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

[micrometers]

You mean Romney's speech.

as I said, the "connection" is stupid. Same word, different context, months apart.

 

[theeedude]

as I said, the "connection" is stupid. Same word, different context, months apart.

Being a stay at home mom is either work or it isn't. Are you saying that in the context of a rich mom, it's work, but in the context of a poor mom, it's not? Or that in January it was not work, but in April it is? That's fine. That's why I added the third option to the poll, just for people like you.

 

[Craig234]

Chris Hayes is one of the more stupid cable news commentators. That's all. This thread was inspired by one of his dumb talking points.

Wow, you are clueless.

He's quite good.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So your original number depends on an unverifiable assumption. Got it.

So how often does it happen? He's at least made an attempt to ballpark based on what looks to be reasonable assumptions.

Here's a tidbit, contraception is offered free from medicaid. That means virtually all pregnancies are preventable, yet they happen. Why? Because who cares? Worse case is someone gets a baby and a bigger check. Since that's better than getting a job or education then big deal.

The bottom line is that you seem to be fine with generation after generation having no work ethic and doing absolutely nothing to get paid for nothing. At least the WPA did something.

 

[nehalem256]

Being a stay at home mom is either work or it isn't. Are you saying that in the context of a rich mom, it's work, but in the context of a poor mom, it's not? Or that in January it was not work, but in April it is? That's fine. That's why I added the third option to the poll, just for people like you.

Cooking is also work, but that does not mean I should receive a stipend from the government for pouring myself a bowl of cereal for breakfast.

The dignity he is talking about is in earning your own keep.

 

[Jhhnn]

So how often does it happen? He's at least made an attempt to ballpark based on what looks to be reasonable assumptions.

Here's a tidbit, contraception is offered free from medicaid. That means virtually all pregnancies are preventable, yet they happen. Why? Because who cares? Worse case is someone gets a baby and a bigger check. Since that's better than getting a job or education then big deal.

The bottom line is that you seem to be fine with generation after generation having no work ethic and doing absolutely nothing to get paid for nothing. At least the WPA did something.

The original number was just a guess, formulated to support & legitimize a particular pov.

Medicaid coverage of contraceptive services varies wildly state to state, although it's better than I realized.

http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/8015.pdf

None of which really cuts to the heart of the matter, that assistance is a substitute for jobs and that some forms are a partial substitute for wages, essentially subsidies for low pay employers. It's quite telling that some of those employers, like WalMart, support extremely conservative politics and also help their employees collect benefits. Those businesses also benefit from the purchasing power of assistance recipients.

It seems to me that Business has good reason to support the welfare state, or they wouldn't do so.

None of which has much to do with the disconnect in Righties' heads between their perceived distinction wrt dignity between poor moms & rich moms, or even in Mitt's head, for that matter. When the wives of predatory capitalists stay home to raise the kids, they're good moms, & what they do is "work". When those same efforts writ large create systemic disruption & loss of jobs & opportunity for working families, creating the need for the welfare state, then those are bad moms, because what they do isn't "work", and what they really need is to get a job & get some "dignity" even when there aren't any jobs.

A variety of mental gymnastics are employed to establish the necessary sense of moral superiority self righteous outrage to maintain that headset, all of which ignore the fact that children don't get to choose their parents, and that the vast majority of welfare beneficiaries are children.

 

[nehalem256]

A variety of mental gymnastics are employed to establish the necessary sense of moral superiority self righteous outrage to maintain that headset, all of which ignore the fact that children don't get to choose their parents, and that the vast majority of welfare beneficiaries are children.

At least 800,000 children are born every year to women who purposely chose to have a child they cannot afford.

Liberals are the one that championed an ideology that encouraged women to be single mothers. I fail to see how using children as hostages to extort bailouts for your ill conceived ideology give you the moral high ground.

 

[lotus503]

At least 800,000 children are born every year to women who purposely chose to have a child they cannot afford.

Liberals are the one that championed an ideology that encouraged women to be single mothers. I fail to see how using children as hostages to extort bailouts for your ill conceived ideology give you the moral high ground.

Encouraged women, how so?

 

[zsdersw]

By the way, it was reported that in 2010, Ann Romney had five housekeepers.

Who knows how many nannies etc. she had.

So she employs atleast 5 people. What do you do?

I wonder how many of them are illegals.

 

[micrometers]

Wow, you are clueless.

He's quite good.

No, he's not. I always cringed whenever I saw that he was guest-hosting for someone on MSNBC. Dude kinda has a negative overall take on things, and his analysis isn't really that novel. Take this for example. This is fox news - like in its distortion.

 

[nehalem256]

Encouraged women, how so?

By removing the stigma of single motherhood and pushing for no-fault divorce.

As well as creating a host of programs to cater to their needs.

 

[micrometers]

By removing the stigma of single motherhood and pushing for no-fault divorce.

As well as creating a host of programs to cater to their needs.

that's bull.

Women deserve freedom also. They should be stuck in abusive and unhappy relationships. Everyone is better off that way.

I guess Jhnnn has a point about much welfare being claimed by women who already have kids.

Still, there is a subset who have kids while on welfare. At the very least it should be based on the number of kids you have when you start.

Last I heard, "octomom" is claiming $2000/mo in food stamps from the government.

$2000/mo.

 

[Carmen813]

By removing the stigma of single motherhood and pushing for no-fault divorce.

As well as creating a host of programs to cater to their needs.

Damn you are right, it was so much better shaming women and letting children starve. Or forcing women to stay in broken and harmful relationships. Sounds like a great policy for promoting mental health and Curious that you dont state anything about men keeping their penises in their pants or treating their partners as equals both in and outside the gome. Must have forgot that part.

 

[xBiffx]

My heart bleeds for women who knowingly take advantage of a system that rewards stupid and irresponsible behavior. I mean, think of the kids. 🙄

 

[nehalem256]

that's bull.

Women deserve freedom also. They should be stuck in abusive and unhappy relationships. Everyone is better off that way.

I guess Jhnnn has a point about much welfare being claimed by women who already have kids.

Still, there is a subset who have kids while on welfare. At the very least it should be based on the number of kids you have when you start.

Last I heard, "octomom" is claiming $2000/mo in food stamps from the government.

$2000/mo.

So welfare is now about women's freedom not children. You seem to be agreeing with what I am saying. Welfare is for women; the children are just used as hostages to extort it.

With freedom comes responsibility. Their body, their choice, THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

If your "freedom" is all that matters then dont have children. Their needs trump your "freedom".

 

[micrometers]

So welfare is now about women's freedom not children. You seem to be agreeing with what I am saying. Welfare is for women; the children are just used as hostages to extort it.

With freedom comes responsibility. Their body, their choice, THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

If your "freedom" is all that matters then dont have children. Their needs trump your "freedom".

well, the thing about abusive relationships is that...you do have plenty of warning. It's not like one day the kid is 10 and the husband suddenly turns abusive.

YOu know, if two people are a bad fit for each other, they're a bad fit. The law shouldn't be biased in favor of forcing them to stay together.

 

[nehalem256]

Damn you are right, it was so much better shaming women and letting children starve. Or forcing women to stay in broken and harmful relationships. Sounds like a great policy for promoting mental health and Curious that you dont state anything about men keeping their penises in their pants or treating their partners as equals both in and outside the gome. Must have forgot that part.

Funny, when a Santorum staffer told a joke from his grandma about women keeping aspirin between their legs he was crucified by liberals for saying so.

So why is it ok for you to suggest that men do the same basic thing.

Liberals have said for 40 years that having children is 100% a woman's choice. If it is 100% their choice then it is 100% their responsibility.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The original number was just a guess, formulated to support & legitimize a particular pov.

Medicaid coverage of contraceptive services varies wildly state to state, although it's better than I realized.

http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/8015.pdf

None of which really cuts to the heart of the matter, that assistance is a substitute for jobs and that some forms are a partial substitute for wages, essentially subsidies for low pay employers. It's quite telling that some of those employers, like WalMart, support extremely conservative politics and also help their employees collect benefits. Those businesses also benefit from the purchasing power of assistance recipients.

It seems to me that Business has good reason to support the welfare state, or they wouldn't do so.

None of which has much to do with the disconnect in Righties' heads between their perceived distinction wrt dignity between poor moms & rich moms, or even in Mitt's head, for that matter. When the wives of predatory capitalists stay home to raise the kids, they're good moms, & what they do is "work". When those same efforts writ large create systemic disruption & loss of jobs & opportunity for working families, creating the need for the welfare state, then those are bad moms, because what they do isn't "work", and what they really need is to get a job & get some "dignity" even when there aren't any jobs.

A variety of mental gymnastics are employed to establish the necessary sense of moral superiority self righteous outrage to maintain that headset, all of which ignore the fact that children don't get to choose their parents, and that the vast majority of welfare beneficiaries are children.

Forget Mitt for the moment. The vast majority of welfare beneficiaries are children for a reason. Their mothers have them and a great many while they are on medicaid. Two things.

First, do you accept that as a right and if not, what would you do to stop or diminish that?

Second, do people who are able bodied become exempt from labor because they are on medicaid? If so why and if not how about a WPA type service? What is inherently wrong with having such a thing?

 

[Craig234]

At least 800,000 children are born every year to women who purposely chose to have a child they cannot afford.

Liberals are the one that championed an ideology that encouraged women to be single mothers. I fail to see how using children as hostages to extort bailouts for your ill conceived ideology give you the moral high ground.

I suggest that single mothers be tortured and killed.

If you disagree, you are the one encouraging women to be single mothers.

I mean, beign able to feed and shelter their children - how outrageously encouraging, women who are single mothers should not have food and shelter.

 

[actuarial]

Funny, when a Santorum staffer told a joke from his grandma about women keeping aspirin between their legs he was crucified by liberals for saying so.

So why is it ok for you to suggest that men do the same basic thing.

His post does not suggest that men should do the same thing. He questioned why others claiming women should do something do not also claim that men should.

Liberals have said for 40 years that having children is 100% a woman's choice. If it is 100% their choice then it is 100% their responsibility.

This is just creating a straw man. The argument has always been that women have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. That does not make it 100% their choice for the pregnancy to occur in the first place.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The big joke it is liberals that encouraged single motherhood. They promoted the acceptance of having bastard children and divorce. Not surprisingly this choices lead to poverty.

I thought liberals were babykillers who wanted everyone to get abortions all the time. Now liberals want only single women to have babies? Liberals really need to nail down their ideology!

 

[nehalem256]

His post does not suggest that men should do the same thing. He questioned why others claiming women should do something do not also claim that men should.



This is just creating a straw man. The argument has always been that women have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. That does not make it 100% their choice for the pregnancy to occur in the first place.

Women and men should agree on the use of birth control. If a pregnancy occurs a woman has a choice about whether to get an abortion. If she chooses not to get one she should be responsible for the consequences.

 

[nehalem256]

I thought liberals were babykillers who wanted everyone to get abortions all the time. Now liberals want only single women to have babies? Liberals really need to nail down their ideology!

No, the belief you are stating is actually more sensible than what liberals actually believe. They really are pro-CHOICE (for women). They just believe that other people should be responsible for the choices that women make.

 

[Ninjahedge]

What is funny is how you ignored the previous statement's made against Romneny's wife by one of Obama's people where Ann Romney was attacked for being a stay at home mom which promoted Rommeny to respond.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/12/top-democratic-strategist-attacks-ann-romney/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html

Actually, that IS what he is pointing out.

That this statement, rather innocuous when you really think about it, was JUMPED ON by the GOP only slightly slower than by the Democratic Party (and their denouncement of it with all haste).

This is a NON-ISSUE. Mitt saying, in January, that women should (paraphrased) be allowed to go to work so they can earn money and be proud of what they can do, not be relegated to stay-at-home because they cannot afford to do otherwise. He then swings around saying "Hey, what's wrong with "working" as a mom??!?!". Basic BS.

Oddly, I agree with his first statement. Being a mommy is a lot of work, but it ain't Work. You do not get paid, get health insurance, get contacts or anything you can put on your resume.

You can't, after being a mom, earn $100K/yr at your new job because your resume shows 2 years experience with computers and 14 with "child development studies"....

 

[Ninjahedge]

that's bull.

Women deserve freedom also. They should be stuck in abusive and unhappy relationships. Everyone is better off that way.

I guess Jhnnn has a point about much welfare being claimed by women who already have kids.

Still, there is a subset who have kids while on welfare. At the very least it should be based on the number of kids you have when you start.

Last I heard, "octomom" is claiming $2000/mo in food stamps from the government.

$2000/mo.

That is a rarity....


But there are some things to address in that. There has been a change in Welfare limiting or reducing the per-kid rate of funding once you get to 3. This was done to help stop the welfare mommies that do NOT take care of their kids, but still take the cash to "support" them.

As for the Octomom... I do not know how realistic that # is, but one thing to consider is this. Few kids that do not get support from the government end up dying. They just end up being malnourished, developmentally stunted, under-educated/etc. It ends up costing us more in the long run to either correct those mistakes or rectify the situations that are cause by them than to just prevent them from happening in the first place.


BTW, back to Birth Control. Anyone have any numbers on the birth rate for areas with more readily available contraceptives than not? It would be interesting to see if simply handing out the pill gave a 25% reduction in pregnancies. That alone would be enough to warrant continuation despite the fact that it does not bring the number to 100%.....