It has nothing to do with the dignity of being a stay-at-home mom. It has to do with the dignity of asking for a handout: some stay-at-home moms don’t, some do.
Then open a thread about asking for handouts, and quit hijacking this one.
So… people employed by the government are now freeloaders? Are you sure you wanted to phrase it that way?
Look the purpose of “handouts” for people who have dependent children is NOT for the benefit of the parents, it’s for the benefit of the kids. Society has an interest in seeing children grow up with certain minimal things to make them functional adults. It’s why we have public education, for example, instead of saying that if parents want their kids educated they can damn well get a job that allows them to send them to a private school. All kids have access to education regardless of their parents’ income.
Likewise, some of us think that even if the parent(s) is a screw-up or even just going through a rough time the kids should have enough to eat and decent clothes even if said decent clothes are purchased second-hand. But maybe you think we should go back to the old way of doing things, when people really did starve to death or parents sold their children into indentured servitude/slavery? (Which conditions do, by the way, still exist in some parts of the world) Oddly enough, such get tough measures as those don’t seem to bootstrap people out of poverty. Maybe there’s more to poverty than just “these people are lazy”.
Again, you display your ignorance of modern “welfare”. That is already the case. NO ONE gets anything without demonstrating that one is either
- Working
- Looking for work (and this is NOT an honor system - in my county you sit in a room answering job ads with someone looking over your shoulder, when you go on an interview they call to make sure you showed up and confirm you actually interviewed, and so on)
- In school working towards a degree (a minimum grade level is required or you lose your benefits)
- Disabled. That is UNABLE to work.
However, SOME of us recognize that caring for a young child (the example given was 2 and under) is hard work and think it’s ridiculous for the government to pay for full time daycare when the parent in question would be willing to care for the child. It can be more expensive to force a daycare/full time work situation on a parent of a YOUNG child than to have the parent take care of the kid. When the child goes to school daycare costs drop and the parent has “free” time during the day in which to work. In this era of budget-cutting it makes more sense to some of us to have the parent(s) raise the kid until full time school starts for the little darling, THEN tell 'em to get an outside the house job.
Then we have the situation where a rich mom is praised for staying home and working hard to raise her kids, but a poor mom is condemned for being the primary caretaker and told her mom-work has no value and she needs to get a job. And yes, that IS hypocritical.
Now, if you say “yeah, parenting is full time work and it’s a shame, but one of the suck things about poverty is sometimes you need to hold down two jobs” that’s not hypocritical, but then it might move someone to, you know, suggest that maybe it’s in society’s interests to help these poor parents somehow ensure they’re raising healthy kids. Like maybe supplementing their food budget, or providing a decent public education, or free vaccinations so the kids don’t get sick needlessly.
Has anyone evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this? If it’s cheaper to have a parent stay home the first 4-5 years of a kid’s life than to pay for full time daycare while they work a minimum wage job then let’s do the sensible thing and not force the “get a paying job” until the kid is school age. On the flip side, if it’s cheaper to force them into a full time job and pay for daycare sure, that’s a viable solution but I want to see the numbers on that.
I base this on such statements as
Note portion in bold. That’s a phrase normally only seen in reference to convicted criminals but it’s being applied to people whose only “crime” is being poor. In other words, poverty is equated to being a criminal. What makes you a criminal is not what you’ve done, it’s solely because you don’t have as much money as someone else. The poor are seen as inherently criminal.
Add this with suggestions they are a “drain” on society, they are “breeding” indiscriminately, suggestions that poor people should be sterilized (either temporary or permanent) solely because they are poor and no other reason… Yes, it IS starting to sound disturbingly like how the Jews were characterized in pre-WWII Germany. And here’s a good one - back in 2010 a Republican candidate, Carl Paladino, running for office seriously proposed that we put poor people into [del]camps[/del] prisons.
So, no, you DON’T have it right. I’m basing that statement not on being a Republican-hater or whatever, I’m basing it on hypocritical standards, characterizing the poor as criminals, and suggestions we intern them in facilities. If some politician proposes that poor people be forced to wear a yellow “P” on their clothes I’d be disturbed, saddened, and shocked but not surprised.
How is it a hijack? As per the OP, Romney’s quote applied only to how “women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work”. It had nothing to do with stay-at-home parents who weren’t looking to receive handouts in general or welfare in particular; only folks looking for that payment were at issue.
[QUOTE=Broomstick]
So… people employed by the government are now freeloaders? Are you sure you wanted to phrase it that way?
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t phrase it that way. People employed by the government perform the work required by their employer in exchange for said government paycheck. These folks were likewise asked to perform work required by said employer in exchange for a government paycheck; they’re only freeloaders if they refuse.
You’re not a freeloader if you’re doing that required work in exchange for that paycheck; you’re a freeloader if you demand that check and refuse to do the required work. Heck, I’ve earned paychecks from the government by following my employer’s instructions; I don’t consider myself a freeloader for having done so; I would’ve been one had I cashed the check without figuring I needed to do the specific work they required.
I’m not advocating that starvation or such a sale. I’m advocating only the proposal from the OP: if you want a government paycheck, do the work required by the government.
The rich mom is praised because she’s not asking for any of my money; she’s only raising as many kids as she can afford. The poor mom – the one raising more kids than she can afford – is condemned if and only if she’s asking for my money and is unwilling to perform the stipulated work in return. That’s not at all hypocritical.
Note portion in bold. That’s a phrase normally only seen in reference to convicted criminals but it’s being applied to people whose only “crime” is being poor. In other words, poverty is equated to being a criminal. What makes you a criminal is not what you’ve done, it’s solely because you don’t have as much money as someone else. The poor are seen as inherently criminal.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing criminal about being poor. There’s something criminal about being poor – or rich – and demanding money from other people, and refusing to act as if you’re thereby incurring a debt to society. You complain that the phrase is normally applied to criminals, but don’t say whether it’s literally true in this case.
Right back at you if some politician proposes that rich people wear a yellow “R” while we’re redistributing their wealth away from 'em.
See, here, this is the reason for the thread, which you apparently agree with. Everything about whether or not mothers receiving welfare should be required to work outside the home is completely extraneous to the objections raised in the OP.
Let me list it all in order for you:
1)Rosen says stay-at-home-mom Ann Romney “has never worked a day in her life.”
2)Ann Romney begs to differ: “Raising kids is hard work.”
3)Outrage ensues condemning Rosen.
4)Mitt Romney then states that “I want the individuals [raising their kids at home] to have the dignity of work.”
5)Dopers raise eyebrows in confusion, because according to Ann Romney and outraged Fox talking heads, they ARE working.
The question seems to be, does staying at home raising kids count as work only if you already have some money stashed away somewhere? Or is is still work if you need monetary help? As you say, it’s work in either case. So, you’ve got Romney implying that moms on government assistance raising kids at home have no dignity because they have no “work”. Why does he get a pass when Rosen hasn’t?
So you admit that a stay-at-home mom isn’t really working? Cuz in my opinion, and in the opinion of all the people outraged at Rosen’s comments, staying home to raise kids to be productive members of society and feed them, bathe them, teach them, etc. is hard fucking work. That’s what these mom’s are being “paid” to do. Now, if those moms are spending all those buckets of government money on themselves and handing their kids off to a neighbor, you’d be on to something. But you’re not.
Ah, I think I see the problem we all have in this thread: Most of us are arguing with the assumption that stay-at-home moms ARE working, and you’re arguing under the assumption that they’re merely asking for a handout like a person sitting on his ass with a tin can in front of him.
Except she’s asking for a handout from her partner in order to do so. The correlate that poor mothers should have multiple opportunities (funded publicly) to have fewer children is completely missing from Republican doctrine. The alternative, should day-care be provided (which seems remarkably circituous: just classify parenting as day-care and pay mothers to do that), is less parental involvement, which is something Republicans also typically decry. Except the only plausible society in which this is even marginally coherent is one where every family replicates Romney’s lead. Such a society would be completely implausible given that a far greater proportion of the current workforce would be unemployed. In order for his bonds to mature, there need to be those mothers working two jobs…
That and it ignores the Friedmanite principle of “necessary unemployment”. Just as many people would be in “semi-productive” employment and on the government’s payroll or starving.
Except the work required by the government at the moment is raising one’s child in a satisfactory manner. He wants to increase the work required to raising one’s child in a satisfactory manner as well as holding down another job.
See, here’s your problem. You keep skipping ahead to “required work.” But the very question is whether the work should be required and why. This is a matter of policy. We get to decide whether it’s better for society to have a mother at home raising her kids or to pay for day care while she works. So at this point in the discussion, there is no “required” work. This “unwilling” person is a strawman in this discussion, because it has nothing to do with whether the person is unwilling but rather what we want to do about it.
And just so I have it straight:
It IS work and dignified if your spouse can subsidize your stay-at-home mom duties.
It IS NOT work if the government has to help out because undignified panhandling, or a handout, is involved.
I ask for this clarification because “handout” is typically used when no work is done. But I thought Romney and his supporters have already confirmed that being a stay-at-home mom IS work. Valuable work. Dignified work. So then, if they’re doing valuable, dignified work, it isn’t a handout.
Doesn’t the argument fall apart a little when Romney says he’s willing to spend funds acquired through taxation on providing day-care? It obviously demonstrated that he thinks child-rearing is work and presumably dignified work, if such workers are worthy of being recipients of government funds.
He could at least phrase it a little more consistently and claim it’s only work to raise someone else’s children (though that may seem like an unsubstantiated indictment against Ann Romney).
Unless, perhaps, he had something else in mind, some form of collective kibbutzim where mothers could trust each other to raise their children while they took shifts doing some socially useful work. Sounds a tad too Democratic Socialist Communist for my liking. I for one support the cuckoo method of parenting instead.
Maybe I’ve been a little harsh though, Orwell certainly claimed that what one man did for leisure another did for pay. Such as the miner that crafted furniture in his spare time, or the carpenter that gardened, or the farmer that went potholing.
I’m not following you. I keep asking: who “paid” Ann Romney to raise kids?
No, I’m saying that a stay-at-home mom is no different from me, or from anyone else. I work outside the home, and draw a paycheck from my employer in exchange for performing my job; I don’t request an additional handout on top of that – though if I did, I’d acknowledge that anyone who obliges me can require me to do something else in exchange. If you’re a stay-at-home mom, you’re working, just like me – and if you ask for a handout on top of that, then you should acknowledge that anyone who obliges can require you to do something else in exchange.
[QUOTE=Jenaroph]
See, here, this is the reason for the thread, which you apparently agree with. Everything about whether or not mothers receiving welfare should be required to work outside the home is completely extraneous to the objections raised in the OP.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the quote in the OP! Romney’s remarks are specifically limited to how “women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work”!
Of course it counts as work in either case; like I said, raising kids is work just like painting or plumbing is work. It’s work just like cutting hair or repairing cars. And just as I don’t pay folks who aren’t repairing my car – or cutting my hair, or painting my house, or whatever – I’m not in the habit of paying folks who aren’t raising my kids. I don’t dispute that they’re doing work; it’s just not my place to pay any of 'em so long as they’re doing their own plumbing and painting in between fixing their own cars and cutting their own hair. If they ever want to do work on my terms, I’ll pay all of 'em accordingly.
That’s not a handout. It’s a handout if you’re raising your kids and want my money with no strings attached; if I have you raise my kids in exchange, the money you’re getting wouldn’t be a handout. Asking your partner for money isn’t a handout if, by raising your kids, you’re already raising your partner’s kids.
If you don’t like the strings, don’t ask the government for money.
[QUOTE=Ascenray]
See, here’s your problem. You keep skipping ahead to “required work.” But the very question is whether the work should be required and why. This is a matter of policy. We get to decide whether it’s better for society to have a mother at home raising her kids or to pay for day care while she works.
[/QUOTE]
We get to decide? Awesome! Can you guess what my decision is?
[QUOTE=Happy Lendervender]
I ask for this clarification because “handout” is typically used when no work is done. But I thought Romney and his supporters have already confirmed that being a stay-at-home mom IS work. Valuable work. Dignified work. So then, if they’re doing valuable, dignified work, it isn’t a handout.
[/QUOTE]
Let me clarify: I already do valuable, dignified work; my employer already pays me for it; what do you call it if I for some reason go on to approach you and ask for money? I won’t do anything else in exchange for it, I explain; I already do valuable and dignified work – albeit not for you – so you should give me money.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
He could at least phrase it a little more consistently and claim it’s only work to raise someone else’s children (though that may seem like an unsubstantiated indictment against Ann Romney).
[/QUOTE]
That’s why he wouldn’t phrase it that way. Ann Romney did plenty of work while not asking for any of my money; any number of stay-at-home moms are likewise doing work, and likewise aren’t asking for any of my money. Some stay-at-home moms are likewise doing work, and for some reason want my money – and are on a par with any barbers or plumbers or painters or mechanics who are doing work, but aren’t doing any work for me, and yet want my money but don’t want my strings. I don’t feel like paying any of 'em.
That’s why I put “paid” in quotes. Unfortunately, there are no pay checks for being a stay-at-home mom, despite the enormous amount of actual work that goes into it. Any money that a woman gets for it is more-or-less a subsidy. Ann was subsidized by her husband because they, as many people, believe there is value in it for society to have kids raised by their moms full time.
What is a poor stay-at-home mom asking for on top of anything? I mean, in addition to the $0 paycheck?
No he says that he wants these poor moms to know the dignity of work. So what people are up in arms about is that on the one hand, stay-at-home moms like dear old Ann *did *know the dignity of work, but on the other hand, women who don’t have spouses who can subsidize their stay-at-home-mom duties-- uh, they *don’t *know the dignity of work?
The thought is that having kids raised by their moms full-time benefits society as a whole-- kids not in latchkey programs, kids not in McDaycares, kids not unsupervised after school with nothing to do but get into trouble-- and that is good for you too, whether you care to admit it or not. But I suppose if there’s a program that specifically helps poor people, certain parts of our society will not want their money going to it without direct and immediate benefit to themselves. You apparently fall into that category.
That’s irrelevant. The question is what Romney’s decision is, and why, and whether that’s logically consistent with other things he’s said.
If you put it that way, then Ann was subsidized by her husband because he believed there’s value in it for his kids. If my wife so subsidized me – believing there was value in it for her kids – then that’d be between her and me, likewise; if Ann had asked my wife for a subsidy, my wife would presumably have replied with a brisk and sensible “Why me? I don’t dispute that you’re doing an enormous amount of work, but you’re not doing it for me and mine.”
Oh, hey, if she’s not asking for a check from the government, then as per the quote in the OP she’s apparently fine in Romney’s book.
Not if they’re asking for the government to pay 'em, no. I do my job, and get paid in exchange for it, from which you can tentatively deduce that I know the dignity of work; were I to then ask you for a handout in exchange for doing nothing else, you could deduce that, er, no, he missed the point.
Well, this is certainly one of those topics where (a) some people feel we should ask nothing in return while paying folks who raise kids they can’t support, and (b) other people don’t. Why don’t we therefore leave it to charity? People like you can donate no-strings-attached money, and people like me can offer strings-attached money.
[QUOTE=Ascenray]
That’s irrelevant. The question is what Romney’s decision is, and why, and whether that’s logically consistent with other things he’s said.
[/QUOTE]
If he’s using my reasoning, then it seems consistent to me – and I don’t see that there’s any dispute over “what Romney’s decision is,” leaving only the “why”. What do you figure is his why?
Surely there must be a “free market solution.” Like letting more affluent parents adopt the more appealing (smarter, better looking, better behaved) children, employing those of the rest that are able as migrant laborers in the fields, and employing the Swiftian solution for those that aren’t.
We tried that. It was called the industrial period. Parochial charity increased the dependence of individuals on their church and vastly increased the power of the various churches. Other methods of distribution were held to be more efficient and beneficial according to the social contract (which is sort of like a marriage contract: you agree that you’ll follow the laws and in turn get to live in a country with high quality of life indicators).
Right, except you don’t get to define the strings. Quite likely, neither will Romney.
Your claims that single parents are receiving money with no strings attached has already been refuted earlier in the thread. I’m unsure of why you’re repeating it. Again, you’ve failed to acknowledge that working to raise children is in the interests of society exactly as working to raise children is in the interests of one’s partner.
You’ve also dodged the wider point that it is incredibly inconsistent to acknowledge that the raising of children is worthy of federal funding, except when performed by the children’s owns parents. Maybe it would be less inconsistent to state that nobody should be receiving money to do something they enjoy.
Edit: Not to mention that reverting to the free market will actually increase the propogation of the lower classes. It’s almost inevitable that in a free market situation, industries will prefer to employ younger workers as they’re more likely to be dependents than have them (and will be unable to command a higher wage). Thus the most viable strategy for a parent is to have larger families in order to support themselves when they are no longer preferred for employment.
So you admit stay-at-home moms are doing nothing. And that if they need help from outside the home, they are, in fact, merely panhandling.
Seriously? The only thing that anyone can deduce from this is that you know the dignity of *your *work.
Either there’s dignity in stay-at-home parenting or there’s not. That’s what’s being debated here. The mere fact of money being involved doesn’t take away dignity, nor does not asking for money add to it. If you ask for a raise, it doesn’t make your work less dignified. If you agree to do it pro gratis, it doesn’t make the work you do any more dignified.
The beef people have with Romney is that in one breath he defends the work of stay-at-home moms because doing so benefits him politically, but in another breath he implies that stay-at-home moms don’t know the dignity of work. Hypocrite.
Republicans are less concerned that everyone have dignified work to do, and more concerned that everyone generate value in the marketplace.
That is our true responsibility in society: not to each other as such, but to a kind of halfassed econo-moral code with roots in the prosperity gospel.
Part of it is misunderstanding of parables. For instance, Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven. Which unsophisticated people take to mean that being rich is bad or sinful. But that’s not the point! Yes, its very hard for a rich person to go to Heaven, but that’s what makes it a miracle! If Jesus wants a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, he just stares intently at the camel and the needle until it works!
Oh, wait, that’s Chuck Norris. Never mind.