Roy Edroso - brave soul he - read the latest and greatest ideas from the Republican notelligentsia and summed them up for people with delicate constitutions.
Like Rove's The Math, these are The Ideas that will cause us to rush to the polls and vote R, only to find some of us can't vote because we didn't have our passport photo taken by a left-handed, one-eyed white supremacist named Lars who lives in a bunker in Idaho like it specifically said on the Voter ID Requirements.
One of the smellier turds in the burning paper bag was this:
Lukas further denounced liberal programs "increasing funding for Head Start and Early Start, and bolstering other government support for child-care centers" because "as the price of institutional child care goes down for the user, the value of the service provided by the stay-at-home parent or grandparent also goes down" -- and how's a kid going to get to know his parents and grandparents unless poverty forces him to?Yes. Yes of course. And if you lower the price of health care, the Mom Kissing Your Boo-boo Better Market will crash and we'll all wind up living in a corridor.
However, a commenter came back with a fittingly contemptuous and fact laden response that also took on the smelliest turd. See below for that one but the response began:
Um. Good luck convincing working parents that lower-cost childcare is a bad thing because it makes grandma doing it for free less valuable.It kicked off an interesting exchange and eventually brought me to the following conclusion, which I modify a tad here:
Republican economic and social models won't work unless women stay at home.Work is perhaps a generous word, because nothing they ever come up with works and their conviction that there was some magical era where all women were housewives (or spinsters looking after the Aged Ps) comes straight from TV Land. (I won't bother going into whether all housewives were happy or if any might have chosen to do something else, given the opportunity.)
But if women are only performing unpaid domestic labor - housework, child care, elder care, it would appear to solve what the libercons see as problems.
For one, they can continue to devalue paid work that is traditionally performed by women - domestic care, child care, teaching, nursing.
"Hey, why the hell should my precious tax dollars go to some teacher when my wife can teach 'em at home?" "No Medicare doesn't need more funds for nursing homes or home health care. Why, my father is comfortable where he is and the girls take good care of him!"
Another: It certainly would open up the job market if women stopped cluttering up the place. Besides your died in the sheep Republican knows that women aren't really suited for the rigours of the workplace.
The delicate lady creature is much better off living the easeful life of the housewife. Keeping a house spotless, cooking three meals a day and bearing and rearing several children until her uterus (or husband) is like, "L8rz!"
And speaking of hubbers, they believe that making women completely reliant on men for their upkeep will do wonders for the social environment, as defined by a marked decrease in UBTBs (Uppity Bitches Talking Back).
Even better, teaching girls not to do anything to anger daddy if they like food will mean no teen sex, which is an invention of the liberal 60s caused by faked moon landings and jazz and did not exist before then. And because she'll be eager to get the hell out of the house, she'll probably marry the first semi-presentable male dad shoves in front of her. Just like the did in the good old days in TV Land.
The smelliest turd - in case you're wondering -
lower the risk associated with hiring long-term unemployed workers" for businesses," said Scholl. How? "By temporarily lowering the minimum wage," she cheerily explained.Of course, of course. Say you didn't come up with that idea because it would be easy for corporate lampreys to abuse that set up and workers? No reason, just wondered.
These people are moral sinkholes.