IMO, it's only fair play if we are looking at what the details are.

 

Also, which specific "women's issues" do you disagree with "the left" about being a problem for Romney?

Are we taking everything the left says at face value? Are there always details, anymore so than when the right makes claims? It's a political game, nothing more, from both sides. From women's issues to Crate vs Ate (the dog issue, if you will) and on and on. It's going to be an ugly year, strap yourself in.

More women have lost their jobs under Obamas watch than any other president..

^ Even Fox has some doubts about that.

 

Apparently all the men got fired during President Bush's final year in office.

 

 

Fox host to Romney aide: Women job loss claim an ‘accounting trick’ | The Raw Story

The 92 percent figure is fuzzy math but the fact that more women have lost their jobs under Obama is undeniable..

Mit - defends his wife being a life long house wife (Note: I have no issue with it is a tought job) But at the same time he thinks single moms need to get back to work and off welfare to make themselves feel better productive..........Hmmmm

The 92 percent figure is fuzzy math but the fact that more women have lost their jobs under Obama is undeniable..

 

I can't find the facts that either "more" women have lost their jobs under Obama, or that Obama himself is responsibile for those losses, if the first statement is indeed true. Can you point me in the direction of those reports? Also, is the word "more" used as in "More women than men have lost their jobs." or as in "Women as a whole have lost their jobs in the economic downturn, and more have lost their jobs since Obama became President."

Mit - defends his wife being a life long house wife (Note: I have no issue with it is a tought job) But at the same time he thinks single moms need to get back to work and off welfare to make themselves feel better productive..........Hmmmm

 

So Coach, a woman with significant means wants to be a stay at home Mom, and you think a single woman on welfare should be paid by the government (us) to stay at home with children? That is where the line crosses. Individual responsibilty. If you can afford a Jaguar and buy one, and I can't, then the government should provide me one because I want one too?

Mit - defends his wife being a life long house wife (Note: I have no issue with it is a tought job) But at the same time he thinks single moms need to get back to work and off welfare to make themselves feel better productive..........Hmmmm

 

So single Moms should live on the government dole??? hmmm

 

In my perfect world every family would be a 2 parent family with a stay at home parent. I know that won't happen but if you are a single Mom for whatever reason then you definitively should have to provide for you and your child.

So Coach, a woman with significant means wants to be a stay at home Mom, and you think a single woman on welfare should be paid by the government (us) to stay at home with children? That is where the line crosses. Individual responsibilty. If you can afford a Jaguar and buy one, and I can't, then the government should provide me one because I want one too?

 

So single Moms should live on the government dole??? hmmm

 

In my perfect world every family would be a 2 parent family with a stay at home parent. I know that won't happen but if you are a single Mom for whatever reason then you definitively should have to provide for you and your child.

 

I agree for the most part with what you say. I can't make it a hard and fast rule, as some circumstances might dictate otherwise. I think that my big thing with Romney on this is issue is in the wording. Single moms on welfare need to go to work to "feel productive." How in the world does a well to do stay at home mom feel more productive than a poor stay at home mom? What is the difference in the job due to your means? If anything, I'd think that it is tougher for the poor mom, as the well to do mom is more likely to have help with house cleaning, babysitters as needed, etc.

 

I'd have much rather he have said that single moms have to be the breadwinner for the home in addition to caring for the kids then saying that it was for their own good to "feel productive."

So Coach, a woman with significant means wants to be a stay at home Mom, and you think a single woman on welfare should be paid by the government (us) to stay at home with children? That is where the line crosses. Individual responsibilty. If you can afford a Jaguar and buy one, and I can't, then the government should provide me one because I want one too?

 

Let me give you a real, personal, and true example of the insaninty of generalizing in the way you do in this post:

 

I got divorced when my kids were 2 & 3. At the time of my divorce, I had no job, as I'd been staying home to take care of my son who'd been very ill for the first 2 years of his little life, and no daycare would accept the responsibility of administering his medication. So, I'm divorced with 2 kids, no job, no home, no car.

 

Child support was set, but between the time that the divorce was begun and the child support hearing, my ex-husband quit his well-paying, full time job and went to work part-time for minimum wage. Child support was set at $90/month.

 

I took a job making $5.00/hr. It was a good job, and benefits were offered. I qualified for a small amount of food stamps (I think it was $100/month), which I accepted. I was advised by my caseworker to not take the job and take advantage of the programs th governement offered including housing assistance, daycare assistance and tuition assistance. I declined everything except the food stamp assistance and the medical care for my kids. At $5.00/hr, I couldn't afford the health insurance offered at my job.

 

Over the course of the next year, several things occurred: My ex-husband quit paying his child support, his new wife began having her friends (social workers for CPS) visit my home frequently, each resulting in a court visit as well. I was paying $200/week for child care. Then, I got a raise. It was twenty-five cents. I then became unqualified for the food stamp assistance. I was trying to get the child support payroll deducted, and also missing time from work. But on paper, with the child support order, I no longer could qualify for food stamps.

 

I'm proud (now) that I was able to accomplish what I've accomplished over the years without governement assistance. But in retrospect, I should have listened to the advice of my caseworker back in the beginning. My life, and my kids', could have been much easier and more stable. Without the help of friends, there were many times we wouldn't have had electricity, or a place to live. Thankfully, there was also the government food program where I could get staples and my kids not go hungry.

 

If I had taken the benefits, even for only 4 or 5 years, I'd be one of those people you feel are not personally responsible for their own lives and seeking others (like you) to "pay their way". But I'd also have been able to avoid the turmoil of raising two kids without the instability the path I chose entailed.

 

I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time, and I managed to claw my way up the ladder. I don't necessarily regret the choices I made. But I do wonder where I'd be if I'd have sacrificed my pride that day in the case worker's office.

 

Not all single moms are single by choice. In my case, it's because it's really tough on a man to have a wife and a girlfriend, and he had to make a choice. He chose her. Therefore, it was up to me to find another way, an unplanned path, and one I wasn't at all prepared for. I wish people would stop making assumptions about people on welfare based on the minority who abuse the system, and start looking at the reality of the majority.

 

To Mr. Romney's point, should a woman who is trying whatever means necessary to support her kids feel ashamed? Does it make her any less a mother, or a person deservig of respect? Should she feel ashamed of herself?

 

For every story of abuse of the system, there is at least an equal number of stories of women who have responsibly used the benefits to better themselves. But the conservative talking heads don't want you to hear those stories. They want to continue holding up the examples of the bad apples to cloud the issue.

 

Don't judge until you've walked in their shoes. It's not as simple, or as "easy a life" as you assume.

Let me give you a real, personal, and true example of the insaninty of generalizing in the way you do in this post:

 

I got divorced when my kids were 2 & 3. At the time of my divorce, I had no job, as I'd been staying home to take care of my son who'd been very ill for the first 2 years of his little life, and no daycare would accept the responsibility of administering his medication. So, I'm divorced with 2 kids, no job, no home, no car.

 

Child support was set, but between the time that the divorce was begun and the child support hearing, my ex-husband quit his well-paying, full time job and went to work part-time for minimum wage. Child support was set at $90/month.

 

I took a job making $5.00/hr. It was a good job, and benefits were offered. I qualified for a small amount of food stamps (I think it was $100/month), which I accepted. I was advised by my caseworker to not take the job and take advantage of the programs th governement offered including housing assistance, daycare assistance and tuition assistance. I declined everything except the food stamp assistance and the medical care for my kids. At $5.00/hr, I couldn't afford the health insurance offered at my job.

 

Over the course of the next year, several things occurred: My ex-husband quit paying his child support, his new wife began having her friends (social workers for CPS) visit my home frequently, each resulting in a court visit as well. I was paying $200/week for child care. Then, I got a raise. It was twenty-five cents. I then became unqualified for the food stamp assistance. I was trying to get the child support payroll deducted, and also missing time from work. But on paper, with the child support order, I no longer could qualify for food stamps.

 

I'm proud (now) that I was able to accomplish what I've accomplished over the years without governement assistance. But in retrospect, I should have listened to the advice of my caseworker back in the beginning. My life, and my kids', could have been much easier and more stable. Without the help of friends, there were many times we wouldn't have had electricity, or a place to live. Thankfully, there was also the government food program where I could get staples and my kids not go hungry.

 

If I had taken the benefits, even for only 4 or 5 years, I'd be one of those people you feel are not personally responsible for their own lives and seeking others (like you) to "pay their way". But I'd also have been able to avoid the turmoil of raising two kids without the instability the path I chose entailed.

 

I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time, and I managed to claw my way up the ladder. I don't necessarily regret the choices I made. But I do wonder where I'd be if I'd have sacrificed my pride that day in the case worker's office.

 

Not all single moms are single by choice. In my case, it's because it's really tough on a man to have a wife and a girlfriend, and he had to make a choice. He chose her. Therefore, it was up to me to find another way, an unplanned path, and one I wasn't at all prepared for. I wish people would stop making assumptions about people on welfare based on the minority who abuse the system, and start looking at the reality of the majority.

 

To Mr. Romney's point, should a woman who is trying whatever means necessary to support her kids feel ashamed? Does it make her any less a mother, or a person deservig of respect? Should she feel ashamed of herself?

 

For every story of abuse of the system, there is at least an equal number of stories of women who have responsibly used the benefits to better themselves. But the conservative talking heads don't want you to hear those stories. They want to continue holding up the examples of the bad apples to cloud the issue.

 

Don't judge until you've walked in their shoes. It's not as simple, or as "easy a life" as you assume.

 

I applaud your efforts RockMom and reading your posts it doesn't suprise me.

 

The main part that I object with Libs on is they always say "don't judge, don't judge", and then they go around and judge.

 

Check out Mrs. Obama's track record with jobs, and let me know if she was qualified to earn those?

 

The safety net was designed to be exactly that-a safety net. The problem is that it has become too far and too wide. Off the subject, but let me share a story (not about Mom's or a female) I saw just in the last two weeks. I was picking up pizza on a carry out basis for my family. A couple of other customers picking up food as well when a middle aged man that was disheveled came in and asked for the manager. He whispered to the manager, and then the manager gathered up some breadsticks and sauce and bagged it for the man, and with out paying off he went. Evidently the fellow was down on his luck, poor, drunk-whatever and the manager helped him out. None of the rest of us said a word, nor saw a problem with this. One of the managers co-workers joked that he was buying his way into heaven that day.

 

Well low and behold before I left the fellow who had received the breadsticks came back in and complained that the breadsticks weren't warm enough. I about fell out of my chair. That is the problem to me. Beggars can't be chooers, and if that were me I would have sent the guy packing. The manager was a nicer guy than me and replaced the "not warm enough" breadsticks with others.

 

There are always two sides to every story. (Libs need to remember this too.)

Let me give you a real, personal, and true example of the insaninty of generalizing in the way you do in this post:

 

I got divorced when my kids were 2 & 3. At the time of my divorce, I had no job, as I'd been staying home to take care of my son who'd been very ill for the first 2 years of his little life, and no daycare would accept the responsibility of administering his medication. So, I'm divorced with 2 kids, no job, no home, no car.

 

Child support was set, but between the time that the divorce was begun and the child support hearing, my ex-husband quit his well-paying, full time job and went to work part-time for minimum wage. Child support was set at $90/month.

 

I took a job making $5.00/hr. It was a good job, and benefits were offered. I qualified for a small amount of food stamps (I think it was $100/month), which I accepted. I was advised by my caseworker to not take the job and take advantage of the programs th governement offered including housing assistance, daycare assistance and tuition assistance. I declined everything except the food stamp assistance and the medical care for my kids. At $5.00/hr, I couldn't afford the health insurance offered at my job.

 

Over the course of the next year, several things occurred: My ex-husband quit paying his child support, his new wife began having her friends (social workers for CPS) visit my home frequently, each resulting in a court visit as well. I was paying $200/week for child care. Then, I got a raise. It was twenty-five cents. I then became unqualified for the food stamp assistance. I was trying to get the child support payroll deducted, and also missing time from work. But on paper, with the child support order, I no longer could qualify for food stamps.

 

I'm proud (now) that I was able to accomplish what I've accomplished over the years without governement assistance. But in retrospect, I should have listened to the advice of my caseworker back in the beginning. My life, and my kids', could have been much easier and more stable. Without the help of friends, there were many times we wouldn't have had electricity, or a place to live. Thankfully, there was also the government food program where I could get staples and my kids not go hungry.

 

If I had taken the benefits, even for only 4 or 5 years, I'd be one of those people you feel are not personally responsible for their own lives and seeking others (like you) to "pay their way". But I'd also have been able to avoid the turmoil of raising two kids without the instability the path I chose entailed.

 

I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time, and I managed to claw my way up the ladder. I don't necessarily regret the choices I made. But I do wonder where I'd be if I'd have sacrificed my pride that day in the case worker's office.

 

Not all single moms are single by choice. In my case, it's because it's really tough on a man to have a wife and a girlfriend, and he had to make a choice. He chose her. Therefore, it was up to me to find another way, an unplanned path, and one I wasn't at all prepared for. I wish people would stop making assumptions about people on welfare based on the minority who abuse the system, and start looking at the reality of the majority.

 

To Mr. Romney's point, should a woman who is trying whatever means necessary to support her kids feel ashamed? Does it make her any less a mother, or a person deservig of respect? Should she feel ashamed of herself?

 

For every story of abuse of the system, there is at least an equal number of stories of women who have responsibly used the benefits to better themselves. But the conservative talking heads don't want you to hear those stories. They want to continue holding up the examples of the bad apples to cloud the issue.

 

Don't judge until you've walked in their shoes. It's not as simple, or as "easy a life" as you assume.

RM, I disagree that there are an equal number of stories of women who have responsibly used the benefits to better themselves of every story of abuse of the system. I know many have bettered themselves, and I have much respect for mothers like them and you. I know how hard it is because my mom was a single mom that worked her fingers to the bone to raise three of us. But I've sadly seen the other side of the coin as well, the side Romney is speaking of. It can and does become a vicious cycle and I honestly believe those that abuse the system far outnumber those that better themselves from it.

RM, I disagree that there are an equal number of stories of women who have responsibly used the benefits to better themselves of every story of abuse of the system. I know many have bettered themselves, and I have much respect for mothers like them and you. I know how hard it is because my mom was a single mom that worked her fingers to the bone to raise three of us. But I've sadly seen the other side of the coin as well, the side Romney is speaking of. It can and does become a vicious cycle and I honestly believe those that abuse the system far outnumber those that better themselves from it.

 

RTS, do you have any statistics to back up this claim? I'm only asking because it is human nature to focus on what we believe the truth to be and not see what goes against our beliefs.

 

RM, do you have any statistics?

RTS, do you have any statistics to back up this claim? I'm only asking because it is human nature to focus on what we believe the truth to be and not see what goes against our beliefs.

 

RM, do you have any statistics?

 

I'll have to find them again. Much of what I know comes from volunteering with a program here in Louisville.

I applaud your efforts RockMom and reading your posts it doesn't suprise me.

 

The main part that I object with Libs on is they always say "don't judge, don't judge", and then they go around and judge.

 

Check out Mrs. Obama's track record with jobs, and let me know if she was qualified to earn those?

 

The safety net was designed to be exactly that-a safety net. The problem is that it has become too far and too wide. Off the subject, but let me share a story (not about Mom's or a female) I saw just in the last two weeks. I was picking up pizza on a carry out basis for my family. A couple of other customers picking up food as well when a middle aged man that was disheveled came in and asked for the manager. He whispered to the manager, and then the manager gathered up some breadsticks and sauce and bagged it for the man, and with out paying off he went. Evidently the fellow was down on his luck, poor, drunk-whatever and the manager helped him out. None of the rest of us said a word, nor saw a problem with this. One of the managers co-workers joked that he was buying his way into heaven that day.

 

Well low and behold before I left the fellow who had received the breadsticks came back in and complained that the breadsticks weren't warm enough. I about fell out of my chair. That is the problem to me. Beggars can't be chooers, and if that were me I would have sent the guy packing. The manager was a nicer guy than me and replaced the "not warm enough" breadsticks with others.

 

There are always two sides to every story. (Libs need to remember this too.)

 

Did I judge anyone in my post?

 

Yes, there are always 2 sides to every story.

 

Was the guy that received the breadsticks on welfare? I couldn't tell from your account.

 

I agree that the "beggar" was too choosy. In my experience, there are those who truely need help and are grateful for whatever they can get, and there are some who are just not trying to help themselves and usually are those who act like the man you mention.

 

And no, I have no statistics on that one. But I've worked with the homeless and I've seen both kinds. But the truly needy, those who've lost all hope and have nowhere to turn, they are not generally the choosy sorts. Of course, as with even the affluent, there are always those who aren't grateful for what they receive, always wanting something better. But, again based upon my experience, those in true need are not "choosers".