Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, yeah....I am scratching my head wondering why the world that would at all controversial. Heck, "the poor" can do whatever they like. But, any individual that chooses to bring a child into the world ought only do so if they can take care of it. Other than that, I'd appreciate not having people ask me to pick up the tab.

It's not that simple as you say it. It's in our human nature to want children no matter what the scale of wealth/or lack thereof, we are born into.

I'm not sure how that complicates it. It's your child. You take care of it. An adult is responsible for knowing what they can and can't afford. In a healthy society, we wouldn't infantilize adults and treat them like children.

Romney's camp made it some kind of an issue by defending her of "not ever having a real job" in her life, to being she is "stay at home mom" which is really hard work.

Exactly - the Romney camp was able to seize upon that issue, because we all know what would have happened if a Republican said that a Democrat candidate's stay-at-home wife who took care of five kids had "never worked a day in her life." I guarantee if that happened, and I think you'll admit it, that you would be skewering that Republican right now, instead of defending him or her.

Well, how enlightening, as if all the moms in the whole world don't know it. She has it easier because of their household income. And if it's such a hard job, nobody told them they had to have 5 kids either.

Look at you. You're lambasting Romney for opposing the statement "Ann Romney never worked a day in her life." What's the problem, as far as you are concerned? Oh, it's that Romney said anything about it. LOL. Gotta love it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, the poor just ought to get their tubes tied, and not reproduce, since they can't afford it.

Romney says that poor women should work outside the home.

Apparently the standards are different for you if you are poor.

What a hypocrite, talk about double and different standards for the haves and have nots. What an ugly man.

Back to the OP - Hilary Rosen -- is she an "ugly woman?"

Or, do you understand the context of what she said?

And, I find it amazing that a Republican calling for federally assisted child care services is somehow "ugly." FFS the hypocrisy is strong here. Massive. He is proposing a federal program to pay for child care services while people work outside the home.

What the fuck should it be? Child care services while the parent stays in the home anyway? Jiminy crickets.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, the poor just ought to get their tubes tied, and not reproduce, since they can't afford it.

Romney says that poor women should work outside the home.

Apparently the standards are different for you if you are poor.

What a hypocrite, talk about double and different standards for the haves and have nots. What an ugly man.

What Romney actually said there is that they should get child care assistance. I think what's ugly is the implication of your post that poor women who have to work should just leave their children at home unattended.

He is saying that the standards should be different in that poor women should get child care assistance if they work, and rich women should not. I do agree that it might be even better to give working women child care assistance no matter what their income.

What about working men? No child care assistance? Fuck them?

[kiki5711]

I'm not sure how that complicates it. It's your child. You take care of it. An adult is responsible for knowing what they can and can't afford. In a healthy society, we wouldn't infantilize adults and treat them like children.

Healthy society? If you look around the world we are anything BUT a "healthy society". And as far as I understand it, it's not a crime to be born to poor parents. It's a human right, no matter where you're born, to have children.

[Coito ergo sum]

What Romney actually said there is that they should get child care assistance. I think what's ugly is the implication of your post that poor women who have to work should just leave their children at home unattended.

That kind of program ALREADY exists. Romney is talking about it like it's some brand new idea. My kids went to a babysitter that was paid by the state for each kid, provided with food stamps for the kids, and had to of course pass some certification period. There is a limit to how many kids one person can have in the house, in order of age, and an assistant is required if more than 5 kids per person. And you have to qualify for that assistance. If you make $1 over the amount in income you don't get the assistance, you might as well not work.

So what he's blabbing about is nothing NEW.

That wasn't federal assistance that you received. What he's talking about is a federal program, which would be new, and which would obviously expand the assistance available.

The "you might as well not work" point is salient. That's the self defeating aspect of various government hand-out programs. Once people start receiving it, they have to do the math as to whether it is worthwhile to be responsible adults and take care of their own business. It's what caused generations of welfare families.

[kiki5711]

And, I find it amazing that a Republican calling for federally assisted child care services is somehow "ugly." FFS the hypocrisy is strong here. Massive. He is proposing a federal program to pay for child care services while people work outside the home.

What the fuck should it be? Child care services while the parent stays in the home anyway? Jiminy crickets.

That kind of program already EXISTS. And people are more than willing to go back to work, however, you have to qualify to get that "baby sitting" assistance, just like welfare and if you make a dollar more than the scale allows, you don't qualify. Then it's back to welfare assistance and not by choice either. It's not as "simple and easy" as you think.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not sure how that complicates it. It's your child. You take care of it. An adult is responsible for knowing what they can and can't afford. In a healthy society, we wouldn't infantilize adults and treat them like children.

Healthy society? If you look around the world we are anything BUT a "healthy society". And as far as I understand it, it's not a crime to be born to poor parents. It's a human right, no matter where you're born, to have children.

It's a human right to publish a newspaper too, but nobody buys you the paper and the ink. It's a human right to stand on a soapbox in the public square, but nobody buys you the soapbox or writes your copy for you. It's a human right to have a religion, but nobody buys you your flowing robes, incense and churches/temples.

Just because something is a human right doesn't mean the government has to fund it so you don't have any expenses related to it.

Yes, you have a human right to have children. But, you don't have a right to handouts.

Yes, we are anything but a healthy society. Partly that's because we are now a dependent society, with nearly half the population not paying any federal taxes, and also receiving handouts from the government. That is too many. It would be much better if we had those people participating.

[kiki5711]

That wasn't federal assistance that you received. What he's talking about is a federal program, which would be new, and which would obviously expand the assistance available.

Show me where it says that? give me a link that will say otherwise than what I already said.

[kiki5711]

It's a human right to publish a newspaper too, but nobody buys you the paper and the ink. It's a human right to stand on a soapbox in the public square, but nobody buys you the soapbox or writes your copy for you. It's a human right to have a religion, but nobody buys you your flowing robes, incense and churches/temples.

Buying a newspaper is nowhere near the comparison to having and raising a child. It's a totally irrelevant comparison.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, I find it amazing that a Republican calling for federally assisted child care services is somehow "ugly." FFS the hypocrisy is strong here. Massive. He is proposing a federal program to pay for child care services while people work outside the home.

What the fuck should it be? Child care services while the parent stays in the home anyway? Jiminy crickets.

That kind of program already EXISTS. And people are more than willing to go back to work, however, you have to qualify to get that "baby sitting" assistance, just like welfare and if you make a dollar more than the scale allows, you don't qualify. Then it's back to welfare assistance and not by choice either. It's not as "simple and easy" as you think.

If you don't work outside the home, what do you need the babysitting service for?

I never said anything was simple and easy. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Moreover, what Romney is suggesting does NOT Edit- AlREADY exist. Get that through your skull. He's advocating a federal program which does not currently exist. What some states offer is what you got. Not all states offer it, and it is not a federal benefit. You'll need to puzzle out the distinction between our state and federal governments. Romney is calling for a national expansion of the child care assistance benefits at the federal level.

For the love of Pete, it's no-win with you people. Romney calls for government assistance at the federal level to help women get day care services while they go to work, and one person calls him "ugly" and another says the program already exists. Do you people listen to yourselves?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a human right to publish a newspaper too, but nobody buys you the paper and the ink. It's a human right to stand on a soapbox in the public square, but nobody buys you the soapbox or writes your copy for you. It's a human right to have a religion, but nobody buys you your flowing robes, incense and churches/temples.

Buying a newspaper is nowhere near the comparison to having and raising a child. It's a totally irrelevant comparison.

Bullshit. The point is this: just because you have a right to do something doesn't give you an entitlement to government assistance to do it.

[Coito ergo sum]

That wasn't federal assistance that you received. What he's talking about is a federal program, which would be new, and which would obviously expand the assistance available.

Show me where it says that? give me a link that will say otherwise than what I already said.

The original link - Romney called for -- I quote -- a "federal" program.

There is no federal program currently.

Period.

[kiki5711]

Moreover, what Romney is suggesting does NOT exist.

Exactly! It does not exist and it won't. His words are just to pacify and get a vote.

[Coito ergo sum]

Moreover, what Romney is suggesting does NOT exist.

Exactly! It does not exist and it won't. His words are just to pacify and get a vote.

No. That was a typo. There is no federal program for providing childcare to mothers while they go out and work.

[kiki5711]

Moreover, what Romney is suggesting does NOT exist.

Exactly! It does not exist and it won't. His words are just to pacify and get a vote.

No. That was a typo. There is no federal program for providing childcare to mothers while they go out and work.

What was a typo? You said it doesn't exist and it's only some states that provide it. So, what was the typo?