Home | About | Donate

Trump’s Paid Family Leave Plan Would Punish Those Who Choose To Have Kids


Trump’s Paid Family Leave Plan Would Punish Those Who Choose To Have Kids

Elizabeth Bruenig

Early in the fifth century, the theologian Saint Augustine of Hippo noted something about families and society that, in his era, was simply conventional wisdom: “After the city, or political community, comes the world, following the convention that treats the household, city, and world as thr


The irony is that by discouraging poorer Americans from reproducing, the economy would attract more of those dreaded immigrants. Gawd these simpletons are stupid.


Jeeesus! What a shitty raw deal this is!

Once gain, we have to look to Canada. Up there, up to 37 weeks paid maternity/family leave come out of the employees unemployment insurance (called “employment insurance” up there). The father or mother (but not both) can simply apply for “unemployment” for the family leave - with a mandated guarantee that their job at the same pay is still there when they return. And oh, the benefits are more generous than US unemployment pay - 55% of your pay (80% if low income) up to $547 a week.


From the article:

“It actually is in the best interest of society that people have children…”

Who benefits—the children? Maybe the likes of Donny Jr. and Ivanka, but most aren’t so fortunate, especially now that SNAP and CHIP are being snatched away. Never forget that one of the Rockefellers (Nelson or David, who cares) once said on the record that 95% of the world’s population needs to disappear.

Second only to suicide, refraining from procreation is the next most powerful expression of consumer boycott.


They have been working on disappearing the 95% ever since.


I disagree that “It actually is in the best interest of society that people have children”. There are already 7 billion of us on a planet that is equipped for, maybe, 4 or 5 billion. And, at the risk of sounding elitist, snobbish, you name it, we do not need more children born to people who are ill-equipped to provide for their off-spring.


Newspeaking of “family values”


The 1% do it again.
The plan, described as “a budget-neutral approach to parental leave” by advocates, would allow parents to draw from their Social Security benefits early to fund their parental leave, then require them to delay the collection of retirement benefits by some yet-to-be-calculated period of time. Participation would be strictly voluntary. Well, of course it is “voluntary” the wealthy don’t need it. The working class will and they’ll use it, because they have no other choice. Then of course they’ll spend their golden years living in their broken down cars. Ain’t America great again – yet?

The planet is already overpopulated however that is no reason to keep mothers (or fathers) from being with their infants when they are most needed. Other measures could be taken to control population and should have been decades ago.


Those who choose to have kids, especially “bigger families,” are punishing the planet. There are too many of us already. Even a gold-plated family leave plan is as nothing in the face of the sixth extinction.


I think its an excellent idea. Those who want to increase overpopulation get to bear the cost. Those who don’t want to increase overpopulation don’t have to pay for it.


I’m unclear as to what you mean by “ill-equipped?” Do you mean emotionally and spiritually stunted, or just financially embarassed?


And @EdsNote: Do you have any evidence that families in the nations with true family leave (Scandinavians, for instance) are having larger families than those of similar socioeconomic condition in the US, or than they did before their family leave policies?

I didn’t think so.


No data whatsoever, nor an interest. But, by it’s nature, a user fee beats a tax on everyone most days of the week. Let those who have children pay for their children.


Without data, your argument amounts to “Let them eat cake.”


No, it amounts to let people bear the consequences of their choices. Very different


You speak from privilege. Capitalism depends on the existence of a permanent underclass, but it would benefit very little from the return of impoverished elderly.


Not at all. Having children is a choice a woman makes. If someone chooses to have a child, then it is their responsibility. If someone chooses not to have a child, why should they subsidize someone else’s choice?


I’m all for it. Those oil, timber and mining companies should pay for the use of our military, not those of us who want to get along with our planetary neighbors.


('Scuse me, but your ignorance is showing.) And what @GuildF312S said.


Amen! - I agree with @GuildF312S on the military as well. Damned if I can think of a reason we should have garrisons in 150 countries!