That is not even remotely close to what Romney said.
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.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
That is not even remotely close to what Romney said.
[/QUOTE]
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well, (a) spouse, not husband; and (b) it’s reserved for anyone who – for whatever reason – wants government pay without working outside the home.
I see little difference dignity-wise between taking money from the government or taking money from a spouse/parent/inheritance/whatever.
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.
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.
So by that definition, his wife lacks the dignity of work. Got it. Now tell him to go apologize to Hilary Rosen.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
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”.
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.
[QUOTE=Ascenray]
Why do you keep changing the subject?
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
Then that’s the end of the discussion. Because the “lack of dignity” is the sole issue in the Rosen-Romney exchange.
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.
Then why the heck did you say I was changing the subject?
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.
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.