Mitt Romney says stay at home moms "lack the dignity of work."

[steronz]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Nhis whole point is that there's dignity in getting that government assistance in exchange for doing outside-the-home work.

Once again, Mitt had every opportunity to say that he wanted to give women the dignity of "working outside the home in exchange for the their government assistance." Unfortunately for him, "work" came out instead.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by steronz

Once again, Mitt had every opportunity to say that he wanted to give women the dignity of "working outside the home in exchange for the their government assistance." Unfortunately for him, "work" came out instead.

::shrugs:: Okay, I can get behind that. Mitt phrases a lot of things awkwardly. Remember how he likes the fact that he can fire people to explain how great it is that he can switch from one insurance company to another? I figure he'll so explain this comment when asked, in the debates.

[Beware of Doug]

The guy is a corporatist to the last. I can believe that when he talks about how everybody should work, he really means everybody should have a boss. His wife qualifies, because he's her boss.

[Buck Godot]

NM

[Dangerosa]

So it's only dignified work if the government doesn't pay you to do it....my cousin the Marine might be interested in that.

The problem here is the sham/wohm semantic argument on work, blown out of context, As it almost always is. Anyone who has had children knows parenting is work. So is working a job. So is investment banking, planting a garden, fighting ms, baking bread, getting elected president, and finding inner peace. And the vast majority of us juggle many, many types of work at one time. But commonly, when we say work we mean go to a paying job.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

So it's only dignified work if the government doesn't pay you to do it....my cousin the Marine might be interested in that.

As has been made clear, it's dignified work if you're doing it in exchange for the pay. I certainly felt that way when doing dignified work in the armed forces; I didn't request a check in exchange for simply continuing on like I had as a private citizen, but because I was obeying lawful orders from superior officers.

If a private citizen mops his own floor, that's dignified work. If he joins the Navy and draws a paycheck for swabbing decks, that's also dignified work. If he requests that paycheck without actually joining up, instead merely continuing to mop his own floor, he doesn't really understand the principle of the thing.

The problem here is the sham/wohm semantic argument on work, blown out of context, As it almost always is. Anyone who has had children knows parenting is work. So is working a job. So is investment banking, planting a garden, fighting ms, baking bread, getting elected president, and finding inner peace. And the vast majority of us juggle many, many types of work at one time.

If you bake bread for yourself, that's dignified. If you bake for other folks, that's also dignified. If you request my money while simply and only baking the bread for yourself and your family, you're doing it wrong.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

So it's only dignified work if the government doesn't pay you to do it....my cousin the Marine might be interested in that.

I'm not going to dignify that remark with an answer.

The problem here is the sham/wohm semantic argument on work, blown out of context, As it almost always is. Anyone who has had children knows parenting is work. So is working a job. So is investment banking, planting a garden, fighting ms, baking bread, getting elected president, and finding inner peace. And the vast majority of us juggle many, many types of work at one time. But commonly, when we say work we mean go to a paying job.

He should have said "supporting one's family" rather than "work". However, my outrage meter is stuck on zero here. The only reason it registered a tick on the Rosen thing was how anyone involved in politics, especially a woman, could be stupid enough to say what she said.

[Voyager]

Anyone who has been a work inside the home parent or who is married to one knows what inspired the outrage. Stay at home parents are sensitive to those who think they are taking it easy. I don't know how much help Ann Romney got, but she at least didn't ever have to worry about where the next dollar was coming, or had to give up anything as a result of their decision, as we did and I suspect Mr. Moto did too. (However they apparently gave up having a car big enough to put their dog in on family trips to Canada.)
I wonder how successful Romney would be in getting an "entitlement" for day care through a Republican congress. I also wonder where all these jobs they are supposed to be getting come from. Maybe they are supposed to trickle down from another tax cut for the rich? A WPA type program with day care support would not be a bad idea, but I don't think I'll expect to see it in the Republican platform any time soon.
it is so typically Republican to be against women having children they can't support but also be against easy to get birth control and abortion services, to demand that they get job but be against job programs.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

The only reason it registered a tick on the Rosen thing was how anyone involved in politics, especially a woman, could be stupid enough to say what she said.

Engaged in politics, yes. However our experience has been almost everyone who said snotty things about stay at home or work in the home mothers are women who work outside the home. At this point most men know better.

[brujaja]

I just want to put my two cents in. (BTW, I am always so impressed with rational, ..err .. dignified discourse. Nice going, everyone.)

Eighteen years ago, I found myself very poor, with a new baby and a partner who had just left me for a wealthy woman, for obvious reasons. I had resisted the idea of motherhood at first; but at three months, I decided I wanted my baby very much, and by the time he was born, he was a long-awaited and very welcome little man.

My mother stayed at home with myself and my two brothers. Although my economic situation was very different from hers, I had already had a few abortions, I was thirty years old, and I just really wanted the opportunity to share my love with a little one. Also, I wanted the chance to raise a child my way, to see if I could transcend the dysfunctions of my own upbringing. (yes, it worked very well in fact.) My son was and is my only child.

So, I was a "welfare mother." I have many skills, and had worked for years before my pregnancy. I could have found a job, I suppose.

But here's the thing: Even the very best daycare is still other people raising your child, spending many hours with them nearly every day. No matter how much you like and respect your caregiver, they are not you. Now, I spent five years (much later) being a nanny for a dear friend's daughter, and I know that not everyone feels this way, and that's perfectly okay.

But, I was damned if I was going to miss the amazement, delight, joy and sorrow of watching my baby grow. I was not going to leave his early education up to anyone else's curriculum. Believe me, I did not make this decision in a cavalier way: "Oh, the government will pay for everything, I can just sit on my butt!" (Ha ha, I don't drive -- I walked everywhere with that stroller, miles and miles. No butt-sitting, evar!)

And, one more thing. (I have probably already told this story here, somewhere) On his first day of kindergarten, the teacher asked the kids to name things starting with the letter "H." The teacher told me later that the other kids said things like "horsie" and "hula hoop." My son said, "hologram."


Oh, one more point, I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it: if you get TANF, (formerly AFDC), when you do eventually begin working again, you have to pay it back.

Your argument is invalid.

[John Mace]

What about child support from the father?

At any rate, that's a real good argument that welfare encourages poor people to have children they can't afford. I'm sure your kid is wonderful, but I'm not won over by the argument that I have to pay for other people's deliberate choices to reproduce when they know they can't afford it.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by brujaja

Oh, one more point, I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it: if you get TANF, (formerly AFDC), when you do eventually begin working again, you have to pay it back.

Cite? That would go a long way to convincing me to change my position.

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by steronz

Once again, Mitt had every opportunity to say that he wanted to give women the dignity of "working outside the home in exchange for the their government assistance." Unfortunately for him, "work" came out instead.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

::shrugs:: Okay, I can get behind that. Mitt phrases a lot of things awkwardly. Remember how he likes the fact that he can fire people to explain how great it is that he can switch from one insurance company to another? I figure he'll so explain this comment when asked, in the debates.

Finally, you get the point of what the entire thread has been about.

So, if Romney can have a chance to explain and clarify his comment, can Rosen? After all, she said more than just "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life." She continued, "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future." The crux of her statement was not that Ann Romney was lazy, but that as Mitt's touchstone on the opinions of "the American Woman," she was out of touch with the issues facing most actual American women.

[brujaja]

John Mace: My good sir, remember that we also have to pay for other peoples' deliberate choice to get old and need Medicare; and other peoples' deliberate choice to bomb the f**k out of Baghdad. I'm sure your war is wonderful, but I'm not won over by the argument that I have to pay for it.

[brujaja]

I'll go look for a cite. Besides my own direct personal experience, I mean. BRB

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

So, if Romney can have a chance to explain and clarify his comment, can Rosen?

Didn't she do that already? I'm looking at today's newspaper, and Rosen is already quoted as explaining and clarifying that "Nothing in Ann Romney's history -- hardworking mom she may have been -- leads me to believe that Mitt has chosen the right expert to get feedback on this problem he professes to be so concerned about." I thought she already had the chance, and already took it.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by brujaja

John Mace: My good sir, remember that we also have to pay for other peoples' deliberate choice to get old and need Medicare; and other peoples' deliberate choice to bomb the f**k out of Baghdad. I'm sure your war is wonderful, but I'm not won over by the argument that I have to pay for it.

Those are really stupid arguments.

No one chooses to get old.

Our duly elected Congress voted, against my wishes, to bomb the shit out of Iraq.

I want to have a baby, and I want to raise it even though I can't afford to, so other people are just going to have to pony up for the expense is a walking advertisement for welfare reform.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'm not going to dignify that remark with an answer.



He should have said "supporting one's family" rather than "work". However, my outrage meter is stuck on zero here. The only reason it registered a tick on the Rosen thing was how anyone involved in politics, especially a woman, could be stupid enough to say what she said.

Didn't really expect it

I say "work" to mean paid work all the time. And, yeah, she probably should have known bett, or at least how to quickly dig herself out of that hole when it was jumped on, but it's a stupid thing to jump on. In my experience, it's womn looking to b offended that jump on that one.

[Elendil's Heir]

Aaaaaaand thus did Romney squander whatever slight goodwill or tactical advantage he and his wife might've earned after Hillary Rosen's boneheaded remarks.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I want to have a baby, and I want to raise it even though I can't afford to, so other people are just going to have to pony up for the expense is a walking advertisement for welfare reform.

HOW DARE YOU SIR!!!

She clearly said that she walked with her infant son in a stroller for literally "miles and miles" AND taught him the word "hologram" by the tender age of 5.

To my way of thinking, she should receive a Federal $80,000 yearly cash stipend for the rest of her life after showing such devoted child rearing.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

There's no indignity in asking for help, so long as you're prepared to do reasonable work in exchange for it.

Romney is perfectly happy to pay for child rearing - of his own children. Part of the social contract is realising that not everyone has a millionaire partner.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Those are really stupid arguments.


I want to have a baby, and I want to raise it even though I can't afford to, so other people are just going to have to pony up for the expense is a walking advertisement for welfare reform.

And talking about stupid arguments. First, do you really think anyone makes money having a baby on welfare? Second, if you had bothered to read her post and not answered out of outrage, you'd have noticed that she was in a relationship, and not on welfare. Too bad she didn't see the future.
Why do I think suing someone in a relationship with a rich woman for child support is not going to work well?
Shit happens. Having kids within a marriage is no guarantee that shit won't happen. Might be nice, but that horse is out of the barn already. Given that shit happens, why make kids pay?

[yahoogle]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the difference the supposed "dignity" makes. What ya'll are talking about seems to me to be views pushed upon the mother by the people she is asking money from, not from herself. I'm not going to feel worthless for asking someone for money for nothing in return; it's only when you point out to me that it is undignified do I actually start to feel bad. Although I wouldn't feel a lack of dignity, more like embarrassment or something. A person must be fairly self-conscious to label herself as "completely undignified" for asking for money, which is something everyone does now and then and, provided it is not unreasonable, they usually get.
Also, what dignity is there in working and still not being able to pay? What sort of dignity is found in work that you don't have before starting to find a first job? Are teens and children all undignified because they've never had jobs?

[yahoogle]

Originally Posted by Voyager

I also wonder where all these jobs they are supposed to be getting come from. Maybe they are supposed to trickle down from another tax cut for the rich?

I wondered that too. Maybe thay can work in all the new/expanded daycares soon to be opening up


Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to post twice in a row! I'm still getting the hang of this website, so bear with me please

[BigT]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

As has been made clear, it's dignified work if you're doing it in exchange for the pay.

Which means the mothers who get paid by the government are doing dignified work because the state is paying them to raise their children, which you've previously agreed is work.

There is no way for both Romney's wife, who is paid by her husband (your words) to raise their kids, and government employee, who are paid by the government, to be doing dignified work, unless the above paragraph is true. It's basic logic. if A + B =Z and A + C = Z, then B + C = Z.

And you're right, yahoogle. This whole dignity thing is completely stupid. It is either an emotion, which means different people feel it with different stimulus or a way to shame other people.

There is no actual reason that being "on the dole" is undignified. The dole exists for a reason, and people who need it use it. The only people who deserve to be shamed by the "undignified" label are those who use it when they don't need it.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by BigT

if A + B =Z and A + C = Z, then B + C = Z.

Well, if A is 6 and B/C are 4, then B+C is 8. If A=B=C and A+B = Z and A+C = Z, then B+C = Z. It's a nitpick, I agree with the sentiment.

[tumbleddown]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

Republicans are less concerned that everyone have dignified work to do, and more concerned that everyone generate value in the marketplace.

Exactly, and if you're not generating value in the marketplace, then you'd best have a surrogate -- a spouse or a parent -- doing so for you.

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

And the vast majority of us juggle many, many types of work at one time. But commonly, when we say work we mean go to a paying job.

"Job" or "paying work" is what Romney should've said. Of course, he made the "dignity" comment in January, long before this ever came up. But somewhere it should've connected, if not in his robotic mind, in the allegedly politically savvy minds of his many campaign staffers, that with statements like the dignity and "we'll pay extra for daycare" thing floating out there, using his wife as a constant surrogate for all women's concerns, not being able to take a position on the Lilly Ledbetter Act, treating reproductive healthcare as a means of scoring political points and further viewing women as an annoying special interest group rather than the majority of the electorate was going to come back to bite him in the ass. He should've handled his "women's issues" talking points a hell of a lot better. But he doesn't actually have a concrete position here, so this was the best he could manage: missteps, ugly comments and then money-raising on the back of a fake "insult" controversy.

Originally Posted by yahoogle

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the difference the supposed "dignity" makes.

DING DING DING. This is the key of it all. Whether Mitt Romney or the right wingers on this board like it, dignity is not accorded by other people, it is, by definition, behaving in a manner that indicates self-respect. Not Republicans' respect, not the neighbors' respect, self-respect.

And if you want to sit outside of a situation and police the circumstances in which other people may respect themselves and the choices they've made for themselves and their family from their awareness of their own needs, I strongly suggest that you need consider a hobby.

We also need to consider this: there is not a single state in this country where TANF benefits take you any further than half the way to the federal poverty line. The average monthly benefit for a family of 3 in 2010 was $428. No one, not a single person anywhere, is being "enriched" in any way by "choosing" to stay at home with their preschool aged children and collect that whopping $107 a week. That's a canard.

The average childcare subsidy, btw, is $625. We could do a lot of good giving that extra $200 to the families, but that would somehow be wrong. Caring for a child 180 hours a month outside of their home is worth $3.47 an hour, but caring for a child 24 hours a day at home is worth $0.64 an hour, and that's given so desperately begrudgingly you'd think parents on welfare were stabbing elderly nuns in the dead of night.

We're still spending about $1,000 a second on wars, but god forbid we give a family $500 a month to pay rent, keep the lights and heat on and clothes on their children's backs. That wouldn't be "dignified."

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Do you get the feeling Romney not only doesn't get it, but he doesn't get it that there is something to get here?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Romney is perfectly happy to pay for child rearing - of his own children.

Yes. Exactly. He's perfectly willing to pay for child rearing - of his own children. And I, too, am perfectly willing to pay for stuff - for me and mine. And various employers pay folks who work for them, which is why I have money and why Mitt Romney has money; my employer doesn't pay the guys at the ice-cream parlor or the car dealership or the pet store across town; he pays the guys who work for him.

If someone isn't doing work for an employer, I don't expect that employer to pay them. I certainly don't want to pay Ann Romney for raising Mitt's kids; she's not doing a thing for me and mine. I don't expect Mitt Romney to pay me a nickel, either; I'm not working for him.

My employer pays me because I work for him. Should my employer pay you as well, even though you're not working for him? If you're raising your kids -- not raising Mitt Romney's kids, not raising my kids, and not working for an employer either -- then go ahead and ask me or Mitt or my employer for money; all of us love handing over money, with strings. I hand money to the guy who cuts my hair. I hand money to the guy who fixes my car. I don't hand money to the guy who cuts your hair or fixes your car; those guys work for you, they can dignifiedly ask you for money, but they're no different than a panhandler if they ask me for a buck.

Part of the social contract is realising that not everyone has a millionaire partner.

Please elaborate. What else do you think I owe you?

Originally Posted by yahoogle

Which means the mothers who get paid by the government are doing dignified work because the state is paying them to raise their children, which you've previously agreed is work.

Sure it's work. If I repair my own car, that's also work; I don't agree that you should pay me for it, or that the government should pay me for it -- and asking either of you to pay for it would strike me as undignified panhandling -- but it's work. If I cut someone's hair or paint their house, that's work too; it's not work you should pay for, it's not work the government should pay for, but it's work; I can, with dignity, ask the recipient of the haircut or the owner of the house for pay -- but it'd be undignified to ask you for pay, since it's not your hair or your house.

If you fix my car or raise my kids, I should pay you; if you fix Mitt Romney's car or raise his kids, he should pay you; fixing your own car is like raising your own kids, in that (a) it's work, but (b) you're not working for me, and yet for some reason want me to pay you. You want me to pay you? It's not enough that you happen to be doing work; I don't deny that barbers and painters and repairmen are doing work, but I don't especially wish to pay 'em unless they're working for me.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by tumbleddown

And if you want to sit outside of a situation and police the circumstances in which other people may respect themselves and the choices they've made for themselves and their family from their awareness of their own needs, I strongly suggest that you need consider a hobby.

I won't so police until and unless you're asking for my money; at that point, your choices become decidedly more than my hobby.

[steronz]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Yes. Exactly. He's perfectly willing to pay for child rearing - of his own children.

And Mitt is perfectly willing to pay for child rearing of other people's children, using taxpayer money, as long as they're making minimum wage and spending a shitload on daycare.

You're arguing a position (single mothers shouldn't get government handouts) that Romney himself doesn't hold. He wants to give taxpayer money to single mothers. He just wants to do it in a manner that gives them some condescending definition of "dignity," even if it means costing the state MORE.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by tumbleddown

Exactly, and if you're not generating value in the marketplace, then you'd best have a surrogate -- a spouse or a parent -- doing so for you.

"Job" or "paying work" is what Romney should've said. Of course, he made the "dignity" comment in January, long before this ever came up

As should have Ms Rosen, or anyone who has ever stepped in it by saying to a stay at home mom, "Don't you work?". Romney seems to have stepped in it bigger than Rosen, who didn't manage to extract herself gracefully, by implying there wasn't dignity in being a SAHM - what he meant to imply was that there was dignity in supporting yourself and your family, but it does open up the "most women don't get an easy choice - SAHMing is financially tough, even for most married women, WOHMing means you aren't there for every moment and need of your child."

Recently we had a thread over on "what percent are you.". And two incomes makes a big difference on having an above median household income for the non-Romney and friends portion of the population. There is a definite tone deafness regarding class, even the middle class, much less the woman feeding kids on foodstamps.

And his wife didn't do him any favors being overheard saying that Rosen's comment was a gift. Too many women on both sides have been hurt in this argument by the intentional offenderatti. I think most of us have lost patience with that drama queen behavior, on both sides.

[John Mace]

I think it's time we, like the rest of the country, move on to the next "outrage of the week". This story's "use by" date has expired.

And I mean the whole Rosen thing, not this byproduct.

Hasn't anyone said something new and stupid yet?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by steronz

You're arguing a position (single mothers shouldn't get government handouts) that Romney himself doesn't hold.

But that's not the position I'm arguing; I'm arguing that, if they want government pay, they should do some work outside the home. As far as I can tell, that happens to be the exact position Romney holds, as per the OP. Are you quite sure your post is based on my actual position?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

I certainly don't want to pay Ann Romney for raising Mitt's kids; she's not doing a thing for me and mine.

She's paying some form of tax, presumably.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

What else do you think I owe you?

As a citizen of the US: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

I'm arguing that, if they want government pay, they should do some work outside the home.

Why?

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

I won't so police until and unless you're asking for my money; at that point, your choices become decidedly more than my hobby.

Even after reading this sentence three times, I still can't figure it out.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

She's paying some form of tax, presumably.

Good catch. I apparently should have repeated the wording from that part before the semicolon; she's not doing a thing for me and mine by raising Mitt's kids. She's like someone who paints Mitt's house or fixes his car: she's doing work that he's presumably willing to pay for, but that I'm not especially keen on paying for. If she wants to raise my kids (or paint my house, or fix my car) then I'll gladly pay her.

What else do you think I owe you?
As a citizen of the US: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No problem. You don't also want a dime, or a dollar? You're okay in my book.

Why?

Because as long as they're solely doing work inside the home, they're benefiting their own little closed system -- by helping their kids rather than mine.

Again, imagine someone is simply building himself a big fine house he can't afford: he keeps doing carpentry and bricklaying and other stuff that's inarguably work, but he's not doing it for me or for you -- and yet he keeps asking you and me for money? I don't know about you, but if someone asks for me for pay -- well, ideally I'd like to pay him in exchange for doing work for me and mine instead of for him and his -- but, big-hearted guy that I am, I'll meet the other guy halfway by asking him to just do some kind of work outside his home: maybe for me, maybe for you, maybe for someone else altogether, but, c'mon, man, I'm willing to compromise and this guy keeps benefiting him and his while asking for no-strings-attached cash? If he won't meet me in the middle then why should I compromise at all?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Even after reading this sentence three times, I still can't figure it out.

Did you read the post it was in response to? Tumbleddown wrote the following:

And if you want to sit outside of a situation and police the circumstances in which other people may respect themselves and the choices they've made for themselves and their family from their awareness of their own needs, I strongly suggest that you need consider a hobby.

Read that three times. My response is that I only want to "police the circumstances" of folks if they're requesting my money. My response is that I should have no say when it comes to "the choices they've made for themselves" until and unless they come for my money. I want that say in how my money is spent, and tumbleddown says my desire to do so is -- something I should swap out for a hobby.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Did you read the post it was in response to? Tumbleddown wrote the following:



Read that three times. My response is that I only want to "police the circumstances" of folks if they're requesting my money. My response is that I should have no say when it comes to "the choices they've made for themselves" until and unless they come for my money. I want that say in how my money is spent, and tumbleddown says my desire to do so is -- something I should swap out for a hobby.

It's not your money. When the government taxes it, it is the government's money. You get a vote, just one, to tell the government how to spend it. Other than that, you are simply shouting at the clouds.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

It's not your money. When the government taxes it, it is the government's money. You get a vote, just one, to tell the government how to spend it.

And so I'm mentioning how I'd vote, sure as Romney is staking out his position in the OP's quote; you also get a vote, just one, and can -- right here -- just as easily mention how you'd vote. So?

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Well, the TANF program replaced AFDC, which had far fewer requirements for recipients.

Right?

Mr. Moto likes to see women suffer.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

No. She was the kind of person who responsibly lived within her means, raising a number of children she could afford without asking the government for a handout. She wasn't the kind of person who says "I'm raising more kids than I can afford, irresponsibly living beyond my means; I therefore request -- nay, demand -- a handout from the government, with no strings attached."



His wife deserved the exact same amount of government pay as the welfare mom; the dignity varies not with the work, but with the no-strings handout. If you want government pay, then -- for the sake of dignity -- get a paying job; if you don't want government pay, then dignity isn't at issue to begin with.

Romney did not address this issue at all, he made no such stipulations, this is just your hand-waving to make it seem respectable. No sale.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

by helping their kids rather than mine

Except they're saving you money by not utilising daycare which would end up being more expensive for you. The state is probably saving money likewise by not setting up agencies for semi-productive employment (though some would argue that building bridges and dams is a useful venture for the sake of dignity).

The analogy to someone asking for money to build an expensive house doesn't hold up when this is an issue of basic survival. Friedman and Marx both make the case that there will always be unemployment at the behest of market forces. They diverge when it comes to whether this is the ideal to strive for. Some proportion of those unemployed will be single parents, most often mothers. Perhaps it's noble to want them to go to work in order to get skills, even if that ends up costing more than subsidising those unwilling to work. Such a notion can be worded less cruelly than "I want to ensure you don't spend as much time with your children as you could, even though it ends up costing me more, despite it being a traditional value that mothers should look after children".

The alternative, where the state does not provide opportunities for employment nor welfare, is that unemployed mothers are at the mercy of pittance, else they starve. Hilary Rosen's comments polled at 90% disapproval, but what she did not say is that "should Mitt Romney go bankrupt and die, Ann Romney and her children should probably starve to death too" or words to those effect. Yet the callous concepts of Social Darwinism seem to persist thoughout this thread, which makes the bipartisan condemnation of Rosen seem ludicrous.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Romney did not address this issue at all, he made no such stipulations, this is just your hand-waving to make it seem respectable. No sale.

The 'stipulation' is that -- as per the OP -- he was talking about "women on welfare". I fail to see how he 'did not address this issue at all,' since his "I want the individuals to have the dignity of work" comment was directed solely at people who sought to receive the benefits in question without going out to get a paying job. Re-read the OP; it's all there.

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

what she did not say is that "should Mitt Romney go bankrupt and die, Ann Romney and her children should probably starve to death too" or words to those effect.

And neither did Mitt, and neither do I; as spelled out in the OP, Mitt's position is that in such a situation, Ann Romney should receive government assistance if she's willing to go out and get a paying job.

[Voyager]

I think Mitt is right, and every mother should go out and get a dignified job, like stripper.
Sorry, that's too dignified. How about something really slimy, like Republican Congresswoman?

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

The analogy to someone asking for money to build an expensive house doesn't hold up when this is an issue of basic survival. Friedman and Marx both make the case that there will always be unemployment at the behest of market forces. They diverge when it comes to whether this is the ideal to strive for. Some proportion of those unemployed will be single parents, most often mothers. Perhaps it's noble to want them to go to work in order to get skills, even if that ends up costing more than subsidising those unwilling to work. Such a notion can be worded less cruelly than "I want to ensure you don't spend as much time with your children as you could, even though it ends up costing me more, despite it being a traditional value that mothers should look after children".

The alternative, where the state does not provide opportunities for employment nor welfare, is that unemployed mothers are at the mercy of pittance, else they starve. Hilary Rosen's comments polled at 90% disapproval, but what she did not say is that "should Mitt Romney go bankrupt and die, Ann Romney and her children should probably starve to death too" or words to those effect. Yet the callous concepts of Social Darwinism seem to persist thoughout this thread, which makes the bipartisan condemnation of Rosen seem ludicrous.

Shhh. We don't talk about Social Darwinism in America, and we don't discuss the meaning of the term "work ethic." Doing so is close to undeclared class warfare.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Did you read the post it was in response to? Tumbleddown wrote the following....

Ah, I see. Thanks. It was the use of "police" as a verb that threw me.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by John Mace

The dignity comes from supporting oneself as opposed to living on the dole.

Most entry level jobs do not pay a living wage, hence you cannot support yourself on them. And that's if you DON'T have day care experiences. So let's cut out the conservative fantasies and move into the real world, eh?

[TonySinclair]

Is it also part of Mitt's belief in the dignity of work that wage earners should pay up to 35% on their wages, and even those who earn over $35K should pay 25%, while people who clip coupons on their bonds should pay only 15%, and people who inherit wealth should pay nothing?

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think it's time we, like the rest of the country, move on to the next "outrage of the week". This story's "use by" date has expired.

And I mean the whole Rosen thing, not this byproduct.

Hasn't anyone said something new and stupid yet?

I'm not sure it will. The comment Rosen made should have blown over, the problem was is that the gender gap was huge when it was made (20% is what I recall hearing) - so the GOP decided to take advantage of her blunder. That put the Dems on the offensive, which gave us this Romney tidbit.

But the gender gap remains. And while this incident may blow over, this sort of thing is going to be a story as long as it remains. The birth control thing didn't play well with women (and the whole not defending a single adult woman using birth control who was called a slut - there needed to be far more moral outrage from the right on that). The Komen Foundation reminded us that our ability to get affordable mammograms can be held hostage by abortion politics. More women support the Health Reform Act. Our public school funding is being cut (often, granted, at a state a local level, but it all gets mushed together in 'which party is to blame') and the Department of Education is under attack - something, again, that women place higher priority on then men. The GOP will jump on any blunder the Dems make that might close that gap - and the Dems will play any blunder the GOP makes to ensure it stays until November. And both will go after legitimate policy issues that affect women.