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

[nehalem256]

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%.....

Its not really a rarity at all. I provided numbers showing that >20% of all births or approximately 800,000 every year purposely choose to have a child they cannot afford.

 

[Craig234]

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.

You know what I hate? Commie billionares.

They want government paying for protecting them with a military, government paying for roads that benefit their investments, government paying to protect their wealth from everyone with police, government paying for providing economic infrastructure from currency to banking regulation helping them get rich, government providing services that help them have a quality workforce, government paying to educate children who are later their employees, and many other government provided services that help them get rich.

Scumbag leeches.

They should pay for all those things - their own military, their own police, educate children out of their own pocket, pay for roads themselves, pay for their own currency, all of it.

 

[Ausm]

Its not really a rarity at all. I provided numbers showing that >20% of all births or approximately 800,000 every year purposely choose to have a child they cannot afford.

LOLWut?? Please serve up the data bro!

 

[actuarial]

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.

She is responsible for the consequences. But that doesn't absolve the man of the consequences of his actions as well. The fact that he can't choose to terminate the pregnancy doesn't absolve him of all responsibility.

 

[nehalem256]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ivaejOHo7EZMKLgBg&sig2=exy0wBcBBtqPUoFZX9kGHA

"Unintended pregnancy has typically been defined as
pregnancy that is either mistimed or unwanted at conception.
Mistimed is generally defined as “a pregnancy that is
desired later in life but not at conception” and unwanted is
defined as “not wanted then or at any time in the future”.
The most recent national figures show that approximately
49% of pregnancies are unintended in the United States
and about 31% of pregnancies resulting in a live birth are
unintended1. The Healthy People 2010 goal is to increase
the proportion of pregnancies that are intended to at least
70%"

And then from here: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/wicataglance.htm

"WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States. "

53% of new parents cannot afford to feed their infant
31% of births are unintended.

Assuming that every unintended birth is to a parent who cannot afford to feed their child producing a lower bound of 22% of mother purposely choosing to have a child they cannot feed.

Here it is again.

 

[Craig234]

I provided numbers showing that >20% of all births or approximately 800,000 every year purposely choose to have a child they cannot afford.

Here's an option:

Prevent women who 'can't afford' children from having them.

Here's another option:

Have fewer women who 'can't afford' it.

We have choices in our economic system, whether to have a plutocracy, a lot of poor and a few extremely wealthy, or to have fewer poor. Didn't consider the second, did you.

 

[Ausm]

Here it is again.

WIC is not an entitlement program as Congress does not set aside funds to allow every eligible individual to participate in the program. WIC is a Federal grant program for which Congress authorizes a specific amount of funds each year for the program. WIC is

administered at the Federal level by FNS
administered by 90 WIC state agencies, through approximately 47,000 authorized retailers.
WIC operates through 1,900 local agencies in 10,000 clinic sites, in 50 State health departments, 34 Indian Tribal Organizations, the District of Columbia, and five territories (Northern Mariana, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).

I found this interesting.

 

[nehalem256]

You know what I hate? Commie billionares.

They want government paying for protecting them with a military, government paying for roads that benefit their investments, government paying to protect their wealth from everyone with police, government paying for providing economic infrastructure from currency to banking regulation helping them get rich, government providing services that help them have a quality workforce, government paying to educate children who are later their employees, and many other government provided services that help them get rich.

Scumbag leeches.

They should pay for all those things - their own military, their own police, educate children out of their own pocket, pay for roads themselves, pay for their own currency, all of it.

Are you seriously suggesting that only the rich benefit from the military (hey it will be really great if some foreign country invades and rapes our children and burns our homes to the ground)

That police only protect rich people. (It is totally ok for criminals to come into my house and kill me and take my stuff)

That roads are barred from your own use (That is why I have 4 wheel drive)

That you do not personally benefit from being able to read or write (Its not like I participate in a web forum)

Or are your views that women should be able pop out a child and then demand money so indefensible that you have to go on an insane rant?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Its not really a rarity at all. I provided numbers showing that >20% of all births or approximately 800,000 every year purposely choose to have a child they cannot afford.

They do not choose it after reviewing their finances. They had a child because they wanted a child. People say "oh, but that would not be the case without Welfare!!"

Again, not true. Merely looking at Africa and India, people have many kids in hopes that they will be able to support the family and that some may live past 12.

 

[nehalem256]

They do not choose it after reviewing their finances. They had a child because they wanted a child. People say "oh, but that would not be the case without Welfare!!"

Again, not true. Merely looking at Africa and India, people have many kids in hopes that they will be able to support the family and that some may live past 12.

And so how does that make it any less immoral. How is purposefully having a child you cannot afford different than going down to the Lexus dealership and hotwiring a new car (afterall they can just right it off right?).

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

I think unemployment will always continue to rise. We reproduce way faster than jobs are created..err i mean off-shored or automated. I think its the just way of the future. We are fucking ourselves in the name of technilogical advances in automation and global economy

 

[senseamp]

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.

So it's all of the above answer for you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I suggest that single mothers be tortured and killed.

Well you want them to be slaves, so that's just the next step.

 

[Jhhnn]

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?

Your references to the WPA are entirely diversionary, because the politicians you support will never allow another to be created, certainly not so long as there are 40+ Repubs in the US Senate.

Cut, cut, Cut! Remember?

Just the way it is, and we need to be mindful of that when discussing possibilities, keep them within the realm of real possibilities, not in the realm of fantasy. I'm not opposed to the idea of a guaranteed job for every American, to single payer healthcare & to govt supported daycare for all families. Your heroes are, and they prevent those things from becoming reality.

And I'm not about to forget Mitt, or the way Righties defend contradictory statements by him as if no contradiction exists at all.

If being a stay at home mom constitutes work, then that concept should apply to all women. Rhapsodizing about the virtue of wealthy stay at home moms while demonizing poor stay at home moms is entirely dishonest, and it takes a person who's being dishonest with themselves to fail to recognize that.

 

[Jhhnn]

And so how does that make it any less immoral. How is purposefully having a child you cannot afford different than going down to the Lexus dealership and hotwiring a new car (afterall they can just right it off right?).

Entirely specious & dishonest on your part- resorting to such indicates you've already entered denial as a way to maintain your belief system.

 

[Ausm]

Wow, you are clueless.

He's quite good.

I agree and that's why Rightist hate his guts.

 

[Ausm]

Well you want them to be slaves, so that's just the next step.

I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP would be introducing this Legislation particularly in my State.

 

[Paul98]

Romney putting how he values himself onto other people. This is a problem, people aren't the same and don't all think like he does.

 

[Carmen813]

And so how does that make it any less immoral. How is purposefully having a child you cannot afford different than going down to the Lexus dealership and hotwiring a new car (afterall they can just right it off right?).

Better be careful building strawmen, hay has a tendency to burst into flame.

 

[Generator]

The Romneys are clumsy frauds. They dare to fail and are awarded millions for their total ineptness. Somebody tell these pretenders to back to cults in Utah. Where are your real bluebloods Republicans serfs? Where your competent masters, if any? Maybe its not to late for your King Trump to run.

Trump did say Cheesy Grits was a small potatoes, small business guy...how right he was. I wouldn't trust Mitt to run a Quicken Loans in a run down mini mall. I promise you if Mitt Romney becomes President he'll turn the country into a foreclosed mini mall.

The gall to actually run Walstreet itself and not some proxy. This country isn't that stupid, but the Romneys are!

 

[Ninjahedge]

And so how does that make it any less immoral.

And what does that have to do with the OP?

How is purposefully having a child you cannot afford different than going down to the Lexus dealership and hotwiring a new car (afterall they can just right it off right?).

There is a big difference. If you don't know, I am sure as hell not going to be able to teach you.

 

[nehalem256]

There is a big difference. If you don't know, I am sure as hell not going to be able to teach you.

Your right, a woman, purposely having a child she cannot afford, and then using it as a hostage to extort money is much worse than a man stealing a Lexus.

But, I meant how is it different in a way that supports liberal ideology.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Nope, you are exaggerating. Pulling a Red Herring.

You can keep trying to assign this to the OP, but it ain't sticking.

Basically Mit is saying that a woman at home is not working, unless she is his wife and his political opponents team says something similar, in which he says that they ARE 'working" (How DARE they say otherwise).

You can be on either side of the issue, but not on both. You can even straddle the issue, but he seems to think he can stand on both sides (both feet) at one time.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Your references to the WPA are entirely diversionary, because the politicians you support will never allow another to be created, certainly not so long as there are 40+ Repubs in the US Senate.

Cut, cut, Cut! Remember?

Just the way it is, and we need to be mindful of that when discussing possibilities, keep them within the realm of real possibilities, not in the realm of fantasy. I'm not opposed to the idea of a guaranteed job for every American, to single payer healthcare & to govt supported daycare for all families. Your heroes are, and they prevent those things from becoming reality.

And I'm not about to forget Mitt, or the way Righties defend contradictory statements by him as if no contradiction exists at all.

If being a stay at home mom constitutes work, then that concept should apply to all women. Rhapsodizing about the virtue of wealthy stay at home moms while demonizing poor stay at home moms is entirely dishonest, and it takes a person who's being dishonest with themselves to fail to recognize that.

Here's a hint, conservatives don't have a problem with poor stay at home moms. What they do have a problem with is the Government paying poor stay at home moms not to work. Surely you are capable of seeing the difference between someone who is financially self reliant staying at home and someone leeching of the taxpayer staying at home.

 

[senseamp]

Jon Stewart had a nice segment on it yesterday.