Wow, paid maternity leave??

[blastingcap]

You are the one that contended the "conservative" view is to not take from one group to give to another. Why does it matter if the "other" is someone elses kid or some multi-billion dollar company?

How many different responses and legitimate replies are you going to dance around?

Multi-billion military contractor companies.

We don't even have paid maternity leave as a national policy, yet he spends all this time complaining about the mere spectre of it, instead of much larger issues.

He's like a drug addict with a gambling problem, a house in foreclosure, a pending divorce and custody battle, who is about to declare personal bankruptcy, who rear-ended a car driven by the Russian mafia, who was only in the area because his kids hate him so much that they paid for a hitman to shoot him, who then complains about how a 5 cent increase on bridge tolls in order to fund a rebuilding of the decaying bridge.

Of all the things to worry about, he worries about those 5 cents? No. The real story is that michal is a fucking troll who delights in making stupid-ass arguments to stir up trouble. Either that or he really is the stupidest person alive. Either way, just put him on your Ignore list.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

 

[Darwin333]

more strawman I see.

Your really raging for handouts here.

Theres a very simple solution to this problem.

If you are going to have a kid, and want 'paid' time off, save your money for that.

Ugh, you are just an idiot and you can choose to reply to this message or not but I won't spend anymore time trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

Many many arguments have been made in this thread detailing the societal benefit of a social safety net for mothers. Ideally it would be in the form of a very small payroll tax and would work almost exactly like unemployment benefits. You simply refuse to intelligently respond to any of those points which is why so many people have wasted time trying to simplify it for you. When they do try to simplify it you still can't wrap your feeble mind around it and the only thing you can do is repeat "strawman" over and over.

Frankly your idiotic ranting has done a disservice to conservatives, as right leaning as I may be if all "true conservatives" are like you I want absolutely nothing to do with it to the point of voting for a left leaning politician versus a "true conservative" of your brand.

 

[DrPizza]

Didn't know this was a thread on defense spending.

Another supporter of forcing others to pay for their kids that cant stay on topic.

How many other strawman are you guys going to build?

I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is. His isn't. Only the most disingenuous liars dismiss reasonable arguments by calling them "strawmen" in an effort to avoid being demonstrated to be wrong. Well, not only liars, but also idiots. So, you're against taking money from one group to give to another group. A HUGE chunk of my money is taken from me to give to defense contractors. A much larger chunk of my money than is given to welfare. Why is one bad, but you absolutely refuse to even discuss the other one?

 

[Subyman]

Probably because guns, ships, and bombs are bad ass. Shopping at Save-A-Lot on a WIC card is not.

 

[michal1980]

I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is. His isn't. Only the most disingenuous liars dismiss reasonable arguments by calling them "strawmen" in an effort to avoid being demonstrated to be wrong. Well, not only liars, but also idiots. So, you're against taking money from one group to give to another group. A HUGE chunk of my money is taken from me to give to defense contractors. A much larger chunk of my money than is given to welfare. Why is one bad, but you absolutely refuse to even discuss the other one?

I think you need to read up on straw man. Since your building one.

 

[nexus5rocks]

It is an entirely differnt matter than sick leave.
As a society your priority SHOULD be that mothers take care of their children for 2-3 months after birth while at least having the safety net of steady income until they're ready to get back to work.

The "fuck you all, I want results" is nice for corporate profits but I don't know how it can be any good for a society that wishes to take care of its members.
Think of it as an extension of "Women and children first". Don't like it - wither away into the uncaring abyss, in the name of short-term profits.

Would not have been an issue if we hadn't tried to become a dual income society. That eroded the values of America.

 

[PricklyPete]

Would not have been an issue if we hadn't tried to become a dual income society. That eroded the values of America.

My family is a single income family and I still see the benefits as a father. My wife will need me taking care of our kiddos while she is recovering from birth and focusing on the newborn. As a society we should be promoting birth, not making it harder for working people. It is simple economics.

 

[brycejones]

Would not have been an issue if we hadn't tried to become a dual income society. That eroded the values of America.

Barefoot and pregnant eh?

 

[ivwshane]

So is there anyone, here, who doesn't support a paid maternity leave other than for the reason of how it's paid for? Is there anyone that thinks paid maternity leave doesn't benefit scociety as a whole?

 

[glenn1]

So is there anyone, here, who doesn't support a paid maternity leave other than for the reason of how it's paid for? Is there anyone that thinks paid maternity leave doesn't benefit scociety as a whole?

<Shrug> It can't hurt, but don't know if it's quite the slam dunk huge positive you think it is either. As the parent of a couple I can pretty much assure you that the first 3 months or so the kids aren't going to be impacted much either way. There's not much positive about newborns unless you just truly enjoy getting 1-2 hours sleep a night via carrying around a 15-20 pound struggling mass for hours on end. Many parents are happy to go back to work so they can "get some rest" from their kids. That being said, basically no day cares accept children under 3 months so giving parents until then if nothing else is appropriate.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not claiming it's a slam dunk, are you claiming there is no benefit to parents taking leave (paid or not) to spend time with their new born?

<Shrug> It can't hurt, but don't know if it's quite the slam dunk huge positive you think it is either. As the parent of a couple I can pretty much assure you that the first 3 months or so the kids aren't going to be impacted much either way. There's not much positive about newborns unless you just truly enjoy getting 1-2 hours sleep a night via carrying around a 15-20 pound struggling mass for hours on end. Many parents are happy to go back to work so they can "get some rest" from their kids. That being said, basically no day cares accept children under 3 months so giving parents until then if nothing else is appropriate.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not claiming it's a slam dunk, are you claiming there is no benefit to parents taking leave (paid or not) to spend time with their new born?

Leave is good, more resources or even a paid helper would be even better. I could have preferred someone to let me have a couple hours sleep nightly over a couple more weeks "time off" being turned into a zombie by my kiddos.

 

[pcgeek11]

I must have been a lucky parent.

My son slept all night every night in his own bed and room. He never cried excessively day or night. He never " exploded " in his diaper or made any huge mess of it. My sleep never suffered because of having a baby. I really don't understand why everyone complains about it and I guess that is why.

 

[CitizenKain]

Would not have been an issue if we hadn't tried to become a dual income society. That eroded the values of America.

Values such as?

 

[werepossum]

Virtually every push is to spread the money around as opposed to consolidating it in the hands of a few extremely wealthy oligarchs. That's really not the same as "the left is trying to rob us because they're greedy!" But hey, let's flip that one around; I always hear that the right is interested in the sanctity of life, yet virtually every push is to deny any sort of funding for infants or new mothers (or, for that matter, contraception/abortion/sex-ed to help prevent unwanted pregnancy). Why is that? Every now and then ideology butts up against reality and everyone has a bit of hypocrisy when that happens. But that doesn't mean we can't argue about the relative importance of conflicting ideologies, such as the profit margins of a business versus the importance of parental involvement in the earliest stages of a newborn's life. At the risk of sounding like Helen Lovejoy, "won't somebody think of the children?"

Put it this way: My business (of which I own only a small part) is almost twenty people. If we were to have two women pregnant in one year and we're funding "a few months" of paid maternal leave, never mind paternal leave, we're out of business, period. Our company just doesn't generate that level of profit, and we're hardly unique in that. As a practical matter, such a law would simply make women of child-bearing age unemployable by small businesses.

You act like the people in favor of these programs won't be paying in to them...

Maybe, maybe not. If it's truly an employee-funded program then I'm fine with that, but government can seldom avoid the temptation to reach into someone else's pocket. However, even if it's completely an employee-funded program, you've got to realize that right now many people do live within their means to allow one parent to stay home to raise the children. You're proposing to put a heavier burden on people choosing to make sacrifices for their children to support those people who refuse to make such sacrifices.

Libruuls libruuls libruuls, libruuls libruuls.

Benghazi.

You surely realize that everyone knows you by this point. Your bona fides have been presented and verified, six ways from Sunday. Therefore you shouldn't feel the need to be a moron in every thread; no one will forget that fact, I assure you. We have your back. Please take a well-deserved break secure in the knowledge that if anyone asks, we'll make sure they know you aren't just a moron, you are THE moron.

 

[nickqt]

You surely realize that everyone knows you by this point. Your bona fides have been presented and verified, six ways from Sunday. Therefore you shouldn't feel the need to be a moron in every thread; no one will forget that fact, I assure you. We have your back. Please take a well-deserved break secure in the knowledge that if anyone asks, we'll make sure they know you aren't just a moron, you are THE moron.

Ohhh, namecalling! Again! Your MO!

You're so, so intelligent, compared to me!

Congratulations, hotshot!

 

[werepossum]

Ohhh, namecalling! Again! Your MO!

You're so, so intelligent, compared to me!

Congratulations, hotshot!

That's like being congratulated for having a pulse, but thanks I suppose.

 

[BurnItDwn]

what we should be doing is breaking up monopolistic companies, and ending this obsession with mergers and acquisitions and instead encourage growth by actually growing. megaconglomerates that own 100 brands are doing nobody good. break them up. Get them competing against each other. Nowadays the competition isn't for sales or customers. its competing to see who can buy what first..

All this consolidation does is fuck over all the workers.

 

[realibrad]

what we should be doing is breaking up monopolistic companies, and ending this obsession with mergers and acquisitions and instead encourage growth by actually growing. megaconglomerates that own 100 brands are doing nobody good. break them up. Get them competing against each other. Nowadays the competition isn't for sales or customers. its competing to see who can buy what first..

All this consolidation does is fuck over all the workers.

Monopolies are only there because of the government. You want competition, stop having the government back companies or burden others.

The "megaconglomerates" could benefit people by reducing expenses and producing a cheaper product. It might not be, but there is nothing inherently bad there.

Its the reason we are not worse off by having Google.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Monopolies are only there because of the government. You want competition, stop having the government back companies or burden others.

The "megaconglomerates" could benefit people by reducing expenses and producing a cheaper product. It might not be, but there is nothing inherently bad there.

Its the reason we are not worse off by having Google.

the solution is not "remove government", the solution does involve throwing away many existing regulations, but that is because the should be replaced with "better regulations"

Yes, prices/costs may go up.

The purpose of the economy is to maximize productivity and well being for all. It has been broken since the 70s, and each year gets a little bit worse.

 

[realibrad]

the solution is not "remove government", the solution does involve throwing away many existing regulations, but that is because the should be replaced with "better regulations"

Yes, prices/costs may go up.

The purpose of the economy is to maximize productivity and well being for all. It has been broken since the 70s, and each year gets a little bit worse.

Prices may go up, prices may go down. When standard oil dominated the market, the prices greatly fell.

Regulations are fine, if they are smart.

The purpose of the economy is nothing. Economies dont have purpose. Productivity is a byproduct of an efficient market.

Also, what you are seeing from the 70s on, is a market adjustment where resources are going to cheaper production. The world started gaining the ability to make shit, which meant that the US could not command the prices for our labor like we once did. That is not broken, it just means others are coming out of poverty.