Mitt Romney says stay at home moms "lack the dignity of work."

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Acsenray

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.”

To you, that suggests a punishment. To me, it doesn’t – no more than I consider it a punishment when I’m plugging away at work in exchange for a paycheck.

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.

And that’s something from your fevered imagination.

Pardon? I say *‘if they ask for money, they should have to do X to get it.’ * As near as I can tell, you say ‘if they ask for money, they should – get it.’ I don’t see where you’re requiring them to do some X or Y or Z; I may well need a fevered imagination to spot such an X or Y or Z in your reasoning, but not AFAICT to note the lack thereof.

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.’

If you believe that, then I suppose we know that you don’t give a shit about it. And I’ll readily admit that it’s quite possibly a sentiment shared by everyone who does work for A, asks to be paid by B or C, and genuinely sees no reason why B (or C) should ask for some other work in exchange.

You’re actually starting to convince me that someone will soon deliver a pizza to the house next door and then walk over to ask me for a couple of twenties, explaining that hey, we can all agree that delivering pizza is hard and dignified work, plus it would really benefit a number of people, including me.

The government in effecting social benefits is not analogous to an employer. The reason for these kinds of programs is not to employ people

Er, yes; Romney, as per the OP, wants to change that, precisely because he figures it should be analogous to employment. I agree with him; you apparently don’t. I’m not entirely sure there’s any point in continuing, if you believe such folks should get no-strings-attached money and I believe they should be willing to perform other work in exchange for it; we can of course simply restate our positions to each other, but we’re apparently so far apart that you don’t even believe my position could be authentic.

And the angry tone of your posts suggests to me that punishment or retribution is a possibility.

So you disregard Romney’s words because they must be a dog-whistle or window-dressing for something else, and you disregard my words because you think there’s an “angry” tone; I know you’re incorrect about the latter, and so figure you’re incorrect about the former.

[gamerunknown]

@The Other Waldo Pepper

I’m not seeing the problem

He’s willing to spend state funds to prevent someone from doing something he’s willing to spend money to promote.

[Acsenray]

Add to that your characterization of people “asking for money.” It’s not about people asking for money. It’s about the government giving people money in order to serve certain public interests. Whether they asked for it is not relevant.

[Shodan]

@gamerunknown

He’s willing to spend state funds to prevent someone from doing something he’s willing to spend money to promote.

No, what he promoted in his marriage is different from what he wants to prevent. That’s been explained already.

Regards,
Shodan

[septimus]

@Mr.Moto

Really? You see no policy difference between a parent that stays at home and raises children with minimal government subsidy and a parent that relies on extensive government subsidy to do so?

OP asked about Romney, who said “I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.” Mr. Moto, are you addressing what Romney said or what you wish he’d said?

The response I quoted is only #2 in the thread;most Dopers will be happy I only skimmed the rest and don’t intend to participate further.
But it is interesting how much the right-wing relies on “code phrasings.” Mr. Moto’s comment is a non sequitur, if one interprets Romney’s words literally, but right-wing rhetoric is all about the wink-and-nod and everyone knows it.

[Shodan]

Bless your heart.

:nod:

Regards,
Shodan

[gamerunknown]

@Shodan

No, what he promoted in his marriage is different from what he wants to prevent

Having a full-time carer raise American citizens.

The “explanations” are special pleading.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Acsenray

Add to that your characterization of people “asking for money.” It’s not about people asking for money.

Hey, if it’ll help the discussion along I suppose we could maybe swap out my “asking for money” formulation for your “accepting benefits” one. Or possibly we could meet halfway: did they apply for benefits? Would it be inaccurate to say they requested benefits?

(Looking back, I guess I never technically ‘asked for money’ back when I was accepting benefits from the government; I signed on some sort of dotted line, and then did as my employer instructed, and then received a check in exchange for whatever they felt like telling me to do, be it swabbing a deck or standing guard – but I can’t honestly remember what precise wording was used.)

[QUOTE=gamerunknown]

I’m not seeing the problem

He’s willing to spend state funds to prevent someone from doing something he’s willing to spend money to promote.
[/QUOTE]

By that formulation, he’s willing to spend his own private money employing someone – which I have no problem with – and would presumably be just as willing to spend no state funds on the benefits in question, if only folks would stop requesting (or applying for, or asking for) them. But so long as folks (a) who aren’t following Ann Romney’s example by working for such an employer (b) keep requesting-slash-applying-for-slash-asking-for benefits, why the heck would I have a problem with him spending state funds encouraging 'em to seek such employment?

[Acsenray]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

why the heck would I have a problem with him spending state funds encouraging 'em to seek such employment?

What if it were shown that it might damage the efficiency of the program and undermine its goals? Would you see that as a problem?

[Shodan]

@Acsenray

What if it were shown that it might damage the efficiency of the program and undermine its goals? Would you see that as a problem?

How does encouraging them to seek work undermine the goals of the program? Keep in mind that one of the goals of the program is to allow welfare parents to know the dignity of work (in the sense that Romney is talking about). And obviously, the “efficiency” of the program should be measured, at least in part, by how well it achieves that goal. Not simply lowest in cost - Romney already said that offering the dignity of work is worth some extra cost.

Also keep in mind that one alternative - marriage, as the Romneys chose - costs the government the least of all, as well as offering SAHMs the dignity of work (again, in the sense that Romney is talking about).

Regards,
Shodan

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Acsenray

What if it were shown that it might damage the efficiency of the program and undermine its goals? Would you see that as a problem?

Again, part of the problem is that you don’t actually believe that Romney has a new and different goal in mind for the program; he says he wants to use it to further multiple goals, and a trade-off in Goal #3 might well be worth it if Goal #7 gets helped along as a result – but I honestly can’t see any point in making that claim when you’ve already posted your reply: no one actually does give a shit about the goal in question, you’ll explain, adding that it must be there either as a dog whistle or as window dressing for some other motivation. You know my position and I know yours.

[gamerunknown]

@Shodan

as well as offering SAHMs the dignity of work

Again, special pleading. It’s only dignified work if one asks for a handout from an individual. What if the individual is a public sector employee?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@gamerunknown

Again, special pleading. It’s only dignified work if one asks for a handout from an individual. What if the individual is a public sector employee?

What if he or she is? A public-sector employee earned that money by working in exchange for it, and can then spend that money however they see fit; I figure there’s dignity in being one – I was one – and in working for one.

[Shodan]

@gamerunknown

Again, special pleading. It’s only dignified work if one asks for a handout from an individual. What if the individual is a public sector employee?

No, it is dignified work if one is paid by the person to whom one is supplying a benefit. A public sector employee is providing a benefit to his employer, and is entitled to be paid by his employer for providing a benefit. A SAHM like Ann Romney is providing a benefit to her husband by raising his children (and her own). A welfare mother isn’t raising my children, nor does she provide me any benefit that would entitle her to be paid by me. So she isn’t doing any dignified work by the definition that Romney is using.

Romney is saying it would be better if the welfare recipients learned the experience of dignified work, instead of relying on the charity of strangers. Someone who believes that people are entitled to public subsidy simply because they create children they cannot support on their own would presumably disagree with that. That’s a possible position, but probably not a popular one, given the spate of welfare reform during the 90s.

But a person who was subsidized merely for reproducing is not doing dignified work by Romney’s definition, because she is not providing a benefit to the person who pays her. So it is not special pleading, and there is no contradiction between supporting welfare reform and having a wife who stays home with the children. Ann Romney provided a benefit to her “employer”; a stay at home welfare mom does not.

Regards,
Shodan

[Fear_Itself]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

No, it’s work and it’s dignified.

So if they already have the dignity of work, what is Romney going on about? Will you just admit he should never have referred to the “dignity of work”, when what he really meant was the need to got to work for someone else, even if it costs the state more in child care.

[elucidator]

Excuse me, but what jobs? Where are these alleged jobs that provide all the dignity? Isn’t Mittens the guy bitching that Obama screwed up the bountiful economy handed down to him by GeeDubya, and that’s why there are no jobs? And the solution is to put millions and millions of stay-at-home welfare moms on the job market?

Fucking brilliant.

[gamerunknown]

@Shodan

A welfare mother isn’t raising my children, nor does she provide me any benefit

Except that we have collectively decided that it’s in the public’s interest not to let children starve should their parents be incapable or unwilling to support them.

[Shodan]

@gamerunknown

Except that we have collectively decided that it’s in the public’s interest not to let children starve should their parents be incapable or unwilling to support them.

Where did Romney advocate letting them starve? He wants their parent(s) to support them with some dignity, instead of without it.

Regards,
Shodan

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Fear_Itself

So if they already have the dignity of work, what is Romney going on about?

They have the dignity of work so long as they’re not requesting money from anyone they’re not working for.

Look, yours truly also already has that dignity, since I work for my employer in exchange for well-earned pay; if, however, I went on to request a no-strings-attached check from you – and one from everybody else in this thread – I’d then suddenly be no different than anyone else with a hand out, because, sure, I’m working for someone else and not for any of you, but what does that matter? I’ve suddenly lost the tenuous connection between who I work for and why he pays me! Don’t any of you understand? I want to keep on doing what I’m doing now, and I want you to pay me for it, since I have no idea why the work I do for someone entitles me to money from that person!

Stay-at-home parents who don’t request a monthly check from the government have the dignity of work. Stay-at-home parents who request that check and are willing to do some other work in exchange for it also have the dignity of work. Stay-at-home parents who request that check but aren’t willing to do some other work in exchange for it – why, they’d be no different than me, if I were the sort of person who put in a month’s work for Guy A and then requested money from Guys B and C, which I’m not, since, y’know, I understand why my employer pays me and why other folks don’t, what with the dignity of work and et cetera.

Will you just admit he should never have referred to the “dignity of work”, when what he really meant was the need to got to work for someone else, even if it costs the state more in child care.

I’ll admit he meant that, but I don’t think he “should never have referred” to the dignity of work; when inevitably asked why he figures people should be willing to work for someone who’d pay them in exchange for stuff they’d be doing, Romney would eventually have to explain the whole point.

[Fear_Itself]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

They have the dignity of work so long as they’re not requesting money from anyone they’re not working for.

And this is where your whole argument goes off the rails. Why does receiving government assistance diminish the dignity of the work it takes to care for your children?