Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump Proposes Paid Family Leave" video.

  1. Why only 6 weeks? Why not 18 years? Allow a parent to stay at home until the kid is an adult. Just give money to people for having kids.
    2
  2. Ah, Is see I got some very intelligent responses here. Instead of an actual rebuttal I get told to "drink antifreeze" and to "shut the fuck up". What is wrong with my idea? Having a stay at home parent would help out kids a lot? An noticed how I said parent, I did not say mom or dad. Why not give money to a parent to stay at home?
    1
  3. "You just refuted your own argument. That's just pathetic." No, I was pointing out how arbitrary 6 weeks is. Why are we rewarding people for having kids? If you can't afford a kid than don't have one. But if you feel the need to give money to people for having kids than why not 18 years? Or 5 years so they are around until they go to school. Six weeks is completely arbitrary.
    1
  4. holyfuk "well giving people money for having kids is different if it is 6 weeks or 18 years," I really see not difference. If you can't afford to take work off when you have a kid than you shouldn't be having a kid, period. You are rewarding failure at that point. "one is much /much/ more expensive and pointless" Both are expensive and pointless. But with 18 years it does promote a parent being at home which can have a lot of benefits for children. In all, the program is asinine and rewards failure. That and also will contribute to the growing income inequality problem we have.
    1
  5. holyfuk  " if you seriously see no difference between 6 weeks and 18 years, ill do the math for you. it is 156x more time off per person which translates to billions more in funds for the program, and more unemployment for a useless amount of time." I see no difference because the time is completely arbitrary. As a whole the program is a waste of money. If you can't afford to have a kid than you should not be having one, period. Why do we have to pay for any time off? And if we do than why not 18 years? We do have an unemployment problem in the US. "how does a parent being home for 18 year have much benefit for the child?" A child coming home to a house that is well kept boost moral. When a parent can focus more time on parenting than the child can be discipline lowering the chance of them committing a crime and doing better in school. "ive explained multiple times why in fact is not beneficial" Actually you haven't. One issue public schools face is scheduling for parent teacher conferences due to both parents working. If one parent wasn't work those times can be schedule easier which also places less of a burden on school teachers. "seems like an 18 year program would also reward failure by your logic" I agree. I am just pointing out how 6 weeks is completely arbitrary. "you are nothing more than a reactionary." I am not reactionary, I am just pointing out how little liberals think in their policies. They just pull numbers out of thin air. No different than the $15/hr min. wage, it simply looks good on a bumper sticker.
    1
  6. Blood Lust What is right for the child is to be raised in a home that has parents that have enough income.
    1
  7. holyfuk Hopefully you read my entire comment since I took the time to read yours.
    1