Romney: Poor Mothers Should Be Required to Work Outside the Home

Still more stunning hypocrisy from the party that owns it
Politics • Views: 35,170

After the totally fake controversy about “stay at home moms” drummed up by the Republican Party, this clip of Mitt Romney is pretty devastating. As recently as January of this year, Mitt Romney was singing a very different tune, telling poor women they shouldn’t be allowed to stay at home and care for their children, but instead should be required to work outside the home or lose welfare benefits.

“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” said Romney. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ 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.”

Video

The Republican Party — on the side of stay-at-home mothers, as long as they’re rich.

Jump to bottom

230 comments
1 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:29:15am

"Oops."

2 allegro  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:32:34am

He apparently has little respect for his wife, she of little dignity by these standards.

3 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:33:45am

re: #2 allegro

Stay-at-home moms that hire nannies and housekeepers are the "dignity creators."

4 darthstar  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:34:00am

That was way back in January. Mitt was young and naive and didn't know better. You can't take things he said in the past and use them against him.

5 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:35:22am

Why do you hate Ann Romney and working moms?

6 allegro  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:37:01am

What's unfortunate on a personal level is that I'm all for providing good, affordable or government provided daycare to allow moms and dads to work outside of the home. I see it as a total win-win for families, companies, and the economy. It's the way he presents it in such a drippingly condescending and insulting way that I find very distasteful.

7 A Mom Anon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:41:10am

Where are these jobs all the mommies are supposed to get their dignity from Mitt? Would those jobs perhaps,oh,I don't know,pay enough to support those kids in the daycare system you're going to create to take care of them? Will these jobs and daycare establishments be close to the Mom's home? Or will she have to ride a bus for an hour or more each way to her job? What happens if the boss decides she has to work overtime and the daycare is closing or fines her for being late to pick up her child? Better still why not offer these moms some shot at a degree or trade school and take care of the kiddies while they do that?

You know,I have no issue with rich people. UNLESS they run their mouths about how the rest of us should be living by their ohsospecial decree when they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. Just.Shut.Your.Piehole. Unless you have something reality based or actually practical to offer.

God help me I'm OVER this bullshit.

8 Amory Blaine  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:41:49am

Pro family legislation costs money. What are the chances of anything being passed with Romney and his party?

9 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:44:10am

Big Tent. Huge Tent. Ginormous Tent.

Now with more space inside.

10 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:44:25am

Shorter GOP Platform

/nerd

11 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:45:00am

You see. When you're rich, you are not required to experience "the dignity of work." However, when you're poor, you must experience "the dignity of work." Clearly these are strong class distinctions. Those that are born poor must always face a life of labor. Those born rich are destined for a life of relative ease and luxury.

Romney's subtext is that people in particular classes must accept their fates in their class roles. The poor of course have relatively few option in this grand class experiment. The rich of course are free to experiment in any direction including pretending to be poor by living on "a mere $50,000/year."

12 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:45:31am

re: #10 Lidane

Shorter GOP Platform

/nerd

Well, they certainly have been living by the 34th Rule for decades.

13 allegro  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:45:36am

re: #7 A Mom Anon

Where are these jobs all the mommies are supposed to get their dignity from Mitt? Would those jobs perhaps,oh,I don't know,pay enough to support those kids in the daycare system you're going to create to take care of them? Will these jobs and daycare establishments be close to the Mom's home? Or will she have to ride a bus for an hour or more each way to her job? What happens if the boss decides she has to work overtime and the daycare is closing or fines her for being late to pick up her child? Better still why not offer these moms some shot at a degree or trade school and take care of the kiddies while they do that?

You know,I have no issue with rich people. UNLESS they run their mouths about how the rest of us should be living by their ohsospecial decree when they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. Just.Shut.Your.Piehole. Unless you have something reality based or actually practical to offer.

God help me I'm OVER this bullshit.

Well said!

14 Talking Point Detective  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:49:05am

re: #7 A Mom Anon

Where are these jobs all the mommies are supposed to get their dignity from Mitt? Would those jobs perhaps,oh,I don't know,pay enough to support those kids in the daycare system you're going to create to take care of them? Will these jobs and daycare establishments be close to the Mom's home? Or will she have to ride a bus for an hour or more each way to her job? What happens if the boss decides she has to work overtime and the daycare is closing or fines her for being late to pick up her child? Better still why not offer these moms some shot at a degree or trade school and take care of the kiddies while they do that?

You know,I have no issue with rich people. UNLESS they run their mouths about how the rest of us should be living by their ohsospecial decree when they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. Just.Shut.Your.Piehole. Unless you have something reality based or actually practical to offer.

God help me I'm OVER this bullshit.

I once worked in a welfare-to-work program where we were teaching English to (mostly Cambodian) immigrants. Some of these folks were middle aged, never spent a day in school in their lives, never had the experience of associating symbols with sounds as required in our reading and writing system. They had hard lives - most were women with kids whose husbands left them after they came to the States (a common reaction to living in a different cultural context). They were expected to learn English in one year sufficiently to get a job - otherwise lose their welfare benefits.

In point of fact, even if they could learn English, they would have to ride a bus two ways, maybe 1 hour each way, for a minimum wage job. Meanwhile, they'd have to pay a shitload in childcare.

Needless to say, some of them were not highly committed to the process of learning English (think of what a daunting task given their background). For example, maybe they would not come to class when it wasn't clear that they were very sick (perhaps maybe they stayed home to take care of a sick kid).

What amazed me was how condescending were many of my colleagues. These were people who specifically chose the work of teaching English to immigrants. And mind you, they were certainly not rich people. But they would speak of the students as lazy, as basically, contemptuous liars.

15 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:49:57am

Coachella rebroadcasting Radiohead's performance from last night.

16 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:53:09am

Romney/GOP World:

• No abortions for you as determined by your state of residence.
• No contraception for you.
• No pre/post natal care for your baby if you're poor.
• No guaranteed health care for you or your baby.
• No student loans or grants for your baby.
• No Planned Parenthood/Title X.
• Collect a piddly sum perhaps with welfare/food stamps.
• Drug tested.
• Work required to experience "the dignity of work."
• De-fund all childcare programs and leave it to the churches.
• Forget equal pay.

17 ProGunLiberal  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:54:03am

re: #16 Gus

That sounds like the Salafists. No seriously, it does.

18 allegro  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:55:23am

re: #16 Gus

Image: GOP___women.JPG

19 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:01:21am

Well, slavery is very profitable. People being forced to work is good for the bottom line.

20 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:02:09am

re: #19 Romantic Heretic

Well, slavery is very profitable. People being forced to work is good for the bottom line.

Hence one of biggest driving forces behind dismantling the social safety net, because when people have no other choice, you can make them work for peanuts.

21 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:02:34am

Could be worse. Gingrich would think the mother AND the child (after the age of 2) should be required to work in order to experience "the dignity of work."

//

22 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:02:40am

The GOP is headed for an electoral beatdown of monumental proportions.

The only thing that can win it for them now is an unforeseen catastrophe like a new war, European economic collapse, or zombie apocalypse. And I'd still give Obama pretty good odds in the last one.

23 Sionainn  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:03:58am

re: #22 Shiplord Kirel

The GOP is headed for an electoral beatdown of monumental proportions.

The only thing that can win it for them now is an unforeseen catastrophe like a new war, European economic collapse, or zombie apocalypse. And I'd still give Obama pretty good odds in the last one.

One can only hope. I'm definitely voting for Obama.

24 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:04:38am

Romney Adviser Ed Gillespie Struggles To Defend Campaign’s Major Economic Claim

Mitt Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie struggled to defend his campaign’s central piece of evidence supporting its claim that President Obama is waging a war on women today. The claim — that 92 percent of jobs lost under Obama where lost by women — has been called highly misleading and “mostly false” by Politifact (twice), the Washington Post’s fact checker, an AP fact checker, and even the rabidly conservative Daily Caller.

Even Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace saw the problem with the claim and pressed Gillespie when he mentioned the figure this morning.

25 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:05:30am

re: #22 Shiplord Kirel

The GOP is headed for an electoral beatdown of monumental proportions.

The only thing that can win it for them now is an unforeseen catastrophe like a new war, European economic collapse, or zombie apocalypse. And I'd still give Obama pretty good odds in the last one.

Still roughly 8 months to go between now and Election Day. Any number of things could happen, including the infamous "October Surprise."

26 sean6886politik  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:06:32am

Oh that Mittens. RMoney just pulled an Etch-A-Sketch.

27 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:06:48am

re: #20 Targetpractice

Hence one of biggest driving forces behind dismantling the social safety net, because when people have no other choice, you can make them work for peanuts.

As we have seen with the white supremacists of late -- who still lurk the underbelly of the GOP -- they are rather willing to bring back segregation. Weissberg of course argued to take the segregationist movement into stealth mode. The next logical step for them would be to bring back slums and/or company towns.

28 A Mom Anon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:07:46am

re: #18 allegro

You know,I'd almost have some respect for them if they would actually be truthful and just say it to our faces. At least then we could dispose of all the other bullshit and move onward.

29 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:12:08am

re: #27 Gus

Youtube Video
30 Sheila Broflovski  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:12:54am

re: #19 Romantic Heretic

Well, slavery is very profitable. People being forced to work is good for the bottom line.

Why should Walmart hire real workers when they can get "workfare" recipients who are paid by the government?

32 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:14:43am

Romney espousing the dignity of work is a caricature of irony.

33 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:18:18am

Trickle down economics on steroids. Coincidence?

Somehow I'm seeing the ghost of Ayn Rand here and the Tea Party effect.

34 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:21:57am

re: #16 Gus

You forgot "roll back protections for employees being exploited by employers." Look at what Gov Walker signed last week, or the opposition to the Lilly Leadbetter Act (or, for that matter, Al Franken's law about rape in government subcontracted companies)...and of course, all the anti-union stuff.

The candidate is talking about the "dignity" of work as his colleagues strip away any voice or means of protest available to employees.

35 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:22:22am

re: #33 Gus

Trickle down economics on steroids. Coincidence?

Somehow I'm seeing the ghost of Ayn Rand here and the Tea Party effect.

Thing is, Ayn would have ripped Mitt apart for his suggestions in the video, even if he was only playing to the rubes.

36 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:23:02am

re: #33 Gus

Actually it's Marx I see in this type of behaviour. The 'capitalists' seem bent on proving Marx right.

37 [deleted]  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:23:04am
38 darthstar  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:23:26am

re: #24 jaunte

Romney Adviser Ed Gillespie Struggles To Defend Campaign’s Major Economic Claim

Catching the west coast feed now...love the way he says "when you fill up the minivan at the pump"...do women still drive minivans? Is that a good strategy for wooing women?

39 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:26:06am

re: #36 Romantic Heretic

Actually it's Marx I see in this type of behaviour. The 'capitalists' seem bent on proving Marx right.

Cause and effect. Batista preceding Castro? The [real] Czars preceding the Communist Revolution in Russia.

40 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:26:15am

Romney and the Ryan budget:

Mitt Romney's poor judgment is already undermining his candidacy

Calling the budget a Trojan horse, disguised as a deficit-reduction plan, Obama said that the legislation is "really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who's willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn't trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last – education and training, research and development, our infrastructure – it is a prescription for decline."
....
....Mitt Romney, to put it bluntly, should know better. That he has embraced a piece of legislation likely to cause him so much damage in November is a telling indication of his larger – or, rather, lesser – political skills. But in his defence, it's also an indication of how conservative the Republican party has become.

41 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:28:40am

re: #40 jaunte

Romney and the Ryan budget:

Mitt Romney's poor judgment is already undermining his candidacy

The moment the "Ryan Plan" got passed a second time, it was all over. Mitt was either gonna embrace it and take the same flak as Congress is set to take, oppose it and lose the base, or just keep avoiding take a position and instead be forced to explain why he wasn't supporting his own party's budget "proposal."

42 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:28:56am

re: #32 Kronocide

Romney espousing the dignity of work is a caricature of irony.

Mitt apparently worked pretty hard as a Mormon missionary in France in the 60s. With its prohibitions against wine, tobacco, and coffee, the Mormon faith must have been a pretty hard sell to the French. In fact, the well-financed mission averaged only about 250 conversions a year. Even so, Romney did so well he was promoted to president of the mission his second year there. The president lived in an actual palace while the rank and file lived like impoverished monks. It also kept him out of Vietnam, a distinction he shares with many other conservative luminaries, Newt Gingrich (married student), Rush Limbaugh (cyst on ass), Sylvester Stallone (teaching in a Swiss girl's school), and so on. With my admitted bias, I sense a pattern here but your mileage may vary.
To be fair, there was John McCain, whose Vietnam service would seem to make up for any number of deadbeats and draft dodgers, but he is just a RINO now anyway.

43 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:31:11am

Who is Romney or anyone to decide who is to work and who can not? Memo to the GOP stick to the economy and other "bread and butter" issues. Get out of my bedroom and out of my house and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

44 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:31:25am

re: #33 Gus

Trickle down economics on steroids. Coincidence?

Somehow I'm seeing the ghost of Ayn Rand here and the Tea Party effect.

I see 50% the old school British class system and 50% colonialism, but I guess those both reduce down a single self-serving lie:

Talk about how the lesser folks need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and how all efforts should be made to provide them with "opportunities" to do so. Coincidentally, said "opportunities" involved poorly-rewarded labor that generate profit for a small number of business owners and operators...who then get elected to office and perpetuate the bootstraps policy. Anyone questioning the efficacy of this system is labeled "ungrateful" and/or a malefactor (and likely socialist).

Colonialism has one additional feature: the creation of a captive consumption base that can't obtain goods in a competitive market environment, and thus have no power to effect pricing or move the free hand with purchase choices.

45 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:31:35am

re: #14 Talking Point Detective

I once worked in a welfare-to-work program where we were teaching English to (mostly Cambodian) immigrants. Some of these folks were middle aged, never spent a day in school in their lives, never had the experience of associating symbols with sounds as required in our reading and writing system. They had hard lives - most were women with kids whose husbands left them after they came to the States (a common reaction to living in a different cultural context). They were expected to learn English in one year sufficiently to get a job - otherwise lose their welfare benefits.

In point of fact, even if they could learn English, they would have to ride a bus two ways, maybe 1 hour each way, for a minimum wage job. Meanwhile, they'd have to pay a shitload in childcare.

Needless to say, some of them were not highly committed to the process of learning English (think of what a daunting task given their background). For example, maybe they would not come to class when it wasn't clear that they were very sick (perhaps maybe they stayed home to take care of a sick kid).

What amazed me was how condescending were many of my colleagues. These were people who specifically chose the work of teaching English to immigrants. And mind you, they were certainly not rich people. But they would speak of the students as lazy, as basically, contemptuous liars.

I have an aunt that was the same way. She taught ESL for a while to a university to the wives of the students (A LONG TIME AGO). She couldn't get over their lack of "respect" for the teacher. Had no inclination to learn about their culture or lives.

46 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:32:45am

re: #19 Romantic Heretic

Well, slavery is very profitable. People being forced to work is good for the bottom line.

Well, yes, that would be the natural order of things, wouldn't it?

/gah

47 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:34:13am

re: #43 PhillyPretzel

Who is Romney or anyone to decide who is to work and who can not? Memo to the GOP stick to the economy and other "bread and butter" issues. Get out of my bedroom and out of my house and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Come, don't you care? They're fighting for your soul! They wish to push their morality upon you because they love you!

///

48 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:34:59am

re: #42 Shiplord Kirel

One of my former employees was a Mormon who managed to convert 30 people during his year as a missionary, but received no special treatment because of his efforts. The French may have been difficult, but I suspect Mitt was being treated as a prince because of his father's standing, despite his average conversion record.

49 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:37:12am

re: #47 Targetpractice

I will fight for my own soul.

50 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:37:57am

The Real Hilary Rosen Scandal

...the entire story may set off a greater, more substantive inquiry about the nature of Rosen’s consulting firm, SKDKnickerbocker, an unregistered lobbying firm that has become one of the biggest names in the influence business by using its ties to President Obama and leaders in Congress.
...
SKDKnickerbocker is led by a team of former Democratic operatives and key White House figures. But instead of promoting a progressive agenda, or even an Obama agenda, these consultants score huge contracts by helping corporate interests lobby for policies that are not in line with the public interest.

51 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:40:27am

re: #49 PhillyPretzel

I will fight for my own soul.

The various beings I've enslaved with my necromantic powers will fight for my soul.

52 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:41:54am

Romney: Dignity for stay at home moms who don't stay at home.

What about Stay At Megamansion Moms?

53 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:42:22am

Prosperity Gospel still pitching:

54 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:42:41am

I really don't think we should force single mothers to get jobs. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Mitt's proposal is that someone else be hired to take care of the kid. Why not just pay the mom to take care of their own kid? Or maybe they could just swap kids with some other mom, and both pay each other?

55 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:44:09am

re: #48 jaunte

One of my former employees was a Mormon who managed to convert 30 people during his year as a missionary, but received no special treatment because of his efforts. The French may have been difficult, but I suspect Mitt was being treated as a prince because of his father's standing, despite his average conversion record.

They don't ride bikes around here anymore. I believe they get a standard issue 2012 Chevy Impala or something like that. I don't care about the politics of Mitt's experience in France. It's not really work per se and more like work-study and lots of play. They're still kids and act like it. Believe me I know from personal observation for close to 10 years. Anyway, it's the whole Vietnam thing that's the big turn-off for most people. How he supported the Vietnam War and then took off to France.

56 Sionainn  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:45:35am

re: #54 Obdicut

I really don't think we should force single mothers to get jobs. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Mitt's proposal is that someone else be hired to take care of the kid. Why not just pay the mom to take care of their own kid? Or maybe they could just swap kids with some other mom, and both pay each other?

If we do this, we could have parenting classes in which parents are taught how to talk to their children, read to their children, and basically show them how they are their children's first teachers and what that is supposed to look like.

57 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:47:02am

re: #54 Obdicut

I really don't think we should force single mothers to get jobs. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Mitt's proposal is that someone else be hired to take care of the kid. Why not just pay the mom to take care of their own kid? Or maybe they could just swap kids with some other mom, and both pay each other?

What if the hired help is a tenured leftist schoolteacher?

Easy..... Somebody from church. Oh wait.... let the church take care of charity.... hmmm....

Oh... wow.

Hey, SOROS!

Oh, sorry. What were we talking about?

58 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:47:35am

re: #49 PhillyPretzel

I will fight for my own soul.

I concur. I don't think we are judged by any soul than our own.

59 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:50:24am

re: #54 Obdicut

I really don't think we should force single mothers to get jobs. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Mitt's proposal is that someone else be hired to take care of the kid. Why not just pay the mom to take care of their own kid? Or maybe they could just swap kids with some other mom, and both pay each other?

As I understand it, the original Welfare for Moms and Kids was designed to do exactly that. Life insurance wasn't a big seller in the old days. If a husband/father died and the mother had to go to work, the kids were left without a good environment at home. The government's idea was to support the mothers to stay-at-home and raise their kids. Benefits were based on the number of kids.

Then someone got the bright idea to keep having kids to get more money. . . .

60 Sophia77  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:50:31am

People talk about class warfare; give me a break!

Rich women (like Mrs. Romney, ahem) are workers deserving of our respect because they stay are at home moms and raise their kids.

Poor women who want to raise their kids are not deserving of our respect because they do not understand The Dignity of Work.

Which is it?

61 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:52:06am

re: #60 Sophia77

People talk about class warfare; give me a break!

Rich women (like Mrs. Romney, ahem) are workers deserving of our respect because they stay are at home moms and raise their kids.

Poor women who want to raise their kids are not deserving of our respect because they do not understand The Dignity of Work.

Which is it?

Well you see, being a stay-at-home-mother is hard work...which doesn't pay...but that doesn't mean it's not work...even though the only work that seems to come with "dignity" is one that you get paid for...hmm, I'll get back to you on that.

//

62 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:52:09am

Interesting tip:

with regards to "dignity of work" within the context of the LDS led me to this:

The Stake President’s Role in Welfare Services
David B. Haight
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

As we discuss the role of Church welfare services in the Lord’s plan for his people, I should like to briefly draw our attention to a most important gospel principle. The Lord has emphasized in many ways the worth of souls: “Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God” (D&C 18:10). Man and woman have the possibility of a “continuation of the seeds forever and ever” and will never have an end (see D&C 132:19). The elements comprising man’s mortal body, man’s intelligence, and man’s spirit are indestructible and endless.

...

A brief look at statistics highlights how far government has taken us down the road toward bankruptcy while at the same time destroying the will and incentive to work and earn what is received by the sweat of our brow.

The total cost of government welfare assistance in the United States has risen from $5.7 billion in 1945 to $177 billion in 1975—a thirty-fold increase. (See “Reshuffling Income—Government’s Growing Role,” U.S. News & World Report, 4 Aug. 1975, pp. 32–33.)

What has this monstrous thing called government welfare done to the people? Today we have second- and third-generation welfare recipients. Millions have learned how to live off the government. Children are growing up without knowing the value and the dignity of work. The government has succeeded in doing what the Church welfare program seeks to prevent.

The Lord’s way is different from government programs. The inspired Church welfare plan is administered on the principle that an individual is responsible to care for himself; where his resources are not adequate, family members are to assist. Where the family is unable to meet the needs of the individual, the Church stands ready to help. The Lord’s way emphasizes individual work and responsibility and encourages people to help themselves.

...

63 aagcobb  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:53:02am

re: #60 Sophia77

People talk about class warfare; give me a break!

Rich women (like Mrs. Romney, ahem) are workers deserving of our respect because they stay are at home moms and raise their kids.

Poor women who want to raise their kids are not deserving of our respect because they do not understand The Dignity of Work.

Which is it?

What do you want to bet that there won't be a media firestorm about Mitt saying that there is no dignity in staying at home to raise your kids?

64 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:53:07am

re: #60 Sophia77

People talk about class warfare; give me a break!

Rich women (like Mrs. Romney, ahem) are workers deserving of our respect because they stay are at home moms and raise their kids.

Poor women who want to raise their kids are not deserving of our respect because they do not understand The Dignity of Work.

Which is it?

Which ever one is cheaper for those paying taxes, is the thought process (I believe). Now, remember, the thought process is short term. Because there is always money for new prisons . . . even tho they cost more, they are profitable.

65 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:54:25am

re: #57 Kronocide

What if the hired help is a tenured leftist schoolteacher?

Easy... Somebody from church. Oh wait... let the church take care of charity... hmmm...

Oh... wow.

Hey, SOROS!

Oh, sorry. What were we talking about?

Given how the Republicans have been "solving" other problems, I think privatized child care industry that gets government funding and government funding for religious institutions to provide child care would be a major part of the proposal.

66 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:54:40am

re: #59 ggt

Then someone got the bright idea to keep having kids to get more money. . . .

See, I'm not sure that was ever more than a tiny minority of people on welfare. How many women will actually go through the strain and pain of pregnancy and labor to get an extra stipend-- when it also means having the extra costs associated with a kid?

I think that's, in general, a meme without foundation.

67 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:55:45am

re: #59 ggt

As I understand it, the original Welfare for Moms and Kids was designed to do exactly that. Life insurance wasn't a big seller in the old days. If a husband/father died and the mother had to go to work, the kids were left without a good environment at home. The government's idea was to support the mothers to stay-at-home and raise their kids. Benefits were based on the number of kids.

Then someone got the bright idea to keep having kids to get more money. . . .

I think the thinking is that it all fell apart when women got the vote and began to drive. They starting thinking it might be a good idea to de-stigmatize children born out of wedlock and started enjoying sex.

I blame WWII. Women should never have had the opportunity to learn what they could do. For that matter, they should never have been taught to read.

/gah

68 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:57:20am

re: #62 Gus

There it is right there:

The Lord’s way is different from government programs. The inspired Church welfare plan is administered on the principle that an individual is responsible to care for himself; where his resources are not adequate, family members are to assist. Where the family is unable to meet the needs of the individual, the Church stands ready to help. The Lord’s way emphasizes individual work and responsibility and encourages people to help themselves.

Mind you I'm not judging this one way or the other. They have a point and it's been common sense for 1000s of years. However if they say:

...Where the family is unable to meet the needs of the individual, the Church stands ready to help...

Which leads to an observation of competing interests of church versus the state. What difference is there really between a church based welfare system and one by the state? A secular welfare system requires no ideological or religious commitment...

69 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:57:56am

re: #66 Obdicut

See, I'm not sure that was ever more than a tiny minority of people on welfare. How many women will actually go through the strain and pain of pregnancy and labor to get an extra stipend-- when it also means having the extra costs associated with a kid?

I think that's, in general, a meme without foundation.

So many do. They don't get married, because then they'd lose benefits. Most want the children. It's not just a money making venture. It's a way to be a mom and not have to work and not be beholden to a man. Really, not a bad choice now that I think of it.

LOL

70 aagcobb  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:59:28am

re: #65 The Ghost of a Flea

Given how the Republicans have been "solving" other problems, I think privatized child care industry that gets government funding and government funding for religious institutions to provide child care would be a major part of the proposal.

Government does help pay for daycare; if you have a high enough income to owe federal taxes. I have a daycare spending account that lets me pay the first $5,000 of daycare expenses with pretax money, then I just got another $200 deduction for my daycare expenses in excess of $5K. Mothers with minimum wage jobs are on their own, afaik.

71 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 10:59:44am

Wealthy Houston diners celebrate economy, dignity of waiters' work by splurging on $12,000 Titanic-themed meal:

Texas eatery serves $12K, 10-course Titanic meal

It's the 100th anniversary of the maiden voyage of the RMS Titanic, which hit an iceberg in the North Atlantic on a frigid, dark night, killing 1,514 people. And to mark the occasion, 12 people in Houston enjoyed a replica of the lavish 10-course dinner the wealthiest people aboard the ship enjoyed just before the crash.

Those of us in steerage had the usual slumgullion, and hoped the oligarchs in first class will manage to detect the oncoming iceberg.

72 moderatelyradicalliberal  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:00:14am

re: #63 aagcobb

What do you want to bet that there won't be a media firestorm about Mitt saying that there is no dignity in staying at home to raise your kids?

Of course not. Rosen's comments hurt because it pointed out the obvious, that the Romney's are too rich and always have been and can't relate to raising a family under financial pressure. Ann Romney's decisions to stay at home was not an economic decision. Nobody missed a meal or a bill because she wasn't bringing in income. She married a rich guy.

It's not about the mommy wars, it's about the Romney's being filthy rich and their problems with being able to relate to people. Even her health struggles are less relatable because she didn't have to worry about how to pay for medical care.

73 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:00:42am

re: #69 ggt

Where are you getting this from, though? I've never met a woman who had more children in order to get higher welfare benefits.

74 engineer cat  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:00:50am

dignity of work

mitt should experience some

i suggest waiting tables to get him started

75 aagcobb  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:01:49am

re: #73 Obdicut

Where are you getting this from, though? I've never met a woman who had more children in order to get higher welfare benefits.

Its a well-established Right Wing Meme. That's all the foundation it needs./

76 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:02:12am

re: #68 Gus

Which leads to an observation of competing interests of church versus the state. What difference is there really between a church based welfare system and one by the state? A secular welfare system requires no ideological or religious commitment...

I'm baffled as to how atheist/agnostic libertarians rationalize with this.

Libertarians are Republicans who smoke weed or don't go to church.

77 aagcobb  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:03:39am

re: #76 Kronocide

I'm baffled as to how atheist/agnostic libertarians rationalize with this.

Libertarians are Republicans who smoke weed or don't go to church.

Libertarians don't care if you can find daycare or not; that's your problem, and they just don't want to have to pay taxes to help you.

78 moderatelyradicalliberal  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:04:38am

re: #69 ggt

So many do. They don't get married, because then they'd lose benefits. Most want the children. It's not just a money making venture. It's a way to be a mom and not have to work and not be beholden to a man. Really, not a bad choice now that I think of it.

LOL

You are assuming the father's of their children asked them to get married. Most women who are never married, single mothers are single mothers because nobody proposed. Hell even Brad Pitt's probably bullshitting Angelina Jolie with the ring he just gave her. Most women with children do not stay unmarried because nobody could get them down the aisle. It's normally the other way around.

79 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:04:49am

re: #76 Kronocide

I'm baffled as to how atheist/agnostic libertarians rationalize with this.

Libertarians are Republicans who smoke weed or don't go to church.

The Invisible Hand of the Free Market will create a solution.

Not sarcastic.

80 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:05:04am

re: #73 Obdicut

Where are you getting this from, though? I've never met a woman who had more children in order to get higher welfare benefits.

I think I'm relating this incorrectly. The point is to have more children. Women do want children. If you don't have to worry about supporting them, many will keep having them.

Remember I've most recently worked as a cashier and processed those transactions for free formula and food for the kids. No shame involved. It's a way to have the children you want without having to worry so much about supporting them.

No one seems to have ever told these (often very young) women that this isn't the best way to start young lives. AS long as the money is there, they won't change their behavior.

If it's the choice between some minimum wage job or boring school in a subject they arent' interested in or staying home with the babies . . . . Hell, I'd stay home too. Babies are great.

I just was brought up differently. I want to support myself or support my husband to do what he loves to to.

81 aagcobb  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:07:51am

re: #80 ggt

I think I'm relating this incorrectly. The point is to have more children. Women do want children. If you don't have to worry about supporting them, many will keep having them.

Remember I've most recently worked as a cashier and processed those transactions for free formula and food for the kids. No shame involved. It's a way to have the children you want without having to worry so much about supporting them.

No one seems to have ever told these (often very young) women that this isn't the best way to start young lives. AS long as the money is there, they won't change their behavior.

If it's the choice between some minimum wage job or boring school in a subject they arent' interested in or staying home with the babies . . . Hell, I'd stay home too. Babies are great.

I just was brought up differently. I want to support myself or support my husband to do what he loves to to.

But the evidence is that the teenage pregnancy rate has dropped to an all-time low, so it seems there aren't that many young women churning out babies for checks.

82 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:08:12am

re: #80 ggt

I think I'm relating this incorrectly. The point is to have more children. Women do want children. If you don't have to worry about supporting them, many will keep having them.

I'm sorry, I don't think this is true. Some women want children. Some don't. Some just want one. Some want two or three. Very few want to just keep having children.

No one seems to have ever told these (often very young) women that this isn't the best way to start young lives. AS long as the money is there, they won't change their behavior.

Why on earth do you blame the money being there? At the very least, it's a cultural problem-- that we raise 'motherhood' far above 'responsible motherhood'. I'd put a lot more blame on not teaching contraception and family planning, than I would on the availability of money. Anyone who's raising kids on welfare can tell you it's never really enough money.

83 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:09:25am

Though there may be an incentive to have more children for the benefit of receiving more assistance, there's still a lot more incentive to not have to rely on assistance in the first place.

84 aagcobb  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:10:10am

re: #83 Kronocide

Though there may be an incentive to have more children for the benefit of receiving more assistance, there's still a lot more incentive to not have to rely on assistance in the first place.

teen pregnancy rates at an all time low.

85 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:10:10am

re: #76 Kronocide

I'm baffled as to how atheist/agnostic libertarians rationalize with this.

Libertarians are Republicans who smoke weed or don't go to church.

If being a stay at home mom is work thus providing the experience of the dignity of work then why does Romney say here that the mother has to work outside the home in order to experience the dignity of work? Wasn't that present in the first place by way of being a stay at home mom? So really then that mother working outside the home wouldn't be doing so for the dignity of work but for other reasons since she would already be familiar with this. Otherwise Mitt is contradicting the initial notion of stay at home moms being equal to outside employment.

86 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:10:10am

Ann Romney's quote from Mitt's campaign website..

“My career choice was to be a mother,” she added. “We need to respect choices that women make.”

87 engineer cat  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:10:52am

Romney Vows To Spend Year Raising Two Small Children By Himself While Supporting Family On Waitress Job

expects to feel dignified and ennobled

88 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:11:09am

re: #86 Mich-again

Ann Romney's quote from Mitt's campaign website..

Goldy, bronzy, irony.

89 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:11:55am

re: #81 aagcobb

But the evidence is that the teenage pregnancy rate has dropped to an all-time low, so it seems there aren't that many young women churning out babies for checks.

I haven't seen it where I live. It might be an immigrant thing. First, second generation --by the third generation perhaps the individuals are far enough removed from the culture the family came from that they choose a different life path. I think most of the Mom's I met want a better life for their kids, they just don't see those options for themselves.

There are a lot of people who aren't turned on by academics too! School isn't the place for them at 18 or so. So they choose to have their families first and see what happens. They don't get married because they don't have to. I processed many transactions with the fathers who were very dedicated to their families, but not married. All young people.

It's a different world that the one I grew-up in. It's also cool that I've met so many people who finally get into school at 28 or 30 when their kids are all in school too. They grow-up a lot and their brains are ready to learn.

90 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:12:38am

re: #82 Obdicut

I'm sorry, I don't think this is true. Some women want children. Some don't. Some just want one. Some want two or three. Very few want to just keep having children.

Why on earth do you blame the money being there? At the very least, it's a cultural problem-- that we raise 'motherhood' far above 'responsible motherhood'. I'd put a lot more blame on not teaching contraception and family planning, than I would on the availability of money. Anyone who's raising kids on welfare can tell you it's never really enough money.

Obdi, I haven't made any value judgements, I'm tell it like it see it.

91 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:13:43am

re: #90 ggt

But why do you make the connection to the benefits, rather than cultural influence/ignorance about contraception or unwillingness to use it?

92 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:14:11am

Dignity of work?!?!?

93 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:15:09am

re: #40 jaunte

Romney and the Ryan budget:

Mitt Romney's poor judgment is already undermining his candidacy

LOL @ neo-Marxist UK newspaper fishwrap.

94 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:15:56am

I am predictably un-outraged. It doesn't sound unreasonable. It actually sounds much like Clinton's welfare reform program. There's probably a decent economic reason to pay a bit more for child care to get more workers on the job driving the economy. Unfortunately, a quick google search on Obama's welfare reform turns up a lot of hysteria and conspiracy theories. I think this video does a decent job showing his position has evolved and isn't that much different from Mitt's
welfare reform Obama style

Youtube Video

Here's his campaign ad boasting of moving welfare recipients into jobs stressing the dignity of employment
PRES] Obama: Dignity

Youtube Video

Here's an MSM article on to evolving position on welfare reform
Obama Shifts on Welfare Reform
I don't find Obama's evolution of Mitt's proposal to be outrageous. They're actually quite similar.

95 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:15:59am

re: #88 Targetpractice

Goldy, bronzy, irony.

On a similar note, here's Michele Bachmann:

"Women don’t need anyone to tell them what to do on health care. We want women to have their own choices, their own money, that way they can make their own choices for the future of their own bodies."

96 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:16:29am

re: #93 Dark_Falcon

The Guardian is neo-Marxist? How do you figure?

97 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:16:47am

re: #94 Killgore Trout

I am predictably un-outraged.

That's only because there are no boycotts or OWS protests involved.

98 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:17:03am

re: #91 Obdicut

But why do you make the connection to the benefits, rather than cultural influence/ignorance about contraception or unwillingness to use it?

because the choice is there. Young people I've met see their life choices as wide open. School --which is paid for too! or family. They chose family. They can get benefits for both.

the difference is that in the long run, school is the better choice for both the individual and society, but we don't seem to be capturing the brains of the young one's I've met. Their hormones and instincts are prevailing.

It's not good for the kids or society. IHMO.

99 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:17:06am

re: #76 Kronocide

I'm baffled as to how atheist/agnostic libertarians rationalize with this.

Libertarians are Republicans who smoke weed or don't go to church.

Libertarians are simply anarchists rebranded. By adopting a new label they separate themselves from the often odious history of anarchism. In addition you can't dissent from their opinion without appearing to be dissenting from the idea of liberty itself.

Deucedly clever of them. //

100 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:17:29am

re: #94 Killgore Trout

I am predictably un-outraged. It doesn't sound unreasonable.

I think you're missing the point, Killgore, which isn't the reasonableness of this proposal, but how it completely contradicts the entire "a mom at home is doing work too" meme that's cropped up to fight back against Rosen's statements.

Do you get that? It was spelled out pretty clearly in the post.

101 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:17:44am

re: #96 Obdicut

The Guardian is neo-Marxist? How do you figure?

They had the audacity to crticize Paul Ryan's batshit crazy economic plan of fail.

102 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:18:01am

re: #94 Killgore Trout

Obama does mention (1:20) in the first video that part of the reason he supports putting welfare mothers back to work is the idea of providing child care to help support their return to the workforce.

103 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:18:29am

re: #94 Killgore Trout

I am predictably un-outraged. It doesn't sound unreasonable. It actually sounds much like Clinton's welfare reform program. There's probably a decent economic reason to pay a bit more for child care to get more workers on the job driving the economy. Unfortunately, a quick google search on Obama's welfare reform turns up a lot of hysteria and conspiracy theories. I think this video does a decent job showing his position has evolved and isn't that much different from Mitt's
welfare reform Obama style

[Embedded content] Here's an MSM article on to evolving position on welfare reform
Obama Shifts on Welfare Reform
I don't find Obama's evolution of Mitt's proposal to be outrageous. They're actually quite similar.

Thank you Killgore.

104 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:18:43am

re: #98 ggt

because the choice is there.

But why do you discount the cultural influence, and ignorance or unwillingness to use contraception?

Young people I've met see their life choices as wide open. School --which is paid for too! or family. They chose family. They can get benefits for both.

How is school paid for? I'm sorry, I'm really not following you.

105 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:19:30am

re: #94 Killgore Trout

I am predictably un-outraged. It doesn't sound unreasonable. It actually sounds much like Clinton's welfare reform program. There's probably a decent economic reason to pay a bit more for child care to get more workers on the job driving the economy. Unfortunately, a quick google search on Obama's welfare reform turns up a lot of hysteria and conspiracy theories. I think this video does a decent job showing his position has evolved and isn't that much different from Mitt's
welfare reform Obama style

[Embedded content] Here's an MSM article on to evolving position on welfare reform
Obama Shifts on Welfare Reform
I don't find Obama's evolution of Mitt's proposal to be outrageous. They're actually quite similar.

Which is grand...except only one candidate has made a big deal of his wife's "choice" to be a stay-at-home mother and only one campaign got outraged when a former political advocate stated that said wife had "not worked a day in her life."

But it's great to see that the MBF is still enjoying the "dignity of work."

106 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:19:47am

re: #104 Obdicut

But why do you discount the cultural influence, and ignorance or unwillingness to use contraception?

How is school paid for? I'm sorry, I'm really not following you.

There are tuition benefits available.

I'm not really understanding your confusion.

107 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:20:04am

re: #105 Targetpractice

The MBF will never be out of work, that's for damn sure.

108 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:20:17am

re: #80 ggt

I think I'm relating this incorrectly. The point is to have more children. Women do want children. If you don't have to worry about supporting them, many will keep having them.

Remember I've most recently worked as a cashier and processed those transactions for free formula and food for the kids. No shame involved. It's a way to have the children you want without having to worry so much about supporting them.

No one seems to have ever told these (often very young) women that this isn't the best way to start young lives. AS long as the money is there, they won't change their behavior.

If it's the choice between some minimum wage job or boring school in a subject they arent' interested in or staying home with the babies . . . Hell, I'd stay home too. Babies are great.

I just was brought up differently. I want to support myself or support my husband to do what he loves to to.

I have to disagree with you.

When I've encountered women that keep having kids despite being poor or on the dole, they're generally not motivated to pop another one out for a check.

For many, it's just the result of sexual activity paired with lack of precautions...or outright ignorance of proper contraceptive procedure.

And there's a few for whom getting pregnant is seen as a panacea for social woes. The saddest version of this is when it's a intentional act to bond with boyfriend (who may be in love and very much into the theory of having a child), but there's also the larger pattern in which people who are ambivalent about the mother--the family, the local church, et cetera--will rally around and give her support because she's pregnant.

109 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:20:20am

re: #100 Obdicut

I think you're missing the point, Killgore, which isn't the reasonableness of this proposal, but how it completely contradicts the entire "a mom at home is doing work too" meme that's cropped up to fight back against Rosen's statements.

Do you get that? It was spelled out pretty clearly in the post.

Pfft. As if that matters. KT just wants to play Magical Balance Fairy.

110 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:20:36am

re: #100 Obdicut

I think you're missing the point, Killgore, which isn't the reasonableness of this proposal, but how it completely contradicts the entire "a mom at home is doing work too" meme that's cropped up to fight back against Rosen's statements.

Do you get that? It was spelled out pretty clearly in the post.

Once again Obama's position is similar. He stated last week, while distancing himself from Rosen's comments, that mothers do work hard. He however also agrees with Mitt that welfare mothers should be provided with daycare support so they can return to employment.

111 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:20:39am

re: #96 Obdicut

The Guardian is neo-Marxist? How do you figure?

Foreign Left-wing newspaper with a long history of hating Republicans = Neo-Marxist.

No further facts required in my eyes.

112 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:20:39am

re: #94 Killgore Trout

That's not the point genius.

113 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:21:03am

re: #111 Dark_Falcon

Foreign Left-wing newspaper with a long history of hating Republicans = Neo-Marxist.

No further facts required in my eyes.

OK Allen West.

114 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:21:39am

re: #110 Killgore Trout

Except that Mitt said one thing last week and something else entirely in January.

But you don't care about that, right?

115 engineer cat  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:21:58am

In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.

Three in four families on welfare are headed by unmarried women. As a result, employment rates for all single women rose 25% before declining slightly since 2001. Earnings for the poorest 40% of families headed by women doubled from 1994 to 2000, before recession wiped out nearly half the gains. Poverty rates for children fell 25% before rising 10% since 2000.

the situation as of 2006

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

116 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:22:19am

re: #106 ggt

There are tuition benefits available.

There aren't full-ride scholarships available for all students, no. Mostly, it's a combination of financial aid and loans, which are not free.

I'm not really understanding your confusion.

I don't get why you think that the benefits available are the driving force in those women who have children young and without the means to support hem privately. First of all, this has been occurring long before there were actually benefits for such women, and it occurs in countries where there are no such benefits. So, on the face of it, your contention would be dubious. Second, there are sufficient alternate explanations-- that we hold mothers in high regard, without necessarily thinking about whether or not their choice to become a mother was a wise one, and that we have a population that's often ignorant about contraception or refuses to use them on religious grounds.

117 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:22:33am

re: #114 Lidane

Except that Mitt said one thing last week and something else entirely in January.

But you don't care about that, right?

He doesn't. All he wants to do is make fun out of us so he can feel superior. It's all about Killgore Trout or whatever his name is.

118 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:22:42am

re: #111 Dark_Falcon

Foreign Left-wing newspaper with a long history of hating Republicans = Neo-Marxist.

No further facts required in my eyes.

Heaven forbid that a media outlet that you see as the "enemy" may actually be right on something. Of course, you don't think the Ryan Plan is actually wrong, do you?

119 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:23:13am

re: #93 Dark_Falcon

LOL @ neo-Marxist UK newspaper fishwrap.

Thanks Rodan.

120 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:23:26am

re: #116 Obdicut

There aren't full-ride scholarships available for all students, no. Mostly, it's a combination of financial aid and loans, which are not free.

I don't get why you think that the benefits available are the driving force in those women who have children young and without the means to support hem privately. First of all, this has been occurring long before there were actually benefits for such women, and it occurs in countries where there are no such benefits. So, on the face of it, your contention would be dubious. Second, there are sufficient alternate explanations-- that we hold mothers in high regard, without necessarily thinking about whether or not their choice to become a mother was a wise one, and that we have a population that's often ignorant about contraception or refuses to use them on religious grounds.

As usual, we are not communicating effectively.

Let's just leave it. OK?

121 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:23:32am

re: #94 Killgore Trout

I am predictably un-outraged.

No, rather you're predictably missing the point.

122 justaminute  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:23:49am

How about the couple that decides they would like a child and get two instead of one. Surprise, surprise! Daycare for one baby was barely affordable, but for two is a real budget killer. Besides double the diapers and everything else. If your the parents, staying home with them in this economy is just a dream.

123 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:23:58am

re: #110 Killgore Trout

Once again Obama's position is similar.

Only if you force it through a strained filter in a desperate attempt to make equivalence; on the other hand, I am talking to you.

He stated last week, while distancing himself from Rosen's comments, that mothers do work hard. He however also agrees with Mitt that welfare mothers should be provided with daycare support so they can return to employment.

Which isn't a similar position, though. Are you keeping in mind the entire reason why Ann Romney's work history became a topic? It seems like you forget it every time you talk about this subject.

124 allegro  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:24:04am

re: #110 Killgore Trout

Once again Obama's position is similar. He stated last week, while distancing himself from Rosen's comments, that mothers do work hard. He however also agrees with Mitt that welfare mothers should be provided with daycare support so they can return to employment.

I haven't seen anyone here discount the policy proposal. It has nothing to do with Mitt v Obama. It's the hypocrisy within the context of stay at home moms work hard v there's only dignity in a paying job.

But you knew that.

125 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:24:29am

re: #119 Gus

Thanks Rodan.

That's a bit low...lower that low.

Few are as bad as Rodan.

126 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:24:56am

re: #120 ggt

As usual, we are not communicating effectively.

Let's just leave it. OK?

You can leave it any time you like. But please consider if what you're seeing as economically-driven behavior might not actually be caused by cultural influences, or simple ignorance about contraception or unwillingness to use it.

127 darthstar  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:25:02am

re: #93 Dark_Falcon

LOL @ neo-Marxist UK newspaper fishwrap.

You do understand that neo-Marxism is a form of literary critical theory and not a political ideology promoting pinko-commie evilness...

128 Eventual Carrion  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:25:21am

re: #86 Mich-again

Ann Romney's quote from Mitt's campaign website..

“My career choice was to be a mother,” she added. “We need to respect choices that women make.”

Like to use/not use contraception? When/if to take a pregnancy to term? Those kind of choices?

129 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:25:23am

re: #121 The Nightmare of the five Orders of Beggars

No, rather you're predictably missing the point.

No he's not. He's deliberately playing the MBF so he can once again play the role of condescending moralist.

130 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:25:50am

re: #125 talon_262

That's a bit low...lower that low.

Few are as bad as Rodan.

Gee. You think I don't know that?

131 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:27:42am

re: #118 talon_262

Heaven forbid that a media outlet that you see as the "enemy" may actually be right on something. Of course, you don't think the Ryan Plan is actually wrong, do you?

No, I don't.

re: #119 Gus

Thanks Rodan.

Sorry, but ever since The Guardian's little "letters to Ohio voters" stunt back in 2004, the mention of that paper hits my 'berserk button'. My views towards the New York Times have moderated, but I still hold the Guardian in intense contempt.

132 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:28:07am

re: #129 Lidane

No he's not. He's deliberately playing the MBF so he can once again play the role of condescending moralist.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

133 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:28:43am

re: #127 darthstar

You do understand that neo-Marxism is a form of literary critical theory and not a political ideology promoting pinko-commie evilness...

Nope. Never heard the term used that way before.

134 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:29:18am

re: #126 Obdicut

You can leave it any time you like. But please consider if what you're seeing as economically-driven behavior might not actually be caused by cultural influences, or simple ignorance about contraception or unwillingness to use it.

economics is the study of behavior--no?

135 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:30:05am

re: #111 Dark_Falcon

Foreign Left-wing newspaper with a long history of hating Republicans = Neo-Marxist.

No further facts required in my eyes.

If you bothered to read anything about The Guardian as a British institution you'd know it's squarely middle class and Labour Party.

Every time I go overseas I have to explain to the locals why my countrymen say high-handed, ignorant shit on the basis of zero knowledge, as though they were fucking emperors or something. Way to drive home the "Americans live in a bunker and ignore the rest of the world" meme, Dark.

136 Kronocide  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:31:27am

re: #94 Killgore Trout

I am predictably un-outraged. It doesn't sound unreasonable. It actually sounds much like Clinton's welfare reform program.

Mocking Mitt for espousing the diginity of work, considering his life and relative success, is not outrage. The are plausible scenarios for getting those receiving assistance to work. Mitt's not doing a good job of crafting and delivering that concept.

So spare me your un-Outrage.

137 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:31:34am

re: #111 Dark_Falcon

Foreign Left-wing newspaper with a long history of hating Republicans = Neo-Marxist.

No further facts required in my eyes.

LOL! Seriously? That's just sad.

138 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:31:45am

re: #132 The Nightmare of the five Orders of Beggars

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Nah, Killgore's not stupid, just passive-aggressive.

139 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:31:52am

Mittspiration..

America as a merit society where people, based upon their education, their -- their hard work, their risk-taking, their dreams can lift themselves and lift people around them and lift our entire nation.

He forgot the part about being born mega rich. That trumps all the rest..

140 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:32:32am

re: #138 Targetpractice

Nah, Killgore's not stupid, just passive-aggressive.

I never said he's stupid though.

141 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:32:59am

re: #134 ggt

economics is the study of behavior--no?

No.

142 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:33:08am

I have a mountain of paperwork and errands to take care of.

Cat Overlord seems to be demanding attention as well.

Have a great afternoon all!

143 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:33:13am

re: #124 allegro

I actually am dubious about both Obama and Romney's proposal. Having moms stay home while subsided by the government directly, rather than having moms go out and work while daycare is used, is a superior solution to me. There's a whole host of psychological reasons why a single mom staying home with their kids would be better than daycare for the kids. However, the reason that Obama (and probably Romney) proposed this is that it's a lot better for the economy: daycare can handle kids at a much higher ratio than the stay at home moms can, so you'd have more people working, and that work would be part of the economy rather than hidden in non-paying motherhood.

Of course, there's no current way to force parents to actually spend time with their kids rather than going off to bridge practice or whatever, so their solutions are probably actually more practical than my ideal one, at least until we change our culture. My idea would have to be twinned with some way to set and measure expectations of parental involvement, and that's pretty tricky.

144 Gus  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:33:31am

I got better things to do.

145 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:33:48am

re: #140 The Nightmare of the five Orders of Beggars

I never said he's stupid though.

Yet, you posted a link to Hanlon's Razor, where the word "stupidity" is spelled out.

146 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:34:21am

re: #145 Targetpractice

Yet, you posted a link to Hanlon's Razor, where the word "stupidity" is spelled out.

Sure. You understand that smart people can do stupid things?

147 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:35:28am

re: #138 Targetpractice

Nah, Killgore's not stupid, just passive-aggressive.

I hear that word a lot, but my father recently questioned my knowledge of its real meaning. I know its something not to be, and try to avoid being passive-aggressive, but I'd like to ask some of the other lizards on the board right now to give me their own definitions of 'passive-aggressive'. Please don't just provide a link, explain a bit about where you see it in conversation.

148 Lidane  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:35:36am

Neo-Marxism

Not a single mention of the Republican party anywhere. Imagine that.

149 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:36:08am

re: #147 Dark_Falcon

Aggressive in intent but not in form.

150 justaminute  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:36:18am

If Ann was a good spokeswoman, she would have corrected her husband. We all know how wealthy the Romney family is and pretty much anyone that is running for President has been economically in that category.

Michele Obama has not been a soldier or a soldier's wife but I think she has done a good job as a spokeswoman for soldier's families.

Ann hasn't really made much of a realistic attempt to connect with working women and their families.

151 Targetpractice  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:36:52am

re: #146 The Nightmare of the five Orders of Beggars

Sure. You understand that smart people can do stupid things?

Sure, but in Killgore's case, I'd see it more as willful ignorance.

152 Digital Display  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:37:02am

re: #122 justaminute

How about the couple that decides they would like a child and get two instead of one. Surprise, surprise! Daycare for one baby was barely affordable, but for two is a real budget killer. Besides double the diapers and everything else. If your the parents, staying home with them in this economy is just a dream.

Let me weigh in on this..We had our first child and I was making 3.35/hr and my wife found some work as a waitress. It cost 25 dollars a week for a babysitter..That was big bucks back then and the bill from Queen of the Valley in Napa was 1200.00. We struggled to make it as it is for the 99% young couples. I'm all for anything we can do to help young Folks make it.
I'm not talking socialism, I'm talking about Americanism.
Now Ann knows all about the struggles having 200 million in her checking account and a staff to raise her Family

153 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:37:56am

re: #147 Dark_Falcon

Are you going to explain why you called the Guardian neo-Marxist any time soon?

154 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:37:59am

re: #151 Targetpractice

Sure, but in Killgore's case, I'd see it more as willful ignorance.

Same thing in this context. His partisan centrism gets the better of him.

155 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:39:00am

re: #143 Obdicut

I actually am dubious about both Obama and Romney's proposal. Having moms stay home while subsided by the government directly, rather than having moms go out and work while daycare is used, is a superior solution to me. There's a whole host of psychological reasons why a single mom staying home with their kids would be better than daycare for the kids. However, the reason that Obama (and probably Romney) proposed this is that it's a lot better for the economy: daycare can handle kids at a much higher ratio than the stay at home moms can, so you'd have more people working, and that work would be part of the economy rather than hidden in non-paying motherhood.

Of course, there's no current way to force parents to actually spend time with their kids rather than going off to bridge practice or whatever, so their solutions are probably actually more practical than my ideal one, at least until we change our culture. My idea would have to be twinned with some way to set and measure expectations of parental involvement, and that's pretty tricky.

It would also raise a number of questions about intrusive government, and I don't think all of those questions would come from the right side of the aisle, either. Parental involvement is an issue with no small amount of subjectivity to it, as well.

156 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:39:04am

re: #149 The Nightmare of the five Orders of Beggars

Aggressive in intent but not in form.

For example:

Yeah, I kind of overlooked the inevitable partisan analogy rejection. Oh, well. Like I said not much can be done about it anyways so carry on.

Is massively passive-aggressive.

157 allegro  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:39:31am

re: #143 Obdicut

I think both proposals are quite worthy of discussion. The fact that there is acknowledgement that a problem exists that requires solution(s) to be discussed is a great start. How about a range of options since there is clearly a range of women/families with a range of needs? Educational, occupational, daycare, etc. resources can all be valuable to address those needs.

158 Mich-again  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:40:35am

If Mitt the self proclaimed super business genius had his way, GM and Chrysler would have been liquidated in 2009 and Ford would have followed them into bankruptcy as the entire industry and the American economy would have staggered to recover. Anyone who thinks the recovery has been too slow has no idea of how bad it would have gotten if we had chosen that route. For that reason alone, I have zero faith that he has any idea what to do to grow this economy and I turned from the GOP. Mind you, I have only ever pulled a straight ticket GOP lever in every National election since 1982, but the Mitt and the Tea Party finally made me realize how far off the rails the GOP has gone.

159 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:41:04am

re: #157 allegro

This is actually one area where I think the states as 'laboratories of democracy' can work well. As long as the programs have actual data-gathering along with them, we could actually experiment and find out systems that work well.

160 justaminute  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:41:13am

re: #152 HoosierHoops

Let me weigh in on this..We had our first child and I was making 3.35/hr and my wife found some work as a waitress. It cost 25 dollars a week for a babysitter..That was big bucks back then and the bill from Queen of the Valley in Napa was 1200.00. We struggled to make it as it is for the 99% young couples. I'm all for anything we can do to help young Folks make it.
I'm not talking socialism, I'm talking about Americanism.
Now Ann knows all about the struggles having 200 million in her checking account and a staff to raise her Family

My nephew and his wife were surprised with twins. Both graduated college but were just starting out in their career. It's taken both sets of grandparents to help. I fill sorry for young parents if they have parents that may want to help but can't afford too. It would be a real hard slog.

161 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:42:55am

re: #153 Obdicut

Are you going to explain why you called the Guardian neo-Marxist any time soon?

They pissed me off, that's why. I don't fling insults like that as a rule, but I hate the Guardian, so I just slapped at them.

162 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:44:07am

re: #161 Dark_Falcon

They pissed me off, that's why. I don't fling insults like that as a rule, but I hate the Guardian, so I just slapped at them.

Well, it made you look ignorant and foolish, since they're in no way neo-Marxist. Flying off the handle like that will get you taken less seriously in general.

Don't be the boy that cried Commie.

163 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:44:42am

re: #161 Dark_Falcon

And upding for honest reply.

Balanced by, now, a downding on your original 'slap'. Heh.

Now I too am a druid.

164 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:47:14am

re: #161 Dark_Falcon

They pissed me off, that's why. I don't fling insults like that as a rule, but I hate the Guardian, so I just slapped at them.

There's nothing wrong with telling them to fuck off. Don't use a highly specific term which has a meaning you don't understand.

165 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:47:42am

re: #163 Obdicut

And upding for honest reply.

Balanced by, now, a downding on your original 'slap'. Heh.

Now I too am a druid.

Druid? Oh, well let me go fetch the rest of my century. We'll be right back to finish you, you human immolating barbarian!

/Roman Legion Humor

166 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:48:17am

re: #164 The Ghost of a Flea

There's nothing wrong with telling them to fuck off. Don't use a highly specific term which has a meaning you don't understand.

I understand its political meaning, I just got pissed, that's all.

167 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 11:56:37am

re: #93 Dark_Falcon

LOL @ neo-Marxist UK newspaper fishwrap.

It might be more interesting to engage with Cohen's criticism instead of dismissing the entire piece because you don't like the Grauniad.

168 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:03:25pm

How about creating a profession known as "Professional Mother" (instead of welfare queen). Upon reaching the end of the second trimester of pregnancy a woman would be given the option to honorably stay at home to raise her child, while drawing a base salary for her work from the government. This option would last at least two years at full salary followed by ever decreasing payments over the following three years.

The message would be clear, society supports your decision to have a child and will recompense your family for your loss of employment while paying to ensure that your child is properly socialized and loved during the very critical first two years of it's development. But this is not an entitlement that will last forever, it is only meant as a means of supporting your family until you are able to return to the workforce and get your child into school.

Yes I know, it is gasp... SOCIALISM!!! of the very worst sort (sigh :( ), still I think it kinda makes sense don't you?

169 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:05:19pm

re: #48 jaunte

One of my former employees was a Mormon who managed to convert 30 people during his year as a missionary, but received no special treatment because of his efforts. The French may have been difficult, but I suspect Mitt was being treated as a prince because of his father's standing, despite his average conversion record.

Those kids on mission actually convert people sometimes? I thought it was just to get them out in the world articulating their faith and learning to get up every morning and put on a suit. I never thought of them actually convincing anyone.

For thirty people, I would think you would at least get an award or something. That's good missioning.

170 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:06:52pm

re: #169 SanFranciscoZionist

He's a real sparkplug.

171 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:07:33pm

re: #49 PhillyPretzel

I will fight for my own soul.

Old Yiddish proverb: "Why do you worry so much about my soul, and your body? Worry instead about my body, and your own soul."

(Of course, last time I quoted that here, someone pointed out that this could be taken as an invitation to get more excited about the state of the speaker's uterus. The original intent is to refer to feeding and clothing the poor.)

172 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:08:26pm

re: #54 Obdicut

I really don't think we should force single mothers to get jobs. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Mitt's proposal is that someone else be hired to take care of the kid. Why not just pay the mom to take care of their own kid? Or maybe they could just swap kids with some other mom, and both pay each other?

That was the idea behind some of the earliest welfare programs--that (respectable) single mothers could raise their children, instead of having to go out to work.

173 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:08:50pm

re: #169 SanFranciscoZionist

Those kids on mission actually convert people sometimes? I thought it was just to get them out in the world articulating their faith and learning to get up every morning and put on a suit. I never thought of them actually convincing anyone.

For thirty people, I would think you would at least get an award or something. That's good missioning.

Sure they do. How do you think foreign Mormon communities arise? I was acquainted with some Russian converts convinced by missionaries.

174 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:12:53pm

re: #60 Sophia77

People talk about class warfare; give me a break!

Rich women (like Mrs. Romney, ahem) are workers deserving of our respect because they stay are at home moms and raise their kids.

Poor women who want to raise their kids are not deserving of our respect because they do not understand The Dignity of Work.

Which is it?

Both. Being a single-income family is meritorious, being a stay-at-home mom is meritorious, but it's merit that you can only have if you have sufficient income to do it, and pay for everything you need.

The problem is that the folks who talk loudest about this won't acknowledge that this is exactly what they mean: there's something holy about being an at-home mom, but we won't pay, as a society, for poor women to be holy too.

And that they link wealth to 'merit' and 'morality', rather than 'good fortune'.

175 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:13:42pm

re: #63 aagcobb

What do you want to bet that there won't be a media firestorm about Mitt saying that there is no dignity in staying at home to raise your kids?

To be perfectly fair, there should be.

Women and kids are such soccer balls during election years.

Feh.

176 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:16:47pm

re: #173 The Nightmare of the five Orders of Beggars

Sure they do. How do you think foreign Mormon communities arise? I was acquainted with some Russian converts convinced by missionaries.

That whole phenomenon intrigues me. Mormonism seems so...American. I'm always curious about who it appeals to abroad.

177 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:28:42pm

re: #161 Dark_Falcon

They pissed me off, that's why. I don't fling insults like that as a rule, but I hate the Guardian, so I just slapped at them.

In other words, a broad-brush dismissal of a media outlet simply because they tend to publish shit you don't care for or like, continuing even when they do print stories that pillory something that most people see as unnecessary and harmful partisan BS (the Ryan Plan).

Gotcha...

178 ReamWorks SKG  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:40:33pm

re: #7 A Mom Anon

I saw the answer on a T-Shirt!

Image: i_support_single_moms_t-shi.jpg

179 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 1:56:42pm

Romney doesn't say "women" or "moms" one time. Not once. He says "people" and "you".

Not a single commenter picked up on this.

The interpretation that he is talking about women/moms shows just how messed up and sexist our society is. If there is discussion of raising kids, it MUST be about women.

And this is why the discussion about insurance coverage for birth control pills is so important. By default, our society assumes that women are the #1 responsible party for raising kids. We read it in, even when it is not there. Women considering a career debate how they will fit in raising kids; men don't think about that for a heart beat. So our society should make it simple for women to have access to birth control. And abortion. It IS about women and power, exactly because our society is so deeply, even unconsciously, sexist.

Think about it.

The feminist movement still has a loooong way to go to make things truly equal.

180 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 2:00:37pm

re: #179 jytdog

The interpretation that he is talking about women/moms shows just how messed up and sexist our society is.

Doesn't it simply reflect that the vast majority of single parents are women?

By default, our society assumes that women are the #1 responsible party for raising kids.

That's not really true. Child support is supposed to reflect that, and gender is supposed to no longer be taken into account in terms of who gets custody of kids in a divorce. I think what you mean is that, biologically, only women have kids, and we do take into account that only women have spent nine months, followed by painful and traumatic labor.

Women considering a career debate how they will fit in raising kids; men don't think about that for a heart beat. So our society should make it simple for women to have access to birth control. And abortion. It IS about women and power, exactly because our society is so deeply, even unconsciously, sexist.

I'm a little confused by this-- again, you seem to ignore biology here. It's not really about raising kids, it's about the much higher price a woman pays in becoming pregnant than the man in the equation does.

The feminist movement still has a looong way to go to make things truly equal.

Well, for one thing, they'd have to make men able to bear children.

Think about it.

181 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 2:05:02pm

re: #180 Obdicut

Oh, and I think quite a lot about the best time to have kids with my wife, we've discussed it for quite a few heartbeats.

182 Killgore Trout  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 2:10:11pm

re: #179 jytdog

Romney doesn't say "women" or "moms" one time. Not once. He says "people" and "you".

Not a single commenter picked up on this.

The interpretation that he is talking about women/moms shows just how messed up and sexist our society is. If there is discussion of raising kids, it MUST be about women.

And this is why the discussion about insurance coverage for birth control pills is so important. By default, our society assumes that women are the #1 responsible party for raising kids. We read it in, even when it is not there. Women considering a career debate how they will fit in raising kids; men don't think about that for a heart beat. So our society should make it simple for women to have access to birth control. And abortion. It IS about women and power, exactly because our society is so deeply, even unconsciously, sexist.

Think about it.

The feminist movement still has a looong way to go to make things truly equal.

Lol. Nice catch! I had to go back a second time but you're right. He never mentions women or moms once. I think that demonstrates the power of suggestion. The title indicates mothers and that's what I heard.

183 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 2:14:39pm

re: #182 Killgore Trout

It doesn't change the applicability to the current situation at all, though, right? Because this current discussion is about Romney's reliance on Ann Romney as his connection to working mothers, remember?

184 jaunte  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 2:20:11pm

re: #179 jytdog

The interpretation that he is talking about women/moms shows just how messed up and sexist our society is. If there is discussion of raising kids, it MUST be about women.

The interpretation that he is talking about women/moms is an indication that most of us know which parent, in the vast majority of cases, is actually raising the children.

185 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 2:59:56pm

re: #184 jaunte

That's kind of my point- a) everybody assumes that; b) it is probably true; c) that's a sexist structure is our society

186 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:02:35pm

re: #181 Obdicut

Did you make, and are you still making, choices abour your career to accommodate having and raising kids?

187 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:06:17pm

re: #180 Obdicut

You are saying "biology is destiny" for women. Of course only women can bear kids. Women being primarily responsible for raising them is not biology; that is culture - that is sexism.

188 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:07:37pm

re: #186 jytdog

Did you make, and are you still making, choices abour your career to accommodate having and raising kids?

Yep.

189 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:09:08pm

re: #187 jytdog

You are saying "biology is destiny" for women.

No, I'm saying it's a reality that biology exists.

Of course only women can bear kids. Women being primarily responsible for raising them is not biology; that is culture - that is sexism.

Sure. And in recent years, we've seen an explosion in the number of single dads raising kids, but they're still a small minority of the whole.

Are you aware of the larger context being discussed-- that of Romney's remarks that his wife gives him a connection to working women?

190 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:11:16pm

re: #183 Obdicut

That clip's only tie to women is the frame the poster put on it. I don't care for out-of-context quote taking.

191 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:14:11pm

re: #190 jytdog

That clip's only tie to women is the frame the poster put on it. I don't care for out-of-context quote taking.

No, you're not understanding what I'm asking. Recently, Romney said that he gets his information about issues affecting women, and working women, come from his wife, Ann Romney. Since Ann Romney has never been a 'working mother'-- a mother who was also employed-- this has caused him to come under some derision for such a statement. One person, Rosen, said a careless phrase-- that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life-- causing an uproar about how mothers really do 'work', even though the context was pretty obvious.

Now, this clip demonstrates that Romney is well aware of the difference between parenting being 'work' and being actually employed. The gender doesn't actually matter.

Does that make sense?

192 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:17:45pm

re: #190 jytdog

Also, I think you're overlooking that, since women as parents as a subset of parents, there's no need to think that Charles was assuming that Romney's comments were only about women, just that they were applicable to women. Which they are. So even your allegation of unconscious sexism is rather misplaced.

That we have a discussion about the needs of working mothers as separate from working fathers is, indeed, reflective of sexism in our society at large, but it's not necessarily supportive of that, just recognizing its existence.

193 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:23:30pm

re: #192 Obdicut

second 'as' should be 'are'.

194 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:29:15pm

re: #188 Obdicut

Well amen to you brother. Few do

195 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:30:56pm

re: #194 jytdog

Well amen to you brother. Few do

I really don't see why you think that. Most couples I know talk about the best time for them both to have kids based on both of their lives. Where are you getting the idea that few men consider their wives careers?

196 William of Orange  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 3:57:41pm

Politifact scores an easy touchdown with Allen West's comment.

Of course: Pants on fire.

Hell, I think there are less communists in the Russian Duma, since most of the think capitalist.

197 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 4:08:51pm

re: #195 Obdicut

Strange conversation here, Obidcut. What I am saying is supported by tons of studies (this paper cites a bunch of it: [Link: eprints.lse.ac.uk...] Namely, that overall, men make their career choices and plan to advance with never counting in a need to take a significant chunk of time out to actually have the baby, much less to ensure that they are available to take care of it. Women on the other hand, generally, from a young age shape their career choices around their responsibility for children. I'm talking about things like an undergrad woman saying "I was thinking about med school but I want to have kids and it will just be too hard." Not a statement a man would make, generally speaking.

198 labman57  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 4:13:14pm

Reason #18 why Mitt is completely out of touch with 95% of the American public.

Mitt "The human flapjack" Romney's campaign is based on unabashed lies, frequent flip-flops, and blatant pandering that he believes will help him to get nominated … strategically planning to hit his reset button during the general election.

However, Romney's team appears to unaware of YouTube --the online repository of instantly accessible video clips, providing evidence of the previous policy positions of Mitt v.1, Mitt v.2, Mitt v.3, etc.

199 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 4:16:18pm

re: #197 jytdog

Strange conversation here, Obidcut. What I am saying is supported by tons of studies (this paper cites a bunch of it: [Link: eprints.lse.ac.uk...] Namely, that overall, men make their career choices and plan to advance with never counting in a need to take a significant chunk of time out to actually have the baby, much less to ensure that they are available to take care of it.

Oh, I see what you're saying; about planning well beforehand, life-planning, not planning with a particular partner at a particular time. You're absolutely right, and I did not, prior to meeting my wife and talking about children with her, attempt to plan my career around kids. On the other hand, I didn't really plan my career at all.

I'm talking about things like an undergrad woman saying "I was thinking about med school but I want to have kids and it will just be too hard." Not a statement a man would make, generally speaking.

Yes, that's perfectly true, and it does reflect a sexism in our society at large. But, again, this particular conversation is happening in the context of Romney's remarks on how his wife's opinions are where he gets his information about working women. Did you read that post of mine explaining it?

And also, the post about how, since women as parents are a subset of parents, Romney's remarks in this video on this thread certainly apply to them as well?

200 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 4:20:49pm

re: #191 Obdicut

Thanks for providing the context; I am aware of it. Taking into account that the clip applies to men and women (already a more nuanced point than the original headline), applying it to the dumb thing Romney said is still a stretch. In the clip he is talking there about welfare, specifically the since-Clinton widely accepted idea that people on welfare should work. Right? He is talking about a certain and limited segment of the people - those receiving welfare, and their obligation to do something to "pull their own weight" in exchange for that benefit. He is not making any kind of general statement about choices women make to stay at home or go out and have a job. It's just lame political attacking to apply this clip to the dumb thing Romney said. There are plenty of valid ways to poke his statement full of holes without overreaching as this post did.

201 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 4:27:28pm

I should say that in general I love this website and Charles' mission to expose and repudiate the ugly underside of the right wing. God bless Charles! That does not mean he is perfect tho. Sometimes you miss. :)

202 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 4:34:02pm

re: #200 jytdog

It's just lame political attacking to apply this clip to the dumb thing Romney said. There are plenty of valid ways to poke his statement full of holes without overreaching as this post did.

You really haven't shown in any way that this is an overreach. Romney's conception of what 'work' is clearly did not, at the time of this speech, include a woman staying at home and raising children. Over the past few days, Ann Romney, and the right-wing media in general, have been in a furor about how raising children really is work. There is contradiction between this video clip and those statements.

Do you have any objection to what i just wrote?

203 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 5:49:39pm

re: #202 Obdicut

I did show it. You ignored what I wrote. I will say it again. Romney is talking about welfare. Or rather, "work-fare". About preventing the "moral hazard" that if we just give people money they will lose the drive to better themselves by working.

I don't know how old you are. You are aware of the 1996 welfare reform? [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

This law gave the states block grants and required that the states implement workfare. Each state has some latitude in terms of how they implemented it.

In the clip, Romney is talking about what he advocated for his state to put in place to implement that law. Listen to the clip. He says, "In my state, following welfare reform..." I don't know if he is talking about what he said when he ran for Senate or what he tried to do as governor, but that is what he is talking about.

Please acknowledge that Romney is talking about what requirements to place on people on welfare -- only them -- to have jobs, regardless of whether they be men or women or if they have kids. He is not talking about everybody or about women in general. If you are not going to deal with what he is actually saying we cannot have a conversation.

This has nothing to do - nada - with whether non-welfare stay at home moms know anything about the struggles of women who have jobs. Nada.

204 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 5:54:15pm

re: #203 jytdog

I did show it. You ignored what I wrote. I will say it again. Romney is talking about welfare. Or rather, "work-fare". About preventing the "moral hazard" that if we just give people money they will lose the drive to better themselves by working.

I know what he's talking about. That's not in the least my point. My point is how he's talking about it, compared to how Ann Romney and the right-wing media have been talking about the subject over the past few days.

Please acknowledge that Romney is talking about what requirements to place on people on welfare -- only them -- to have jobs, regardless of whether they be men or women or if they have kids. He is not talking about everybody or about women in general. If you are not going to deal with what he is actually saying we cannot have a conversation.

I completely acknowledge this, have already acknowledged this, and it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

This has nothing to do - nada - with whether non-welfare stay at home moms know anything about the struggles of women who have jobs. Nada.

I agree. Which is not in the least bit related to my point, or the point of this post. Let me boil it down as far as I can:

Ann Romney's response to being told she'd never worked a day in her life was to say that raising kids was hard work. And yet, obviously, the context of 'work' that Rosen used was employment, just as Romney, in this video, is using 'work' to mean employment, not parenting.

Does that help you understand? There is nothing wrong per se with what Romney is saying in this clip (though combined with other attitudes of Romney, it is hardly beneficent). It is the hypocritical attack of Ann Romney about being told she hasn't worked-- which is true, by the definition her husband uses in this speech.

205 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 6:46:58pm

You mean you actually care whether when Mitt Romney says the word "work" he always uses it in precisely the same way? Gee big surprise, he doesn't.

The point of the post is to make Romney look like a heartless bastard with respect to poor women, to try to gain points back that Rosen lost for the "republicans are anti-women" meme.

But the point is played on a petty game of "gotcha" using a clip where Romney says things that Bill Clinton might have said. This is politics at its most degraded. I don't like it when either side does it.

There is plenty of stuff of real substance showing that the republican party supports policies that are repressive of women and that Romney has pandered to the base on those issues. They should focus on the real stuff.

206 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 6:58:46pm

re: #205 jytdog

You mean you actually care whether when Mitt Romney says the word "work" he always uses it in precisely the same way? Gee big surprise, he doesn't.

No, that's not what I mean at all.

The point of the post is to make Romney look like a heartless bastard with respect to poor women, to try to gain points back that Rosen lost for the "republicans are anti-women" meme.

I don't think it is, no. It's placed directly in context of the recent conversation about stay at home mothers.

But the point is played on a petty game of "gotcha" using a clip where Romney says things that Bill Clinton might have said. This is politics at its most degraded. I don't like it when either side does it.

And Bill Clinton-- or rather, his wife, Hillary Clinton-- is unlikely to have protested at a mother who never worked a day in her life being told she never worked a day in her life, and therefore her opinion on being a working mother was less than valid.

There is plenty of stuff of real substance showing that the republican party supports policies that are repressive of women and that Romney has pandered to the base on those issues. They should focus on the real stuff.

You don't consider Romney's choice of his wife, Ann Romney, a woman who has never been employed, as his source of information about issues facing women who are employed and have children, to be a substantial issue?

207 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 7:05:37pm

And, like I started saying, Charles just reinforced, loudly, all the crap stereotypes that keep women from being equal to men in this country. That if we are talking about raising kids we are ~of course~ talking about women. And he did that to to try to stick it to Romney on a petty, lame point. Just a disappointing post all around. Like I said, sometimes you just miss.

208 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 7:09:48pm

re: #207 jytdog

And, like I started saying, Charles just reinforced, loudly, all the crap stereotypes that keep women from being equal to men in this country.

All of them?

That if we are talking about raising kids we are ~of course~ talking about women.

So you're deciding to ignore that the conversation was already about working mothers-- why?

And he did that to to try to stick it to Romney on a petty, lame point.

What do you feel about Romney's comments that he derives his information about the plight of working mothers from his wife?

209 The Ghost of a Flea  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 7:12:19pm

re: #208 Obdicut

All of them?

So you're deciding to ignore that the conversation was already about working mothers-- why?

What do you feel about Romney's comments that he derives his information about the plight of working mothers from his wife?

Obdi...it's a concern troll. It's just going to repeat how disappointed it is that Charles let it down by saying something that could be interpreted as sexist after being decontextualized, strained through a china cap, reconstituted into caviar-like globes in an alginate solution, and served with a key lime foam.

210 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 7:15:04pm

re: #209 The Ghost of a Flea

No, I've met sincere people who would say the same things. Obviously, someone claiming to love the site who chooses his/her only comments to be highly critical, increasing in vehemence and decreasing in actual logical argument-- that does provide support for the 'concern troll' theory. But it could just be someone who is upset and not thinking things through, and, for some reason, refusing to address the context that the post was made in.

211 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 8:13:30pm

re: #179 jytdog

Romney doesn't say "women" or "moms" one time. Not once. He says "people" and "you".

Not a single commenter picked up on this.

The interpretation that he is talking about women/moms shows just how messed up and sexist our society is. If there is discussion of raising kids, it MUST be about women.

And this is why the discussion about insurance coverage for birth control pills is so important. By default, our society assumes that women are the #1 responsible party for raising kids. We read it in, even when it is not there. Women considering a career debate how they will fit in raising kids; men don't think about that for a heart beat. So our society should make it simple for women to have access to birth control. And abortion. It IS about women and power, exactly because our society is so deeply, even unconsciously, sexist.

Think about it.

The feminist movement still has a looong way to go to make things truly equal.

You must know a lot of stupid men!

212 jytdog  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 8:31:28pm

I am kind of stunned at the arrogance you are expressing, that I must simply be misunderstanding everything. There is apparently a bubble here, like there is many political blogs.

I do love this site, I read it about everyday. One thing I love about it, is that it is exposes bullshit in the Harry Frankfurt sense of the word [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I commented on this post because it descended to bullshit itself which is disappointing.

If you don't understand me, c'est la vie!

Good evening, gents.

213 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 8:40:55pm

re: #212 jytdog

Aren't you expressing the exact same arrogance, if arrogance it is?

You keep refusing to address Romney's use of Ann Romney as his source of information for the issues facing working women. I'm not sure why that it is-- it's obviously relevant to the post.

214 Charles Johnson  Sun, Apr 15, 2012 9:04:56pm

re: #179 jytdog

Romney doesn't say "women" or "moms" one time. Not once. He says "people" and "you".

Not a single commenter picked up on this.

The interpretation that he is talking about women/moms shows just how messed up and sexist our society is. If there is discussion of raising kids, it MUST be about women.

And this is why the discussion about insurance coverage for birth control pills is so important. By default, our society assumes that women are the #1 responsible party for raising kids. We read it in, even when it is not there. Women considering a career debate how they will fit in raising kids; men don't think about that for a heart beat. So our society should make it simple for women to have access to birth control. And abortion. It IS about women and power, exactly because our society is so deeply, even unconsciously, sexist.

Think about it.

The feminist movement still has a looong way to go to make things truly equal.

You have got to be kidding. You don't seriously believe Mitt Romney was NOT talking about women, do you? This is not a guy who's known for his sensitivity to feminist issues, and he wasn't talking about MEN in this clip. It's incredibly obvious, and I wonder why you're trying to deny something this evident.

215 Obdicut  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 2:17:39am

re: #214 Charles Johnson

It doesn't even matter if he was talking about women or both women and men, since that'd still mean he was talking about women.

216 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 3:27:50am

...

217 jytdog  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 11:30:37am

re: #214 Charles Johnson

As he was talking I was struck by his careful and consistent avoidance of any gendered term. He is not the smoothest speaker, I grant you, but I don't think you could be that consistent without trying. He was talking about what he tried to do as governor to get all welfare recipients working, including those with kids.

If you buy the line that people including women get trapped in poverty and if they end up having kids they are even more trapped... and that getting welfare payments is good but doesn't help you escape poverty.... what Romney is offering there could be seen as a good thing - indeed supportive of women who are poor and who have young kids -- he was saying that his government is willing to pay for child support for kids as young as 2 years old so parents without other options (a grandma who can babysit; a spouse who can afford to stay at home) can enter the workforce and become independent. (We can talk about Nickel and Dimed and there is no doubt that workfare has big flaws.... but it is a topic worthy of discussion not flaming)

Does what he is saying apply to women? Sure! Are women his focus? I don't think so. Is this heartless/barbaric? I am not sure. How to help poor people out of poverty is an important topic and deserves rational discussion.

I do think it is decidedly unhelpful to use this clip in a Breitbart style gotcha. I think trying to create a fire around this, like your headline did, makes it harder to have a good discussion over how to help single parents, including women, get out of poverty. And in general we need to have more rational discussions, not more political gaming.

Charles as I have said I love your site and the hard, hard work you do showing the ugly underside of the rightwing and how that ugly underside is poisoning the right in general. You have also done a great job showing how the republicans are effectively waging a war on women. I just think you are off target on this one. This one.

I understand why you did it and of course I understand what Obdicut has been so condescendingly been trying to 'teach' me... I just think you made a mistake using this clip as a weapon in the political (non)firestorm over this "women and work" thing. That's all.

Thanks for all your hard work!

218 wrenchwench  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 11:55:50am

re: #217 jytdog

Charles as I have said I love your site and the hard, hard work you do showing the ugly underside of the rightwing and how that ugly underside is poisoning the right in general. You have also done a great job showing how the republicans are effectively waging a war on women. I just think you are off target on this one. This one.

But did you register and post anything before "this one" that you think is off target? No. What's the deal? You like Romney that much? You are that much of a stickler for the truth?

Why are you giving Romney a break for his part in the War on Women just because he used "careful and consistent avoidance of any gendered term" in this one speech?

219 Interesting Times  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 12:08:33pm

re: #218 wrenchwench

Why are you giving Romney a break for his part in the War on Women just because he used "careful and consistent avoidance of any gendered term" in this one speech?

Romney Book: ‘Nonworking Parents’ Produce ‘Indolent And Unproductive’ Children

Welfare without work erodes the spirit and the sense of self-worth of the recipient. And it conditions the children of nonworking parents to an indolent and unproductive life. Hardworking parents raise hardworking kids; we should recognize that the opposite is also true.

So...is Mitt Romney v. 1.0 saying his own sons are conditioned to "an indolent and unproductive life"?

220 jytdog  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 12:20:50pm

re: #218 wrenchwench

I've been reading a long time and never had anything to say -- I am not a big cheerleader and I never found anything that bugged me before. Why is that so terrible? For pete's sake.

221 Charles Johnson  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 12:42:58pm

re: #217 jytdog

The Romney camp has implicitly admitted that yes, he was referring to women in that statement.

Romney Flashback: Poor Mothers Should Be Required to Work Outside the Home or Lose Welfare | ThinkProgress

UPDATE:

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said that Romney’s comments were reflective of his support of welfare reform legislation. “Moving welfare recipients into work was one of the basic principles of the bipartisan welfare reform legislation that President Clinton signed into law. The sad fact is that under President Obama, the poverty rate among women rose to 14.5 percent in 2011, the highest rate in 17 years. The Obama administration’s economic policies have been devastating to women and families,” she wrote in an email.

222 wrenchwench  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 12:59:05pm

re: #220 jytdog

I've been reading a long time and never had anything to say -- I am not a big cheerleader and I never found anything that bugged me before. Why is that so terrible? For pete's sake.

I wouldn't say it's "so terrible". It's just odd that this one would bug you so much when you otherwise seem like a fan of LGF and not of Republicans. Or are you a big Romney fan?

223 jytdog  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 1:06:34pm

re: #219 Interesting Times

I am talking about this post. I am NOT talking about Romney in general or republicans in general or the war on women in general.

Dealing with what you wrote: the subject of the sentence you bolded is "it". I believe "it" refers to 'welfare without work' in the preceding sentence. How is that relevant to Romney's kids?

You guys really should have some badge that indicates political orientation so there is not so much distrust. For the record, I am a dem and the only republican I ever voted for was Bloomberg for Mayor of NYC - which I did gladly. I am more or less in line with Clinton's "third way" way of thinking. More than anything I am greatly disheartened by the crap level of political discourse in this country. Everybody is too busy waging war on each other to actually talk about anything much less to craft workable solutions for the problems that face us - dealing with substance, with real issues. Not playing "gotcha" all day.

224 jytdog  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 1:30:28pm

re: #221 Charles Johnson

Umm right. So Romney's campaign basically said "I am talking about workfare" Yep. Which is what I have been saying since yesterday. Its a good answer. (note again that in their statement they do not say "women" they say ""welfare recipients")

We all know that the deal Clinton made with the republicans that resulted in the 1996 welfare reform act, said that if you are taking welfare you've gotta get a job and make some money. That's what Romney was talking about. Not about women in general. Not even about poor women. But rather, it was about people on welfare, including women on welfare. And providing them with child support is not evil. Is it? How many professional people who have kids, are still staying at home when the kid is two years old?

Like I said, Charles, please continue your great work! This one is just not a home run. The underlying story is too complicated and not amenable to flaming.

225 jytdog  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 1:35:44pm

re: #222 wrenchwench

No I am not a big Romney fan. He started out as a fairly moderate republican and it would have been so interesting a race in the fall if he had stuck to his fairly moderate stances. It has been so sad to see him descending into the rightwing pits and to just start lying all the time. Ugly and sad thing to watch. I voted for Obama and probably will again, but with less enthusiasm than I did the first time. I thought Obama would be a much better leader (as in communicator) than he turned out to be.

How about you, what are your politics like?

226 Interesting Times  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 1:36:10pm

re: #223 jytdog

Dealing with what you wrote: the subject of the sentence you bolded is "it". I believe "it" refers to 'welfare without work' in the preceding sentence. How is that relevant to Romney's kids?

LOL @ willful ignorance and completely ignoring the rest of the sentence:

...it conditions the children of nonworking parents to an indolent and unproductive life.

If staying at home with kids != work, what is Mitt Romney implicitly saying about his own wife?

Sorry, but you come across as a concern troll trying to derail this thread with semantics and "oh, look, SQUIRREL!" distraction. The magical balance fairy "Everybody is too busy waging war on each other" false equivalence doesn't help either.

227 jytdog  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 1:45:59pm

re: #222 wrenchwench

I wrote why this bugged me. The headline is sexist and it tries to make flames about an issue that is really complex and where what Romney actually said is not that bad. How is that so hard to understand? I guess if you launch the clip thinking "OH this jerk is going to say something terrible about women where is it where is it AH HA" and then close it, you find what you are looking for. If you just launch it and listen to it, you see a moderate-ish republican talking about workfare and even offering to SPEND GOVT MONEY PAYING FOR MORE CHILDCARE. I just don't get how that is a bad thing. How is that a bad thing???

I don't like it when anybody gets torn apart, out of context. John Kerry got shredded that way and it was horrible to watch. Why should I cheer when the other side gets the same treatment?

228 wrenchwench  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 1:55:50pm

re: #227 jytdog

I wrote why this bugged me. The headline is sexist and it tries to make flames about an issue that is really complex and where what Romney actually said is not that bad. How is that so hard to understand? I guess if you launch the clip thinking "OH this jerk is going to say something terrible about women where is it where is it AH HA" and then close it, you find what you are looking for. If you just launch it and listen to it, you see a moderate-ish republican talking about workfare and even offering to SPEND GOVT MONEY PAYING FOR MORE CHILDCARE. I just don't get how that is a bad thing. How is that a bad thing???

I don't like it when anybody gets torn apart, out of context. John Kerry got shredded that way and it was horrible to watch. Why should I cheer when the other side gets the same treatment?

Speaking of out of context, how does this clip sound compared to the musings of Romney 2.0? How does it sound compared to Ann saying she had the choice to stay home and work hard raising their sons? I don't think Romney's being attacked out of context. I think he's being defended out of context.

You're the only one wielding flames here.

Thanks for writing two responses to my comment. I have several years of comments here. As a registered poster, you can search through all of them and glean from them what my politics are like.

I will say I've been the opposite of disappointed in Obama. My expectations were low. I didn't vote for him last time, but I will this time, with enthusiasm.

229 jytdog  Mon, Apr 16, 2012 2:00:53pm

re: #226 Interesting Times

Look replace "it" with its antecedent:

Work without welfare conditions the children of nonworking parents to an indolent and unproductive life.

You wanna talk context? One part of the discussions about welfare going back 20-30 years has been a sense of growing alarm around a perception that poverty is passed from one generation to the next. The idea became prevalent on the right that welfare checks from the government might be providing a "moral hazard" - that these checks were enough to live on and so some people just elected not to work, and their kids were brought up with that as their model and would do the same thing, and so on, generation after generation That is the context of what he is talking about. You can say "oh that is an evil tradition" but that is the context.

If anything his kids would be the opposite, right? They saw the benefits of hard work, having a parent with a job, etc etc. And look what nice productive clones they turned out to be.

I don't know what the right answer is to helping people get out of poverty. Do you? I don't know how to solve the passing of poverty of one generation to the next, do you?

As for the name calling -- as a person with a fine midwestern upbringing, I will refrain from ad hominem attacks.

230 Obdicut  Tue, Apr 17, 2012 1:31:21pm

re: #229 jytdog

Why are you just continuing to ignore the context of Romney stating that he gets his information about the plight of working women from his wife, Ann Romney, who has never been employed?

As for the name calling -- as a person with a fine midwestern upbringing, I will refrain from ad hominem attacks.

Ad hominem attacks are saying that someone's argument is faulty because they suck. Saying someone sucks, and their argument is faulty, is not an ad hominem attack.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 457 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1