If this particular stay-at-home mom has an education in economics then I retract my statement.
Don't get angry at the truth, deal with it.
Bald technocratism, for the purpose of demeaning people you don't know, is the most absurd of stances.
Don't get defensive at this truth, deal with it.
I'm simply pointing out that it's perfectly fair that she be called out for never having worked a day in her life. And the outrage is completely unjustified, because it's true.
If the truth is demeaning, too bad, it's still the truth.
As for the thing about economics, this isn't an Ann Romney problem, it is a problem with democracy in general. Most people don't know a damn thing about economics and the less they know, the louder they shout.
Economics is subject to the hyper-Dunning-Kruger effect. And this is a major problem.
It's only "true" if you accept misogynistic assumptions. Some people dislike misogyny, and reject those assumptions.
On April 14 2012 01:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Funny, the opinion of 99 out of 100 economists or people who had studied economics pre-2008 was utterly wrong, I guess when it comes down to it your technocratism is nothing but a cover to dismiss anything you disagree with or to demean someone you disapprove of. Are we supposed to base our standard of authority simply on credentials, or results? You seem to prefer credentials, the real world doesn't work that way but it sounds good on the internet!
Better than taking "economic advice" from uneducated ignoramuses.
Never worked by your narrow, self-serving, nonsensical definition of work. Which economist are you relying on for your definition, by the way? Show us this authoritative economist or student of economics who has determined that raising children doesn't really matter economically. Here I'd thought that the manner of raising a child was very consequential in his or her future potential to contribute to the economy.
I never said anything about raising children having no economic value.
I'm only saying that it is true that she has never worked a day in her life. And when this was first said, it was clear that the definition meant was conventional and legal employment.
If this particular stay-at-home mom has an education in economics then I retract my statement.
Don't get angry at the truth, deal with it.
Bald technocratism, for the purpose of demeaning people you don't know, is the most absurd of stances.
Don't get defensive at this truth, deal with it.
I'm simply pointing out that it's perfectly fair that she be called out for never having worked a day in her life. And the outrage is completely unjustified, because it's true.
If the truth is demeaning, too bad, it's still the truth.
As for the thing about economics, this isn't an Ann Romney problem, it is a problem with democracy in general. Most people don't know a damn thing about economics and the less they know, the louder they shout.
Economics is subject to the hyper-Dunning-Kruger effect. And this is a major problem.
It's only "true" if you accept misogynistic assumptions. Some people dislike misogyny, and reject those assumptions.
It's not misogyny to say that she has never worked a day in her life, it's a fact that has not been disputed.
Furthermore, as I've already said, I'll retract my statement that her opinion (and the opinion of everyone else) on economic matters is worthless, if it can be shown that she (or whoever else) has an economics education, and therefore has a clue.
On April 14 2012 01:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Funny, the opinion of 99 out of 100 economists or people who had studied economics pre-2008 was utterly wrong, I guess when it comes down to it your technocratism is nothing but a cover to dismiss anything you disagree with or to demean someone you disapprove of. Are we supposed to base our standard of authority simply on credentials, or results? You seem to prefer credentials, the real world doesn't work that way but it sounds good on the internet!
Better than taking "economic advice" from uneducated ignoramuses.
Never worked by your narrow, self-serving, nonsensical definition of work. Which economist are you relying on for your definition, by the way? Show us this authoritative economist or student of economics who has determined that raising children doesn't really matter economically. Here I'd thought that the manner of raising a child was very consequential in his or her future potential to contribute to the economy.
I never said anything about raising children having no economic value.
I'm only saying that it is true that she has never worked a day in her life. And when this was first said, it was clear that the definition meant was conventional and legal employment.
I like the backtracking. It's pretty hilarious. No it was not clear that you were talking about conventional legal employment. If it was, people wouldn't have called you out on it.
It's obviously bullshit to call her out on not earning money when she has plenty. She could do ridiculous volunteer work for ten hours straight every day (maybe even doing economics crap) and still not "work a day in her life," by your idiotic definition.
On April 14 2012 01:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Funny, the opinion of 99 out of 100 economists or people who had studied economics pre-2008 was utterly wrong, I guess when it comes down to it your technocratism is nothing but a cover to dismiss anything you disagree with or to demean someone you disapprove of. Are we supposed to base our standard of authority simply on credentials, or results? You seem to prefer credentials, the real world doesn't work that way but it sounds good on the internet!
Better than taking "economic advice" from uneducated ignoramuses.
Never worked by your narrow, self-serving, nonsensical definition of work. Which economist are you relying on for your definition, by the way? Show us this authoritative economist or student of economics who has determined that raising children doesn't really matter economically. Here I'd thought that the manner of raising a child was very consequential in his or her future potential to contribute to the economy.
I never said anything about raising children having no economic value.
I'm only saying that it is true that she has never worked a day in her life. And when this was first said, it was clear that the definition meant was conventional and legal employment.
I like the backtracking. It's pretty hilarious. No it was not clear that you were talking about conventional legal employment. If it was, people wouldn't have called you out on it.
It's obviously bullshit to call her out on not earning money when she has plenty. She could do ridiculous volunteer work for ten hours straight every day (maybe even doing economics crap) and still not "work a day in her life," by your idiotic definition.
Drop it.
How am I backtracking? It's not my definition that matters. I'm not the one who said that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. It was Hilary Rosen, so it's her definition that matters.
And since she said this to point out that Ann Romney's views of the economy are worthless because she has never worked a day in her life, it is obvious that she meant the legal definition of employment, as this is the only way the statement and its conclusion logically flows (in terms of rhetoric), and it makes the statement completely true.
Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life, and no one should be apologizing for telling the truth.
On April 14 2012 01:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Funny, the opinion of 99 out of 100 economists or people who had studied economics pre-2008 was utterly wrong, I guess when it comes down to it your technocratism is nothing but a cover to dismiss anything you disagree with or to demean someone you disapprove of. Are we supposed to base our standard of authority simply on credentials, or results? You seem to prefer credentials, the real world doesn't work that way but it sounds good on the internet!
Better than taking "economic advice" from uneducated ignoramuses.
Never worked by your narrow, self-serving, nonsensical definition of work. Which economist are you relying on for your definition, by the way? Show us this authoritative economist or student of economics who has determined that raising children doesn't really matter economically. Here I'd thought that the manner of raising a child was very consequential in his or her future potential to contribute to the economy.
I never said anything about raising children having no economic value.
I'm only saying that it is true that she has never worked a day in her life. And when this was first said, it was clear that the definition meant was conventional and legal employment.
I like the backtracking. It's pretty hilarious. No it was not clear that you were talking about conventional legal employment. If it was, people wouldn't have called you out on it.
It's obviously bullshit to call her out on not earning money when she has plenty. She could do ridiculous volunteer work for ten hours straight every day (maybe even doing economics crap) and still not "work a day in her life," by your idiotic definition.
Drop it.
How am I backtracking? It's not my definition that matters. I'm not the one who said that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. It was Hilary Rosen, so it's her definition that matters.
And since she said this to point out that Ann Romney's views of the economy are worthless because she has never worked a day in her life, it is obvious that she meant the legal definition of employment, as this is the only way the statement and its conclusion logically flows (in terms of rhetoric), and it makes the statement completely true.
Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life, and no one should be apologizing for telling the truth.
The naiveté. In politics, even true insults are not welcome discourse. Like the racists who keep spouting off that blacks are less educated than whites, and commit more crimes, and so on. Rosen made such a dumb comment that the President AND First Lady both had to denounce it. For someone dismissing Ann Romney for lacking expertise in the field of economics, she showed a startling lack of knowledge about her own profession.
At the same time, there are a whole lot of people that have worked 40+ hours a week of conventional legal employment for years that I would never want their opinions of the economy heeded. I mean have you ever listened to someone complaining about the economy? I'm not an expert but I'll admit that and acknowledge it's stuff out of my league.
I'm more facepalming because Romney thought saying his wife had insight on the economy was a good idea, assuming from a macro point of view since it is the presidency.
Yeah, that was just a bad way to put it. Anyone who doesn't jump to conclusions can understand what she meant, of course, but it just came off as insulting to stay at home moms to most people.
The difficult thing about politics is that politicians have to remember that most people are idiots. Hilary Rosen forgot, and she(and the Obama campaign) are going to have to pay the price. I'm not sure if they can afford to lose the advantage with women that they have over Romney.
"Sometime in the next six months, and prior to the election, Gov. Romney will file and release the 2011 return when there is sufficient information to provide an accurate return,"
This is mostly just a deliberate misinterpretation of what Rosen said in order to stir up drama. The point was obvious: Ann Romney lives in a position of priviledge. She "works" by staying home and taking care of her family, which is perfectly fine. But she is in fact completely out of touch with the position of most women. Because most women don't get to "choose" to stay home and take care of their family - they get to choose between putting food on the table and staying home and taking care of the kids. Ann Romney has no idea what it's like to be the average woman economically, because she's never had to make the choice between money and family time. She gets both.
On April 14 2012 12:00 shinosai wrote:The point was obvious: Ann Romney lives in a position of priviledge. She "works" by staying home and taking care of her family, which is perfectly fine. But she is in fact completely out of touch with the position of most women. Because most women don't get to "choose" to stay home and take care of their family - they get to choose between putting food on the table and staying home and taking care of the kids. Ann Romney has no idea what it's like to be the average woman economically, because she's never had to make the choice between money and family time. She gets both.
Who's running for President? If it was Ann, then perhaps it would be relevant, as she would need to be in touch with the voters. But a lot of politicians come from a background of wealth - see Kerry for example. If you expect all politicians to have a background in hardship, then there would not be very many politicians. And experiencing hardship doesn't necessarily correlate to understanding how to manage an economy. My mother has worked all of her life as a carer for the disabled, but that doesn't mean she's qualified to be in a position of power.
Can We Get Real, Ann Romney? Your Life Is Not Like Ours. And Hilary Rosen? Neither Is Yours
By Susie Madrak
Long before she married Mitt Romney, Ann Davies had a pretty nice life. Her father, president of a manufacturing company, was the mayor of Bloomfield Hills, one of the five wealthiest cities in America. She went to a private school that had a fat endowment. So from the beginning, there was a certain difference between her life and ours — and she wasn't even married to Mittens yet.
But once they did marry, they had a baby while they were undergraduates. Unlike many of us, though, it's not likely they were living hand-to-mouth while her husband attended grad school. Now, taking care of a baby is no picnic, even with a nanny (or five) — but neither is it the same thing as getting up every morning, dropping your kid off at the babysitter's, and going to your job.
More to the point, I don't believe Ann Davies Romney understands what it's like to worry about keeping a roof over her family's heads. She's had her problems, including breast cancer and multiple sclerosis. But she has plenty of money to cushion that blow, and whether she understands it or not, it makes a huge difference. (I have a friend who's blown through her entire retirement fund and maxed out her credit cards to cover $30,000 a month in chemo for her brain tumor.)
Anyway, there was a big fake blowup yesterday when Hilary Rosen said Ann Romney's "actually never worked a day in her life." Republicans promptly clutched pearls and pulled out their smelling salts. "Why, I never!"
Rosen, from what I hear via a mutual friend, is a truly lovely person. (She certainly comes across that way on tee vee. And she's one of the better Democratic commentators.) But while that may be true, she's also worked for some organizations that just make my skin crawl. (Like the RIAA and BP oil.) She's made herself a nice bundle in the process — more than $1 million a year at RIAA.
So when Rosen is pointing out that Ann Romney's "never worked a day in her life," well, I'd like to point out that no matter what her roots, Hilary Rosen's work life and mothering experience isn't like most of ours, either. Like Ann Romney's, it's now comfortably cushioned by wealth and privilege. While her wealth and privilege was earned through her own hard work, it's still a life that's in an economic bubble.
There are some things I just wouldn't do. For instance, I wouldn't have single mothers indicted because their kid downloaded songs. And I wouldn't help an oil company cover up their ecological crimes. But whatever. We make the choices we can live with. I just want to point out that Hilary Rosen is hardly representative of economic suffering, either.
Just once, I'd like to see a Democratic spokesperson who is.
This whole fake controversy made me think about my idealistic friend M., who graduates from an Ivy League law school next month. Like Ann Romney, M. also has MS; she has four kids, two of them autistic - one of them, profoundly so. Her husband travels a lot for work and to assist his elderly parent, and as long as I've known them both, their finances are always close to going over the cliff. But somehow, she manages.
In the years before law school, she and her husband sold their house just ahead of foreclosure. With the proceeds, they bought a trailer and traveled around the U.S. (did I mention the part about the FOUR KIDS?) for more than four years, mostly staying in state parks. There were times when I tried to talk her into bagging it and settling down somewhere to get medical treatment. But, as she pointed out, they no longer had health insurance. And she really, really wanted to see the country with her kids "while I can still travel." Because the MS is always hovering.
I remember when she was taking a final exam and had an MS flareup. As a result, she couldn't even see to take the test. (And no, the school made no allowances for her illness.) She's had several flares during the school year, but as she says, "What are you gonna do?" She also had pneumonia and even pericarditis.
I'm proud of my friend and can't wait to see what she does next. But I think about how much easier her life would be if she had the advantages of an Ann Romney, or even a Hilary Rosen. (After all, once she graduates, she's no longer covered by the student health plan.)
My point being that one wealthy person criticizing a much wealthier person sounds a little crazy to the rest of us who are just struggling to stay afloat.
On April 14 2012 12:00 shinosai wrote:The point was obvious: Ann Romney lives in a position of priviledge. She "works" by staying home and taking care of her family, which is perfectly fine. But she is in fact completely out of touch with the position of most women. Because most women don't get to "choose" to stay home and take care of their family - they get to choose between putting food on the table and staying home and taking care of the kids. Ann Romney has no idea what it's like to be the average woman economically, because she's never had to make the choice between money and family time. She gets both.
Who's running for President? If it was Ann, then perhaps it would be relevant, as she would need to be in touch with the voters. But a lot of politicians come from a background of wealth - see Kerry for example. If you expect all politicians to have a background in hardship, then there would not be very many politicians. And experiencing hardship doesn't necessarily correlate to understanding how to manage an economy. My mother has worked all of her life as a carer for the disabled, but that doesn't mean she's qualified to be in a position of power.
I don't disagree. The point was only that Ann Romney doesn't know where most women come from and is probably not a good source of economic advice or someone who understands the problems of the average woman. I only bring this up because there seems to be some sort of implication that because Ann Romney is a woman, this somehow grants her great insight into women and economics. But this clearly isn't the case. This doesn't mean the reverse is the case either - that coming from a life of hardship somehow grants economic understanding. I never claimed that.
In any case, no, Ann isn't running for President. But the Presidential nominee does look to her for advice, apparently, so perhaps we should be paying attention to what sort of knowledge she possesses. Oh, who am I kidding, we all know this is just a ruse to get more women voters. We really shouldn't be paying any attention to Ann at all.
It's a common trick for the President to pretend that he's "one of the guys" and to become someone that you can relate to. Now he's just using his wife as someone that women of America can relate to.
On April 14 2012 12:00 shinosai wrote: This is mostly just a deliberate misinterpretation of what Rosen said in order to stir up drama. The point was obvious: Ann Romney lives in a position of priviledge. She "works" by staying home and taking care of her family, which is perfectly fine. But she is in fact completely out of touch with the position of most women. Because most women don't get to "choose" to stay home and take care of their family - they get to choose between putting food on the table and staying home and taking care of the kids. Ann Romney has no idea what it's like to be the average woman economically, because she's never had to make the choice between money and family time. She gets both.
She would not have said that about a liberal house wife like Mrs. carter for example. It was an obvious dig divisive and hateful. Also, FYI the greatest champions for the poor are the richest Americans such a FDR, the Kennedys, the Rockerfellers, the Buffets so the class argument of no understanding is bogus as well. Just say she's in favor of stripping women health care and leave it at that.
Edit I am voting first time for Obama and my mom is a working woman and thought it was dumb low blow too. As liberals we are supposed to be inclusive not divisive. Leave that to the party of no and hate.
On April 14 2012 12:00 shinosai wrote:The point was obvious: Ann Romney lives in a position of priviledge. She "works" by staying home and taking care of her family, which is perfectly fine. But she is in fact completely out of touch with the position of most women. Because most women don't get to "choose" to stay home and take care of their family - they get to choose between putting food on the table and staying home and taking care of the kids. Ann Romney has no idea what it's like to be the average woman economically, because she's never had to make the choice between money and family time. She gets both.
Who's running for President? If it was Ann, then perhaps it would be relevant, as she would need to be in touch with the voters. But a lot of politicians come from a background of wealth - see Kerry for example. If you expect all politicians to have a background in hardship, then there would not be very many politicians. And experiencing hardship doesn't necessarily correlate to understanding how to manage an economy. My mother has worked all of her life as a carer for the disabled, but that doesn't mean she's qualified to be in a position of power.
Can We Get Real, Ann Romney? Your Life Is Not Like Ours. And Hilary Rosen? Neither Is Yours
By Susie Madrak
Long before she married Mitt Romney, Ann Davies had a pretty nice life. Her father, president of a manufacturing company, was the mayor of Bloomfield Hills, one of the five wealthiest cities in America. She went to a private school that had a fat endowment. So from the beginning, there was a certain difference between her life and ours — and she wasn't even married to Mittens yet.
But once they did marry, they had a baby while they were undergraduates. Unlike many of us, though, it's not likely they were living hand-to-mouth while her husband attended grad school. Now, taking care of a baby is no picnic, even with a nanny (or five) — but neither is it the same thing as getting up every morning, dropping your kid off at the babysitter's, and going to your job.
More to the point, I don't believe Ann Davies Romney understands what it's like to worry about keeping a roof over her family's heads. She's had her problems, including breast cancer and multiple sclerosis. But she has plenty of money to cushion that blow, and whether she understands it or not, it makes a huge difference. (I have a friend who's blown through her entire retirement fund and maxed out her credit cards to cover $30,000 a month in chemo for her brain tumor.)
Anyway, there was a big fake blowup yesterday when Hilary Rosen said Ann Romney's "actually never worked a day in her life." Republicans promptly clutched pearls and pulled out their smelling salts. "Why, I never!"
Rosen, from what I hear via a mutual friend, is a truly lovely person. (She certainly comes across that way on tee vee. And she's one of the better Democratic commentators.) But while that may be true, she's also worked for some organizations that just make my skin crawl. (Like the RIAA and BP oil.) She's made herself a nice bundle in the process — more than $1 million a year at RIAA.
So when Rosen is pointing out that Ann Romney's "never worked a day in her life," well, I'd like to point out that no matter what her roots, Hilary Rosen's work life and mothering experience isn't like most of ours, either. Like Ann Romney's, it's now comfortably cushioned by wealth and privilege. While her wealth and privilege was earned through her own hard work, it's still a life that's in an economic bubble.
There are some things I just wouldn't do. For instance, I wouldn't have single mothers indicted because their kid downloaded songs. And I wouldn't help an oil company cover up their ecological crimes. But whatever. We make the choices we can live with. I just want to point out that Hilary Rosen is hardly representative of economic suffering, either.
Just once, I'd like to see a Democratic spokesperson who is.
This whole fake controversy made me think about my idealistic friend M., who graduates from an Ivy League law school next month. Like Ann Romney, M. also has MS; she has four kids, two of them autistic - one of them, profoundly so. Her husband travels a lot for work and to assist his elderly parent, and as long as I've known them both, their finances are always close to going over the cliff. But somehow, she manages.
In the years before law school, she and her husband sold their house just ahead of foreclosure. With the proceeds, they bought a trailer and traveled around the U.S. (did I mention the part about the FOUR KIDS?) for more than four years, mostly staying in state parks. There were times when I tried to talk her into bagging it and settling down somewhere to get medical treatment. But, as she pointed out, they no longer had health insurance. And she really, really wanted to see the country with her kids "while I can still travel." Because the MS is always hovering.
I remember when she was taking a final exam and had an MS flareup. As a result, she couldn't even see to take the test. (And no, the school made no allowances for her illness.) She's had several flares during the school year, but as she says, "What are you gonna do?" She also had pneumonia and even pericarditis.
I'm proud of my friend and can't wait to see what she does next. But I think about how much easier her life would be if she had the advantages of an Ann Romney, or even a Hilary Rosen. (After all, once she graduates, she's no longer covered by the student health plan.)
My point being that one wealthy person criticizing a much wealthier person sounds a little crazy to the rest of us who are just struggling to stay afloat.
On April 14 2012 10:24 Josealtron wrote: The difficult thing about politics is that politicians have to remember that most people are idiots. Hilary Rosen forgot, and she(and the Obama campaign) are going to have to pay the price. I'm not sure if they can afford to lose the advantage with women that they have over Romney.
Do you think anyone who wasn't already voting for Romney is going to hold the Obama campaign responsible and switch their vote based on that particular statement coming from a woman they had never heard of before, who isn't a part of the campaign team?
I can't see this getting half as much press if it hadn't a boring Friday for politics.
I guess we'll see how the polls trend in the next few weeks.
Santorum was in a tough spot anyway as far as the delegate count went. Almost impossible to overcome unless Romney did something astonomically stupid.
But Rick was facing the possibility of losing the Pennsylvania primary... down 5% or so in the polls. If Santorm has hopes of any national office down the road... Senate again or another Presidential run.... he could not lose Pennsylvania. That would have ended his future chances in 2016 and beyond.
And I'm taking Rand Paul (Ron's Son) in the Veepstakes.
Yeah losing PA would have been devestating to his political career it was a no brainer to dropout now. Rand Paul would be a good chocie he could certainly bring in some support of the independents which Romeny never appealed to.
he needs a female. and not the crazy bachmann or palin.
An evangelical woman would be best, preferably a Southern evangelical woman. Romney has major problems in all three of those demographics, which are all key. Good luck finding a viable VP who meets those requirements.
I know this whole Rand Paul thing has been floating around lately, even in mainstream print/television. I like to think that they just got some of the Ron Paul internet crazy sauce on them. It's sticky, so it could happen. Rand Paul would be a disasterous candidate. It seems people have forgotten all the bizarre stories that came out when he ran for senate. I assure you, there are more. And if you think Ron Paul was a little shady on race, just wait for Rand. Not so long ago, he was running around talking about eliminating the Civit Right's Act. Given the intense scrutiny VP candidates get, Rand would be a huge gamble at best. I think we all know how the last VP gamble went.
You should provide a link for your statement. Rand Paul has stated that he would not support any attempts to repeal the Civil Rights of 1964 and that he would march with Dr. Martin Luther King to end Jim Crow laws. He only opposes Title 2 which states that no public business can discriminate based on race, religion, or nation origin. It's extremely stupid of him to even think about opposing Title 2 but to exaggerate and say that he would repeal the whole Civil Rights Act is extremely stupid of you.
Way to keep it classy. I haven't been called "extremely stupid" in a while...
Luckily for you, being a dick doesn't mean you're wrong on the substance. Your correction/clarification is essentially right, if incomplete. That is his official stance, and there's no reason to think he lying. It's consistent with his (and his father's) libertarian/strict constructionalist ideology. I rushed that post before running out to meet a couple friends. I was late and should have been more careful.
I'd like to add that he also opposes title VII, which essentially extends Title II consumer protections to employees. Under Title VII, it's illegal to disctiminate against your employees on the basis of race, religion, or nationality. Together, these are the only 2 titles of the Civil Rights Act in which the government regulates businesses rather than state/local governments or courts.
I think the political consequences of Rand Paul's position are pretty obvious. Additionally, it demonstrates a disregard for established legal precedent that has stood unchallenged in over 40 years. That's almost the definition of an extreme view, and not something you want in a VP candidate.
Thanks for clearing that up. I apologize for calling you what I did...it was really low of me.
If this particular stay-at-home mom has an education in economics then I retract my statement.
Don't get angry at the truth, deal with it.
Bald technocratism, for the purpose of demeaning people you don't know, is the most absurd of stances.
Don't get defensive at this truth, deal with it.
I'm simply pointing out that it's perfectly fair that she be called out for never having worked a day in her life. And the outrage is completely unjustified, because it's true.
If the truth is demeaning, too bad, it's still the truth.
As for the thing about economics, this isn't an Ann Romney problem, it is a problem with democracy in general. Most people don't know a damn thing about economics and the less they know, the louder they shout.
Economics is subject to the hyper-Dunning-Kruger effect. And this is a major problem.
It's only "true" if you accept misogynistic assumptions. Some people dislike misogyny, and reject those assumptions.
It's not misogyny to say that she has never worked a day in her life, it's a fact that has not been disputed.
Furthermore, as I've already said, I'll retract my statement that her opinion (and the opinion of everyone else) on economic matters is worthless, if it can be shown that she (or whoever else) has an economics education, and therefore has a clue.
Actually, it is a lie. I am disputing it. Raising children is work. Certainly Ann Romney is quite privileged and has had it easier than most mothers, but then again, Mitt Romney is quite privileged as well, and has had it easier than most people at his job as well. Would you say it is a "fact" that Mitt Romney has never worked a day in his life?
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt Ann Romney is out of touch with the struggles of average Americans, and is in no real position to comment on the economy. But anyone who claims that homemakers don't work, that housework isn't part of the economy and doesn't count for anything, is just as if not more out of touch.
Everyone of the people we are allowed to vote for are privileged. All Harvard/Yale, private schools growing up etc. Even Mr. Obama. So making that argument they are out of touch as well and they don't ID with hardly anyone. I go to UNLV, I'd like to see a public school president let alone a tier 3 one. Will never happen. But anyway it's all crap. Doesnt matter where ppl come from what matters is whats in thier heart and policies thats why this was a cheap shot.
"Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF."
I guess it's only "noble and hard work" if you are rich enough to afford it?
"Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF."
I guess it's only "noble and hard work" if you are rich enough to afford it?
But... but... staying home to raise your children is work too.
EPT
