General Election 2012 Thread - page 130

by Tweety

66,286 Visits | 2842 Comments

It's horribly early, but I'm going there anyway.... Read More


  1. 0
    Quote from Jolie
    I believe that in this video, Romney is referring to women who are relying on government benefits to support themselves/children/family.Having spent 12 years as a SAHM, I agree wholeheartedly that SAHMs work very hard. But taxpayers, many of whom are working moms, ought not be paying to support others who choose to leave the workforce to raise children.
    Exactly. We ask our moms on discharge if they will have help at home. Many of the teens will say, "oh, my mom is quitting her job to help". And I want to say "well isn't that special?"
  2. 2
    Ted Nugent Stumps for Mitt Romney at NRA Convention: “Chop their heads off in November”

    …“If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

    … “If you can’t galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we’re done,”…

    … “We’ve got four Supreme Court justices who don’t believe in the Constitution. Does everyone here know that four of the Supreme Court justices not only determined you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms, four Supreme Court justices signed their name to a declaration that Americans have no fundamental right to self-defense.”…

    …”Evil anti-Americanjustices." ...

    … “Our president, Hillary Clinton, and attorney general, they are criminals.” …

    Ted Nugent Stumps for Mitt Romney at NRA Convention: "Chop their heads off in November" - YouTube
    It seems Governor Romney agrees with this. He never said his son mis-spoke
    “Ted Nugent endorsed my Dad today. Ted Nugent? How cool is that?! He joins Kid Rock as great Detroit musicians on team Mitt!” -- https://twitter.com/#!/tromney/statuses/175704301606420480
    efiebke and tewdles like this.
  3. 2
    If President Romney wants to make poor mothers get into the workplace rather than be a SAHM and is willing to create a child care incentive that allows them to actually afford daycare, how is that different than subsidizing the stay at home parenting? Other than by the obvious difference that the government is paying for a "nonfamily" caregiver rather than providing support for the mother to remain at home. SAHMs are not just better for upper middle class children, they are better for all children, in general I would think.
    efiebke and aknottedyarn like this.
  4. 1
    Good
    … The good news came as Romney's campaign offered a mild rebuke to right-wing rocker Ted Nugent's for his latest inflammatory rhetoric against President Barack Obama, seeking a middle ground between condoning divisive language and alienating conservatives who like Nugent's firebrand politics. …

    New poll, endorsements bolster Romney - CNN.com [QUOTE]
    Republican candidate Mitt Romney's campaign called for civility on Tuesday after aging rock star Ted Nugent made an apparent threat against President Barack Obama before an audience of U.S. gun lobbyists.


    Romney campaign backs away from Nugent's Obama remark | Reuters
    efiebke likes this.
  5. 2
    Uncle Ted has always been a bit of a loose cannon.
    efiebke and herring_RN like this.
  6. 8
    Quote from tewdles
    If President Romney wants to make poor mothers get into the workplace rather than be a SAHM and is willing to create a child care incentive that allows them to actually afford daycare, how is that different than subsidizing the stay at home parenting? Other than by the obvious difference that the government is paying for a "nonfamily" caregiver rather than providing support for the mother to remain at home. SAHMs are not just better for upper middle class children, they are better for all children, in general I would think.
    I won't attempt to speak for Romney. I don't know his beliefs on parenting or the financing thereof. But as a taxpayer, I find it offensive for parents of any socio-economic status to expect others to pay for the rearing of their children.

    Temporary support for families in need is one thing. Providing for mentally and physically challenged, elderly, frail, acutely or chronically ill individuals and their families is the duty of a civilized society. Providing non-emergency, long-term, on-going support for able bodied and able minded individuals who CHOOSE to leave the workforce to create and raise children is quite another. That is a matter of personal responsibility that belongs squarely on the shoulders of the parents who chose to have a family, not anyone or everyone else who had no say in the matter.

    Bill Clinton reformed welfare because he realized that a system of endless benefits encouraged life-long dependence, was counter-productive and harmful to the recipients, leading to multiple generations of families that had never held jobs. I don't say this very often, but he was right.
    azhiker96, aknottedyarn, leslie :-D, and 5 others like this.
  7. 3
    Quote from Jolie
    I won't attempt to speak for Romney. I don't know his beliefs on parenting or the financing thereof. But as a taxpayer, I find it offensive for parents of any socio-economic status to expect others to pay for the rearing of their children.

    Temporary support for families in need is one thing. Providing for mentally and physically challenged, elderly, frail, acutely or chronically ill individuals and their families is the duty of a civilized society. Providing non-emergency, long-term, on-going support for able bodied and able minded individuals who CHOOSE to leave the workforce to create and raise children is quite another. That is a matter of personal responsibility that belongs squarely on the shoulders of the parents who chose to have a family, not anyone or everyone else who had no say in the matter.

    Bill Clinton reformed welfare because he realized that a system of endless benefits encouraged life-long dependence, was counter-productive and harmful to the recipients, leading to multiple generations of families that had never held jobs. I don't say this very often, but he was right.
    I agree.
    aknottedyarn, iteachob, and Jolie like this.
  8. 2
    Quote from Jolie
    I won't attempt to speak for Romney. I don't know his beliefs on parenting or the financing thereof. But as a taxpayer, I find it offensive for parents of any socio-economic status to expect others to pay for the rearing of their children.

    Temporary support for families in need is one thing. Providing for mentally and physically challenged, elderly, frail, acutely or chronically ill individuals and their families is the duty of a civilized society. Providing non-emergency, long-term, on-going support for able bodied and able minded individuals who CHOOSE to leave the workforce to create and raise children is quite another. That is a matter of personal responsibility that belongs squarely on the shoulders of the parents who chose to have a family, not anyone or everyone else who had no say in the matter.

    Bill Clinton reformed welfare because he realized that a system of endless benefits encouraged life-long dependence, was counter-productive and harmful to the recipients, leading to multiple generations of families that had never held jobs. I don't say this very often, but he was right.

    I don't say this very often, but you're right.

    One of my coworkers was talking about a "friend" of hers that has five children on the dole and doesn't work and sits around smoking pot all day. My concern would be for the children, but she has no right to be supported by us. With parenting come the responsiblity....like the MJ song goes (and I think I've quoted him before)........"if you can't feed the baby, then don't have a baby" and I would ask "and don't add me to feed your baby".
    Last edit by Tweety on Apr 22, '12
    aknottedyarn and Spidey's mom like this.
  9. 0
    Quote from Tweety
    I don't say this very often, but you're right.

    One of my coworkers was talking about a "friend" of hers that has five children on the dole and doesn't work and sits around smoking pot all day. My concern would be for the children, but she has no right to be supported by us. With parenting come the responsiblity....like the MJ song goes (and I think I've quoted him before)........"if you can't feed the baby, then don't have a baby" and I would ask "and don't ask me to feed your baby".
    true.
    but how wilol the baby be fed?
  10. 4
    Quote from tewdles
    SAHMs are not just better for upper middle class children, they are better for all children, in general I would think.
    It's debatable whether or not SAHM's raise better children, but won't go there. However, it's curious that you leave out the middle class. That's because our choice nowadays to stay at home with our children has been wiped away. Why should the middle class workers work and struggle to support their kids with both parents working, to allow poor people to stay at home? I'm sorry for their plight, but some many luxuries aren't afforded to poor and middle class people, it's the way of the world.


    Quote from herring_RN
    true.
    but how wilol the baby be fed?
    That's always been a concern...the children. I'm not against providing food programs to the poor, but like us middle class workers that have to live paycheck to paycheck to feed, house and close our children, they should do the same and we shouldn't provide too much incentive from them to shuck their responsibility.
    iteachob, VivaLasViejas, azhiker96, and 1 other like this.


Top