@Shooter Re: #3

Please provide a link to your information source. Just saying "Apparently..." is not sufficient.

The rest of your post is total nonsense and nothing more than a disgusting spit-wad.

Just as a reminder, the request for waivers came from governors - some of the REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Romney and his campaign are nothing BUT lies, except when an inconvenient truth leaks out the sides. I am proud of the Dems for finally being strong enough to point out the lies. I'm also quite happy with Rachel and the other MSNBC commentators for being rigorous in exposing lies.

Obama must be the greatest President ever if the GOP and Romney's people can come up with nothing but obvious lies and distortions.

Just as a reminder, the request for waivers came from governors - some of the REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems there's some "controversy" about that claim as well. In any event the author of the Workfare legislation was on Morning Joe, and explained that the "no waiver" (Section 407 I believe) provision was specifically put in to make sure lib Governor's didn't change the work requirements. The video hasn't come out yet for a cite, so you'll have to trust me until they do. It was Morning Joe, interviewing Newt Gingrich this morning.

Now answer me this... do you really think getting 20% more welfare recipients to work is a real campaign talking point, or a ruse?

Re: #3.4

I watch Morning Jo. Joe interviewing Newt is NOT sound evidence. My personal opinion is that I always fact-check whatever comes from Newt. Don't tell me you think that he is a neutral source in this discussion!!

Regarding your last question:

I think that getting welfare recipients off welfare and into productive work so they can take care of themselves is a goal we can all agree on.

I think that there will always be some people that can't take care of themselves.

I don't know if 20% is a realistic number.

If the states think they have ideas that would achieve this goal, then they should be allowed to try them.

Finally, I think the efforts by the Romney campaign to make this an issue is just a ruse to score political points.

The problem with blocking out people from the right as a source, is that there will be zero exposure to anything contrary to Obama. Wolf Blitzer is being feted as a hero for actually having the brass to stand up to Bill Burton. If you want to live in an echo-chamber fine, but I can assure you ignorance is not bliss. That light at the end of the tunnel could be Democrats ready to run you over.

For instance have you heard about Geithner killing pensions for Delphi workers in the bankruptcy, if they weren't union? You may not like the source but do you want to remain oblivious to this kind of behavior?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/emails-geithner-treasury-drove-cutoff-of-non-union-delphi-workers-pensions/#ixzz22sVmhqK6

As for Gingrich, He's got some crazy ideas and questionable behavior, but so far as I know he isn't a liar. Here's the same thing from another source. Do you think these people are lying? I don't. I don't care where the truth comes from, I'm just interested in your question above... First, is it true?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313452/hhs-can-t-waive-workfare-andrew-m-grossman

So, let's address Shooter242's original post. Before the tangents.

Here's a recent AP report with a quote from Ron Haskins:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57489821/obamas-welfare-waiver-gutting-rules-or-tweaking/

"If Washington were different and ... people could sit down and reason together, it's not impossible to think that Republicans and Democrats would come to an agreement on waivers similar to what the administration is proposing," said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Center on Children and Families. As a senior House GOP aide in the 1990s, Haskins helped write the original welfare-to-work legislation.

...

Former GOP aide Haskins said the Obama administration was wrong to roll out its waiver plan without first getting the advice and consent of congressional Republicans. But he added, "There is merit to what the administration is proposing, and I don't see how you can get to the conclusion that the waiver provision undermines welfare reform and it eliminates the work requirement."

...

It's not a blanket waiver because states would have to apply one at time for exemptions from certain requirements of the welfare-to-work law. And states must show their plans would move at least 20 percent more people to work.

Moreover, with or without waivers, there's cap on the total amount of federal money available to states for welfare — about $17 billion — so it would not make much financial sense for a state to waste any of those dollars.

Such details seemed to have no place on the campaign trail.

Newt Gingrich, playing partisan politics, predictably says the waiver modifications are illegal:

Gingrich suggested that the Obama administration's waiver program is illegal because it would allow Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to relax some restrictions spelled out in a section of the law that Republicans contend is protected from such waivers.

and ultimately calls liberals poo-poo heads:

Gingrich said that's exactly what you'd expect to hear from liberals trying to undermine welfare reform by stealth.

He called Sebelius "a radical" and dismissed views of former GOP aide Haskins, saying, "I was sorry that he has such a lack of imagination."

Anyway, I'll see your partisan speaker with another partisan speaker, Bill Clinton:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/48581186 (video link)

Back to where the argument is now, if Kathleen Sebelius has a legal argument to make this work, then you should believe she has, despite what the National Review has to say. From the AP report:

However, Sebelius says she has a legal opinion from department attorneys that says waivers are allowed to test if state experiments would improve the program.

So, you have Etch-A-Sketch Romney flip-flopping on another issue to play to his base:

http://www.drudge.com/news/159719/romney-flip-flops-welfare-waivers

And, before you start calling people out for living in the echo-chamber, you have cite other sources other than Right/conservative agenda sites such as the National Review and Daily Caller, right-leaning talk-show Morning Joe, and sourcing (of all people) Newt Gingrich. Otherwise, you know, you're not following your own advice. You might want to come out of your bubble also.

If Romney get it, i feel sorry for the poor,middle class, and me, i won't get my ss and i bet your family wont get s.s. I know where the President is going for most of the world, and i know it is not for the rich. I think you younger people should see where Ryan & Mitt will take us. The Nums on the bus know to. The Nums wanted to talk to them, to tell this is not where God wants us to go. Think about your sister, mom, lover, and all women will be! STOP AND THINK

Gad. Don't forget that Romney is also a felon, and like most Republicans prefer to eat his babies fresh, never frozen.

On the other hand, it seems credible that the reason Obama hides his college material is that he attended as a foreign exchange student. You know like Warren became a native American to cheat the system. That would explain the born in Kenya bio his people used, no?

LOL. I do NOT believe Romney eats babies. Nor that he's a pedophile. He has not been convicted of any felonies, which is necessary to call him such in a system in which everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I do believe he has stuff to hide in his tax returns. I believe he does have input into the "blind trusts" and that he has used as many tax loopholes for millionaires as he possibly could, probably most of which are legal ways to avoid paying taxes -- but which shouldn't be permitted, IMO. Obama has released his tax returns, and Romney should do the same. Then we can discuss college material, which I would expect Romney to release first, to show he has nothing to hide. Be nice if Romney also released the hidden material from his governorship and the olympics before that. I'm certain that Obama would release material related to being in the Senate and professorship if he would do that first. Romney plainly has much more to hide than Obama, with a history of trying to hide relevant material.

Re: #5.1

Elizabeth Warren "became a Native American" by retroactively going back in history to arrange for a Native American ancestor.

She is 1/32 Cherokee.

Quoting from Biography section of the Wikipedia regarding the person elected to be the Principle Chief.

"Bill John Baker was born in Cherokee County, Oklahoma, where his family has been for four generations. Of mixed ethnicity like many Cherokee citizens, he is 1/32 Cherokee by blood."

So - you can argue all you want whether 1/32 counts as being Cherokee. But it looks like it is enough for the Cherokees.

Note - Bill John Baker had been part of the Cherokee community and active in their governance for may years

Note also that Elizabeth Warren is not running for chief.

I don't even get what the hell's the big deal about his college transcripts. The guy was the President of Harvard Law Review. The last time I checked, that position is only given to Harvard students of high standing. I don't know about you, Shooter, but chances are, Harvard's high standards sort of makes the argument pointless. In any case, "failure" for most students of Harvard probably counts as monumental success for many a non-Harvard student. To be perfectly honest with you, if Obama's transcripts are the only thing you can raise against Mitt's tax returns, your party must be pretty low on ammunition.

Re: #5.1

Just had a thought.

If Elizabeth Warren put down that she had Native American heritage - which appears to be a true statement - and then received some sort of benefit from this - I don't know whether she did or not - then:

Doesn't this mean she was just using a LEGAL LOOPHOLE to her advantage?

We keep hearing that Romney may have used perfectly LEGAL LOOPHOLES to reduce his taxes.

Please explain the difference.

Finally, Mittens bloody torturous relationships exposed. Change his name to Gloves Romney to hide the blood on his hands. So why do we jump to talking about Elizabeth Warren? Dose the MSM have the cajones to expose this nefarious relationship? Rachael? Ed? Lawrence? NBC? ABC? CBS? Come on, Man UP.

White Mittens was loving this high speed excitement. It was the next best thing to dressing up like Michigan patrolman and driving around stopping people who violated traffic laws.

He also likes to play policeman by personally confronting people who dare to smoke marijuana on HIS beachfront.

I gotta get me one of those.

Nice!

Finally, no more ambiguity. Your agenda is on your sleeve, where it should be.

So, where ya getting your news these days, buddy?

And I still wanna know if Maddow's news reporting is invalidated because of how you feel.

HP currently has the story on the politi-media poll. Maddow especially needs to get off of her high horse. She is politically disingenuous, and you're still a wacko. You have a distinct tendency like some Maddow followers of exacerbating and hostilizing any critique or criticism of Doctor Maddow and folks like yourself are contributing to Maddow's decline.

Wait, HP? As in, AOL-owned HP?

Does this news make your day?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/trojan-vibrator-giveaway-new-york-city-shutdown_n_1759421.html

The Trojan condom company set up "Pleasure Carts" on Wednesday in two Manhattan neighborhoods, and were set to give away 10,000 vibrating sex toys. Nearly 300 people had lined up at each of the hot-dog-style carts.

One of those on line, Melody Henry, grumbled that Mayor Michael Bloomberg "doesn't want anyone to have fun. You can't have a giant soda, You can't have a vibrator."

Nyuck nyuck nyuck!

Still waiting on the answer to that question: if Maddow's news reporting is invalidated because of how you feel.

Please hold your breath while you wait....nyuck, nyuck. Gobama!

No thanks, I like breathing air. Go Clean Air Act!

So, what's behind your hostility toward Rachel? You must have some actual specifics about your conspiracy theories, formed from actual, valid sources. Sources that, say, could be read online?

Unless they really were whispered to you in your sleep by your "pet ghost" turtle...

If so, what size tin-foil hat do you wear?

Folks like yourself are aiding in Maddow's decline, yet you don't know the difference, you probably never have, and you probably never will.

Doom! Doom! DOOOOOOM!

Oh, so tell us wise prophet of all-things-news-media, what is this "difference"? The "difference" between what and what?

Or is it all in your head? Dun dun DUUUUUUN!

DOOOOOOM!!!

(By the way, about that HP article, did you read it? Here, I'll link it for you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/daily-kos-political-media_n_1759439.html

Sure, there's growing overall mistrust, but share with us your perspective by answering: How do you account for this?

Democrats had more positive feelings than Republicans, with 65 percent of them voting against the press as versus 91 percent of their right-wing brethren.

Can the Democrats delusions match the right-wing's paranoia?

You're a Mocking bird.

I guess?

No real answers from you, huh?