Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, in response to the hypothetical I posed--

I'd likely be in a mental hospital. So the rest of that wouldn't really be an issue!

We'd have to find a way to hire help. Or I'd have to be the one working and J would stay home (though I have no idea how that'd pan out!) Maybe we'd have to move in with family.

Which would send me to the mental hospital...

I hope you see what I'm getting at here. I couldn't be the sole caretaker of two premature twins that were that young.

As for social policy, I keep telling you-- I don't know. I don't know what should happen. But if one parent is earning wages to share with the other, it at least seems like the other parent should automatically be included in pension plans, social security, etc. Although some families might not want that, if it ups witholdings...

What legal protections are there for a parent who never works outside the home, financially, beyond alimony/palimony and child support if they divorce?

I know you're a married woman, and stuff, so this is, well, a "hypothetical," but I think we could have some really good knock-down-drag out arguments together, and then finish up with some good, knock down drag out making up.... I'll give you my argument, good and hard.... but, I digress...

But, as for the social policy, you may not know for sure, but surely you're contemplating some ideas. You've mentioned the "education" thing, and of course you kicked around the idea of salaries for stay at home parents, etc. I wonder what else you may speculate could be a solution?

In any case, I am steadfastly against the payments to stay at home parents idea as I noted. Another reason is that I am positive that the real agenda of those putting for the idea of salaries for stay at home parents is to end up with government funded salaries for stay at home parents. That is something I draw the line at. It means that every single parent gets a salary from the government. That is B.S.

If a marriage lasts 10 years, the stay at home parent can get spousal benefits through Social Security on retirement. Also, if you stay married through retirement, the married couple gets a 50% spiff on social security benefits. I.e. if hubby would get $5,000, the couple gets $7500. Alimony is available in divorce, and so is equitable or equal distribution of property, which would include houses, cars, pension plans, 401k money, IRAs, etc., all regardless of whose name it's in. Divorce laws are definitely female-friendly, even today's culture of supposed equality.

[hadespussercats]

I know you're a married woman, and stuff, so this is, well, a "hypothetical," but I think we could have some really good knock-down-drag out arguments together, and then finish up with some good, knock down drag out making up.... I'll give you my argument, good and hard.... but, I digress...

Some people see you as passionless in an argument. I don't think so...

But, as for the social policy, you may not know for sure, but surely you're contemplating some ideas. You've mentioned the "education" thing, and of course you kicked around the idea of salaries for stay at home parents, etc. I wonder what else you may speculate could be a solution?

In any case, I am steadfastly against the payments to stay at home parents idea as I noted. Another reason is that I am positive that the real agenda of those putting for the idea of salaries for stay at home parents is to end up with government funded salaries for stay at home parents. That is something I draw the line at. It means that every single parent gets a salary from the government. That is B.S.

I agree that salaries to parents from the government are B.S. Though I do support extensive government-mandated and possibly supplemented maternity and paternity leave (possibly supplemented so small businesses wouldn't be dissuaded from hiring people who seem family-ready, in one way or another.) By extensive, I mean at least three months-- I'm being idealistic here, but I think it would be wonderful if both parents could be home with their babies until they're out of the fourth-trimester, larval stage, and possibly sleeping through the night (ish). Six months would be even better-- but let's not go crazy, right?

I believe in both partners in a marriage being knowledgeable/empowered enough to make executive decisions about spending. I think education is the key to that (as I've mentioned before) both on an individual level, and on a cultural level (even today, women of certain backgrounds are unlikely to learn how to take care of themselves financially, which makes them ripe for all sorts of potential abuse.)

If a marriage lasts 10 years, the stay at home parent can get spousal benefits through Social Security on retirement. Also, if you stay married through retirement, the married couple gets a 50% spiff on social security benefits. I.e. if hubby would get $5,000, the couple gets $7500. Alimony is available in divorce, and so is equitable or equal distribution of property, which would include houses, cars, pension plans, 401k money, IRAs, etc., all regardless of whose name it's in. Divorce laws are definitely female-friendly, even today's culture of supposed equality.

Many marriages with kids don't make it to ten years. What happens then? Are you in favor of these policies as they stand, or do they need improvement?

[Coito ergo sum]

There is always room for improvement. But, no policy is ever going to be a panacea. At bottom, these are supposed to be plans to help people, not take care of everything. It is not desirable to have a cradle to grave nanny state, wherein everyone is just "taken care of" as a right of citizenship. That's no way to live, in my opinion.

Another thing is, that government largess can operate as a Trojan horse. When someone pays for something, invariably, they obtain a right of control. "As long as you're living under my roof..." for example. The government is the same way. It happens with health care. As soon as costs are collectivized and paid by the government, the government claims a right to control your behavior to minimize costs (they start telling you what you can smoke, eat, drink, and do for recreation, etc.). It's inevitable. The same will be true if the government starts subsidizing "parenting." Suddenly "we" all have a say in how "Joe and Mary Blow" raise their kids - suddenly the government will be drug testing us, genetic testing us, mandatory "parenting skills" courses, and administrative inspections of living arrangements, verification of food buying habits, etc.... You think that may sound extreme -- well, telling people what hamburgers they can buy was extreme 10 years ago, not so much anymore. People fought for the constitutional right to not be forced to wear motorcycle helmets just a few decades ago, all the way up to the Supreme Court. The idea that the government could tell a bar owner he can't allow smoking in bars was very controversial just 2 decades ago. These things evolve -- and the one great way to get the State to start telling you what to do is to let them pay for something. It's like when you let mom and dad pay for stuff -- suddenly, they assert a right to stick their noses in your business.

So, therein lies the genesis of my tendency to oppose expansion of these supposed "helpful" programs. To me, they are a poisoned chalice.

As for specifics, I can tell you, I really think Social Security needs to be completely overhauled. It has been bastardized from its original purpose, and it is not viewed by anyone for what it is. Social Security was designed as a program where you only get money out, if you pay in. It was a forced retirement savings program. Immediately, though, it was twisted from that limited purpose into other things. I'm not saying it's original purpose is what we must limit ourselves to, but it seems to me that an honest restructuring of Social Security must be done. It really has become an old age government pension, and if that's what it is, then that's what it is. Let's re-write it and create a more efficient and more streamlined bureacracy. I say, we set a minimum amount that people are estimated to need to survive at a very modest level -- not desirable - not with vacations and parties - but, a modest level that can provide for someone who didn't provide for themselves, but which is not desirable or good enough, so that people will not want to rely solely on that pension. Then means-test receipt of the funds based on total assets available for retirement, and do a sliding scale reduction in the amount you can receive based on your means, on down to zero for people who have plenty. Pay for it out of the general fund instead of masking it with a program to pretend its not a tax. Everyone is covered, whether they work or not, and no marriage penalty -- if there are two of you, whether living together or married, you get your pension. There would have to be many details set forth as to how to measure assets, how to keep people from masking their assets through trusts and other vehicles, and all that sort of thing, but ultimately, I think it can be done.

I don't favor more mandated employment benefits for family leave and such. Everyone, overall, in my view, is better off when these employment requirements are minimized.

As for passion vs. getting down to business, well, sometimes wild undirected passion is fun, but sometimes what is needed is to just get your hands dirty, get right down to business, and get the job done.....thoroughly.... the key is to set the happy medium between the two...

[Hermit]

Another thing is, that government largess can operate as a Trojan horse. When someone pays for something, invariably, they obtain a right of control. "As long as you're living under my roof..." for example. The government is the same way. It happens with health care. As soon as costs are collectivized and paid by the government, the government claims a right to control your behavior to minimize costs (they start telling you what you can smoke, eat, drink, and do for recreation, etc.). It's inevitable. The same will be true if the government starts subsidizing "parenting." Suddenly "we" all have a say in how "Joe and Mary Blow" raise their kids - suddenly the government will be drug testing us, genetic testing us, mandatory "parenting skills" courses, and administrative inspections of living arrangements, verification of food buying habits, etc.... You think that may sound extreme -- well, telling people what hamburgers they can buy was extreme 10 years ago, not so much anymore. People fought for the constitutional right to not be forced to wear motorcycle helmets just a few decades ago, all the way up to the Supreme Court. The idea that the government could tell a bar owner he can't allow smoking in bars was very controversial just 2 decades ago. These things evolve -- and the one great way to get the State to start telling you what to do is to let them pay for something. It's like when you let mom and dad pay for stuff -- suddenly, they assert a right to stick their noses in your business.

You say that as if that were a bad thing per se. We are not autonomous individuals. We could not possibly survive as such, so we live in societies. It's a social compact we live in, and as long as that society has a government of the people, by the people, for the people such "encroachments" on individual liberties are rightfully part of it.

[hadespussercats]

I have a lot I could write, but I'll start with just this:

When someone pays for something, invariably, they obtain a right of control.

What does that mean, in the context of stay-at-home parents and their wage-earning spouses?

[Coito ergo sum]

Another thing is, that government largess can operate as a Trojan horse. When someone pays for something, invariably, they obtain a right of control. "As long as you're living under my roof..." for example. The government is the same way. It happens with health care. As soon as costs are collectivized and paid by the government, the government claims a right to control your behavior to minimize costs (they start telling you what you can smoke, eat, drink, and do for recreation, etc.). It's inevitable. The same will be true if the government starts subsidizing "parenting." Suddenly "we" all have a say in how "Joe and Mary Blow" raise their kids - suddenly the government will be drug testing us, genetic testing us, mandatory "parenting skills" courses, and administrative inspections of living arrangements, verification of food buying habits, etc.... You think that may sound extreme -- well, telling people what hamburgers they can buy was extreme 10 years ago, not so much anymore. People fought for the constitutional right to not be forced to wear motorcycle helmets just a few decades ago, all the way up to the Supreme Court. The idea that the government could tell a bar owner he can't allow smoking in bars was very controversial just 2 decades ago. These things evolve -- and the one great way to get the State to start telling you what to do is to let them pay for something. It's like when you let mom and dad pay for stuff -- suddenly, they assert a right to stick their noses in your business.

You say that as if that were a bad thing per se. We are not autonomous individuals. We could not possibly survive as such, so we live in societies. It's a social compact we live in, and as long as that society has a government of the people, by the people, for the people such "encroachments" on individual liberties are rightfully part of it.

I say it as if it is a dangerous thing, because if it goes too far it can be stultifying, stifling, inhibiting, and mortifying. Because there must be some compromise of individual autonomy when people organize into communities doesn't mean that any such encroachment must be accepted or is a good thing.

Obviously, minds can differ, but it seems to me the analysis must start with why do people create governments? That is where my analysis starts. I don't look at the State or the government as a thing that exists on its own, or must exist. It's a creation. It's a fiction. It's something people make to do something. If it had no purpose, it would lose all point of existing.

So why are governments created? How a person answers that question will inform how readily he or she will accept such "helpful" measures. It is because i start with the proposition that governments are created to do several things: protect the community as a whole, provide order for the resolution of disputes, prevent or punish the commissions of crimes against members of the community, keep the peace, and ensure that the people are afforded the maximum liberty while at the same time accomplishing its other purposes. So, there must be some balance, I agree. These purposes seem to be pretty commonly accepted reasons to have a government. They are phrased differently depending on who is expounding on the subject.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have a lot I could write, but I'll start with just this:

When someone pays for something, invariably, they obtain a right of control.

What does that mean, in the context of stay-at-home parents and their wage-earning spouses?

It means exactly that. Which is why the law changes the dynamic, by considering the property of married couples to be legally the property of both regardless of who is the wage earner. In the old days, during more paternalistic times, that meant that the husband was the King of the house, and the married couple was one, but that "one" was the husband. Married women were legally disabled from being able to sign contracts, own property, etc., without their husband's consent, but not vice versa. Today the law treats the individuals equally, which is as it should be.

I think that if one spouse paid the other wages, it would guarantee that the paying spouse would feel entitled to give orders. How many husbands would come home from work and see a messy house and ask, "what am I paying you for?" When marriages hit bumpy roads, you can guarantee that a lot of wage earning spouses will ask that question. By instead making all the money legally the property of both, it is not a question of one spouse paying the other. The money is ipso facto both of theirs.

[Hermit]

I say it as if it is a dangerous thing, because if it goes too far it can be stultifying, stifling, inhibiting, and mortifying. Because there must be some compromise of individual autonomy when people organize into communities doesn't mean that any such encroachment must be accepted or is a good thing.

If it goes too far by becoming stultifying, stifling, inhibiting, and mortifying, that is a bad thing indeed, but as you say further down - and I agree with you on this as well - where you draw the line depends on your point of view. I think we both agree that we must have road rules that all road users are compelled to obey, and that if they don't they will experience some unpleasant consequences. Those consequences work in two ways. They act as aversion therapy on the law breaker as well as a visible demonstration aimed at discouraging others to likewise break the law. That would constitute the acceptable aspect of government control. We also probably agree that a law prohibiting the assembly of more than three people in public is unacceptable. Don't laugh. The state government of Queensland enacted that at one stage.

The middle ground is in dispute, but no matter where a line should be drawn, I don't think anyone can say that government control is bad per se. We cannot survive as individuals. We must live in groups, and as soon as we do that the freedoms of each individual becomes circumscribed by the rights of each of the others. Hence the necessity of government of some form.

I think we agree in principle, but not on some important particulars. For instance - and I am not sure if you disagree with this - I am in favour of compulsory wearing of seatbelts in cars and trucks and the compulsory wearing of helmets on bikes. In Australia there is a broad consensus that it is one thing for some idiot maiming or killing him/herself, but quite another that the nearest and dearest to those idiots should be subject to the emotional and material trauma that ensues. Since seatbelts and helmets are statistically proven to save thousands of lives and a tenfold amount of serious injuries every year, we as a society have determined that the rights for individuals to not wear a seatbelt in a car and to let the air stream through our hair instead of wearing a helmet are overridden by the rights of his/her family to not have to suffer from such damage. It's a very utilitarian principle. On the other hand, should the government attempt to enact a law that all office workers wear helmets and seatbelts as they do data-entry work or whatever, we have elections for that.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would say, about the idea that government control not being bad, per se. Sure, I agree with you. However, what I did say was that government control is good when it is in line with and furthers the reasons for which we have a government, and bad if it doesn't. Where that line is can be very grey.

Rules of the road on highways and byways further the purpose of government to secure liberty for its people and to keep the peace. An anarchic roadway would be impassible, and therefore reduce liberty, and an anarchic roadway would be a huge mess of disputes among the people trying to use the roads. So, it makes rational sense to limit freedom in some ways (can't just blow through that intersection) to create an overall increase in both liberty and security/peace.

Where laws start telling us what foods to eat, I see that as reducing some freedom of action WITHOUT a concomitant overall increase in liberty. It's just a reduction. And, it doesn't help security or keep the peace, etc. It doesn't, to me, seem to further the reasons why a government is created in the first place. Now, if keeping individual people from eating harmful things is among the purposes of government, then you'll conclude differently.

So, those would be two examples to illustrate where I come down on things. I don't suggest that all government regulation is bad, but I also don't think that everything the majority votes for is good. Sometimes, the mob votes for things that are a tyranny over the individual, and involve no just purpose for which governments are instituted. When it does that, I oppose the action.

[Hermit]

I also don't think that everything the majority votes for is good. Sometimes, the mob votes for things that are a tyranny over the individual, and involve no just purpose for which governments are instituted. When it does that, I oppose the action.

Yes, that's an ancient conundrum.

It seems we agree in principle and differ on detail, and I am not even going to try to argue there's some kind of a concrete, objectively determinable demarcation line between acceptable and unacceptable government control. I don't think you could argue that either.

[Coito ergo sum]

I also don't think that everything the majority votes for is good. Sometimes, the mob votes for things that are a tyranny over the individual, and involve no just purpose for which governments are instituted. When it does that, I oppose the action.

Yes, that's an ancient conundrum.

It seems we agree in principle and differ on detail, and I am not even going to try to argue there's some kind of a concrete, objectively determinable demarcation line between acceptable and unacceptable government control. I don't think you could argue that either.

I cannot argue that either. Very true.

[hadespussercats]

I have a lot I could write, but I'll start with just this:

When someone pays for something, invariably, they obtain a right of control.

What does that mean, in the context of stay-at-home parents and their wage-earning spouses?

It means exactly that. Which is why the law changes the dynamic, by considering the property of married couples to be legally the property of both regardless of who is the wage earner. In the old days, during more paternalistic times, that meant that the husband was the King of the house, and the married couple was one, but that "one" was the husband. Married women were legally disabled from being able to sign contracts, own property, etc., without their husband's consent, but not vice versa. Today the law treats the individuals equally, which is as it should be.

I think that if one spouse paid the other wages, it would guarantee that the paying spouse would feel entitled to give orders. How many husbands would come home from work and see a messy house and ask, "what am I paying you for?" When marriages hit bumpy roads, you can guarantee that a lot of wage earning spouses will ask that question. By instead making all the money legally the property of both, it is not a question of one spouse paying the other. The money is ipso facto both of theirs.

True, but if one spouse is giving the money to the other, how is that different from payment? Does it really change the power dynamic?

[hadespussercats]

Coito, I have to work in small pieces, because my son is chewing on my foot. Taking the following quote in the context of government-subsidized employment leave for parents:

These things evolve -- and the one great way to get the State to start telling you what to do is to let them pay for something. It's like when you let mom and dad pay for stuff -- suddenly, they assert a right to stick their noses in your business.

The government already does stick its nose in parents' business, with regulations about vaccines, laws about neglect, educational requirements, and so forth.

If someone doesn't want to opt in to whatever is required to participate in gov't subsidized employment leave, why don't they just fund whatever leave they want for themselves, leaving the resources available for those who can't afford to do so themselves?

I think many people would not object to having to say, attend a seminar on child feeding and nutrition, if it meant they could afford to stay home in the early post-partum period. What's wrong with that?

[Robert_S]

I'm sorry, but I have to post something that's somewhat on-topic:

[Hermit]

Yeah, got the drift after about a minute.

Maybe if I were an American I might have been motivated to watch the rest.