Paternity and Maternity Leave

[AViking]

I don't understand.

If I make a conscious decision to have kids, I would think that I would have planned and prepared adequately to have the provisions in place to raise the child in accordance with the local customs. If that means I put off having kids for a year or two while I saved money so that I can be home with them, then so be it.

It's not like catching a cold where just "BAM", you're having a kid. And if it did happen that way, most likely it's cuz you were irresponsible and didn't take the proper precautions to prevent it.

It's your right to have kids and your responsibility to do it properly. How the government takes care of you is really irrelevant.

I apologize for not having the time to properly catch up on my own thread but I thought I'd at least throw my 2 cents in while I procrastinate.

While I agree with what you have said above to some extent this thread is about maternity leave and I don't think there are many people who can afford to save up the money to take the adequate amount of time off which would be many months long. Even if they could the laws in place would not allow employees to take off more than 12 weeks which is completely inadequate. Savings rates in the US are abysmal. Forget retirement, forget a 6 months emergency fun, most people do not have any savings.

This idea that responsible people can save for having a child, retirement, emergencies, sickness, etc is great in a perfect world but is highly unrealistic in reality. Most people can not do it. Especially today with the way the economy is.

So it's kinda like the movie Idiocracy where only the dumb people have all the babies and all the smart people try to wait for the perfect moment which never happens. People need to get with reality. I saved up enough money for retirement by the time I was in my early 30's. I am smart enough to recognize though that almost nobody else could do that.

Do you want to live in a society where children are thrown into the hands of a stranger at 4 weeks or do you want to live in one where parents bond and raise their children for the first year or more of their lives before possibly putting them in daycare but having a flexible enough workplace that allows them some flextime to fill in the gaps and allow them to be good parents?

Ah but we'll inevitably get to the point where someone throws the tax question back in my face and screams that they don't want to pay for it. Well that's great and all but that's not the way a society is supposed to work. We actually live in these large groups of people so that we don't have to go at it all alone.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Ah but we'll inevitably get to the point where someone throws the tax question back in my face and screams that they don't want to pay for it. Well that's great and all but that's not the way a society is supposed to work. We actually live in these large groups of people so that we don't have to go at it all alone.

I don't want to have my taxes raised to pay for someone else's maternity/paternity leave, nor should they be. People have forgotten the purpose of the federal government and now, we seem to have an entire segment of the population who thinks government should step in and solve every problem or run every new program. The government is not -- let me repeat, NOT -- the solution to every real or imagined problem in society.

The Constitution clearly delineates the responsibilities of the federal government and even though politicians and courts have successfully twisted the meaning of words and phrases in it to suit their political goals, nowhere in the document does it say that the government should provide healthcare, retirement, maternity/paternity leave, vacation policies, etc.

 

[shadow9d9]

I don't want to have my taxes raised to pay for someone else's maternity/paternity leave, nor should they be. People have forgotten the purpose of the federal government and now, we seem to have an entire segment of the population who thinks government should step in and solve every problem or run every new program. The government is not -- let me repeat, NOT -- the solution to every real or imagined problem in society.

The Constitution clearly delineates the responsibilities of the federal government and even though politicians and courts have successfully twisted the meaning of words and phrases in it to suit their political goals, nowhere in the document does it say that the government should provide healthcare, retirement, maternity/paternity leave, vacation policies, etc.

You don't get to choose what your federal tax money goes towards. I have to subsidize the trillion dollar foreign occupations. That is life.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You don't get to choose what your federal tax money goes towards. I have to subsidize the trillion dollar foreign occupations. That is life.

Do you really find it necessary to say something so obvious?

I've had to subsidize those same foreign occupations that I strongly disagree with, along with many other programs I disagree with. What's your point? Fortunately the chances of our government paying for months of maternity/paternity leave for every person are remote.

 

[AViking]

Yes and what exactly does the government provide? Pretty much nothing. After a few years working in Sweden my pension plan is bigger than what I'll get from Social Security despite maxing out my contributions for years. So basically in the US I pay taxes and get jack and shit for them besides a large military. It boggles my mind that I could have dumped all that money into Social Security and the max you can get is $2,500. Yay for me! Worse is that the average person, who isn't saving shit, is going to have to live on something deplorable like $1,200 a month for the end of their miserable life.

I simply don't understand why anyone would want to live in a society where it's a dog eat dog world. I've been to India and seen it. I've been to China and seen it. I've been to lots of places that could give a shit about their people. I would expect the USA to be better. So what I'm saying is that now that I have lived overseas during a few different periods of my life and seen what other systems have to offer I see lots of improvement for the USA.

We cannot simply keep going the route we are. It's going to end in catastrophe.

Really. See the movie Idiocracy. Not a good flick by any stretch of the imagination but a good comedy of the absurdity that the USA is heading towards.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes and what exactly does the government provide? Pretty much nothing.

IMO, the federal government should provide national defense, regulate interstate commerce, negotiate foreign treaties, and promote an environment where people have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm sure I'm forgetting some things but those are the highlights IMO. Obviously some financial regulation is needed as well from them.

After a few years working in Sweden my pension plan is bigger than what I'll get from Social Security despite maxing out my contributions for years. So basically in the US I pay taxes and get jack and shit for them besides a large military. It boggles my mind that I could have dumped all that money into Social Security and the max you can get is $2,500. Yay for me! Worse is that the average person, who isn't saving shit, is going to have to live on something deplorable like $1,200 a month for the end of their miserable life.

What would you propose? I'd rather not contribute to Social Security and pay that money into my own retirement fund.

I simply don't understand why anyone would want to live in a society where it's a dog eat dog world. I've been to India and seen it. I've been to China and seen it. I've been to lots of places that could give a shit about their people. I would expect the USA to be better. So what I'm saying is that now that I have lived overseas during a few different periods of my life and seen what other systems have to offer I see lots of improvement for the USA.

We cannot simply keep going the route we are. It's going to end in catastrophe.

Not having government-paid maternity leave isn't the end of the world. What specifically are you referring to?

 

[AViking]

What would I prefer? Personally I would rather invest it myself. However since most people are stupid you can't just rely on them to save since that is clearly not going to work.

A mandatory deduction to your 401K might work. That's called a pension plan though. It just happens to perform better than the negative whatever percent my contribution has done so far in social security.

Ultimately you need a pension plan. Something you can actually live on when you retire. Right now we have 15% of seniors living in poverty. That's going to increase. Are you comfortable with 1 out of every 4 of your fellow retires living in poverty when you retire?

Not having government paid maternity leave, not having long maternity leave, not having paternity leave.

What else is best left for another thread but employment numbers, literacy, life expectancy, savings rates, the shrinking middle class, daycare costs, healthcare costs, the weak dollar, poor education, housing bubble, no mobility, no job security, increasing cost of living, etc are driving the USA into the ground with the exception of the top percentages who are profiting from it.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

What would I prefer? Personally I would rather invest it myself. However since most people are stupid you can't just rely on them to save since that is clearly not going to work.

A mandatory deduction to your 401K might work. That's called a pension plan though. It just happens to perform better than the negative whatever percent my contribution has done so far in social security.

There are significant differences between a 401K and a pension, but I do see where you're going with this and I agree to some extent. However, what happens when someone's investments tank and they're wiped out?

Ultimately you need a pension plan. Something you can actually live on when you retire. Right now we have 15% of seniors living in poverty. That's going to increase. Are you comfortable with 1 out of every 4 of your fellow retires living in poverty when you retire?

I'd like everyone to be responsible and take care of themselves. Sure, there will always be a few percent of people who are truly unable to take care of themselves because of mental/physical issues. However, when a large percentage of the population is not responsible enough, we have problems and I think that's the case today. I don't think it is fair to those of us who are responsible to say "X% of the population is stupid and/or lazy and can't take care of themselves, so everyone needs to be penalized." At some point, you need to tell people "Sorry, but you were warned to plan for yourself" and exercise tough love.

Not having government paid maternity leave, not having long maternity leave, not having paternity leave.

With declining birthrates in the US, even among immigrant populations, you may see something like this dangled as a carrot at some point. However, from my personal perspective, there are far more important things to spend tax money on at this point.

What else is best left for another thread but employment numbers, literacy, life expectancy, savings rates, the shrinking middle class, daycare costs, healthcare costs, the weak dollar, poor education, housing bubble, no mobility, no job security, increasing cost of living, etc are driving the USA into the ground with the exception of the top percentages who are profiting from it.

What do you propose doing about the people at the top?

I think many of us lead isolated lives to be honest and at the risk of sounding mean, I think many of us really don't realize how dumb and irresponsible the average person is. Many of these people put themselves in their bad positions.

 

[AViking]

I used to think like you. I'm really glad I don't anymore. I don't mean that to be offensive but I think you're right that many people live these insular lives and they simply don't know any better. Far too many Americans live these incredibly selfish lives with talk radio in their ear reinforcing their selfishness and vilianizing everyone else.

Right now US society is heading back towards feudalism. We have the rich elite and we have everyone else working for them. If you don't bow to the rich elites wishes you're going to be homeless. We have this mighty military there to protect us from the barbarian hordes at the gates.

I'm in the top percentages. I'm intelligent. I'm capable of seeing the world though through the eyes of other people. This notion that the whole point of life is to collect as much loot as possible at the expense of everyone else is wrong. We can share a bit and live much higher quality lives. If we collectively work together we can get much more done. That's the whole reason we live in towns and cities and aren't out doing subsistence hunting, gathering, and farming. Unfortunately the US has turned into a country of them vs us. It's incredibly selfish and now we live in a society with pretty much zero benefits. You're born, you go to school, you get a job, and you die. It's fantastic.

I brought up this thread because of quality of life. My quality of life is WAY higher in Sweden than it was in California. Does that matter at all to you? All the money in the world cannot buy time and a general sense of well being. It cannot buy happier and healthier neighbors. It's really nice to live in a place where people are happy. Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. They're happier.

 

[AViking]

After I wrote that I thought it might be worth looking up "Happiest countries" since at best my post is anecdotal.

Apparently they have these yearly happy country lists. Forbes lists the USA as 11th. Up from 12th.

So who’s the happiest? As has been the case the past five years, that distinction goes to countries that enjoy peace, freedom, good healthcare, quality education, a functioning political system and plenty of opportunity: Norway, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christo...e-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

There are some notable changes in the rankings this year. The United States, though ranked 11th overall, dropped out of the top 20 in the economic sub-index for the first time, passed by New Zealand and South Korea. (And no wonder, given America’s $1 trillion a year in “quantitative easing.&#8221 Meanwhile, Mexico (59th overall), overtook Brazil (46th) in the economic ranking.

 

[AViking]

A UN report about the happiest nations lists it slightly worse for the US.

http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf

Mexico came out one spot ahead of the US. Sweden #5, USA #17

I didn't read the report but here's where I found it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/world-happiness-report-happiest-countries_n_3894041.html

The report is the second of its kind released by a coalition of researchers including John F. Helliwell of the University of British Columbia and Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the London School of Economics's Richard Layard and Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute. The team drew upon Gallup World Poll data from the the past three years to rank the 156 countries on aspects such as healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices and social support.

So you can see that it is slightly different.

 

[AViking]

Bottom line is that there is a difference in values. Some value money. Others happiness. I argue that living your life for money instead of happiness is a complete and total waste of your time on this planet. I have lots of money. Happiness is far better. The goal should be both but not at the expense of almost your entire population and your children.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I used to think like you. I'm really glad I don't anymore. I don't mean that to be offensive but I think you're right that many people live these insular lives and they simply don't know any better. Far too many Americans live these incredibly selfish lives with talk radio in their ear reinforcing their selfishness and vilianizing everyone else.

Ask yourself this question: who is more selfish -- the person wanting to keep more of his/her income in order to support his/her family, or the person who thinks government should pay their way? If I make a decision costing tens of thousands of dollars (ie, having a child), I don't expect the US taxpayer to pay my salary while I'm off for 6 months. The United States was not founded as a country where government provides these kinds of services. The Constitution is very clear.

I have no problems with social safety nets, but the key words there are "safety net." One should not rely on the government for support their entire lives and that's a problem we have in the US.

Right now US society is heading back towards feudalism. We have the rich elite and we have everyone else working for them. If you don't bow to the rich elites wishes you're going to be homeless. We have this mighty military there to protect us from the barbarian hordes at the gates.

The elite have forgotten what got them there and in many cases, have lost loyalty to the nation that made it possible for them to be wealthy. It will eventually bite them hard.

Oh, and bow to them or you'll be homeless? That's a huge exaggeration. If you have skills, you won't be unemployed for long.

I'm in the top percentages. I'm intelligent. I'm capable of seeing the world though through the eyes of other people. This notion that the whole point of life is to collect as much loot as possible at the expense of everyone else is wrong.

I'm in the top percentages of both income and intelligence, and you're looking at it entirely wrong. Sure, some people might look at it as "collecting as much loot as possible." I don't look at it that way at all. I look at it as paying my way in life, supporting my family, and not being subsidized by the taxpayer. To me, experiences are more valuable than possessions. I have a nice house but I drive an old car (2001), don't buy expensive clothes, and tend to save tons of money. The one area where I try not to skimp is vacations because those experiences last a lifetime.

We can share a bit and live much higher quality lives. If we collectively work together we can get much more done. That's the whole reason we live in towns and cities and aren't out doing subsistence hunting, gathering, and farming. Unfortunately the US has turned into a country of them vs us. It's incredibly selfish and now we live in a society with pretty much zero benefits. You're born, you go to school, you get a job, and you die. It's fantastic.

Do you donate to charity? I do and I much prefer that than giving more of my money to the government so it can redistribute it.

I brought up this thread because of quality of life. My quality of life is WAY higher in Sweden than it was in California. Does that matter at all to you? All the money in the world cannot buy time and a general sense of well being. It cannot buy happier and healthier neighbors. It's really nice to live in a place where people are happy. Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. They're happier.

I've been all over the world. I love Europe in particular and I agree that they have a high quality of life there and in many cases, a higher quality of life. However, you're overlooking MANY unfortunate cultural factors. In the US, the emphasis is "work, work, work." As someone who has managed projects with workers in multiple countries, there is no comparison -- in my experience, US workers worked far harder and it wasn't even close. IMO, the "work, work, work" culture is what needs to change. It isn't a badge of honor to work 60+ hours per week and it certainly isn't something that people should brag about. These are the kinds of thing that need to change first. I gave up working long hours years ago and won't do it regularly ever again. My time is too valuable.

Bottom line is that there is a difference in values. Some value money. Others happiness. I argue that living your life for money instead of happiness is a complete and total waste of your time on this planet. I have lots of money. Happiness is far better. The goal should be both but not at the expense of almost your entire population and your children.

Money isn't the end, but a means to an end for me. That's how it should be for everyone.

 

[AViking]

I think this is one area where I am lacking. I do not know how to find a job where I can not work like a dog in the USA. I am good at what I do and they expect me to work, work, work. Even having my own company it was not 100% my own so the other owners expected me to work, work, work. It's a constant struggle to balance time and money. I'm now in the process of starting a business where it will just be me and my girlfriend as owners for that very reason. I don't want people hanging over my head telling me I have to work 95% of the year to fill up their coffers.

I'm trying to steer the conversation a bit away from the social safety net since that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about basic things that everyone needs to live a healthy and productive life. Vacation. Healthcare. Education. Housing. Food. Safety. Pension. However even there I don't think you and I would completely agree. You said above that you didn't think it was the responsibility of the government to provide paid vacation and iirc you didn't believe in a pension system since you felt everyone should independently save. Lets not quote me on housing and food and say I think the government should provide those. I don't. In fact I think I would go the other way and say that I think the government should stop artificially inflating the housing bubble and just let it crash since that will make housing more affordable for people.

I have added maternity and paternity leave to my list of things since after seeing it in action over here and reading about the full impact it has on families and children it is very clear that it is absolutely fantastic.

I have also tried to show that the cost is rather minimal in the scheme of things. Marginal tax rates and deductions aside most people are going to pay about 10%-20% more in taxes in Sweden but get all the benefits I listed above.

Of course I have also admitted that it is complicated. We can't just raise taxes and give these benefits away. Our entire economy right now is a giant race to the bottom as we try to compete in the same bracket as China. We can't change until our culture stops buying everything based on price rather than quality. We can't change as long as we keep destroying the middle class. Everything I have advocated is pretty much dependent on a healthy economy, a healthy middle class, and everyone paying their fair share of taxes without all the loopholes. We currently do not have that.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I think this is one area where I am lacking. I do not know how to find a job where I can not work like a dog in the USA. I am good at what I do and they expect me to work, work, work.

There are a few different ways to do it, but obviously it depends on the company. Above all, it comes from setting proper expectations. If you're always the one that gets things done and are the last one to leave the office, you will be rewarded with more work. I finally put an end to that a few years ago and haven't ever looked back.

 

[AViking]

Culturally that's tough to do. I was raised to be the first one to the office and the last one to leave. I'm not a morning person so I eventually was not the first one there (6am) but I was always the last to leave. You have to set an example or else everyone else will not work as hard. As a boss you can't be lazy but ask your employees to bust their ass. At least not in a small company. I also worked for companies where having two of me was not possible. The skill set is rare and the cost to have two of me is not possible in a small company. So if I took time off someone from another office would need to fly in to cover for me. That's flattering but not conductive to taking lots of vacation let alone maternity/paternity leave.

The only way to change that is to change the way we compete in the business world and having laws in place that pretty much make it mandatory. Otherwise everyone is competing with the lowest common denominator and with the race to the bottom in the USA that's a very low number. Margins can be razor thin when competing with Asia and we only make the big bucks by volume. That happens by working a lot.

In Sweden they focus more on quality. I wouldn't dare compare the two economies since the USA is so large but it would be nice to see the USA really shift focus and rather than try to compete with countries that pay their employees $1/hr and offer no benefits provide goods and services that are of higher quality and higher price.

 

[soulcougher73]

I used to think like you. I'm really glad I don't anymore. I don't mean that to be offensive but I think you're right that many people live these insular lives and they simply don't know any better. Far too many Americans live these incredibly selfish lives with talk radio in their ear reinforcing their selfishness and vilianizing everyone else.

Right now US society is heading back towards feudalism. We have the rich elite and we have everyone else working for them. If you don't bow to the rich elites wishes you're going to be homeless. We have this mighty military there to protect us from the barbarian hordes at the gates.

I'm in the top percentages. I'm intelligent. I'm capable of seeing the world though through the eyes of other people. This notion that the whole point of life is to collect as much loot as possible at the expense of everyone else is wrong. We can share a bit and live much higher quality lives. If we collectively work together we can get much more done. That's the whole reason we live in towns and cities and aren't out doing subsistence hunting, gathering, and farming. Unfortunately the US has turned into a country of them vs us. It's incredibly selfish and now we live in a society with pretty much zero benefits. You're born, you go to school, you get a job, and you die. It's fantastic.

I brought up this thread because of quality of life. My quality of life is WAY higher in Sweden than it was in California. Does that matter at all to you? All the money in the world cannot buy time and a general sense of well being. It cannot buy happier and healthier neighbors. It's really nice to live in a place where people are happy. Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. They're happier.

:thumbsup: I care. Im like you in my outlook on life. US has it wrong on so many levels in my opinion.

 

[cliftonite]

It is my opinion that most of the far-left liberals are naïve. They seem to believe bigger government programs are the answer to everything and that government should support those who can't/won't support themselves. If my perception is wrong, tell me what it is they believe.

Also, your point above is irrelevant. The argument here isn't whether liberals are naïve, childish, or whatever -- that's you diverting and trying to take my opinion and make that the central issue. It won't work so stop trying. Now that that is out of the way, answer my questions and quit diverting. I'll even requote:

Please answer the bolded.

What evidence is there that the right want a smaller government? The only thing they want to do is shrink the social programs and funnel that money into defense. Chucky, who is railing against social spending was one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq war on this forum and he didn't seem to care about its affect on the deficit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/military-sequestration_n_4377517.html

 

[AViking]

Right and left. Liberal and conservative. Progressives and Neocons. All these labels. The difference between the parties is pretty much non-existent. They ratchet up support by yelling about social issues that will never be affected by their policies. Abortion, Gay marriage, etc. Both sides of the spectrum have increased the size of government. Both spend tons of money. Both go to war. Etc, etc. Whatever issue one side picks the other opposes. It's so that everyone feels like they're on a team. We enjoy team sports and politics is just another version of it.

Most people are just voting for the lesser of two evils. We're not making any real progress with respect to what we think we're voting for. If you're fiscally conservative you might have voted for Reagan. The guy who spent tons of money and increased our debt astronomically. If you're for liberal social programs you might have voted for Clinton. The guy who enacted welfare reform that reduced welfare recipients by a lot and increased the number of people in this country living on less than a couple bucks a day. Maybe you voted for Obama and his health reform. Something that is going to cost the middle class so much more money that it's comical at this point. My family went from paying $19,000 a year to $27,000 a year.

It's a giant shell game. How can politicians move as much money to the top as possible? That's all that has been happening during my lifetime. Someone here might be older and remember a different time but it must have been a very long time ago.

So once again can't you see a better way? A country where people actually give a shit about those around them and it's not all about being as selfish as possible so that you can die with the most money?

I can't stress enough how great it is to live in a place that has basic benefits like free education, free healthcare, maternity leave, paternity leave, 6 weeks vacation, etc.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

What evidence is there that the right want a smaller government?

Neither of our main political parties want smaller government -- they just have different ideas of which components should be larger. More importantly, they'll do anything to stay in power even if it burdens future generations with enormous debt.

The only thing they want to do is shrink the social programs and funnel that money into defense. Chucky, who is railing against social spending was one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq war on this forum and he didn't seem to care about its affect on the deficit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/03/military-sequestration_n_4377517.html

Defense and social programs need to be cut. Nothing should be off the table.

I can't stress enough how great it is to live in a place that has basic benefits like free education, free healthcare, maternity leave, paternity leave, 6 weeks vacation, etc.

It is great, but many of us don't care to have our taxes raised enough to support those -- because, after all, they aren't "free."

 

[EagleKeeper]

I can't stress enough how great it is to live in a place that has basic benefits like free education, free healthcare, maternity leave, paternity leave, 6 weeks vacation, etc.

Who is paying the costs if it is free to you?

 

[AViking]

You're trying to ask a rhetorical question despite knowing that it's taxes and despite knowing that the actual cost to Sweden and tax payers is less than it is for Americans and the US government.

Look up what we pay for Education and Healthcare and how we trail other countries that spend less.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You're trying to ask a rhetorical question despite knowing that it's taxes and despite knowing that the actual cost to Sweden and tax payers is less than it is for Americans and the US government.

Look up what we pay for Education and Healthcare and how we trail other countries that spend less.

Therefore it is not free; Someone else is picking up the tab for you.

Many countries with socialized care also benefit/piggyback off of the US Health care system.

You accept the higher taxes as a justification for the "free" extras and then want to tout those extras as if there is no inherent cost to having them.

Someone is paying; you, the employer or the taxpayers overall. There is no free lunch unless the government is in itself subsidized by income outside the taxpayer.

 

[chucky2]

What evidence is there that the right want a smaller government?

Fiscal conservatives want a reduced Fed gov (and likely state gov as well) at all levels, not just social services. Whether those are the right you're talking about depends on which Politician you're referencing. I doubt there are too many true fiscal conservatives elected and actually voting their conscience though...

The only thing they want to do is shrink the social programs and funnel that money into defense.

Again, depends who you're talking about. My past self would have said just reduce them all at the Fed level. At least we're good at defence though. Bumping up social programs in the US just buys votes and indoctrinates masses of people to push for more and more social programs that others will pay for.

Chucky, who is railing against social spending was one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq war on this forum and he didn't seem to care about its affect on the deficit.

Correct. Although, please note, while I was, and still am, in favor of us having gone into Iraq, I'm not in favor of how we abandoned Afghanistan mission, nor how we carried out the Iraq mission. Had we handled both how we should have, we'd be only another 20 years or so from turning two shit countries into far better countries. With the way we went about it, we just wasted by far and large a lot of money, and lives (lost and impacted) of our soldiers and civilians.

It's sort of like social services: Do them properly, and you can get people to support them. Do them like we do in the US, and you get pushback because we know how F'd up they'll be, which in turn, means how we'll have our own money taken to support Politicians and those on the Gov teat.

Chuck

 

[Howard]

Therefore it is not free; Someone else is picking up the tab for you.

Many countries with socialized care also benefit/piggyback off of the US Health care system.

You accept the higher taxes as a justification for the "free" extras and then want to tout those extras as if there is no inherent cost to having them.

Someone is paying; you, the employer or the taxpayers overall. There is no free lunch unless the government is in itself subsidized by income outside the taxpayer.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood what he was saying, but I think he was saying that it ends up being cheaper anyway. So you save money and get more benefit. Is my understanding flawed?