the frickin liberals. If we defeat them most of the problems go away.

              Of course Obama is issuing these EOs to make himself look better and to buy votes. I thought that was plainly obvious. But let’s not pretend as if Republican presidents and legislators haven’t done exactly the same thing.

              I haven’t told you anything Diana. I merely made a simple one sentence point. As my point was apparently misunderstood I have elaborated at length for clarification.

              • DianaLC

                I am adamant on this issue. I do believe that the spin from the left that Obama’ little czar-like decree about welfare an work opens the door to a real “slippery slope.” All one has to do is study history. You make non-worker and hard workers equal in the ey of a governtment and you end up with seious issues. What incentive does a hard-working person have to do better when the more he/she works the more the fruits of his/her labor are distributed to those who choose not to work. You then allow the non workers to “vote” equally with the workers and you’e created a society where it soon becomes apparent to those people who do work hard hat they are being used as if they are what used to be referred to as brute animals. You end up so discouraged that you stop working hard and then give in and become another non-worker since you’ll get the same privileges as do those who work. You end up with a one-party system to support those who will continue to buy votes with their policies.
                I am sorry, but i’ve taught too long not to se that there is a large percentage of young people in this country who feel it s “stupid” to work hard for grade or for anything and who find nothing wrong with chating in school and being lazy on the job because we have become such an “understanding” society and make excuses for everything a person does.
                Welfare cannot work without the requirement that the recipient MUST look for work and has to show real effort to get work and DO work.

                • Flop_Flipper

                  As I have indicated elsewhere, I watched an explanation from Rove as to what this shift from Obama really means. It’s much worse than how it is being portrayed. It isn’t just that he broke the “compact” between Clinton and Gingrich, he has completely usurped the will of Congress as specified within the law. So yes, we do agree. I just think the attack (or response) strategy needs to be refocused to something most American understand. And BTW… I did apologize elsewhere for my ignorance. Since it was really between you and me please accept my apology for being unaware and too quick to get all huffy.

          • buzzlatte3

            Sincerely not. There has to be some sort of payback for “free dollars”.

    • buzzlatte3

      Oh it’s all about buying votes because no one is giving little Bammy any more money to squander.