In response to:

Obama Sabotages Welfare Reform

Teresa8 Wrote: Aug 07, 2012 7:55 AM
@Denise67. The majority "non-welfare" mothers of small children are working moms simply because raising a family, paying the mortgage, etc, requires two incomes. To be a stay at home Mom these days is a benefit of hard work and planning on the part of the parents, through sacrifice and thoughful decisionmaking. To blindly assume that mothers on welfare somehow are entitiled to enjoy raising their children at home on the expense backs of taxpayers and "mothers that do work", is the essence of "entitlement". You are entitled to procreate but no one should be beholden to support you, if you aren't at least prepared to make the same effort as those who are paying the bills.
Denise67 Wrote: Aug 07, 2012 9:02 AM
Moms work as full-time moms for varied reasons and work outside the home for varied reasons. I asked a married mom at a place that telemarketed for credit cards, "Do you like this job?" She answered, "Oh, gets me away from the kids for a few hours a day." Some married SAHMs don't have the option of bringing in a 2nd income. A mentally ill or slow woman may have no place in the paid labor market but a husband willing to support her and the kids.
A mother at home is a mother at home regardless of the source of support. I don't want a nation of pregnancy addicts but pregnancy is painful and uncomfortable so most women aren't going to have a baby every year.
IF one sees a SAHM as an asset for a baby or young child, it's an asset for poor kids.
President Obama on July 12 ended welfare reform, the crowning achievement of the Republican Congress of 1996. That reform succeeded in reducing the welfare rolls by almost half and was so popular with the American people that Bill Clinton felt compelled to sign it.

The magic bullet that achieved this authentic reform was requiring able-bodied adults to work or at least prepare for work, as a condition of receiving taxpayer handouts. This requirement imposed on welfare recipients was not only good for the taxpayers, but it was also good for the recipients because it put them on the path to self-sufficiency and...