Democrats Introduce Legislation to Give American Women the same Options at Ann Romney

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 6:09 PM GMT
    This is brilliant. Not only does it expose how out of touch the Romneys are with the majority of American women, it's also a simple, well-messaged idea that would benefit millions of American women and children.

    From DailyKosA handful of House Democrats, encouraged by the recent bipartisan agreement that stay-at-home moms should be considered just as hard working as anyone in the workforce, will introduce legislation to apply that standard to mothers on welfare as well.

    Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required "work activity" that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the federal program that emerged from the 1996 welfare reform. Some states make an exception for mothers with children less than a year old.

    The Woman's Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, a copy of which was provided to HuffPost in advance of its introduction, would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits.


    [url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/18/1084402/-Democrats-to-introduce-WORK-Act-to-give-all-mothers-the-same-choice-Ann-Romney-had?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29[/url]
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 18, 2012 6:17 PM GMT
    Ahhhhhh, yet another way the Democrats are trying to encourage a welfare state. icon_rolleyes.gif Let's see, how do you suppose they intend on paying for these added benefits? Lemme guess --- TAX THE RICH of course.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 6:24 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidAhhhhhh, yet another way the Democrats are trying to encourage a welfare state. icon_rolleyes.gif Let's see, how do you suppose they intend on paying for these added benefits? Lemme guess --- TAX THE RICH of course.


    So only the children of women who are married to wealthy men deserve to have their mother's home with them for their formative years?

    Or is being a mother not work deserving of remuneration?

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 18, 2012 6:41 PM GMT
    Christian73 said

    So only the children of women who are married to wealthy men deserve to have their mother's home with them for their formative years?

    Or is being a mother not work deserving of remuneration?



    If by "remuneration" you mean the Gov't basically paying mothers to have children -- No, absolutely not. The cold hard fact of life is that woman married to wealthy men do have it easier if for no other reason than finances. They also generally drive nicer cars, live in bigger houses, have domestic help, take more vacations, etc., etc., etc. I'm not saying that is fair...it's just reality. How many welfare mothers out there are continuing to have babies they cannot afford to feed? That's not fair either, but the Government has to pay for their irresponsibility and bad choices. I don't see how a bill that only encourages this behavior because they know they can stay home for 3 years and continue to receive benefits. All mom has to do is pop one out of the oven every 3 years and she buys herself more time on the Government gravy train. It's classic "Democrat encouraging a welfare state" policy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 6:53 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said

    So only the children of women who are married to wealthy men deserve to have their mother's home with them for their formative years?

    Or is being a mother not work deserving of remuneration?



    If by "remuneration" you mean the Gov't basically paying mothers to have children -- No, absolutely not. The cold hard fact of life is that woman married to wealthy men do have it easier if for no other reason than finances. They also generally drive nicer cars, live in bigger houses, have domestic help, take more vacations, etc., etc., etc. I'm not saying that is fair...it's just reality. How many welfare mothers out there are continuing to have babies they cannot afford to feed? That's not fair either, but the Government has to pay for their irresponsibility and bad choices. I don't see how a bill that only encourages this behavior because they know they can stay home for 3 years and continue to receive benefits. All mom has to do is pop one out of the oven every 3 years and she buys herself more time on the Government gravy train. It's classic "Democrat encouraging a welfare state" policy


    You're really misinformed if you think that there's some glut of women having children out of wedlock for welfare benefits. Do you know anyone on welfare? Or anyone who has ever been on welfare? I'm guessing you don't because if you think there's a "government gravy train" through TANF, you're delusional.

    But what you've made very clear is that you don't think raising children is "work", so let's have a minimum of outrage about anyone pointing out that Ann Romney is a privileged, out of touch whiner. Just like her husband. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 18, 2012 7:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    But what you've made very clear is that you don't think raising children is "work", so let's have a minimum of outrage about anyone pointing out that Ann Romney is a privileged, out of touch whiner. Just like her husband. icon_rolleyes.gif



    Nice try, Christian but, as you have been doing a lot of lately, MAJOR FAIL. Your logic and lame attempt at making a point here isn't going to fly -- not even a little. Anyone with a brain knows that raising kids is an enormous amount of work, not to mention extremely costly. Don't take MY word for it, look it up yourself as to the huge number of welfare mothers who are continuing to have children. I didn't say this was necessarily out of wedlock. Welfare families continue to have babies that the Government then has to pay for. This utterly ridiculous legislation you say the Dems are introducing only encourages that behavior, not to mention the fact that the Government would pay for it even longer. I'm not saying being a mom isn't hard work -- of course it is -- what I am saying is that if you can't afford to feed the kids you have, stop having more of them.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 18, 2012 7:29 PM GMT
    How fucked up is the GOP?

    This is nothing New
    When you're a Fetus .... The GOP gives you all the love and respect of a person ..... They just about send out armed guards

    BUT .... Once you're born? ..... BANG -ZOOM. You're on you're own
    You want education?
    What do you think we are made of money?
    A republican recession down-sizes your job ... Two jobs are better than one anyway
    ENRON inspired greediness scoffed up your retirement ..... McDonalds is hiring
    Can't afford your health insurance anymore? ...... Then just die already
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 7:29 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    But what you've made very clear is that you don't think raising children is "work", so let's have a minimum of outrage about anyone pointing out that Ann Romney is a privileged, out of touch whiner. Just like her husband. icon_rolleyes.gif



    Nice try, Christian but, as you have been doing a lot of lately, MAJOR FAIL. Your logic and lame attempt at making a point here isn't going to fly -- not even a little. Anyone with a brain knows that raising kids is an enormous amount of work, not to mention extremely costly. Don't take MY word for it, look it up yourself as to the huge number of welfare mothers who are continuing to have children. I didn't say this was necessarily out of wedlock. Welfare families continue to have babies that the Government then has to pay for. This utterly ridiculous legislation you say the Dems are introducing only encourages that behavior, not to mention the fact that the Government would pay for it even longer. I'm not saying being a mom isn't hard work -- of course it is -- what I am saying is that if you can't afford to feed the kids you have, stop having more of them.


    Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your point. This is just a redux of Reagan's welfare mothers in Cadillacs, which was bullshit then and is bullshit now.

    Todd, you support a party that doesn't want women to access abortion or even contraception, doesn't want to teach sex ed in schools, and then doesn't want to pay for the children that result from those policies.

    It's a ridiculous, hypocritical and unsustainable path.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 18, 2012 7:34 PM GMT
    Oh no Christian ... Let Him say it

    Because I'd Love for Romney to have the Balls .... To get up on stage an repeat those very same words when He Rationalizes stopping this legislation

    ..and as far as being a Welfare Stae goes?
    Didn't we JUST have another filibustered vote where the subsidies for OIL Companies are to remain on the books for now .... Subsidies that WE PAY FOR

    Don't worry about money going to some poor mother with a child out of wedlock

    Eorry about the billions being sucked up,by the most profitable companies the world has ever seen
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 18, 2012 8:11 PM GMT
    An interesting gesture. Which we know US Republicans must oppose.

    The Republican War on Women is part of their 2012 election strategy. But I do hope Democrats have the balls for once to confront Republicans on these social conservative issues that have been more important to them than economic recovery following the Bush Recession, including gay rights. And not be the wimps they have been in the past.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 18, 2012 11:56 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidAn interesting gesture. Which we know US Republicans must oppose.


    On this we agree