^ which is exactly why we don't need a change in Presidency at the moment. I'd rather continue with the devil I know vs. the devil (Romney) I don't know. If Obama and Axelrod are really smart they''d hammer this point home.
Since Obama's taken office there's been steady job growth in every month of his presidency... (just compare how the economy was shrinking and job losses just prior to Obama being sworn in). Sure the numbers aren't where we want them to be but it's steady progress...Obama's stimulus prevented an all-out depression so YES we ARE better off than we were 3 yrs ago in every way imaginable.
Obama's team need to hammer this point home to the independents that changing tickets during an economic recovery period would be disastrous for America... this is clearly where team Obama need to focus and concentrate their message to the independents. Independents seem to be level headed and reasonable and I see this basic common sense resonating with their intelligence.
Obama has already struggled against an Obstructionist, treasonous, and semi-violent tea-party mob style republican party...Mitt Romney will only roll back progress pushing us further to a great depression.
Leave well enough alone....I'm actually communicating with members of the democratic and progressive base to ensure we push this message in some form or fashion a theme at the DNC.
Obama/Biden Forever
nope, not much changed.
iow, America is ed and un able.
There simply can't be any change from the 1% and corps owning and operating the country. They'll never give up power, and won't even be challenged.
the poverty rate will continue to increase, the good jobs are gone, the 1% will be incredibly richer while the 99% stagnates, at best, while most will decrease in income and wealth. inequality will continue to increase.
@ Obama running on his economic record.
you, asshole. Don't ask me questions, because I am tired of talking to people like you. You are too dumb to waste effort talking to.
You have long ago forfeited and used up your "randomguy time", since you have repeatedly proven you do not care what the truth is.
Ok.
Ok, so it is the jerk in the oval office. Pick a lane.
Please provide a list of extreme right wing posts. Be specific.
/ChumpDumper
From Kathleen Sebelius's directive (not an Obama Executive Order) on July 12, 2012:
That's the torturous explanation of the law by which the Obama administration claims the authority to waive the work requirement.While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
If they didn't intend for the waivers to include waiving the work requirement why did Sebelius find it necessary to explain how her interpretation of how the authority to waive the reporting requirements in Section 402 includes the authority to waive the work requirements in Section 407 and allow States to define alternatives to that section other than the work requirements in Section 407.
If you waive the reporting requirements in 402 and specifically allow States to experiment with alternatives to the provisions of Section 407, who's going to keep up with what alternatives the States are employing. In effect you've ripped the work requirement from the Welfare Law and that's to what conservatives and the Romney campaign are referring when they say Obama is gutting the work requirement from Welfare Reform.
And, before you argue about Sebelius's later, clarifying memorandum, saying that's not what her directive does, keep in mind these are the people who were schizophrenic over whether the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty. Honesty and integrity in their application of the laws isn't exactly a hallmark of this administration.
And, not allowing yourself to be led around by "fact checkers" is pretty smart when the "fact checkers" can't identify the facts.
then why do you give a rat's ass who wins in November?There simply can't be any change from the 1% and corps owning and operating the country. They'll never give up power, and won't even be challenged.
ed/un able, right?
call back to the lazy Nihilist?
the tension between that and being a kneejerk partisan is striking
It's a fair question. What kind of people did Obama populate his administration with?
Except for when it is.
It's pretty transparent too. When you talk out of your ass, you can simply say, "hey, I said I wasn't going to restrict my campaign to facts"...
It's the fact checkers that aren't restricting themselves to facts.
both are true. fact checkers and the politicians they check are both pretty facile wrt to the facts. just because two parties, or three parties or a thousand parties, are in dispute about the facts, doesn't mean one of them has to be right.
that said, telling fact checkers to go to discloses a bit of a political tin ear.
If there are disagreements with different fact checkers out there, they can point them out. Setting the bar to unapologetic outright bull is a different matter altogether.
in this crazy postmodern world all value is relative. there is no truth. any dispute about what it is merely conceals a crude struggle for power.
Yep, that is clearly the real problem here.
It's not a turd! It's a soil-enriching substance!
because we are today mainly suffering from conservative/Repug/VRWC policies and esp Repug ups in 2001-2008.
Those ups (like financial deregulation, financial bubble aftermath, union busting, war on employees) are VERY HARD to turn around, next to impossible, in the best of times, but when the opposing party is bloody-minded obstructionist.
iow, Obama or anybody would have a hard time undoing the Repug ups.
But as we can see in the gecko/ryan budget and social plans, they don't intend to fix any Repug ups, but make them much worse which includes repealing ACA, undoing financial deregulation, cutting taxes on the 1% and coprs, kiling EPA/OSHA, killing NOAA storm watch funding, killing medicare/SS/medicaid, etc, etc, ACA being about the only positive that Obama/Dems achieved, and that was ing miraculous.
ed/un able, right? right, you're finally catching on, congrats.
Presidents tend to govern from the middle and are restricted by Congress. As such, Obama or Romney themselves aren't going to matter.Ok.
Ok, so it is the jerk in the oval office. Pick a lane.
Please provide a list of extreme right wing posts. Be specific.
/ChumpDumper
In that regard, the problem isn't one or the other.
What does matter is who is going to start inhabiting the appointed and hired positions that the president and his staff *do* place.
I would call Ryan fairly firmly in the extreme right wing of his party, but by "posts" what exactly are you talking about?
In case you haven't noticed, Romney isnt the president yet, but has the tea party slobbering all over the chance to get their brand of nutballs into goverment.
Do you need any more explanation, or do you understand this yet?
Well, does or does not Sebelius explain, in her directive, how a waiver of Section 402 allows States to explore alternative to Section 407 work requirements?
Note, her explanation doesn't say "in addition to" or "including," it says, "other than."
A fair reading of that paragraph can be construed to mean they're willing to allow States to forego the work requirements of Section 407.
Obama wasn't restricted by Congress in 2009 or 2010, he got everything he asked for. And, what he can't get Congress to pass in 2011 or 2012, he's simply directed by Executive Order or some other manipulation of the law.
Translation:
"Only facts that I agree with, actually count as facts, so when someone points out things I don't agree with, they obviously are not, by definition, facts. ipso facto."
Anything or anybody that isn't rabidly right-wing or that might show that any cherished right wing idea is wrong, is obviously a plot.
Duck, dodge, obfuscate.
WTG, you have now become the conservative Cosmored.
Got any links you want to spam while you are at it?
What world do you live in?
"Obama wasn't restricted by Congress in 2009 or 2010, he got everything he asked for"
Penalty for Yoni lying: he's ing fool and shill for ideological extremists.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote