I wasn't consistent with his OTHER lie about leaving Bain in 1999. It does get difficult to keep this stuff straight.

i was thinking the same thing.

although it may simply be a loss of nerve.

I wish it was loss of nerve, but looking at the slight changes in support in the white male working class vote, it did what it was supposed to do: the body politic got injected with the poison, which is still circulating "under the radar."

My guess - it was just scheduled to run through the end of August. Now that we're in September, they'll come out with a new version of it.

Or perhaps their polling found that it was doing more to energize the Democratic base than the Republican base.

You obviously haven't heard of "Lyin for the Lord." He's the LDS Great White Hope, so he can lie and lie and lie. He's just doing what every Mormon has to do: follow the rules of the "Prophet" in Salt Lake City above any other responsibility, any other laws. Just the kind of (baseless) threat the idiot Baptist preachers were worried about in 1960 with JFK, only here the threat is real and we are seeing it in operation every day.

Lying is the bedrock of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS aka Mormons). The leaders lie to the "lower" members as usual practice. See http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm

The LDS Church is very proud of its edicts and teachings of "Honesty in all things". It is lesson 37 in the new-members Sunday School handbook, a very frequent Ensign (the Church magazine) topic, often talked about in length by the most respected Church luminaries in addresses to the entire Church body, and appears at multiple levels of the kids' Sunday School lessons.

Repeatedly calling Mitt out on his lies, and his support of others who lie on his behalf, gives the LDS Church a very public black eye, exposing their words for what they are: just words. Romney is not in the official global Church Leadership hierarchy, but he is seen by those inside and outside the Church as a representative and ambassador for the Church. His actions on the trail bring shame upon himself, his family, and his Church.

I don't think that Mitt cares about this. He missed all those Sunday School lessons, apparently. But, I think that when the chasm between his lying and the Church's hardline stance on honesty is exposed it is quite likely that the Church will exert some "friendly" pressure on Romney Inc to clean up their act.

Lying... What about "entitlements" for an LDS family that has 6 kids. Think they are paying any Federal Taxes? Just another form of welfare, not called that of course. Dems need to put some pressure on this fact in the form of stats, if someone smarter than I could put this together. Utah, the richest state. I wonder how. Good thing we all support the LDS way of life through our own taxes, so much so they have a "store house" full of food and make it appear as if it is out of their own pockets. Would someone please jump on this! We NEEEED Obama.

Exactly. It's very much like the SwiftBoat campaign in 2004. Run the ads incessantly in swing states in August, when the media and your opponents are on vacation, distracted, or otherwise napping. Drill the idea into low-information voters' heads. Eventually some commentators will wake up and point out the falsehoods. Then after a couple of weeks the MSM starts to wake up and report the falsehoods. At that point you pull the ads and move on to other issues. Damage done, mission accomplished.

Absolute correct. A lie is put out there, repeated and then Republicans move on to another lie before the truth catches up. It will continue until election day. But the upside is that Dems can make a great election commercial with some of the biggest lies by Republicans. This ad can be run during prime time TV shortly before the elections so that the idea that Republicans have lied on so many things, there is no reason to trust them. But the run up to the ads have to be the theme for Dems via their superpacs.

Damage done, mission accomplished and move on to the next issue. That really seems to be their MO. Just trying to agitate the average white guy.

If you don't believe this lie, wait a few days. That's the current GOP modus operandi.

Everyone won't believe every lie. But a few people might believe Lie A, a few people might believe Lie B, and so on and so on...

And even if you don't "believe," you might be worried about all these things you're hearing about Obama that you won't want to risk voting for him. After all, they can't all be lies, right?

And that's how Republicans win.

I said quite some time ago that the Dems need to run a series of ads showing various Romney lies, but with a common tag line: "Mitt Romney: You Can't Trust Him."

Considering Romney/Ryan's already shaky (at best) credibility, this should serve to erode any trust that independents and moderates may have begun to develop in Romney and Ryan.

"Can I Trust the Candidate" is one of the first questions people ask when they make up their minds. Obama has shown himself to be trustworthy. Romney hasn't.

C'mon Dem strategists. It's time for you to pick up on this idea and exploit that obvious advantage.

The difference is that I deserve it. It's those other people that are the problem.

shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am

I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.

For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.

Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.

http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/

It would be true, in the sense that it is not actually true now, but alludes to some alternate reality where such a thing might be true if it were, actually, true.

See Shooter, that's still a lie. The problem may be, you have no idea what is a lie and what isn't.

The ironic thing is. Most Republicans don't care either way. Because the Gods honest truth is. The work requirement doesn't work anyway. And the entire idea of it needs to be overhauled. The 'work requirement" should include Job Training. Which in most states it doesn't. Because it's better to teach someone a skill. Than point them in a general direction. And hope for the best. Want to break the welfare cycle. Train them for better jobs.

So Rollo, which part of my comment offends you? A contrary opinion or the call to be nice?

No Calvin, it is not a lie. HHS just granted itself something the law specifically says they can't do. There's an entire section devoted to heading off power grabs just like that one.

Secondly, Democrats have never to my knowledge advocated more work. The plan here is just as you say, make job training "work". Or doctor's visits, or travel time, or massage, or how long one sits waiting for unemployment checks. Anything but actual work.

The key words in Shooter's post: "to my knowledge"

Shooter

My inherent problem with the work requirement is simply this. It doesn't work. Having someone on government assistance. And pushing them out in the work force in some dead end job. Where they just are or in some cases worse off, then they were on welfare. Is a broken system.

If you want the system to work. And cost less. It is far more fiscally responsible. To set up a job training program. Like for CNA's which takes anywhere from 8-12 weeks to complete and become state certified. Or fabrication, customer service or any other entry level position. Which requires some training. But not extensive. And send those people out in the work force. With actual skills that improve not only their pay. But their lives. And reduces the odds of them needing welfare in the near future.

The more educated and trained the work force. The better off everybody is. Because less people will need government assistance. And more people are actually working. Which results in fewer taxes paid for by individuals. Because you have more people paying into the system.

Job Training, Money Management, and interviewing skills and classes. Would be a lot better than the system we have in place today. Where we'er just basically push uneducated and untrained workers out into the work force. And into dead end jobs that doesn't elevate them to a higher standard of living.

I'm all for people having to do something for that check. But just making them work for it. Isn't the answer. Because they will still be receiving that same government check. And just wasting our tax dollars. The entire point and process. Shouldn't be just working for that check. It should be working towards not getting that check at all. And getting a real pay check that elevates them above, ever having to receive a welfare check ever again.

Shooter, the HHS directive requires an increase in the number of people moved from welfare to work. Try reading the letter.

The Secretary is only interested in approving waivers if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits.

Calvin, you are portraying welfare recipients as infantile. Burger flippers are trained on the job, sales people are trained on the job, community colleges teach welding, nursing, and loads of other careers, but that requires ambition. Making people work for the money is more likely to move them on to better things.

VeryVery, I don't believe that for a second. Why is a waiver required for more work placements, and when did Democrats ever advocate "more work" period?

Shooter's posting a lot today. Must be "spent." Long weekend. Happens to the best of us. Keep engaging in his foreplay folks, he'll get off before the day is through.

shooter, to argue with you would be like being in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Shooter, you live in a truthiness zone. The law is what it is and must be followed in conjunction with the new policy, but hey, if you "don't believe it," you go ahead and make your own reality. Wake up and realize that everything you have led yourself to believe about Democrats and this President is based on your gut, and not reality.

Tom, if you're going to troll, some originality would be appreciated.

Nope - just another lie!

Shooter, doesn't it worry you a little to be that deep in Obama's head?

Shooter if making people as you say, work for that money is more likely to move them to better things. Then please explain to me why in the years of the work requirement. Has it done the exact opposite of what you say?

The welfare cycle is a cycle for a reason. For a lot of people that's all they know how to survive. You may call it lazy or a lack of ambition. But if that is all they know. That's all they know. And until someone shows them that there is a better way to live. The cycle will never be broken. And we all will just continue to pay into a broken system that doesn't work.

I would much rather be spending my tax dollars. Training someone for 3 months to be a productive member of the work force. Than keep paying them to stay on welfare. And nobody showing them there is in fact a better way. Ambition isn't entirely self producing. Sometimes you have to give someone the necessary tools to succeed. And ambition grows from there.

Lastly I find it completely insulting. To suggest that burger flippers get on the job training. When you and I both know that. One cannot support their self more less a family making Happy Meals. And for anyone to think that it's perfectly acceptable. To think that one could. Is beyond out of touch with the real world. And is completely naive.

Also Shooter

"and when did Democrats ever advocate "more work" period?"

I dunno', maybe when Clinton signed the Welfare reform bill requiring it?

Calvin, you're going out of your way to be offended. According to you, the people we're talking about aren't qualified for anything. Why would you expect them to do something other than entry level jobs? I'd also note that after the law passed welfare rolls dropped in half. Can I presume you'll rationalize that as offensive too?

Dave, Yes Clinton signed it, but only after he vetoed it twice. My point stands.

Actually I don't expect them to anything other than entry level jobs. I' just can't justify spending my Tax Dollars for an Associates Degree in Nursing. The point of Welfare is a temporary assistance program,not a life long endeavor. I'm all for giving out training to get people in the door. I just can't justify a full on degree program. That should be on their own dime. Or apply for Pell and Student Loans.

The point I was trying to make. That I think you over looked was, that we should demand better from the system. Just asking them to work isn't enough. We should be telling them that work isn't enough. Improving your living standards, is not an option. It's a necessity and is what is required of you.

We should be telling them, that if they want this check. This is what you will have to do. You will get job training, you will have to take money management classes, and classes to improve your interviewing skills. It's not enough to tread water. Treading water only keeps you a float. We need to teaching them how to swim.

Folks, keep in mind that Shooter242 is just a bratty troll who doesn't even believe the bull@!$%# he/she/it shovels. Don't waste your time feeding such an obvious troll.

Shooter . . . I've been trying for weeks to find a syllogistic model that fits the "logic" behind your statements about Obama and the work requirement. So far, I haven't been able to locate one, which says something about how illogical it is.

The closest I can come is something like this:

Obama did "A". "A" might lead to "B". Therefore, "B" is certain to happen.

Let's try that model out:

Romney/Ryan have proposed to Voucherize Medicare. Having privatized Medicare, R/R would next move to privatizing Social Security. Therefore, R/R will eliminate Social Security.

I'll bet the Democrats could have a field day tying him to the destruction of both Medicare and the Social Security system.

You'll argue that it's an apples/oranges comparison, but it isn't. In each case, there's a wild logical leap, making the assumption someone takes an action that will lead to something neither contemplated nor intended. And that is an absolute certainty to occur.

Of course, that's the problem with trying to defend outright lies. The logic seldom adds up, and ends up making both the liar and the person defending the liar look ridiculous.

Calvin, your motivation may be noble, but your execution is flawed. If someone is motivated, none of your training is necessary. What you're trying to do is use school to turn around someone's attitude. That's not going to happen.

mpguy, let me give you a real world analogy.

• Obama killed an American citizen without due process because the citizen is a terrorist.
• If Obama declares Mary Smith a terrorist, she is now allowed to be executed without due process.
• Will Obama declare Mary Smith a terrorist? I don't know. But if he does she is likely to die without due process.
• --------------------------------------------------

• HHS flagrantly broke the law to grant itself waiver power. Did it do that in order to put more people to work? Doubtful.
• That assumes a waiver is required to get more people employment. Doubtful.
• Democrats want more welfare recipients to work. Improbable.

The most likely scenario left is that Democrats will weaken, and eventually do away with work requirements. (More likely relabel non-work activities as work.) I certainly could be wrong, but the odds are Democrats want more people on a welfare program rather than less.

Shooter educating an individual, by showing them that there are indeed, better ways to live. And how to improve their economic standing. Is one of the best ways to change an individuals attitude.

Does it require motivation, yes. Is motivation inherently self producing, no. Because unless a person knows that a better way of life, is actually obtainable for them, they will never aspire to have one.

We can afford every immigrant who comes to this country. Every governmental, financial and social assistance needed to succeed in this country. But we lack the compassion and willingness. To afford those same fundamental rights, to our own citizenry.

Suggesting that educating and showing our own citizens that there is in fact a way out of their circumstances. Is never going to change their attitude. IS pessimistic at best. What does it say about our country, that we can treat immigrants better than we treat, those of us who happen to be more disadvantaged than ourselves?

Are there some who would still choose to leach off of the system. Yes I'm sure there are. But I'm also more sure that, if given the resources to succeed. More people would choose to elevate them selves above their current economic places. Because here in this country, where we tell the world that if you we give you the resources to be successful. You will in fact succeed if you put in the work to do so. People will do exactly that. Because very few individuals in this country, set out and aspire to be poor.

Some people will always be leaches, some will always take the easier way out. But I'm confident enough in this country and it's citizens to believe that. IF given the proper resources and education. Those who want to change from being on the bottom of the economic scale. Will in fact work their way to the middle class and maybe even above.

But demonizing, degrading and patronizing those individuals. And never showing them how to change their circumstances, is not how we get there. If we are truly the Greatest Country on Earth. We should afford every right to our citizens, as we do those who come into this country, not less. We should give them the tools, and demand more than simply working for a welfare check, which is the bare minimum. But demand that once given the tools, they elevate themselves to a higher standard of living. Or maybe I'm just overtly optimistic. But pessimism has never improved anyone's quality of life, that I am aware of.

• HHS flagrantly broke the law to grant itself waiver power. Did it do that in order to put more people to work? Doubtful.
• That assumes a waiver is required to get more people employment. Doubtful.
• Democrats want more welfare recipients to work. Improbable.

HHs didn't "flagrantly" break any law. Agencies within the executive branch always have the power to develop administrative rules in order to carry out the mandates of the law. That's true of government at any level, especially the state and federal governments.

Your assumption that Obama wants to put people on welfare without having them work--or prepare for work--is simply convenient political spin that has no basis in anything other than your own partisanship. Of course Democrats want people to work. Suggesting anything else is utter nonsense.

At a time of high unemployment, it's hard to find meaningful jobs without taking jobs away from other people. We're usually not talking about terribly well qualified people. They're often people with not only minimal skills, but also spotty work habits and histories

Allowing them to access different types of education and training, creating internships, or solving other problems that hinder their path to full time employment becomes more important in that environment. That's one reason that this line of attack is so destructive. It gets in the way of people trying to solve a vexing problem.

Also, many Republican governors asked for these waivers. Are they trying to weaken the law, too?

mpguy, Actually it was a Republican that wanted to waive work rules for an unspecified amount of time. If I recall correctly none of those waiver requests were granted. I'm sure he's learned the error of his ways.

Yes, HHS flagrantly broke the law. unless of course you're going to invoke "the President is allowed to do anything" rule. Mr. Romney will look at that with great interest.

Allowing them to access different types of education and training, creating internships, or solving other problems that hinder their path to full time employment becomes more important in that environment.

So you want to educate people in how to prepare for getting a job? Have you heard the expression "Bleeding Heart"? Good Lord, are these people autistic? Isn't this the group whose biggest concern is obesity? Look, even in the wilds of Appalachia everyone knows someone else with a job, how it works, and what to do to get one.
Portraying these people as idiots doesn't reflect well. Any able-bodied person with an average IQ is capable of finding and holding a job. Choosing to do that is a different matter. Motivated people usually find a way.

Almost forgot,

At a time of high unemployment, it's hard to find meaningful jobs without taking jobs away from other people.

Not if you're an Obama crony. Or, if you're in the neighborhood of North Dakota. I understand burger flippers get $15/hr plus medical there.

Shooter, why are you so terribly offensive to those needing some help? I bet you would agree that there are people who are a second- or third-generation welfare recipient. And without a model for working, they truly don't know how to go about it. They don't understand how to look for a job, apply for a job, the concept of showing up on time, every day, even having appropriate clothes for an interview. It may seem like a simple concept to you, but it is an unfortunate reality for some folks.

Cowgirl, if the folks requiring all this training can't get the general idea in a 15 minute lecture, they aren't smart enough to be in the workforce. If they aren't motivated enough to show up on time, they won't, and have wasted a lot of time and money.

You would be amazed at how hard it is to get entry level people just to show up, period.

Tom51, the official version now has to do with a dining-room table.

That's what the teapubs have always done.

Well, half-truths are more than the commentariat have asked of them, and I don't think they're likely to shoot for more than is required.

That may still happen (it should) but the "welfare lie" is now old news.

Perhaps. But expect that the Democratic opponents of those Republican governors to dust it off again for use against them.

That makes no sense politically. Better job numbers are better for Obama*, period. That would be 'cut off nose/spite face' petulance. The governors that have sought the waiver don't generally have a state legislature working against them like the U.S. Congress has done to Obama. The waivers are the carrot in front of the donkey. If Obama can't get the national body to stop playing Lucy Van Pelt, he can get the republicans on the state level to look at their re-election prospects and do the work at the state level.

*and the country it should go without saying in ordinary times

When the public teapub tv that promotes lies is questioning lies, it may be a bit too much. Let it die down for a while and come back in little bites with the same lies as usual.

I now think you are a Republican troll, since you have posted this misinformation here after posting it in the proper thread and having your facts corrected there. Just like the rest of your party of fascist scum, all you can do is lie lie lie. You want to masquerade as a "Democrat", but you're too typically Republican (i.e. a moron) to pull it off.

@Lynn TTT -- actually, yes, Ryan is wrong and Steve Benen does have the correct figure. Ryan conflates the figure for business and non-business filings and claims they're all business filings - just to refresh, here’s what Ryan said:

“Last year, under President Obama's failed leadership, 1.4 million businesses filed for bankruptcy."

But, according to the US Bankruptcy Court statistics, the number of business filings in 2011 for bankruptcies was 47,806. This is just the kind of “fudging the numbers” dishonesty that is classic Ryan.

Here is the link – take another close look at the figures:
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics/BankruptcyFilings/2011/1211_f2.pdf

Excellent post, June. Thanks for the link.

Now, I'm sure Ryan would argue that his 1.4M is accurate because "a household is a small business." You know, just like corporations are people.