Terrible Tragedy caused by... Lack of Paid Parent Leave?!?

Just when you thought their entitlement couldn't get any more absurd, these right and left wing parents have teamed up to write a column for USA Today.

Their claim? That a lack of paid parental leave resulted in their kydz dying. In other words, tragedies like these would be averted if we would simply pay people to not work.

These moms are demanding a lifestyle choice subsidy, from John & Jane Q. Taxpayer, of course.

Quote
From Article
Polls show the majority of Americans want paid parental leave. Last week, New York, a state with a Democratic Assembly and a Republican Senate, passed family leave funded by employee contributions of about a dollar a week. This policy need not cost businesses a penny. It does not hurt the economy.

How simple! Everyone pays $1 per week and the moms don't have to go back to work!

"Democracy" in action, right? The majority votes for stuff it wants, and demands that everyone be responsible for paying for it.

What say you?

Say no to hand outs. Handouts only result in more demands for freebies and more kids.
Save for it if you want it. Learn the value of responsibility, planning, self-sufficiency and delaying gratification.

how the heck it wouldn't cost business or the economy can only be found in the delusional breeder brain

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

The opening paragraph says quite a bit to me:

Quote
MOOOOO
Under ordinary circumstances, two mothers as different as we are would never have met.

One of us is from suburban Oklahoma, was in a sorority, married her college sweetheart, opposes abortion and is a Republican. The other is an unmarried liberal who lives in Brooklyn, works in publishing, has lived in five countries and didn’t start trying to have a child with her partner until her late 30s.

Call me a cynic, but I'm not too keen on helping anybody who uses the words unmarried liberal as if it's something to be ashamed about.

This reminds me of the Republicans who think the only moral abortion is their abortion. This Republican Okie had no problem with smaller government until it affected her family and her bottom line. Then suddenly she's all in favor of government programs, as long as she benefits.

I also take issue with living on one income. We can live on either of our incomes quite nicely, and we live in an expensive region, and state. In fact, we bank one income for old age, and live on the other. We just don't waste money on the latest cell phones, the newest cars, and other keeping-up-with-the-Joneses lifestyle. If this woman wants PAID parental leave, then she should follow her Republican, small government mantra and PAY FOR IT HERSELF.

I'm not paying $52/year so some breeder can sit home. $52/year is chump change for us, but that's not the point. Save up before taking parental leave, and stop expecting The Village to pay for your choices. This is one liberal village member who has her flaming pitchfork out.

Quote
Peace


Call me a cynic, but I'm not too keen on helping anybody who uses the words unmarried liberal as if it's something to be ashamed about.

This reminds me of the Republicans who think the only moral abortion is their abortion. This Republican Okie had no problem with smaller government until it affected her family and her bottom line. Then suddenly she's all in favor of government programs, as long as she benefits.

I also take issue with living on one income. We can live on either of our incomes quite nicely, and we live in an expensive region, and state. In fact, we bank one income for old age, and live on the other. We just don't waste money on the latest cell phones, the newest cars, and other keeping-up-with-the-Joneses lifestyle. If this woman wants PAID parental leave, then she should follow her Republican, small government mantra and PAY FOR IT HERSELF.

I'm not paying $52/year so some breeder can sit home. $52/year is chump change for us, but that's not the point. Save up before taking parental leave, and stop expecting The Village to pay for your choices. This is one liberal village member who has her flaming pitchfork out.

Your line of thinking reminds me of one of my co-workers. She is liberal herself, but married and with children. She and her husband live below their means, they save for retirement, and neither of them are obsessed with buying themselves or their children the latest and greatest electronic gadgets every time a new one comes out.

I am a libertarian myself, believe in small government, and generally believe in the user-pay principle. I do see a need for government in the areas of military, fire, police, education, transportation, etc. I just don't see that government needs to provide financial incentives to breed. I don't believe society benefits when we separate classes of people between those who draw benefits and those who pay for those benefits. I think that's a recipe for resentment and social disorder in the long-term.

They say this program will only cost about $1 per week. Where does that figure come from? If you were in a workplace of 100 people, that would only result in $5200 going into the program each year. If we estimate very conservatively that only 3 of them have a child in a particular year, that equals roughly $1733 going to all three. Divide that over the mandatory leave of 12 weeks and you've got a salary of $144 per week. The math just doesn't pencil out.

I don't see this as being the American people's problem. I see this as being a problem specific to those two daycare centers. It was specifically mentioned that the one kid suffocated because one of the workers placed him in a car seat too big for him only for his head to slide down. Shouldn't things like this be covered in their training? Looks like the second kid was a SIDS death from possible mishandling as well. If daycares like the two examples in the article are not paying enough for proper training or experienced employees, that's their problem that needs their money--not mine.

You know what I say: get rid of all breeder tax benefits and use it for state funded daycare. That way it would actually go to the brats instead of to nail salons and the Coach bag store.

Quote
mistress rotwang
You know what I say: get rid of all breeder tax benefits and use it for state funded daycare. That way it would actually go to the brats instead of to nail salons and the Coach bag store.

YES. Because we all know that in many cases those benefits don't go toward stockpiling Pampers. If the government wants to provide a service for kids, let the money be funneled exclusively toward that, but not just handed out to breeders who could use it for whatever without the Feds knowing it funded their latest manicure.

I would also have the welfare moos actually work in state in daycare. Supervised, of course. They could do minimum wage tasks such as changing diapers and bottle feeding. Pick them up via shuttle bus along with their current check I mean small child, and then after time they can get a certificate to work in daycare doing other things than feeding and diapers changes. If we're going to subsidize losers that seem to have only one talent, spitting out kyds , well, then they can contribute if they want to keep all their other numerous benefits. Would also help PNBs that have to work with much lower cost r even free daycare. Again, supervision is the key.

noodler, you really think these welfare sows will do that?
and as far as I am concerned, studies have shown that the first 3,4 years or so of a childs life are critical and absolutely need the mothers presence. I do think this is reflected in wild nature. Your species that are more social, the baby stays with its mother longer periods, and stays closer longer. We are no different.
Day care will never ever give babies the kind of close nurturing that its mother should give (we all know about the failures).
So, my opinion is that if these cows breed, they should at the very least spend a minimum of 3 years at home with the loaf. This is in the loafs best interest.
As has been said here, the village does not need to support your fucking moo ass working and dumping your infant in day care. (I am looking at this from what is supposedly 'for the children'). It is a choice, period.
This is part of what drives my own childfreedom. I don't want to be arsed with a kid.
Goddam moos. If they had stayed home their babies would most likely still be alive.
Sorry, they cannot have their cake and eat it too.
(rambling now) Hasn't there been studies done of these people whose moos dumped them in kiddy warehouse when they were infant, that they tend to have difficulty bonding with other people?? Again, these are odds, the moos are increasing the chances of this when they dump their infants. I tend to think I am an example of this: I do not think I have ever really bonded. And my moo for a whole bunch of stupid choice dumped me as an infant in kiddy warehousing. 'someone had to work to make a living'. of course, she picked an irresponsible drunk as a baby daddy.
too much, i'm signing off this for the moment.

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

Quote
twocents
noodler, you really think these welfare sows will do that?
and as far as I am concerned, studies have shown that the first 3,4 years or so of a childs life are critical and absolutely need the mothers presence.

I'm pretty sure any devoted adult will do. Like a father.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
I am a libertarian myself, believe in small government, and generally believe in the user-pay principle. I do see a need for government in the areas of military, fire, police, education, transportation, etc. I just don't see that government needs to provide financial incentives to breed. I don't believe society benefits when we separate classes of people between those who draw benefits and those who pay for those benefits. I think that's a recipe for resentment and social disorder in the long-term.

They say this program will only cost about $1 per week. Where does that figure come from? If you were in a workplace of 100 people, that would only result in $5200 going into the program each year. If we estimate very conservatively that only 3 of them have a child in a particular year, that equals roughly $1733 going to all three. Divide that over the mandatory leave of 12 weeks and you've got a salary of $144 per week. The math just doesn't pencil out.

Me too, libertarian and the math doesn't work out for the program. This seems to be the de facto for all these 'everyone will only have to pay a fractional amount for this ammmazzzing benefit' which is purely non-scientific conjecture as always. And you can bet that anyone not part of a taxable famblee will pay more than this amount anyways. And this lack of logic to all proposed guberment programs along with freedom of personal choice is why I'm libertarian.

Quote
twocents
noodler, you really think these welfare sows will do that?
and as far as I am concerned, studies have shown that the first 3,4 years or so of a childs life are critical and absolutely need the mothers presence. I do think this is reflected in wild nature. Your species that are more social, the baby stays with its mother longer periods, and stays closer longer. We are no different.
Day care will never ever give babies the kind of close nurturing that its mother should give (we all know about the failures).
So, my opinion is that if these cows breed, they should at the very least spend a minimum of 3 years at home with the loaf. This is in the loafs best interest.
As has been said here, the village does not need to support your fucking moo ass working and dumping your infant in day care. (I am looking at this from what is supposedly 'for the children'). It is a choice, period.
This is part of what drives my own childfreedom. I don't want to be arsed with a kid.
Goddam moos. If they had stayed home their babies would most likely still be alive.
Sorry, they cannot have their cake and eat it too.
(rambling now) Hasn't there been studies done of these people whose moos dumped them in kiddy warehouse when they were infant, that they tend to have difficulty bonding with other people?? Again, these are odds, the moos are increasing the chances of this when they dump their infants. I tend to think I am an example of this: I do not think I have ever really bonded. And my moo for a whole bunch of stupid choice dumped me as an infant in kiddy warehousing. 'someone had to work to make a living'. of course, she picked an irresponsible drunk as a baby daddy.
too much, i'm signing off this for the moment.

I have to agree. Never understood why someone would have kids only to put them in daycare. Always thought if someone wanted kids they'd want to make the effort to save the money for at least a year if not the first three or four years of the child's life. I'm on a board where people are saving for retirement and a number of them purposely saved enough for one spouse to stay at home while the other worked. Life can throw some unexpected curveballs with random finances and divorce, of course. Just don't understand planning to have kids and allowing them to be mostly raised by someone else. I'm sure there are exceptions but there is no way caring parents can be replaced by even the best daycare.

We discussed liberal Moo's story already.

The thing is, liberal Moo HAD paid moo-ternity leave for three months. She asked her employer to extend her moo-ternity leave, i.e. fund it for three more months, and her mean old company refused. The company actually wanted her to work for her pay, can you imagine the horror!

The entitlement burns.

.

Quote
bell_flower
We discussed liberal Moo's story already.

The thing is, liberal Moo HAD paid moo-ternity leave for three months. She asked her employer to extend her moo-ternity leave, i.e. fund it for three more months, and her mean old company refused. The company actually wanted her to work for her pay, can you imagine the horror!

The entitlement burns.

.

I thought I had some deja vu going on there.

But I want to own my above moos-on-the-dole daycare plan with the requirement of not getting paid. They allllllllllll have free cell phones, actually, they all have smart phonesso they can check in with their caseworker. Require two days a week of diaper duty in order to get paid. It's not that hard to implement. I was getting a small partial unemployment claim, and I mean small, when my hours got reduced. I had to practically jump through hoops to get it. And this is a fund I am required to pay into every paycheck. Daycare is just a reality for those that have to work and maybe have no family around to help out. I don't think daycare after three months off to 'bond' leads to a path of doom. Times changed and it sucks that the single income doesn't pay the bills (unless one is pulling down a Senator Santorum salary). But that cost of care for what amounts to eightish hours away from its original container or other primary physical custody holder should have to pay what from I understand from friends with kids is like more than a mortgage payment.

"These moms are demanding a lifestyle choice subsidy, from John & Jane Q. Taxpayer, of course."

This is a case in GER.

Parental leave for one parent: 12 months, paid by the state: 65-65% of net salary (min: 300, max: 1.800 EUR per month).
When the other parent continues to work and then takes time off to take care of the new loaf,
the parental leave will be extended for two more months, total 14 months.
It is possible to extend the parental leave and take 24 months off, the state will contribute with 50% of the usual payment per month.

It's not fair to the CF people but still, when I look at the whole picture, I don't envy the breeders

If it's going to be an ideal world where moos must stay home with their loaves for 3-4 years, then mandatory psych evaluations must also be done. My cluster B helicopter velcro sociopathic clingy abuser of a moo should never have been allowed to sluice. I have a diagnosed attachment disorder because she hated me but no one else was allowed to love me either, if she didnt.
I dreamed of daycare once I knew it was a thing. I would have far preferred some random distant carers than the situation I was born into.

So yeah, no one situation is going to work for everybody... But parenting licenses and fitness to sleuth exams ought to be fucking mandatory first if we're implementing any such theoretical utopia.

FUCK THAT NOISE!
There is no fucking way I would pay into someone else's brat care! You bred it. You pay for it. Can't pay for it? Don't breed it!
I'm not working to fund your bad choices!

If you already lack the brain cells to think ahead when it comes to have a child, than you shouldn't be breeding in the first place.

Example 1:
Parents both work so cutting down to one income is not doable. Even if you cut off cable, etc. Cut costs will be made up with the cost of diapers, wipes and formula. If you can't live on one income supporting two adults and a loaf, than you shouldn't be breeding.

Example 2: The complaint about loaf leave not being long enough. You've had AT LEAST nine months to prepare. But yet, you didn't think ahead to save some money to supplement the income of your spouse / baby daddy to contribute to the household expenses. How stupid are you?
The employer should also not have to hold a job for you. A job that your co workers are now doing because you chose to have a loaf. They should also not have to pay for your mooternity leave - at all! - for something YOU chose to do.

If parents can't think ahead and save for the moo to leave the work force when she sluices than you shouldn't be breeding.

If you have to put a newborn loaf in daycare than you definitely shouldn't be breeding. A lot of daycares won't accept loaves under a certain age, and for good reason. There's no reason that they should get any more handouts than the rest of us i.e. holiday pay; when it comes to taking time off of work / collecting a bit extra pay. In the end the remaining employees have to pick up moo's slack, even when she comes back to work as she's that baby brained and sleep deprived, she can't function anyway.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are having children for selfish and narcissistic reasons, or are simply irresponsible. Funny... Those are the terms often used to describe the CF

~Live, Laugh, Love~