Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why as a single-male without children I won't be voting Democratic.
Up to $37,500 just for having a baby? About 3.7 million people have a baby a year, it's gotten to the point where these proposals are just bizzare.
Kamala Harris proposed a new plan of 6 months of paid parental leave for having a baby valued at $37,500 considering there are close to 4 million births a year that is quite a large proposal.
She also proposed $6,000 a year reserved for low and middle-income families for emergencies, additionally for families she wants a refundable tax credit for families paying more than 30% of their income in rent.
Seems to be like pro-life conservatives should be getting behind this. If you want to force women to carry all pregnancies to term, they should have the means to care for their children after they are born.
Of course, it's never about the children and never has been. It's all about controlling women and posts like this prove it.
As a conservative I do think women should get paid time off for child birth. Whats the correct amount? 6 months? I'd say 3 months is a great time frame.
Seems to be like pro-life conservatives should be getting behind this. If you want to force women to carry all pregnancies to term, they should have the means to care for their children after they are born.
Of course, it's never about the children and never has been. It's all about controlling women and posts like this prove it.
Pure nonsense. Women should take all the time they need but they should provide for their own means to care for their own children after they are born. They made the choice to get pregnant, not their neighbor. Therefore they can pay for it, not their neighbor. If a family wants to spend half a year at home with their newborns they should save up to cover their time off.
I had my son nearly 27 years ago. I was in the hospital just over a DAY. Took 6 weeks off from work. It does not take SIX months to recover from having a child. Good grief.
I had mine 32 years ago. A day or two hospital and 6 weeks, 2 paid and 4 unpaid leave. I worked until my contractions were 5 minutes apart.
Granted it would have been great to have 6 months off with full pay, but not necessary to "recover".
I had my son nearly 27 years ago. I was in the hospital just over a DAY. Took 6 weeks off from work. It does not take SIX months to recover from having a child. Good grief.
No one thinks a mother needs six months to recover. Strawman. And a weird thing to sneer at people over. Long live the Mommy Wars!
24 years ago I spent 5 days in hospital (unplanned c-section), six weeks-ish recovering physically, and spent the next six months with my baby. It was awesome. If I had to go back to works after a couple of typical weeks Americans get off, it would have not been pretty.
This is why as a single-male without children I won't be voting Democratic.
Up to $37,500 just for having a baby? About 3.7 million people have a baby a year, it's gotten to the point where these proposals are just bizzare.
Kamala Harris proposed a new plan of 6 months of paid parental leave for having a baby valued at $37,500 considering there are close to 4 million births a year that is quite a large proposal.
She also proposed $6,000 a year reserved for low and middle-income families for emergencies, additionally for families she wants a refundable tax credit for families paying more than 30% of their income in rent.
Heck, I was thinking the other day how we have that government run program that is called WIC. Women, infants and children, and I as a woman, am thinking that this is a very sexist program. In this day and age of wanting equal rights, we should change it to PIC, People, Infant and children.
The corporations will not find a way if they'll be punished severely if they do. As long as labor unions are destroyed and the working class celebrates the destruction of labor unions, then of course politics will be dominated by corporations and elite interests and not working class interests.
Of course, corporate puppets are all about means testing everything to create division and tension in society, just like SJWs. The more divided the masses are, the better for big money interests.
I bet big corporations would love this plan. They have the money and resources to cover it, and a plan like this will surely destroy their smaller competition. You think it's bad now that our entertainment industry or cell phone industry is gobbling eachother up in mergers and monopolies. It will be even worse when just a handful of companies own everything, and then watch them start investing in robots and machines to take place of the human worker.
I bet big corporations would love this plan. They have the money and resources to cover it, and a plan like this will surely destroy their smaller competition. You think it's bad now that our entertainment industry or cell phone industry is gobbling eachother up in mergers and monopolies. It will be even worse when just a handful of companies own everything, and then watch them start investing in robots and machines to take place of the human worker.
I will say I have to agree with this and I am left of center. I don't think that people realize that this will only help reinforce corporate control. Although if it is government paying out all of the benefits coming from fining corporations, then that could be different. I just wish politicians would be honest in telling the American people that these programs will cost them. They have a value added tax in Europe for pretty much all consumer goods, which can strain working families, since a higher proportion of their income goes to paying for said goods. With all of the national debt, hopefully modern monetary theory is actually a viable application in economics. It seems like we have become accustomed to constant economic growth, which may not actually be the case in the future.
Seems to be like pro-life conservatives should be getting behind this. If you want to force women to carry all pregnancies to term, they should have the means to care for their children after they are born.
Of course, it's never about the children and never has been. It's all about controlling women and posts like this prove it.
I don't think its about controling women. Its about intellectual dishonesty or laziness. Pro life conservatives don't want babies to be harmed. They are just to cowardly to put their money where their mouths are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
