Mitt Romney: Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits

Mods, I'm not sure if this is the proper forum for this or not, apologies if this belongs elsewhere. I also didn't see this in search results, so again, apologies if it's already been posted.

Mitt Romney: Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside Home Or Lose Benefits

Poor women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life."

"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.'"

Source: HuffPo


After reading this, the first thing that came to my mind was the question of where all of that extra money to put kids into daycare while ol' Mitt makes mom go to work was going to come from. Who's taxes would get raised to pay for it? What kind of guarantees is he offering to mothers to ensure that they wouldn't get fired for missing a day of work to keep a sick child home? What kind of guarantees is he offering to make sure there is ample daycare available in all areas?
I understand wanting to make sure no one can live off the system permanently like the fabled Welfare Queen, but he used such broad terminology that it seems like welfare & TANF aren't the only things he meant. Does he mean to include HUD housing? I was under the impression to live in government housing, one needed to stay below a certain income threshold, is Mitt wanting to alter the rules a little? Does he mean to include Medicaid? Food assistance?

I never saw a mention of stay-at-home-dads, either. They do exist, despite beliefs otherwise. He specifically said "mothers". It makes me wonder if he considered stay-at-home-fathers or not, or if his "idea" is directed solely towards mothers.
Religiously speaking, I'm wondering that if this is a poor fundie family, does this still apply if the belief is that mom belongs at home & only at home?
Which lead me to another thought--what about the poorer stay-at-home parents who homeschool? I know many homeschooling households, and the poorer of them opted for teaching their kids themselves instead of shoving them off to the public school system, and therefore, lacking the extra income, do utilize sporadic help with a large summer electric bill, or enormous winter heating bill. I can't fault them there, with the country's school system being in shambles, academics need to be the best possible quality. If mom or dad can do it better, at the cost of their extra income, more power to them. At least those kids might have the education needed to have a decent chance as adults.

Should everyone poor be forced to experience the "dignity of work" (which was a poor choice of words if you ask me) no matter the circumstances? Is it better to have a poor household with dedicated a SAH parent, or is it better to have latchkey kids in the hands of the government daycares, while the former SAH parent earns a buck?

The other side of the coin is there are many parents who chose not to go to work and live off the system until their kids are 16 and beyond. There are many people who will not work, dont want to work meanwhile they enjoy alcohol and drugs. The majority of big cities is comprised of welfare collectors.

I have a better idea. Why don't we just crack down on all the deadbeat dads out there? That'll save the government all kinds of aid money.

Also, the reason that they're given these benefits is because they have kids that would starve, be on the streets, or be in the foster system (a MUCH more expensive option that letting mom have benefits).

So, basically, if mom can't find a job or happens to get fired for taking too many days to take care of her sick kid that she's raising by herself, this guy wants to do something that, ultimately, punishes the children more than anybody.

Furthermore, it would ultimately cost us much more money in terms of daycare than just giving these people their low income housing and few hundred dollars a month in foodstamps.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
I have a better idea. Why don't we just crack down on all the deadbeat dads out there? That'll save the government all kinds of aid money.

How about the woman who dumped the father for some other guy and she got caught. Calls the cops, goes to court, father loses all rights and must pay for children he cant see and and for the wife that will not work, drinks and smokes.

Too many moms, no education or will to work raising children who fill the streets and cost society much more.

If this guys believe he has a chance at winning the presidency, he really needs to get better public speaking skills. I feel as if so many of the article I read involving Romney quotes are worded badly.

The basic principle behind the idea I like.

Moving welfare recipients into work was one of the basic principles of the bipartisan welfare reform legislation that President Clinton signed into law. The sad fact is that under President Obama the poverty rate among women rose to 14.5 percent in 2011, the highest rate in 17 years. The Obama administration's economic policies have been devastating to women and families

Helping people get jobs to get off welfare and watching their kids is a great idea.

My big problems:
-Where is this money coming from?
-Is increasing latchkey kids good for the children?
-Mitt said mothers, what about fathers? It was in defense of his wife, but he should have said parents.
-Also, the 'dignity of work'? Do those who stay at home not have dignity?

All about the wording when trying to get people to agree with you, IMO.

Sorry, there is already an eight page thread about this!

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
I have a better idea. Why don't we just crack down on all the deadbeat dads out there? That'll save the government all kinds of aid money.

Also, the reason that they're given these benefits is because they have kids that would starve, be on the streets, or be in the foster system (a MUCH more expensive option that letting mom have benefits).

So, basically, if mom can't find a job or happens to get fired for taking too many days to take care of her sick kid that she's raising by herself, this guy wants to do something that, ultimately, punishes the children more than anybody.

Furthermore, it would ultimately cost us much more money in terms of daycare than just giving these people their low income housing and few hundred dollars a month in foodstamps.

edit on 16-4-2012 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)

Because only around 10% of fathers that are divorced don't pay their support, and when you include all fathers overall, divorced or not, less than 1% of fathers are deadbeats. Sorry, I know the news makes a lot of noise of deadbeat dads, but the truth of it is, there just aren't that many out there. You're here on ATS. That means you should know by now the news doesn't tell you the whole truth right? Like one guy can knock up 5 to 10 women and make it look like a whole bunch of women aren't getting support, but in the end it's just one worthless dead beat. Overall most people aren't like that though.

Of the few dead beats that are out there the vast vast majority don't pay because they simply can't, not because they don't want to. Remember the economy is crap right now. No jobs. Not working on purpose is one thing, but you can't be mad at someone because you don't have any work for them to do. That's not their fault.

We already garnish their wages, take their tax returns, and put them in jail, which is just a form of debt prison and immoral.

If the guy and the mother are still together and the male gets laid off his job for a while should he go to jail and lose his tax return? Obviously the answer is no. So, how come it's okay when mom and dad are divorced? That makes NO sense. Especially since mommy may have a boyfriend with a third income to help out.

if the couple is seperated you're saying the guy has done something wrong and deserves to go to jail, but if they're still married it's okay daddy has no money? Are you insane? lol. Oh wait! That's how the system actually works! I forgot LOL.

So, exactly what would you do that we don't already do to go after these dead beat dads?

Also if you're a single father statistics show that the mom is actually more likely to not pay their support than the father would be. So, maybe it's not dead beat dads we need to worry about! Maybe it's dead beat moms!

Originally posted by Daughter2
Sorry, there is already an eight page thread about this!

Indeed there is, although I think it was 15 pages as of a few moments ago. It didn't show on the search because the title was worded a little differently.

Sorry everyone, I didn't mean to be a day late & a dollar short, but I am

reply to post by tinfoilman


Hello tfm.

I was reading through this thread and I came across your post. Some of what you stated hits very at home with me, so I would like to take a moment to share my actual real life situation. Not tryting to derail the thread.

We already garnish their wages, take their tax returns, and put them in jail, which is just a form of debt prison and immoral.

Seriously, I went to court for child support hearings and there was this guy in shakles with the black and white striped jailhouse suit, he was begging the judge to let him out. He told the judge they could have his next several checks( social security or something, I didn't really hear that part.).........The thing of it is he only owed $3,000.

Here is my situation.
I am 33 years old, I have three children and I have been with my girlfriend for 12 years. I have three kids total but I pay child support to the mother of one of the kids. I love my son and I always did what it took to get him every two weeks. His mother moved over 60 miles away. We had a falling out because of her crazyness, but anyways.

I am currently paying the mother of my first son the equivelent of a house payment a month. The damnest thing is that I am currently taking a longer path to "good pay" hoping it will pay off in the long run. I completed two years of welding technologies and I am currently a first year apprentice tinner.( one year will be up in june). My pay scale is approximately 16 something an hour. I am currently driving 100 miles each way to the jobsite.

The woman I pay child support to has a better income than my house hold. We get to struggle to pay the bills and make it by, barely, all while she gets to drive the newest vehicles(that I pay for) and have all five of her kids new computers, hell you name it they got it. I could keep going on but I am getting a little worked up.

The 20% laws is unreasonable and needs to be changed. I have no problem with helping to taking care of my son, but his mother has a husband of several years and they are better off than my family.

If the state wants to play social mediators of the family matters then they need to take in account of what the total income of the mother/father being payed the support. It is extremely slanted to the mothers "cause" and it really is not fair. I am currently trying to make a difference in my familys life, all the while I have this unfair financial disadvantge that somebody deems is fair.

Seriously my son is better off than my other two kids. Better off meaning financially.

To top it all off I have to pay the county 3 dollars a month just to hold my file in their cabinet. Good luck trying to contact them, but they have no problem contcting me

Anyways I should have made a rant thread

The child support system is all screwed up and I only have 8 more years to go.

Deadbeat dad They threatned me with taking my license away and possibly jail time for falling behind while I was in school.

I am just trying to do my best and I got a little late start at it. Gotta roll with the BS and hope that one day all of the crap pays off in the end. Other than that I feel like a complete slave to the system and there really is no way out except time

Just a little personal disclosure about my current not so deadbeat dad situation.

Have a nice night. I have to be up in 5 hours to drive 100 miles. I hope I get there by 7.

Sorry, I haven't had a little rant about my child support in a while. I feel better now.

reply to post by Nyiah


Here's the thing.

Rich bankers ( Mitt's Buddies) want both parents working, so they can pay you both less for more work.

Ever since they realized in WW2 that they could encourage mothers to work and convince them that they needed to somehow or be less than men, this whole mentality has been brought forth.

Romney is just another elitist tart, hell bent on helping his friends.

PS. His friends, are not you. Or your family.

~Tenth

reply to post by headorheart


well if it worked the money savings occur when they work there way off welfare.As they build there resume work diffrent jobs and eventually like the rest of us seek better jobs.They learn valuable skills along the way and instill a sense of pride in themselves as well. One of the problems of handing everything to someone without any effort on there part creates an attitude of you owe me.Its human nature we have to feel better about ourselves so we convince ourselves somehow im owed this.

Well the American people want their rights back along with the businesses the Government moved overseas and to Mexico. Will that happen Mitt Romney you corrupt politician scumbag?

Welfare isn`t the problem here it`s the Government running it without change to make it where there are jobs and roads in decent shape rather they seem to sell us out for their own gain over and over. I say give welfare recipients a job and start with replacing Congress with them would be a great start.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Nyiah

 

Here's the thing.

Rich bankers ( Mitt's Buddies) want both parents working, so they can pay you both less for more work.

Ever since they realized in WW2 that they could encourage mothers to work and convince them that they needed to somehow or be less than men, this whole mentality has been brought forth.

Romney is just another elitist tart, hell bent on helping his friends.

PS. His friends, are not you. Or your family.

~Tenth

Yeah right, concerning the two-income family...except for his own wife needing to hold down a "real" job herself? Who do these rich entitled jerks think they're kidding? That woman was all set for life when she snagged her Ken Doll. Please!

reply to post by tinfoilman


My understanding is that whether a deadbeat dad is pursued or not with any sort of reasonable gusto depends largely upon the leisure of the state. I know from experience with my sister and a few friends that you pretty much have to give them everything but the guy's blood sample to get the process done in any sort of reasonable time length.

As for deadbeat dads being that rare, I seriously doubt that's the case. I will freely admit that it's probably a minority, but probably more on the order fo 10 to 15% than 1 or 2%. However, considering how many kids there are on welfare in this country and the stats on single mothers, that's a lot of deadbeat dads and a lot of taxpayer money.

Also, you put a lot of words in my mouth. I actually think that putting a guy in jail over not paying child support is counter productive.

But, of course, people get totally up in arms when you talk about forcing men to take responsibility for anything. It's just the women that the government has the right to do that to.

I just love so called women's lib. It did so much for me!
It gives a woman a good enough education so she screws herself right out of disability should she need it.
It makes women wage slaves too!

Personally I have no desire to do anything but stay home and take care of my home and husband, animals and teen. I also take care of a lot of other folks' kids I notice, free of charge.

I don't appreciate the pressure that I must go and work. That's not freedom. I wanted the freedom to be a housewife.

It doesn't matter the income, there's all this PRESSURE that you should get out and work.
?
Work, what is it? I cook, can, tend a large garden, coupon like a mad woman, work a bit online. Geez. It's never work though unless 'you're workin' for the man.'

Wage slavery. You MUST particpate. That's what all this is saying to me.
I don't worry about welfare or anything much. All that money goes right back to the community- keeping the businesses open, the houses full, ect.

I worry a lot more about corporate welfare and wish everyone else would too.

BTW re: child support

One of the teens that I watch after and try to make sure he's fed is 16 and recently quit school after his dad could not pay child support.

He had this child, then married another woman, had 2 kids, divorced her, married the first. So this is his first child I'm talking about.

So he could not pay the 2nd woman, and he went to jail because my state is just a badword about these things it seems.

So this child's mom has some chronic pain condition and dad has always worked in housing and lost his job 2 years ago. The job market is poor here.

So poor child- the first day I met him he asked if we had any work maybe his dad or he could do. His grades started failing b/c he had to move, then all this crap, knowing his dad would be in jail if some money didn't come from somewhere and it didn't- the child loves his dad dearly. I met him- he seems like a good enough guy, just unemployed.

The mom's a mess. Pain pills addiction/chronic pain. Dunno all that story but she's one that needs help to make it herself.

He quit school and is working at Taco Bell. He's trying to take care of mom during the day- they are making it on her disability which isn't much, it's just a horrid MESS and putting the dad in jail has been the worst thing that could have happened for this child.

He's not that bright but he's so humble and he works so hard. Gentle giant type.

The most important JOB of any parent is supervision of their children..........whatever their age and at least up to age 16.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

My understanding is that whether a deadbeat dad is pursued or not with any sort of reasonable gusto depends largely upon the leisure of the state. I know from experience with my sister and a few friends that you pretty much have to give them everything but the guy's blood sample to get the process done in any sort of reasonable time length.

As for deadbeat dads being that rare, I seriously doubt that's the case. I will freely admit that it's probably a minority, but probably more on the order fo 10 to 15% than 1 or 2%. However, considering how many kids there are on welfare in this country and the stats on single mothers, that's a lot of deadbeat dads and a lot of taxpayer money.

Also, you put a lot of words in my mouth. I actually think that putting a guy in jail over not paying child support is counter productive.

But, of course, people get totally up in arms when you talk about forcing men to take responsibility for anything. It's just the women that the government has the right to do that to.

That's what I said it's 10 to 15% But if you include all fathers. Even fathers that are still with the mother. You then end up with less than like 1% of fathers being deadbeats.

That's the thing, many deadbeats have kids with multiple women. I know a guy that's had kids with 10 different women. It makes it look like there are WAY more deadbeats than there really is. If a deadbeat knocks up TEN women, then guess what? The statistics show TEN women not getting their child support check.

So, you think whoa, that's 10 deadbeats! But no, it's just ONE deadbeat that knocked up 10 women get it? It makes the problem look much worse than it is. But the vast majority of guys are good guys that aren't knocking up 10 women.

The point I was trying to make is they totally vilify men with this "deadbeat" stuff, but most men take care of their kids and are just fine and are good fathers. And they get every one enraged because of what like 1% of men are doing? 99% of fathers are there for their kids. That's just the way it is.

Women are actually 2% less likely to pay support. So, why isn't the news vilifying women instead?

Sorry the reason people are on welfare is because there's not enough jobs out there. There's more people than there are jobs. That's nobody's fault. You can't be mad at a person for not working unless you have work for them to do.

Also you say all these kids on welfare? That's something the media has put into your brain. You're being brainwashed.

If you take all the people that collect either welfare OR food stamps and COMBINE them, it's less than 10% of the population and the vast majority of people on food stamps or welfare get less than HALF of their income that way. More than 90% of people are not on welfare. And guess what? The unemployment rate is about what? Do the math.

Sorry, most people are good people. That's just the way it is. The news media just doesn't want you to know that. Happy news doesn't sell papers. If it bleeds it leads!