The presidential campaign was consumed this week by controversy over Ann Romney and stay-at-home moms. Republicans seized on a stray comment by CNN contributor Hilary Rosen, who said Ann Romney had “never worked a day in her life.” Romney responded to the Rosen comments in a speech to the National Rifle Association on Friday, saying, "I happen to believe that all moms are working moms.”
But video from earlier this year, aired today on Up w/ Chris Hayes, shows Romney campaigning on the proposition that meaningful welfare reform should require parents with children to get out of the home and into the workforce. Responding to a question at a town hall event in Manchester, New Hampshire on January 4th, Romney described his position on work requirements for welfare recipients as governor of Massachusetts.
“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” Romney said. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that's heartless,' and I said ‘No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”
That position has been conservative orthodoxy for years. Republicans have railed against the “culture of dependency” created by welfare programs, campaigning aggressively for policies that would force welfare recipients off the roles and “back into the workforce.”
As Romney himself put it in a speech to the Burlington Business Council during his campaign for Senate in 1994, the purpose of welfare “is to get people back into the workforce, that work is ennobling, and that we will do everything in our power to make sure that people who are on welfare have an opportunity and an obligation to go to work, not after two years but from day one if we could.”
Sal Gentile is a segment producer for "Up w/ Chris Hayes."
Leave a Comment:
Poor, undignified Ann.
If only her husband had wanted her to have the "dignity of work" Although let's be honest welfare can be a trap. On the other hand if you have had a stance forcing women to have children and then do not want to provide them the opportunity to be at home for a time with their young ones along with having health care. The stance of forcing those women to have children is so unbelievably hypocritical. If you are going to force mothers and fathers receiving welfare to be in the work force as an exchange one would hope in the early years of the childs life that time would be half time, fair pay,
Would really like to see UP run with this. Interview working mothers who are often working two jobs to make ends meet. Often have no time for their children because they are exhausted. How about Ann trading places for a week with a mother like that. A trading places segment or at the very least interviewing mothers out there working double time...often dragging their kids across town to a day care, etc etc
Hey I have an idea. Don't produce children unless you and their other parent are prepared to support them economically and otherwise, meaning someone is in the home with them and someone is earning the money to support them so the taxpayers don't have to.
But how does the republican party suggest that people not produce children when they are opposed to all forms of contraception?
And in these turbulent economic times, there is no guarantee that there will always be someone in the household with a consistent job. Even people who have prepared for the worse sometimes lose their jobs.
If you don't have money to buy condoms and you don't have money to raise YOUR children off the government dole, then DON'T HAVE SEX.
Did it ever occur to you that it takes the willingness of a man to use a condom but the pill is controlled by the woman herself?
One or both of them should be using the pill or condom or sterilization. The point is DON'T PRODUCE CHILDREN if they are not going to have the benefit of FINANCIAL SECURITY which allows for all kinds of emotional security including a parent in the home ideally.
It's only good to have children if you are rich and can defer their service to our country in times of war. Sound stupid? Well it is,and it's true.
When you figure out a way to stop people having sex, klein10019, you go ahead and let me know. Kinda been something that's been happening since the dawn of time, despite all efforts to the contrary. Go ahead and be sanctimonious about it though, I really think that's going to be the answer that puts this problem to bed for good.
Hey- I have an idea. To those of you saying, "Don't have children if you can't support them." Are you also the folks saying, "Don't give women birth control or abortions"?? Because that's wrong. That is inherently wrong to rail against a woman's reproductive health (without allowing any women to have a say in the legislative proceedings) and then punish her for having children because of it. You can fix one problem or the other.
I would suggest that if you don't want your rights taken away, stop taking them away from others (and stop treating women like second class citizens who don't know anything about their own bodies).
While I believe an Adult from each "welfare family" should work, or at least be trying to find regular work, I also know that it should be a case by case situation because some parents simply cannot leave for 8 hours per day.
Besides, the U.S would save a LOAD of cash if we STOP giving assistance to Illegal alien families...we waste so much resources on people who AREN'T supposed to be here in the U.S whatsoever!
What would be good too, in addition to 100% Elimination of Illegals taking American resources/assistance, would be to make ALL recipients take Random drug tests..
Some parents DON'T plan to be single parents who will end up needing welfare...Crap happens in life that you don't expect...
What if your in a comfort zone of stable, financial security, so you say to your spouse, "lets have kids"...then 5 years later, you lose Everything!!, and end up getting a divorce for the stress of money!
Then you need help because you have nothing left....are you now a "Horrible, Stupid parent who never shouldve had kids!?
Some people need to shut their mouth and think about how much they DON'T know about people's personal lives, stop throwing everyone into a stereotype because it makes you look very un-educated, rude, heartless, ignorant and just plain stupid yourself!
The double standard with stay at home moms is true. Dig a little deeper and you will find that low to middle class working moms are the harshest critics of poor stay at home moms. I think it stems from a bit of jealousy because they really don't have a choice - they have to work and can't have that luxury.
If you're poor (and have minimum wage job prospects) you are sometimes financially better off to be on welfare and stay at home with your kids because daycare costs eats up your entire paycheck. If you are low to middle income you're financially better off working and paying for daycare, but often live paycheck to paycheck. If you're upper middle income or higher, you have all the options; you can afford day care, work & have spending money, or you can stay at home and still have spending money.
And of course there is the perception that welfare receipients are "stupid and bad parents, because if they were smart they would have a good job", and that wealthy stay at home moms are "smart because they sacraficed their career for the wellbeing of their children."
I'm not saying this is right, but just pointing out the common perceptions. FYI, I've been a single mom with a child in daycare who had to work, and a stay at home mom with my husband supporting our family.
Let's take two college educated couples. One set both teachers just had their first child. Their insurance went up $500.oo a month. They will pay $3000.oo out of pocket for the birth. The other couple have two children, the mother decided to stay at home with the two children. The husband chooses to work half time. They have free health care for both children and the mother was covered during her pregnancies and both births (C sections) were covered by the state. Is this fair? All four are college educated? One couple making a choice to work the system the other working their asses off to have one child. If we had a public option system many would not be making decisions like this. Health care for all
Why is the lazy husband "choosing to work half time" when he should be working 80 hours a week if that's what it takes to stay off welfare like my grandfather did?
Why is the lazy husband "choosing to work half time" when he should be working 80 hours a week if that's what it takes to stay off welfare like my grandfather did?
Because your grandfather was born two centuries ago and things have changed a LOT since then.
Things sure have changed. He had a work ethic, the lazy husband in the story doesn't.
Klein, if your comments are any indication, you are a very coldhearted person with a very narrow view of reality. I don't know how old you are, but I have learned in my many years of living on this planet, that things don't always work out the way we think they should. I hope if that ever happens for you, that you have people around you with kinder hearts than yours.
Good job Chris!!! I knew "Lying Willard" would come through again to stomp out whatever temporary boosts he got from "Idiot Hillary". With friends like her.....
So Willard thinks that if you are poor you are NOT working by staying at home. But if you are rich and have maids and nannys you ARE working by staying home taking care of your kids. JUST SO WE ARE STRAIGHT ON THIS - only the rich can be a stay at home mom with maids and help and be considered working and po' folks are shiftless lazy bums if they stay at home with their kids. Willard is a piece of crap lying rich SNOB!!!!
No he said if the taxpayers are paying for the welfare of your children, you are undignified if you do not work outside the home to cover those costs, because it is PARENTS who should be supporting their own children, not the rest of us.
Actually, that's not what he said. He said that women needed to experience "the dignity of work" this is in direct contrast to his views that his wife is apparently working hard enough just raising his kids. Sorry friend, but You Are Wrong!
The dignity of work means the dignity of NOT relying on handouts to support YOUR children. Do you really think Mitt meant that if these mothers on welfare worked in a job taking care of children at a day care or as a school bus driver etc. he would say that was undignified? No. He clearly said "work outside the home" for mothers ON WELFARE only because it is the WELFARE that is undignified.
Handouts to support one's own children are undignified.
The dignity of work means the dignity of NOT relying on handouts to support YOUR children.
Jobs that do not pay a living wage are undignified.
A tax structure that takes money from the poor to give to the rich is undignified.
Government policies that reward the rich for getting married and penalize the poor are undignified.
Right wing trolls who have not actually listened to the show but pontificate anyway are undignified.
All work is dignified. Jobs that don't pay well are dignified. Rewards for the married are beneficial to children.
Sal,
I think you are misunderstanding Romney's position on the MOM issue. There really IS no conflict between what he said on Jan 4 and his recent speech to the NRA. It all fits nicely into how Romney portrays himself.
However, someone REALLY needs to ask him what it is about rich children that makes caring for them such hard work, especially since he believes caring for poor children is NOT work at all!!!
I am appalled at Betsy Stevenson's comment this morning SUnday April 15th about "Marriages of Equality" ...she started with "if you choose to have one" who in the Lord's Holy name does she think she is....I have been married twice.......first marriage I had 3 children and was a stay at home mom...the sacrifices we all made for me to be able to stay home and raise my pwn children were many....but it was my choice and neither me nor my children have any regrets...they did without ....but they all talk about all the love they grew up with....marriage ended in divorce....happily.......second marriage ended one year ago from cancer......through this marriage......there were many years.....that I was the only one who worked outside the home.....so you see I have been supported and I have supported......Happy to tell you Betsy....that both marriages WERE "MARRIAGES OF EQUALITY".........THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK AND PLEASE , PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS A LITTLE MORE WISELY......
That women still want to wear makeup reflects a failure of the feminist movement in particular and the immaturity of our culture in general. Makeup is a mask that allows women to tap into corporate power. I don't mean corporate as in business, but rather corporate as in the power of the group versus the individual.
Men achieve this power by actually belonging to corporations - whether they are lodge brothers or corporate raiders. Women counter by painting their faces. Hiding physical imperfections or accentuating certain features makes sense only if the result is more power for the individual, whether sexual, social, or corporate.
By acceding to cosmetic industry standards of beauty, women who wear makeup promote a status quo that says women are not equal to men. Men can be "cultural" just by showing up. Women, to participate in the culture, must put on a corporate mask. While a woman who uses makeup is considered "cultural," a man who uses makeup is considered absurd. Mass media meditations on masculine makeup — like Some Like It Hot, Tootsie, and Mrs. Doubtfire — are always comedies.
All morning so far I hear about is poor women, hungry children & how hard it is to advance above this. Yet all ovr this US laws are being passed laws to make birth control harder for women. In ovr 50 yrs. I have never heard a women say that she wanted to get pregnant to have an abortion or get more money from the gov. (those days have been long ovr) By making these medicines harder for women to attain we will fine more young becoming mother & fathers before mentally & financially prepared so the cycle remains the same. I am so sad as a women in my 50's to still not hear the right conversations. Weather women or man when forced to start a family before prepared we end up w/children who are duct taped in closets, orphans, abused children. This is the talk we need to have on all these welfare & birth control issues. Children who are precious are the real losers.
My wife of 16 years and I chose not to ave kids. We both work and are successful.
If you had kids you couldn't afford to feed and are now broke, sorry. You chose badly. There are enough humans. No sympathy here for you..but I do feel sorry for your kids; they had no choice in being born to people who don't think.
Wow! That's a little harsh, isn't it? While you certainly should be commended for not having children if you don't want them, the simple fact is that MANY people who have children didn't know that they were going to lose their jobs or homes in this economy - are you faulting them for lack of presentiment?
And, BTW, NOT having children costs money. To blame the poor for having too many children, and yet have a government that is trying to outlaw contraception and affordable healthcare, puts the poor into a vicious cycle from which they cannot escape.
Enjoy your self-righteousness now. When you are elderly, you will not have children and grandchildren to support you. Help you shovel your sidewalk, mow your lawn, haul your groceries, fetch the box off that top shelf since you aren't stable enough to stand on a stool. Hug you at your wife's funeral. You won't have family to live with in the days before the nursing home. Do you have enough money for a nursing home? Home health aides? Or will you be paying someone to come do the routine household tasks for you?
Will you be asking society to support you, when you haven't contributed socially to it? If adding to the human population is an issue for you, there are plenty of children that need parents or mentors. Adoption, fostercare, big brothers & sisters, all are ways you could contribute to the society you will be taking from later.
Yep, not having children does cost money. As you age, who will take care of you as an elderly person? Who will shovel your walk, mow your lawn, drive you to the doctor, haul your groceries, clean your house? Who will hug you at your wife's funeral? How many years of nursing home care do you have socked away for? I just went through this with my stepmom & weighed the costs of $4000/mo for assisted living versus $10,000/mo for a nursing facility. Are you THAT successful?
Besides adding to the human population, there are other ways to contribute to the young society you will later be dependent on. Adoption, foster care, big brothers and sisters, etc.
So, maybe you aren't a burden on society now, but what about later? Money can't buy you love.
I get a little tired of hearing that my kids shouldn't have born. I for one, think that they are amazing kids. Most other people I know would have to agree. Does the fact that I make 15k a year while trying to make my business take off make me a bad person? Does it make my children deserve to die? I think that is lame. Being poor does not make you a bad mother.
Having children who will not be adequately financially supported is irresponsible to those children who will suffer for it. You will advise your children of this because as they grow you will realize the disadvantages they have because you put the cart before the horse. You will not want them to struggle like you do, but every time you apologize for yourself you increase the chances of that.
If you are a good mother you will teach them not to have children until they can be supported financially and emotionally which requires two loving parents who produced them working hard in and out of the home.
ur a jerk
Why is that
the If you are a good mother remark. I sir, am a great mother and I was a great wife too before their father died. I used welfare like it was suppose to be used, to return to school and better myself. Then due to discrimination I started an eBay business so that I could be there for my kids. Now I work more hours than I can count for less than min wage some weeks for the chance that my business will make it. I am not on welfare or foodstamps. I get help from my family and use social security payments for my sons DEAD father. I also use the SCHIP insurance program so my kids will be protected and take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Go F yourself.
Most children whose mothers are on welfare don't have dead fathers, they have deadBEAT fathers and in most cases the mothers knew the men they decided to have sex with would be deadbeats if children were produced.
Most mothers on welfare whose children come from deadBEAT fathers aren't bettering themselves and aren't striving for education and aren't working for an income to support they're children. They are voting for Obama so that they can get more free stuff from me and my family, and from YOU and your children should your business flourish.
Thank you for not having children you did not want to support financially. Apparently you should have had them so that they could perform as your caretakers later in life, but it sounds like you'll have your end of life care worked out financially in advance, as most responsible people do.
Alien concepts to Democrats.
i did not choose to have kids (unless you count not having n abortion ) when i got pregnant the first tie, i was working. when i get pregnant the 2nd time, i had been out f work for 2yrs (though i had been trying hard to find a job) @!$%# happens in life. i am not on welfare, but someone in thesame situation whose husband made a little less, could be. not everyone on welfare wason it wgen they had those kids
Is anyone surprised by this? It's just another way for Republicans to punish the 'sinners,' the single parents who dared to have sex before marriage. And the asinine commenter above me had a point -- it is the children of the poor who suffer, even if he thinks that's ok.
If you are poor and want to have sex, have all the sex you want after you sterilize yourself.
Anything else is irresponsible to any children you would produce and to society.
The problem isn't that single parents had sex it's that they had children. If you do have children and I have to pay for them, be prepared to be criticized for being the leech you are.
klein10019 reveals his truly hateful nature when he says here that if the poor want to have sex they should get sterilized first.
Fortunately people will see you for the troll you are and ignore you.
I am going to learn my lesson and stop feeding this troll. I know that I am good person and I don't have to defend myself to this dirtbag
I am a single father. The mom was found to be, by the court, mentally abusive to the father and the child. Among other things. And if you want to talk about gender bias, I think you are the King of it. As a single father, I go thru as much or more than any single mother. Try as a father, to take off work to take care of a sick child. Try to even get on SNAP or any other government hand out. I tell you what, just try as a father to get Child support services to collect child support from mom, It's not happening. When you go to the school, all the forms for your child has a place to be signed, with mother under the line. Everyone seems to think only a mother can raise a child. Mom has you, all kinds of women’s groups, the government, and they seem to have a lot of time to show up on your show. Who's helping single fathers? Get a clue, I am a wonderful father and my child is a straight “A” student, and very happy. But, we have no support.
single dads deserve much props and a recognition that our court and welfare systems largely do not benefit them
I agree, the single fathers out there are the ignored minority, and the victims of the most gender discrimination.
As a low income single mom, I don't know if I would say the most. Can we just call it a tie?
I will agree, that no matter who it is, that’s discriminated against, its wrong. If you need to go home to take care of your child, it shouldn’t matter what gender you are, you should be looked at as a good PARENT. If there’s a form that needs to be filled out for a child, it shouldn’t say mother, and it shouldn’t say father, it should say PARENT. AND, IF YOU HAVE A TV SHOW ABOUT SINGLE LOW INCOME MOMS. It should be view as DESCRINATION. After all, we are all parents having problems. Why make it a special issue for only mother’s. It makes the show look gender bias. But, of course, it is!
Reason #18 why Mitt is completely out of touch with 95% of the American public.
Mitt "The human flapjack" Romney's campaign is based on unabashed lies, frequent flip-flops, and blatant pandering that he believes will help him to get nominated … strategically planning to hit his reset buttonduring the general election.
However, Romney's team appears to unaware of YouTube --the online repository of instantly accessible video clips, providing evidence of the previous policy positions of Mitt v.1, Mitt v.2, Mitt v.3, etc.
I have nothing against Ann Romney, she seem like a nice woman. I don't know if she had a maid, a cook, or a nanny when raising her 5 boys. If you have a nanny, a maid, a cook, what kind of work do you do? Tell them how you want things done. Ann Romney represent the 1% stay at home Moms. Let's not be fool by this made up controversy by the Romney camp and the sorry butt media. This is about the policies Mitt Romney supports, which hurts most women. Mitt Romney supports this Republican War On Women. It's about the anti- women policies Mitt Romney supports.
Having children the government and taxpayer supports is undignified. If you go out and work as a child care worker but get off the government dole, that is dignified. If you stay home and raise your own children and you are not on the government dole, that is dignified. Ann Romney never had children she without knowing she and her husband would raise them together, and most welfare mothers don't care. Mitt is right, and the Democratic Party is the party of leeches.
I don't think that is fair at all. Should I not be allowed to take a risk on my own business and be low income without my children being told they should never have been born? Do you want to look in their sweet little faces and tell them they don't deserve life. Do you want to look at my 5 years old's amazing art and tell him he should never have been born. Do you want to tell my 8 year old when he aces his math test and preforms 2 grade levels high that he should never have been born. Do you want to take away my SCHIP insurance for my kids and tell them they should just die? I dare you to look in my sons blue/green/brown amazing eyes and tell him what you think of his life. I am sure he would be shocked to learn.
Are you going to tell your daughters and sons to produce children before they have the ability to pay for their upbringing?
No, didn't think so. You're going to tell them that children who will be born to them should not be born until they can be financially and emotionally supported.
Child care is work. But caring for your own children at the expense of the taxpayer is undignified. A responsible person would be too ashamed to let strangers pay for their children's welfare. Everyone including Chris Hayes understands this distinction.
But I do like this story because not only does it keep mothers who are raising children outraged by the Democrat's degenerate thinking, it makes people think about the burden to the responsible taxpayers of children NOT supported by their own parents.
"caring for your own children at the expense of the taxpayer is undignified"
No, actually, it isn't. What is reprehensible is you telling poor people that if they wish to engage in sex they should get sterilized first.
You are a vile and disgusting creature, a troll.
They should get married first to ensure two incomes to pay for their offspring. If they have sex they should be prepared to support the children they produce. If this offends you, you are warped.
Klein- Getting married first guarantees nothing. Having both parents working to ensure two incomes guarantees nothing. What if they do everything right and have a child, and everything is according to your blueprint and then one or both parents loses their job and tries and tries, but cannot get another one? Not working is too much for the man to handle, so he gets depressed and leaves the marriage. The woman did everything according to your prescription, but here she is with no job, no husband and a child. What is your prescription for that? Sometimes things just don't turn out the way they are supposed to even when we do everything right. Do you have any kindness in your heart for unforeseen circumstances? I hope you never find yourself at the effect of unforeseen circumstances, because you are not sowing a very sweet crop to reap if you do.
Look around and you will see the stark difference in outcomes between children raised by two married parents and children of single mothers. Crime, addiction, lack of education are all linked to fatherless homes. Success is strongly linked to two parent homes. The prisons and rehab centers are overwhelmingly inhabited by screwed up children of broken homes.
Like it or not, divorce, the welfare state, and the breakdown of the nuclear family is the factor most strongly linked to these ills. A father supporting his family is the ideal, but if it is a single mother with children, the better example is a mother who refuses to leach off the government to pay for her own offspring. The children lose either way because they can't have a parent in the home under those circumstances, but it is the lesser of two evils.
Don't have children you and their other parent are not prepared to support financially and every other way.
I'm sorry, friend, but You Are Wrong!
The myth of the nuclear family is precisely that a myth. It belongs to a 1950's America that never existed. America has always consisted of blended and or single-parent households. The "breakdown" you mention has never happened because it's always been that way. Sorry, friend but, You Are Wrong!
The real causes for crime, addiction and so on have to do with endemic poverty brought upon by an imbalanced economic system which disproportionately shifts the rewards of work to the owners rather than the workers. When you adjust for poverty, all of the other factors you mention turn out to have about zero effect on crime and drug addiction.
Don't believe me friend? Sorry, but , You Are Wrong!
Ignorance. The crime, addiction, etc. persist even when household income is controlled for. Ignore the data all you want, but each liberal argument against the nuclear family is being toppled. A two parent rich OR poor household is the best security against crime and addiction and misery for the children raised in it.
I'm sorry my friend, but You Are Wrong!
You are apparently reading the republican blackiswhite data, because all the actual data makes it clear that poverty is by far the largest predictor of crime and addiction, not single parent households.
In other words my friend, You Are Wrong!
Just a question, since it takes two people to make a baby, why aren't you lamblasting the absent fathers?
Mariana Chilton was a terrific guest! The "Miss Representation" person was not. With such extreme poverty so prevalent in this society, it's ridiculous to hear a lecture about how Ashley Judd's feelings were hurt from a woman who is married to a lieutenant governor because of how she looks. When attractive Hollywood actresses bemoan having to look glamorous when they would not have gotten their job in the first place, it seems really rich. The complaints by women who go on television after an hour in the make-up room, dressed to the nines, and decrying a double standard, should fall on deaf ears. As brave as Ashley Judd may be on this issue, she has made a lot of terrible movies, but she keeps getting cast because people will pay to see how she looks, not how she acts. That is unfair, but it's not for her to suddenly complain about after all of these years contributing to the problem. What Judd thinks is that she is attractive enough that she shouldn't get criticized. What about those that are not in any way attractive? Where has she been for them? The cosmetic industry isn't booming because 75% of men want their women covered head-to-toe in make-up and lotions and perfumes. Many women find solace in these things against their husbands' best wishes and despite the often bank-breaking costs. If a woman wears a dress two days in a row, most men aren't going to notice. The problem with the culture that makes this possible is that Jennifer Siebel Newsom and Ashley Judd got as far as they did BECAUSE of how they look, they have been willing participants in the superficiality of our culture when it was to their advantage, and now decry said superficiality now that they are older. Are we to assume that it took them this long to speak out because they were UNAWARE of this issue until now?
Poor people are underrepresented in government. Poor people are having a hard time simply surviving. Poor people are disregarded by all segments of society. How about a better documentary about that?
Poverty is linked to family breakdown. You don't want a documentary about that do you?
Come on people. Look at yourselves bending over backward to argue that welfare is good and two parent households with one parent at home most of the time are bad.
Everyone who was raised by a mother and father rich or poor is grateful especially if their family was not leeching off the government.
Democrats are not compassionate, they have a perverted desire to destroy everything proven beneficial to children that keeps them whole and free from addiction, criminal activity, immorality.
Children from a one parent home are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of school
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution
20 times more likely to end up in prison
Now consider that about 70 % of our children are living in non traditional homes. That 50% of the children born to American women under the age of 50 are illegitimate.
And also factor in a few studies:
- 75% of children/adolescents in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families. (Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)
- 1 out of 5 children have a learning, emotional, or behavioral problem due to being raised in a single parent family. (National Center for Health Statistics)
- More than one half of all youths incarcerated for criminal acts lived in one-parent families when they were children. (Children's Defense Fund)
- "Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent." Source: Jean Beth Eshtain, "Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children."
---85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes Center for Disease Control
-----80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26
------71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools
-------70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes U.S Dept. of Justice, Special Report Sept.,
----85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992
---"Separation, divorce and unmarried parenthood seemed to be a high risk for children/adolescents in these families for the development of suicidal behavior". (Atilla Turgay, M.D.American Psychiatric Association's Scientific Meeting, May 1994)
- In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families." Source: David A. Brent, (et. al.) "Post-traumatic Stress Disorders in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34 (1995): 209-215.
--A book by E. Mavis Heatherington indicates that children of divorced parents had roughly double the divorce rate of those from stable families, due in part to "a lower commitment to marital permanence and fewer relationship skills."
--Studies have shown that that children of divorce are far more likely to be delinquent, engage in premarital sex, and bear children out of wedlock during adolescence and young adulthood. A 33-year study published in 1998 in the American Sociological Review revealed that children whose parents divorced in their childhood or adolescence were likely to be afflicted with emotional problems such as depression or anxiety well into their twenties or early thirties." [Maher, B. (2003) Patching Up the American Family. World and I, v18 i1 p56. Retrieved June 9, 2004 from Expanded Academic ASAP]
----"Meta-analyses of studies conducted between 1950 and 1999 indicated that children from divorced homes function more poorly than children from continuously married parents across a variety of domains, including academic achievement, social relations and conduct problems "[Winslow, E. (2004) Preventitive Interventions for Children of Divorce. Psychiatric Times, February 1, 2004 p45. Retrieved June 9, 2004 from Expanded Academic ASAP.]-
---Among all possible contributing factors, "only divorce rates were consistently associated with suicide and with homicide rates."
David Lester, "Time-Series Versus Regional Correlates of Rates of Personal Violence," Death Studies (1993): 529-534. Cited on page36 ofThe Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher
--Death of a parent does not correlate with teen suicide, but family instability or disruption is one of the leading causes of suicide. Perceived rejection by a parent, not merely the loss of a parent, is apparently the relevant factor.
---"Even after controlling for income, children of unwed mothers are two and a half times more likely to develop conduct disorders than other children." The Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher p. 95, citing Carmen N. Velez, Jim Johnson, and Patricia Cohen, "A Longitudinal Analysis of Selected Risk Factors for Childhood Psychopathology," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 28 (1989): 861-864.
Generation, page 239
---Dr. Deborah Dawson's study found that children from disrupted marriages experience greater risk of injury, asthma, headaches, and speech defects than children from intact families. Her study also found that children living with formerly-married mothers were much more likely to have received professional help for emotional or behavioral problems in the preceding year than children living with both biological parents.
---In a study conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr. Nicholas Zill found that, "18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help." Zill found the effects of divorce still evident 12 to 22 years after the breakup.
---"A number of researchers also found that children of divorce, especially boys, were more aggressive than children whose parents stayed married."
---"...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana." Source: Deane Scott Berman "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse", Adolescence 30 (1995)
-------A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend. Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment", U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justce and Delinquency Prevention.
---Among the children struggling with intellectual disabilities, a disproportionate number must do so without a father. That fatherless children are especially vulnerable to mild to moderate intellectual disability stands out as one of the chief findings of a study recently published in Social Science & Medicine by a team of researchers at the University of Western Australia.
---The study compared 750 Generation X adults of divorced parents with 750 who grew up in intact homes. The differences are stark. Two-thirds of children of divorce who stay in contact with both parents (and many do not) say they felt like they grew up in two families, not one, which creates "endless and often painful complications for a child."
--Fully 44 percent of children of divorce said "I was alone a lot as a child" vs. only 14 percent of those in intact families - a three-fold difference.
---A fifth of young adult children of divorce agree that "I love my mother, but I do not respect her," triple that of those from intact homes. A quarter of young adults from divorced homes disagree with the assertion, "My father clearly taught me the difference between right and wrong." That compares with just 3 percent of those from intact homes.
You know klein, I can't verify a SINGLE ONE of your "facts". I have spent time searching those "references" you made (the ones that have links online) and quite frankly, you either made up the "facts" or you completely distorted what the authors were saying.
Interesting that you gave "page numbers" ONLY for those articles that can't be accessed without a membership. Makes me wonder where YOU got them......
Why don't you put in ACTUAL links???
He can't back up his so-called facts because he gets them from the same place that climate deniers get theirs. From some crazy right wing conspiracy web site that is also filled with birther conspiracies and other paranoid rantings.
Hey look: Klein know how to make Sh-T up!.
I'm sorry my friend but your sources are bogus and reflect no empirical reality.
So once again my friend. You Are Wrong!
On behalf of all Americans who are working hard at their jobs or working hard at their homes to raise their children while a spouse works hard at a job to support the family, THANK YOU to parents who do not expect ME to pay for YOUR children's upbringing.
THANK YOU for not having children until you could support them and if you made a mistake and ended up with a kid anyway, THANK YOU for working at a paying job to support them instead of expecting me and MY family to do it.
THANK YOU to the parents mostly mothers who sacrificed the easier job of leaving the screaming kid every day to deal with them. Men don't do this much because we know it ain't fun or easy. It pays big dividends for those kids and for society. They see parents with a work ethic and commitment to family, who show by example that it is UNDIGNIFIED to rely on the government.
I am curious. Are they two camps of conservatives on this issue? One who believes that all abortion should be illegal and in the defunding of planned parenthood and another that believes that no one who is poor should have kids.
Do you not see the cognitive dissonance here? Or should we poor ladies never give it up? If that is what you believe, do you believe in programs in high school to teach girls to stand up for themselves and say no?
At this point in my life. I am never having sex again especially with a conservative.
People who are poor should work hard to get their heads above water and THEN have kids if they want them. When they do, they should BOTH be prepared to support that kid even if it means working 80 hour work weeks to stay off the government dole. If that was the expectation of society, fewer people would be having kids out of wedlock. The MAJORITY of children in the US are now born out of wedlock.
If you do have sex and think you might get pregnant the only chance that kid has is if the father is a CONSERVATIVE and marries you or otherwise financially supports HIS child including supporting you being in the home with it because he will be too ASHAMED to let himself or his children be on the government dole.
But go ahead and have sex with liberal men who run from their obligations and agree with you that it's just fine to have children without preparing financially.
I don't believe in teaching abstinence as a requirement because of religion but young women have not benefited from the porn infested degraded society because they have a few good years of "giving it up" as you put it and are saddled with offspring for the rest of their lives along with the indignity of being on welfare.
see comment above for why you are a jerk. I don't have time to repeat myself. I am a hard working, caring single mother and small business owner.
I don't doubt you are that and at least the single mothers on welfare are WORKING because they accepted the burden of the children. But in the straits they find themselves in, it is important to demonstrate to their children that parents should financially support their own offspring and not depend on government even if it means they must leave the home to do it.
The missing piece is fathers and society including single mothers who do not promote the nuclear family. Single mothers should be the most vocal about this but they are too concerned with making apologies for their own mistakes and many of them have no problem being on welfare.
Wow. Fathers have really let their children down.
yeah. Mine had the temerity to die from lack of health insurance after losing his good job as a plumber when he had to have two major heart surgeries after an infection.
You can't really believe that the cases like your father account for poverty and the welfare state than men who feel no obligation or connection to their children or the mothers who give birth to them.
They live this way because society and the welfare state has told them they don't need to be ashamed of abandoning their families or be ashamed of their various children from various baby mamas being on welfare.
If your children grow up to be criminals or addicts or uneducated you will be able to place the blame squarely on the breakdown of the nuclear family.
I think a lot of people end up in situations that they don't expect. Due to death, disability and a lack of jobs. The options are really all bad once you are down
A lot but this does not describe the vast majority of households headed by single mothers dependent on welfare. You say you have a job and good for you but if your business does take off, how are you going to like being taxed right back into a neighborhood with crappy schools because YOU have to pay to raise other people's children?
I will be very happy to pay taxes because then I will have made it and I will be proud of that. I am not the one in this conversation who is a greedy sociopath.
You won't be happy when the reality sets in of what those taxes mean. It means YOUR kids will have to live in a substandard neighborhood with dangerous and crap schools because YOU have to support the children of other deadbeats.
Maybe not and the feel-good "compassion" of paying taxes is more important than your children's well being.
If everyone paid fair taxes (like Mitt) then ALL our kids could go to good schools. Fact is that your generation has completely dis invested in mine so you could keep you hard earned money and then WE are caled the entitlement generation
Fair taxes aren't the root of the millions of children royally screwed because of the breakdown of the family. Some of that breakdown has economic roots but the vast majority of the cause is the lack of work ethic in young men and young women who accept it even though they and their children end up screwed the most.
yeah I am sure the vulture chart has nothing to do with it. I am guessing that you are not a redliner. So why do you think that you are so much different from me.
klein10019
So...no one should have sex because they MIGHT get laid off from their job. Their spouse MIGHT up and leave them or they MIGHT suffer a catastrophic medical emergency or their business MIGHT suddenly fail due to unforseen changes in the market. Thus, they may not be able to support the children that they might accidentally have from sex (because birth control is immoral so no one should EVER have sex unless they are totally prepared to raise a bunch of kids without any risk of possible financial failure). Because though risk and possible failure are the absolute foundations on which capitalism is built, one must not ever dare to have a family (or even have sex EVER) unless their life is completely risk free and the possibility of catastrophe and/or failure is completely non-existent.
I see.
You, sir, are an idiot.
Lysistrata 2012. Lets show these MEN the world they say they want.
Of course you have to create this absurd scenario because you will not admit that these medical emergencies and business failures do not account for the abysmal state of society, the breakdown of the nuclear family does.
And you don't want to admit that a man and woman should not have sex unless they are fully prepared to bear 100% of the responsibility of offspring including emotional responsibility which for the child means both his parents under the same roof attending to his needs with one present most or all of the time.
Corey Yates, you can deny it but you would like a life like Ann Romneys where you can depend on your children's father to provide for your family and you can attend to your children. Your children would be raised in a secure and stable home and by virtue of that be protected from most of the pitfalls they may face such as crime and addiction.
Admit it and be proud to admit it. Do not think your own mistakes mean you have to turn them to virtues.
I would have loved to a solid middle class like my sister did because she married a hell of a guy and has been both saavy and lucky. Look I am not asking for any more of a handout than you get with your mortgage deduction. But I am oh so tired of being called lazy. I have to go back to work now listing vintage patterns of eBay cause I work seven days a week.
Being virtuous means working hard, being nice, playing by the rules and doing your best. I never wanted to be a ward of the state and very sincerely worked very hard in order to get off the dole. In fact I would much sooner argue for an increase in the min wage than to argue for more welfare with less restrictions. And I will be the first to admit that the best help I got was a hand up and not a hand out. Student parent housing, pell grants and loans were way more important than the cash aid. I am just so sick of your nasty attitude towards single moms. I ended up in an unfair situation because I of things out of my control. And the idea that my sweet, loving and smart kids should not exists is HIGHLY offensive to me.
I haven't called you lazy because you said you had a job with an income to offset the cost to the taxpayers and your children are seeing their parent taking on the financial responsibility of having produced them.
But there are millions of able bodied mothers and fathers comfortable with allowing the government to pay their bills and that is a problem. There is virtually no role for young men in society now and they sit on the couch at their baby mama house without embarrassment.
I can't believe women would actually think this is a good state of affairs. I know they don't, so why the disdain for the Romney family? That lets baby daddy off the hook because you are not expecting him to be responsible for his decisions. You hold the bag. All of it.
Saying you would like to see your children have whatever benefit you see in your sister's middle class situation is not the same as saying you wish they did not exist. It is basically agreeing with what I have been saying. Some day THEY will appreciate you saying this to them (that preparing better would have given them a more ideal foundation) because they would have liked to have that framework as well.
The fact that you acknowledge there is "being on the dole" and "ward of the state" means you are not of the destructive mindset that accounts for most households with a single mother.
And I blame the fathers most of all, but take Romney's point that it is better for the dignity of the women and their children if these mothers earn an income instead of collecting welfare. The ideal of ideals is two parents working out the finances and schedules so one is in the home most of the time, but short of that, financial self sufficiency is better than welfare.
We don't deserve help means that you want to see me and my two wonderful boys living on the street or dead.
The problem is that you want to argue ideal situations and I want to argue reality. The reality is that poor people have kids unless they are armed with ed and access to BC. The reality is people find themselves poor because we live in capitalist society where no one is duty bound to provide a person with a good job. Since this is reality so now you have three choices. Let them suffer the results of their actions and pay for all of their societal ills down the road. Give them a hand up and help them become successful tax payers or let them languish in the safety net. I pick number two because it is both the most cost effective and humane thing to do.
But if you want to keep arguing in LaLa land of the would of, should of, could ofs. Go right ahead just don't be suprised when no one on this thread takes you or your ideas seriously.
"should of's" are important. Young men have no should's anymore and they are free to produce children and leave it to the mothers and state to raise them.
There is no expectation including on the part of the baby mamas that let these leeches lay around on their couches all day and reap benefits of welfare along with the mothers.
You asked whether you should be expected not to "give it up" if the possible offspring is not going to be born into a financially stable situation with both loving parents. The obvious answer is no, you shouldn't, and the fact that people have decided they should have children before they believe they will be able to support them is batcrap insane.
True or false, your two boys would be benefited most of all if you were home to take care of them and their father provided financially for the family.
True or false, since their father is not doing that, your two boys are better off seeing you working for an income in addition to raising them, instead of just seeing you collecting welfare.
If you agree with both of those, and you indicated you did by previous postings, why aren't you voting for the Republican in this election?
still not arguing reality. So I take it that your answer is let them suffer until the social ills get so bad it costs a ton of money.
If that is the way you think it is amazing that you are sucessful. Though you probably aren't cause you obviously work as a troll
I would never vote for a republican because it is hateful people like you that I see when I look at the Greedy Old Party
So even though I demonstrate you agree with my arguments, and Mitt Romney's arguments, your emotional "feelings" about bad old republicans stiffen your resolve not to vote for them. Gotcha.
No the answer is for society including mothers on welfare to start teaching their children not to have children until they can provide for them and, as Mitt Romney said, require them to demonstrate the importance of financially supporting one's OWN children by requiring them to earn an income.
Coupled with harsh consequences for deadbeat fathers and the mothers on welfare teaching their children not to "give it up" for anyone who hasn't committed to them and their potential offspring.
You made Wonkette. Congratulations.
Ann and Mitt Romney said the work women do to take care of children is valuable.
Mitt Romney said it is not good for the dignity of a family if children are raised on welfare.
WHY are Democrat women against either one of these positions? The first one acknowledges the value of the time they spend with their children and the second one acknowledges the value of income they bring AND acknowledges the fact of the missing father and father's income.
Where does it benefit poor women to attack caring for children and to praise welfare? Welfare is a dream come true for deadbeat dads. Mothers are saddled with the work of raising children and the indignity of government aid, and poverty. They pay the entire price. The fact they aren't ALL conservative republicans is bewildering
Why do you believe that poor people should be sterilized if they want to have sex?
I said they should be on reliable birth control or sterlized until they have financial footing to raise children. The alternative is a high possibility of producing offspring they can't afford to raise.
Dont' give me any "people fall on hard times." The vast majority on welfare were on welfare from day one of their offspring's birth.
How many people on welfare do you know? Have you done any studies. You are so willing to assume that everyone on welfare is one of the undeserving poor. How do you know. Cause that was not my experience.
I didn't say everyone and I didn't say you. You said you have a job. 42% are on food stamps. The majority of children born to white parents are now born out of wedlock, vast majority of black children. These are not otherwise responsible couples who fell on hard times. The vast majority are people who felt free to make poor decisions because there was no social pressure not to. They, their children, and society are paying for it. Should bum you out.
I would rather help those people then to see them suffer more. And it is the financially responsible thing to do. your way is penny wise and pound foolish.
for every one dollar spent on Birth Control. The government saves four dollars in the cost of an unplanned pregnancy. I would like your argument a whole lot more if you supported wide access to birth control for lower income women. We prefer BC pills, IUD or shots because we can control them and therefor work if we are raped or in a compromised situation.
crickets
How is my way penny wise and pound foolish. Your children's entire society is crumbling because of the breakdown of the nuclear family.
I support government paid birth control and most poor women have it available through medicaid.
my bad. I though you were for the repeal of Obamacare (which helps women a whole lot by removing gender ratings and helps to cover BC for more women)
Yeah right. Getting medicaid is a nightmare and the Romney-Ryan budget would make it worse
you can only get medicaid once you are a mother. for someone so determined to debate this you are very uninformed about the way these things work
Most poor women have children.
you said...Poor women should not have kids
me....then give them birth control
you said....they have medicaid
me...only mothers can have medicaid
you...well poor women are the ones with kids
Logical FAIL.
so therefor we should have one kid we can't afford to access medicaid and then get BC and have no more. And then you will only hate us a little?
I said most women have access to birth control through medicaid
you said medicaid requires a child
I said most poor women have at least one child
you said therefore women should have a child to get birth control?
I said no, women should have a job and buy birth control or marry a man who can provide birth control if necessary, and if birth control is not affordable, women should not be risking pregnancy.
Women who can't afford birth control and have sex anyway are the worst mothers there are because from the time of their kid's conception they demonstrate that they care more about getting laid than the well being of their children.
You said women should feel free to have sex even if they can't afford birth control and the government doesn't buy it for them, knowing they will probably end up pregnant with a kid they can't afford.
This country is so screwed.
What is most frightening is you can't even get your head around the idea of deciding not to have sex knowing the consequence is an unintended pregnancy.
You think it's OK for poor people to have sex knowing that they will likely create children they can't support.
That is the depraved position of the Democratic party.
because of asses like you, you probably don't care about corporate welfare just what us little people get