FARK.com: (7057196) Republicans: Stay at home moms are just as hardworking as working moms. Democrats: Well, then, you won't mind if we let raising children count as work towards welfare, right?

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Republicans: Stay at home moms are just as hardworking as working moms. Democrats: Well, then, you won't mind if we let raising children count as work towards welfare, right? (dailykos.com)		572
		More: Amusing, housewives, Republican, Ann Romney, Health Care, International, welfare

• • •

5986 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2012 at 2:32 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7057196

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

572 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

WombatControl		2012-04-18 05:20:59 PM

treesloth: Sure, stay-at-home moms are just as hard-working as working moms, I suppose. Don't know how to prove it, but ok. It's kind of stupid, though, to assume that all types of work should be relevant to welfare benefits. I could work very hard on my stamp collection, but it shouldn't count toward welfare. Not all forms of work are applicable to welfare qualification, and I don't recall anything Ann said that suggests otherwise.

Still not voting for Mitt, though.

Be careful now, anything that goes against the groupthink must be punished...

I find it very amusing that none of the people who are beating this dead horse into its constituent molecules have bothered to consider what Hilary Rosen actually said, or have considered that the President himself condemned it.

Here's a hint: when you have a comment so stupid that the President himself is obliged to disavow it, you shut the fark up about it. Constantly reviving it doesn't give you a damn bit of political advantage. Turning it into an incredibly short-sighted political stunt is even dumber. Patting oneself on the back for engaging in said political stunt that revives the politically idiotic comment is a level of sheer idiocy so dense it rivals a neutron star.

So yes, please, keep doing it. Doubling down on stupid worked for the Democrats in 2010 just perfectly...

Mrtraveler01		2012-04-18 05:25:09 PM

WombatControl: Doubling down on stupid worked for the ~~Democrats~~ Republicans in 2010 just perfectly...

Worked for the Tea Party, why can't it work for Democrats? ;)

/Government better not touch my Medicare!

Pincy		2012-04-18 05:26:00 PM

WombatControl: treesloth: Sure, stay-at-home moms are just as hard-working as working moms, I suppose. Don't know how to prove it, but ok. It's kind of stupid, though, to assume that all types of work should be relevant to welfare benefits. I could work very hard on my stamp collection, but it shouldn't count toward welfare. Not all forms of work are applicable to welfare qualification, and I don't recall anything Ann said that suggests otherwise.

Still not voting for Mitt, though.

Be careful now, anything that goes against the groupthink must be punished...

I find it very amusing that none of the people who are beating this dead horse into its constituent molecules have bothered to consider what Hilary Rosen actually said, or have considered that the President himself condemned it.

Here's a hint: when you have a comment so stupid that the President himself is obliged to disavow it, you shut the fark up about it. Constantly reviving it doesn't give you a damn bit of political advantage. Turning it into an incredibly short-sighted political stunt is even dumber. Patting oneself on the back for engaging in said political stunt that revives the politically idiotic comment is a level of sheer idiocy so dense it rivals a neutron star.

So yes, please, keep doing it. Doubling down on stupid worked for the Democrats in 2010 just perfectly...

You sound concerned

treesloth		2012-04-18 05:26:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: Worked for the Tea Party, why can't it work for Democrats? ;)

No single group, party, etc. has a monopoly on stupid. Pointing out another group that's done something dumb is just boarding the Romerocopter.

spiderpaz		2012-04-18 05:27:17 PM

treesloth: Sure, why not? Stamp collecting *is* work. It really does require effort, study, research, tracking, etc. They'd be wrong in their claims, since I would have worked quite a lot. I suppose it might even be "hard" work, although I don't know how one definitively differentiates between hard and easy work. But they'd never hear me claim that it's the kind of work that should be counted toward welfare benefits.

Then it's a hobby and not a job. You can't be fired from a hobby. You don't depend on a hobby for income. See the difference?

Animatronik		2012-04-18 05:27:20 PM

There's nothing more appealing to Democrats than a population of mobilized voters who get a paycheck from the government because they have inadequate means of supporting their family in the style they want to, and are dependent on DEMOCRATS to make sure the checks keep coming and coming.

Obama's genius is that he mobliized more people like that than any other presidential candidate in history.

theorellior		2012-04-18 05:27:59 PM

skullkrusher: Let the record show that theorellior is indeed a libtard.

I hope you're happy with that setup. It was my little gift to you.

Daraymann		2012-04-18 05:29:39 PM

Since stay at home moms are working, they shouldn't get welfare.

Just like Ann Romney.

/It's only fair.

skullkrusher		2012-04-18 05:29:57 PM

theorellior: skullkrusher: Let the record show that theorellior is indeed a libtard.

I hope you're happy with that setup. It was my little gift to you.

I take what I can get.

/don't use the term except in jest
//"pinko" is far more colorful

Mrtraveler01		2012-04-18 05:30:15 PM

Animatronik: There's nothing more appealing to Democrats than a population of mobilized voters who get a paycheck from the government because they have inadequate means of supporting their family in the style they want to, and are dependent on DEMOCRATS to make sure the checks keep coming and coming.

Obama's genius is that he mobliized more people like that than any other presidential candidate in history.

So much derp I don't know where to start...

Well to start, maybe it's because Democrats don't vilify the poor because they don't feel the need to make themselves feel superior to others. And they also don't pretend to be compassionate Christians who try to make it harder for people struggling to survive.

spiderpaz		2012-04-18 05:35:17 PM

Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: Doubling down on stupid worked for the Democrats Republicans in 2010 just perfectly...

Worked for the Tea Party, why can't it work for Democrats? ;)

/Government better not touch my Medicare!

You're speaking to somebody who yesterday basically said that If you had to make a choice between giving yourself a tax break for $10k or giving it away to millionaires, you're better off giving it to millionaires because 'you might be a millionaire someday'. THAT is how far down the rabbit hole he is. The hat is over the wall at this point. He's committed and there's no looking back.

treesloth		2012-04-18 05:35:33 PM

spiderpaz: You don't depend on a hobby for income.

Exactly. Nor should one bear children with the expectation of them becoming a source of income.

theorellior		2012-04-18 05:36:20 PM

skullkrusher: //"pinko" is far more colorful

That's so 50s, though. I'm a very modern libtard.

Gyrfalcon		2012-04-18 05:37:22 PM

spiderpaz: treesloth: Sure, why not? Stamp collecting *is* work. It really does require effort, study, research, tracking, etc. They'd be wrong in their claims, since I would have worked quite a lot. I suppose it might even be "hard" work, although I don't know how one definitively differentiates between hard and easy work. But they'd never hear me claim that it's the kind of work that should be counted toward welfare benefits.

Then it's a hobby and not a job. You can't be fired from a hobby. You don't depend on a hobby for income. See the difference?

Actually, stamp collecting--or any other type of hobby--can be a business if you spend a lot of time on it and derive any kind of economic benefit from it. If you think not, you should check the divorce laws. A stamp collection, if you spend time on it and it has value, can be divided like any other asset upon divorce if it is determined to be community property.

I don't see how housework can be deemed not to be work merely because you can't be "fired" from it.

treesloth		2012-04-18 05:39:57 PM

spiderpaz: You're speaking to somebody who yesterday basically said that If you had to make a choice between giving yourself a tax break for $10k or giving it away to millionaires, you're better off giving it to millionaires because 'you might be a millionaire someday'. THAT is how far down the rabbit hole he is. The hat is over the wall at this point. He's committed and there's no looking back.

I think he made it pretty clear that the situation to which he was responding was hypothetical and had no bearing on reality. It stands to reason that the responses would fall into the same category. There's really no mistaking that from the post linked.

spiderpaz		2012-04-18 05:40:23 PM

treesloth: spiderpaz: You don't depend on a hobby for income.

Exactly. Nor should one bear children with the expectation of them becoming a source of income.

Or call it a job, when it's really just something they do with all their time because they have the means that allow them to not work for a living.

Mitt Romney however thinks that these women should get daycare so that they can get a job and know the dignity of work. It's pretty ironic that his campaign is trying to take the stance that they are right now on this "controversy".

treesloth		2012-04-18 05:45:43 PM

spiderpaz: Or call it a job, when it's really just something they do with all their time because they have the means that allow them to not work for a living.

Mitt Romney however thinks that these women should get daycare so that they can get a job and know the dignity of work. It's pretty ironic that his campaign is trying to take the stance that they are right now on this "controversy".

I don't see anything where he or Ann suggested that it should qualify as the type of work that counts for welfare benefits, and their personal financial circumstances don't make it so. Not all forms of work should qualify. So, the bill in TFA is an absurd misconstruance of her statements. WombatControl's advice is sound.

draypresct		2012-04-18 05:49:46 PM

EWreckedSean: 12349876: EWreckedSean: 12349876: EWreckedSean: So as long as i spend 40 hours a week working on my yard, you are ok with my being on welfare. Because that is hard work, especially here in the Florida heat. Now the obvious difference, which you understand, is there is a difference between working a job, which is the requirement to get welfare, and working hard at something, which is what raising kids are.

So you're admitting Ann Romney has never had a job? That's what it sounds like. She works hard, but she's never had a real job.

You tell me, is running a charity a job? Or does a volunteer job not count as an actual job?

Is it enough to qualify for welfare? That seems to be the standard for "job" you're applying in this thread.

Actually no it isn't. From a few posts up:

EWreckedSean: The TANF is talking about working at a job to provide income, not about working hard at something.

You have a point.

Yes, this proposal is clearly a troll, and it is mildly amusing, but it's not the epic troll people are labelling it, pretty much for the reason you pointed out. It is entirely possible to support Ann Romney and oppose this bill and have a logically and morally consistent worldview.

/Coming from someone who frequently disagrees with the position you take.

spiderpaz		2012-04-18 05:50:52 PM

treesloth: spiderpaz: Or call it a job, when it's really just something they do with all their time because they have the means that allow them to not work for a living.

Mitt Romney however thinks that these women should get daycare so that they can get a job and know the dignity of work. It's pretty ironic that his campaign is trying to take the stance that they are right now on this "controversy".

I don't see anything where he or Ann suggested that it should qualify as the type of work that counts for welfare benefits, and their personal financial circumstances don't make it so. Not all forms of work should qualify. So, the bill in TFA is an absurd misconstruance of her statements. WombatControl's advice is sound.

I know, you are correct - at this point (until there is another etch-a-sketch moment) their position on stay at home motherhood is that it's work ... but it isn't.

/hides shiat eating grin

ghare		2012-04-18 05:54:44 PM

treesloth: spiderpaz: You don't depend on a hobby for income.

Exactly. Nor should one bear children with the expectation of them becoming a source of income.

In other words, you have no idea how much TANF and other government programs actually give you. Why not try looking it up and seeing what a prosperous lifestyle you can get just by having kids?

spiderpaz		2012-04-18 05:57:13 PM

treesloth		2012-04-18 06:04:51 PM

ghare: In other words, you have no idea how much TANF and other government programs actually give you. Why not try looking it up and seeing what a prosperous lifestyle you can get just by having kids?

I have some idea... that's why I said it shouldn't happen.

spiderpaz: I know, you are correct - at this point (until there is another etch-a-sketch moment) their position on stay at home motherhood is that it's work ... but it isn't.

No, they're simply able to differentiate between different kinds of work and what it qualifies people for. I should hope that anyone that's proposing bills would be able to do the same, but apparently that's not the case. It's like the sponsors of the bill are yelling, "You can repeat the facts until you're blue in the face-- it doesn't matter! Our supporters are too stupid to understand the difference!". Sad. Oh, well. I'm out.

2wolves		2012-04-18 06:05:26 PM

spiderpaz: [i.imgur.com image 600x400]

That has to be the least flattering photo of her ever.

Gyrfalcon		2012-04-18 06:08:00 PM

treesloth: spiderpaz: Or call it a job, when it's really just something they do with all their time because they have the means that allow them to not work for a living.

Mitt Romney however thinks that these women should get daycare so that they can get a job and know the dignity of work. It's pretty ironic that his campaign is trying to take the stance that they are right now on this "controversy".

I don't see anything where he or Ann suggested that it should qualify as the type of work that counts for welfare benefits, and their personal financial circumstances don't make it so. Not all forms of work should qualify. So, the bill in TFA is an absurd misconstruance of her statements. WombatControl's advice is sound.

I can see where you marsupials and lower Edentata would have to stick together.

bugontherug		2012-04-18 06:08:29 PM

draypresct: EWreckedSean: 12349876: EWreckedSean: 12349876: EWreckedSean: So as long as i spend 40 hours a week working on my yard, you are ok with my being on welfare. Because that is hard work, especially here in the Florida heat. Now the obvious difference, which you understand, is there is a difference between working a job, which is the requirement to get welfare, and working hard at something, which is what raising kids are.

So you're admitting Ann Romney has never had a job? That's what it sounds like. She works hard, but she's never had a real job.

You tell me, is running a charity a job? Or does a volunteer job not count as an actual job?

Is it enough to qualify for welfare? That seems to be the standard for "job" you're applying in this thread.

Actually no it isn't. From a few posts up:

EWreckedSean: The TANF is talking about working at a job to provide income, not about working hard at something.

You have a point.

Yes, this proposal is clearly a troll, and it is mildly amusing, but it's not the epic troll people are labelling it, pretty much for the reason you pointed out. It is entirely possible to support Ann Romney and oppose this bill and have a logically and morally consistent worldview.

/Coming from someone who frequently disagrees with the position you take.

Maybe. But it is not logically possible to support both Ann Romney and Mitt Romney on the question of whether stay at home moms "work," which is the issue that inspired this. Remember? All the media outlets buzzed all last week about how Democrats hate moms because some pundit said Ann Romney didn't work. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney himself said stay at home moms don't work just as clearly as Hilary Rosen did. So, in terms of which presidential candidate affronted the work mothers do, it had to have been Mitt.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-18 06:11:30 PM

So if a mother stays home to take care of her own children, that shouldn't be considered "work" for welfare purposes, but if she goes and takes care of a rich woman's children it should be?

bugontherug		2012-04-18 06:11:54 PM

treesloth: No, they're simply able to differentiate between different kinds of work and what it qualifies people for. I should hope that anyone that's proposing bills would be able to do the same, but apparently that's not the case. It's like the sponsors of the bill are yelling, "You can repeat the facts until you're blue in the face-- it doesn't matter! Our supporters are too stupid to understand the difference!". Sad. Oh, well. I'm out

False.

This defense, that Mitt was talking about work for pay, applies equally to Hilary Rosen's comments. What you're saying now, then, is that the Romney's are characterologically dishonest people for attacking Hilary Rosen all last week, when her comments could be understood exactly the same way as Mitt's.

On the one hand, Mitt is disqualified from the presidency because he hates moms. On the other hand, Mitt is disqualified because he is a vicious slanderer. Your choice.

skullkrusher		2012-04-18 06:12:24 PM

Thrag		2012-04-18 06:13:12 PM

MyRandomName		2012-04-18 06:14:43 PM

Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Let's stop confusing working a paying job with working hard.

DING! DING! DING! Now, he's getting it folks!
Now, run along and tell all your conservative friends what you've just discovered and how it applies to Ann Romney.

Rosen used the word work, not job.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men		2012-04-18 06:15:07 PM

Last week motherhood was the most valuable job in the world and one of the hardest. Going by today's comments it's 'work' in the same way drinking, stamp collecting or gardening is 'work'.

Should clear it up for anyone deluded enough to think last weeks outrage was anything other than manufactured controversy.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-18 06:16:59 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: So if a mother stays home to take care of her own children, that shouldn't be considered "work" for welfare purposes, but if she goes and takes care of a rich woman's children it should be?

yep. Pretty straightforward, no?

And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support. Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

skullkrusher		2012-04-18 06:18:04 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Last week motherhood was the most valuable job in the world and one of the hardest. Going by today's comments it's 'work' in the same way drinking, stamp collecting or gardening is 'work'.

Should clear it up for anyone deluded enough to think last weeks outrage was anything other than manufactured controversy.

last week's outrage was manufactured. I don't think many could honestly disagree. Raising your kids is an extremely important thing to do and it can oftentimes be rather difficult. Doesn't make it a job in the sense we're talking about here though.

MyRandomName		2012-04-18 06:18:52 PM

CPennypacker: MyRandomName: LasersHurt: This thread has gone grey almost entirely. Hit a nerve somewhere.

Lol look how super cool you are with an ignore list. Two giant thumbs up. Yay.

What an idiot.

Protip: You're probably on his ignore list.

Protip, I like pointing out ignorance.

Thrag		2012-04-18 06:19:04 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: So if a mother stays home to take care of her own children, that shouldn't be considered "work" for welfare purposes, but if she goes and takes care of a rich woman's children it should be?

yep. Pretty straightforward, no?

And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support. Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

Sounds like you're almost ready for the interview for a public relations position in the RNC.

bugontherug		2012-04-18 06:19:25 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: So if a mother stays home to take care of her own children, that shouldn't be considered "work" for welfare purposes, but if she goes and takes care of a rich woman's children it should be?

yep. Pretty straightforward, no?

And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support. Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

It is astounding the contortions of reason righties will subject themselves to to defend this man who has no soul.

Oh wait. That's just Skullkrusher. NM.

skullkrusher		2012-04-18 06:20:33 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

it's work as in it is often a difficult task to do. Putting up a fence in your backyard is hard work too. I don't think anyone would call that a job though.

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support.

insomuch as having a job is praiseworthy and worthy of support, sure, caring for someone's children as an occupation is good.

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

looks like you just made this part up.

bugontherug		2012-04-18 06:21:10 PM

skullkrusher: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Last week motherhood was the most valuable job in the world and one of the hardest. Going by today's comments it's 'work' in the same way drinking, stamp collecting or gardening is 'work'.

Should clear it up for anyone deluded enough to think last weeks outrage was anything other than manufactured controversy.

last week's outrage was manufactured. I don't think many could honestly disagree. Raising your kids is an extremely important thing to do and it can oftentimes be rather difficult. Doesn't make it a job in the sense we're talking about here though.

It's a good thing the public policy question is secondary to the moral question of which political party/presidential candidate values the work mothers do. Mitt Romney does not. The Republicans do not. President Obama and the Democrats do.

spiderpaz		2012-04-18 06:21:16 PM

MyRandomName: Lord_Baull: EWreckedSean: Let's stop confusing working a paying job with working hard.

DING! DING! DING! Now, he's getting it folks!
Now, run along and tell all your conservative friends what you've just discovered and how it applies to Ann Romney.

Rosen used the word work, not job.

This seems like an excellent time to have a debate on what the meaning of the word "is" is

MyRandomName		2012-04-18 06:21:29 PM

gimmegimme: MyRandomName: Serious Black: EWreckedSean: liam76: EWreckedSean: Gotta love the left. Always looking for new ways to get other people to pay for other people choices. I wonder if they realize this money would likely pour into places like Mississippi and Alabama?

You think they really believe it has even the tiniest chance of passing?

They are pointing out the double standard of every tard who got upset over the recent comments on Ann's work.

Pretty sure you were one of them.

How does saying staying at home raising kids is hard work equate to government should fund you to stay at home?

If it doesn't count as work for the legal purposes of qualifying for TANF, I'm pretty sure it shouldn't count as work for any other purposes.

Charitable work does not count to tanf either. So that's not work either? Seriously some stupid in this thread.

Please re-read the thread and look at the difference between "work" and "job."

Please read the original comments. Rosen used the word work. Ann used the word work. Only the idiot partisan liberals in this thread are using job because this bills idiocy was pointed out.

Congrats on knowing the difference. Most of us already did.

skullkrusher		2012-04-18 06:21:36 PM

bugontherug: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: So if a mother stays home to take care of her own children, that shouldn't be considered "work" for welfare purposes, but if she goes and takes care of a rich woman's children it should be?

yep. Pretty straightforward, no?

And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support. Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

It is astounding the contortions of reason righties will subject themselves to to defend this man who has no soul.

Oh wait. That's just Skullkrusher. NM.

no contortions necessary to point out the obvious. Pointing out the stupid isn't a defense of the stupid either. As you were though.

skullkrusher		2012-04-18 06:22:51 PM

bugontherug: skullkrusher: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Last week motherhood was the most valuable job in the world and one of the hardest. Going by today's comments it's 'work' in the same way drinking, stamp collecting or gardening is 'work'.

Should clear it up for anyone deluded enough to think last weeks outrage was anything other than manufactured controversy.

last week's outrage was manufactured. I don't think many could honestly disagree. Raising your kids is an extremely important thing to do and it can oftentimes be rather difficult. Doesn't make it a job in the sense we're talking about here though.

It's a good thing the public policy question is secondary to the moral question of which political party/presidential candidate values the work mothers do. Mitt Romney does not. The Republicans do not. President Obama and the Democrats do.

I don't know that I'd say Republicans don't value the work mothers do. In fact, many of them think that the only work a women should do is mothering.

bugontherug		2012-04-18 06:23:02 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

looks like you just made this part up.

Yeah. He just made that up. Right wing stereotypes of welfare mothers are really meant to honor them, not castigate them.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-18 06:23:09 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

it's work as in it is often a difficult task to do. Putting up a fence in your backyard is hard work too. I don't think anyone would call that a job though.

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support.

insomuch as having a job is praiseworthy and worthy of support, sure, caring for someone's children as an occupation is good.

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

looks like you just made this part up.

Yeah, the phrase "lazy welfare queen" has certainly never been heard before, has it?

skullkrusher		2012-04-18 06:23:45 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

it's work as in it is often a difficult task to do. Putting up a fence in your backyard is hard work too. I don't think anyone would call that a job though.

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support.

insomuch as having a job is praiseworthy and worthy of support, sure, caring for someone's children as an occupation is good.

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

looks like you just made this part up.

Yeah, the phrase "lazy welfare queen" has certainly never been heard before, has it?

not by me which makes it odd you'd bring that sort of thing up in response to me

WhyteRaven74		2012-04-18 06:23:47 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So if a mother stays home to take care of her own children, that shouldn't be considered "work" for welfare purposes, but if she goes and takes care of a rich woman's children it should be?

And if the stay at home mom ends up disabled, you can just blame her for being a stay at home mom and not having enough credits to qualify for SSDI and her family being up the creek because she can only get SSI. Maybe.

spiderpaz		2012-04-18 06:25:44 PM

MyRandomName: Please read the original comments. Rosen used the word work. Ann used the word work.

So would you say that Romney's position is that motherhood isn't a real job, but it is work - like gardening, or exercise?

skullkrusher		2012-04-18 06:26:02 PM

bugontherug: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

looks like you just made this part up.

Yeah. He just made that up. Right wing stereotypes of welfare mothers are really meant to honor them, not castigate them.

Do people actually say that poor people taking care of their kids is a bad thing? If anything the argument seems to be that they often don't do that and should.

No doubt that many a conservative has talked about the laziness of people on welfare but I have never heard using the fact that they care for their kids as evidence of that or that they should be castigated for it.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-04-18 06:28:54 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

it's work as in it is often a difficult task to do. Putting up a fence in your backyard is hard work too. I don't think anyone would call that a job though.

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support.

insomuch as having a job is praiseworthy and worthy of support, sure, caring for someone's children as an occupation is good.

Philip Francis Queeg: Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

looks like you just made this part up.

Yeah, the phrase "lazy welfare queen" has certainly never been heard before, has it?

not by me which makes it odd you'd bring that sort of thing up in response to me

I forgot that you are the entirety of the universe, and that how you personally define work is the ultimate measure.

Tell us Skull, is raising your child not worthy of praise and support because you don't get paid for it? Is it just and occasional chore like putting up a fence? It's not your occupation, so it's really just sort of an intense hobby, right?

bugontherug		2012-04-18 06:30:34 PM

skullkrusher: bugontherug: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: So if a mother stays home to take care of her own children, that shouldn't be considered "work" for welfare purposes, but if she goes and takes care of a rich woman's children it should be?

yep. Pretty straightforward, no?

And if the rich woman takes care of her own kids that's considered work too.

Taking care of rich kids is a valuable contribution to to society worthy of praise and support. Taking care of poor kids is just a symptom of laziness and sloth to be castigated and actively discouraged.

It is astounding the contortions of reason righties will subject themselves to to defend this man who has no soul.

Oh wait. That's just Skullkrusher. NM.

no contortions necessary to point out the obvious. Pointing out the stupid isn't a defense of the stupid either. As you were though.

You're missing the most basic point in this discussion:

The Romney's, the Republicans, and the corporate media spent all last week making hay out of a pundit's remark that "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life." They did so by characterizing her remark as an assault on motherhood.

In fact, Mitt Romney said just as clearly as the pundit did that mothers don't work. Ethically, morally, rhetorically, Mitt Romney deserves all the condemnation he and the right heaped on Hilary Rosen last week.

Of course, the stupidity in this dialogue is that both the pundit and Romney were using "work" to refer to "work for pay." I knew that's what Hilary Rosen meant when this whole thing blew up. Now, it seems, the right has suddenly figured out this ambiguity in our language the moment it became necessary to use it to excuse Romney for saying the same thing Hilary Rosen said.

Romney and the right set the precedent last week. People who defend Mitt on this are inexcusable hypocrites. Mitt Romney either hates moms, or is a slanderer. Your call.

Displayed 50 of 572 comments