Romney is perfectly happy to pay for child rearing - of his own children. Part of the social contract is realising that not everyone has a millionaire partner.
And talking about stupid arguments. First, do you really think anyone makes money having a baby on welfare? Second, if you had bothered to read her post and not answered out of outrage, you’d have noticed that she was in a relationship, and not on welfare. Too bad she didn’t see the future.
Why do I think suing someone in a relationship with a rich woman for child support is not going to work well?
Shit happens. Having kids within a marriage is no guarantee that shit won’t happen. Might be nice, but that horse is out of the barn already. Given that shit happens, why make kids pay?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the difference the supposed “dignity” makes. What ya’ll are talking about seems to me to be views pushed upon the mother by the people she is asking money from, not from herself. I’m not going to feel worthless for asking someone for money for nothing in return; it’s only when you point out to me that it is undignified do I actually start to feel bad. Although I wouldn’t feel a lack of dignity, more like embarrassment or something. A person must be fairly self-conscious to label herself as “completely undignified” for asking for money, which is something everyone does now and then and, provided it is not unreasonable, they usually get.
Also, what dignity is there in working and still not being able to pay? What sort of dignity is found in work that you don’t have before starting to find a first job? Are teens and children all undignified because they’ve never had jobs?
I wondered that too. Maybe thay can work in all the new/expanded daycares soon to be opening up 
Oops, sorry, I didn’t mean to post twice in a row! I’m still getting the hang of this website, so bear with me please 
Which means the mothers who get paid by the government are doing dignified work because the state is paying them to raise their children, which you’ve previously agreed is work.
There is no way for both Romney’s wife, who is paid by her husband (your words) to raise their kids, and government employee, who are paid by the government, to be doing dignified work, unless the above paragraph is true. It’s basic logic. if A + B =Z and A + C = Z, then B + C = Z.
And you’re right, yahoogle. This whole dignity thing is completely stupid. It is either an emotion, which means different people feel it with different stimulus or a way to shame other people.
There is no actual reason that being “on the dole” is undignified. The dole exists for a reason, and people who need it use it. The only people who deserve to be shamed by the “undignified” label are those who use it when they don’t need it.
Well, if A is 6 and B/C are 4, then B+C is 8. If A=B=C and A+B = Z and A+C = Z, then B+C = Z. It’s a nitpick, I agree with the sentiment.
Exactly, and if you’re not generating value in the marketplace, then you’d best have a surrogate – a spouse or a parent – doing so for you.
“Job” or “paying work” is what Romney should’ve said. Of course, he made the “dignity” comment in January, long before this ever came up. But somewhere it should’ve connected, if not in his robotic mind, in the allegedly politically savvy minds of his many campaign staffers, that with statements like the dignity and “we’ll pay extra for daycare” thing floating out there, using his wife as a constant surrogate for all women’s concerns, not being able to take a position on the Lilly Ledbetter Act, treating reproductive healthcare as a means of scoring political points and further viewing women as an annoying special interest group rather than the majority of the electorate was going to come back to bite him in the ass. He should’ve handled his “women’s issues” talking points a hell of a lot better. But he doesn’t actually have a concrete position here, so this was the best he could manage: missteps, ugly comments and then money-raising on the back of a fake “insult” controversy.
DING DING DING. This is the key of it all. Whether Mitt Romney or the right wingers on this board like it, dignity is not accorded by other people, it is, by definition, behaving in a manner that indicates self-respect. Not Republicans’ respect, not the neighbors’ respect, self-respect.
And if you want to sit outside of a situation and police the circumstances in which other people may respect themselves and the choices they’ve made for themselves and their family from their awareness of their own needs, I strongly suggest that you need consider a hobby.
We also need to consider this: there is not a single state in this country where TANF benefits take you any further than half the way to the federal poverty line. The average monthly benefit for a family of 3 in 2010 was $428. No one, not a single person anywhere, is being “enriched” in any way by “choosing” to stay at home with their preschool aged children and collect that whopping $107 a week. That’s a canard.
The average childcare subsidy, btw, is $625. We could do a lot of good giving that extra $200 to the families, but that would somehow be wrong. Caring for a child 180 hours a month outside of their home is worth $3.47 an hour, but caring for a child 24 hours a day at home is worth $0.64 an hour, and that’s given so desperately begrudgingly you’d think parents on welfare were stabbing elderly nuns in the dead of night.
We’re still spending about $1,000 a second on wars, but god forbid we give a family $500 a month to pay rent, keep the lights and heat on and clothes on their children’s backs. That wouldn’t be “dignified.”:rolleyes:
Do you get the feeling Romney not only doesn’t get it, but he doesn’t get it that there is something to get here?
Yes. Exactly. He’s perfectly willing to pay for child rearing - of his own children. And I, too, am perfectly willing to pay for stuff - for me and mine. And various employers pay folks who work for them, which is why I have money and why Mitt Romney has money; my employer doesn’t pay the guys at the ice-cream parlor or the car dealership or the pet store across town; he pays the guys who work for him.
If someone isn’t doing work for an employer, I don’t expect that employer to pay them. I certainly don’t want to pay Ann Romney for raising Mitt’s kids; she’s not doing a thing for me and mine. I don’t expect Mitt Romney to pay me a nickel, either; I’m not working for him.
My employer pays me because I work for him. Should my employer pay you as well, even though you’re not working for him? If you’re raising your kids – not raising Mitt Romney’s kids, not raising my kids, and not working for an employer either – then go ahead and ask me or Mitt or my employer for money; all of us love handing over money, with strings. I hand money to the guy who cuts my hair. I hand money to the guy who fixes my car. I don’t hand money to the guy who cuts your hair or fixes your car; those guys work for you, they can dignifiedly ask you for money, but they’re no different than a panhandler if they ask me for a buck.
Please elaborate. What else do you think I owe you?
[QUOTE=yahoogle]
Which means the mothers who get paid by the government are doing dignified work because the state is paying them to raise their children, which you’ve previously agreed is work.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it’s work. If I repair my own car, that’s also work; I don’t agree that you should pay me for it, or that the government should pay me for it – and asking either of you to pay for it would strike me as undignified panhandling – but it’s work. If I cut someone’s hair or paint their house, that’s work too; it’s not work you should pay for, it’s not work the government should pay for, but it’s work; I can, with dignity, ask the recipient of the haircut or the owner of the house for pay – but it’d be undignified to ask you for pay, since it’s not your hair or your house.
If you fix my car or raise my kids, I should pay you; if you fix Mitt Romney’s car or raise his kids, he should pay you; fixing your own car is like raising your own kids, in that (a) it’s work, but (b) you’re not working for me, and yet for some reason want me to pay you. You want me to pay you? It’s not enough that you happen to be doing work; I don’t deny that barbers and painters and repairmen are doing work, but I don’t especially wish to pay 'em unless they’re working for me.
I won’t so police until and unless you’re asking for my money; at that point, your choices become decidedly more than my hobby.
And Mitt is perfectly willing to pay for child rearing of other people’s children, using taxpayer money, as long as they’re making minimum wage and spending a shitload on daycare.
You’re arguing a position (single mothers shouldn’t get government handouts) that Romney himself doesn’t hold. He wants to give taxpayer money to single mothers. He just wants to do it in a manner that gives them some condescending definition of “dignity,” even if it means costing the state MORE.
As should have Ms Rosen, or anyone who has ever stepped in it by saying to a stay at home mom, “Don’t you work?”. Romney seems to have stepped in it bigger than Rosen, who didn’t manage to extract herself gracefully, by implying there wasn’t dignity in being a SAHM - what he meant to imply was that there was dignity in supporting yourself and your family, but it does open up the “most women don’t get an easy choice - SAHMing is financially tough, even for most married women, WOHMing means you aren’t there for every moment and need of your child.”
Recently we had a thread over on “what percent are you.”. And two incomes makes a big difference on having an above median household income for the non-Romney and friends portion of the population. There is a definite tone deafness regarding class, even the middle class, much less the woman feeding kids on foodstamps.
And his wife didn’t do him any favors being overheard saying that Rosen’s comment was a gift. Too many women on both sides have been hurt in this argument by the intentional offenderatti. I think most of us have lost patience with that drama queen behavior, on both sides.
I think it’s time we, like the rest of the country, move on to the next “outrage of the week”. This story’s “use by” date has expired.
And I mean the whole Rosen thing, not this byproduct.
Hasn’t anyone said something new and stupid yet?
But that’s not the position I’m arguing; I’m arguing that, if they want government pay, they should do some work outside the home. As far as I can tell, that happens to be the exact position Romney holds, as per the OP. Are you quite sure your post is based on my actual position?
She’s paying some form of tax, presumably.
As a citizen of the US: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why?
Even after reading this sentence three times, I still can’t figure it out.
Good catch. I apparently should have repeated the wording from that part before the semicolon; she’s not doing a thing for me and mine by raising Mitt’s kids. She’s like someone who paints Mitt’s house or fixes his car: she’s doing work that he’s presumably willing to pay for, but that I’m not especially keen on paying for. If she wants to raise my kids (or paint my house, or fix my car) then I’ll gladly pay her.
No problem. You don’t also want a dime, or a dollar? You’re okay in my book.
Because as long as they’re solely doing work inside the home, they’re benefiting their own little closed system – by helping their kids rather than mine.
Again, imagine someone is simply building himself a big fine house he can’t afford: he keeps doing carpentry and bricklaying and other stuff that’s inarguably work, but he’s not doing it for me or for you – and yet he keeps asking you and me for money? I don’t know about you, but if someone asks for me for pay – well, ideally I’d like to pay him in exchange for doing work for me and mine instead of for him and his – but, big-hearted guy that I am, I’ll meet the other guy halfway by asking him to just do some kind of work outside his home: maybe for me, maybe for you, maybe for someone else altogether, but, c’mon, man, I’m willing to compromise and this guy keeps benefiting him and his while asking for no-strings-attached cash? If he won’t meet me in the middle then why should I compromise at all?
Did you read the post it was in response to? Tumbleddown wrote the following:
Read that three times. My response is that I only want to “police the circumstances” of folks if they’re requesting my money. My response is that I should have no say when it comes to “the choices they’ve made for themselves” until and unless they come for my money. I want that say in how my money is spent, and tumbleddown says my desire to do so is – something I should swap out for a hobby.
It’s not your money. When the government taxes it, it is the government’s money. You get a vote, just one, to tell the government how to spend it. Other than that, you are simply shouting at the clouds.
And so I’m mentioning how I’d vote, sure as Romney is staking out his position in the OP’s quote; you also get a vote, just one, and can – right here – just as easily mention how you’d vote. So?