Response to SunSeeker (Reply #44)
Sun Apr 15, 2012, 08:15 AM
SemperEadem (8,053 posts)
64. that is the little thing that the tv hosts let her get away with saying
Last edited Sun Apr 15, 2012, 08:22 AM - Edit history (3)
disclaimer: I'm GENERALLY SPEAKING. I'm not speaking to the specific situations to the contrary (pregnancy as a result of rape, etc.) that the argumentative will try to use to derail what I'm saying. I"m speaking in general, broad terms here.
"I'm being attacked because I chose motherhood"... for the most part, women who have children have "chosen motherhood"--by definition. That was not the issue---the issue was her presuming to be able to identify with women who "have chosen motherhood" and who also have to work for taxable income outside the home.
IRS forms released Tuesday by Mitt Romney's presidential campaign show that despite reporting income of $21.7 million, the couple paid only $20,603 in taxable wages for household help in 2010. This figure was divided among four women: Rosania Costa ($4,808), Kelli Harrison ($8,667), Susan Moore ($2,238) and Valerie Cravens Anae ($4,890).
According to a number of Boston-based domestic staffing agencies, the salary range for a housekeeper is between $20 and $30 an hour, which adds up to an annual salary of $40,000 to $50,000 based on forty-hour weeks and two weeks of paid vacation a year.
Can she relate to the 4 women who she's collectively paid $20k/year to help do the heavy lifting of child care for her? How? Because she got pregnant, went into labor and bore children? It certainly wasn't her having to figure out how she was going to feed, clothe, educate and house those children on $4k/year.
So for ann to say that can relate or is in a position to advise her husband on policy when she's never had to drag her behind out of bed and get herself ready and all 5 of her sons ready for school, drop them off and go work a job that has sucky pay and no benefits, then when that job is done, go to work the second one with sucky pay and no benefits just so she can afford to put food in her children's mouths, clothes on their backs, roof over their heads, doctor's visits, electricity, etc. smacks of disingenousness.
It really shows she's as much of an idiotic robot as her husband is. She is the daughter of a wealthy marine heavy equipment manufacturer and she married a wealthy corporate raider. She may have had a $75/month basement flat when she first got married, but she had a trust fund from which she could tap into at any time were her husband not as liquid as he needed to be. I fail to see how she relates to the mom who waitresses or cashiers at the retail store or works in the chicken factory for a pittance. She did what the state requires all mothers (and fathers) to do: take care of the children she bears. That was her duty and obligation, not a feat above and beyond. That she can do it without worry or breaking a sweat doing labor in exchange for taxable income is what has gotten many folks irritated.
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Wait Wut||Apr 2012||#7|
|Capt. Obvious||Apr 2012||#14|
that is the little thing that the tv hosts let her get away with saying
|Major Nikon||Apr 2012||#41|
|Warren DeMontague||Apr 2012||#31|
|Uncle Joe||Apr 2012||#43|
|H2O Man||Apr 2012||#55|
Please login to view edit histories.