Slog Comments
Mitt Romney Only Hates Poor Moms
1
So when a poor woman wants to stay home, it's bad.
But when a Romney woman wants to stay home, it's good.
Well you cannot fault him for consistency.
What was that he said about why none of his sons fought in the wars that he supported?
"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3147…
But when a Romney woman wants to stay home, it's good.
Well you cannot fault him for consistency.
What was that he said about why none of his sons fought in the wars that he supported?
"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3147…
2
@1 Rich women should stay home w/ the kids, poor welfare moms need to go to work. What's inconsistent about that? Like Maggie Gallagher says about gay marriage, different things should be treated differently.
3
Ann Romney provided several lucky women with the dignity of work being nannies and maids in her household, doing the dignified work of caring for her children so Ann could spend time elsewhere providing dignity to the stable workers, groomers and horse trainers who care for her prize dressage horses.
You cannot believe the powerful sense of dignity you get from getting paid an hourly wage to clean up after a rich lady's horse! Thanks to fabulously wealthy job creators like the Romneys, there's just so much more dignity to spread around -- thanks, wealthy people! What would we do without you?
You cannot believe the powerful sense of dignity you get from getting paid an hourly wage to clean up after a rich lady's horse! Thanks to fabulously wealthy job creators like the Romneys, there's just so much more dignity to spread around -- thanks, wealthy people! What would we do without you?
4
The Republicans are so full of crap. Please let this stick in the public consciousness. Republicans are only for the rich and for corporations. Simple but true.
Case in point: According to an article today on Politico, Republicans want to slash foodstamps back big time and they want to do it ASAP. Because nothing helps a stay-at-home mom in a struggling family stay at home like taking away her foodstamps. I'd like to see Ann Romney try some of that dignity of work.
Case in point: According to an article today on Politico, Republicans want to slash foodstamps back big time and they want to do it ASAP. Because nothing helps a stay-at-home mom in a struggling family stay at home like taking away her foodstamps. I'd like to see Ann Romney try some of that dignity of work.
9
Many people in our society – fuck, they even comment on Slog – want people to take responsibility for their progeny. “Why’d you have kids if you can’t afford them?!?” “Why should I pay for your mistake?” “You had them, you feed them.” And while we all wish it were that simple, it just isn’t. This world view shows a deep lack of understanding about life and demonstrates how pitiful those commenters are.
Perhaps the problem lies in the “ownership” ideal our culture has about children. Children belong to the parent, the parent gets to decide what’s best for “my” child, the parent decides how she/he will raise the children. And while I would never suggest that that’s wrong outright, I will say that it’s not that simple. We are not worlds unto ourselves, or distant stars from each other. We depend on each other every day. There is not a single day that goes by that we are not utterly dependent upon each other in thousands of ways.
So, now, how does this apply to food stamps? Let’s forget about the mother who had children she couldn’t afford, let’s instead focus on the kids themselves. Because our lives are so intertwined, we will one day depend on these kids. They will work for us, they will drive on our roads, they will start companies we’ll work with, they will work in our prisons, they will be housed in our prisons, they will be our congressmen, they will be our electorate, they will be our scientists. We as a society need these kids to grow up healthy and smart and active and creative. We NEED to ensure this. We will ALL of us suffer if we allow any of our society’s kids to grow up abused or malnourished or destitute or abandoned or languishing in a lousy childcare setting because their moms are away from the house for eleven hours a day for work and a long commute.
Wouldn’t it benefit all of us to pay for quality childcare for working families? Wouldn’t it benefit us to have a graduated welfare system in place that would allow a mother to work part-time and still be actively involved in her children’s day-to-day care? Instead of worrying that we’d be rewarding this one woman for having kids she couldn’t afford (*eyeroll*) let’s think about making life better for the kids.
Think of welfare and food stamps and education reform and childcare and any sort of assistance we can offer to struggling families as insurance. Wouldn’t you rather these kids be healthy and happy and active members of our society, or uneducated drugged-up high school drop-outs who’ll end up in the prisons we’ll all have to pay for? A little money up front to help these kids succeed vs. long-term cost of poverty.
Mitt’s idea of childcare assistance is a getting closer, but he’s so concerned about the idiots who yell and scream about “welfare moms” that he’s missing the mark. Is it really better for any kids to have over-worked stressed-out parents?
More...
Perhaps the problem lies in the “ownership” ideal our culture has about children. Children belong to the parent, the parent gets to decide what’s best for “my” child, the parent decides how she/he will raise the children. And while I would never suggest that that’s wrong outright, I will say that it’s not that simple. We are not worlds unto ourselves, or distant stars from each other. We depend on each other every day. There is not a single day that goes by that we are not utterly dependent upon each other in thousands of ways.
So, now, how does this apply to food stamps? Let’s forget about the mother who had children she couldn’t afford, let’s instead focus on the kids themselves. Because our lives are so intertwined, we will one day depend on these kids. They will work for us, they will drive on our roads, they will start companies we’ll work with, they will work in our prisons, they will be housed in our prisons, they will be our congressmen, they will be our electorate, they will be our scientists. We as a society need these kids to grow up healthy and smart and active and creative. We NEED to ensure this. We will ALL of us suffer if we allow any of our society’s kids to grow up abused or malnourished or destitute or abandoned or languishing in a lousy childcare setting because their moms are away from the house for eleven hours a day for work and a long commute.
Wouldn’t it benefit all of us to pay for quality childcare for working families? Wouldn’t it benefit us to have a graduated welfare system in place that would allow a mother to work part-time and still be actively involved in her children’s day-to-day care? Instead of worrying that we’d be rewarding this one woman for having kids she couldn’t afford (*eyeroll*) let’s think about making life better for the kids.
Think of welfare and food stamps and education reform and childcare and any sort of assistance we can offer to struggling families as insurance. Wouldn’t you rather these kids be healthy and happy and active members of our society, or uneducated drugged-up high school drop-outs who’ll end up in the prisons we’ll all have to pay for? A little money up front to help these kids succeed vs. long-term cost of poverty.
Mitt’s idea of childcare assistance is a getting closer, but he’s so concerned about the idiots who yell and scream about “welfare moms” that he’s missing the mark. Is it really better for any kids to have over-worked stressed-out parents?
10
@7 It's more than just money. Wealthy parents have the option to have one of them stay at home and rear children, or they can both decide to work instead and outsource some amount of the childcare, often to a daycare or a nanny, and sometimes to a grandparent or other family member. A family that is on welfare has fewer options. I think it is reasonable to question whether taxpayers in general should pay for someone to stay at home to rear children. I don't know much about this particular instance besides what's in the article, but recently we've been hearing about the problem of longterm unemployment. That is, when someone's been unemployed for over some period of time (6 months?, I'm not sure), it is more difficult for them to get a job and they can become very longterm unemployed. Perhaps Mittens is speaking to preventing this from happening for low income parents. He may be saying that government should invest MORE in daycare for folks on welfare, which allows them to work and so they can more easily stay in the workforce after the kids are in school. Take the king's shilling...
11
@10
"It's more than just money. Wealthy parents ..."
So you don't think that money is wealth?
Or that wealth is money?
"It's more than just money. Wealthy parents ..."
So you don't think that money is wealth?
Or that wealth is money?
12
@9
"Wouldn’t you rather these kids be healthy and happy and active members of our society, or uneducated drugged-up high school drop-outs who’ll end up in the prisons we’ll all have to pay for?"
I would. But I think that there's a sizable segment of the voters who would not think so. Because that would be THEM paying for that woman's "mistakes" in order for said "mistakes" to have a better chance at life than that woman could normally provide for them.
Think "racist" and you'll understand the mindset better.
"Wouldn’t you rather these kids be healthy and happy and active members of our society, or uneducated drugged-up high school drop-outs who’ll end up in the prisons we’ll all have to pay for?"
I would. But I think that there's a sizable segment of the voters who would not think so. Because that would be THEM paying for that woman's "mistakes" in order for said "mistakes" to have a better chance at life than that woman could normally provide for them.
Think "racist" and you'll understand the mindset better.
13
@12 I can see the mindset, though I don't think it's all about racism. It is all in one pot, sure.
And my point is that we have to get beyond the woman's "mistakes" and realize that it doesn't matter why or how she had kids or how any of us feel about her decisioins, but like it or not these kids are here now. And if we don't want to pay the costs of poverty (theft, murder, prisons, high drug use, teen pregnancy, child abuse, etc) then let's help these kids and ensure they don't make the same "mistakes" their mothers did.
And my point is that we have to get beyond the woman's "mistakes" and realize that it doesn't matter why or how she had kids or how any of us feel about her decisioins, but like it or not these kids are here now. And if we don't want to pay the costs of poverty (theft, murder, prisons, high drug use, teen pregnancy, child abuse, etc) then let's help these kids and ensure they don't make the same "mistakes" their mothers did.
14
Funny how people talk about cutting off welfare for single mothers, because the tax payer shouldn't subsidize other people's bad choices, but you never hear about denying medicare to old people who have developed health problems due to bad habits like smoking or over-eating. I wonder what Rush Limbaugh thinks about denying medical care to fat people?
15
GOP: "We're not going to let you stay at home to take care of your children. You have to go get a job!"
Women: "A job doing what?"
GOP: "Taking care of other people's children."
Women: "A job doing what?"
GOP: "Taking care of other people's children."
16
@13
"I can see the mindset, though I don't think it's all about racism. It is all in one pot, sure."
Yep, it's not all racist. But it is the same mindset. The situation is divided into "us" (who are good) and "them" (who do not practice restraint and have more children then they can support because they expect us to support them with out tax dollars).
"And my point is that we have to get beyond the woman's 'mistakes' and realize that it doesn't matter why or how she had kids or how any of us feel about her decisioins, but like it or not these kids are here now."
I agree. I just don't think you'll be able to get past the mindset I mentioned above.
Look at Romney's behavior in the past year.
His wife staying home to care for their kids is good and the hardest job possible.
Poor women (on welfare) trying to stay home to care for their kids is bad because they "need" the "dignity of work".
"And if we don't want to pay the costs of poverty ..."
I agree with that as well. It's smarter to spend less money now to save more money later.
But I think that the Republicans will oppose it.
Not because it is smarter.
But because it is more about punishing the woman for making the "wrong" choices. Even if they don't want to say "punishment".
"I can see the mindset, though I don't think it's all about racism. It is all in one pot, sure."
Yep, it's not all racist. But it is the same mindset. The situation is divided into "us" (who are good) and "them" (who do not practice restraint and have more children then they can support because they expect us to support them with out tax dollars).
"And my point is that we have to get beyond the woman's 'mistakes' and realize that it doesn't matter why or how she had kids or how any of us feel about her decisioins, but like it or not these kids are here now."
I agree. I just don't think you'll be able to get past the mindset I mentioned above.
Look at Romney's behavior in the past year.
His wife staying home to care for their kids is good and the hardest job possible.
Poor women (on welfare) trying to stay home to care for their kids is bad because they "need" the "dignity of work".
"And if we don't want to pay the costs of poverty ..."
I agree with that as well. It's smarter to spend less money now to save more money later.
But I think that the Republicans will oppose it.
Not because it is smarter.
But because it is more about punishing the woman for making the "wrong" choices. Even if they don't want to say "punishment".
17
@16 "But because it is more about punishing the woman" spot-on, along with the rest of your thoughts there.
18
wow
that Romney is one heartless bastard.
of course the guvmint should pay poor women to stay home and take care of their spawn.
and the more bastards they shit out the more money the guvmint should pay them.
LBJ knew this way back in the 60s.
that Romney is one heartless bastard.
of course the guvmint should pay poor women to stay home and take care of their spawn.
and the more bastards they shit out the more money the guvmint should pay them.
LBJ knew this way back in the 60s.
19
@16 It's also smart policy to make free birth control available to any women who wants it, so that fewer of them become single mothers in the first place. The current crop of Republicans seems to be against that as well.
20
Once again the GOP double-standard raises its ugly head. On the one hand they would insist that practices which would reduce the number of children born to poor women - contraception, reproductive education and medical services (including abortion) - be denied to them, and on the other, they further deny to the children they effectively insist these women MUST bear services that would go a long way towards helping them become productive, contributing members of society.
I mean, it's almost like the GOP WANTS to keep not only poor mothers, but the children of poor mothers, in a permanent state of impoverishment, forcing them into situations that effectively prevent them from ever having a chance of bettering themselves.
I mean, it's almost like the GOP WANTS to keep not only poor mothers, but the children of poor mothers, in a permanent state of impoverishment, forcing them into situations that effectively prevent them from ever having a chance of bettering themselves.
21
@20 - Well, they've got to have SOMEbody to work in their factories, their dressage barns, their Japanese gardens... not to mention caring for their children, cooking their meals, cleaning their houses, etc etc etc...
After all, SOMEbody's got to pick the tomatoes.
:p
After all, SOMEbody's got to pick the tomatoes.
:p
22
Remember, to Comrade Mittens, the sad thing about the Titanic sinking was not all the poor women and children who died in 2nd and 3rd class, it was the men who died in First Class.
Period.
Period.
Comments (22) RSS