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

[Fear Itself]

Oh wait, that only applies to moms who receive some sort of government assistance.

Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal "heartless," but he argued that the women would be better off having "the dignity of work" -- a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with.

"I wanted to increase the work requirement," said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.'"

If you are poor and receiving food stamps, raising children as young as two is not dignified work. But if you are middle class or wealthy, staying at home taking care of the kids is "hard work", presumably conferring the dignity that is lacking if you are so poor as to need assistance to put food on the table.

And he has the nerve to accuse the President of trying to divide America.

[Mr. Moto]

Really? You see no policy difference between a parent that stays at home and raises children with minimal government subsidy and a parent that relies on extensive government subsidy to do so?

[Fear Itself]

I see no difference in the dignity of the work of motherhood. But Romney does.

[Emtar KronJonDerSohn]

There is a difference between breeding responsibly when you can afford to raise children and squirting out meal tickets willy-nilly when you're on the dole. If you haven't set yourself up, why should the government put a roof over your head and feed you indefinitely?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Emtar KronJonDerSohn

There is a difference between breeding responsibly when you can afford to raise children and squirting out meal tickets willy-nilly when you're on the dole. If you haven't set yourself up, why should the government put a roof over your head and feed you indefinitely?

Yeah, they should still be able to clean somebody's house or work in the fields or something. It's not like their kids will ever amount to anything anyway, so they can't use that as an excuse.

[Mr. Moto]

Why do you, Fear Itself, and Ryan Grim of the linked article want to delve further into the Rosen comments that have every politician in the country denouncing them and polling running 90% against them. You think this will help your case against Romney? By pointing out some imagined hypocrisy?

I'm in some agreement with him - there is a difference between families whose circumstances allow a parent to stay at home voluntarily and whose circumstances don't allow this. This would likely be a majority position, IMHO. Few of us like the idea of benefits without an end date or responsibilities while collecting.

[Fear Itself]

But that is not the point Romney made about the work of motherhood. He said that moms who stay home to care for their children "lack the dignity of work". Did his wife lack the "dignity of work" when she stayed home to care for his children? What difference does receiving government assistance make with regard to the "dignity of work" or the lack of it? Either motherhood is respectable work that confers dignity, or it is not. The source of income does not make work of motherhood more or less dignified.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

We shouldn't make assumptions about the reasons why poor mothers need help. Shit happens; we are in a recession; people get sick and die- any number of things can happen to put a mother in need of assistance. Shaming them with the idea that they are acting like welfare queens isn't appropriate.

It is a sticky issue. How do we sort out irresponsible people from simply needy people? And what level of safety net is appropriate? 'Communism' is going to far but no one is actually suggesting that, that is merely a stupid accusation thrown around by the dumbest republicans which serves to make them useless debate partners when it comes time to actually answer the question.

What we need is some furious, toothless white guy with a Southern accent to come in here and start screaming at the top of his lungs about worthless people sucking off the hard work of responsible people like him who do the right thing and get off their asses and get a job, keeping that Bayer aspirin pill firmly between their knees the whole time if they can't afford to have a baby. That always helps.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Why do you, Fear Itself, and Ryan Grim of the linked article want to delve further into the Rosen comments that have every politician in the country denouncing them and polling running 90% against them. You think this will help your case against Romney? By pointing out some imagined hypocrisy?

I'm in some agreement with him - there is a difference between families whose circumstances allow a parent to stay at home voluntarily and whose circumstances don't allow this. This would likely be a majority position, IMHO. Few of us like the idea of benefits without an end date or responsibilities while collecting.

That seems to be an issue for the fathers. Why didn't Romney blame them for abandoning their kids--rather than lecture the mothers for not knowing the "dignity of work"?

Which actual real-world benefits are totally without an end date or responsibilities?

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

But that is not the point Romney made about the work of motherhood. He said that moms who stay home to care for their children "lack the dignity of work". Did his wife lack the "dignity of work" when she stayed home to care for his children? What difference does receiving government assistance make with regard to the "dignity of work" or the lack of it? Either motherhood is respectable work that confers dignity, or it is not. The source of income does not make work of motherhood more or less dignified.

If there was ever a perfect indication that the outrage over Rosen's comment was entirely manufactured, this is it.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

Which actual real-world benefits are totally without an end date or responsibilities?

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

Right?

[Chronos]

Who's this Rosen fellow, and what makes you think anyone cares about whatever it was he said? The OP is about something that Romney said. You know, Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for President?

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

I'm in some agreement with him - there is a difference between families whose circumstances allow a parent to stay at home voluntarily and whose circumstances don't allow this.

Sure, but that's not the OP's point. Either raising kids is hard work even without having to do any paid work to pay the bills, or it's not. This can't be true for just the 'right' kind of mothers, but not for the 'wrong' kind of mothers.

But that sure seems to be what Romney's saying.

Now which is true for all mothers, we can argue about, and if we agree, we can argue over the policy ramifications. The problem is we can't even have that discussion with someone who says it's true of some mothers but not of others.

[Mr. Moto]

Oh bullshit. Catch politicians on different days and there is bound to be some difference in their statements. This does not necessarily point to any policy inconsistency or personal hypocrisy, whoever this happens to.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Oh bullshit. Catch politicians on different days and there is bound to be some difference in their statements. This does not necessarily point to any policy inconsistency or personal hypocrisy, whoever this happens to.

Your tenaciousness is admirable, but let's face it: after raising a big fucking stink about Hilary Rosen correctly observing that Ann Romney never toiled a day of paid, outside-the-home work in her life, Mitt's remarks about moms on assistance needing to have the dignity of some kind of paid, outside-the-home work instead of just the hard work of raising their children really does plop a big bit of egg on his face.

Buck up, there's always 2016.

Originally Posted by Chronos

Who's this Rosen fellow, and what makes you think anyone cares about whatever it was he said? The OP is about something that Romney said. You know, Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for President?

"This Rosen fellow" is Hilary. Ms. Rosen if you're nasty.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

after raising a big fucking stink about Hilary Rosen correctly observing that Ann Romney never toiled a day of paid, outside-the-home work in her life, Mitt's remarks about moms on assistance needing to have the dignity of some kind of paid, outside-the-home work instead of just the hard work of raising their children really does plop a big bit of egg on his face.

You said it yourself: "paid, outside-the-home work". Romney's position is, apparently, that folks who want to be paid should work outside the home. You want the government to pay your bills? Work outside the home. You don't? Don't. You can of course disagree with that position, but it doesn't strike me as hypocritical.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

You said it yourself: "paid, outside-the-home work". Romney's position is, apparently, that folks who want to be paid should work outside the home. You want the government to pay your bills? Work outside the home. You don't? Don't. You can of course disagree with that position, but it doesn't strike me as hypocritical.

If raising kids is such important and arduous work that we such clutch the pearls when Hilary Rosen said Ann Romney never worked a day in her life, then why didn't Romney increase the amount of the benefit to the moms and avoid this two-step of making them work outside the home and increasing childcare reimbursements? It's not as if the state saved any money: they spend more on providing day care

Doesn't that suggest that paid, outside-the-home work (something Ann Romney has never done) is preferred to Ann's chosen occupation as a rich housewife? How come Mitt never suggested that Ann needed to experience the "dignity of work"? Cause she landed a rich husband? That's it?

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

If raising kids is such important and arduous work that we such clutch the pearls when Hilary Rosen said Ann Romney never worked a day in her life, then why didn't Romney increase the amount of the benefit to the moms and avoid this two-step of making them work outside the home and increasing childcare reimbursements? It's not as if the state saved any money: they spend more on providing day care

To avoid the dependency trap that prevailed under AFDC.

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Doesn't that suggest that paid, outside-the-home work (something Ann Romney has never done) is preferred to Ann's chosen occupation as a rich housewife? How come Mitt never suggested that Ann needed to experience the "dignity of work"? Cause she landed a rich husband? That's it?

No. Having a rich husband isn't the factor here. My wife was able to stay home with our kids for years, and I am not rich.

We are fully aware that different circumstances would have prevented this. So the moral value of this choice over others doesn't register for us - this is merely something we did, and were happy we could have done.

My wife wasn't happy with Rosen's comments - she instantly recognized how politically stupid they were, and how they could be seen as belittling her choice (however unintentionally).

[elucidator]

There is no social program to help the deserving that will not be exploited by the undeserving. Tough shit, thems the breaks. Short of a massive government program to investigate and oversee every dime the woman spends, there is no solution. Denying benefits to someone on the mere suspicion that they might squander the money injures the children, and is therefore unacceptable.

The ugly scent to all of this is the Calvinist streak in America, that somehow poverty is God's judgement on your worthiness. Kind of thing makes the Baby Jesus puke His little guts out.

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

My wife wasn't happy with Rosen's comments - she instantly recognized how politically stupid they were, and how they could be seen as belittling her choice (however unintentionally).

And Romney's latest doesn't? "I want the individuals to have dignity of work" isn't belittling to a woman raising children?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Romney's position is, apparently, that folks who want to be paid should work outside the home. You want the government to pay your bills? Work outside the home. You don't? Don't.

That is not even remotely close to what Romney said.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Doesn't that suggest that paid, outside-the-home work (something Ann Romney has never done) is preferred to Ann's chosen occupation as a rich housewife? How come Mitt never suggested that Ann needed to experience the "dignity of work"? Cause she landed a rich husband? That's it?

Well, yeah. If you can afford to raise kids, it's nobody else's business -- not Mitt's, not mine, not anyone's -- whether it's because you bring in enough money by working outside the home, or because your spouse brings in enough money by working outside the home, or because both of you put together bring in enough money by working outside the home, or whatever. But if you can't afford to raise kids (and you don't have a paying job, and you don't have a spouse with a paying job) then it's entirely the government's business whether you take a paying job as a condition of the handout you're requesting.

Consider all sorts of other contexts, if you like. Say you want to buy a car; do you get paid enough to purchase one? Then go right ahead; buy two, buy ten, it's none of our business! You don't get paid, but your spouse (a) does, and (b) is perfectly willing to buy you a car or three? It's not the government's place to interfere. You're a two-income couple who can afford a car or cars by pooling your income? Do as you please. You don't have a paying job, and you're not married to someone who has a paying job, and you want more money? Someone in that equation should get a paying job.

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

That is not even remotely close to what Romney said.

How is that not what he said? He wanted to condition the government pay in question on working outside the home; to the extent that someone doesn't want government pay, he includes no such requirement. If you don't want the government to pay those bills, he's silent; if you do, he stipulates accordingly. What's your problem with that summary?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

What's your problem with that summary?

Because it is not what he said. I don't doubt he believes all that as well, but that is not what he was talking about in the quote I cited, and that is not what I am taking issue with.

Romney said said those receiving assistance should know the "dignity of work", which presumes that by staying at home with their children, they do not know the "dignity of work." I would like to know if his wife, by virtue of staying home with his children, also lacks the "dignity of work." He cannot have it both ways. With respect to work, a welfare mom and his wife have the same experience; isn't that what the whole Hilary Rosen dust up was about? So how can he say his wife's work is dignified work, and the welfare mom's is not? Work is work.

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Well, yeah. If you can afford to raise kids, it's nobody else's business -- not Mitt's, not mine, not anyone's -- whether it's because you bring in enough money by working outside the home, or because your spouse brings in enough money by working outside the home, or because both of you put together bring in enough money by working outside the home, or whatever. But if you can't afford to raise kids (and you don't have a paying job, and you don't have a spouse with a paying job) then it's entirely the government's business whether you take a paying job as a condition of the handout you're requesting.

You're missing the point of the thread here. The argument of whether women on welfare should be required to work outside the home to supplement what the government is giving them is completely separate from whether working outside the home is necessary to an individual's dignity.

The gripe is that this very week Ann Romney took great offense (some say rightly so) to the implication that raising children isn't hard work. Now days later Mitt Romney says he wants a mother on welfare raising her children at home to have "the dignity of work" [outside of raising her children, for money.]

Ann Romney chose not to work outside the home. Was anyone ever worried about her "dignity," or is that reserved solely for people without a husband to pay the bills for her?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Because it is not what he said. I don't doubt he believes all that as well, but that is not what he was talking about in the quote I cited, and that is not what I am taking issue with.

Romney said said those receiving assistance should know the "dignity of work", which presumes that by staying at home with their children, they do not know the "dignity of work." I would like to know if his wife, by virtue of staying home with his children, also lacks the "dignity of work."

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."

He cannot have it both ways. With respect to work, a welfare mom and his wife have the same experience; isn't that what the whole Hilary Rosen dust up was about? So how can he say his wife's work is dignified work, and the welfare mom's is not? Work is work.

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.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

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.

Then we must conclude that Romney doesn't really give a shit about the "dignity of work", and it is just another meaningless proverb that conservatives use to denigrate people who are not like them.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

You're missing the point of the thread here. The argument of whether women on welfare should be required to work outside the home to supplement what the government is giving them is completely separate from whether working outside the home is necessary to an individual's dignity.

It's not quite right to say that Mitt thinks working outside the home is necessary to an individual's dignity; Mitt thinks that working outside the home is necessary to an individual's dignity if and only if that person wants government pay.

Ann Romney chose not to work outside the home. Was anyone ever worried about her "dignity," or is that reserved solely for people without a husband to pay the bills for her?

Well, (a) spouse, not husband; and (b) it's reserved for anyone who -- for whatever reason -- wants government pay without working outside the home.

[Acsenray]

I see little difference dignity-wise between taking money from the government or taking money from a spouse/parent/inheritance/whatever.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Then we must conclude that Romney doesn't really give a shit about the "dignity of work", and it is just another meaningless proverb that conservatives use to denigrate people who are not like them.

His idea of "the dignity of work" involves noting that people who want pay should get a paying job in exchange for it -- instead of demanding pay while not bothering with said paying job; there must be dozens of reasons why you could object to that instead of going straight for the "meaningless" barb.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I see little difference dignity-wise between taking money from the government or taking money from a spouse/parent/inheritance/whatever.

Were I not working, I too would see little difference between taking money from any of 'em -- in that, if any of 'em conditioned it on me doing my best to get a paying job, I'd of course do so, since that strikes me as entirely reasonable.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

His idea of "the dignity of work" involves noting that people who want pay should get a paying job in exchange for it -- instead of demanding pay while not bothering with said paying job...

So by that definition, his wife lacks the dignity of work. Got it. Now tell him to go apologize to Hilary Rosen.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Were I not working, I too would see little difference between taking money from any of 'em -- in that, if any of 'em conditioned it on me doing my best to get a paying job, I'd of course do so, since that strikes me as entirely reasonable.

Why do you keep changing the subject?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

That seems to be an issue for the fathers. Why didn't Romney blame them for abandoning their kids--rather than lecture the mothers for not knowing the "dignity of work"?

If you want to nit-pick what he said, you need to listen to the original. Go to the source video (from the OP's link), Romney never says "woman" or "mother". He says "parents" or "individuals".

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So by that definition, his wife lacks the dignity of work. Got it.

If his wife had asked me for a handout while she was raising her kids, I would've told her I'd be glad to -- in exchange for her doing her best to get a paying job, possibly with some other employer, possibly by helping to raise my kids; I'm therefore not in a position to say she lacks the dignity of work, since she neither made that request of me nor refused that condition. Are you arguing that she wanted pay from someone other than me, but wasn't willing to perform work in exchange for it? That's certainly not my position.

Originally Posted by Ascenray

Why do you keep changing the subject?

How is that changing the subject? You said you see little difference dignity-wise between taking money from the government or taking money from a spouse/parent/inheritance/whatever, and I agreed by saying I too see little difference between 'em.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

To avoid the dependency trap that prevailed under AFDC.

Welfare reform did away with AFDC back in the mid-1990s. Romney didn't become governor of Massachusetts until 2002.

So all he had to do to help people avoid the AFDC dependency trap was, um, nothing.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

My wife wasn't happy with Rosen's comments - she instantly recognized how politically stupid they were, and how they could be seen as belittling her choice (however unintentionally).

Here's the deal: idiots say idiotic things all the time. Hell, even smart people say dumb things every now and then.

When we're talking about some random idiot, though, the question is: who gave this idiot a microphone? Why does anyone care what they say to begin with?

If your wife doesn't like what some random person like Rosen said, the people she's got beef with are those who made sure those remarks got heard.

Rosen is a fairly well-known lobbyist, and used to head the RIAA. But people like her are a dime a dozen in DC, and she's got no particular position now that gives special value to her words. She's not a total nobody, but she's not really anybody of importance, either.

The persons who belittled your wife are really the people who made sure she and everyone else heard those words, rather than just letting them sink to the bottom of the pond. That would be the people on your side, just for the record.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

How is that changing the subject? You said you see little difference dignity-wise between taking money from the government or taking money from a spouse/parent/inheritance/whatever, and I agreed by saying I too see little difference between 'em.

Then that's the end of the discussion. Because the "lack of dignity" is the sole issue in the Rosen-Romney exchange.

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Doesn't that suggest that paid, outside-the-home work (something Ann Romney has never done) is preferred to Ann's chosen occupation as a rich housewife? How come Mitt never suggested that Ann needed to experience the "dignity of work"? Cause she landed a rich husband? That's it?

Pretty much. I guarantee that were Mr. and Mrs. Romney ever to divorce, upon discussion of division of assets the first words out of Mr. Romney's mouth would be "She's never worked a day in her life."

We can wax poetic about motherhood all we like, but the fact is that in a money-driven society, the monetary value that we assign to it is zero. We do not value or respect it in any meaningful way at all.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Then that's the end of the discussion.

Then why the heck did you say I was changing the subject?

Because the "lack of dignity" is the sole issue in the Rosen-Romney exchange.

No, the issue is whether someone who asks for money is willing to perform work in exchange for that money -- and, as you said, that's regardless of whether that money comes from the government, or a parent, or a spouse, or an inheritance, or whatever. The "lack of dignity" bit comes in when someone asks for money but isn't willing to perform work in exchange for that money.

If I'm raising my kid, and ask you for money, you're well within your rights to ask me to work for you in exchange -- possibly by raising your kid, possibly by fixing your car, possibly by painting your house, possibly by doing something else entirely; if I refuse, but keep asking for your money, you're well within your rights to reply by saying something about a lack of dignity.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

The "lack of dignity" bit comes in when someone asks for money but isn't willing to perform work in exchange for that money.

You really don't like arguing the point in question, do you?

Romney's quote specifically linked dignity to work, which welfare moms are deprived of at home with their children. Stay at home moms don't do work with dignity.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Then why the heck did you say I was changing the subject?

Because you keep saying things like this:

No, the issue is whether someone who asks for money is willing to perform work in exchange for that money

and this

If I'm raising my kid, and ask you for money, you're well within your rights to ask me to work for you in exchange

... which are 100 percent irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

You really don't like arguing the point in question, do you?

Romney's quote specifically linked dignity to work, which welfare moms are deprived of at home with their children. Stay at home moms don't do work with dignity.

Romney's quote specifically linked dignity to work for welfare moms. If you're not asking for government money, you can -- with dignity aplenty -- work as a stay-at-home mom; to the precise extent that you request money from someone else, they can predicate the pay on all sorts of reasonable stuff.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Romney's quote specifically linked dignity to work for welfare moms. If you're not asking for government money, you can -- with dignity aplenty -- work as a stay-at-home mom; to the precise extent that you request money from someone else, they can predicate the pay on all sorts of reasonable stuff.

So the dignity a mother feels from the work she does raising her children is justified solely by who pays her. Got it.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

you keep saying things like this:

and this

... which are 100 percent irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I don't see the irrelevance. The idea is that, if folks ask the government for money, they can be asked by the government to perform work in exchange for the money; you've pointed out that you see little difference between the government and private citizens; I've agreed that, if folks ask private citizens for money, they can likewise be asked to perform work in exchange for the money.

Why did you bring up that "I see little difference..." point, if not to open up the entirely relevant question of whether -- as I agree! -- there's little difference whether folks get the money from the government or from private citizens? So long as you're noting that you see little difference, what could possibly be more relevant than me (a) noting that I likewise see little difference, and (b) pointing out why I see little difference? Take the money and take the strings in either case, sez I.

[Acsenray]

The issue isn't whether the government is allowed to impose requirements on people receiving benefits. It's about why Romney thinks certain requirements should be imposed.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So the dignity a mother feels from the work she does raising her children is justified solely by who pays her. Got it.

No, the dignity she feels from the work she does has nothing to do with who pays her; the dignity she feels upon requesting money from someone is an entirely separate and separable issue.

It's no different than if you're working as a painter or a plumber instead of a parent: you can feel whatever dignity you want from the work you do -- and should feel none if you go on to demand some of my money while refusing to do any work for me. I don't wish to pay painters or plumbers who ask for my money without doing any work for me or mine; why would I wish to pay a demanding parent in that situation? Wouldn't I accuse such a painter or plumber of needing a refresher course in dignity in such a situation? Why would a parent be any different?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

The issue isn't whether the government is allowed to impose requirements on people receiving benefits. It's about why Romney thinks certain requirements should be imposed.

He presumably thinks people who live beyond their means -- instead of responsibly raising only as many kids as they can afford -- should request money from yet other folks only if they're willing to get a paying job; if they aren't willing to do so, it's presumably because they feel they shouldn't have to do a thing for the people who'll be paying them -- which suggests they don't understand the dignity of work.

Possibly he thinks the alternative will lead them to irresponsibly raise yet more kids they can't afford; possibly he thinks such kids will grow up likewise expecting handouts from people they likewise aren't working for. Possibly he thinks pairing those requirements with those benefits will instill a deeper understanding about dignity and work and responsibility and living within one's means and raising only as many kids as one can afford, which will therefore lead to fewer such benefits being paid out as sensible self-reliance sweeps o'er the land. Why do you believe he thinks those requirements should be imposed?

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Oh bullshit. Catch politicians on different days and there is bound to be some difference in their statements. This does not necessarily point to any policy inconsistency or personal hypocrisy, whoever this happens to.

What it points to is that he decided to make a big deal about the position of some obscure person, nominally on the other side but with no particular political role, on this issue, despite the fact that he clearly hadn't thought it through himself enough to know what the underpinnings of his own position(s) really were.

I suppose we Dems could jump on every stupid thing Michele Bachmann said, and we'd be far more justified: Bachmann is, after all, a member of Congress.

That's what Romney was doing with someone of far less importance - and it basically amounted to "this obscure person is wrong, and I'm gonna jump all over her case about it - and I don't even know what's right."

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Sure, but that's not the OP's point. Either raising kids is hard work even without having to do any paid work to pay the bills, or it's not. This can't be true for just the 'right' kind of mothers, but not for the 'wrong' kind of mothers.

I imagine that his point is that there's a difference between women who planned and financed, along with their husband, to have children and then become a stay-at-home mother, and those who got knocked up and never saw the father again.

The first isn't a drain on the average taxpayer. The latter is. From Romney's position, the latter mother should have to work off her debt to society if she wants to feel dignified.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

No, the dignity she feels from the work she does has nothing to do with who pays her; the dignity she feels upon requesting money from someone is an entirely separate and separable issue.?

And that is what you would rather talk about, rather than the dignity of the work done by stay at home moms. If I was a Romney apologist, I wouldn't want to talk about his words either.