I think “refuted” is a little much, but I admit I may have missed it. What’s the precise string at present, for stay-at-home parents on welfare as per the OP?
Well, “failed to acknowledge” is a little harsh, since I think it’s a huge stretch to say it’s exactly as much in the interests of society as it is in the interests of one’s partner.
Well, if you put it like that, I suppose we could consistently split the hair by figuring there are many stay-at-home parents who are hardworking, and some few who aren’t, and if both come asking for money it’s awfully hard to tell the worthy ones apart from the unworthy ones without requiring some outside-the-home work in exchange – an evidentiary problem that doesn’t arise with stay-at-home parents who aren’t asking me for money, and whose worthiness therefore isn’t for me to judge.
[QUOTE=Happy Lendervender]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You’re not exactly answering my question. What would you call it if, at my job, I work exactly as hard as a typical stay-at-home parent – and then I literally go out to panhandle other folks on the weekends? (It’s not, as you go on to say, that I’m asking my employer for a raise; it’s that I ask someone else altogether for money.)
[QUOTE=Mitt Romney]
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.’"
[/QUOTE]
This isn’t about the money. If it cost the state $500 a month to pay a stay-at-home mom to raise her kids, or $1000 a month to pay for the kids’ day care so the mom could work, Mitt chooses the more expensive option because he thinks it’s more dignified.
In other words, he thinks women are better off sending their kids to daycare while they get a job. He’s so sure that this is the better option that he’s willing to spend EXTRA taxpayer dollars to do so.
And yet, when in a position to make the same decision on a personal level, he did the exact fucking opposite. He chose NOT to send his wife to work and put the kids in daycare. He robbed his wife of the dignity that’s so important that he’s willing to spend YOUR money to give it to people. He’ll spend YOUR money to give people dignity, but he won’t spend his OWN money to give his wife dignity.
Where are all these “dignity” jobs? Is that in there where it says “Entry level, seriously, we would snag an intern for this if we could get away with it, but you will take a big ol’ bite of the shit sandwich on Day One, and the next day the same with less mayonnaise. But its got dignity! And electrolytes!”
How many of you have jobs that you can say have dignity? And say it with a straight face, without a hint of irony?
Which isn’t even what Romney suggested, as steronz pointed out above. Every parent that requested it would be getting federal money for day-care, without qualification as to the type of work or parenting they did.
We repudiate the notion that an external observer can qualify the worth of another’s work when it comes to Hilary Rosen’s comments, yet that precise notion is exactly what you are propounding in order to determine which parents are worthy of federal funding. Individual decision to subsidise unemployment in order to raise patriotic American children: good, unassailable, part of the free market. Collective decision to subsidise a welfare queen that can’t hold down a man: bad, criticised, part of a socialist plot to redistribute wealth.
It’s part of a dispositional just world hypothesis approach. Why shouldn’t children bear the sins of their parents? They’re already of a lower stock, by definition. Why should good things happen to them as a result?
Can you please tell me when or where a stay-at-home parent has asked you for money? Asked you, like a panhandler asks you. Has this ever happened? These stay-at-home parents are “asking [you] for money” no more than someone is “asking you for money” to drive on a freeway you’ve never been on.
False equivalency. If a stay-at-home mom worked all week at home with her kids, and then literally went out to panhandle folks on the weekends, then it would be equivalent to your scenario. And if we as a society can’t put money aside to help some parents at their worst of times, then those parents will literally be out panhandling folks on the street. These stay-at-home parents aren’t getting “your money” for doing nothing; sitting on a street corner with a tin can, they would be, if anyone chose to give them something that is.
They’re “asking” society for help. That’s not a third party when it comes to child-rearing.
But as I already said, money aside for a second. There’s either dignity in stay-at-home parenting, or there isn’t. That’s what’s at issue here. Romney seems to either think there is or there isn’t, depending upon the mom in question.
Did Ann Romney support herself for the work she did while staying home raising her kids? Or did her husband? So back to the question: Does being a stay-at-home parent have dignity? And no qualifications about money or lack thereof.
If the state pays for your daycare, you’re still on the dole. If it pays MORE for your daycare than it would cost for you to stay home with them, that’s just fucking stupid. No one wins except maybe daycare providers.
I’d rather see the state pay for daycare and, say… schooling. It makes no sense at all to pay for daycare so that a woman can work at a job that will never allow her to make enough money to pay for her own daycare. It makes all kinds of sense to pay for daycare and education that will eventually make her genuinely self-sufficient.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say it’s fucking stupid. At some point, the kids are going to be in 1st grade, and a single mom who’s been out of the workforce for 5 years is going to be in worse shape when it comes to getting a decent job than someone who put her child in daycare and has been building a skill. This is a decision that every new mom faces, and people are free to come to their own conclusions. My wife and I made the same decision that Mitt did, for what it’s worth. Fortunately, we have the benefit of not being single parents.
What’s fucking stupid is when a politician comes along and declares one of those choices to be “right” and one “wrong.” Whichever way he chooses, he’s going to piss off half of the young-mom population.
If he had come out and said, “The state isn’t going to pay extra money to put your kids in daycare just so you can go back to work, because building your skillset isn’t worth the extra scratch,” people would be equally outraged. Although that position would at least be logically consistent with the Republican platform.
The dignity in this case, if dignity there be, comes from doing what you should do all things being equal, even though the deck is stacked against you.
The difference here is that some want to compel you to take that action - effectively removing what dignity there might be, because they won’t acknowledge that the deck is stacked.
There is dignity in stay-at-home parenting. There is also dignity in my outside-the-home job. I’d need a lesson in dignity if, after doing my work in exchange for pay, I asked someone else for money in exchange for no other work.
As near as I can tell, her husband supported her, because he believed she was doing work worthy of the money in question. He would presumably hand you or me money if either of us did work that he deemed worthy of the money in question. Insofar as it’s his money, it’s his call.
What a bizarre limitation. Let’s talk about a literal “homemaker” for a moment: imagine someone who in fact builds himself a house, with masonry and carpentry and indoor plumbing and et cetera. Is there dignity in that work? Sure. Now imagine a person who keeps building himself a house, but lacks the money to so build himself a house, and therefore keeps asking other people for money;* is there,* I ask you, dignity in that? No qualification about money or lack thereof.
I’d say there’s dignity in the work of building a literal house – full stop – and go on to spell out that it’s great if you can afford to so build yourself a house, and it’s great if you’re paid to build that house for someone who values your labor and thus hands you money – but dignity goes out the window when you start asking folks for money, giving 'em nothing in return, just so you can build yourself a house you can’t otherwise afford.
I feel the same way about stay-at-home parents: if not for the pesky part where some of 'em want my money, their dignity wouldn’t be an issue. You want to ask about dignity regardless of whether they want me to pay their way; that seems to bypass the whole debate.
Again, you noted what it would take for my scenario to have equivalence: if I work at my job, and get pay for it, and then ask someone else for pay in exchange for doing no further work – I ask you, is there dignity in the work I do? No qualification about whether I then hit yet other folks up for money.
Right, because once your kids are grown and you no longer have to take care of them, you’ll have no need for work experience since it’s so easy to jump into the labor force, without any work experience when you’re 40 years old.
Living less on the dole, if you want, and being able to get off the dole once the kids are grown.
I’m already working – whether outside the house or as a stay-at-home parent, it makes no difference – and so presumably have the dignity of work. If I started going out on the weekends to ask you for money while offering nothing else in exchange, you’d be free to conclude that I lack the dignity of work.
I don’t know how taking MORE dollars for daycare is living less off the dole.
Mitt had every opportunity to say that he wanted single mothers to know the dignity of getting off government assistance sooner, but unfortunately for him, “work” came out instead.
Not really. The state has limited funds, and college isn’t for everyone. You said it was “fucking stupid” and that no one wins except the day care workers. That’s wrong, and I spelled out why.
Wait…what? I get that you feel that working for a living is more dignified than accepting government assistance; no argument there. But if I’m parsing this right, if mom on welfare went off welfare (without finding a job) and as a result her kids went hungry (because the money is for the kids), that would still somehow be more dignified than continuing to accept government assistance? Because she’s raising them (as best she can), and not asking for help?
No, because Romney didn’t frame it as that either-or choice. As per the OP, Romney’s solution was to condition welfare payments on a willingness to do some work outside the home; his whole point is that there’s dignity in getting that government assistance in exchange for doing outside-the-home work.
There’s no indignity in asking for help, so long as you’re prepared to do reasonable work in exchange for it.