Stay At Home Moms Devalued

[thesometimesaint]

blackstrap:

There is always someone worse off than we are. I complained about not having any shoes until I saw a man without any feet.

[thesometimesaint]

GG:

How are things at the beach?

I don't begruge the Romney's their money. Though I do have serious reservations about how it was earned. May they live long and prosper.

While it is not mandatory, there is an old saying that to truely undestand another walk a mile in their shoes, that anyone be poor or even middle class to understand the trials they face. It does come accross to me to be condensending to say it was a "choice" for her to be a stay at home mom, when there are millions of women with families that don't have that "choice".

In two days we "celebrate" the 19th year of my forced retirement. Financially we are doing well. Major health concerns still plague me, and I know my wife is worried for me. But I'll hang in there for at least a few more years. If nothing else she can still make me laugh.

[Glenn101]

It's all politics. Rosen accomplished her purpose. It may backfire on her, or it may not. But what else can you do when there are no sexual shennaigans to flap about? No adultery, etc. In all reality, Rosen's comments were really weak, but when there is nothing else to pundit about, what do you do?

The best thing to do is not to rise to take the bait.

Glenn

[Bob Oliverio]

Bob:

Al Gore would be very surprized at your assurtion.

Who is Al Gore?

[thesometimesaint]

Vice President of the US under Bill Clnton.

[Bob Oliverio]

Vice President of the US under Bill Clnton.

Damn, I should have known that - huh?

[thesometimesaint]

Bob:

Yes.

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting.

http://thinkprogress...y-welface-moms/

“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.”

[bluebell]

bluebell:

Ann was never middle class.

That's not my point.

I'm guessing that Rosen, for example, has neither been super rich nor lived in poverty, yet she seems to feel that she is qualified to talk about what it's like to be super rich, and probably wouldn't count herself out of a discussion on poor women and the economy either. I'm also guessing that most of the people right now in the government who are trying to address issues of women and poverty have also never lived in poverty.

My point is that it's not just the super rich who have no idea what it's like to be really poor. A middle class woman also would have no idea, yet we don't seem to have problems with them addressing the issue. Seems like a double standard.

If we only let people address issues that they themselves have actually lived through, then most of us would be forced to shut up. I, however, think that kind of an approach would greatly cripple society.

[bluebell]

Interesting.

http://thinkprogress...y-welface-moms/

“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.”

[Zakuska]

Interesting.

http://thinkprogress...y-welface-moms/

“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.”

Yes it is intresting. Romney was willing to spend more tax dollars on getting people back to work than he was to spending and giving them a free hand out. And people are trying to use this against him? You just cant win for losing.

This new attack is going to backfire big time.

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

So in your opinion it is fine for rich mothers to choose to be be a stay a home mother, and fine that poor mothers are forced by the state to work outside the home.

From a letter;

Dear Mrs. Romney,

Perhaps you can advise me since you have raised 5 boys, I'm sure you'll understand. One of the kids is sick again and I have no sick days left at work. In fact, my boss gave me a bad performance review and no raise this year because he said I obviously don't care that much about my job since I've missed so many days and if I miss anymore he may have to replace me. Whenever my child gets sick, my boss reminds me how easily I can be replaced.

We don't have health insurance at my job, so, if my boy gets worse, I'll probably be at the ER most of the night tonight. Not for the first time, but that's ok, he'll get care. It's tomorrow I'm worried about.

As you know, regular day care will not take a sick child, so if I want to work when my child is sick, I have to pay for sick child day care, which costs as much as I make, and, as I'm sure you know from personal experience, I still have to pay my regular day care, whether my child is there or out sick, so I actually lose money in order to work while he's sick. It's that or take a chance on losing my job entirely.

Should I take my child to the day care for sick kids and lose money and not have enough for my bills this month, so I can keep my job, or should I stay home with my sick child and hope that I don't get fired?

What did you do when this happened to you?

[Calm]

SS,

It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.

Are you suggesting he is saying taking care of children by SAHMs is not dignified or valued in and of itself? That he was implying the same as Rosen is alleged to be implying?

I read it as more he is saying that people who view themselves as more financially independent are more likely to have a sense of dignity about their life. I'd like to see the rest of his comment to see what the focus was rather than just the soundbite.

I think a lot of people imagine that they can comment in depth on the experience of poverty by extrapolating their own experiences of doing without something they wanted, etc. And there can be some valuable observations made. However, poverty is not just about not having, it is about fear and insecurity and a whole host of other negative emotional, mental and physical experiences that do not occur outside of that context. Whether someone is rich or comfortable or borderline but with a family safety net, I think they are just as capable of commenting on poverty as the next guy who has not personally experienced poverty because they are using the same tools to do so, imagining themselves in that situation.

Now get someone who actually has wondered where not only the next meal is coming from, but the next several meals, a place to sleep, clothes to wear, clean water to drink, etc and who hasn't had a government agency or private institution that is willing to step into help out if asked....now that someone would take the conversation to another level, imo.

[Calm]

Should I take my child to the day care for sick kids and lose money and not have enough for my bills this month, so I can keep my job, or should I stay home with my sick child and hope that I don't get fired?

Unless you have details, it is possible that Romney's idea of giving more money to day care to allow for women to be more financially independent would have solved this woman's problem in that sick day care might not have cost her more money, allowed her more money to pay her bills since day care in general would cost less, etc.

This is the problem with soundbites....never enough details to draw a decent conclusion on what is actually intended.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska:

So in your opinion it is fine for rich mothers to choose to be be a stay a home mother, and fine that poor mothers are forced by the state to work outside the home.

From a letter;

Dear Mrs. Romney,

Perhaps you can advise me since you have raised 5 boys, I'm sure you'll understand. One of the kids is sick again and I have no sick days left at work. In fact, my boss gave me a bad performance review and no raise this year because he said I obviously don't care that much about my job since I've missed so many days and if I miss anymore he may have to replace me. Whenever my child gets sick, my boss reminds me how easily I can be replaced.

We don't have health insurance at my job, so, if my boy gets worse, I'll probably be at the ER most of the night tonight. Not for the first time, but that's ok, he'll get care. It's tomorrow I'm worried about.

As you know, regular day care will not take a sick child, so if I want to work when my child is sick, I have to pay for sick child day care, which costs as much as I make, and, as I'm sure you know from personal experience, I still have to pay my regular day care, whether my child is there or out sick, so I actually lose money in order to work while he's sick. It's that or take a chance on losing my job entirely.

Should I take my child to the day care for sick kids and lose money and not have enough for my bills this month, so I can keep my job, or should I stay home with my sick child and hope that I don't get fired?

What did you do when this happened to you?

Well lets see sometimessaint. I bolded the opperative paragraph in your suposition. Did you forget that the state would be picking up the bill on both of these scenarios? Perhaps the state would also be giving aid for the ER bills. Forgetting about "Obama/Romney" care I see.

This might also give the women a chance to get skills and find a better paying Job with benefits.

I have an ex-nephew-brother-inlaw who couldn't hold a job. He'd work at a place for a couple months and then simply quit going to work. His explanation?

It was easier to live off welfare than it was dealing with a boss.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/millions-hungry-households-us-report

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

http://www.npr.org/series/5023829/hunger-in-america

http://www.aarp.org/giving-back/charitable-giving/info-11-2010/hungry_in_america_a_little_goes_a_long_way.html

Any more questions?

[Zakuska]

calmoriah:

http://www.guardian....holds-us-report

http://www.worldhung...unger_facts.htm

http://www.npr.org/s...nger-in-america

http://www.aarp.org/...a_long_way.html

Any more questions?

Yes lots.

If they are going to bed hungry then the current welfare system is broken. Maybe if these people had gotten AID for daycare they could get a Job and put food on the table.

[bluebell]

Zakuska:

So in your opinion it is fine for rich mothers to choose to be be a stay a home mother, and fine that poor mothers are forced by the state to work outside the home.

That state's not forcing them to work outside of the home, their circumstances are.

Life isn't fair. The state doesn't exist to make sure that it is. The poor have to work when the rich might not. That's just a fact of life. It has nothing to do with the state.

[thesometimesaint]

bluebell:

I never said life was fair, but shouldn't we have "Equal justice under law"? I seem to remember that inscription on the US Supreme Court building. No, Romney wants to use the power of the state to force poor mothers into outside the home work. He wants to cut off aid to them if they don't get an outside the home job. Something about the Equal Protection Amendment comes to mind.

You can't have it both ways. Either you value moms whether they work outside the home or you don't.

[Zakuska]

bluebell:

I never said life was fair, but shouldn't we have "Equal justice under law"? I seem to remember that inscription on the US Supreme Court building. No, Romney wants to use the power of the state to force poor mothers into outside the home work. He wants to cut off aid to them if they don't get an outside the home job. Something about the Equal Protection Amendment comes to mind.

You can't have it both ways. Either you value moms whether they work outside the home or you don't.

Well lets see thesometimessaint. Im a member of the Middle class. I worked and put myself through college, because I made enough to do that but I made too much to get government aid. Same story with my wife. We barely scrapped by.

The rich are out there they have money so they can pay for it. So who is it that gets the Government help?

The poor who are on welfare. eg. I had a woman in several of my classes who was getting a fullride college grant from the gov. as well as food stamps etc.

So how exactly is that "equal justice under the law"? If the government is going to dole out bailouts to the poor then they should spend just as much on the middle class and wealthy. That would be"equal justice under the law" would it not?

Something tells me that your "equal justice under the law" has more to do with some one getting a fair trial and just sentencing when they break the law, wether they are rich poor, black or white, male or female, rather than redistribution of wealth and class warfare.

[thesometimesaint]

I've been poor and middle class. Middle class is better. I paid for my college experience by being in the US Military, working full time while going to school, and taking minimal loans. All the while raising a family. I worked hard for every penny I had until I became disabled. Then insurance, wise investing, being very conservative with our money, and my wife continuing to work has allow us a comfortable middle class life style. We were lucky. All our children were healthy with no serious health problems, outside of a few broken bones from being rambuncuous boys.

No one has given me a free ride on anything. However I don't begrudge anyone from applying for and using the assistance that our government proviides for those whom that don't have all the advantages that I have. I gladly pay my taxes to help those in need. Not in the expectation that I will need them, but because it is the right thing to do.

Just remember the laws apply to both the rich and the poor alike. It is illegal to eat out of trash cans and sleep under bridges. ALL governments redistribute wealth. We pay taxes for schools, the librarian at your public library, policemen, firemen, roads, bridges, etc., etc., etc.. In our technologically advanced country you can't go a single day without some good or service provided for by a government. Even the house you live in was inspected and approved by several governmental agencies.

There was a class war. My class won.

Warren Buffet

http://truth-out.org/news/item/8533-growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

Read the 14th Amendment.

While the employment picture is getting better. (Contrary to Romney. Obama didn't make the recession worse). There is still 4-5 job applicants for every job offer. I would hate to be looking for a job in this job market.

[bluebell]

bluebell:

I never said life was fair, but shouldn't we have "Equal justice under law"? I seem to remember that inscription on the US Supreme Court building. No, Romney wants to use the power of the state to force poor mothers into outside the home work. He wants to cut off aid to them if they don't get an outside the home job. Something about the Equal Protection Amendment comes to mind.

You can't have it both ways. Either you value moms whether they work outside the home or you don't.

It seems like all he wants to do is use the power of the state to put conditions upon receiving public assistance. I don't see how that is unfair, or "unequal justice" in the least.

It has nothing to do with not valuing mothers, either.

[thesometimesaint]

To require something of you that isn't required of me is unjust.

Here I thought stay at home moms were working just like the ones who work outside their homes. But apparently not.

[Mark Beesley]

If Mitt and Ann were not LDS, would this topic be classified as anything but political at this point?