The fact is that Obamacare does not offer healthcare subsidies to families with incomes below poverty level (this is likely the case for those he reports as not working at all). Those families with income below poverty level, must pay 100% of any health insurance premium that they obtained through Obamacare, or they must apply for Medicaid. And remember, Medicaid is administered through the States. So Sean can blame the support of poverty level families, on the State government where they reside, not Obama.

Also Sean doesn’t has an inibility to see a past today. He only sees a parent staying home to raise their children correctly, as a drain on the federal budget. He doesn’t realize that his own idea of a good parent, may emphasize the monetary safety of the children now, but is less able to develop better morality in the child. Unfortunately, these children will have more probability of draining the federal budget in their later years (ie. addiction treatments, incarceration, etc.)

As an example Sean would quickly agree with, think about the Kennedy Family. Very work and income oriented, as Sean would like to promote, but I think he would agree many of their children turned out morally dismal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdhqGUWGzjc

Very amusing.

What was amazing to me is how much they cheated. Like smuggling in modern shampoo, etc. Seems like you’d go whole-hog just to have an authentic experience. I don’t think any of the families lived like that for more than a couple of months.

The further we get from the actual “hands on” daily grind of life, the more we lose our perspective.

As to the women’s work issue, I once had a discussion with a very educated man (a physician) who wondered why dresses became the culturally acceptable clothing for women (rather than pants). I pointed out to him that in most past societies even the better off had little access to multiple wardrobes (your two sets of clothing) and dresses were necessary to accommodate a woman whether she was pregnant or not; there was no such thing as a maternity wardrobe.

(Tangentially) this is a small revelation of one of the blessings that Western civilization and Western economies have provided; a heretofore unimaginable access to an absolute surfeit of goods across all economic levels which make our lives easier. . . you know, that same Western civ that leftists loath as the source of all global evil.

Footnote: per the 1860 Census, the cash income for a yeoman farmer (family farm) in the South was $50. While an elderly female slave would run you $200; a skilled carpenter, ~$1200.

If you do the math, you will divine that slavery was very much a rich man’s game, and in fact, not quite 2% of white Southerners owned slaves.

Amen, T! THAT drives me crazy.

And re Neo’s point about women’s work: I edited a book about women’s work before the Industrial Revolution (for which I thank the Lord). Here’s a sample:
–Spin raw cotton or flax into thread (remember spinning wheels?)
–Weave thread on a loom into cloth
–Cut and sew together the clothing for each member of the family: Two outfits each, one for workaday, one for “Sunday go to meeting”
–Use hog lard (your husband butchers the hog and you get some of the fat) and lye to make soap
–Tend that beehive and gather wax to make candles, by hand, on wicks you’ve woven out of that thread
–All the usual cleaning and cooking and childcare
–Tending to the vegetable garden
–Putting up all the food so it won’t spoil; canning, preserves
–Usually, killing the chicken for the night’s meal, and plucking, dressing, and roasting it
–Taking care of the chicken coop
–Helping your husband in the fields, especially if you don’t yet have children, or they’re too young to pitch in

You get the idea. Absolutely Everything was handmade, and both husband and wife worked like, well, field hands. Accounts of the sodbusters out west recount tales of women giving birth in the morning (try That on for size, Artful) and then hitting the fields in the afternoon for plowing.

LOATHSOME. Despicable. Unforgivable.

He evidently had not heard of profit-sharing plans run by many employers for their employees (this was around 1980), but never mind.

He said that these employers ought to share their profits with their employees. He asked pointedly, what would it hurt the “boss” if he shared his profits with the workers? Wouldn’t it be right to share in the profits?

I said I have no problem at all with it, it’s a good idea, I’m in favor of it. But now: if the company has a bad year, can the boss take money back from the workers’ paychecks?

Silence.

That. Had. Never. Ever. Occured. To. Him.

— —

R.I.P., Grandpa.