Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The President Doesn't Know When To Just Stfu - War On Women Indeed

112 posts in this topic

Posted

or maybe I suck ass at roofing. Maybe I am better suited to teaching, or something else. Maybe, just maybe, there is more than one way to work in this country. Manual labor is not the only form of work. There are many things that Madhatter does that I bet you couldn't. Same with what I do. Doesn't make us better than you. Just means the work we do is different. No less legitimately work... not manual labor, but not everything is.

Exactly.

I have all the respect in the world for those who put in long hours at a physically demanding job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you poor thing. maybe you'd be happier with a job outside, like roofing.

oh wait, that's too much like work.

I guarantee you that you don't have the skills, education, or intelligence to do what I do go a living.

I don't look down on anyone out there busting their ass to put food on the table for their families. But your comment sounds a lot like jealousy to me.

I chose to utilize my mind rather than my back in my career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html

WASHINGTON -- Women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life."

The remark, made to a Manchester, N.H., audience, was unearthed by MSNBC's "Up w/Chris Hayes," and will air during the 8 a.m. hour of his show Sunday.

Ann Romney and her husband's campaign fired back hard at Rosen following her remark. "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Romney said on Twitter.

Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF.

Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal "heartless," but he argued that the women would be better off having "the dignity of work" -- a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with.

"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.'"

Regardless of its level of dignity, for Ann Romney, her work raising her children would not have fulfilled her work requirement had she been on TANF benefits. As HuffPost reported Thursday:

As far as Uncle Sam is concerned, if you're poor, deciding to stay at home and rear your children is not an option. Thanks to welfare reform, recipients of federal benefits must prove to a caseworker that they have performed, over the course of a week, a certain number of hours of "work activity." That number changes from state to state, and each state has discretion as to how narrowly work is defined, but federal law lists 12 broad categories that are covered.

Raising children is not among them.

According to a 2006 Congressional Research Service report, the dozen activities that fulfill the work requirement are:

(1) unsubsidized employment

(2) subsidized private sector employment

(3) subsidized public sector employment

(4) work experience

(5) on-the-job training

(6) job search and job readiness assistance

(7) community services programs

(8) vocational educational training

(9) job skills training directly related to employment

(10) education directly related to employment (for those without a high school degree or equivalent)

(11) satisfactory attendance at a secondary school

(12) provision of child care to a participant of a community service program

The only child-care related activity on the list is the last one, which would allow someone to care for someone else's child if that person were off volunteering. But it does not apply to married couples in some states. Connecticut, for instance, specifically prevents counting as "work" an instance in which one parent watches a child while the other parent volunteers.

The federal government does at least implicitly acknowledge the value of child care, though not for married couples. According to a 2012 Urban Institute study, a single mother is required to work 30 hours a week, but the requirement drops to 20 hours if she has a child under 6. A married woman, such as Romney, would not be entitled to such a reduction in the requirement. If a married couple receives federally funded child care, the work requirement increases by 20 hours, from 35 hours to 55 hours between the two of them, another implicit acknowledgment of the value of stay-at-home work.

Romney's January view echoes a remark he made in 1994 during his failed Senate campaign. "This is a different world than it was in the 1960s when I was growing up, when you used to have Mom at home and Dad at work," Romney said, as shown in a video posted by

"Now Mom and Dad both have to work whether they want to or not, and usually one of them has two jobs."

Another shining example of how Republicans have backed themselves into a corner with their rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

this is a cool thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe if liberal women would use some damn constraint and tell me to either A). Put on a condom or B) not have sex at all, maybe we wouldnt be in this predicament now would we?

yes if only "liberal women" would embrace some personal responsibility and make you, an adult male, put on a condom like a big boy we wouldn't be in this predicament.

boom, problem solved. where's my medal.

Why should my tax paying dollars go to some woman who can't keep her legs closed? Seriously?

i adore this argument. i agree, why should a single dollar of my taxes go toward anything i personally disagree with? we should just have a buffet style tax system where you check off a series of boxes to designate where your withheld federal taxes are allocated. republicans could just check off "funnel into pockets of defense contractors" and be on their way.

there is no federal funding for elective abortion btw. medicaid funds can cover abortion in the case of rape, incest, or maternal endangerment but that's it. surely you haven't forgotten the slap fight that occurred during the affordable care act? http://en.wikipedia..../Hyde_Amendment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Lol you pay taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So if medicaid pays for abortions, then why in the hell do we have plan parenthood????

I don't give two shits about what people want to do with their lives, but when my hard earn money is going to pay for some dumb ass who has no self control, then i have a very big issue with it. That's the problem with the USA as a society. Nothing but a me..me..me..me mentality now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Do you know what even know Planned Parenthood is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes. Planned Parenthood is a liberal/weft ling organization created for no purpose at all. Medicaid already covers birth control and within some states abortions. Organization is useless with many others the gov't has created and does nothing but waste money on useless spending. Need i say more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You realize that planned parenthood isn't a government organization right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They only receive marginal federal funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They only receive marginal federal funding.

Non of which, by law, is allowed to be used for abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites