Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "another", but I do agree that this ad is foundless and should be pulled.
Consider, though, that that's what you reap when you sow "communist, socialist, fascist, Kenyan, blahblahblah". Also a pack of damned lies by damned liars.
I haven't seen the Ad all day. I wonder if it has been pulled. I am pretty sure Obama's and Burton's twitter accounts were lit up with that suggestion. Maybe we can find out at 6:00, Burton will be on the Situation Room.
I haven't seen the Ad all day. I wonder if it has been pulled. I am pretty sure Obama's and Burton's twitter accounts were lit up with that suggestion. Maybe we can find out at 6:00, Burton will be on the Situation Room.
Well, let's HOPE that finally a Liberal has done the right thing!!!
So someone who ran the company six years prior is more responsible than the person that actually closed down the plant? Liberal logic at its finest.
There's inertia in this sort of thing. Bain loaded the company with debt to reclaim their cost in taking it over and grabbed a few hundred percent on top of that, presumably for their trouble. The company staggered on, but ultimately couldn't service the debt and folded.
Yes, he was there when they bought it and it was quite profitable for quite some time.
He was long gone when their troubles hit them.
Would you say that Bain's decision to grab 36 million in dividends in 1994 (that is after one year of ownership) increased or decreased the company's chance of surviving a bad steel market? Take all the time you need.
Just wondering because you don't know a single thing about me and you make these lame attempts at insults which only serve to show you are struggling with this debate.
Circulated to the government parties involved you mean. But it wasn't announced to the media publicly until the following Friday which is why many headlines read that he tried to "sneak" it under the radar.
Obama’s Trick to Get Around Work Requirements
Friday the Obama Administration issued a new directive stating that the traditional TANF work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).
Section 1115 states that “the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements†of specified parts of various laws. But this is not an open-ended authority: Any provision of law that can be waived under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself. The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, “mandatory work requirementsâ€). Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable.
In establishing TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from the section 1115 waiver authority. They did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats. Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402.
Section 402 describes state plans—reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the many requirements established in the other sections of the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.
The new Obama dictate asserts that because the work requirements, established in section 407, are mentioned as an item that state governments must report about in section 402, all the work requirements can be waived. This removes the core of the TANF program; TANF becomes a blank slate that HHS bureaucrats and liberal state bureaucrats can rewrite at will.
Sorry there but you'll have to get up pretty early in the morning to outwit me.
Its cute how you continue to copy and paste articles from rightwing blogs without including the link. Thats alright, I just googled the top line. The memo was circulated on July 12th which was a Thursday. The media and bloggers began reporting on it on July 13th which was a Friday. Rush Limpball first reported on it on July 13th. So again, why exactly does that excuse Willard LYING about what was in the memo?
The media and bloggers began reporting on it on July 13th which was a Friday. Rush Limpball first reported on it on July 13th.
EXACTLY....because that's when they dumped it and why so many headlines read that it was a "sneaky" move.
Quote:
So again, why exactly does that excuse Willard LYING about what was in the memo?
OBVIOUSLY from what I posted and you quoted, Romney isn't lying at all.
Do you not have a problem at all with how he subverted the express wishes of CONGRESS and used a sneaky tactic to get around the original intent of CLINTON'S law???
Which brings up my original assertion that his directive is deliberately worded to HIDE his REAL intent.
You like to call me a child, however, you'd have to have been born YESTERDAY to not see that!!
Would you say that Bain's decision to grab 36 million in dividends in 1994 (that is after one year of ownership) increased or decreased the company's chance of surviving a bad steel market? Take all the time you need.
Whenever you answer how the guy responsible for buying it almost a decade before it goes under is somehow responsible for what happened nearly 10 years later.
PS: I live in Pittsburgh where I see steel companies go under for all sorts of reasons. The BULK of which is that they can no longer afford the USW Union's demands.
EXACTLY....because that's when they dumped it and why so many headlines read that it was a "sneaky" move.
OBVIOUSLY from what I posted and you quoted, Romney isn't lying at all.
Do you not have a problem at all with how he subverted the express wishes of CONGRESS and used a sneaky tactic to get around the original intent of CLINTON'S law???
Which brings up my original assertion that his directive is deliberately worded to HIDE his REAL intent.
You like to call me a child, however, you'd have to have been born YESTERDAY to not see that!!
How did they dumped it. Your original excuse that it was released on a Friday when it wasn't.
It was a LIE. Romney and his AD claimed that Obama Administration was making it easier for Welfare recipients not to work. That is NOT what the Memo outlines. It was NOT a sneaky tactic when in fact Romney himself wrote a letter in 2005 in favor of States having the flexibility to mandate Welfare for their state.
Where is this imaginary real intent? Point it out. Its apparent that you HAVEN'T read the memo which is pretty clear.
How did they dumped it. Your original excuse that it was released on a Friday when it wasn't.
It was a LIE. Romney and his AD claimed that Obama Administration was making it easier for Welfare recipients not to work. That is NOT what the Memo outlines. It was NOT a sneaky tactic when in fact Romney himself wrote a letter in 2005 in favor of States having the flexibility to mandate Welfare for their state.
Where is this imaginary real intent? Point it out. Its apparent that you HAVEN'T read the memo which is pretty clear.
Why would he need to read it? He's obviously has already been told what he thinks about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
