Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem I see is that he wants these women to work with the welfare goes to the daycare systems for watching children. No money is going to be saved.
Working garners experience and experience garners better wages.
We have a particular friend that chooses not to work. She has chosen not to work for years and years. She sabotages job searches to keep getting $$$. She is now furious that our governor made a 4 year rule and she either has to live on less or get a job. Yes, she has 5 kids and her husband does work and yes she still gets other government subsidies to a smaller number. However, since when did it become a government financed and guaranteed choice to just stay at home and crank out kids that you can't afford? She is a nice person, but does it not ultimately hurt us all if we allow her to make those choices?
"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."
"Shouldn't be given a choice..." Wow.
Now, I personally have no issue with this requirement, but, it does seem a tad hypocritical coming from the guy who claims that his wife was WORKING when she stayed at home with their kids. Does that mean that doing laundry, washing dishes, preparing meals, giving baths, etc. is only work when rich people do it?
""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.'""
I guess I am trying to understand why Mr. Romney would advocate for forcing some women into the work-force and their children into daycare when all we've heard for the past week or so is that staying at home with the kids IS work.
So, is it only work when you can afford to stay home?
You're right when you point out that this Romney expressed belief is far more concerning than what a Democratic Party-affiliated political consultant says amongst talking heads. The Obamas, the President and the First Lady, have provided excellent examples of support for women in the workplace and how a professional couple can handle the challenges, from the point before he was a candidate for President to this very moment.
"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."
"Shouldn't be given a choice..." Wow.
Now, I personally have no issue with this requirement, but, it does seem a tad hypocritical coming from the guy who claims that his wife was WORKING when she stayed at home with their kids. Does that mean that doing laundry, washing dishes, preparing meals, giving baths, etc. is only work when rich people do it?
""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.'""
I guess I am trying to understand why Mr. Romney would advocate for forcing some women into the work-force and their children into daycare when all we've heard for the past week or so is that staying at home with the kids IS work.
So, is it only work when you can afford to stay home?
No, that is not what he's saying. He's not denying that stay at home moms work, he stated his own wife worked when she was home but, the difference is, she didn't NEED to work outside of the home because they had plenty of money.
He's not saying you don't work if you stay home, he's saying, if you are going to ask for a hand out, you should be required to work OUTSIDE of the home to receive that hand out. I agree with this.
There is a difference in the work:
Staying at home and doing chores, cleaning, making food, all that is work but it doesn't earn you an income.
Going outside of the home to work IS earning you an income.
The problem I see is that he wants these women to work with the welfare goes to the daycare systems for watching children. No money is going to be saved.
I'd rather have the money go to the daycare instead of in to their pockets. If it goes to the daycare and the parents are required to work outside of the home to receive that benefit, they won't be WASTING that money on a bunch of crap, it will go to the daycare.
Aren't we supposed to be thinking of the chiiiiiiiiiiiildren here? Ok, this works out well. They don't have the excuse that they can't work because they can't afford daycare, that is OUT. They will get their daycare. They will be required to work outside of the home. What they bring home, they use that to support their family. BECAUSE they are ACTUALLY WORKING, if they still need a bit of help, ok.
I still think there should be a time limit on welfare and I don't think this is the answer, Romney's plan, but it DOES get people off of their butts and stop making excuses for why they can't earn any money to help pay for themselves.
No, that is not what he's saying. He's not denying that stay at home moms work, he stated his own wife worked when she was home but, the difference is, she didn't NEED to work outside of the home because they had plenty of money.
He's not saying you don't work if you stay home, he's saying, if you are going to ask for a hand out, you should be required to work OUTSIDE of the home to receive that hand out. I agree with this.
There is a difference in the work:
Staying at home and doing chores, cleaning, making food, all that is work but it doesn't earn you an income.
Going outside of the home to work IS earning you an income.
THAT is the difference.
So let me ask two simple questions:
If a woman is drawing assistance and she gets a job and makes some money will they then take that amount out of her assistance?
Now, what happens if she cannot find a job, does she not get assistance, even if see can prove she is seriously looking for a job?
I am curious if the righties here will honestly answer the question.
on the flip side...obama wants all the poor to stay at home so they canreceive welfare...making them dependent on the government...and hence 'DEMOCRATS who are the party with their pockets FULL of money that we just don't seem to have....until they print it up to hand out.
Funny...I always felt that personal responsibility was a good way to live one's life. Stuff like FAMILY PLANNING...NOT LIVING OUTSIDE YOUR MEANS....all of that seem to be 'OLD SCHOOL' to the dems. Pump out kids you can't afford...because the government is here to take care of you. Not enough revenue? Who cares?? We'll just crank up the presses.
You're right when you point out that this Romney expressed belief is far more concerning than what a Democratic Party-affiliated political consultant says amongst talking heads. The Obamas, the President and the First Lady, have provided excellent examples of support for women in the workplace and how a professional couple can handle the challenges, from the point before he was a candidate for President to this very moment.
on the flip side...obama wants all the poor to stay at home so they canreceive welfare...making them dependent on the government...and hence 'DEMOCRATS who are the party with their pockets FULL of money that we just don't seem to have....until they print it up to hand out.
Funny...I always felt that personal responsibility was a good way to live one's life. Stuff like FAMILY PLANNING...NOT LIVING OUTSIDE YOUR MEANS....all of that seem to be 'OLD SCHOOL' to the dems. Pump out kids you can't afford...because the government is here to take care of you. Not enough revenue? Who cares?? We'll just crank up the presses.
Really, we have Mittens words on what he believes, care to post Obamas where they say what you scratched out above, hmmmmm
Repug PAWNS that believe the ultra rich have the Peoples best interests at heart, now that is Priceless
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
