Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Jun 3, 2019 19:13:37 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 3, 2019 19:28:51 GMT -5
12 weeks isn't anywhere near enough...most countries do a year. Oh well, it's a start....better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. |
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Jun 3, 2019 19:48:28 GMT -5
12 weeks isn't anywhere near enough...most countries do a year. Oh well, it's a start....better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. It's a start. Much better than nothing, which is what you get in other states. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,416 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 4, 2019 10:44:38 GMT -5
Good for Connecticut. But it will not happen in the southern states, at least not in my lifetime.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 5, 2019 20:22:01 GMT -5
Good for Connecticut. But it will not happen in the southern states, at least not in my lifetime. Which is fucked up since they're supposedly all about saving the children. |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 5, 2019 21:32:01 GMT -5
Good for Connecticut. But it will not happen in the southern states, at least not in my lifetime. Which is fucked up since they're supposedly all about saving the children. "You're going to HAVE that baby, whether you want to or not! Then you're going back to work immediately, instead of having paid time off to adjust and bond with the newborn. And we won't pay for daycare! We're the party of family values!" |
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,355
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jun 5, 2019 21:41:52 GMT -5
Well, our country needs to begin somewhere. It's a start. Hopefully, other states will join in soon.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,039
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jun 6, 2019 21:35:30 GMT -5
NY has already done it!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 7:50:55 GMT -5
Good for Connecticut. But it will not happen in the southern states, at least not in my lifetime. Which is fucked up since they're supposedly all about saving the children. So if parents don't have paid leave, it doesn't save the children ? I find the ignorance on the subject of wealth redistribution amazing. The only way this will be payed for, is by general reductions in pay/benefits. |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 7, 2019 10:25:58 GMT -5
Which is fucked up since they're supposedly all about saving the children. So if parents don't have paid leave, it doesn't save the children ? I find the ignorance on the subject of wealth redistribution amazing. The only way this will be payed for, is by general reductions in pay/benefits. Actually, there have been multiple studies that have proven that parental leave benefits the children. Maternal leave also tends to promote breast feeding, which again benefits children in many ways. Countries with set maternal leave also have lower instances of maternal and infant death than we do in the US, though I am not sure if I've seen studies that directly show a causation to that. As for wealth redistribution - I don't know how every country manages it, but I know some manage it in a very similar way to how we manage unemployment insurance. While I'm sure there's some out there that categorize it as such, I haven't seen many argue that UI is wealth redistribution. There may be ignorance, but it's not mine when it comes to the benefits and cost of maternal leave. |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 7, 2019 11:44:10 GMT -5
Which is fucked up since they're supposedly all about saving the children. So if parents don't have paid leave, it doesn't save the children ? I find the ignorance on the subject of wealth redistribution amazing. The only way this will be payed for, is by general reductions in pay/benefits.
Funny how the other countries payed [sic] for it without general reductions in pay/benefits. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 12:15:21 GMT -5
So if parents don't have paid leave, it doesn't save the children ? I find the ignorance on the subject of wealth redistribution amazing. The only way this will be payed for, is by general reductions in pay/benefits. The CT paid medical leave is actually being funded directly from employees paychecks via 0.5% employee payroll tax. All employees are subject to the tax (from minimum wage workers to high income earners) except for the 50,000 unionized state employees. they are exempt. That is a bit of a head scratcher.... The other thing that is interesting is that in order to sign the bill the governor said it could not include a new department to oversee the program. So currently the plan is that the program will be administered by employers. But so far that processes is still to be determined since the money is going to be collected and remitted to the state, not kept by the employer. I am neutral on the idea of state mandated leave, but time will tell whether this specific version will work well or not. But for a state that is struggling mightily it seems misguided at this specific time.  And there's the half % blanket reduction in pay. (Like your avatar! If you don't have some warning bar, you're just part of the herd) |
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 12:19:28 GMT -5
So if parents don't have paid leave, it doesn't save the children ? I find the ignorance on the subject of wealth redistribution amazing. The only way this will be payed for, is by general reductions in pay/benefits. Actually, there have been multiple studies that have proven that parental leave benefits the children. Maternal leave also tends to promote breast feeding, which again benefits children in many ways. Countries with set maternal leave also have lower instances of maternal and infant death than we do in the US, though I am not sure if I've seen studies that directly show a causation to that. As for wealth redistribution - I don't know how every country manages it, but I know some manage it in a very similar way to how we manage unemployment insurance. While I'm sure there's some out there that categorize it as such, I haven't seen many argue that UI is wealth redistribution. There may be ignorance, but it's not mine when it comes to the benefits and cost of maternal leave. Big difference between "benefiting" (this post) vs "saving", with your red state abortion reference, in the previous post. (#4) |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 7, 2019 12:32:22 GMT -5
Actually, there have been multiple studies that have proven that parental leave benefits the children. Maternal leave also tends to promote breast feeding, which again benefits children in many ways. Countries with set maternal leave also have lower instances of maternal and infant death than we do in the US, though I am not sure if I've seen studies that directly show a causation to that. As for wealth redistribution - I don't know how every country manages it, but I know some manage it in a very similar way to how we manage unemployment insurance. While I'm sure there's some out there that categorize it as such, I haven't seen many argue that UI is wealth redistribution. There may be ignorance, but it's not mine when it comes to the benefits and cost of maternal leave. Big difference between "benefiting" (this post) vs "saving", with your red state abortion reference, in the previous post.  No. The point was that they cared about saving the lives and not about after they were born. One would think that if you cared about children being born, you would care about children after they were born. In such making sure that they had access to health care, access to things that have been proven to benefit them, access to food so they won't go hungry, a roof over their head, quality education, etc etc. However most red states seem to fail at this and in fact some people are ok with making the children pay for their parent's lack of means. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 12:39:17 GMT -5
Big difference between "benefiting" (this post) vs "saving", with your red state abortion reference, in the previous post. No. The point was that they cared about saving the lives and not about after they were born. One would think that if you cared about children being born, you would care about children after they were born. In such making sure that they had access to health care, access to things that have been proven to benefit them, access to food so they won't go hungry, a roof over their head, quality education, etc etc. However most red states seem to fail at this and in fact some people are ok with making the children pay for their parent's lack of means. Your issue is with parents care by what you're saying here, not the children.  Part of that care is taking the responsibility of knowing you have the means, before proceeding with children. I feel no need to pay for others choices/mistakes. It's the parents responsibility to supply the things you list. If they don't care enough to look at the responsibility, why should I. |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 7, 2019 12:48:18 GMT -5
No. The point was that they cared about saving the lives and not about after they were born. One would think that if you cared about children being born, you would care about children after they were born. In such making sure that they had access to health care, access to things that have been proven to benefit them, access to food so they won't go hungry, a roof over their head, quality education, etc etc. However most red states seem to fail at this and in fact some people are ok with making the children pay for their parent's lack of means. Your issue is with parents care by what you're saying here, not the children. Part of that care is taking the responsibility of knowing you have the means, before proceeding with children. I feel no need to pay for others choices/mistakes. It's the parents responsibility to supply the things you list. If they don't care enough to look at the responsibility, why should I. Then don't take away someone's choices!!! Simple as that. |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 7, 2019 12:49:53 GMT -5
No. The point was that they cared about saving the lives and not about after they were born. One would think that if you cared about children being born, you would care about children after they were born. In such making sure that they had access to health care, access to things that have been proven to benefit them, access to food so they won't go hungry, a roof over their head, quality education, etc etc. However most red states seem to fail at this and in fact some people are ok with making the children pay for their parent's lack of means. Your issue is with parents care by what you're saying here, not the children. Part of that care is taking the responsibility of knowing you have the means, before proceeding with children. I feel no need to pay for others choices/mistakes. It's the parents responsibility to supply the things you list. If they don't care enough to look at the responsibility, why should I. Spoken like a true Republican. "Not on my dime!! I refuse to help pay for other people to have a better quality of life! Fuck them!" |
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 13:49:48 GMT -5
Your issue is with parents care by what you're saying here, not the children. Part of that care is taking the responsibility of knowing you have the means, before proceeding with children. I feel no need to pay for others choices/mistakes. It's the parents responsibility to supply the things you list. If they don't care enough to look at the responsibility, why should I. Then don't take away someone's choices!!! Simple as that. Exactly.  |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 7, 2019 13:50:36 GMT -5
Then don't take away someone's choices!!! Simple as that. Exactly. Ummm...all those red starts are doing exactly that. Which, again, is my original point. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 13:52:02 GMT -5
Exactly. Ummm...all those red starts are doing exactly that. Which, again, is my original point. Did you mean the choice to restrict things ? Or are you talking about all states should follow your choice ? |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 7, 2019 13:56:30 GMT -5
Ummm...all those red starts are doing exactly that. Which, again, is my original point. Did you mean the choice to restrict things ? Are you being obtuse on purpose? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 14:00:00 GMT -5
Did you mean the choice to restrict things ? Are you being obtuse on purpose? No. We live in a republic. We vote in reps who will do what the majority will want. Red states make their choices just like blue states. We're you meaning that your choice is the one that should be used ? Doesn't say much for making a choice about choosing. Freedom is a double edged sword |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 7, 2019 14:26:33 GMT -5
Are you being obtuse on purpose? No. We live in a republic. We vote in reps who will do what the majority will want. Red states make their choices just like blue states. We're you meaning that your choice is the one that should be used ? Doesn't say much for making a choice about choosing. Freedom is a double edged sword I have not made a choice. I am saying that one should be allowed to make their own choices. They're not "making a choice" they are removing's someone's choice from them. When you make a choice for someone, you should deal with the consequences of said choice. The red states are wanting to force this upon someone and then refuse the consequences. Which is fucked up. If they are "choosing" something then they should also be responsible for all the consequences of that choice. They are not. |
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,176
|
Post by Ava on Jun 8, 2019 19:34:35 GMT -5
I see there's some opposed opinions. I am all for this, even if it will have its hiccups starting out. There's time to solve them, it won't be enforced until 2021. We have to start somewhere. If we wait until the state's economy improves, all the issues are solved, etc. we'll never do it. A perfect time doesn't exist. You have to work with what you have.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 8:10:39 GMT -5
No. We live in a republic. We vote in reps who will do what the majority will want. Red states make their choices just like blue states. We're you meaning that your choice is the one that should be used ? Doesn't say much for making a choice about choosing. Freedom is a double edged sword I have not made a choice. I am saying that one should be allowed to make their own choices. They're not "making a choice" they are removing's someone's choice from them. When you make a choice for someone, you should deal with the consequences of said choice. The red states are wanting to force this upon someone and then refuse the consequences. Which is fucked up. If they are "choosing" something then they should also be responsible for all the consequences of that choice. They are not. Yes you are making a choice to remove a choice. No different than speed limits, dress codes, hunting restrictions, and on and on. We are a country of laws, that are produced in the usual secondary procedure of a republic. I think the topic you're approaching is the one of democratic tyranny. Look at it this way for clarity. There are a lot of people in blue states that do not want to see the killing of a fetus in their state, but have no choice because they are in the minority. The blue states have made the choice by majority, to take away the choice of the minority. You have to see past your own individual preference to see this. I have no preference on this, so it's easy for me. |
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,716
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 15, 2019 10:34:32 GMT -5
I have not made a choice. I am saying that one should be allowed to make their own choices. They're not "making a choice" they are removing's someone's choice from them. When you make a choice for someone, you should deal with the consequences of said choice. The red states are wanting to force this upon someone and then refuse the consequences. Which is fucked up. If they are "choosing" something then they should also be responsible for all the consequences of that choice. They are not. Yes you are making a choice to remove a choice. No different than speed limits, dress codes, hunting restrictions, and on and on. We are a country of laws, that are produced in the usual secondary procedure of a republic. I think the topic you're approaching is the one of democratic tyranny. Look at it this way for clarity. There are a lot of people in blue states that do not want to see the killing of a fetus in their state, but have no choice because they are in the minority. The blue states have made the choice by majority, to take away the choice of the minority. You have to see past your own individual preference to see this. I have no preference on this, so it's easy for me. No, the only way that comparison adds up is if people were forced to choose to terminate in blue states. Which obviously, they aren't. |
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,388
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 15, 2019 11:47:16 GMT -5
Which is fucked up since they're supposedly all about saving the children. So if parents don't have paid leave, it doesn't save the children ? I find the ignorance on the subject of wealth redistribution amazing. The only way this will be payed for, is by general reductions in pay/benefits. We already have wealth distribution- from the poor to the rich. From the powerless to the powerful. Evening it out, just a little, is the moral thing to do. It will keep our society stable, without making the rich poor, nor the poor rich. The rich will still get richer, just at a slower velocity. The poor will still be poor, just with a slightly better standard of living. It isn't free money, it is mandating a minimum of treating people like humans. |
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 15, 2019 11:59:21 GMT -5
So if parents don't have paid leave, it doesn't save the children ? I find the ignorance on the subject of wealth redistribution amazing. The only way this will be payed for, is by general reductions in pay/benefits. We already have wealth distribution- from the poor to the rich. From the powerless to the powerful. Evening it out, just a little, is the moral thing to do. It will keep our society stable, without making the rich poor, nor the poor rich. The rich will still get richer, just at a slower velocity. The poor will still be poor, just with a slightly better standard of living. It isn't free money, it is mandating a minimum of treating people like humans. The problem with your idea of taking from the rich for the poor is incorrect. Since it will be deducted from paychecks, once again it is the middle class that suffers from the deduction more than any monetary class of earners. The rich can always afford it. The middle class cannot, and the poor do not pay much into it anyway and they are already poor. |
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,039
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jun 15, 2019 14:55:47 GMT -5
We already have wealth distribution- from the poor to the rich. From the powerless to the powerful. Evening it out, just a little, is the moral thing to do. It will keep our society stable, without making the rich poor, nor the poor rich. The rich will still get richer, just at a slower velocity. The poor will still be poor, just with a slightly better standard of living. It isn't free money, it is mandating a minimum of treating people like humans. The problem with your idea of taking from the rich for the poor is incorrect. Since it will be deducted from paychecks, once again it is the middle class that suffers from the deduction more than any monetary class of earners. The rich can always afford it. The middle class cannot, and the poor do not pay much into it anyway and they are already poor. I don't know the details of CT's plan, but NY's plan is quite inexpensive. On my last biweekly paycheck, it was $1.13. So about $30 annually. On DH's more middle class paycheck, it was $3.43, or about $90 annually. It's capped at $107.97 annually (because the payout amounts are capped at a % of average wages, ~$750 weekly max payout). This program is definitely designed for low to middle income workers. It wouldn't replace much of higher income earners' paychecks, but as you said, the rich can afford it, right? |
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,337
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jun 15, 2019 15:26:21 GMT -5
It's a start. Still less than what I received 41 years ago when I had DS1 though. And for the record: my home country is neither a bankrupt "shithole banana republic" nor is it there any kind of opposition to this. At the very least most people recognize that children ultimately benefit all of society, not just their parents/families or the rich.
|
|
