Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Aug 13, 2019 13:50:58 GMT -5
That has to be fake news because socialism doesn't work. Democratic socialism seems to work in countries with smaller homogeneous populations. Some of those countries actually have out of pocket healthcare costs that are in line or even slightly more than that of the US. They more or less provide the same level of healthcare to illegal immigrants as the US currently does which is a lot different than what some of the candidates are talking about providing. I know that some of the candidates like to point to these countries as proof it can work but the US with a population of ~330M is a completely different animal. What does the homogenity have to do with economics?
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,313
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 13, 2019 13:54:57 GMT -5
How much welfare, public assistance did they receive? None. When they arrived in the US, believe it or not, they actually had to sign a document stating they would never take any government aid. (Shocking, huh?) Even though they worked for many years, they weren't able to get Social Security, so my Grandpa worked until he couldn't. Fortunately, he was a good saver, and Grandma knew how to can. And, they lived in a state where, at the time, you didn't have to pay property taxes when you were a senior citizen, so they made it work. That is interesting. Was it because he was here too short earn his "points" to receive SS? And if so, did they reduce his taxes by the FICA amount or was he made to pay just for others (but not for himself)?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,856
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 13, 2019 13:55:56 GMT -5
Not to mention, new parents get PAID time off to care for their babies. Imagine that! I took a year off with my first. I didn't need the taxpayers or my company to pay me. I planned, saved and had no problem. Your company let you take off a year of unpaid leave? Then gave you your original job back?
My company said I could have six weeks off (2 paid, 2 at 60% pay, and 2 unpaid) and then had to come back after that or I'd be fired.
I was lucky I had a healthy baby and an easy pregnancy, or I would have lost my job.
I would have loved to take off more than six weeks, but needed my job, and this was pre-FMLA, so I had no options. The number 1 reason I didn't have more kids was that I hated not being able to take off more time with my first baby, and I didn't want to have to do it with a second one. You would think it would benefit society to encourage middle class moms to have more kids, since our birth rate is dropping, but I forget sometimes are resistant we are to give any freebies to anyone but large corporations.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,313
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 13, 2019 14:04:36 GMT -5
I'd have to research exactly when they arrived, but I believe it was either late 1800's or early 1900's. Most likely the latter. And no, they couldn't take Social Security. Fortunately, my Grandpa was TOUGH. I could tell you a few stories... my grandparents arrived in 1963. that makes sense, then, timing. I didn't realize that SS rules changed at some point. so did they have to pay into a SS system that they couldn't benefit from? that seems beyond shitty. From the arrival date (late 1800s/early 1900s) it would seem that Busy's grandparents arrived ~ 35 years prior to SS arriving. I am not so sure they would not have received SS if they had applied for it, but they may have taken the "you can't receive any public assistance" to mean that it included SS.
Today there are once again so many who confuse SS and Medicare with government handouts (entitlements) despite the fact that people pay into the system their entire working life...
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Aug 13, 2019 14:07:13 GMT -5
No Montenegrans though. I hear they are very excitable people, and could start WWIII. only if you can find a duke to assassinate.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,798
|
Post by kadee79 on Aug 13, 2019 14:21:23 GMT -5
my grandparents arrived in 1963. that makes sense, then, timing. I didn't realize that SS rules changed at some point. so did they have to pay into a SS system that they couldn't benefit from? that seems beyond shitty. From the arrival date (late 1800s/early 1900s) it would seem that Busy's grandparents arrived ~ 35 years prior to SS arriving. I am not so sure they would not have received SS if they had applied for it, but they may have taken the "you can't receive any public assistance" to mean that it included SS.
Today there are once again so many who confuse SS and Medicare with government handouts (entitlements) despite the fact that people pay into the system their entire working life...
I was born in '45 & I remember my Dad going to sign up for SS for the first time. He had no birth certificate due to a home birth & rural. My Uncle who was older had to go with him to the federal building to swear that he had been born. Only problem was...no one could remember which year...'07, '08 or '09...I'm not sure which year they picked. So he wouldn't have signed up until at least 1948 & paid in after that. When he died, I was able to receive some benefits since I was still a minor...about $50 a month was what I got. He paid in for about 12 yrs. before he passed.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,327
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 Aug 13, 2019 15:13:24 GMT -5
None. When they arrived in the US, believe it or not, they actually had to sign a document stating they would never take any government aid. (Shocking, huh?) Even though they worked for many years, they weren't able to get Social Security, so my Grandpa worked until he couldn't. Fortunately, he was a good saver, and Grandma knew how to can. And, they lived in a state where, at the time, you didn't have to pay property taxes when you were a senior citizen, so they made it work. That is interesting. Was it because he was here too short earn his "points" to receive SS? And if so, did they reduce his taxes by the FICA amount or was he made to pay just for others (but not for himself)? He was here most of his adult life, so it shouldn't have been a "points" issue. I was told, at the time, immigrants, even the ones who became citizens, didn't qualify for Social Security. It was a darned shame, because he continued to work into his 70's. I don't know if FICA was taken out of his checks, or not.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2019 15:17:18 GMT -5
No Montenegrans though. I hear they are very excitable people, and could start WWIII. Yes, I hear they're very aggressive. Trump is such a dumbass.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2019 15:18:22 GMT -5
"Some of those countries actually have out of pocket healthcare costs that are in line or even slightly more than that of the US"
Which ones? How much more?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2019 15:34:07 GMT -5
I took a year off with my first. I didn't need the taxpayers or my company to pay me. I planned, saved and had no problem. Your company let you take off a year of unpaid leave? Then gave you your original job back?
My company said I could have six weeks off (2 paid, 2 at 60% pay, and 2 unpaid) and then had to come back after that or I'd be fired.
I was lucky I had a healthy baby and an easy pregnancy, or I would have lost my job.
I would have loved to take off more than six weeks, but needed my job, and this was pre-FMLA, so I had no options. The number 1 reason I didn't have more kids was that I hated not being able to take off more time with my first baby, and I didn't want to have to do it with a second one. You would think it would benefit society to encourage middle class moms to have more kids, since our birth rate is dropping, but I forget sometimes are resistant we are to give any freebies to anyone but large corporations.
Well, that's exactly it! We give a year to 18 months of paid leave. Your job is guaranteed, so you have a job to go back to. Daycare is heavily subsidized, so it's $7 a day. You can afford to back to work. Why work if every penny goes to daycare? This keeps people OFF WELFARE.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2019 15:37:45 GMT -5
That has to be fake news because socialism doesn't work. Democratic socialism seems to work in countries with smaller homogeneous populations. Some of those countries actually have out of pocket healthcare costs that are in line or even slightly more than that of the US. They more or less provide the same level of healthcare to illegal immigrants as the US currently does which is a lot different than what some of the candidates are talking about providing. I know that some of the candidates like to point to these countries as proof it can work but the US with a population of ~330M is a completely different animal. Like Canada? Our population is not homogeneous. Over 20% are immigrants from other countries. The usual suspects lead the list of culturally diverse countries: Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, Togo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These and other African countries typically rank high on any diversity index because of their multitude of tribal groups and languages. The only western country to break into the top 20 most diverse is Canada. The United States ranks near the middle, slightly more diverse than Russia but slightly less diverse than Spain. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 13, 2019 15:46:27 GMT -5
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 13, 2019 15:48:01 GMT -5
Democratic socialism seems to work in countries with smaller homogeneous populations. Some of those countries actually have out of pocket healthcare costs that are in line or even slightly more than that of the US. They more or less provide the same level of healthcare to illegal immigrants as the US currently does which is a lot different than what some of the candidates are talking about providing. I know that some of the candidates like to point to these countries as proof it can work but the US with a population of ~330M is a completely different animal. Like Canada? Our population is not homogeneous. Over 20% are immigrants from other countries. The usual suspects lead the list of culturally diverse countries: Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, Togo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These and other African countries typically rank high on any diversity index because of their multitude of tribal groups and languages. The only western country to break into the top 20 most diverse is Canada. The United States ranks near the middle, slightly more diverse than Russia but slightly less diverse than Spain. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/Most of the discussions in the US about democratic socialism have to do with the Western European models. Canada may be more diverse but their population is smaller than that of California. For the record I'm not advocating for one system or another. I'm pointing out some of the differences between a country with a population of ~330M like the US vs. those that have populations of 10M or less in some cases down to fewer than a million people.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 15:50:36 GMT -5
I took a year off with my first. I didn't need the taxpayers or my company to pay me. I planned, saved and had no problem. Your company let you take off a year of unpaid leave? Then gave you your original job back?
My company said I could have six weeks off (2 paid, 2 at 60% pay, and 2 unpaid) and then had to come back after that or I'd be fired.
I was lucky I had a healthy baby and an easy pregnancy, or I would have lost my job.
I would have loved to take off more than six weeks, but needed my job, and this was pre-FMLA, so I had no options. The number 1 reason I didn't have more kids was that I hated not being able to take off more time with my first baby, and I didn't want to have to do it with a second one. You would think it would benefit society to encourage middle class moms to have more kids, since our birth rate is dropping, but I forget sometimes are resistant we are to give any freebies to anyone but large corporations.
I resigned my position at the firm I worked at because I wanted to be home with my baby. I was rehired a year later but in a part-time position. They actually sought me out and crafted a position for me. I only took 4 months unpaid leave the second time because I only had to work two days a week upon my return (10 hour days).
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 15:55:53 GMT -5
I took a year off with my first. I didn't need the taxpayers or my company to pay me. I planned, saved and had no problem. so you would have turned down the perk/benefit of a year paid maternity leave? I mean, if you didn't need it, after all. do you turn down other benefits? Why would I turn something down? My point was that it wasn’t offered so I didn’t botch and moan about it. I planned and saved and had no problems taking a year off with my child.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 15:58:11 GMT -5
I understand why we would want people who immigrate here need to have financial backing so they don't use public assistance. white people use more public assistance than brown people. Do you mean more than their % of the population or just the mere fact that there are a lot more white people?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:02:37 GMT -5
That has to be fake news because socialism doesn't work. Democratic socialism seems to work in countries with smaller homogeneous populations. Some of those countries actually have out of pocket healthcare costs that are in line or even slightly more than that of the US. They more or less provide the same level of healthcare to illegal immigrants as the US currently does which is a lot different than what some of the candidates are talking about providing. I know that some of the candidates like to point to these countries as proof it can work but the US with a population of ~330M is a completely different animal. Democratic Socialism seems to work pretty well throughout the developed world. Here is a list of countries that have greater diversity than the US and seem to work fine with Democratic Socialism (in order, from least to most diverse):
Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, India, South Africa.
All of these countries have massive immigration compared to the US.
we LOVE to make excuses about our "problems", but that is just what they are: excuses.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 13, 2019 16:03:00 GMT -5
so you would have turned down the perk/benefit of a year paid maternity leave? I mean, if you didn't need it, after all. do you turn down other benefits? Why would I turn something down? My point was that it wasn’t offered so I didn’t botch and moan about it. I planned and saved and had no problems taking a year off with my child. and that's fine. I wasn't sure from your tone. the question I wanted to ask earlier, but figured I needed to ask the other first - why don't you see anything wrong with the fact that the rest of hte developed world offers a ton of maternity leave comparable to companies here? yes, YOU were able to save and plan, but to the vast majority of young families, that doesn't happen. and FTR, nobody accused you of bitching and moaning about it, either.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 16:05:07 GMT -5
Why would I turn something down? My point was that it wasn’t offered so I didn’t botch and moan about it. I planned and saved and had no problems taking a year off with my child. and that's fine. I wasn't sure from your tone. the question I wanted to ask earlier, but figured I needed to ask the other first - why don't you see anything wrong with the fact that the rest of hte developed world offers a ton of maternity leave comparable to companies here? yes, YOU were able to save and plan, but to the vast majority of young families, that doesn't happen. and FTR, nobody accused you of bitching and moaning about it, either. Because I believe in personal responsibility. I had to take out student loans for college, save for maternity leave, etc and now everyone wants my tax dollars to pay again. It pisses me off
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:07:50 GMT -5
white people use more public assistance than brown people. Do you mean more than their % of the population or just the mere fact that there are a lot more white people? more dollars and more people. both.
what this argument boils down to is who is poorer, ultimately. but nobody likes to think of it that way.
so, if you phrase it this way: are the people getting assistance disproportionately poor? the answer is yes. and so it should be.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:12:30 GMT -5
and that's fine. I wasn't sure from your tone. the question I wanted to ask earlier, but figured I needed to ask the other first - why don't you see anything wrong with the fact that the rest of hte developed world offers a ton of maternity leave comparable to companies here? yes, YOU were able to save and plan, but to the vast majority of young families, that doesn't happen. and FTR, nobody accused you of bitching and moaning about it, either. Because I believe in personal responsibility. I had to take out student loans for college, save for maternity leave, etc and now everyone wants my tax dollars to pay again. It pisses me off it is not necessarily irresponsible to take out loans.
for example: if you go to a paid private trade school, and they promise you a job on graduation, then they go bankrupt before you graduate, or don't offer you a promised job- how does that make a student irresponsible?
I think we have a habit of passing judgment on people we don't even know in this country. we assume things that are not true. I don't know why we do it, but I know that I hate it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:15:22 GMT -5
Your company let you take off a year of unpaid leave? Then gave you your original job back?
My company said I could have six weeks off (2 paid, 2 at 60% pay, and 2 unpaid) and then had to come back after that or I'd be fired.
I was lucky I had a healthy baby and an easy pregnancy, or I would have lost my job.
I would have loved to take off more than six weeks, but needed my job, and this was pre-FMLA, so I had no options. The number 1 reason I didn't have more kids was that I hated not being able to take off more time with my first baby, and I didn't want to have to do it with a second one. You would think it would benefit society to encourage middle class moms to have more kids, since our birth rate is dropping, but I forget sometimes are resistant we are to give any freebies to anyone but large corporations.
Well, that's exactly it! We give a year to 18 months of paid leave. Your job is guaranteed, so you have a job to go back to. Daycare is heavily subsidized, so it's $7 a day. You can afford to back to work. Why work if every penny goes to daycare? This keeps people OFF WELFARE. it also fosters healthy families, something we PURPORT to care about, but clearly don't give fuck one about.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 16:16:35 GMT -5
Do you mean more than their % of the population or just the mere fact that there are a lot more white people? more dollars and more people. both.
what this argument boils down to is who is poorer, ultimately. but nobody likes to think of it that way.
so, if you phrase it this way: are the people getting assistance disproportionately poor? the answer is yes. and so it should be.
Well if course they get more dollars...there are a lot more of us! And I hope that people getting assistance are poor. Otherwise there is something wrong with the system. And that goes for whatever race is getting assistance
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 13, 2019 16:16:52 GMT -5
and that's fine. I wasn't sure from your tone. the question I wanted to ask earlier, but figured I needed to ask the other first - why don't you see anything wrong with the fact that the rest of hte developed world offers a ton of maternity leave comparable to companies here? yes, YOU were able to save and plan, but to the vast majority of young families, that doesn't happen. and FTR, nobody accused you of bitching and moaning about it, either. Because I believe in personal responsibility. I had to take out student loans for college, save for maternity leave, etc and now everyone wants my tax dollars to pay again. It pisses me off an employer-paid benefit is absolutely NOT taxpayer-funded. that's why I asked my first question. so with this on top of your first answer, now I'm more confused as to your actual opinion on the topic.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 16:23:59 GMT -5
Because I believe in personal responsibility. I had to take out student loans for college, save for maternity leave, etc and now everyone wants my tax dollars to pay again. It pisses me off an employer-paid benefit is absolutely NOT taxpayer-funded. that's why I asked my first question. so with this on top of your first answer, now I'm more confused as to your actual opinion on the topic. My opinion is that if you work for an employer that provides paid maternity leave, good for you. If you don’t, then you need to save and prepare. I. D.o.n.t believe in forcing an employer to pay for our life’s choices. So now an employer has to pay for a replacement and someone salary for a year? I would be hiring men and that point.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 13, 2019 16:25:37 GMT -5
Democratic socialism seems to work in countries with smaller homogeneous populations. Some of those countries actually have out of pocket healthcare costs that are in line or even slightly more than that of the US. They more or less provide the same level of healthcare to illegal immigrants as the US currently does which is a lot different than what some of the candidates are talking about providing. I know that some of the candidates like to point to these countries as proof it can work but the US with a population of ~330M is a completely different animal. Democratic Socialism seems to work pretty well throughout the developed world. Here is a list of countries that have greater diversity than the US and seem to work fine with Democratic Socialism (in order, from least to most diverse):
Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, India, South Africa.
All of these countries have massive immigration compared to the US.
we LOVE to make excuses about our "problems", but that is just what they are: excuses.
Every country has problems and that's not necessarily a case for switching to democratic socialism, communism or capitalism. Spain and Belgium have debt to GDP ratios on par with the US. South Africa has one of the worst income inequalities in the world. I don't know anyone in the US who has ever talked about the US being more like India which has corruption, sanitation and healthcare issues. Belgium has a population the same size as Ohio so not sure how comparable that is. It's not excuses it's comparing a country with a population of ~330M to the Nordic democratic socialist countries that are often pointed to by Sanders and the like. It's real easy to promise free everything while saying the solution is more taxes on the wealthy and middle class to buy votes. If anyone will honestly slash from the budget to pay for more things feel free but that ain't happening and I'm not going to support anything that's a vote grab and will add to the debt.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:27:15 GMT -5
more dollars and more people. both.
what this argument boils down to is who is poorer, ultimately. but nobody likes to think of it that way.
so, if you phrase it this way: are the people getting assistance disproportionately poor? the answer is yes. and so it should be.
Well if course they (we) get more dollars...there are a lot more (poor) of us! And I hope that people getting assistance are poor. Otherwise there is something wrong with the system. And that goes for whatever race is getting assistance right, so what is the debate about?
are you angry because more brown people are poor?
because they are angry, too; so that must not be it.
it is because you are assuming WHY they are poor? you are assuming it is THEIR fault. correct?
note: parenthetical remarks added for clarity.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,313
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 13, 2019 16:28:32 GMT -5
That is interesting. Was it because he was here too short earn his "points" to receive SS? And if so, did they reduce his taxes by the FICA amount or was he made to pay just for others (but not for himself)? He was here most of his adult life, so it shouldn't have been a "points" issue. I was told, at the time, immigrants, even the ones who became citizens, didn't qualify for Social Security. It was a darned shame, because he continued to work into his 70's. I don't know if FICA was taken out of his checks, or not. I can't find anything about having to be born a citizen to qualify, but there were certain groups of people that were not eligible in the beginning of the system. Now it is entirely possible that anti-immigrant officials made claims like "you are not eligible", and I don't believe that there was much oversight for them at the time either. However, it is also possible that he fell into the group of excluded workers of course
"Social Security Cards After signing the Social Security Act, President Roosevelt established a three-person board to administer the program with the goal of starting payroll tax deductions for enrollees by January 1, 1937. It was a daunting task, but by November 1936 registration for the program began.
Not everyone could participate, though. Self-employed professionals, field hands and domestic workers were excluded."
www.history.com/topics/great-depression/social-security-act
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:30:17 GMT -5
an employer-paid benefit is absolutely NOT taxpayer-funded. that's why I asked my first question. so with this on top of your first answer, now I'm more confused as to your actual opinion on the topic. My opinion is that if you work for an employer that provides paid maternity leave, good for you. If you don’t, then you need to save and prepare. I. D.o.n.t believe in forcing an employer to pay for our life’s choices. So now an employer has to pay for a replacement and someone salary for a year? I would be hiring men and that point. arguably, having children is not a "life choice", it is a biological necessity.
how about this, for a counterargument:
why does/should anyone NEED to work?
we survived approximately 1M years without the standard employee/employer relationship. what makes it suddenly necessary now?
and if it is NOT necessary, then why should an employer NOT be responsible for other things that are NOT necessary? in other words, where is the line drawn? is not NOT completely arbitrary?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:31:36 GMT -5
Democratic Socialism seems to work pretty well throughout the developed world. Here is a list of countries that have greater diversity than the US and seem to work fine with Democratic Socialism (in order, from least to most diverse):
Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, India, South Africa.
All of these countries have massive immigration compared to the US.
we LOVE to make excuses about our "problems", but that is just what they are: excuses.
Every country has problems and that's not necessarily a case for switching to democratic socialism, communism or capitalism. that wasn't my argument. my argument was the negative of that:
that DIVERSITY is not an argument against Democratic Socialism, and neither is number of people.
I am not arguing FOR either system.
|
|