The Fake War on Women: Welfare Moms

It seems liberals have backtracked on their disdain for stay-at-home mothers, at least if those mothers are living on welfare. That’s because they’ve found a clip they think they can use of Mitt Romney saying mothers who can’t afford to stay home should go to work, even if it means the state pays for daycare.

Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. 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.

Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal “heartless,” but he argued that the women would be better off having “the dignity of work” — a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with.

This is the latest example of how liberals think women are stupid. Liberals don’t think women know there is a difference between living off the government to stay home and making an agreement with one’s spouse about staying home and raising the kids. The first case strips the adult of the dignity and responsibility that come with adulthood and having a family.

For liberals who don’t understand bigger concepts, I’ll put it in small words: you must support your children. If there are multiple breadwinners in a household, you should arrange for a parent to be home with the children, if possible. If it is not financially possible to do so, then you must go to work.

This is the basic premise of the Hilary Rosen/Ann Romney fight that liberals don’t want to understand. They think that staying home with the kids is a luxury that only multimillionaires can afford. But millions of families arrange their work to allow children to be raised by their parents. If you are a single parent, your choices are more limited: you must support your children. Even a liberal should be able to understand that.

32 Comments

  1. Welfare is what is ruining families. When that Lame Brained Jackass (LBJ) started the War on Poverty, it started a chain of events that produced more unwed mothers, and welfare mothers, the ultimate stay at home mom. And the kicker was the more babies, the more money. Sounds like an incentive plan. And it also produced the baby daddy dropping out of site.

  2. York, as bad as LBJ was in so many ways, he was adamant that individuals on government assistance programs, which he strongly favored, receive no cash payments.

    LBJ was willing to allow assistance in many indirect forms, but he argued that direct cash payments would lead inevitably to massive fraud and abuse.

    As subsequent events have proved, he was correct.

  3. Good point, ropelight!

    Sharon, you have a good message here, but do your viewpoint a disservice by politicizing it.

    I also think that Ann Romney was being a bit disingenuous in her remark about how difficult it was for her, a stay at home mom, to raise five boys. I don’t doubt her statement, but she showed no understanding of how much more difficult it is for middle income and the poor, whose incomes have sunk from the peak to where it was in 1966, according to a statement made on the UP with Chis Hayes show this morning.

    The Romney’s have this problem, where they cannot relate to the average American family, because they are not an average American family; its that simple. And it has been quite evident during the Republican primary campaign, if any of you are willing to be honest about it.

  4. And by the way, on the War on Women, I stand by my list:

    * Attacks on Planned Parenthood,

    * desire to cut funding for PP,

    * invasion of women’s privacy regarding requiring traditional ultra-sound and even some trans-vaginal invasions for every pregnancy,

    * fighting equal pay for equal work,

    * against women’s choice,

    * against provision of contraception,

    * Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke, Sonia Sotomayor and feminists,

    * reduce access to abortion services,

    * desire to cut Head Start,

    * trivializing war on women with “war on caterpillars”.

    Ask your wife or daughter(s) if they think there is a Republican initiated War on Women.

  5. Where in Ann Romney’s statement did she say anything that would prompt your response? She simply stated that she chose to stay home with her five sons and that it was hard work. There’s nothing in that statement that disparages anyone else’s choice or that she somehow thought her choice was the same as any other woman’s choice.

    The fact is, Ann Romney didn’t make this statement a political issue; Democrats, trying to regain the War on Women momentum, made Romney’s statement into a political one in an attempt to show that the Romneys are out of touch with regular American problems. In doing so, they show, yet again, how little these operatives and the people they serve have in common with ordinary Americans. They make far more than the average person, have jobs far different from most people, and do not in any way understand the lives of ordinary Americans. How do I know this? All their solutions involve the government deciding what a person should do: when and whether a person should work, how that person should spend his/her money, etc.

    President and Mrs. Obama made nearly a million dollars last year and have made far more than the average American for more than a decade. They chose for Michelle Obama to work, making $300k per year, because that was what they wanted to do with their time and money. But how on earth can anyone argue that Democrats understand average American problems based on reality? Because they want to give away more of Other People’s Money?

    This is precisely what I mean when I say Democrats think women are stupid. We are not.

  6. And I don’t need to ask someone else if there is a Republican War on Women. There isn’t. Why don’t you believe an actual woman when she speaks?

  7. Wagonwheel says:
    April 15, 2012 at 19:16

    And by the way, on the War on Women, I stand by my list:

    * Attacks on Planned Parenthood,

    * desire to cut funding for PP,

    * fighting equal pay for equal work,

    * against women’s choice,

    * against provision of contraception,

    * reduce access to abortion services,

    * desire to cut Head Start,

    * trivializing war on women with “war on caterpillars”.

    As I asked you before, and you decided not to answer, where in the Constitution does it say the Government is required to supply these things.

  8. ropelight says:
    April 15, 2012 at 17:55 (Edit)

    York, as bad as LBJ was in so many ways, he was adamant that individuals on government assistance programs, which he strongly favored, receive no cash payments.

    LBJ was willing to allow assistance in many indirect forms, but he argued that direct cash payments would lead inevitably to massive fraud and abuse.

    As subsequent events have proved, he was correct.

    Thanks, but I will say he set the ball rolling.

  9. York, on that we are agreed. LBJ’s unrealistic guns and butter policies led to not only a disastrous escalation of the War in Vietnam, but also to his miserably failed Great Society domestic program.

    In many significant ways the nation hasn’t yet recovered from the effects of LBJ’s Vietnam debacle, and his wildly bloated domestic spending entitlement programs have metastasized to the point our economy is teetering on the verge of collapse.

  10. Sharon asked Perry: Why don’t you believe an actual woman when she speaks?

    Perry wants you to check with your husband and get his permission before you presume to offer an opinion. But, don’t take that as an insult to your gender, Perry’s equally insufferable to men who refuse to kowtow to his omniscience. He thinks Dana ought to check with his wife and daughters before he differs with with the pompous jerk’s asinine pronouncements.

  11. ropelight says:
    April 15, 2012 at 20:44

    York, on that we are agreed. LBJ’s unrealistic guns and butter policies led to not only a disastrous escalation of the War in Vietnam, but also to his miserably failed Great Society domestic program.

    In many significant ways the nation hasn’t yet recovered from the effects of LBJ’s Vietnam debacle, and his wildly bloated domestic spending entitlement programs have metastasized to the point our economy is teetering on the verge of collapse.

    “guns and butter policies” was the best way it was put. Just when Kennedy had taxes under control, along comes LBJ with a huge social program, but had no way to pay for it. So, in some ways we got a smaller scale version of now, but with a military much larger than now.

    The one thing I remember was sitting in the living room of my parents’ house in 1968 and listening to LBJ on the radio, who by then was totally discredited by then saying he would not run for a second term. Then we got our crook.

  12. As I asked you before, and you decided not to answer, where in the Constitution does it say the Government is required to supply these things.

    This is request #2. And everytime I see the list or similar, I will ask again, and again, and again.

  13. “And I don’t need to ask someone else if there is a Republican War on Women. There isn’t. Why don’t you believe an actual woman when she speaks?”

    I truly believe that this is your opinion, but please, you cannot disagree with the polls. A 20 point spread is huge!

  14. It is amazing that women do not think and speak as a monolith. This must come as a complete surprise to you.

    And polls do not verify the truth of a claim. They simply reflect the opinions of the people polled. That low information individuals believe the victimhood line Democrats peddle doesn’t make it true.

  15. “As I asked you before, and you decided not to answer, where in the Constitution does it say the Government is required to supply these things.”

    You should know better than to ask that question, Yorkshire. In general, the Constitution is the basic guideline for our laws, and typically does not specify individual laws. For example, where in the Constitution is the Dred Scot decision, and then we have Brown v Board of Education, one denying citizenship to blacks, the other recognizing the equality under the law for all citizens, white, black, …?

  16. “Because, my dear, to our friends on the left, you can’t really be a woman; I thought that you knew that.”

    I’m sure you believe this, Mr Editor, so chalk up one more item on his truly weird list of preferences, like not wearing a seat belt, like being against social security but more than willing to take it, same with Medicare. Yet this same mixed up kid tells me that I should feel perfectly free to pay more taxes if I wish. No matter how hard you try, and you do try hard, you make little sense in terms of reality!

  17. “And polls do not verify the truth of a claim. They simply reflect the opinions of the people polled. That low information individuals believe the victimhood line Democrats peddle doesn’t make it true.”

    I agree with your first two sentences, Sharon. But with the third, now YOU are talking down to women who are expressing their dissatisfaction with the Republican Party’s War on Women. Obviously there are quite a number of women who perceive such a “war”. For you to pass this off as “low information” is incredulous, because you have not specified a foundation for such a statement.

  18. Most unemployable mentally challenged young women can be made useful by becoming welfare moms. They can clean house, do food shopping, and send the kids to school. Instead of hiding and munching in the basement, they can begin a new life in the bedroom, and gain the dignity of becoming a hard working welfare mom.

  19. Wagonwheel says:
    April 16, 2012 at 07:28

    “As I asked you before, and you decided not to answer, where in the Constitution does it say the Government is required to supply these things.”

    You should know better than to ask that question, Yorkshire. In general, the Constitution is the basic guideline for our laws, and typically does not specify individual laws. For example, where in the Constitution is the Dred Scot decision, and then we have Brown v Board of Education, one denying citizenship to blacks, the other recognizing the equality under the law for all citizens, white, black, …?

    We have your opinion on this matter. Your credentials?

  20. Wagonwheel says:
    April 16, 2012 at 07:28 (Edit)
    “As I asked you before, and you decided not to answer, where in the Constitution does it say the Government is required to supply these things.”

    You should know better than to ask that question, Yorkshire. In general, the Constitution is the basic guideline for our laws, and typically does not specify individual laws.

    Are you saying it’s a Living Document then?

  21. Yorkshire says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:04

    Wagonwheel says:
    April 16, 2012 at 07:28 (Edit)
    “As I asked you before, and you decided not to answer, where in the Constitution does it say the Government is required to supply these things.”

    You should know better than to ask that question, Yorkshire. In general, the Constitution is the basic guideline for our laws, and typically does not specify individual laws.
    =
    Are you saying it’s a Living Document then?”

    As two years of exchanging with him have amply demonstrated, he doesn’t know what he is saying, he’s just pushing back.

  22. SINP writes

    I truly believe that this is your opinion, but please, you cannot disagree with the polls. A 20 point spread is huge!

    Not as huge as the difference between those who favor voter ID laws, and those (like you) who do not.

    But that doesn’t matter to ideologues like SINP.

  23. He can’t debate what the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, actually says because he doesn’t know what the Constitution says and he doesn’t care what the Constitution says (the definition of ignorance and indifference). He, like all the other radical Leftists, has this crazy notion that his problem is one of finding the right way to tell it to the “rubes” so they’ll finally understand. When in fact, it is the Liberals who cannot understand Conservatives, while Conservatives do, indeed, understand Liberals — as recently verified.

  24. 73 percent of likely voters say Voter ID is not discriminatory. 64 percent of likely voters say voter fraud is a serious problem. 56 percent of likely voters oppose Eric “my people” Holder’s actions against Texas’ Voter ID law. A super-majority of Hispanics in Florida, Colorado, New Mexico declare Voter ID to not be discriminatory.

    As Perry said, “you cannot disagree with the polls.”

  25. I could run down a long list of DNC positions and junk the Democrats pushed in Congress over the past 4 years, showing how majorities and super-majorities of the US population oppose those positions, all positions that Perry supports…

    Wait, I’ve already done that several times! “You cannot disagree with the polls.”

  26. J

    ohn Hitchcock says:
    April 16, 2012 at 12:43

    He can’t debate what the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, actually says because he doesn’t know what the Constitution says and he doesn’t care what the Constitution says (the definition of ignorance and indifference). He, like all the other radical Leftists, has this crazy notion that his problem is one of finding the right way to tell it to the “rubes” so they’ll finally understand. When in fact, it is the Liberals who cannot understand Conservatives, while Conservatives do, indeed, understand Liberals — as recently verified.”

    The modern liberal’s challenge to himself is not to understand the world rightly, nor to enhance the realm of liberty, but to utter the particular words or to fashion the particular laws which will aid in keeping the gruel flowing through the public spigot around which they usually have their sucking lips firmly clamped.

  27. Have you looked into the American Jobs Act, for instance? There is a tangible proposal that’s actually designed to work, yet you seem to be totally unaware of it. How are you going to comment on these things in an informed way, if you don’t get informed?

    The basic problem we face here is that we’re living undernational economic policies based on a hoax: so-called “supply-side economics” is a term coined by a nasty little piece of work Wall Street journal editor, during the 1970′s, by the name of Jude Wanniski.

    Wanniski was the behind-the-scenes architect for Reagan’s economic and fiscal policies. Here’s one version of the story of the hoax: Here is what Bruce Bartlet has to say about this hoax.

    The trouble is that “supply-side economics” is counter-factual. It dismisses the role of demand in the economy as meaningless, and claims that focusing all attention on supply yields an ideal economy. We’ve just spent thirty years demonstrating that this is a false premise, yet Republicans cling to Wanniski’s hoax as if it were their religion, ignoring all proof of its falsity.

    Republican policies based on the “supply-side” hoax are the root cause of the depression among working Americans, as well as the glitter or our new Gilded Age. In times when such self-indulgent wealth and squalid poverty walk hand-in-hand, birth-control is the least symptom of our moral decay.

    If you want to find out just how wrong Wanniski/Reagan/Republican economic policies are, go back anf read “The Wealth of Nations,” and learn how Adam Smith designed his notion of capitalism around the ethical foundation of the Labor Theory of Value, and how it supports both the ethical and practical soundness of capitalism.

    When you’ve educated yourself a little on the problems the sideshow is trying to distract us from, you’ll probably have something of substance to say about that. Whining about the hype and the spins just doesn’t qualify.

  28. pwochlif wrote:

    Have you looked into the American Jobs Act, for instance? There is a tangible proposal that’s actually designed to work, yet you seem to be totally unaware of it.

    Well, yes, it’s “actually designed to work,” but so was the stimulus plan, that was going to hold unemployment down to a maximum of 8%. Perhaps some of us have rather little faith that any of these economic interventionist programs will work.

Comments are closed.