Paternity and Maternity Leave

[GreenMeters]

SEASONED RICE DISHES. O lawdy, save us from the Cadillac welfare queens with the audacity of buying SEASONED RICE DISHES. And cake mixes? Poor people aren't allowed to have birthdays!

And you bleeding heart wimp, you want poor people to be gifted ground beef or poultry? You a commie, boy? There are dumpsters outside fast food restaurants. There's bark on trees, boil that long enough and you can eat it.

Yeah, so really just an incredibly ignorant series of posts from you, chuckles. No one is reaching into your wallet. There are dues to be a member of club America. You don't want to pay, fine, enjoy club Somalia. See how your confirmation bias in judging shopping carts plays there.

 

[chucky2]

The point, which I can see is completely lost on you, is that social welfare is supposed to give people help in surviving in some minimal standard because they're not well off to attain that level for themselves. It's not supposed to allow them to live like the middle class their sucking tax dollars off of. I, nor anyone I know, is interested in paying for them to eat steaks, have luxuries like soft drinks, etc. etc. If they want those things, that is splendid. They can get off social welfare and buy them all day long with their own money.

You seem to want it the other way: Take taxes from middle class people to pay for poor people to live like middle class people because poor people don't want to live like poor people.

Yeah...F that...

EDIT: And LOL at 'no one is reaching into your wallet'. Yes they are. The Gov is taxing me. And presumably they are taxing me at the level they are taxing me at because of Gov expenses. If they reform social services to allow purchases of only things people need and rather not what the want, in theory, the Gov budget should go down and thus my tax burden should go down. I say in theory of course, because we all know Gov will just keep the rate the same and blow money somewhere else. But still, the point remains: I'm not interested in paying for someone to have Pepsi and Cheetos, steaks, and whatnot on my dime. If you are so inclinded, go to a poorer area and pay for peoples sh1t they don't need out of your own pocket. Ironically, that'd be more efficient than the Gov doing it, plus it'd feed your need to see them live better than they need to. Triple win for all of us.

 

[AViking]

Two ways to look at it:

They get a fixed amount no matter what. So the cost to the tax payer is the same no matter what they buy.

They should be motivated to get off of welfare. Give them the right to buy chicken, ground beef, bread, milk, cheese, butter, salt, pepper, beans, rice, fruit, and vegetables. That's it.

Might be a bit complex to do the second option but I would be all for it.

Maternity and Paternity leave though is not a form of welfare. It is something that benefits our children, parents, and society as a whole.

 

[GreenMeters]

The official policy of our government and financial institutions is to maintain 5% unemployment. One out of every twenty people is unemployed explicitly due to the actions of We The People, so that the economy can over-perform for the rest of us. You seem to think that welfare, food stamps, etc., are about providing the absolute minimum needed so that we don't have to be inconvenienced by the sight of people dying in the street. There's more to the safety net than that. It's an apology to those intentionally screwed over by the rigged rules of our economic system. So I'm perfectly happy to pay my fair share that lets those people harmed by generations of systematic poverty enjoy some simple, middle class privileges. But then, I'm not a hypocritical cheapskate who reaps the benefit of an economic system geared to the success of my social class--one that funds infrastructure and direct investment in business, one that fosters a healthy, educated population of exploitable workers--but who whines constantly about the miniscule cost that feeds back to pay for that system.

 

[sm625]

not as retarded as what you just said


I had 2 weeks paternity leave, the first week I wouldn't have been useful at work anyways as I was exhausted the entire time and had no business doing critical work

week 3 I was barely holding on, with the 4 hours of real sleep a day

I was happy to go back to work just to have a real schedule again and not feel so aimless, but I would rather have been able to stay home for another 2 weeks. But I had changed jobs mid-pregnancy and thus didnt have alot of days off to use. I probably will with the second one

Get a sex change. You are clearly not a man on the inside

 

[nehalem256]

The official policy of our government and financial institutions is to maintain 5% unemployment. One out of every twenty people is unemployed explicitly due to the actions of We The People, so that the economy can over-perform for the rest of us. You seem to think that welfare, food stamps, etc., are about providing the absolute minimum needed so that we don't have to be inconvenienced by the sight of people dying in the street. There's more to the safety net than that. It's an apology to those intentionally screwed over by the rigged rules of our economic system. So I'm perfectly happy to pay my fair share that lets those people harmed by generations of systematic poverty enjoy some simple, middle class privileges. But then, I'm not a hypocritical cheapskate who reaps the benefit of an economic system geared to the success of my social class--one that funds infrastructure and direct investment in business, one that fosters a healthy, educated population of exploitable workers--but who whines constantly about the miniscule cost that feeds back to pay for that system.

5% unemployment is considered "full-employment" due to labor market churn.

Also, welfare and food stamps have basically nothing to do with unemployment. There is unemployment insurance for that.

 

[chucky2]

The official policy of our government and financial institutions is to maintain 5% unemployment. One out of every twenty people is unemployed explicitly due to the actions of We The People, so that the economy can over-perform for the rest of us. You seem to think that welfare, food stamps, etc., are about providing the absolute minimum needed so that we don't have to be inconvenienced by the sight of people dying in the street. There's more to the safety net than that. It's an apology to those intentionally screwed over by the rigged rules of our economic system. So I'm perfectly happy to pay my fair share that lets those people harmed by generations of systematic poverty enjoy some simple, middle class privileges. But then, I'm not a hypocritical cheapskate who reaps the benefit of an economic system geared to the success of my social class--one that funds infrastructure and direct investment in business, one that fosters a healthy, educated population of exploitable workers--but who whines constantly about the miniscule cost that feeds back to pay for that system.

Awesome. Rediculous opinion, but, it's your opinion. Instead of giving these poorer people your heart bleeds over less net money by wanting the Gov to tax it off you, why not just directly take care of your fetish by directly giving your own money to these purposefully screwed over unfortunates? They will get 100% of your designated money, instead of 100% - Gov overhead. Would not this be a far better solution? You get these people the most money, which they need. So win for them. You get to fullfil your ideology, win for you. And the rest of us that feel that people on the public dole shouldn't be drinking Pepsi and eating Cheetos with our tax dollars can have reform to prevent such, which is win for us.

You agree with that right?

 

[chucky2]

5% unemployment is considered "full-employment" due to labor market churn.

Also, welfare and food stamps have basically nothing to do with unemployment. There is unemployment insurance for that.

Take note: Reforming these systems so Links card holders can't use public tax dollars to buy Pepsi and Cheetos is leaving them dying in the streets. And we wonder why our systems are so F'd up in the first place. People like this vote...

 

[chucky2]

Two ways to look at it:

They get a fixed amount no matter what. So the cost to the tax payer is the same no matter what they buy.

They should be motivated to get off of welfare. Give them the right to buy chicken, ground beef, bread, milk, cheese, butter, salt, pepper, beans, rice, fruit, and vegetables. That's it.

Might be a bit complex to do the second option but I would be all for it.

The way you handle the second option is to just treat Links (and I use Links, which is state of Illinois welfare, but the example holds true for Federal system as well) purchases as alcohol purchases. You have a name on the Links card, no debit code it must be credit, and ID must be verified to match the Links card. Violations by the card user result in call to the police as its treated like a stolen credit card. This keeps people selling their Links cards for cash. Violations by the checkout person performing the check result in say a $5000 mandatory fine (something so painful the business will make sure their employees perform it instead of ignoring it). Multiple violations in a given time period by the checkout person result them going to jail. Violations by a business result in loss of business license, and owner going to jail. Suddenly abusing public assistance becomes like selling alcohol to minors, a big no no.

Maternity and Paternity leave though is not a form of welfare. It is something that benefits our children, parents, and society as a whole.

First, those are forms of welfare. They're for the welfare of the baby, mother, and father. Society is taking from a business, who has no need for that baby to have that level of care (the baby will survive with 3 months off rather than 12 months off), for societal benefit. The business is losing for what society wants, and then will turn around and pass that cost on back to society.

But I am fine with more than 3 months of leave for a mother and father of a new healthy baby. I'd put the number at something like 8-10 months for primary care giver, 4-5 months for secondary care giver. I'd guess that in most cases, the mother would be the primary, but really, that's for the parents to figure out. In cases of baby adoption I'd give the birth mother something like 3 months as well. For unhealthy babies I'd keep the above I'd just ammend the FMLA of 480 hours for a 12 mo period to something higher for babies. As long as they can provide medical note from their doctor (and, I already accept that there is going to be fraud there), they can burn infinity for all I care.

Business is not a charity though. At some point, you either have an employee or you have a former employee. My problem with social services in the states is that playing the system has become a public joke for far far too high a % of people. You tell a joke about it and instead of getting hard stares for even suggesting such an absurdity you get laughter because that attitude it scam the system for what you can scam it for. There is no shame, no sense of public right and wrong.

We have a values problem in the US that is getting worse, not better. Making social services adjustments in favor of these values slips is going to cost the country real money. At $17T in debt and counting, that's not something to be taken lightly...

Chuck

 

[GreenMeters]

Awesome. Rediculous opinion, but, it's your opinion. Instead of giving these poorer people your heart bleeds over less net money by wanting the Gov to tax it off you, why not just directly take care of your fetish by directly giving your own money to these purposefully screwed over unfortunates? They will get 100% of your designated money, instead of 100% - Gov overhead. Would not this be a far better solution? You get these people the most money, which they need. So win for them. You get to fullfil your ideology, win for you. And the rest of us that feel that people on the public dole shouldn't be drinking Pepsi and eating Cheetos with our tax dollars can have reform to prevent such, which is win for us.

You agree with that right?

Hmm, the nation's tax revenues vs. one person's salary. Yeah, great trade, that definitely serves my ideological purpose. You're kinda dim, right? (Rhetorical question; your constant ignorance on display in this forum is answer enough). Fortunately for this country, hypocritical cheapskate cretins like you are a minority of voters, so we'll continue funding and expanding the safety net that is our ethical mandate.

 

[soulcougher73]

Hmm, the nation's tax revenues vs. one person's salary. Yeah, great trade, that definitely serves my ideological purpose. You're kinda dim, right? (Rhetorical question; your constant ignorance on display in this forum is answer enough). Fortunately for this country, hypocritical cheapskate cretins like you are a minority of voters, so we'll continue funding and expanding the safety net that is our ethical mandate.

Ahh.. to be young and dumb again. What a great time that was.

 

[chucky2]

Hmm, the nation's tax revenues vs. one person's salary. Yeah, great trade, that definitely serves my ideological purpose. You're kinda dim, right? (Rhetorical question; your constant ignorance on display in this forum is answer enough). Fortunately for this country, hypocritical cheapskate cretins like you are a minority of voters, so we'll continue funding and expanding the safety net that is our ethical mandate.

I'm not sure what the problem is? Surely you realize that we have some significant but somewhat small % of people who are able to work (not disabled to a degree not able to work, not retired) but either cannot, or, cannot earn to a degree that enables them to live on their own. This is the people that you are worried about, correct; the others should be taken care of by the taxpayer.

This number of people is easily able to be elevated to the middle class lifestyle you wish them to enjoy by bleeding hearts such as yourself taking the money you earn and giving it to them. Coupled with reformed social services that those of us would like to see, this would seem like the perfect solution, no? You all can easily cover the Pepsi and Cheetos they so desperately need, while all of us (collectively) ensure they have bulk beef, chicken, etc. that they won't starve.

The best part of this is that you yourself can determine your own level of heart bleed: This week you blow your own money making sure the ones you encounter have Pepsi and Cheetos. Next week you can buy steaks for these poor unfortunates. The week after, rock lobster tails.

How cannot you be in favor of this?

 

[GreenMeters]

Ahh.. to be young and dumb again. What a great time that was.

The preeminent characteristic of childishness is selfishness.

 

[GreenMeters]

How cannot you be in favor of this?

Because civilization requires humans, and a flourishing civilization requires flourishing humans. Therefore when we as a society set a baseline for the care of our fellow beings, it must be a human baseline--mere animal survival is insufficient. Your system would treat the lower class as animals and correlate their oversight to husbandry, where by happenstance a lucky few may cross paths with more benevolent masters. Yours is an appalling vision; thankfully, it is a vision rejected by the majority of Americans.

 

[chucky2]

Because civilization requires humans, and a flourishing civilization requires flourishing humans. Therefore when we as a society set a baseline for the care of our fellow beings, it must be a human baseline--mere animal survival is insufficient. Your system would treat the lower class as animals and correlate their oversight to husbandry, where by happenstance a lucky few may cross paths with more benevolent masters. Yours is an appalling vision; thankfully, it is a vision rejected by the majority of Americans.

Just so I understand this "majority" position correctly:

1.) People on public assistance should be able to buy steaks, Pepsi, Cheetos, and other completely non-essential items with the taxpayer handouts they've been given off the backs of the taxpayer?

2.) It is not enough for them to purchase only bulk essential food items they then can make themselves into whatever tasty meal they so desire, rather, you are cool if they go buy a few packages of ribs, some Tombstone pizzas, etc. with our, er, "their" money?

A simple Yes or No to those questions will suffice.

Thanks.

Chuck

 

[IndyColtsFan]

No, I'm just trying to work through an economic model where your hypothetical is likely. It requires a company that's damn unstable already: minimal profitability and minimal gap between wages and productivity.

I don't think (scratch that, I KNOW you don't) you understand small business in the US, which just happens to employ the majority of people. Small businesses struggle as is and adding more and more overhead will cause many to reduce headcount.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yeah, so really just an incredibly ignorant series of posts from you, chuckles. No one is reaching into your wallet. There are dues to be a member of club America. You don't want to pay, fine, enjoy club Somalia. See how your confirmation bias in judging shopping carts plays there.

There are also responsibilities of being a member of "club America," the chief of which is providing for yourself and your family and not relying on the government (aka the rest of the taxpayers) to support you. Nothing wrong with a safety net, but when people spend their whole lives on government assistance while "exercising their right" to have more and more kids, that's a problem. It is not my purpose in life (or any other taxpayer's responsibility) to continue to subsidize irresponsibility.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The preeminent characteristic of childishness is selfishness.

The preeminent characteristic of naivete is screaming "selfishness" when people have the "unmitigated nerve" to demand that people take responsibility for themselves and their families rather than Uncle Sam doing it. Welfare and other government programs are meant as a safety net, not as cradle-to-grave support. No one has a "right" to be supported by the government their entire lives. If you don't like it, nothing is preventing you and others like you from donating an even larger share of your income to charities of your choosing who will feed the poor. The rest of us demand reasonable limitations if our tax money is behind used to support others.

Selfishness is perpetuating a family line that has no means to support itself and instead, relies on the government (ie, taxpayers) for sustenance while still pumping out more and more kids.

Because civilization requires humans, and a flourishing civilization requires flourishing humans. Therefore when we as a society set a baseline for the care of our fellow beings, it must be a human baseline--mere animal survival is insufficient. Your system would treat the lower class as animals and correlate their oversight to husbandry, where by happenstance a lucky few may cross paths with more benevolent masters. Yours is an appalling vision; thankfully, it is a vision rejected by the majority of Americans.

This is the problem with many of the left-leaning people in our country. Rather than implement reasonable restrictions on people as a condition of receiving a government handout, they seem to want to give these people blank checks to do whatever they want and when someone disagrees, the name calling or other accusations start. The moment anyone mentions capping benefits at X number of kids or restricting food choices, we have the misty-eyed lip biters screaming their usual array of insults. Being poor sucks and is supposed to suck -- if the government paid for everyone to have a middle-class existence, why would any sane person bother working?

There is nothing wrong with establishing a baseline of what food stamps will and won't buy (for example), regardless of your overly-emotional post above. Chucky and a few others in this thread are probably like me -- you go to the grocery store and invariably get stuck behind someone in line whose cart is filled with steaks, Little Debbie snacks, cookies, potato chips, etc, and then they pull out the EBT card to pay. I really HOPE that the EBT card isn't paying for everything but if it is, that really makes me angry. This has happened to me more than once and it pisses me off. How many of the CNN sob stories have we all read where the pictures of people on welfare inevitably show a huge plasma or LCD screen in the background with an Xbox, a stack of games, etc? Those may be rare examples (I REALLY hope they are), but for those of us who put up with crap all day to support our families, it makes us mad.

I really hope you're a young kid who hasn't had a taste of the real world yet. It is easy to say these things when you're in high school, college, or fresh out of college and don't yet have a real job, but once you get a job with a real salary, a house, responsibilities, etc. and see how much of your money is taken in taxes, it hits home hard.

 

[GreenMeters]

I really hope you're a young kid who hasn't had a taste of the real world yet.

Your hope is incorrect.

It is easy to say these things when you're in high school, college, or fresh out of college and don't yet have a real job, but once you get a job with a real salary, a house, responsibilities, etc. and see how much of your money is taken in taxes, it hits home hard.

I have all those things, and I see how much money is taken in taxes. It's a good trade for the present amenities of our civilized society, but we should be expanding our rather paltry safety net and raising taxes accordingly.

BTW, you stated that a problem with liberals is that they name-call anyone who disagrees with them, and then you came into this thread and implied that liberals must be children.

 

[GreenMeters]

Just so I understand this "majority" position correctly:

1.) People on public assistance should be able to buy steaks, Pepsi, Cheetos, and other completely non-essential items with the taxpayer handouts they've been given off the backs of the taxpayer?

2.) It is not enough for them to purchase only bulk essential food items they then can make themselves into whatever tasty meal they so desire, rather, you are cool if they go buy a few packages of ribs, some Tombstone pizzas, etc. with our, er, "their" money?

A simple Yes or No to those questions will suffice.

Thanks.

Chuck

Both questions are invalid. Your concept of "completely non-essential items" in incoherent, as is your rhetoric about taxpayers.

Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I have all those things, and I see how much money is taken in taxes. It's a good trade for the present amenities of our civilized society, but we should be expanding our rather paltry safety net and raising taxes accordingly.

There's a big difference between "safety net" and "paying for multiple generations of the same family because they won't support themselves." I don't have an issue with safety nets in general, but I have a huge issue supporting entire families of people over multiple generations. I'd be curious to know where you in particular draw the line between them and how you define a safety net to begin with. Not only that, I'd like to hear how you think "safety nets" should be expanded.

BTW, you stated that a problem with liberals is that they name-call anyone who disagrees with them, and then you came into this thread and implied that liberals must be children.

I think I said liberals are naïve and that most with the beliefs you're espousing are young. That isn't calling someone childish.

 

[GreenMeters]

I didn't say you called liberals childish, I said you implied they were children. And your "rebuttal" to my statement merely reiterated the incorrect statement that liberals are naive, and the incorrect statement that most liberals are young. Please understand that your argument is utterly incoherent.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I didn't say you called liberals childish, I said you implied they were children. And your "rebuttal" to my statement merely reiterated the incorrect statement that liberals are naive, and the incorrect statement that most liberals are young. Please understand that your argument is utterly incoherent.

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:

There's a big difference between "safety net" and "paying for multiple generations of the same family because they won't support themselves." I don't have an issue with safety nets in general, but I have a huge issue supporting entire families of people over multiple generations. I'd be curious to know where you in particular draw the line between them and how you define a safety net to begin with. Not only that, I'd like to hear how you think "safety nets" should be expanded.

Please answer the bolded.

 

[smitbret]

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.

 

[chucky2]

Both questions are invalid. Your concept of "completely non-essential items" in incoherent, as is your rhetoric about taxpayers.

No, actually, answering those questions would really help frame where your, IMO, insane logic, is coming from. And since it directly relates back to my comments to AViking, and our back and forth, it'd be something material to this thread. You have dodged the answer, why? Not because the questions are invalid, or my argument is incoheret (it hasn't changed at all since my OP in this thread), or my "rhetoric". This is Discussion Club, not P&N. If you want to troll, P&N is here for that.

Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

N/A. I don't have a wife. And before you decide to apply N/A to my questions to you, comparing my questions to yours is a false equivalency, so please don't go there.

Just answer my questions Yes or No...add explanation if you'd like. If you can support your argument then you shouldn't mind answering right?

Chuck