Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vox)   GOP family leave proposal isn't even a solution in search of a problem   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Parental leave, Labor, Social Security Trust Fund, Leave, Maternity, Paternity, paternity leave, Economics  
•       •       •

2261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Mar 2019 at 12:58 PM (7 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-03-15 12:32:00 PM  
The gop doesn't really give a rat's rectum, do they?
 
2019-03-15 12:56:02 PM  
The GOP is not an organization that one can say is interested in advancing the needs of the working class.
 
2019-03-15 12:59:47 PM  
I'm sorry, why the f*ck can't the corporations raking in trillions of dollars hand-over-fist foot the bill for this again?
 
2019-03-15 12:59:48 PM  
Idk I think leaving the GOP family is a solution.
 
2019-03-15 12:59:58 PM  
The cruelty is the point.
 
2019-03-15 01:03:14 PM  
Most Republican "solutions" are a variation of "fark the poors" with often a bit of "throwing a money-making opportunity to already rich assholes" thrown in.

Like someone already said above: The cruelty is the point.
 
2019-03-15 01:03:16 PM  
Some people feel good about their own achievements simply by virtue of those achievements. Other people only feel good about themselves when they see other people suffering. Guess which group conservatives fall into.
 
2019-03-15 01:03:46 PM  
"Someone who takes the maximum three months off, for example, would need to delay their Social Security retirement by six months."

Oh wow, how can I get in on that sweet deal?

Assholes.
 
2019-03-15 01:05:10 PM  
The proposal absolutely does solve a problem. Or at least it attempts to. The problem is how do you gut and end Social Security for once and for all without committing electoral suicide.
 
2019-03-15 01:05:31 PM  

Action Replay Nick: I'm sorry, why the f*ck can't the corporations raking in trillions of dollars hand-over-fist foot the bill for this again?


Because jobs...or some such BS.

/It's because profits and shareholders.
 
2019-03-15 01:05:35 PM  
Republicans truly don't give a flying fig about families or children. Hell, even the benefits corporate America would receive in gaining a labor pool of young workers who had the benefit of positive early development, happier healthier parental employees, etc. The GOP deserves the ignorant voter base they've built up and I can only hope they feel the sting when their ridiculous tactics bring all of us down.
 
2019-03-15 01:06:03 PM  

Action Replay Nick: I'm sorry, why the f*ck can't the corporations raking in trillions of dollars hand-over-fist foot the bill for this again?


Because Joe Bob's Excavators in Buttfark, West Virginia can't afford to give paid leave to any of the 7 employees that work there, and they're one good season away from making it big.
 
2019-03-15 01:07:20 PM  
The TL;DR for everyone that's going to come in here to argue without reading the article:

Workers would still bear the cost of taking time off - by delaying their retirement by twice as many months as they took off for parental leave. Someone who takes the maximum three months off, for example, would need to delay their Social Security retirement by six months.

The plan is to get a cash advance on your Social Security to cover the cost of taking family leave. This stupid mostly because Social Security is going to be tits up before a lot of the people that would need to access this plan would retire anyway, but also because having a child shouldn't require a sketchy payday loan in the first place.
 
2019-03-15 01:10:31 PM  

oldernell: The gop doesn't really give a rat's rectum, do they?


Why should they? I mean, aside from basic morals. But politically, they suffer no repercussions from any of the things they do. Sure the Democrats may come back when it's really obvious the GOP has no idea how to govern, but that usually only lasts about a year and a half
 
2019-03-15 01:12:28 PM  

TDWCom29: oldernell: The gop doesn't really give a rat's rectum, do they?

Why should they? I mean, aside from basic morals. But politically, they suffer no repercussions from any of the things they do. Sure the Democrats may come back when it's really obvious the GOP has no idea how to govern, but that usually only lasts about a year and a half


It lasts just long enough for the Democrats to accomplish enough that the GOP is able to go OOGA BOOGA THEY'RE COMIN' FER YER GUNS AND YER WIMMIN and then they steal two SCOTUS seats.
 
2019-03-15 01:14:17 PM  
Sens. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Mike Lee (R-UT) ensure this plan will be the worst possible for people.
 
2019-03-15 01:14:26 PM  
Oh yeah. It's hard to understand what the fark they were thinking with this. The whole concept is so deeply flawed it's hard to see as anything other than, "well how do we screw working people over the most".
 
2019-03-15 01:14:27 PM  

TDWCom29: oldernell: The gop doesn't really give a rat's rectum, do they?

Why should they? I mean, aside from basic morals. But politically, they suffer no repercussions from any of the things they do. Sure the Democrats may come back when it's really obvious the GOP has no idea how to govern, but that usually only lasts about a year and a half


I used to think that they at least held some firm beliefs on morality. But no, they really don't. Every moral issue they glom onto is just another political football to them. They're just athletes throwing balls around for the crowd so the masses can cheer them on and proudly say "yeah, that's MY team! They had a good punt with that abortion issue there. And did you see that block on immigration?!"
 
2019-03-15 01:14:33 PM  
The US position on parental leave is embarrassing. So many countries allow for reduced pay leave for up to two years. Child care for a two or three month infant is insane. Plus who wants to leave such a young child in daycare. And it needs to be for both parents and not just the mother. When we only allow the mother to have leave it weakens women's position in the work force because employers worry about them getting pregnant.
 
2019-03-15 01:14:48 PM  
"Cradle Act...in the event of the birth or adoption of a child, illness of a parent or child a person may take paid leave. This leave will be funded by selling stocks, bonds or other assets owned by the person taking leave or her husband, if he agrees..."
 
2019-03-15 01:16:31 PM  
They want to cut Social Security. This is how the plan unfolds:

1. Allow younger people to withdraw funds early for paid family leave.
2. Grandfather in current recipients born from a certain year and before (Probably 1964 or 1965), so their benefits stay more or less the same.
3. Push the eligibilty age for those born after that year from 65 to 70, maybe even 72 or older.
4. Cut taxes which pay into the SSN fund.
5. Cut disability payments or make them more restrictive to obtain.
6. Bleed the whole thing dry over 20 years, slowly, so the ones complaining are written off as socialist liberals.

By the time those in #1 get to #6, Social Security won't exist anymore. It clears that money from the system now, knowing it will never be replaced nor accessible later.

Retirement is for the rich. The rest of us work til we die.
 
2019-03-15 01:16:48 PM  
It's the same thing as Trump's tax cuts. They are going to give you some money up front so they can say they are helping you and hope you are dumb enough to not realize you are going to have to pay it back at a later date.
 
2019-03-15 01:17:09 PM  

bainsguy: The TL;DR for everyone that's going to come in here to argue without reading the article:

Workers would still bear the cost of taking time off - by delaying their retirement by twice as many months as they took off for parental leave. Someone who takes the maximum three months off, for example, would need to delay their Social Security retirement by six months.

The plan is to get a cash advance on your Social Security to cover the cost of taking family leave. This stupid mostly because Social Security is going to be tits up before a lot of the people that would need to access this plan would retire anyway, but also because having a child shouldn't require a sketchy payday loan in the first place.


It doesn't. The couple could start saving before they choose to have a baby, but that would represent individual responsibility wouldn't it?

Forcing a business to keep a position open for up to three months is really heavy handed governmental interference.
 
2019-03-15 01:17:25 PM  
I love it when they do shiat like this

(GOP) *presents dogshiat plan to "solve poblem" that doesn't solve problem and also farks people over
(Dems) *vote against plan
(GOP) "Democrats don't want to solve problem!"
 
2019-03-15 01:19:22 PM  

fernt: bainsguy: The TL;DR for everyone that's going to come in here to argue without reading the article:

Workers would still bear the cost of taking time off - by delaying their retirement by twice as many months as they took off for parental leave. Someone who takes the maximum three months off, for example, would need to delay their Social Security retirement by six months.

The plan is to get a cash advance on your Social Security to cover the cost of taking family leave. This stupid mostly because Social Security is going to be tits up before a lot of the people that would need to access this plan would retire anyway, but also because having a child shouldn't require a sketchy payday loan in the first place.

It doesn't. The couple could start saving before they choose to have a baby, but that would represent individual responsibility wouldn't it?

Forcing a business to keep a position open for up to three months is really heavy handed governmental interference.


Why don't you sit this one out, chief? You don't seem to know what the hell you're talking about.
 
2019-03-15 01:20:08 PM  

reno301: The US position on parental leave is embarrassing. So many countries allow for reduced pay leave for up to two years. Child care for a two or three month infant is insane. Plus who wants to leave such a young child in daycare. And it needs to be for both parents and not just the mother. When we only allow the mother to have leave it weakens women's position in the work force because employers worry about them getting pregnant.


Republicans want women to be forced into staying home. Women of a certain economic class, that is. Rich women can afford nannies. Really rich women can literally build a nursery at their office.
 
2019-03-15 01:20:50 PM  
I wish UI were universal instead of something workers have to fight for.  That way, if nothing else, parents could take UI for leave.  But nooo, you basically have to prove that your employer was in the wrong about absolutely everything and that you're the pope to get UI in most states - even if the employee pays for it, like in my state.
 
2019-03-15 01:23:10 PM  
NJ has paid family leave but only 6 weeks. You basically collect unemployment while you're out. Funded by a $30 per year tax paid by the employee. Bump that up to $60, make the employer pay half and move on with our lives.
 
2019-03-15 01:24:14 PM  

CPennypacker: I love it when they do shiat like this

(GOP) *presents dogshiat plan to "solve poblem" that doesn't solve problem and also farks people over
(Dems) *vote against plan
(GOP) "Democrats don't want to solve problem!"


front.moveon.orgView Full Size
 
2019-03-15 01:25:20 PM  
Voting GOP in meme form...

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-15 01:28:54 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Oh yeah. It's hard to understand what the fark they were thinking with this. The whole concept is so deeply flawed it's hard to see as anything other than, "well how do we screw working people over the most".


Its the exact same thing they did with the Bush Tax cuts. They gave everyone an advance on their own money. And some people realized it and others went woohoo more money until they got their refund

So they are just rehashing old stupid crap.

Give people their own money and they will love us for it
 
2019-03-15 01:29:52 PM  

fernt: bainsguy: The TL;DR for everyone that's going to come in here to argue without reading the article:

Workers would still bear the cost of taking time off - by delaying their retirement by twice as many months as they took off for parental leave. Someone who takes the maximum three months off, for example, would need to delay their Social Security retirement by six months.

The plan is to get a cash advance on your Social Security to cover the cost of taking family leave. This stupid mostly because Social Security is going to be tits up before a lot of the people that would need to access this plan would retire anyway, but also because having a child shouldn't require a sketchy payday loan in the first place.

It doesn't. The couple could start saving before they choose to have a baby, but that would represent individual responsibility wouldn't it?

Forcing a business to keep a position open for up to three months is really heavy handed governmental interference.


If you actually gave a crap about individual responsibility, you'd be for UBI. It was a libertarian idea in the first place. The whole idea was to have no other program, and just pay people upfront every year. Boom, right out the gate is your money for time off and health insurance.

But no, you have to make it suck for the poor too. And that's really what it's about, making those with less hurt more.
 
2019-03-15 01:31:27 PM  

Pincy: It's the same thing as Trump's tax cuts. They are going to give you some money up front so they can say they are helping you and hope you are dumb enough to not realize you are going to have to pay it back at a later date.


Republicans know their voters are farking stupid. It's those voters and many Democrats who seemingly have no idea.

Republican voters are goddam morons. They listen to Fox "News" and President Sniveling Asshole and actually say this:" Yeah! That guy's right!"

That's how you know they're stupid.
 
Juc
2019-03-15 01:31:45 PM  
it's a farking LOAN?
 
2019-03-15 01:35:14 PM  

AntiNerd: The proposal absolutely does solve a problem. Or at least it attempts to. The problem is how do you gut and end Social Security for once and for all without committing electoral suicide.


Tie that into a "repayment" program for student debt and you're set.
 
2019-03-15 01:36:09 PM  

Juc: it's a farking LOAN?


A payday loan.  With an interest rate of 100%.
 
2019-03-15 01:36:12 PM  
OK. So how about we get rid of the cap on FICA tax, and add the personal portion (6.25%) to long term capital gains payouts to individuals to capture the lost tax revenue from the ultra rich that get paid in "stock".
 
2019-03-15 01:36:52 PM  

CPennypacker: I love it when they do shiat like this

(GOP) *presents dogshiat plan to "solve poblem" that doesn't solve problem and also farks people over
(Dems) *vote against plan
(GOP) "Democrats don't want to solve problem!"


You forgot the last step where the republican not solution is passed by Democrats over the objections of republicans 20 years later
 
2019-03-15 01:37:05 PM  
> But the truth is, it's not paid leave at all. It's another version of unpaid leave that working parents in the United States would have to fund themselves.

Brilliant!

The GOP could also adopt this plan for government shutdowns, Unpaid workers could should just drain their retirement funds.

This would obliterate the complaints that the people affected by a shutdown don't have enough money to live on leading to more frequent shutdowns.
 
2019-03-15 01:38:23 PM  
Joke is on them - Can't afford kids and never having them anyway.
 
2019-03-15 01:38:35 PM  
JFC vote these scumbags out.
 
2019-03-15 01:44:38 PM  
I'm fairly certain I already know the answer to this, but bear with me for a moment. This proposal has parents borrowing against their future social security benefits, correct? Well, does early forced retirement (like debilitating but survivable injuries) alter one's social security benefits? And if it does, what does the parent do? Do they write a check to the government? Is the parent just f*cked and has to keep working, despite his/her current health status, until the parental leave is reimbursed?

And this is why I call them the Repugnant-cans.
 
2019-03-15 01:48:21 PM  
Wow. To compare: I am going on parental leave in Alberta, Canada at the end of the month (or whenever Mrs. Jorm pops!), it is paid for out of Employment Insurance funds, which makes sense since EI is meant for when you aren't working and it doesn't impact retirement or anything like that.

I will be going on parental leave for 5 months, I could go for up to 8ish and my job cannot disappear on me when I am gone. New mothers can get even more time, a year and a week I think.

I think that having two parents available all day will make the load of a newborn much more tolerable, plus we can avoid making the older kids feel like they're left out by doing stuff with them too. Maybe this kid won't be terrified of my beard like the first two were.
 
2019-03-15 01:52:09 PM  

Jormungandr: Wow. To compare: I am going on parental leave in Alberta, Canada at the end of the month (or whenever Mrs. Jorm pops!), it is paid for out of Employment Insurance funds, which makes sense since EI is meant for when you aren't working and it doesn't impact retirement or anything like that.

I will be going on parental leave for 5 months, I could go for up to 8ish and my job cannot disappear on me when I am gone. New mothers can get even more time, a year and a week I think.

I think that having two parents available all day will make the load of a newborn much more tolerable, plus we can avoid making the older kids feel like they're left out by doing stuff with them too. Maybe this kid won't be terrified of my beard like the first two were.


Congratulations!

Both on your upcoming child and on living in Canada instead of our nightmare!
 
Juc
2019-03-15 01:53:52 PM  

Jormungandr: Wow. To compare: I am going on parental leave in Alberta, Canada at the end of the month (or whenever Mrs. Jorm pops!), it is paid for out of Employment Insurance funds, which makes sense since EI is meant for when you aren't working and it doesn't impact retirement or anything like that.

I will be going on parental leave for 5 months, I could go for up to 8ish and my job cannot disappear on me when I am gone. New mothers can get even more time, a year and a week I think.

I think that having two parents available all day will make the load of a newborn much more tolerable, plus we can avoid making the older kids feel like they're left out by doing stuff with them too. Maybe this kid won't be terrified of my beard like the first two were.


the year is if you surrender all the parental leave to her. there's a bit she gets regardless (15 weeks, at least 6 of which have to come post-birth) and 37 weeks that get split however the parents want between them.
 
2019-03-15 01:56:54 PM  

fernt: bainsguy: The TL;DR for everyone that's going to come in here to argue without reading the article:

Workers would still bear the cost of taking time off - by delaying their retirement by twice as many months as they took off for parental leave. Someone who takes the maximum three months off, for example, would need to delay their Social Security retirement by six months.

The plan is to get a cash advance on your Social Security to cover the cost of taking family leave. This stupid mostly because Social Security is going to be tits up before a lot of the people that would need to access this plan would retire anyway, but also because having a child shouldn't require a sketchy payday loan in the first place.

It doesn't. The couple could start saving before they choose to have a baby, but that would represent individual responsibility wouldn't it?

Forcing a business to keep a position open for up to three months is really heavy handed governmental interference.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-15 01:58:56 PM  
Look, if you want fewer abortions you need to help women and their families.  It's not rocket science.
 
2019-03-15 01:59:08 PM  
I'm for just about anything that disincentives procreation.  The solution to just about every problem in the world today is less humans, not more.
 
2019-03-15 02:01:23 PM  

LL316: I'm for just about anything that disincentives procreation.  The solution to just about every problem in the world today is less humans, not more.


Well that's...nice
 
Juc
2019-03-15 02:01:27 PM  

LL316: I'm for just about anything that disincentives procreation.  The solution to just about every problem in the world today is less humans, not more.


Fewer humans, unless you're advocating thalidomide I guess
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report