Mr. Moto likes to see women suffer.
Romney did not address this issue at all, he made no such stipulations, this is just your hand-waving to make it seem respectable. No sale.
Except they’re saving you money by not utilising daycare which would end up being more expensive for you. The state is probably saving money likewise by not setting up agencies for semi-productive employment (though some would argue that building bridges and dams is a useful venture for the sake of dignity).
The analogy to someone asking for money to build an expensive house doesn’t hold up when this is an issue of basic survival. Friedman and Marx both make the case that there will always be unemployment at the behest of market forces. They diverge when it comes to whether this is the ideal to strive for. Some proportion of those unemployed will be single parents, most often mothers. Perhaps it’s noble to want them to go to work in order to get skills, even if that ends up costing more than subsidising those unwilling to work. Such a notion can be worded less cruelly than “I want to ensure you don’t spend as much time with your children as you could, even though it ends up costing me more, despite it being a traditional value that mothers should look after children”.
The alternative, where the state does not provide opportunities for employment nor welfare, is that unemployed mothers are at the mercy of pittance, else they starve. Hilary Rosen’s comments polled at 90% disapproval, but what she did not say is that “should Mitt Romney go bankrupt and die, Ann Romney and her children should probably starve to death too” or words to those effect. Yet the callous concepts of Social Darwinism seem to persist thoughout this thread, which makes the bipartisan condemnation of Rosen seem ludicrous.
The ‘stipulation’ is that – as per the OP – he was talking about “women on welfare”. I fail to see how he ‘did not address this issue at all,’ since his “I want the individuals to have the dignity of work” comment was directed solely at people who sought to receive the benefits in question without going out to get a paying job. Re-read the OP; it’s all there.
[QUOTE=gamerunknown]
what she did not say is that “should Mitt Romney go bankrupt and die, Ann Romney and her children should probably starve to death too” or words to those effect.
[/QUOTE]
And neither did Mitt, and neither do I; as spelled out in the OP, Mitt’s position is that in such a situation, Ann Romney should receive government assistance if she’s willing to go out and get a paying job.
I think Mitt is right, and every mother should go out and get a dignified job, like stripper.
Sorry, that’s too dignified. How about something really slimy, like Republican Congresswoman?
Shhh. We don’t talk about Social Darwinism in America, and we don’t discuss the meaning of the term “work ethic.” Doing so is close to undeclared class warfare.
Ah, I see. Thanks. It was the use of “police” as a verb that threw me.
Most entry level jobs do not pay a living wage, hence you cannot support yourself on them. And that’s if you DON’T have day care experiences. So let’s cut out the conservative fantasies and move into the real world, eh?
Is it also part of Mitt’s belief in the dignity of work that wage earners should pay up to 35% on their wages, and even those who earn over $35K should pay 25%, while people who clip coupons on their bonds should pay only 15%, and people who inherit wealth should pay nothing?
I’m not sure it will. The comment Rosen made should have blown over, the problem was is that the gender gap was huge when it was made (20% is what I recall hearing) - so the GOP decided to take advantage of her blunder. That put the Dems on the offensive, which gave us this Romney tidbit.
But the gender gap remains. And while this incident may blow over, this sort of thing is going to be a story as long as it remains. The birth control thing didn’t play well with women (and the whole not defending a single adult woman using birth control who was called a slut - there needed to be far more moral outrage from the right on that). The Komen Foundation reminded us that our ability to get affordable mammograms can be held hostage by abortion politics. More women support the Health Reform Act. Our public school funding is being cut (often, granted, at a state a local level, but it all gets mushed together in ‘which party is to blame’) and the Department of Education is under attack - something, again, that women place higher priority on then men. The GOP will jump on any blunder the Dems make that might close that gap - and the Dems will play any blunder the GOP makes to ensure it stays until November. And both will go after legitimate policy issues that affect women.
Guh! I’m not any kind of Romney supporter, but I really can’t read this argument anymore without stepping in because I think many posters in this thread are comparing the wrong two things. It doesn’t sound to me like he’s saying that the work of raising children only holds dignity for those who do it without public assistance, but that working for a paycheck holds more dignity than being on public assistance.
Welfare moms aren’t generally happy to be welfare moms, I hope you’ll all agree that there’s not a lot of dignity in that for the parents or for the kids. They are not counting their lucky stars because they found a way to stay home with the kids without having to hold down a job, they just can’t afford to get a job because day care is too expensive or they can’t afford a bus pass much less a car to get them to and from a job every day.
So, what if we made day care less expensive through government subsidies? What if we funded those subsidies by redirecting some of the money we’ve been using for TANF? What if instead of feeling stuck on welfare because you couldn’t work out how to work, you could take your kids someplace safe and go to work and so were able to earn enough to meet your own expenses rather than having to depend of TANF to meet them for you?
Wouldn’t that be better? Wouldn’t that feel better? More…I don’t know, dignified, to the people who were doing it?
Except Mitt Romney has shown that he’s willing to spend his own money to keep a woman at home looking after the kids. So it’s not like he’ll do everything in his power to get a woman out to work because it’s more dignified.
He also isn’t concerned with government expenditure, he admitted it could even cost the taxpayer more money to get the woman out of the house.
Why is he interested in pulling out all the stops in getting welfare mothers out of the house without even consulting them when he won’t do the same for his own wife? Why are so many conservatives defending his comments? If anything, it has demonstrated that the concern over Rosen’s comments was entirely manufactured.
No, by your reasoning what Ann Romney did is entirely dignified: she did work that someone – in this case, Mitt – was “willing to spend his own money” on, such that she was able to raise no more kids than she could afford. It would’ve been undignified if – after getting Mitt “to spend his own money” – Ann Romney had then gone on to ask for my money without doing work that I’m willing to spend my own money on. But she didn’t do that.
But so long as you claim she did work that “he’s willing to spend his own money on”, I’m not seeing the problem: she did dignified work just like I do, an impressed Mitt spent money just like my employer does – and I wouldn’t dream of asking Mitt for a paycheck because I’m not working for him, sure as Ann doesn’t ask my employer for a paycheck because she’s not working for him.
What are some important considerations in making this policy decision? I’ll offer some:
– What arrangement is most efficient for society? Might it be more efficient for poor, single mothers of young children to be given a benefit to stay home until their children are of school age? (Apparently, yes, since, according to Romney, it would cost more in day care to have them working.)
– What arrangement would bring about the best results for the children? This is also a consideration that implicates the public benefit. If the children are more likely to be successful in the future if they aren’t sent to day care at a very young age, then that might be a consideration.
– What arrangement would bring about the best results for the mother? We also want to help the mother achieve future goals. Is it possible that offering assistance for some period of time without requiring her to work outside the home would contribute to a greater likelihood of future success?
And I’m sure there are many other considerations.
But the only one you seem to be putting forth is: “She’s on public assistance, so I want to make her work outside the house.” And you don’t really offer a solid rationale why that’s the best policy option. And the tenor of your comments are giving me the idea that the unspoken rationale is “Because people who accept public assistance should be punished in some way.”
Romney expressly mentioned the rationale in that quote right there in the OP: he wants individuals to have the dignity of work.
I’m not sure “punished” is the right word. Try the very words I live by: ‘people who accept a paycheck from my employer should do so in exchange for the work they do for my employer.’ I don’t ask for a paycheck simply because it’ll bring about good results for me and my kids; I instead ask my employer for a paycheck because I work for him.
(I don’t then walk across the street to another business, point out how hard I’ve been working for someone other than them, and stick my hand out for a second paycheck; I suppose I’d do so if I lacked the dignity of work and didn’t understand why I got that first paycheck – but, as it happens, I know why I get paid by someone I work for, and why that doesn’t entitle me to anything else.)
If people who accept those checks actually think the way you do – that it’s a punishment to perform work as directed by your employer, because you should get that money in exchange for simply continuing to do as you please – then that’s the best argument I’ve heard yet for why Romney is right.
And the implication is that they cannot have the dignity of work by staying at home, caring for their children; presumably because being a stay at home mom is either not work, or not dignified, or both.
No, it’s work and it’s dignified. What I do is also work, and is also dignified. I don’t get a paycheck from you for doing my work, since I’m not working for you; I figure it’d be downright undignified for me to ask you to pay my way, and downright bizarre for me to justify it by pointing out how hard I work for someone else entirely. So why should folks who stay at home ask you to pay their way? They’re working just as hard as I am; their work is just as dignified; you’re not paying me; why pay them?
Which –
– Seems like such a flimsy and ephemeral benefit that it must be there either as a dog whistle or as window dressing for some other motivation, and
– Seems to be a frivolous motivation compared to other considerations, such as the one I listed.
I’m not sure “punished” is the right word. Try the very words I live by: ‘people who accept a paycheck from my employer should do so in exchange for the work they do for my employer.’ I don’t ask for a paycheck simply because it’ll bring about good results for me and my kids; I instead ask my employer for a paycheck because I work for him.
(I don’t then walk across the street to another business, point out how hard I’ve been working for someone other than them, and stick my hand out for a second paycheck; I suppose I’d do so if I lacked the dignity of work and didn’t understand why I got that first paycheck – but, as it happens, I know why I get paid by someone I work for, and why that doesn’t entitle me to anything else.)
If people who accept those checks actually think the way you do – that it’s a punishment to perform work as directed by your employer, because you should get that money in exchange for simply continuing to do as you please – then that’s the best argument I’ve heard yet for why Romney is right.
[/QUOTE]
You already beat me to it by (accidentally?) copy-and-pasting what I can but merely repeat: “if people who accept those checks actually think the way you do – that it’s a punishment to perform work as directed by your employer, because you should get that money in exchange for simply continuing to do as you please – then that’s the best argument I’ve heard yet for why Romney is right.”
To the exact extent that you find it flimsy and ephemeral – to the extent that you think it must be a dog-whistle or window-dressing for something else – you prove the point: you hear that the words I live by are ‘people who accept a paycheck from my employer should do so in exchange for the work they do for my employer,’ and you reply that
(a) I couldn’t possibly mean that, and
(b) the words you’d prefer to live by are – what, exactly? You’ve apparently gone past “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” in favor of “from each according to his inclination,” since we can’t possibly ask 'em to do anything other than what they’re already doing; they have but to ask for money and they shall receive.
The government in effecting social benefits is not analogous to an employer. The reason for these kinds of programs is not to employ people but to bring about some desirable result, one being that poor children have adequate food, clothing, supervision, whatever.
And I didn’t say that I thought it was a punishment, but that the manner of your comments suggest to me that you want it to be a punishment – “X is accepting benefits, so should be forced to jump through my hoops, regardless of whether it ultimately serves the public interest.”
And that’s something from your fevered imagination. My idea is that policy should be based on rational goals and results, not something like the “dignity of work,” which seems to me to be conjured from thin air.
If overall the social and individual welfare is served by policy X by more concrete considerations, then why should anyone give a shit about “dignity of work”? Which my rational mind then leads to believe that “no one actually does give a shit about the ‘dignity of work.’” Which then leads to wonder what they are really concerned about. And the angry tone of your posts suggests to me that punishment or retribution is a possibility.