fucktoyprincess
Posts: 2337
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
So Mitt Romney is on record as recently as January for saying that women on welfare need to get jobs, even if they have young children. More specifically, he said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare 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.’.
And Ann Romney is on record as saying, "My career choice was to be a mother, and I think all of us need to know that we need to respect the choices women make".
So choices are respected as long as the woman in question is wealthy? Is that what I'm supposed to glean from this?
WTF??????
I don't give a flying fuck about Romney, but you're pissed off because he said people on the dole should try to get off? That they should try to get jobs?
"Even if they have young children".
WTF??????
You want these folks to teach their children that living off the govt. tit is a good thing?????
Are you smoking crack?
And by the way....WT flying F! has her being wealthy have to do with a GAWDamn thing?
She's fucking rich.
She's BEYOND fucking rich.
So fucking what?
She raised 5 boys.
She was married to a rich motherfucker....she married well.
And?
I am concerned about the hypocrisy involved here. If he believes being a stay-at-home mother IS work then fine. His policies should reflect that. The fact that you do not understand this (something which, btw, is being discussed in the mainstream media - this exact topic) is surprising to me. And he did not say he wanted them to get off of welfare. NO. Please read the thread carefully. What he said was that they would have to work in order to be ELIGIBLE for WELFARE. In other words Romney would like to have the state PAY to send women with young children to work so that the women CAN COLLECT WELFARE. So our tax dollars are still being spent, but in a way that truly makes no sense. Romney's policy would NOT save us any money as taxpayers. IS THIS NOW CLEAR???
In addition, the fact that you have no concern for those who are in a disadvantaged situation speaks volumes about who you are as a person. A civilized society is one that takes care of those who are in need. I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread:
The food stamp program has been growing and those who receive cash welfare payments has actually been declining. With the state of the current economy, and its disproportionate impact on women, we have to grapple with the idea of how, as a society, we will assist those in need. The problem is not just going to go away by asking poor women to get jobs. Why not just tell all unemployed Americans to just "go get a job". Again, solving a society's problems requires hard thinking, and also some compassion. Being wealthy enough to stay at home to take care of 5 children - well that makes you a lucky person in the lottery of life. But someone from such privilege should acknowledge that circumstances are not always so lucky for everyone in life. Ann Romney should be talking about how lucky she has been in life instead of supporting the idea of sending poor women with small children to work outside the home. She is unable to even imagine ever needing public assistance. Millions of women lose their husbands income due to divorce, disability, death and have to fend for themselves with young, dependent children at home. I have said it before in these forums, and I will say it again. How a society treats its weakest members says a lot about how enlightened a society is. Forcing the already down trodden into even harsher situations is not anything a wealthy person should be proud about advocating.
< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 4/18/2012 6:37:57 AM >
_____________________________
~ ftp
|
RE: Ann and Mitt - what a team.... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread