:eek::smack::smack::smack:…:D:D:D
Are there no workhouses?
Both Ryan and Romney strongly support “welfare to work” requirements to move lazy bums off welfare and put them to work. What work they are expected to do, and who will pay for the daycare are minor details that will be added at some future date.
Hey, that’s a Bill Clinton plan!
Was the pun on Ryan’s legislative record intentional?
Hmmm . . . publicly funded day care?
Commernism!!!1!
It must have been, because I (the person who wrote that) don’t see a pun?
I tried that a bunch of times, nobody ever believed me. Might help if you can do the “puppy dog in the rain” big brown innocent eyes. Maybe.
They can all work as daycare providers.
Dammit I’m clever sometimes!
Anybody notice the light changes from yellow to white when Ryan says “I hope he takes his blood pressure medication”?
I’m thinking that the video was edited from several different cameras. You can see that the one that follows the guy as he is taken to the ground appears to stay on him, while the video cuts to a shot of Ryan.
I hope that it isn’t a misrepresentation. The video below is more extensive, and shows how Ryan was interrupted by a bunch of different folks, and had a witty quip after each interruption.
Meh, he’s from Wisconsin, so he probably drinks M64, as opposed to New Glarus’ various brews of liquid gold.
The pre-Obama Paul Ryan “folded a provision into a House-backed version of President Bush’s welfare reauthorization bill that provided his home state ‘a significant break in meeting new federal work rules,’ lowering the work requirement from 70 percent to just 54 percent.”
The pre-Obama Paul Ryan explained that it would “give the state more flexibility in meeting the tough new federal work requirements.”
The post-Obama Paul Ryan has now joined forces with Mitt Romney in declaring they will “return” work to welfare … as if it had ever disappeared … well, except maybe in Ryan’s state, as a direct result of his legislation.
Hypocritical asshole.
Gonna have to do some serious job-creatin’, if they’re gonna put everybody on welfare to work and keep everybody else off welfare at the same time. Was there a big old pile of jobs just sitting around somewhere, and they found them?
Ryan proposed a lot of bills in his Congressional career but virtually all of them were never enacted into law. His most important piece of actual legislation was lowering the federal tax on arrows. I thought you might have been referring to this when you used the word aquiver.
If I’m understanding this correctly, I have to think Ryan was making a valid argument.
The Bush plan apparently was trying to reform welfare by pushing states get people on welfare into jobs. They established a percentage reduction as an easy metric to see if states were doing this. (Let’s put aside for the moment the argument over whether this reform was a good idea.)
Ryan’s argument appears to be that Wisconsin had already made these reforms - it had found jobs for people on welfare and reduced its welfare rolls. But the Bush proposal didn’t differentiate between states that had reformed their welfare systems and those that hadn’t - it required all states to reduce their current numbers, regardless of what those current numbers were. Ryan’s proposal was that the states that had already reduced their numbers before Bush made his proposal should get credit for those reductions. Which I feel is reasonable.
Whoooooosh!
This is basically the same proposal President Obama has put forth: States should be allowed to offer their own version of programs that would work for their particular economic situation, so long as their overall performance matches the federal requirements.
But now that it’s an Obama proposal, just like all other Republican ideas they only opposed when President Obama tried to institute them (the DREAM Act, mandated health insurance, cap and trade), he’s suddenly against it.
He’s a fucking hypocritical snake.
I’m not seeing the connection you’re saying exists.
The Bush plan was for states to reduce their welfare rolls by putting people on welfare into job. Ryan’s objection to Bush’s plan wasn’t against this principle - his objection was that Wisconsin had already put its people on welfare into jobs so it couldn’t do it a second time to reduce its numbers further.
Ryan’s objections to Obama’s plan seems to be different. Ryan is saying Obama’s plan would give states waivers even if they did not put people on welfare into jobs. Ryan’s objection to Bush’s plan is that it would require states to do it a second time; his objection to Obama’s plan is that it wouldn’t require states to do it a first time.
You may object to Ryan’s arguments on this issue and there certainly may be problems with his ideas. But they don’t appear to be inconsistent or hypocritical.
I was just kinda shocked (not really sure why, though, considering the source) at how many times Ann Coulter called single moms ‘stupid’ here:
"“I think it’s probably a good sign that Obama is so desperate just to get the base Democratic voter — stupid single women — to vote for him,” Coulter told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday. “This is good news that he needs to lock up that part of the Democratic vote.”
“He’s trying to get the stupid single women voter, which is the Democratic Party base,” Coulter repeated. “And I would just say to stupid single women voters, your husband will not be able to pay you child support if Obamacare goes through and Obama is re-elected. You are talking about the total destruction of wealth. It is the end of America as we know it.”
“Great, you will get free contraception; you won’t have to pay a $10 co-pay, but it will be the end of America. Think about that!”
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/09/coulter-obamas-base-is-stupid-single-women/?#ixzz23Pwa753P