Now that we're all done apologizing to the Romneys for being poorer than they are and thus having to do both house work AND paid work to survive, the Ed Show has aptly brought up some proposed legislation that needs more attention: the Work Act. (That's an acronym for Women's Option to Raise Kids Act.) The legislation, recently proposed by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, would give the mothers of young children the option of receiving a government paycheck for staying home and raising their kids, which would have the effect of turning house work (a little of it anyway) into paid work. For poor, single mothers, this option would be invaluable! Surveys reveal that the paid work time versus home time balance is the most difficult part of life for the impoverished to juggle, and single mothers are, statistically speaking, the poorest people in America. The vast majority of single parents are mothers. The Work Act hardly levels the playing field. While rich women like Ann Romney have the option of being full-time moms for as long as necessary if they want (simply because they're rich), for poor, and especially poor single, mothers that is not a viable option. This legislation would render it viable for women to be full-time moms until their child turns four. After that, they would be required to re-enter the regular workforce. Thus poor mothers would not have the option of being full-time moms for the entire duration of their offspring's childhood like Ann Romney. Nevertheless, this is the first legislation I've heard of arising in this country that would actually place real, monetary value on full-time mothering. That is an important step toward the full appreciation of parenting as real work. Statistically speaking, over the broad stretch of the world, women do 66 percent of the work and for it receive just 10 percent of the world's income and one percent of its property. Most of that work women do the world over is unpaid house work. Society has not traditionally placed much value on such work, as shown by the fact that it almost always goes unpaid. The Work Act would start to change that in this country. Just wanted to highlight that fact.
There is literally nearly nothing that liberals won't justify to pay themselves out of other people's pockets. Incredible.
Just wait. If they get crap like this passed your going to start seeing things like the Breath Act which gives you a paycheck for breathing air. This has got to be one of the most stupid things i've seen come out of the left yet. Are they going to give Ann Romney a paycheck also for raising her kids or are they going to randomly decide a cut-off point where your considered too rich to need help. You know what this will cause? A whole new generation of people that turn having kids into a business. No need to work or improve yourself, hell just pump out more kids and live off the governments dime. disgusting
If that's you in your avatar, you're hot - and clueless. I usually like that in my women. j/k Seriously though: what you're describing would directly cripple our economy. You are literally creating the same problem that existed in the Welfare system in the past: paying women to have kids. You'd supercharge the "baby daddy" epidemic. What you're proposing is not smart. Pete Stark Raving Mad and Gwen Moore (an imbecile of the highest order, and someone I know personally) simply ensure that this bill is D.O.A.
A wealthy woman who does not have to work outside the home and chooses to stay home with her kids (maid, nanny, and housekeeper) is a model for society because of the "hard work" she does raising her kids. but... A poor woman who wants to do the same thing is a leach. You've been trapped inside your own hateful rhetoric.
I am finishing up two degrees right now. My wife has already graduated. Once my loans hit we will be paying well over 2000 dollars a month in student loans. How about giving those of us who are paying some taxes some relief instead of paying people to push out kids? Talk about a messed up priority. You really think having kids is more important and deserves money more than 2 college graduates trying to contribute to society? For those of you saying that we will get good jobs here is the fact. My wife has duel degrees in biology and chemistry yet cannot find a job in her field so is forced to work outside of it at far lower pay then what she is qualified for while she waits for interviews. Democrats need to be thrown out.
Um...you just created a cage that you yourself live in, and mistakenly think we wish to co-occupy. We don't. Women who take care of their own kids are role-models. Women who do so by taking my money from me without also giving me sex, a clean house and a loving partner...aren't. Thought I'd help you figure out your own cluelessness.
I appreciate the compliment, but you'd do best to avoid insulting the person you're trying to hit on. How so? Welfare contributes to the economy. It puts much-needed resources in people's pockets that otherwise would not go into the economy.
Wow...according to your logic why don't we just give every poor person 10 million dollars. My God our economy will be unstoppable then!!!
Now wait a minute, conservative people, aren't us leftists instead paying women to murder children, remember? Which way is it? Make up your minds! Society doesn't owe you a partner. It does, however, owe children the means of survival and a stable family life where feasible. That's my view.
Ayuh,.... 'n Why would I wanta do That,..?? I've been payin' her Rent, 'n feedin' her kids, since 1964 as it is.... All that's gotten me is rampant crime in the cities, 'n More welfare expenses...
Hahah! Touché. Because of the answer I'll give next. You're mistaken. Welfare cannot 'contribute' to an economy in the manner you suggest merely because it forces consumption. It's like saying that I can help my own economy by constantly repainting my house: all I'm doing is enriching one person at the expense of another. Regardless: where did you get the notion that the money would not be circulating in the economy? The best thing we can do for our economy is foster and support those people who know how to turn work and ideas into wealth. This accumulated wealth from these types of people is - at minimum - invested back into the economy, and by people who have already proven their ability to take their assets and their ingenuity and create with it. That is not something which happens with the same money if it is taken from them: Government consumes part of it to continue to sustain itself, and the welfare recipient consumes the rest - merely for 'being'. There are different levels of efficient use of money. I would call 'basic essentials' a first-level consumption: one that is necessary for the consumer, but not one which contributes directly to next-level uses. These are expenditures that have to be repeated out of necessity. Second-level uses of money include paying someone for a task or service rendered. These too many require repetition, but not always. These include things like painting a house, buying a car, mowing a lawn, having a haircut, etc. These are second-level because they directly cause some economic activity as a result of the acquisition of wealth first, and the expenditure of this wealth into products or services created by others. As such, there is value in this transaction, both on the buyer and seller side (buyer values his own wealth, but also values the goods or services that the seller offers, and - as such - negotiates the best deal possible for said service in return for sharing some of their wealth). Enough of these sorts of 2nd-level uses of money, and the recipient begins - possibly - the 3rd-level use of money: investment. Investment is a vehicle which creates spin-off wealth. A painter, for instance, can invest in a paint sprayer, which can result in faster/more efficient production, and a better return on work. Even investments in mutual funds has this effect, as such money is then invested by the entities which receive this money in their respective businesses. As a result, wealth is created, and spin-off wealth is then possible: both the investor AND the invested can accumulate wealth: this is the key to the benefit of 3rd tier use of money - and why it is by far the most important one to promote. If I were to simplify this explanation even further, I would ask that you think of wealth as seed. You can do many things with seed, but the best thing you can do with it is plant it, because it then grows other seed. The worst thing you can do with it is destroy it; the second worst thing (but sometimes necessary) is to eat it. Either way, taking from that farmer some of the seed that he would have otherwise planted means that it automatically would not cause a multiplier effect (unless the recipient actually grew it in some way with the same degree of effectiveness as the guy who acquired it through proof of such means). And that's why Welfare is not as productive as you think.
American Indivdualists have the US Constitution. American Collectivists have the Communist Manifesto.
Don't remind me. I have a 15 page report to write on the Communist Manifesto and its deficiencies when looking back on it with hindsight. Any thoughts?
Nobody paid my mom to sit at home and raise me. She got a job and made her own way. Thank God she wasn't a liberal, otherwise she probably would have aborted me...
Don't assume that just because someone is against your political agenda that they must not care about family life. That is just irrational and I will not countenance a cute girl engaging in irrational behavior unless it entails dating me...
Investigate and delve into the difference between "creator" endowed Natural Rights that the US Constitution endeavors to not only protect, but strictly limit central government's ability to infringe.... and arbitrary "rights" decreed and issued by central authority (Hint; only one exists in the absence of government.)
All I can say is that you should have researched job opportunities before wasting time on your useless degrees. You can always get a job bartending (biology & chemistry). The proposed law is an attempt to comply with the article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which is the law of the land) that provides extra protection to women and children. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
