The USA is not a socialist country. If you want to live in a socialist country then you should move to one. That's not hard to understand. Liberals "threaten" to move to Canada constantly but then they remember that it's cold.
The US is not a socialist country, but it is a democratic one. If you want to live in a socialist country then you should vote for politicians who will turn it into a socialist country.
That's funny because the US is also not a libertarian country so maybe hightop should move to one of those.
Idiotic statement is idiotic. Explain where you get socialism from in this? If you can't find a job then you should geeeeeet out.
I think a sizable number of right-wing Americans have become susceptible to thinking dichotomously. Socialism comes in many flavors with varying degrees of state control, yet anything that might be considered to the left of laissez-faire capitalism (maybe even anarcho-capitalism) will be denounced as 'socialism'. Probably due to lack of proper education, many within this group don't know America was a mixed economy throughout the 20th century (an era, especially from 1945 to 1975 which they look back fondly upon), and that as a result of liberals and conservatives working together to legislate based on what was good for America and not special interest groups, the US had a stronger middle class and economy. Strangely, Hightop isn't criticizing the increased government spending which Romeny proposes to pay for daycare in order for parents to work.
i like anne romney, but for some rich b**** to say she made a "choice" irks the hell out of me. one parent staying at home is a privaledge as much as it is a choice.
I hear what your saying and respect it, but don't over look the people that are not looking for jobs and do not want a job so they can stay on wellfare. And the people that make sure they only make a certain amount of money so they can stay on wellfare or other government programs.
Those people are so few in number that they're barely worth mentioning, and the only time people bring that tiny percentage of people up is when they're arguing against "entitlements."
Romney, who came from money, and his wife, who married Romney the multi-millionaire, have absolutely no business lecturing single parents about "the dignity of work." What an ass.
What is wrong with wanting to help pay for day care for welfare recipients in order to allow them to join the workforce rather than stay on welfare? Wouldn't most people agree that it is more dignified to work than it is to receive welfare (at least in most cases)?
There's nothing wrong with that. But Mitt Romney has no business using the phrase "the dignity of work."
Yes but religious people view it the opposite way, they believe that a woman in the workforce means the family NEEDS the money therefore the woman is leaving her preferred/natural role of stay-at-home-mom. In this sense, they don't see it as welfare, they believe that having enough money for the woman to stay home is a basic right. There are some women who use these religious beliefs to mask their real intentions: they want to stay home, establish some form of power and shop. What you will find with these specific people is that once they have enough money, they will hire people to do the housework and ironicallybecome.... managers of a bunch of people and tasks. Obviously, there are also women who genuinely believe that their role is stay at home caregiver. While I don't agree with them, at least they are genuine in their beliefs and in this day and age of corporations attacking childrens minds, they are actually doing a public service by keeping close to their kids. That is, as long as they don't turn kids into obedient robots. The reality is that women still make roughly .77 cents to the man's dollar in the most developed economies so capitalists will naturally want to keep their wives at home if they make enough money, and hire as many women as possible for their companies since it's cheaper. This contributes to the problem and widens the wage gap. My opinion is that it is all vanity. They don't want someone else's starving kids, they want their own kids which look like them and talk like them. Then they need more money and time, so who's going to stay home and who's going to work? Would Romney be able to raise a child alone? No, he doesn't have the time or knowledge. Would his wife? Probably yes. Obviously since society, institutions and parents are pounding their brains with gender roles since they're children, a lot of the time when they are ready to get married, the man is in fact more prepared to go out and work, and the woman is more prepared to raise children and "run" a house. Really sucks IMO and I'm glad it's all unravelling. Even in prehistoric-minded Dubai, I have heard people randomly critical of Romney and his wife's views. I think perhaps the Romneys of the world are mostly worried that women who don't believe what they believe would never vote for them, so they try to slow the exodus as much as possible.
I've never resorted to the class warfare card before, but it seems like you really do have a problem with him because he's rich. Is he incapable of knowing about the dignity of work because he was successful?
I think it depends. Ideally children have a stay at home mother and a father or other provider that makes enough to allow the mother to stay at home. However, in the case of welfare, often, if not virtually all cases, you are discussing broken, single parent households. Is it short sighted to have these women work and have their kids raised in day care? Further, having some one of such privilege discuss the "dignity" of work is hilarious, as he was born into wealth and had his wife stay at home, it is sad he did not extend her the same "dignity". Further, having a man that off the cuff talks of his father ending jobs, and his own business dealings ending literally thousands of jobs makes people skeptical. You add it all up and you have the huge bloated ball of puss that is Romey right now, a man that has handlers that openly admits he lied on issues and will change his opinions in the general election, a man that talks of the dignity of work, yet his own personal life doesn't fit the narrative, and a man out of touch with the life of most folks.... So no one should be surprised when people like BatmanJones or RocketRiver don't buy what he is selling.
No, he's incapable because he's never had to work. For him to lecture people that have trouble keeping their lights on or choosing between food and medicine is offensive.
I agree with Romney for the most part on this area. Romney's wife is in a situation where she can afford to stay at home because her husband can provide for her. If he leaves her, she gets child support the so the kids are taken car of, so the long term welfare of the kids are never in doubt. With the single mother on welfare, as a society, we need to break the welfare cycle. Only forcing that mother to work, will do that. Although it may cost more money upfront to just the give mother money to stay at home, it will be cheaper and beneficial for society in the long run to force her to work and pay for daycare.
He never had to work, yet he chose to do so. Also, with food programs and medicaid, nobody in the US has to choose between food and medicine. You are provided those for free if you are that poor.
