Romney for US president in 2016? Iowa poll puts him on top

[Cigar]

http://socialmediaseo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/binders-full-of-women.jpg (http://socialmediaseo.net/2012/10/16/binders-full-women-trending-twitter-romney-binder-comment/)

Americans may not be through with Mitt Romney after all. The two-time Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly stressed over the past year that he is not interested in a third shot at the White House.

But an Iowa poll released Wednesday suggests that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who lost to President Barack Obama in 2012, would be the party’s odds-on favorite if he threw his hat in the ring for 2016.


The survey of Iowa Republican voters conducted by Suffolk University and USA Today showed that if Romney was added to the pool of potential 2016 Republican contenders, 35 percent of respondents would place him first in the Iowa caucuses, the political contest that kicks off the primary calendar.

Arkansas ex-governor Mike Huckabee came in a distant second, at just nine percent, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie trailing at 6.5 percent and former senator Rick Santorum at six percent. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each earned five percent, while the remaining field was in the low single digits.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/28/romney-for-us-president-in-2016-iowa-poll-puts-him-on-top/

[donttread]

http://socialmediaseo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/binders-full-of-women.jpg (http://socialmediaseo.net/2012/10/16/binders-full-women-trending-twitter-romney-binder-comment/)

Americans may not be through with Mitt Romney after all. The two-time Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly stressed over the past year that he is not interested in a third shot at the White House.

But an Iowa poll released Wednesday suggests that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who lost to President Barack Obama in 2012, would be the party’s odds-on favorite if he threw his hat in the ring for 2016.


The survey of Iowa Republican voters conducted by Suffolk University and USA Today showed that if Romney was added to the pool of potential 2016 Republican contenders, 35 percent of respondents would place him first in the Iowa caucuses, the political contest that kicks off the primary calendar.

Arkansas ex-governor Mike Huckabee came in a distant second, at just nine percent, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie trailing at 6.5 percent and former senator Rick Santorum at six percent. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each earned five percent, while the remaining field was in the low single digits.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/28/romney-for-us-president-in-2016-iowa-poll-puts-him-on-top/

Either way you do know what sits on top of a manure pile don't you?

[Cigar]

Yea Yea go cry to Mama that the facts are hurting your ass

Fact: Romney is a front runner
Fact: Romney is news
Fact: Both are Political

[Mainecoons]

Either way you do know what sits on top of a manure pile don't you?

Pretty much all of them. It is darned near impossible to find one that doesn't sit there now.

[Cigar]

Pretty much all of them. It is darned near impossible to find one that doesn't sit there now.


Well if that's all the GOP has, then what can you do.


Personally I'd like to see these two run against Hillary for nothing else than bringing up relevant issues that real Americans want to talk about.

http://www.sanders-warren2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sanders-Warren.jpg (http://www.sanders-warren2016.com/)

[Mainecoons]

If Hillary and Romney is all they have to offer, there really is no point.

You see what the choice of Obama vs. McCain got us.

[birddog]

Well if that's all the GOP has, then what can you do.


Personally I'd like to see these two run against Hillary for nothing else than bringing up relevant issues that real Americans want to talk about.



http://www.sanders-warren2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sanders-Warren.jpg (http://www.sanders-warren2016.com/)

Does that kind of make you a "liberal whoremonger?" :grin:

[Private Pickle]

http://socialmediaseo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/binders-full-of-women.jpg (http://socialmediaseo.net/2012/10/16/binders-full-women-trending-twitter-romney-binder-comment/)

Americans may not be through with Mitt Romney after all. The two-time Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly stressed over the past year that he is not interested in a third shot at the White House.

But an Iowa poll released Wednesday suggests that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who lost to President Barack Obama in 2012, would be the party’s odds-on favorite if he threw his hat in the ring for 2016.


The survey of Iowa Republican voters conducted by Suffolk University and USA Today showed that if Romney was added to the pool of potential 2016 Republican contenders, 35 percent of respondents would place him first in the Iowa caucuses, the political contest that kicks off the primary calendar.

Arkansas ex-governor Mike Huckabee came in a distant second, at just nine percent, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie trailing at 6.5 percent and former senator Rick Santorum at six percent. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each earned five percent, while the remaining field was in the low single digits.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/28/romney-for-us-president-in-2016-iowa-poll-puts-him-on-top/

Obama did him a favor by sucking so much...

[texan]

I like him a lot!

[donttread]

If Hillary and Romney is all they have to offer, there really is no point.

You see what the choice of Obama vs. McCain got us.

Bushbama all over again

[hanger4]

http://socialmediaseo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/binders-full-of-women.jpg (http://socialmediaseo.net/2012/10/16/binders-full-women-trending-twitter-romney-binder-comment/)Americans may not be through with Mitt Romney after all. The two-time Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly stressed over the past year that he is not interested in a third shot at the White House. But an Iowa poll released Wednesday suggests that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who lost to President Barack Obama in 2012, would be the party¡¯s odds-on favorite if he threw his hat in the ring for 2016. The survey of Iowa Republican voters conducted by Suffolk University and USA Today showed that if Romney was added to the pool of potential 2016 Republican contenders, 35 percent of respondents would place him first in the Iowa caucuses, the political contest that kicks off the primary calendar. Arkansas ex-governor Mike Huckabee came in a distant second, at just nine percent, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie trailing at 6.5 percent and former senator Rick Santorum at six percent. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each earned five percent, while the remaining field was in the low single digits.-snip-Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/28/romney-for-us-president-in-2016-iowa-poll-puts-him-on-top/Oh cool a name recognition poll. I guess RawStory couldn't be bothered to post the actuals of the poll.

[texan]

Mitt Romney is a very good man. He is intelligent and understands the economy from a business perspective.

[donttread]

Mitt Romney is a very good man. He is intelligent and understands the economy from a business perspective.

He's also completely out of touch with how 99% of us live

[nic34]

I hope he picks Palin for VP.... heck everyone needs a do-over, and I heard she was available!

[PolWatch]

romney leading must be a new development:
real clear politics

2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Iowa GOP Caucus (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html) | New Hampshire GOP Primary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html) | South Carolina GOP Primary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-4151.html) | Florida GOP Primary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-3555.html)
Polling Data



Poll
Date
Sample
Christie
Bush
Paul
Ryan
Cruz
Perry
Rubio
Walker
Santorum
Jindal
Spread


RCP Average
6/24 - 8/4
--
11.5
10.8
10.3
9.3
8.8
8.3
7.5
5.3
2.8
2.3
Christie +0.7


McClatchy/Marist (http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us140804/2016/Complete August 14, 2014 McClatchy_Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf)
8/4 - 8/4
342 A
13
13
7
9
10
7
9
4
3
2
Tie


FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls-midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/)
7/20 - 7/22
358 RV
10
12
11
9
9
12
9
4
3
4
Tie


CNN/Opinion Research (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/27/cnn.orc.poll.pdf)
7/18 - 7/20
470 A
13
8
12
11
8
11
6
5
3
--
Christie +1


Quinnipiac (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2058)
6/24 - 6/30
620 RV
10
10
11
8
8
3
6
8
2
1
Paul +1


All 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Polling Data (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html#polls)

[Peter1469]

Toss in a None of the Above, and let's see what happens to those numbers.

[Bob]

He's also completely out of touch with how 99% of us live

Yes, most of us are not as into the following as Romney is.
Country
Family
Church
Charity
Quietly helping others

We need a leader like Romney.

[donttread]

Yes, most of us are not as into the following as Romney is.
Country
Family
Church
Charity
Quietly helping others

We need a leader like Romney.


Call be back when he pays a higher percentage of tax then I do

[texan]

He's also completely out of touch with how 99% of us live

Really? And you know that because the dem marketing strategy said so? Get a damn clue!

[texan]

Mitt Romney Outed By The Milkman: Candidate Anonymously Donates Thousands Of Pints Of Milk To Sick Vets

Mitt Romney’s secret is out, thanks to a milkman in Boston. When the now Republican presidential candidate toured a Veterans Administration hospital while in a political race against Ted Kennedy, he discovered an awful truth: The facility could not afford enough dairy products for the sick soldiers. After reviewing the medical center’s books and noting that the facility appears to be run well, he asked what they needed help with or might be lacking. The quickly uttered response consisted of one simple word: milk.

When Friday rolled around, so did the local milkman and 7 thousand pints of the dairy product. The delivery guy kept his word to Mitt Romney (http://www.inquisitr.com/302620/mitt-romney-ohio-rally-focused-on-medicare-and-education/) and refused to reveal the name of the anonymous donor to VA officials. Two years later and just days from retirement, the delivery man finally shared his secret with hospital staffers.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/330017/mitt-romney-outed-by-the-milkman-candidate-anonymously-donates-thousands-of-pints-of-milk-to-sick-vets/#xtCxDkYguk0OBu0S.99

Or you can support this guy as "being in touch:"

Vice President Joe Biden has been going all over the country advocating the rich paying their “fair share” ... but is the VP practicing what he’s preaching? According to their 2011 tax returns, Biden’s charitable donations added up to 1.46 percent of his income


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/330017/mitt-romney-outed-by-the-milkman-candidate-anonymously-donates-thousands-of-pints-of-milk-to-sick-vets/#xtCxDkYguk0OBu0S.99

[Bob]

Call be back when he pays a higher percentage of tax then I do

You can't blame Mitt Romney for the state of income taxes currently paid.

[texan]

I am calling back now to tell you to call me back when you have an original thought and to ask you to not change the subject.

Mitt Romney is a very good guy, by all accounts from everyone around him. Too nice in fact. Eaxample? Benghazi, he could have really riled up conservatives and maybe driven many more voters out but felt it was unfair to attack on this subject in September. He chose not to causing a shit storm of advisors saying it could win the election. Some say that negative could have changed the race. He is a gentleman, unlike this guy:

Oct 2012 Obama......Damn right I pulled the troops out and am against a status of forces agreement (in the debate its on record)......

June 2014 (Shit hits the fan)........This subject keeps coming up like I pulled the troops out of Iraq.....

So honorable and trustworthy.

[Libhater]

I am calling back now to tell you to call me back when you have an original thought and to ask you to not change the subject.

Mitt Romney is a very good guy, by all accounts from everyone around him. Too nice in fact. Eaxample? Benghazi, he could have really riled up conservatives and maybe driven many more voters out but felt it was unfair to attack on this subject in September. He chose not to causing a shit storm of advisors saying it could win the election. Some say that negative could have changed the race. He is a gentleman, unlike this guy:



Oct 2012 Obama......Damn right I pulled the troops out and am against a status of forces agreement (in the debate its on record)......

June 2014 (Shit hits the fan)........This subject keeps coming up like I pulled the troops out of Iraq.....

So honorable and trustworthy.


I don't care so much that the lefty contingent distorted Romney's record and his personal life as much as I find it troubling that so many rinos, and or those who would normally vote for A Republican over the progressive would go to such extremes to call Romney a donkephant or call him a big spending liberal etc. when there is nothing in his makeup or his successful professional background as a capitalist/entrepreneur/businessman that would suggest such a thing. These people better get on board cause Romney is going to be our next president...count on it.

[The Xl]

http://i.imgur.com/jxUF01M.gif

Go ahead, GOP, nominate Romney again

[Peter1469]

Call be back when he pays a higher percentage of tax then I do

While you focus on percent, Mitt has paid more in taxes than the rest of us ever will.

[Green Arrow]

We're going to hell. We are all going to hell.

[Cigar]

While you focus on percent, Mitt has paid more in taxes than the rest of us ever will.


... and he should

[Peter1469]

... and he should

I think he agrees.

[The Xl]

We're going to hell. We are all going to hell.

What, you're not psyched for Obamas third term, rather, Bushs 5th term?

You must hate freedom or something

[Ransom]

He's also completely out of touch with how 99% of us live

Unlike millionaires or the corporations who poured money into his campaign that ewe then voted for. :rolleyes:

[nic34]

What, you're not psyched for Obamas third term, rather, Bushs 5th term?

You must hate freedom or something


I'm holding out for Gore's first term.

.... or Nadar's....

[donttread]

How about a left meets right Rand Paul/Ralph Nader ticket?

[Peter1469]

How about a left meets right Rand Paul/Ralph Nader ticket?

That would be a change that the establishment would hate.

[Libhater]

That would be a change that the establishment would hate.

And about 100% of the voting population as well.

[The Xl]

And about 100% of the voting population as well.

Speaking of pandering to the population, the GOP must want another Democrat President, huh?

No one wants Mitt Romney, who's basically an older white Obama without any sort of charisma or likeability.

[Matty]

Bull malarkey.

[The Xl]

Bull malarkey.

Except it's not, me, Al, Arrow, and others have all shown, with links, Mitt Romneys big government positions, and regardless of how much you dislike it and ignore it, it won't change that fact.

[Matty]

Except it's not, me, Al, Arrow, and others have all shown, with links, Mitt Romneys big government positions, and regardless of how much you dislike it and ignore it, it won't change that fact.
Bull malarkey again.

[hanger4]

without any sort of charisma or likeability.And there is the problem with low infomation voters.

[Peter1469]

And about 100% of the voting population as well.

That is why America is in decline Libby.

[The Xl]

And there is the problem with low infomation voters.

I'd say nominating the less charismatic doppelganger is also an example of low information voters.

Let's face it, the right likes to throw the low information label at the left all the time, and they're not wrong, but they should look in the mirror. Bushx2, McCain, Romney, maybe twice? Seriously?

Garbage.

[The Xl]

Bull malarkey again.

No, and I'm not going to continue to go in circles on the matter. He's on record as pro gun, pro abortion, he has the same foreign policy as Obama, he's anti civil liberties(Supported Patriot Act, NDAA, etc) they're both pro Israel, pro interventionism, both support Guantanamo, etc, etc.

It is what it is. I get it, you like the guy, but he's a progressive.

[zelmo1234]

Call be back when he pays a higher percentage of tax then I do

He does! so I am calling. now he does not on his investments you know the money that they are taxing twice!

[zelmo1234]

Bull malarkey again.

I see nothing in Romney's record that would lead me to believe that he is not a big government guy. I think that he is a great person and would love to have him for a neighbor and a friend, but I want a true conservative and if the GOP does not nominate one, then I will vote third party

[texan]

... and he should

And he did!

He also gave to charity unlike the two posers in there now.

[texan]

No, and I'm not going to continue to go in circles on the matter. He's on record as pro gun True, pro abortion False, he has the same foreign policy as Obama False he's anti civil liberties (Supported Patriot Act, NDAA, etc True) they're both pro Israel False, pro interventionism Unsure about this, both support Guantanamo true, etc, etc.

It is what it is. I get it, you like the guy, but he's a progressive.

No he isn't a Progressive............But he is a moderate. He is nowhere near Obama on social issues.

[Bob]

I see nothing in Romney's record that would lead me to believe that he is not a big government guy. I think that he is a great person and would love to have him for a neighbor and a friend, but I want a true conservative and if the GOP does not nominate one, then I will vote third party

No third party person has authority to make it a small government.

However, given Romney's skill sets, if anybody can pare down departments and agencies, it is him.

[The Xl]

No he isn't a Progressive............But he is a moderate. He is nowhere near Obama on social issues.

Sure he is. Oh, and every one of your corrections is wrong, by the way.

[Libhater]

Sure he is. Oh, and every one of your corrections is wrong, by the way.

Okay, I didn't read all of your responses here so as not to get a headache, but did I miss it where you listed all of Romney's progressive actions or his advocacy for progressive policy? So as not to come across as having a totally negative attitude, perhaps you could say something nice about someone, or at least tell us who your perfect candidate would be for the presidency. Now I'm talking about someone you know would win the presidency by having all of those personal and presidential traits that may be similar to your own.

[The Xl]

Okay, I didn't read all of your responses here so as not to get a headache, but did I miss it where you listed all of Romney's progressive actions or his advocacy for progressive policy?

He's on record as pro choice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdVRB9x_DAA

He's on record as being pro gun control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzYTdM9b5F4

The guys a fucking fraud, and you guys bought in, and apparently still do, and may as far as 2016 and beyond.

The jokes on you.

[Bob]

He's on record as pro choice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdVRB9x_DAA

He's on record as being pro gun control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzYTdM9b5F4

The guys a fucking fraud, and you guys bought in, and apparently still do, and may as far as 2016 and beyond.

The jokes on you.

Does not matter who you vote for, the sucker won't win.

[Libhater]

He's on record as pro choice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdVRB9x_DAA

He's on record as being pro gun control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzYTdM9b5F4

The guys a fucking fraud, and you guys bought in, and apparently still do, and may as far as 2016 and beyond.

The jokes on you.


Ronald Reagan started off his career as a liberal, then went on to change his political sway to that of a Conservative to become America's greatest 20th century president. So now you point out 2 examples of Romney supporting a leftist point of view some 12+ years ago to where he has now nixed those positions in favor of the Conservative positions, and you have a problem with that? We're talking about the positions Romney holds today as he will show us when he becomes president in '16'. Perhaps you're a bit shy or a bit unprepared to answer my question as to who you would back for president in 2016 and exactly why?

[Green Arrow]

And there is the problem with low infomation voters.

I agree. Low information voters give us Romneys, McCains, Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes.

[nic34]

I agree. Low information voters give us Romneys, McCains, Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes.

Clinton balancing the budget too much for you?

[Green Arrow]

Clinton balancing the budget too much for you?

No, but bombing an aspirin factory was.

[Libhater]

I agree. Low information voters give us Romneys, McCains, Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes.


Since we have the nation's worst, ineffective, inept, feckless president by far currently occupying the White House, and we've lived through the most disastrous, uncertain and unsafe times in modern history these past 6 years thanks to this progressive Marxist bozo---would you not also include the Obama voters as being at east as low a voters as those you just mentioned? You people keep attacking all these Republican candidates on the assumption that they would have been as bad as Obama. You think its time for a wake up call before America votes in another truly progressive Marxist like Obama with the likes of a hilabeast? I'm counting on the xl to give us his perfect choice for president in '16'. What's the matter xl...cat got yer tongue, or did he scratch up yer typing fingers?

[donttread]

I'd say nominating the less charismatic doppelganger is also an example of low information voters.

Let's face it, the right likes to throw the low information label at the left all the time, and they're not wrong, but they should look in the mirror. Bushx2, McCain, Romney, maybe twice? Seriously?

Garbage.

All Donkephant supporters are "low information voters"

[hanger4]

I agree. Low information voters give us Romneys, McCains, Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes.Indeed !!

[hanger4]

Clinton balancing the budget too much for you?Clinton submiteda balanced budget ?? Who knew !!

[The Xl]

Does not matter who you vote for, the sucker won't win.

That hit a nerve, didn't it? Haha.

In any case, even if your guy wins, understand that the sucker is a liberal.

[The Xl]

All Donkephant supporters are "low information voters"

Correct.

[The Xl]

Ronald Reagan started off his career as a liberal, then went on to change his political sway to that of a Conservative to become America's greatest 20th century president. So now you point out 2 examples of Romney supporting a leftist point of view some 12+ years ago to where he has now nixed those positions in favor of the Conservative positions, and you have a problem with that? We're talking about the positions Romney holds today as he will show us when he becomes president in '16'. Perhaps you're a bit shy or a bit unprepared to answer my question as to who you would back for president in 2016 and exactly why?

Romney flipped on some issues to appear conservative. He did so because it was politically favorable.

It'd be no different than if Obama ran on the GOP ticket and lied in the same manner.

[The Xl]

Since we have the nation's worst, ineffective, inept, feckless president by far currently occupying the White House, and we've lived through the most disastrous, uncertain and unsafe times in modern history these past 6 years thanks to this progressive Marxist bozo---would you not also include the Obama voters as being at east as low a voters as those you just mentioned? You people keep attacking all these Republican candidates on the assumption that they would have been as bad as Obama. You think its time for a wake up call before America votes in another truly progressive Marxist like Obama with the likes of a hilabeast? I'm counting on the xl to give us his perfect choice for president in '16'. What's the matter xl...cat got yer tongue, or did he scratch up yer typing fingers?

Truthfully, no one in the public limelight is worth shit. I'd vote for Ron, but he's old and retired. If Gary Johnson ran again, I'd vote for him again.

[Mainecoons]

Clinton balancing the budget too much for you?

No but for you, understanding who actually appropriates the money appears to be too much.

I'll give you a hint in the forlorn hope you might actually look up something and learn from it: The Executive does NOT appropriate the money.

On further consideration with you being a no information Obama supporter, I could understand your confusion about the separation of powers in the Constitution, since that is little used since 2009.

BTW, as you know, I voted for Clinton. For me, the difference between a POTUS that actually knows how to work with his opponents and get results versus the current Golfer In Chief you voted for is pretty jarring.

[Peter1469]

Clinton was much more of a politician than an ideologue. He would sell out for a deal. (http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/22/welfare.sign/) An article from the day he signed welfare reform into law.

[Mainecoons]

True, but I would say that the result was pretty good all the way around. Just contrast the Clinton/Republican Congress results with the Bush/Republican and then the Obama/Democrat disasters.

I'll take Clinton/Republicans in a heartbeat.

[Peter1469]

The measure, hammered out in Congress over the past several months, imposes a five-year limit on benefits, requires able-bodied recipients to go to work after two years, and gives states incentives to create jobs for people on welfare.


Clinton said it's far from perfect legislation, but will go a long way toward overcoming "the flaws of the welfare system for the people who are trapped in it."

[Mainecoons]

Repealed by Obama.

[Peter1469]

Many of the provisions of welfare reform were effectively reversed since the recession started in 2008.

[nic34]

Repealed by Obama.


About that:

Contrary to the hysterics of the Obama opposition, the modification, which allows the Department of HHS to waive certain state requirements under the law, does not make any significant change in the substance of the law. Rather, the modification—which comes in the form of the occasional waiver— is a response to the many states seeking more control over how they administer their welfare program. These states have discovered that the federal requirements are tying up too many welfare workers and resources with cumbersome paperwork, resulting in less time being spent by welfare workers on actually helping those getting assistance find the work they need to keep, and ultimately no longer need, the government aid.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/07/romney-claims-obama-guts-welfare-work-requirements-by-doing-precisely-what-romney-requested-in-2005/


Does Forbes work for ya?

[nic34]

.... seems you all still revel in your Obama Derangement Syndrome even when he does what you want.






Contrary to the hysterics of the Obama opposition, the modification, which allows the Department of HHS to waive certain state requirements under the law, does not make any significant change in the substance of the law. Rather, the modification—which comes in the form of the occasional waiver— is a response to the many states seeking more control over how they administer their welfare program. These states have discovered that the federal requirements are tying up too many welfare workers and resources with cumbersome paperwork, resulting in less time being spent by welfare workers on actually helping those getting assistance find the work they need to keep, and ultimately no longer need, the government aid.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/07/romney-claims-obama-guts-welfare-work-requirements-by-doing-precisely-what-romney-requested-in-2005/


Does Forbes work for ya?

[Mainecoons]

Yup. Does this work for you?


But one rarely mentioned reason was tucked away in the more than 1,000 pages of crony capitalist spending -- a provision ending the work requirement for the food stamp program (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/food-stamps).When the Republican Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/bill-clinton) reformed welfare in 1996, among the many changes was to add a work requirement to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as food stamps....


The number of Americans receiving food stamps has continued to rise, even though the Obama economy is, (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/economy)supposedly, in recovery. In May 2009, less than 36 million Americans were on food stamps, compared to 48 million today.
But Obama was not satisfied with rolling back the work requirement just for the food stamp program. On July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/health-and-human-services) issued an “information memorandum” inviting states to apply for waivers to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
Buried in that memo was a single paragraph functionally gutting the federal welfare system’s overall work requirement.
The old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program also had nominal work requirements. But thanks to pages and pages of loopholes in the statute, any governor could use those loopholes to evade the work requirement.
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act changed all that by vastly simplifying what did, and did not, qualify as “work” for welfare’s work requirement.
It also set strict new work-participation rates for states that, if not met, would lead to reduced federal funding. It was these strict new welfare-to-work requirements that the Left always hated.
Congressional Republicans mistrusted President Clinton on the issue, and they knew future Democratic presidents would try to water down the welfare work requirements.
So they put the definition of “work activities” for determining welfare eligibility in a separate section of the bill, Section 407, and explicitly said that Section 407 could not be waived.
But that is exactly what the Obama welfare memo did. It claimed that Section 1115 of the welfare reform law, a section granting the HHS secretary the power to grant waivers for state “demonstration projects,” also empowered waiving Section 407.
Notably absent from Section 1115's list of sections of the welfare reform law that the HHS secretary may waive is Section 407.
Once Section 407 was killed, states were free to redefine “work” under the welfare law. In the past, states have successfully labeled such activities as “personal journaling,” “motivational reading” and “weightless promotion” as “work,” thus allowing them to receive full federal funding without actually getting anyone off welfare and into a job. If the Obama welfare memo stands, the 1996 welfare reform law will have been repealed by executive fiat.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/day-8-obama-edict-repealed-1996-welfare-reforms-work-requirement/article/2536341

Note the date of this versus yours, after the effective repeal by Executive Order had been around a while.

Perhaps you missed the part about welfare reform in the first place, that while most of the money was coming from the Feds, there were a lot of liberal states abusing the program and allowing permanent welfare, hence Clinton AND the Republicans enforced more responsibility in the use of Federal dollars for welfare.

Which Obama repealed under the guise of the Porkulus.

http://www.ask-kalena.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/shooting-fish.jpg

[Green Arrow]

Since we have the nation's worst, ineffective, inept, feckless president by far currently occupying the White House, and we've lived through the most disastrous, uncertain and unsafe times in modern history these past 6 years thanks to this progressive Marxist bozo---would you not also include the Obama voters as being at east as low a voters as those you just mentioned? You people keep attacking all these Republican candidates on the assumption that they would have been as bad as Obama. You think its time for a wake up call before America votes in another truly progressive Marxist like Obama with the likes of a hilabeast? I'm counting on the xl to give us his perfect choice for president in '16'. What's the matter xl...cat got yer tongue, or did he scratch up yer typing fingers?

If you read the post you quoted, you'll find Obama and both Bill and Hillary mentioned.

[Codename Section]

http://socialmediaseo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/binders-full-of-women.jpg (http://socialmediaseo.net/2012/10/16/binders-full-women-trending-twitter-romney-binder-comment/)

Americans may not be through with Mitt Romney after all. The two-time Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly stressed over the past year that he is not interested in a third shot at the White House.

But an Iowa poll released Wednesday suggests that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who lost to President Barack Obama in 2012, would be the party’s odds-on favorite if he threw his hat in the ring for 2016.


The survey of Iowa Republican voters conducted by Suffolk University and USA Today showed that if Romney was added to the pool of potential 2016 Republican contenders, 35 percent of respondents would place him first in the Iowa caucuses, the political contest that kicks off the primary calendar.

Arkansas ex-governor Mike Huckabee came in a distant second, at just nine percent, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie trailing at 6.5 percent and former senator Rick Santorum at six percent. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each earned five percent, while the remaining field was in the low single digits.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/28/romney-for-us-president-in-2016-iowa-poll-puts-him-on-top/


I hope Republicans like Hillary as president then...

[The Xl]

I hope Republicans like Hillary as president then...

They should. She's a big government hawk, right up their alley.

[Bob]

I hope Republicans like Hillary as president then...

You announcing your support for Hillary?

[GrassrootsConservative]

We're going to hell. We are all going to hell.

:huh: I guess, if you believe in that bullshit.

[zelmo1234]

No third party person has authority to make it a small government.

However, given Romney's skill sets, if anybody can pare down departments and agencies, it is him.

He does not have a record of cutting government, he does have a record of dramatically expanding it.

I will not vote for a government solutions guy. Sorry if the GOP wants a moderate then we will likely have President Hilary, and I am OK with this, if we are going to hit the wall lets do it at 100 mph

[zelmo1234]

Clinton balancing the budget too much for you?

Must be that 1997 tax cut worked

[nic34]

“Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”

― Harry S. Truman

[PolWatch]

no wonder they called him 'give 'em H**l Harry'!!!

[Green Arrow]

:huh: I guess, if you believe in that bullshit.

It's a figure of speech. Notice "hell" isn't capitalized.