Oh wait, that only applies to moms who receive some sort of government assistance.
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.
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?
I see no difference in the dignity of the work of motherhood. But Romney does.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
If there was ever a perfect indication that the outrage over Rosen’s comment was entirely manufactured, this is it.
Well, the TANF program replaced AFDC, which had far fewer requirements for recipients.
Right?
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?
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.
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.
“This Rosen fellow” is Hilary. Ms. Rosen if you’re nasty.
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?
To avoid the dependency trap that prevailed under AFDC.
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).
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.
And Romney’s latest doesn’t? “I want the individuals to have dignity of work” isn’t belittling to a woman raising children?