pax said:
Tim, are you joking? Believe me, companies could swing it somehow. Our Canadian and European counterparts manage it just fine, it seems.
No they don't. Their unemployment rate is higher than ours in countries like France and Germany, in part because the incentive to work and the safety net for incompetence is too broad. They have cradle to grave welfare which stagnates productivity.
And yes, I believe that families should have the option of either or both parents taking time off to spend with a new child.
Parenting isn't just for women. And are you ACTUALLY suggesting that people would just get pregnant to have free time off from work?
I agree that parenting isn't just for women, and I support family planning, particularly in the forms of contraception, but why should I pay for your child because you either consciously or unconsciously got pregnant? Consequences exist in part to encourage us to be more responsible. Grace abounds but look toward a church, organization or a family member and not to the Government. To codify your mistakes into public policy simply encourages more of the same behavior.
Welfare mothers did it. They would have more kids to get more checks. Part of welfare reform was to stop rewarding people in poverty with more money when they couldn't afford the kids that they had.
I'm saying that if you want to support a "culture of life" in this country, you need to actually encourage people to be good, loving parents. And this is a good way for people to focus on what matters (yes) more than work or money: their kids.
It is one thing to decrease impediments, and it is one thing to increase rewards for actions. Where that starts and stops would be an endless debate. I think having companies pay for it is going too far. It also makes it harder for Mom & Pop businesses to get started, which basically makes the big corporations (which so many people hate) less personal, and more conglomerate, because it's the only place that can afford to pay people that extra money.
And, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time respecting the argument of folks who are against abortion but also against financial, material, and emotional support of new parents. As I've said before, too many people are pro-life only until the kid is born. After that, it's "screw you and your unemployed/underemployed/employed but can't take time off from work because she'll be out on the streets mom." [/B]
You're talking about two different motivations. My position on the abortion issue has nothing to do with money. If it were about money then kill 'em all, we don't need that drag on the economy. But that is not where I'm coming from. When someone has a child out of wedlock and uses the government instead of people around her, it encourages lack of accountability, responsibility, lack of care and a lack of change, and dare I say a lack of gratefulness. When you see someone being generous to you, you often try to repay that generosity with a thanks or by trying to mend your ways (if you have bad habits), or even just by helping out in their times of trouble. The government does a poorer job of caring people than people do and will not seek to do much more than satisfy the requirement by law.
Hi Pax! -- The costs have to be paid somewhere. Either through higher taxes, higher insurance costs which you will pay someday either through more expensive goods or fewer jobs. It's not free. There are plenty of people who will cut back on entertainment and other budgetary items in order to have the life they want without making others pay for their decision.
I'm done. I need to actually work to pay for the pregant lady in the cube next to me. Kidding!
And it should be PAID leave under FMLA...right now, the law only required that 12 weeks of unpaid leave be granted.
The Republicans love him! 
He's everything that Rush Limbaugh has warned the Conservative base about. Every characterization of left-liberal is embodied in one man who likes to speak his mind. So while Hillary is coming across as more moderate and even Hawkish, Dean is telling it like he sees it and putting his foot in his mouth over and over again. This is stuff is great for dinner parties but you don't want him to be the spokesperson for the party. And I hear that he's not even getting his primary job done which is fundraising. The more moderate Democrats seem to shy away from him because he doesn't play well with others who disagree with him.
Unless of course we WANT to encourage larger families.
Supply-Side Jesus 
Do I support a safety net, yeah I do, but not as broad as you want to make it. Welfare Reform (which has been wildly successful) has put limits on the safety nets. And before Melon chimes in... Yes, I'm against Corporate Welfare too. Let a company sink or swim based on it's own capacity to market and sell products and services.
