PDA

View Full Version : This Should Make Ann Romney Feel MUCH Better



dadakarma
04-18-2012, 04:14 PM
Pete Stark Introduces Bill to Classify Child-Rearing as Work Under Welfare’s Work Requirement (http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/04/18/pete-stark-introduces-bill-to-classify-child-rearing-as-work-under-welfares-work-requirement/)

Pete Stark has introduced his bill (http://stark.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2394:press-release-stark-introduces-bill-to-recognize-low-income-mothers-care-for-their-young-children-as-work&catid=89:press-releases-2012&Itemid=500235) called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which would allow low-income mothers with children up to 3 years old to classify their child-rearing responsibilities as work, just the way Ann Romney did:


Current law does not count low-income stay-at-home parents who are raising young children as meeting the necessary Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirement. Current law also bans states from counting these individuals toward that state’s work participation rate, which can result in financial penalties if not met. This effectively bars low-income parents who choose to stay home to raise their young children from access to the financial support of TANF.

The WORK Act would amend TANF law to recognize the critical job of raising children age three or younger as work. Under the legislation, low-income parents could work, receive job training, search for work, or raise their children until they are school-aged without fear of losing TANF support and being pushed deeper into poverty. This is the same option that wealthy families, such as the Romneys, enjoy.


The WORK Act has the usual suspects as co-sponsors, including Progressive Caucus members John Lewis (D-GA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rosa DeLauro (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), and Laura Richardson (D-CA). But something that backs Republicans, and Mitt Romney, into a corner in this fashion should have far more than 12 co-sponsors. The entire point of the Ann Romney hissy fit was that raising kids equals work and ought to be respected. Nobody disagreed with that idea. All this bill would do would be to codify that principle into law, so that stay-at-home single moms can benefit from welfare in the early years of raising children.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/04/18/pete-stark-introduces-bill-to-classify-child-rearing-as-work-under-welfares-work-requirement/

dadakarma
04-18-2012, 09:13 PM
I was waiting for someone to push this issue!

Oh, those cute little Romneys. Always one step behind.

Awwwful QUIET on this thread. :roflmao:

Peter1469
04-18-2012, 09:14 PM
Hitler did something similar. He gave tax dollars to hot German chicks who bred new Germans. Brilliant move if you need more citizens. And no the unattractive women didn't get crap.

RollingWave
04-18-2012, 10:22 PM
Pete Stark Introduces Bill to Classify Child-Rearing as Work Under Welfare’s Work Requirement (http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/04/18/pete-stark-introduces-bill-to-classify-child-rearing-as-work-under-welfares-work-requirement/)

Pete Stark has introduced his bill (http://stark.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2394:press-release-stark-introduces-bill-to-recognize-low-income-mothers-care-for-their-young-children-as-work&catid=89:press-releases-2012&Itemid=500235) called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which would allow low-income mothers with children up to 3 years old to classify their child-rearing responsibilities as work, just the way Ann Romney did

I see oneeeee small problem here :grin:

Given that Pete Stark raised this bill, expect it to get totally shot down as socialism (though this one really is pretty much socialism)

Alias
04-19-2012, 08:00 AM
Pete Stark Introduces Bill to Classify Child-Rearing as Work Under Welfare’s Work Requirement (http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/04/18/pete-stark-introduces-bill-to-classify-child-rearing-as-work-under-welfares-work-requirement/)

Pete Stark has introduced his bill (http://stark.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2394:press-release-stark-introduces-bill-to-recognize-low-income-mothers-care-for-their-young-children-as-work&catid=89:press-releases-2012&Itemid=500235) called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which would allow low-income mothers with children up to 3 years old to classify their child-rearing responsibilities as work, just the way Ann Romney did:

Current law does not count low-income stay-at-home parents who are raising young children as meeting the necessary Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirement. Current law also bans states from counting these individuals toward that state’s work participation rate, which can result in financial penalties if not met. This effectively bars low-income parents who choose to stay home to raise their young children from access to the financial support of TANF.

The WORK Act would amend TANF law to recognize the critical job of raising children age three or younger as work. Under the legislation, low-income parents could work, receive job training, search for work, or raise their children until they are school-aged without fear of losing TANF support and being pushed deeper into poverty. This is the same option that wealthy families, such as the Romneys, enjoy.


The WORK Act has the usual suspects as co-sponsors, including Progressive Caucus members John Lewis (D-GA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rosa DeLauro (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), and Laura Richardson (D-CA). But something that backs Republicans, and Mitt Romney, into a corner in this fashion should have far more than 12 co-sponsors. The entire point of the Ann Romney hissy fit was that raising kids equals work and ought to be respected. Nobody disagreed with that idea. All this bill would do would be to codify that principle into law, so that stay-at-home single moms can benefit from welfare in the early years of raising children.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/04/18/pete-stark-introduces-bill-to-classify-child-rearing-as-work-under-welfares-work-requirement/

"re-classify". The left is good at that. Get the govt involved and classify some people to make a political statement. Smart people and don't you forget it.

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 08:25 AM
Hitler did something similar. He gave tax dollars to hot German chicks who bred new Germans. Brilliant move if you need more citizens. And no the unattractive women didn't get crap.

FLUKES OF THE WORLD - REJOICE!

(sorry, missed the "unattractive" part - she wouldn't qualify...)

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 08:57 AM
Pete Stark has introduced his bill (http://stark.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2394:press-release-stark-introduces-bill-to-recognize-low-income-mothers-care-for-their-young-children-as-work&catid=89:press-releases-2012&Itemid=500235) called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which would allow low-income mothers with children up to 3 years old to classify their child-rearing responsibilities as work, just the way Ann Romney did:

The WORK Act would amend TANF law to recognize the critical job of raising children age three or younger as work. Under the legislation, low-income parents could work, receive job training, search for work, or raise their children until they are school-aged without fear of losing TANF support and being pushed deeper into poverty. This is the same option that wealthy families, such as the Romneys, enjoy.


The WORK Act has the usual suspects as co-sponsors, including Progressive Caucus members John Lewis (D-GA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rosa DeLauro (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), and Laura Richardson (D-CA). But something that backs Republicans, and Mitt Romney, into a corner in this fashion should have far more than 12 co-sponsors. The entire point of the Ann Romney hissy fit was that raising kids equals work and ought to be respected. Nobody disagreed with that idea. All this bill would do would be to codify that principle into law, so that stay-at-home single moms can benefit from welfare in the early years of raising children.



Just a couple of things:
1.Ann Romney said raising children was work - no one with children disputes that. I don't recall her saying she should get paid for it.

2.Why does this "back Republicans, and Mitt Romney into a corner"?

3.Why are you calling Liberal Democrats "Progressives" - is there some stigma attached to the word "Liberal"?

4."Hissy fit"? That's a bit strong, don't you think? If she were the wife of a "progressive", I get the feeling you'd be high-fiving her and saying something along the lines of "sing it, sister!"

Here's the problem I see. While Ann Romney was fortunate enough to be able to stay home and raise her children, I don't think this should be an entitlement for everyone. There is daycare, there are programs and, quite frankly, I see too much of an opportunity to abuse the system. A simple fact of life is that some "can" and some "can't". I don't see it as the government's responsibility to ensure everyone "can".

annata
04-19-2012, 09:43 AM
young mothers can go on welfare for children up to 3 years old, that's toddler age. after 3, then they can go to daycare.
I have no problem with this, not everyone can go to work, or job train, those first couple years are important bonding time, and really, a mother of a 2 or 3 year old, can work if she wants to -but i'd allow her to just stay home. seems the compassionate, and worthwhile way to go.

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 10:31 AM
It has to do with Romney's attitude toward motherhood as 'work' when it applies to his wife (and her staff), as opposed to mothers who don't belong to the privileged class.

Double standard, as it were.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/15/romney-to-welfare-mothers-you-need-to-go-to-work/

There are double standards everywhere. Those who can, do. Those who can't, "make do". Some mothers will have to go to work. This si hardly what I'd consider "backing Romney inot a corner".

Alias
04-19-2012, 10:40 AM
It has to do with Romney's attitude toward motherhood as 'work' when it applies to his wife (and her staff), as opposed to mothers who don't belong to the privileged class.

Double standard, as it were.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/15/romney-to-welfare-mothers-you-need-to-go-to-work/

Do you think Michelle Obama and her husband belong to the "privileged class"?

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 10:46 AM
What you 'consider' is inconsequential in this matter.

The Romney's tried to make hay from a comment that a lobbyist made last week.

In doing so, they portrayed mothers as hard working individuals.

That doesn't mesh with his comments about welfare mothers.

This proposed legislation serves to illustrate the double standard.


I agree...double standards exist everywhere in politics.


This just takes back Ms. Romney's birthday present.

I beg to differ, since I was expressing my opinion, what I "consider" is, in fact, consequential.


Do you disagree witht he Romney's "making hay" with the democatic operative's statement?

Do you not consider raising children "work"?

Gardening is "work" too - should the government compensate those who have a nice garden?


Welfare mothers are in a bind - this is a given - but programs for them do exist. There is no need (in my opinion - just for clarification) for more programs, or to entice them to stay home.


The proposed legislation is just one more government program designed to cultivate a permanent underclass.

OFBUACMKA
04-19-2012, 12:47 PM
The Romneys used a quote to make a point. Had they used the concept that was being offered, they'd have to agree that Ms. Romney has lived a life of privilege, and can't possibly be a qualified 'consultant' on the issues that affect low income mothers.
Mitt offered her as an authority, and the lobbyist pointed out the glaring flaw.

Of course, you have to delve into the specific reason for Mitt addressing his wife, but that's another discussion.


If you want to play the soundbite game, then you'd better be sure your previous soundbites to the contrary, aren't going to bite you in the ass.


In today's political climate, we both know this legislation was meant to serve as a headline, and nothing more



Well played. The ball is now in the Romneys' court.

Was your response an answer to my questions?

I'm constantly amazed at how often the Romneys' "priviledged life" is brought into focus, especially when John Kerry, or rather his wife, was worth a fortune as well. Mitt was born to it, John married for it. lets not forget the Kennedy's net worth as well - even after the drugs, alcohol and defense lawyers.


I wasn't aware I was playing "The Sound Bite Game", but I'll keep your admonishment in mind, lest I get my ass bit.


Bottom line, there is already too much government intervention - we don't need more (my opinion, and therefore consequential). Further I'm less concerned with what Romney does with his money than I am with what Obama does with mine

Alias
04-19-2012, 04:15 PM
You've already forgotten your question? You wanted to know how Romney backed himself into a corner. Now you can re-read my posts, and see my response to your question.


Absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, but I will suggest that neither of the 'privileged' you mention above, wanted to cut off funding for low income programs.

Romney did. See the difference?
I just re-read my post. I was in a hurry this a.m.. I was referring to Romney playing the soundbite game. That of his wife being a hard worker, due to her raising the children. He must've forgotten that he suggested that low income mothers go out and enjoy the benefits of work.

Clear?



Nothing passes this Congress. You shouldn't lose any sleep over it.

The issue here, is Romney's double standard. One he'll have to answer for, if he keeps referring to a comment made by a lobbyist.

What in the world is Obama attacking Ann Romney through this dem operative for?

dadakarma
04-19-2012, 09:33 PM
What you 'consider' is inconsequential in this matter.

The Romney's tried to make hay from a comment that a lobbyist made last week.

In doing so, they portrayed mothers as hard working individuals.

That doesn't mesh with his comments about welfare mothers.

This proposed legislation serves to illustrate the double standard.


I agree...double standards exist everywhere in politics.


This just takes back Ms. Romney's birthday present.


It's not surprising that the blindly loyal are having a hard time seeing the irony here. :grin:

dadakarma
04-24-2012, 01:50 PM
:grin:



Romney alluded to the fact that not all women can stay at home saying, “I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.”

It seems Romney was trying to express empathy for women who don’t have the option to stay at home, as she did. But the comment that she “love[s]” that some women “don’t have a choice” and must work is unusual, to say the least, and could lead to a new round of charges that the Romneys don’t understand average Americans, given their enormous wealth.


http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/24/469896/ann-romney-women-work/

OFBUACMKA
04-24-2012, 02:01 PM
You've already forgotten your question? You wanted to know how Romney backed himself into a corner. Now you can re-read my posts, and see my response to your question..

You didn't answer my question. Not that I'm surprised.





Absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, but I will suggest that neither of the 'privileged' you mention above, wanted to cut off funding for low income programs..

Sorry, but I disagree. Romney is being taken to task by the left because he's wealthy. How dare anyone have un-redistributed wealth?




Romney did. See the difference?
I just re-read my post. I was in a hurry this a.m.. I was referring to Romney playing the soundbite game. That of his wife being a hard worker, due to her raising the children. He must've forgotten that he suggested that low income mothers go out and enjoy the benefits of work.

Clear?. So, you're saying that raising children isn't hard work. I don't recall him saying his wife needed to be compensated for it. I don't think the government should further compensate women because they have children - we already have welfare, AFDC, free daycare, job training, etc. It's enough, IMHO.






Nothing passes this Congress. You shouldn't lose any sleep over it..

Don't worry, I can barely stay awake long enough to finish my zzzzzzzzzzzzzz response to you.




The issue here, is Romney's double standard. One he'll have to answer for, if he keeps referring to a comment made by a lobbyist.

No, the ISSUE is that the left wants to spend everyone else's money. There are double standards everywhere. That's life.

OFBUACMKA
04-24-2012, 02:12 PM
:grin:



http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/24/469896/ann-romney-women-work/


(from ThinkProgress)

Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (http://americanprogressaction.org/). The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization. Through this blog, CAPAF seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies.


Founded in 2003 by John Podesta (http://thepoliticalforums.com/aboutus/staff/PodestaJohn.html) to provide long-term leadership and support to the progressive movement, CAP is headed by Neera Tanden (http://thepoliticalforums.com/aboutus/staff/TandenNeera.html) and based in Washington, D.C. CAP opened a Los Angeles office in 2007.


Prior to founding the Center in 2003, Podesta served as White House chief of staff to President William J. Clinton. He served in the president's cabinet and as a principal on the National Security Council. While in the White House, he also served as both an assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff, as well as staff secretary and a senior policy advisor on government information, privacy, telecommunications security, and regulatory policy.
Most recently, Podesta served as co-chair of President Obama’s transition, where he coordinated the priorities of the incoming administration’s agenda, oversaw the development of its policies, and spearheaded its appointments of major cabinet secretaries and political appointees.

Project PodestaProject Podesta (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=Project_Podesta&action=edit&redlink=1) is best described by the excellent research of Discover the Networks (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1626):
Podesta's most lasting contribution to the leftist cause came through his promotion of a strategy that White House aides dubbed "Project Podesta (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=Project_Podesta&action=edit&redlink=1)." This was a system that enabled the Clintons to push through unpopular policies that neither Congress nor the American people wanted. Its implementation marked a dramatic tilt in the balance of power, giving the executive branch an unprecedented ability to force its will on the legislative branch. Project Podesta (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=Project_Podesta&action=edit&redlink=1) enabled the President to bypass Congress through the use of executive orders, presidential decision directives, White-House-sponsored lawsuits, vacancy appointments to high federal office, selective regulatory actions against targeted corporations, and a host of other extra-constitutional tactics. In short, Podesta showed the Clintons that they could gain by force what they might fail to achieve through legislation. "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool," quipped White House aide Paul Begala (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/Paul_Begala) to The New York Times on July 5, 1998, in response to questions about the Clintons' growing disdain for the will of Congress. Project Podesta (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=Project_Podesta&action=edit&redlink=1)'s most ambitious exercise was the war on Yugoslavia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/Yugoslavia) which Clinton launched by executive order on April 13, 1999 (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/1999.html), in defiance of the U.S. Congress (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=U.S._Congress&action=edit&redlink=1) and the United Nations (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/United_Nations). When US News and World Report first revealed the existence of Project Podesta (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=Project_Podesta&action=edit&redlink=1) on November 1, 1999, two Congressional hearings convened to investigate the Clintons' abuse of executive power. But the investigators issued no reports and took no action. Regarding Podesta's war of attrition against tobacco firms and gun manufacturers, even Clinton's former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/Robert_Reich) warned fellow leftists in the January 17, 2000 issue of The American Prospect, "You might approve the outcomes in these two cases, but they establish a precedent for other cases you might find wildly unjust.… [T]hese lawsuits are blatant end-runs around the democratic process." Project Podesta (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=Project_Podesta&action=edit&redlink=1) reached its logical conclusion in Al Gore (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/Al_Gore)'s effort to litigate his way into the White House in 2000. During the infamous 36-day, post-election stand-off, Podesta worked behind the scenes with Gore's legal team even as the Clinton White House publicly declared its neutrality. Podesta bears personal responsibility for forcing the election into the U.S. Supreme Court (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=U.S._Supreme_Court&action=edit&redlink=1). Most of official Washington assumed that the election crisis would end on November 14, when Gore's recount deadline expired and Florida (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/Florida) Secretary of State Katherine Harris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/Katherine_Harris) would certify the winner. In order to reassure Americans that this would be the case, General Services Administration head David Barram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=David_Barram&action=edit&redlink=1) held a press conference on November 8, 2000, at which he announced that he was ready to release the $5.8 million in presidential transition funds and to open the transition offices to whichever candidate was certified the winner on November 14. Barram repeated this promise several times via radio and television interviews. However, on November 13 -- the day before the recount deadline -- John Podesta sent a memo to Barram ordering him to keep the transition offices locked and to withhold the presidential transition funds, thus giving Gore extra time to litigate. Bush won the Florida (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/Florida) recount, as expected. But the transition offices remained locked. Podesta's unprecedented act stunned official Washington and plunged America into a constitutional crisis. Four years later, when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php/John_Kerry) announced his plan to mobilize a legal team of more than 6,000 attorneys for the 2004 election, it was evident that Project Podesta (http://thepoliticalforums.com/index.php?title=Project_Podesta&action=edit&redlink=1) had changed U.S. politics forever.


Such a CREDIBLE source. One really has to wonder just WHO the blind one are.

Peter1469
04-24-2012, 03:51 PM
I still like this from Bush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8MzM-GV02Y

Hey look, it is the Rabid Fox, Overbit. Has he found another job yet?

dadakarma
04-24-2012, 03:53 PM
Practicin' love!

:roflmao:

Captain Obvious
04-24-2012, 05:56 PM
Maybe this would make Ann Romney feel much better.

133

Peter1469
04-24-2012, 06:04 PM
Practicin' love!

:roflmao:

You can't beat that!