You know, the alternative that Romney put out as a dignified option – taking MORE taxpayer dollars for daycare so you can go make minimum wage somewhere 30 hours a week – I feel like if we’d asked people in this thread if there’s a lot of dignity in that 2 weeks ago, it wouldn’t get a lot of support.
Taking $500 a month in government assistance to stay home with your kids? Not dignified.
Taking $0 a month to stay home with your kids? Dignified.
Taking $1000 a month in government assistance to pay for daycare while working a crappy job? Dignified.
Dignified? Really? Do all you conservatives really think that someone sucking up $1000 a month in government assistance is full of dignity just because they’re “working”? I really don’t believe you. I mean, the person is in no way, shape or form supporting themselves. They’re entirely dependent on that handout to make ends meet. Any other day of the week you’d call them a parasite. Right?
I am self employed, and I consider myself lucky every time a new customer picks my name out of the book, because I have many competitors. Luck plays a big part in my success, for which I am grateful on a daily basis. Your experience probably differs.
Presumably at some point in her life Ann Romney has relied on someone else’s money in order to help raise her children. Claiming that her asking for money is dignified due to her luck in securing a husband with an income 500 times that of the average American (going by the stats in the tax thread) while another whose partner abandoned her or died is undignified in doing so strikes me as special pleading, at least when we recognise that it is in the public interest not to let American citizens be raised in poverty.
Well, unless we have a dispositional attitude. Starving? How undignified! Smother your children and jump off a bridge.
Why do you presume that? As far as I know, she has never been subsidized by the taxpayer in the way that a welfare mother would be.
If you mean using the roads and infrastructure, she and her husband paid millions in taxes to support the infrastructure - far more than a welfare mother would have done, since those on welfare do not pay taxes.
Given the GOP control of the House, I doubt this bill will go anywhere. If the Dems were smart they’d be holding press conferences hourly to shame the GOP on this, but we’re not talking about a well-organized political party .
The recent brou-ha-ha over Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen’s comment that Ann Romney hadn’t “worked a day in her life”, plus Mitt Romney’s explicit statement that “All moms are working moms” would seem to imply his support for such a reform to TANF. Of course, like all issues of importance, Romney bends whichever way the political wind is blowing, so while he’s happy to tout the hard work of motherhood when it’s to his political advantage, I’m betting he’ll duck this issue.
Because she’s receiving money from Romney for that purpose.
If she’s an indentured employee and this is an exchange totally concordant with property rights, then fair enough. It becomes her money when she satisfies Romney’s requirements.
Again, that just means that other stay at home mothers that are receiving money from the state are public employees.
Waitaminit, if the Romneys were to split up, then under the law of most states, wouldn’t she be entitled to half of the assets paid for by Mitt Romney? So, she is not like an employee at all. She doesn’t do what she does in exchange for wages or salary from her husband.
Correct. She is getting money from the person to whom she provides a benefit, namely, raising his children.
Not unless they raising children who are wards of the state in the way that the Romney children are wards of the Romneys.
Again, work with dignity is work where you earn your recompense by providing a service to someone else. A SAHM is providing a service to her husband. He is legally and morally obligated to provide for the care and upbringing of his children, since they are his children. Therefore, entering into a partnership where one person earns money and the other cares for the children is an arrangement in which both parties are engaging in work with dignity, because both benefit. A SAH welfare mom is not providing a service to the state by raising her own children, since they are not children of the state in the sense that they are children of their father(s). As The Other Waldo Pepper has explained, it would be like asking your next door neighbor to pay you for painting your own living room.
If I paint my own living room, I am not providing any benefit to the state, therefore I am not entitled to be paid by the state. Because it is my living room, not theirs. Likewise, if I raise my own children, I am not entitled to be paid by the state, since they are my children, not the state’s.
But both raising my own children, and painting my own living room, are work with dignity - until I expect to be paid for it by someone who did not benefit from it.
The problem here is your understanding (and Mitt Romney’s) of what the word means. Again, by definition, dignity is not accorded to you by others’ and their opinions, dignity is about your own behavior and your own regard for yourself and your actions. So you may say that you would not have dignity if you collected public assistance while parenting your children, but you cannot say that for anyone else. There are many words you can apply there that relate to your opinion of someone else’s position, but dignity is not one of them.
And you are aware, are you not, that there are tens of thousands of families with a working parent and an income that’s still low enough that they still qualify for TANF, SNAP, sCHIP, WIC, Section 8 housing assistance, Free and Reduced Cost Lunch, and other safety net programs, right? A married parent with two children who earns minimum wage would have to work ~9 hours a day every single day of the year to bring that family to the poverty level. And there are plenty of families where no one is working even that much, with an 8% unemployment rate that’s double that for minorities.
Being married is neither a barrier to poverty nor a barrier to collecting public assistance when necessary.
Well, consider the hypothetical of the assassin. Plenty of people kill each other for fun, that’s not real dignified work.
Can someone honestly claim to be dying in a dignified manner if they have a state funeral, or they’re killed at the behest of a Socialist Death Panel?
Actually, considering the other conjugal duties a stay at home mother must provide, I suppose marriage is a form of prostitution. I wonder if there’s a stipend for that and overtime if she has a headache? Of course, it’s completely undignified if she has sex for free or if she wants the government to pay her to have sex.
Nothing that you, Bricker or Shodan have contributed to this thread supports that proposition. Every reference you have made to dignity is predicated on the exchange of money.
That’s an unusual comment. Right there on the first page, I wrote that “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.” I know you read it; you copy-and-pasted it in your response, which prompted my reply that “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.”
On page two, I went on to elaborate:
In yet another post, I said that I’m currently “working – whether outside the house or as a stay-at-home parent, it makes no difference – and so presumably have the dignity of work.” I continued to go on and on and on about the same point, with all sorts of varied phrasings. How could I have made it clearer?
By saying it doesn’t make any difference where your income is from, including federal assistance programs. You have many times made it clear that is the pivot around which dignity turns; if you get assistance, you do not know the dignity of work.
So far as I can determine, the word simply means the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed. How do you conclude it refers to self-regard? You say it’s “by definition;” would you mind linking to a source for your definition?
OK, just to be entirely pedantic, here are two not entirely unlikely scenarios.
1)I’m a single mom, staying at home to raise my kids. I have little education and while I had a minimum wage job before I had kids, my grandmother left me enough money to quit work for a while without having to apply for welfare. After the kids are in school I plan to go back to work outside the home.
Do I know the dignity of work?
I’m a single mom, staying at home to raise my kids. I have little education and had a minimum wage job before I had kids. I had no rich grandmother, and am receiving welfare, because my minimum wage job paid less than the cost of daycare each week. After the kids are in school I plan to go back to work outside the home.
Do I know the dignity of work?
I know the answer to one of these by reading the thread. I’m wondering how certain people would answer the other, and why or why not.
Note that – while folks on your side have said all sorts of interesting things about Ann Romney – no one seems to have yet said anything against Mitt spending his own money on his kids. I would say that’s because it’s Mitt’s money and he can spend it as he sees fit; I’d likewise say that (a) you’re analogous to Mitt’s kids, rather than his wife; and (b) your grandmother could do as she pleases with her money: she can leave it to you in her will with no strings attached, or require you to fulfill assorted conditions instead; some grandparents are like that.
I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; if asked whether your grandmother would’ve been well within her rights to bestow her money on you with strings attached, you’d presumably say yes.
Provisionally, yes. As a taxpayer, I guess I’m analogous to the grandparent in this example? As it happens, I guess I’m the sort of grandparent who prefers to bestow my money on you with a string attached. I therefore wouldn’t need to play around with doubt, or presume you’d say “yes” when asked whether it’s my money and I can spend it as I see fit; I can simply get it right, by seeing whether you’ll prove me wrong.