Romney said stay at home moms lack "dignity of work"

[lotus503]

And a lot higher than charlie Rangel, but that's not the point. Obama and the Progressives are attacking the 35% tax bracket you are currently in as not high enough. Kick in another 40K a year to be at the 39% bracket, make sure you pay your 9% state sales tax and then another 8% on anything you purchase as well as property taxes. Then you will be paying your "Fair Share" and then we will see how Progressive you are then.

I wouldn't mind paying %4 more than I do already, I can afford it.

I already pay payroll taxes, sales tax and property tax. But those are not fed taxes.

I also pay gas tax, utility tax and a few others I am forgetting and I am doing just fine, no need for food stamps or assistance.

You also don't appear to understand I have many and varied tax deductions.

So an increase from 35% to 39% would be %4 not another 40k.

It would be another 8k i can spare it.

You want to hit the 15% of the budget that is social programs, because your worried about free rides.

Close corporate tax loopholes, oil and corn subsidies. I'm sick of funding their welfare.

 

[Matt1970]

I wouldn't mind paying %4 more than I do already, I can afford it.

I already pay payroll taxes, sales tax and property tax. But those are not fed taxes.

I also pay gas tax, utility tax and a few others I am forgetting and I am doing just fine, no need for food stamps or assistance.

You also don't appear to understand I have many and varied tax deductions.

So an increase from 35% to 39% would be %4 not another 40k.

It would be another 8k i can spare it.

You want to hit the 15% of the budget that is social programs, because your worried about free rides.

Close corporate tax loopholes, oil and corn subsidies. I'm sick of funding their welfare.

Oh no, not 4%, you need to kick that up to 100% more because Bye Bye tax deductions. Those are refered to as loopholes around here. You need to pay 39%, just uner 80K in your case, to the feds alone under the progressives ideas. You can surely afford it in your situation.

I never said anything about slashing anything. Don't put words into my mouth.

 

[lotus503]

Oh no, not 4%, you need to kick that up to 100% more because Bye Bye tax deductions. Those are refered to as loopholes around here. I never said anything about slashing anything. Don't put words into my mouth.

I'd be happy to give up deductions to have Exxon pay it's fair share.

So if you don't want to slash social program funding what exactly do you want?

Just to piss and moan about having to pax tax and that money being used for or in a manner you don't agree with?

Welcome to the club if that's the case.

 

[Jhhnn]

You seem to believe that people have the right to have children that they know they cannot afford and expect someone else to pick up the tab. Now what law of physics prevents recipients of welfare from learning and doing work?

Nice dodge. In the current economic situation, there is enormous excess capacity, both in skills & the means to produce. Lots of people who were middle class in 2005 aren't so middle class anymore, at all. They worked & made honest livings then, but today have no work, not for lack of skills, but for lack of job openings. It's not like they could foretell the future.

But, hey, the Dow has recovered, and America's wealthiest are doing better than ever, particularly in a comparative sort of way, so what welfare mothers really need to do is go to work, to drive down wages even further, so that Mitt can make more money & the wives of his sons can also be pampered stay at home moms whose dignity comes not from work, but from money, right?

You really don't get it, apparently in a willful sort of way, a way that lets you cling to your failed ideology & defective highly inaccurate & judgmental world view. The bread lines & soup kitchens of the early 1930's didn't exist because people didn't have skills or weren't willing to work, at all, and neither is the malaise of today, either.

 

[lotus503]

Nice dodge. In the current economic situation, there is enormous excess capacity, both in skills & the means to produce. Lots of people who were middle class in 2005 aren't so middle class anymore, at all. They worked & made honest livings then, but today have no work, not for lack of skills, but for lack of job openings. It's not like they could foretell the future.

But, hey, the Dow has recovered, and America's wealthiest are doing better than ever, particularly in a comparative sort of way, so what welfare mothers really need to do is go to work, to drive down wages even further, so that Mitt can make more money & the wives of his sons can also be pampered stay at home moms whose dignity comes not from work, but from money, right?

You really don't get it, apparently in a willful sort of way, a way that lets you cling to your failed ideology & defective highly inaccurate & judgmental world view. The bread lines & soup kitchens of the early 1930's didn't exist because people didn't have skills or weren't willing to work, at all, and neither is the malaise of today, either.

Not to mention we have roughly the same number of people employed today as we did in April of 2000.

12 years of flat job growth.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nice dodge. In the current economic situation, there is enormous excess capacity, both in skills & the means to produce. Lots of people who were middle class in 2005 aren't so middle class anymore, at all. They worked & made honest livings then, but today have no work, not for lack of skills, but for lack of job openings. It's not like they could foretell the future.

But, hey, the Dow has recovered, and America's wealthiest are doing better than ever, particularly in a comparative sort of way, so what welfare mothers really need to do is go to work, to drive down wages even further, so that Mitt can make more money & the wives of his sons can also be pampered stay at home moms whose dignity comes not from work, but from money, right?

You really don't get it, apparently in a willful sort of way, a way that lets you cling to your failed ideology & defective highly inaccurate & judgmental world view. The bread lines & soup kitchens of the early 1930's didn't exist because people didn't have skills or weren't willing to work, at all, and neither is the malaise of today, either.

Apparently you glossed over the bit about "education, opportunity and accountability". Besides you don't see degrees. It's bread lines or Romney and no in between. Since you don't get my "failed ideology." I'll spell it out.

Work is not inherently evil.

People who are able should work for their money. That they are getting a welfare check does not alter that. People who have worked and contributed towards retirement are excepted. They have already participated.

If you give a man a fish you'll keep on doing so until that changes. There are exceptions.
That which makes others dependent for generations is immoral and must change.

Bad things happen to good productive people. I support a system to support them but not one that avoids work.

There are those who cannot ever work. I accept, indeed want, them provided for. I will and do support them publicly and from my private resources.


Thats some of it and it probably looks quaint, but I offer no apologies.

 

[lotus503]

Apparently you glossed over the bit about "education, opportunity and accountability". Besides you don't see degrees. It's bread lines or Romney and no in between. Since you don't get my "failed ideology." I'll spell it out.

Work is not inherently evil.

People who are able should work for their money. That they are getting a welfare check does not alter that. People who have worked and contributed towards retirement are excepted. They have already participated.

If you give a man a fish you'll keep on doing so until that changes. There are exceptions.
That which makes others dependent for generations is immoral and must change.

Bad things happen to good productive people. I support a system to support them but not one that avoids work.

There are those who cannot ever work. I accept, indeed want, them provided for. I will and do support them publicly and from my private resources.


Thats some of it and it probably looks quaint, but I offer no apologies.

Treat welfare like unemployment ins.

You get it for a period of time then to get it again you have to have stints off it.

That would allows us to focus on items that actually impact the budget in a meaningful way.

When able body, willing workers have tough times getting employment, not sure where all the jobs for the deadbeats are going to come from.

 

[micrometers]

Treat welfare like unemployment ins.

You get it for a period of time then to get it again you have to have stints off it.

That would allows us to focus on items that actually impact the budget in a meaningful way.

When able body, willing workers have tough times getting employment, not sure where all the jobs for the deadbeats are going to come from.

yes, that is how it should be treated.

But if so, why did liberals cause such a fuss over Newt Gingrich's welfare reform proposals? He wanted to limit it to 5 years.

 

[woolfe9999]

Apparently you glossed over the bit about "education, opportunity and accountability". Besides you don't see degrees. It's bread lines or Romney and no in between. Since you don't get my "failed ideology." I'll spell it out.

Work is not inherently evil.

People who are able should work for their money. That they are getting a welfare check does not alter that. People who have worked and contributed towards retirement are excepted. They have already participated.

If you give a man a fish you'll keep on doing so until that changes. There are exceptions.
That which makes others dependent for generations is immoral and must change.

Bad things happen to good productive people. I support a system to support them but not one that avoids work.

There are those who cannot ever work. I accept, indeed want, them provided for. I will and do support them publicly and from my private resources.


Thats some of it and it probably looks quaint, but I offer no apologies.

I don't think you got his point. There are fewer jobs than people who are able to work. That means some people who are able to work will be unemployed. This is true 100% of the time, and is a much bigger problem in a down economy. People don't create jobs by trying really hard to get them. At best if they try hard enough, they'll displace someone else. Job opportunities are finite. It's incorrect to assume that there won't be at least some number of people who could theoretically work but are nonetheless unemployed at any given point in time. It doesn't matter how much job training or day care you give them, or what time limits you put on their benefits. None of that will increase the total number of jobs available in this economy. So we have a choice: we can let a certain number of people starve, or not.

- wolf

 

[lotus503]

yes, that is how it should be treated.

But if so, why did liberals cause such a fuss over Newt Gingrich's welfare reform proposals? He wanted to limit it to 5 years.

What was newt willing to give up budget wise for that welfare reform?

Nothing.

That's this issue with our political system. Reelection matters more than solving problems.

It's not a partisan problem rather a systemic one.

Until we turn the system on its head we will have more if the same.

Best way to turn it on its head is to get money out.

Best way to get money out is to get rid of lobby, all of it.

 

[tweaker2]

And Romney's hypocritical statement about the "stay at home moms lacking the dignity of work" is undeniably etched in stone of which nothing anyone tries to deflect from or obfuscate into oblivion can erase.

But it sure is fun witnessing them try though.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gnity-of-work/2012/04/15/gIQAhmbZJT_blog.html

“I happen to believe that all moms are working moms,” said Romney.

It turns out he doesn’t. If you’re a poor mother in Massachusetts and you go to sign up for TANF, you’ll see you need to fulfill a “work requirement.” And you cannot fulfill it by being “a mom.” And that’s because of policy that Romney signed into law in Massachusetts, and Bill Clinton signed into law nationally.

 

[micrometers]

What was newt willing to give up budget wise for that welfare reform?

Nothing.

That's this issue with our political system. Reelection matters more than solving problems.

It's not a partisan problem rather a systemic one.

Until we turn the system on its head we will have more if the same.

Best way to turn it on its head is to get money out.

Best way to get money out is to get rid of lobby, all of it.

?

If you decry horse-trading, well, then you have to examine each proposal on its merits.

Liberals were opposed to this because they viewed it as some sort of humanitarian disaster.

 

[micrometers]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gnity-of-work/2012/04/15/gIQAhmbZJT_blog.html

“I happen to believe that all moms are working moms,” said Romney.

It turns out he doesn’t. If you’re a poor mother in Massachusetts and you go to sign up for TANF, you’ll see you need to fulfill a “work requirement.” And you cannot fulfill it by being “a mom.” And that’s because of policy that Romney signed into law in Massachusetts, and Bill Clinton signed into law nationally.

I"m sorry, this sort of bullshit is why FoxNews was created in the first place. The WAPO especially is still the heart of the old liberal establishment.

They jump on the smallest most meaningless little inconsistencies and try to get people outraged.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think you got his point. There are fewer jobs than people who are able to work. That means some people who are able to work will be unemployed. This is true 100% of the time, and is a much bigger problem in a down economy. People don't create jobs by trying really hard to get them. At best if they try hard enough, they'll displace someone else. Job opportunities are finite. It's incorrect to assume that there won't be at least some number of people who could theoretically work but are nonetheless unemployed at any given point in time. It doesn't matter how much job training or day care you give them, or what time limits you put on their benefits. None of that will increase the total number of jobs available in this economy. So we have a choice: we can let a certain number of people starve, or not.

- wolf

I'm not sure you get his point. There will always be some degree of unemployment, but does not mean we should not be educating people and requiring people to work and learn what that is like. He mentions bread lines, but he omits the WPA, which did much good. What's the advantage of having people do nothing, learning nothing and teaching the next generation to do the same?

As far as the economy goes it's painfully obvious that we've serious problems and creating an environment which encourages business to hire people. That involves tax incentives, re-evaluation of tariffs, identifying areas of opportunity were the US can be competitive, etc.

"The economy is bad, let's just do nothing" isn't acceptable to me.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not sure you get his point. There will always be some degree of unemployment, but does not mean we should not be educating people and requiring people to work and learn what that is like. He mentions bread lines, but he omits the WPA, which did much good. What's the advantage of having people do nothing, learning nothing and teaching the next generation to do the same?

As far as the economy goes it's painfully obvious that we've serious problems and creating an environment which encourages business to hire people. That involves tax incentives, re-evaluation of tariffs, identifying areas of opportunity were the US can be competitive, etc.

"The economy is bad, let's just do nothing" isn't acceptable to me.

It's apparently acceptable to Repub leaders, whose idea of job creation is to gut the EPA & give tax breaks to the much worshipped Job Creators.

WPA? Ebil Soshulism & Make Work! Didn't you get the memo? The current right wing objective is to cut, cut, Cut! to lay off govt workers, not to hire more, and to cut every sort of benefit for the down & out they possibly can. Food stamps? Hack! Medicaid? Chop! Job training? Slash! Education? Burn! EITC? Just say buh-bye....

Sacrifices have to be made, and it's obvious that Repub ideology dictates the Wealthy won't be making any if they can get their way about it. Bet on that.

 

[lotus503]

It's apparently acceptable to Repub leaders, whose idea of job creation is to gut the EPA & give tax breaks to the much worshipped Job Creators.

WPA? Ebil Soshulism & Make Work! Didn't you get the memo? The current right wing objective is to cut, cut, Cut! to lay off govt workers, not to hire more, and to cut every sort of benefit for the down & out they possibly can. Food stamps? Hack! Medicaid? Chop! Job training? Slash! Education? Burn! EITC? Just say buh-bye....

Sacrifices have to be made, and it's obvious that Repub ideology dictates the Wealthy won't be making any if they can get their way about it. Bet on that.

Job creators haven't added any significant jobs in 12 years yet have seen their income grow 10x.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gnity-of-work/2012/04/15/gIQAhmbZJT_blog.html

“I happen to believe that all moms are working moms,” said Romney.

It turns out he doesn’t. If you’re a poor mother in Massachusetts and you go to sign up for TANF, you’ll see you need to fulfill a “work requirement.” And you cannot fulfill it by being “a mom.” And that’s because of policy that Romney signed into law in Massachusetts, and Bill Clinton signed into law nationally.

I"m sorry, this sort of bullshit is why FoxNews was created in the first place. The WAPO especially is still the heart of the old liberal establishment.

They jump on the smallest most meaningless little inconsistencies and try to get people outraged.

Blind Hypocrisy for the big Lose.

Obviously, poor mothers need to have jobs, to have dignity, and rich mothers need to have their nails done & practice their equestrian skills, advise their politician husbands as to what women want, what they learned at the salon and their peers at the riding club...

It's not a little thing, it's a giant nexus of doublespeak that allows righties to vilify the person who claimed than Ann Romney never worked a day in her life and to vilify welfare moms in the same breath.

 

[micrometers]

being a mom is work.

but as for welfare, I don't think it is a good idea to make it too easy to be a single mother on public dependency. Because being a single mother on public dependency is not an optimal state of affairs. You should not have kids if you cannot afford it. Simple as that. YOu are unfair to the kids and unfair to the safety net.

 

[Jhhnn]

being a mom is work.

but as for welfare, I don't think it is a good idea to make it too easy to be a single mother on public dependency. Because being a single mother on public dependency is not an optimal state of affairs. You should not have kids if you cannot afford it. Simple as that. YOu are unfair to the kids and unfair to the safety net.

Sigh. I can't offer any numbers, but it's obvious that a large % of welfare moms are women who were abandoned by their men, and whose ability to earn is quite limited in today's economy. It's not like they set out to be on assistance, but rather that it's the best they can do for their kids atm. It all looked fine when they had a working partner, when it looked like they had some time to become better educated & still contribute to the family through their domestic efforts in the meanwhile.

If we want low income & women on welfare to refrain from having children until their circumstances improve, then we owe it to everybody to do what we can to provide them with the contraceptive means to accomplish that, and we sure as hell don't want to provide them with abstinence only sex ed, either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's apparently acceptable to Repub leaders, whose idea of job creation is to gut the EPA & give tax breaks to the much worshipped Job Creators.

WPA? Ebil Soshulism & Make Work! Didn't you get the memo? The current right wing objective is to cut, cut, Cut! to lay off govt workers, not to hire more, and to cut every sort of benefit for the down & out they possibly can. Food stamps? Hack! Medicaid? Chop! Job training? Slash! Education? Burn! EITC? Just say buh-bye....

Sacrifices have to be made, and it's obvious that Repub ideology dictates the Wealthy won't be making any if they can get their way about it. Bet on that.

Don't think I've said much which supports that, did I? I do know that virtually nothing has been done since the '60s and I'm tired of it.

As far as contraception goes Medicaid provides that for free and has for some time. Pregnancies occur in spite of that, and indeed there is pressure to have children to either stay on medicaid or to get a bigger check. That's part of the inner city culture and hard working blacks especially can't stand that attitude. When the means for free effective contraception easily available are not used there's a reason and it's not Republicans.

 

[lotus503]

being a mom is work.

but as for welfare, I don't think it is a good idea to make it too easy to be a single mother on public dependency. Because being a single mother on public dependency is not an optimal state of affairs. You should not have kids if you cannot afford it. Simple as that. YOu are unfair to the kids and unfair to the safety net.

I agree you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford it.

I think birth control should be available for free for all adult women who want it.

Much cheaper.

 

[nehalem256]

I agree you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford it.

I think birth control should be available for free for all adult women who want it.

Much cheaper.

Why is that every time there is a problem for women it means that the government needs to give them stuff. And you do realize that 10-20% of all births are women too poor to feed their kids but who PLANNED THEM.

Should the solution for men robbing banks be to hand out free HDTvs?

 

[lotus503]

Why is that every time there is a problem for women it means that the government needs to give them stuff. And you do realize that 10-20% of all births are women too poor to feed their kids but who PLANNED THEM.

Should the solution for men robbing banks be to hand out free HDTvs?

Whats your solution then.

Welfare free rides cost to much, yet birth control costs too much.

I dont like the fact a prejorative amount of my tax dollars goes for defense and corporate subsidies. We all have shit the government spends money on we dont like.

And your analogy is flawed collecting welfare on its own is not a crime, robbing banks is a crime.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why is that every time there is a problem for women it means that the government needs to give them stuff. And you do realize that 10-20% of all births are women too poor to feed their kids but who PLANNED THEM.

Should the solution for men robbing banks be to hand out free HDTvs?

If you're offering numbers, then you need a credible source for them.

And I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of assistance recipients are children, who don't get to choose their parents.