Michelle Obama makes a great point in her speech

[KoachKrab127]

When she said, "When you walk through the door of opportunity, don't slam it shut behind you. Keep it open so others can succeed just like you." (I'm paraphrasing).

The reason this statement is powerful is because Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney benefited from government programs that they now want to cut.

Paul Ryan received social security after his dad died. It helped him get to where he is today. Now what does he want to do? Cut it.

Romney's family was on welfare when they first came to the U.S. and what does he want to do now? Cut it.

So, what these potential leaders are saying is that it's okay for THEM to receive government benefits, but not okay for others.

It's hypocrisy 101, and it's amazing to me that people who have benefited from these type of programs can't see how it can also help others become prosperous.

 

[MG1968]

how did a survivor benefit of less than $300 get Paul Ryan where he is today?

provide a link for Romney's family getting welfare (remember, the Great Society of LBJ started in the early 60's)

 

[KoachKrab127]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DgB3WASwXA

Mitt Romney's mother talking about George Romney being on "welfare relief" and being protected by the U.S. after moving from Mexico.

 

[golfballs]

By the same token, Obama obviously succeeded. If he can do it, anyone can.

 

[theFallGuy]

When she said, "When you walk through the door of opportunity, don't slam it shut behind you. Keep it open so others can succeed just like you." (I'm paraphrasing).

The reason this statement is powerful is because Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney benefited from government programs that they now want to cut.

Paul Ryan received social security after his dad died. It helped him get to where he is today. Now what does he want to do? Cut it.

Romney's family was on welfare when they first came to the U.S. and what does he want to do now? Cut it.

So, what these potential leaders are saying is that it's okay for THEM to receive government benefits, but not okay for others.

It's hypocrisy 101, and it's amazing to me that people who have benefited from these type of programs can't see how it can also help others become prosperous.

lol:

 

[volfan6782]

Romneys family was not on welfare. They came to the US in 1913, the first welfare legislation wasn't until the 1930's. By that time his father George was working as a lobbyist in Washington.

 

[Gramps]

how did a survivor benefit of less than $300 get Paul Ryan where he is today?

provide a link for Romney's family getting welfare (remember, the Great Society of LBJ started in the early 60's)

Ryans dad passed away when Paul was 16.
Paul received social security survivor benefits until he was 18.

How anyone can relate less than 2 years of SS as helping Paul get to where he is today is..... very imaginative.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Getting dizzy from all the to the left spinning go on.

 

[theFallGuy]

dude is reading too much Democratic Underground, the only place I could even find a link to this video

Mitt Romney's Dad was on Welfare - Democratic Underground

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

• That Obama has helped create 4.5 million new jobs to spur the economy (even though the reality is there has been a NET LOSS of jobs since he took office)
  
• Or that “He brought our economy from the brink of collapse" by creating "jobs you can raise a family on" (though the majority of those jobs actually pay low wages).

 

[Weezy]

It's absolutely killing me right now how Dems act like the Repubs just want to get rid of everything. You can cut and not eliminate. Right now we are running trillion dollar deficits. It's ok to scale back, and actually necessary.

 

[KoachKrab127]

dude is reading too much Democratic Underground, the only place I could even find a link to this video

Mitt Romney's Dad was on Welfare - Democratic Underground

I've never been to democratic underground.

Even if that is where I found the video, why does that matter? The truth is the truth, no matter where you found it.

And to those of you saying, "HE WAS NEVER ON WELFARE! WELFARE DIDN'T START UNTIL 1930!"

The fact is, he got federal funds from the government and it helped him build his business. Maybe it wasn't called welfare back then, (I don't know, I'm not a great historian) but he did receive federal aid...isn't that what welfare is?

So, those of you defending George Romney saying he wasn't "officially" on welfare...is it just that you have a problem with the word "welfare?" If we passed legislation to change the word would you then support it?

 

[KoachKrab127]

It's absolutely killing me right now how Dems act like the Repubs just want to get rid of everything. You can cut and not eliminate. Right now we are running trillion dollar deficits. It's ok to scale back, and actually necessary.

Where did I say eliminate?

It's ridiculous to cut back on social security considering as of 2009, it created a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus.

Yes, we have a huge deficit right now, but that deficit was caused because of the Iraq war and tax cuts to the rich.

Republicans say the solution is: more war (Iran), more tax cuts to the rich, and cutting social security and welfare.

I don't understand that logic at all. Give to the rich, take from the poor, spend more money on senseless wars, and our economy will be better? It's ridiculous.

And the reason they spew this nonsense is because the companies that bribe them...excuse me..."donate to their campaign" want the tax cuts and want more military spending (private contractors, Halliburton, etc).

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Love the words truth is truth. In politics people tell the truth all the time but just the parts of it they want to. Most of the time the whole truth is left out. And that is all politicians by the way. It's the Dem's turn to act holier than thou with the convention.

 

[volinbham]

When she said, "When you walk through the door of opportunity, don't slam it shut behind you. Keep it open so others can succeed just like you." (I'm paraphrasing).

The reason this statement is powerful is because Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney benefited from government programs that they now want to cut.

Paul Ryan received social security after his dad died. It helped him get to where he is today. Now what does he want to do? Cut it.

Romney's family was on welfare when they first came to the U.S. and what does he want to do now? Cut it.

So, what these potential leaders are saying is that it's okay for THEM to receive government benefits, but not okay for others.

It's hypocrisy 101, and it's amazing to me that people who have benefited from these type of programs can't see how it can also help others become prosperous.

so much exaggeration and hyperbole in this post hard to know where to start.

 

[PaulieWalnuts]

Wait are people arguing that $300 a month for 2 years didn't help Ryan at all? I mean, sure, his success isn't built on that money or anything, but I guarantee it helped him at that time.

Be reasonable.

 

[volfan6782]

Wait are people arguing that $300 a month for 2 years didn't help Ryan at all? I mean, sure, his success isn't built on that money or anything, but I guarantee it helped him at that time.

Be reasonable.

The original argument by krab was that the money got him where he is today. It helped him but it did not get him where he is today.

 

[PaulieWalnuts]

The original argument by krab was that the money got him where he is today. It helped him but it did not get him where he is today.

Not knowing(or caring) of his financial situation at that time it is hard to say. Could he have made it through High School without that money?

 

[volfan6782]

Not knowing(or caring) of his financial situation at that time it is hard to say. Could he have made it through High School without that money?

Apparently he could have, he saved the money from the benefits to pay for his college education.

 

[volinbham]

Let's be honest here. 1) the GOP is proposing mostly cuts to the growth of these programs. Where there are real cuts they are modest. 2) these programs have ballooned massively since the time Ryan or others may have received some benefit - even a slight reduction in the programs would see them reaching a much larger proportion of the population than they did in the past. 3) the OP and Obama speech indicate no limit on how big these programs should be. 4) Even with the massive growth and expansion in these programs, the poverty rate has remained relatively stable - the argument that they are all a "hand up" is simply not supported by the facts.

5) Most importantly - it's absolutely disingenuous to claim that suggested cuts to growth or modest cuts are some sort of mean-spirited hypocrisy. It's such a played out and sophomoric political tactic and it lacks substance.

 

[dreVol]

apparently the aggressive fact checkers that worked in overdrive during the RNC have gone on vacation during the DNC.

color me surprised

 

[n_huffhines]

When she said, "When you walk through the door of opportunity, don't slam it shut behind you. Keep it open so others can succeed just like you." (I'm paraphrasing).

The reason this statement is powerful is because Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney benefited from government programs that they now want to cut.

Paul Ryan received social security after his dad died. It helped him get to where he is today. Now what does he want to do? Cut it.

Romney's family was on welfare when they first came to the U.S. and what does he want to do now? Cut it.

So, what these potential leaders are saying is that it's okay for THEM to receive government benefits, but not okay for others.

It's hypocrisy 101, and it's amazing to me that people who have benefited from these type of programs can't see how it can also help others become prosperous.

Some people believe it's up to the community, and they do more than their part, while opposing social security. It's not hypocritical. It's more compassionate than just lazily leaving it up to wasteful government. Social Security has made net gains on Paul Ryan, I'm willing to bet.

 

[theFallGuy]

I've never been to democratic underground.

Even if that is where I found the video, why does that matter? The truth is the truth, no matter where you found it.

And to those of you saying, "HE WAS NEVER ON WELFARE! WELFARE DIDN'T START UNTIL 1930!"

The fact is, he got federal funds from the government and it helped him build his business. Maybe it wasn't called welfare back then, (I don't know, I'm not a great historian) but he did receive federal aid...isn't that what welfare is?

So, those of you defending George Romney saying he wasn't "officially" on welfare...is it just that you have a problem with the word "welfare?" If we passed legislation to change the word would you then support it?

So what is your point? Let's just hypothetically say everything you just said is true.

Romney and Ryan don't have the right to suggest that welfare needs major reform? Despite the fact that we are doling out millions of tax payer dollars all the while running of trillions of dollars in a deficit? Nevermind the country is going bankrupt, at least people will have EBT cards to buy their free cigarettes and alcohol.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Where did I say eliminate?

It's ridiculous to cut back on social security considering as of 2009, it created a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus.

Yes, we have a huge deficit right now, but that deficit was caused because of the Iraq war and tax cuts to the rich.

Republicans say the solution is: more war (Iran), more tax cuts to the rich, and cutting social security and welfare.

I don't understand that logic at all. Give to the rich, take from the poor, spend more money on senseless wars, and our economy will be better? It's ridiculous.

And the reason they spew this nonsense is because the companies that bribe them...excuse me..."donate to their campaign" want the tax cuts and want more military spending (private contractors, Halliburton, etc).

My only comments are to wait until you are forty and you have tried to get your kids through college because obviously you don't get out much. Or maybe wait until you are 16 to post as your single sentence/single line posts are kinda weird.

 

[PaulieWalnuts]

Let's be honest here. 1) the GOP is proposing mostly cuts to the growth of these programs. Where there are real cuts they are modest. 2) these programs have ballooned massively since the time Ryan or others may have received some benefit - even a slight reduction in the programs would see them reaching a much larger proportion of the population than they did in the past. 3) the OP and Obama speech indicate no limit on how big these programs should be. 4) Even with the massive growth and expansion in these programs, the poverty rate has remained relatively stable - the argument that they are all a "hand up" is simply not supported by the facts.

5) Most importantly - it's absolutely disingenuous to claim that suggested cuts to growth or modest cuts are some sort of mean-spirited hypocrisy. It's such a played out and sophomoric political tactic and it lacks substance.

I just think it's kind of funny that Republicans are always talking about Democrats depending on the Gov't teet, all the while their candidates and/or their families did themselves.

Ironic is probably a better word than hypocrite in this situation.