View Full Version : Romney Defends Bogus Obama Welfare Ads

08-23-2012, 04:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney doesn't care what fact-checkers think.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Even in the face of repeated debunkings by journalists,</span> Romney's presidential campaign has continued to produce new ads falsely claiming that President Barack Obama ended the requirement that people on welfare, formally known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, engage in work.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>On Wednesday, the Des Moines Register confronted Romney about his false ads: "Iowans who consider you an honest man are asking why you would keep repeating something that isn’t true,"</span> a reporter said during an interview with the Republican candidate.

In response, Romney argued that the Obama administration lacks the authority to waive welfare work requirements -- a separate issue from the allegation in Romney's TV spots, which simply claim that the work requirements have been dropped. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Des Moines Register pointed out that fact-checkers have said that has not actually happened.</span>

"<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Fact-checkers </span>on both sides of the aisle will look in the way they think is most consistent with their own views," Romney said. "It’s very clear that others who have looked at the same issue feel that the president violates the provision of the act which requires work in welfare, defines what work is. He guts that, he ends that requirement for those that seek that welfare."</div></div>

Mitt doesn't know what the word FACT means!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Fact-checkers on both sides of the aisle will look in the way they think is most consistent with their own views," </div></div>

Wait till the debates! Obama will slaughter the lying Willard on this AND his lack of disclosure!



Gayle in MD
08-23-2012, 06:46 AM
Their continued lying about Obamacaer, AHA, is going to provide the president with ample opportunities to blow more deceitful Romney lies away as well.

Good op-ed on that:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul Krugman:

August 22, 2012, 7:45 am85 Comments
Understanding Medicare “Cuts”Jackie Calmes has a very good piece about those Medicare “cuts” Romney promises to repeal. As she emphasizes, all of these involve reductions in payments to insurance companies and health providers, rather than reductions in patient benefits. So what are we talking about?

Sarah Kliff had a good summary. Most of the proposed savings come from reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage and reducing reimbursement rates to hospitals.

What should you know about these changes?

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Medicare Advantage is a 15-year failed experiment in privatization. Running Medicare through private insurance companies was supposed to save money through the magic of the marketplace; in reality, private insurers, with their extra overhead, have never been able to compete on a level playing field with conventional Medicare. But Congress refused to take no for an answer, and kept the program alive by paying the insurers substantially more than the costs per patient of regular Medicare. All the ACA does is end this overpayment.</span>

As for the cuts in hospital reimbursement, the key thing to know is that the hospital industry itself negotiated those cuts. Here’s how John McDonough’s Inside National Health Reform describes it:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The negotiation involved the White House and high-level Senate Finance staffers. The agreement involved two numbers: $155 billion in reductions over ten years, and health insurance coverage for 95 percent of all Americans. At these numbers, hospital leaders were convinced that the revenue from the added covered lives would more than make up for their losses on the Medicare side, and it was a deal they could embrace.

</span>So, does any of this sound like a devastating blow to seniors’ health care?