Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[charlou]

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.

Agreed ... and I like this exchange.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For hades

Coito’s stuff is more or less always masterful. He cuts through flaws and backpedalling like a knife through butter.

No, CES has some good stuff, and some shitposting ... just like anyone else, for that matter.

His pleading to literalism earlier in this thread is a great example of his willingness to value the rhetorical flourish over the substantive exchange.

"Always masterful"? No.

"Always interesting"? Without a doubt.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Freudian slip?

[kiki5711]

Freudian slip?

[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.

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?

I believe it does, beause there is a difference between taking money out of "our" account to pay for stuff, and getting an allowance or wage from a spouse. The former implies that it is the non wage earning spouse's money, the latter implies that it is either largess from or payment for services rendered by the wage earning spouse. The power dynamic in the latter is master-servant or employer-employee, the power dynamic in the former is one of presumed equals.

[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?

I believe it does, beause there is a difference between taking money out of "our" account to pay for stuff, and getting an allowance or wage from a spouse. The former implies that it is the non wage earning spouse's money, the latter implies that it is either largess from or payment for services rendered by the wage earning spouse. The power dynamic in the latter is master-servant or employer-employee, the power dynamic in the former is one of presumed equals.

But going back to your idea about Soc. Sec. only being paid out to those who paid in-- what does that mean for SAH spouses? Do you think they paid in?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

There are degrees to everything, and while I think the government goes too far in many areas, I see a rational distinction between a law against abusing or beating a child, or failing to feed them or failing to provide medical care, etc., than in, say, fining a parent for taking them to McDonald's, or having regulations governing the portions and assortment of foods in a kid's lunch bag.

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 don't follow this. This is like saying, if you don't want money why not just refuse it when it's offered. This isn't a program where the person will be able to seek out a better deal elsewhere. This is a mandate on John Q. Employer that he has to give John Doe months off of work and guarantee his job will be open for him when he returns (a costly affair, many times), and then John Doe gets a check from the State to pay for his expenses when he's off work, all because John Doe decided that he wanted to have a kid.

The rest of the taxpayers didn't have the kid. They may not even believe it is in the best interest of society, the ecology/enviroment, or the world for John Doe to be having kids, depending on which one you talk to. They certainly didn't get to help make it and had no say in whether it was the right time to have it. But, they're going to fund it.

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?

Because it is more money taken from taxpayers to fund the voluntary choices of other people. I recall being single years ago and feeling some angst from time to time when in the workplace the single-no-children demographic would be required to do extra work than those that chose to have kids. Preferences on people taking time off from work, etc. The single-no-children crowd received no accommodation. They chose to not have children they couldn't afford to care for, and were penalized as a result, and forced to subsidize those who chose to have kids. What's wrong with your suggestion? It adds to that.

I'm sure plenty of people who want to exercise a "right" to prevent a single person with no children from assuming the job position that the child-rearing employee left, and gets to keep open for himself, while he stays home and takes care of family business, would not object to taking a worthless class (as government "parenting classes" are -- they have them often in divorce proceedings, where the law requires both parents to take a parenting classes).

But, that is the direction we are going, which saddles small businesses with monumental burdens. It's difficult enough for me, as a business owner myself, to hire someone now -- salary + payroll taxes + unemployment insurance + workers comp insurance + cost of payroll + health insurance + running a business when people take time off -- luckily Family and Medical Leave doesn't apply to a business as small as mine, because it would be virtually impossible to run the business. Hire a secretary, who demands three months off and a guaranteed job back, so then I have to hire another secretary under the assumption that the first one will come back, and then half the time the first one calls back at the last minute and says "oh, I'm not coming back after all." Add to that both parents taking time off, and it adds to the nightmare. I realize it sounds wonderful for the people receiving the benefits, but from the standpoint of those bearing the burdens, it gets heavier and heavier. And, when these things apply to voluntary life choices, as opposed to involuntary occurrences -- i.e. the difference between pregnancy and an auto accident that causes injuries - well, I tend to be more opposed to them. I don't like the idea of person A deciding to do something they can't afford, and then persons B, C and D having to foot part of the bill, when they had no say in the matter.

[Coito ergo sum]

But going back to your idea about Soc. Sec. only being paid out to those who paid in-- what does that mean for SAH spouses? Do you think they paid in?

I never said it was only paid out to those who paid in. It's paid out to people who didn't pay in all the time. However, when the program was set up, spouses were considered units, and it was not only normal but the overwhelming practice for women not to work outside the home. So, the system was set up in light of one breadwinner, one homemaker. The concept is that the benefits would be for both. That is part of the reason I said SS needs to be overhauled. it is a system created in a culture that no longer exists.

[hadespussercats]

But going back to your idea about Soc. Sec. only being paid out to those who paid in-- what does that mean for SAH spouses? Do you think they paid in?

I never said it was only paid out to those who paid in. It's paid out to people who didn't pay in all the time. However, when the program was set up, spouses were considered units, and it was not only normal but the overwhelming practice for women not to work outside the home. So, the system was set up in light of one breadwinner, one homemaker. The concept is that the benefits would be for both. That is part of the reason I said SS needs to be overhauled. it is a system created in a culture that no longer exists.

My question was re- YOUR views about how non-wage-earning people should be handled regarding social security.

[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.

There are degrees to everything, and while I think the government goes too far in many areas, I see a rational distinction between a law against abusing or beating a child, or failing to feed them or failing to provide medical care, etc., than in, say, fining a parent for taking them to McDonald's, or having regulations governing the portions and assortment of foods in a kid's lunch bag.

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 don't follow this. This is like saying, if you don't want money why not just refuse it when it's offered. This isn't a program where the person will be able to seek out a better deal elsewhere. This is a mandate on John Q. Employer that he has to give John Doe months off of work and guarantee his job will be open for him when he returns (a costly affair, many times), and then John Doe gets a check from the State to pay for his expenses when he's off work, all because John Doe decided that he wanted to have a kid.

The rest of the taxpayers didn't have the kid. They may not even believe it is in the best interest of society, the ecology/enviroment, or the world for John Doe to be having kids, depending on which one you talk to. They certainly didn't get to help make it and had no say in whether it was the right time to have it. But, they're going to fund it.

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?

Because it is more money taken from taxpayers to fund the voluntary choices of other people. I recall being single years ago and feeling some angst from time to time when in the workplace the single-no-children demographic would be required to do extra work than those that chose to have kids. Preferences on people taking time off from work, etc. The single-no-children crowd received no accommodation. They chose to not have children they couldn't afford to care for, and were penalized as a result, and forced to subsidize those who chose to have kids. What's wrong with your suggestion? It adds to that.

I'm sure plenty of people who want to exercise a "right" to prevent a single person with no children from assuming the job position that the child-rearing employee left, and gets to keep open for himself, while he stays home and takes care of family business, would not object to taking a worthless class (as government "parenting classes" are -- they have them often in divorce proceedings, where the law requires both parents to take a parenting classes).

But, that is the direction we are going, which saddles small businesses with monumental burdens. It's difficult enough for me, as a business owner myself, to hire someone now -- salary + payroll taxes + unemployment insurance + workers comp insurance + cost of payroll + health insurance + running a business when people take time off -- luckily Family and Medical Leave doesn't apply to a business as small as mine, because it would be virtually impossible to run the business. Hire a secretary, who demands three months off and a guaranteed job back, so then I have to hire another secretary under the assumption that the first one will come back, and then half the time the first one calls back at the last minute and says "oh, I'm not coming back after all." Add to that both parents taking time off, and it adds to the nightmare. I realize it sounds wonderful for the people receiving the benefits, but from the standpoint of those bearing the burdens, it gets heavier and heavier. And, when these things apply to voluntary life choices, as opposed to involuntary occurrences -- i.e. the difference between pregnancy and an auto accident that causes injuries - well, I tend to be more opposed to them. I don't like the idea of person A deciding to do something they can't afford, and then persons B, C and D having to foot part of the bill, when they had no say in the matter.

Again, I don't have time to do a point-by-point. BUT--

1. your comment re-being a small business owner yourself don't make sense in the context of leave that is subsidized particularly to spare a burden on small business owners. People are going to come and go from jobs, whether or not they have children, and that will have an impact on the people who hired them, who may have had different plans.

I don't see how gov't subsidized family leave affects that substantially.

2. Government subsidizes all sorts of things that not every citizen endorses. I don't have a car and I don't drive. There are so many subsidies that are going to American car culture, from manufacturing, to gas subsidies to infrastructure to tax rebates for car buyers, that I pay for but don't use personally. Hey. you all chose to have cars, and to drive them places. Why should I have to pay for it?

This is just one example among many I could cite.

So why not fund good parenting? Why not hold that as a value important enough to society at large that we all share the burden (to some small extent) of making it happen?

After all, whether we have kids ourselves or no, we will be dependent on the children born today when we are old, should we live so long. Don't we all have an interest in those children growing up well?

[Warren Dew]

1. your comment re-being a small business owner yourself don't make sense in the context of leave that is subsidized particularly to spare a burden on small business owners. People are going to come and go from jobs, whether or not they have children, and that will have an impact on the people who hired them, who may have had different plans.

The difficulty is in keeping the job open for the original person for three months. That means you can't hire a permanent replacement. If you hire a professional contract temp, it often costs twice as much; if you try to hire someone for only three months, you're often stuck with a less experienced and less capable worker.

If the company has 30,000 employees, it's not such a big deal to find someone to fill in for three months, or to hire a new full time person and find somewhere else to use them after the three months, or just to have other employees pick up the slack for three months. If the company has only 3 employees, those kinds of adjustments are difficult or impossible. That's why it's a particularly difficult imposition on small business.

2. Government subsidizes all sorts of things that not every citizen endorses. I don't have a car and I don't drive. There are so many subsidies that are going to American car culture, from manufacturing, to gas subsidies to infrastructure to tax rebates for car buyers, that I pay for but don't use personally. Hey. you all chose to have cars, and to drive them places. Why should I have to pay for it?

You shouldn't. That's why transportation infrastructure is generally paid for out of gasoline taxes, which you don't pay if you don't use a car.

The bailouts of Chrysler and GM, in contrast, used general funds and are considered unjustified by most. Why should taxpayers who bought a Volkwagen or Toyota or Ford have to subsidize the Chryslers and Chevys?

Children may be different in that there may be overall societal value, even to the childless, in avoiding a demographic collapse. If so, though, that's different from the government subsidies you mention, which can't be justified on that basis.

It's also to be pointed out that one major expense of raising children - thirteen years of education - is subsidized, although in a very inefficient way.

[colubridae]

Colubridae: are you saying that because I am a mod, I should not be allowed to express negative feelings/reactions about a non-moderator's posting style - even if those feelings/reactions are perfectly true? Are you saying that the rules should be different for staff than for non-staff members?

WTF is this shit. I never said that. The rules are as they are. If I didn't like them I wouldn't stay.
I find it 'creepy' when words are put in my mouth.
Describing your feelings/reactions as true, does not make them justified. Don’t mistake your feelings/reaction for validity. In this case they are quite different. That you are genuinely ‘creeped out’ is genuinely unjustified.




Coito is doing precisely what the ‘serious’ part of this forum is meant to do. No more, no less. Exchange ideas, rebut arguments and extend logical thought.

To find that ‘creepy’ is, well, just pathetic.
To be expected from the shallower end of the forum.

That a moderator should find that ‘creepy’ is distinctly disturbing. How can a ‘judge’ be impartial if she finds the fundamental purpose of that part of the forum to be ‘creepy’.

I would assume that a resignation would be in order, or at least an apology.
Coito made the claim that it was ‘his thread anyway’. He did not need to make such a claim.

As for you, you deliberately chose the expression 'creepy'

It’s a particularly nasty expression. Kind of like ‘shit’. No matter how the accused tries to defend/proclaim his innocence, it always sticks.

You knew it would provoke a reaction from coito, and congrats! It worked. And he got a warning.

But your calling his post ‘creepy’ is every bit as deserving of the epithet ‘creepy’. Added to which, the speed with which he received his warning is also ‘creepy’.


Here’s hoping you find the accusation of ‘creepy’ just as insulting as coito did.

p.s. sorry for delay.


FWIW
My view is:-
People with strong characters, expound their views to their acquaintances. Being strong-willed, dominant, they usually get the passive, acquiescent responses that they
expect, leading them down the false path of imagined intellectual prowess.

When such people post on internet fora, they frequently receive a cold logic shower. For such people this is desperately uncomfortable (and they may end up calling it ‘creepy’ for lack of valid response). Coito is the world’s champion cold logic shower. And boy does it piss ‘the shallow talking heads’ off.




As for the hades/coito exchange:-

1. Neither poster insulted the other. The closest to personal insult was from hades. But strictly the ‘adjectival’ aim was at the post, not the person.

2. If coito subsequently claims that was a personal insult then, however morally justified he may be, strictly within the rules he is wrong. However strictly within the rules, he is entitled to get things wrong. All it does is make coito look foolish.

3. Hades attack on his post was deliberately meant to inflame. Whether that is ‘strictly within the rules’ is open to a wide variation of rule interpretation.

4. Coito’s response whilst much more visceral was still ‘strictly within the rules’.

5. All of this is smoke and mirrors from you, designed to cover your absurd accusation that the normal operation of that part of the forum was ‘creepy’.

6. As a mod there is no way you can justify your accusation of ‘creepy’, as an ordinary member post what you want, if it’s laughably absurd, then so it will be seen.

[hadespussercats]

colubridae, Coito and I are managing our discussion just fine without your commentary.

As a point of fact, there were insulting comments delivered from both parties. But we're grown-ups, and managed to sort our way through them without resorting to champions or seconds.

Why don't you comment on something that has anything to do with the subject of stay-at-home parents? Otherwise, you've made your point, and, while I certainly can't force you to bug off, I wish you would.

[hadespussercats]

1. your comment re-being a small business owner yourself don't make sense in the context of leave that is subsidized particularly to spare a burden on small business owners. People are going to come and go from jobs, whether or not they have children, and that will have an impact on the people who hired them, who may have had different plans.

The difficulty is in keeping the job open for the original person for three months. That means you can't hire a permanent replacement. If you hire a professional contract temp, it often costs twice as much; if you try to hire someone for only three months, you're often stuck with a less experienced and less capable worker.

If the company has 30,000 employees, it's not such a big deal to find someone to fill in for three months, or to hire a new full time person and find somewhere else to use them after the three months, or just to have other employees pick up the slack for three months. If the company has only 3 employees, those kinds of adjustments are difficult or impossible. That's why it's a particularly difficult imposition on small business.

2. Government subsidizes all sorts of things that not every citizen endorses. I don't have a car and I don't drive. There are so many subsidies that are going to American car culture, from manufacturing, to gas subsidies to infrastructure to tax rebates for car buyers, that I pay for but don't use personally. Hey. you all chose to have cars, and to drive them places. Why should I have to pay for it?

You shouldn't. That's why transportation infrastructure is generally paid for out of gasoline taxes, which you don't pay if you don't use a car.

The bailouts of Chrysler and GM, in contrast, used general funds and are considered unjustified by most. Why should taxpayers who bought a Volkwagen or Toyota or Ford have to subsidize the Chryslers and Chevys?

Children may be different in that there may be overall societal value, even to the childless, in avoiding a demographic collapse. If so, though, that's different from the government subsidies you mention, which can't be justified on that basis.

It's also to be pointed out that one major expense of raising children - thirteen years of education - is subsidized, although in a very inefficient way.

The issue of temporary replacements is a big one.

I wonder if there are other ways to address the issue. For instance, because of our particular health concerns, J worked from home for an extended period after Sprog was born. I was still the one watching the kid during the day, and there were a couple times a week J needed to go the the office or the site, but having him there made both our lives easier during that early period (i.e.-- I could run up to the laundry room without having to plan ahead, or if we ran out of supplies it was easy to get out to the store and so forth.) Since J was doing night-feedings, working from home gave him a little flexibility to catch up on sleep. And when it came to the times I did work from home myself (like my union exam, which was pretty damn time-consuming, or a build contract for some masks) we could trade off time with each other. It was hard, but it was possible.

My point is, maybe there are ways to handle family leave that wouldn't necessarily require losing a worker completely for an extended chunk of time. Particularly since telecommuting is becoming more established as a general practice.

Obviously, there are some jobs you just can't telecommute to. But are there other ways to approach that problem creatively?

As for the subsidies-- I certainly didn't expect to hear support from you on that count. But I really appreciate the consistency of your views.

Still, I'm curious about this comment particularly:

Children may be different in that there may be overall societal value, even to the childless, in avoiding a demographic collapse. If so, though, that's different from the government subsidies you mention, which can't be justified on that basis.

Why can't they be justified on that basis? And is the only value of children to the childless an avoidance of demographic collapse? What about issues of publicly-beneficial design, engineering, care and other services, and so on and so forth, provided by each new generation to the betterment of all?

[Warren Dew]

colubridae, Coito and I are managing our discussion just fine without your commentary.

As a point of fact, there were insulting comments delivered from both parties. But we're grown-ups, and managed to sort our way through them without resorting to champions or seconds.

Why don't you comment on something that has anything to do with the subject of stay-at-home parents? Otherwise, you've made your point, and, while I certainly can't force you to bug off, I wish you would.

I think colubridae was responding to Ronja. I'm pretty sure that discussion would have ended at that point unless Ronja chose to continue it with a further response.