posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:38 PM
Don't you think it's odd that Romney is abdicating mothers to work instead of stay home with their children when his own wife was a stay at home
mom? I think there is an underlying message here that he is trying to present which is that poor single/married women should work, not understanding
the catch 22 of the situation. I remember when Oregon did a ditty in the paper about 15 years ago trying to get low income mothers to work. Only
thing is, the low income subsidies would have to be reimbursed out of their paychecks. So, let's break it down, a common scenario. Bob and Mary
get married right out of high school and had three children in four years. Bob has an affair and moves out with his no-good home wrecker. Starts
drinking and doing drugs. Starts working at the 7-Eleven as a part time clerk. Of course Mary is awarded child support in family court but it is
based on Bob's income. She get's a measly $150.00 a month child support. Now Mary thinks she should get a job. Her current situation is that her
apartment rent ($600.00/month) is paid by low income housing, she gets food stamps of $450.00/month and part of her utilities are subsidized. Medical
and Dental services for her and her children are provided by the state. She also receives a grant of $200.00 a month to cover utilities and extras.
Now why would she take the part time job at Starbucks when she would run in the red, have less food, no medical or dental? It's odd that Romney
would preach "get a job" when there are very few jobs around to obtain. Maybe he forgot to look at the unemployment levels.
p.s. Not everyone has a WILLING family member to move in with, especially in the US where families seem to be shrinking. Some have no external