The War on Moms

[deacon blues]

The Dems have tried to build a case that the GOP is waging a war on women. Then Miss Rosen comes out last week busting on Ann Romney for being a stay at home mom. Then the POTUS responds decrying the words of Rosen. It looks like the whole "war on women" strategy has crashed and burned and the Dems are on the defensive about their "war on moms".

What say ye?

[Dedicated Mind]

stay at home moms have real jobs but women with children that are on welfare need to get jobs. standard republican hypocrisy.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

stay at home moms have real jobs but women with children that are on welfare need to get jobs. standard republican hypocrisy.

Why?

[canam]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Why?

because its a help not a career choice,no more free rides.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

stay at home moms have real jobs but women with children that are on welfare need to get jobs. standard republican hypocrisy.

Do you think most stay at home mom's are supported by the state or by thier husband?

[deafdriscoll]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

stay at home moms have real jobs but women with children that are on welfare need to get jobs. standard republican hypocrisy.

history shows that a democrate prez introduced welfare.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

stay at home moms have real jobs but women with children that are on welfare need to get jobs. standard republican hypocrisy.

While I'm sure that there are a lot of women who abuse the system, I'm fine with my tax dollars helping out single mothers who have small children who need care. In most cases, children are better off with a parent taking care of them. They don't need to be dumped on strangers' laps. The leaky faucet in federal spending isn't going to be fixed by cutting single women off from their benefits. It should be limited and monitored, but it shouldn't be cut. A better answer would be to make sure they don't have a "baby daddy" in the house who they aren't married to so they aren't getting welfare that's really a recreational/luxury fund instead of something they actually NEED.

I know a couple who has been living together for YEARS because if they get married they will lose their benefits. That's idiotic. There should be a household income limit for qualifying for benefits and it shouldn't matter if the couple is married or not. People shouldn't be punished for getting married. If their shared household income fits into the income bracket for that amount of dependents, then let them keep their benefits. The simple act of getting married shouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not they receive benefits.

Where I stray from some of the conservatives (I guess) is that I don't MIND my tax dollars going to help people who truly need help. I'm just sick of the government taking my tax dollars and putting them in pet projects instead of where they should be going. I have no bone to pick with single mothers or anyone who is poor enough to need housing or assistance with groceries.

Let's not hate on single Mothers who need government assistance; let's push for doing away with earmarks and other obvious money-sieves.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

While I'm sure that there are a lot of women who abuse the system, I'm fine with my tax dollars helping out single mothers who have small children who need care. In most cases, children are better off with a parent taking care of them. They don't need to be dumped on strangers' laps. The leaky faucet in federal spending isn't going to be fixed by cutting single women off from their benefits. It should be limited and monitored, but it shouldn't be cut. A better answer would be to make sure they don't have a "baby daddy" in the house who they aren't married to so they aren't getting welfare that's really a recreational/luxury fund instead of something they actually NEED.

I know a couple who has been living together for YEARS because if they get married they will lose their benefits. That's idiotic. There should be a household income limit for qualifying for benefits and it shouldn't matter if the couple is married or not. People shouldn't be punished for getting married. If their shared household income fits into the income bracket for that amount of dependents, then let them keep their benefits. The simple act of getting married shouldn't be a determining factor in whether or not they receive benefits.

Where I stray from some of the conservatives (I guess) is that I don't MIND my tax dollars going to help people who truly need help. I'm just sick of the government taking my tax dollars and putting them in pet projects instead of where they should be going. I have no bone to pick with single mothers or anyone who is poor enough to need housing or assistance with groceries.

Let's not hate on single Mothers who need government assistance; let's push for doing away with earmarks and other obvious money-sieves.

I'm with you, Bratti. So many men are leaving their responsibility walking away from fatherhood. It's difficult for women to work and juggle a child or children. And, yes, she holds some culpability as well, but mistakes are going to happen and when single women are left holding the bag, they need our help.

We have a huge moral crises in this country, which breeds lawlessness. It puts the country on a downward spiral. It's a huge mess with so many problems, right and wrong solutions - it makes my head spin.

Being we are such a politically correct nation, which is killing us, our only solution is God and we aren't always allowed to mention that.

[bbyrd009]

I just recently saw the value of a stay-home mom at like $127k. Prolly Yahoo homepage, 4/13/12.

[Pressing-On]

The Romney camp jumped on that deal in a matter of minutes. As an opportunist he saw he could pull out a narrative to garner sympathy toward himself, using his wife, because he doesn't have the women's vote.

You can be fooled by that, but I am not. The Democrats knew they needed to do damage control because Ann is more likeable than her husband and they couldn't afford to weigh in on this.

It was a clever maneuver, I will give him that. But, since he doesn't mind lying about his fellow candidates, I'm sure anything is kosher for Romney.

Rosen was correct, Ann has no clue what it feels like to struggle economically. She wasn't talking about her children or her motherhood. The right media grabbed the opportunity as well, because it works regardless of substance.