How to fix the Democratic Party

[thegreaterbuzzette]

5 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I also like the idea of just expanding FMLA to cover child birth/bonding for the 4-12 weeks. 

 

clarification - FMLA does currently cover 12 weeks of child birth needs. FMLA just is NON-PAID leave. My proposal is expanding what FMLA covers, making it paid, and applying to all companies (currently 50+ employees only)

 

 

here’s a good chart for all of you - https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/oasp/legacy/files/paidleavefinalrulecomparison.pdf

 

also PFML is what exists right now. And it’s a paid “insurance”. So pointing to this is the same as pointing to using STD and LTD to pay for maternity leave. It requires planning (you can’t enroll after pregnant as that’s a pre-existing), it requires your employer to offer it, and you have to pay for it. 

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

10 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Why don’t I support it?  Short version; I don’t like the idea of free leave to those that choose to expand their family while those that don’t choose to end up pulling extra weight at work in their absence.  It is not fair, especially if my tax dollars are going to support it on top of that.

that seems pretty selfish to be honest 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I'd imagine it to be hell running a small business and having to pay people who aren't there + pay their substitute.  I haven't read much into it, so perhaps there are govt. subsidies or something for very small businesses that have to deal with that.

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'd imagine it to be hell running a small business and having to pay people who aren't there + pay their substitute.  I haven't read much into it, so perhaps there are govt. subsidies or something for very small businesses that have to deal with that.

The rest of the developed world can handle it, I’m not sure why everything has to be so difficult here 

[Llevron]

8 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'd imagine it to be hell running a small business and having to pay people who aren't there + pay their substitute.  I haven't read much into it, so perhaps there are govt. subsidies or something for very small businesses that have to deal with that.

 

 

 

Pretty sure the subsidies are the idea but like you I have read little since nothing has happened yet. 

[Jabbyrwock]

10 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Why don’t I support it?  Short version; I don’t like the idea of free leave to those that choose to expand their family while those that don’t choose to end up pulling extra weight at work in their absence.  It is not fair, especially if my tax dollars are going to support it on top of that.

 

I don't look at it from the perspective of the workers involved. Rather, to me, its about the child.  Secure attachment, to both parents, has been clearly shown to be beneficial later in life, and lack of any attachment hugely detrimental.  Just like we group invest to ensure all children have access to education in their formative years, I think all of us chipping in together to make sure a strong bond between parents and children exists from the get go is a worthwhile investment.

[@DCGoldPants]

 

 

You're not getting anything done playing nice with this guy. He's going to be lucy with the football every time. Why bother pandering to him anymore?

[Fergasun]

Because the Dems need him. 

 

Unfortunately he is the poster child for a "do nothing Senator".  

 

In fact I clicked through the article and he says. "We can do it in a bipartisan way".  He is full of it.  He wanted to do voting rights in a "bipartisan way" and no GOP stood up with him. 

 

Instead of attacking the Dems, he should move forward and say "I am sick of holding my hand out to Republicans and being left hanging.  If Republicans don't want to move forward with me, I'll move forward."

 

Except he's not because he is not honest about what he wants.  He doesn't want the Democrat agenda.  Even as he torpedo'd most of it, he still isn't happy with it. 

[Busch1724]

If the democrats were smart, obviously they're not right now, separate this economic package into a couple of different bills. The original infrastructure bill had a bunch of stuff in it that was not infrastructure related. They have consensus on infrastructure, don't try to ram a bunch of other stuff into that bill. Take the win on a bill that is purely infrastructure, campaign on it, and then work on the other areas of the party agenda later. Recognize you can't have your cake and eat it too. 

[tshile]

13 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Why don’t I support it?  Short version; I don’t like the idea of free leave to those that choose to expand their family while those that don’t choose to end up pulling extra weight at work in their absence.  It is not fair, especially if my tax dollars are going to support it on top of that.

@Jabbyrwockhit it as to why it’s important. 
 

but. I did want to add. 
 

I do think people who decide to not have children get shafted on a few things. I think on some level it needs to be accepted. But I would like to explore how we could somehow make up for it - probably not in full but in part. 
 

we need people to reproduce and we need to care about the well-being of the child since we expect them to be contributors one day and eventually they’ll be part of the group running the country even if just as a voter. 
 

as for the other conversation about small businesses and things like it not applying to companies with 50 or less employees…

 

as someone who’s spent a lot of time in small business and working with small businesses and watching them start and grow, even helping start one…. They get away with enough. They don’t need to get away with avoiding so much…

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Busch1724 said:

If the democrats were smart, obviously they're not right now, separate this economic package into a couple of different bills. The original infrastructure bill had a bunch of stuff in it that was not infrastructure related. They have consensus on infrastructure, don't try to ram a bunch of other stuff into that bill. Take the win on a bill that is purely infrastructure, campaign on it, and then work on the other areas of the party agenda later. Recognize you can't have your cake and eat it too. 

there is nothing to work on. They have 1 bill they can pass. That’s it. That’s why they want to put everything in this because it’s their only chance at passing anything 

 

If they want to have anything to campaign on, it has to be in this bill

[The Evil Genius]

 

Its like the same questions have been asked for 50 years, despite the majority of the population supporting the leftist causes. 

 

 

The system that still gives the same Senate representational power to a state of 750k and a state of 40 million people is broken. Until that is fixed, all the flyover states will continue to hold this country hostage. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by The Evil Genius

[@DCGoldPants]

Electoral Welfare is a good one and should be used as often as possible.

[balki1867]

It's not jure electoral welfare- it's regular welfare too: 

 

"THE GROWING DIVIDE: RED STATES VS. BLUE STATES"

Georgetown Public Policy Review / The Growing Divide: Red States vs. Blue States - Georgetown Public Policy Review (gppreview.com)

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

for the other conversation about small businesses and things like it not applying to companies with 50 or less employees…

 

as someone who’s spent a lot of time in small business and working with small businesses and watching them start and grow, even helping start one…. They get away with enough. They don’t need to get away with avoiding so much…

Believe me, I know… particularly ones with good CPA’s.  I’m looking at tax returns, balance sheets, p&l’s, etc. all day every day.

 

However, your small businesses that honestly report will feel it.  They will make it happen, but it will result in their bottom line being lower, which is great for tax liability but not so great for when they need to show positive cash flow to borrow.

 

 

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

4 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Because the Dems need him. 

 

Unfortunately he is the poster child for a "do nothing Senator".  

 

In fact I clicked through the article and he says. "We can do it in a bipartisan way".  He is full of it.  He wanted to do voting rights in a "bipartisan way" and no GOP stood up with him. 

 

Instead of attacking the Dems, he should move forward and say "I am sick of holding my hand out to Republicans and being left hanging.  If Republicans don't want to move forward with me, I'll move forward."

 

Except he's not because he is not honest about what he wants.  He doesn't want the Democrat agenda.  Even as he torpedo'd most of it, he still isn't happy with it. 

That’s because he’s a republican. His job is to prevent anything from being done and then he will be rewarded after 23; when the gop controls the senate and he switches. It’s pretty obvious what’s he’s doing.

[88Comrade2000]

FT: Democrats must look beyond Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for 2024

[NoCalMike]

Just now, Rdskns2000 said:

FT: Democrats must look beyond Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for 2024

 

I figured looking beyond Biden was a given.  It is more Kamala Harris kind of floundering that has been disappointing. 

[Hersh]

5 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Its like the same questions have been asked for 50 years, despite the majority of the population supporting the leftist causes. 

 

 

The system that still gives the same Senate representational power to a state of 750k and a state of 40 million people is broken. Until that is fixed, all the flyover states will continue to hold this country hostage. 

 

Maybe this topic would be better in it's own thread, but I've reached the point where I think this country should split in two. I don't see the GOP ever coming back from where they are now.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

12 hours ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

I don't look at it from the perspective of the workers involved. Rather, to me, its about the child.  Secure attachment, to both parents, has been clearly shown to be beneficial later in life, and lack of any attachment hugely detrimental.  Just like we group invest to ensure all children have access to education in their formative years, I think all of us chipping in together to make sure a strong bond between parents and children exists from the get go is a worthwhile investment.

If the goal really is doing what is best for the child…..shouldn’t we be marching towards single income families? 

[TheGreatBuzz]

On 11/4/2021 at 8:25 AM, Momma There Goes That Man said:

that seems pretty selfish to be honest 

 

You are welcome to your opinion, even if it is a lazy one.  Go ahead and ignore the numerous times I've called for massive investments in things like child education even though I don't have children in those schools.  

 

On 11/4/2021 at 8:45 AM, Jabbyrwock said:

 

I don't look at it from the perspective of the workers involved. Rather, to me, its about the child.  Secure attachment, to both parents, has been clearly shown to be beneficial later in life, and lack of any attachment hugely detrimental.  Just like we group invest to ensure all children have access to education in their formative years, I think all of us chipping in together to make sure a strong bond between parents and children exists from the get go is a worthwhile investment.

 

I get that.  I just don't think these proposals are the way to do it.

 

21 hours ago, tshile said:

I do think people who decide to not have children get shafted on a few things. I think on some level it needs to be accepted. But I would like to explore how we could somehow make up for it - probably not in full but in part. 

 

And remember that people who decide not to have children already pay for many things related to raising productive members of society.  As for this proposal, I think doing the paid portion of the leave as a no-interest, government-backed loan to cover your pay check while you take FMLA could be a potential compromise solution.  But, as a general statement not only directed at paid parental leave, I'm tired of paying for things for people who either failed to plan properly or didn't take necessary precautions.   

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

But, as a general statement not only directed at paid parental leave, I'm tired of paying for things for people who either failed to plan properly or didn't take necessary precautions.   

 

That is a gross misunderstanding of what paid family leave is.

 

It isn't about not planning, its helping to encourage people to have kids without the threat of lose of income to do it. Other countries with declining populations get this, and frame it in a way to encourage families to have kids, like Japan. 

 

That first month is rough, man, not a lot of sleep and the baby literally cannot do anything themselves.  A break to focus on that is the right thing to do and encouraged.

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

It isn't about not planning, its helping to encourage people to have kids without the threat of lose of income to do it. Other countries with declining populations get this, and frame it in a way to encourage families to have kids, like Japan. 

 

The debate about whether and how much we need to encourage population growth is probably better had in another thread.  Actually, I know it has been had already to some point because someone claimed that we needed to encourage population growth so we had a way to fund Social Security.  @thegreaterbuzzette pointed out that just sounded like a great big ponzi scheme.  But I'll just leave it at, I don't think we need to be encouraging population growth.

 

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That first month is rough, man, not a lot of sleep and the baby literally cannot do anything themselves.  A break to focus on that is the right thing to do and encouraged.

 

Fair point.  And that is a decent argument for 4 weeks, not the 12 weeks that is being pushed for.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

The debate about whether and how much we need to encourage population growth is probably better had in another thread.  Actually, I know it has been had already to some point because someone claimed that we needed to encourage population growth so we had a way to fund Social Security.  @thegreaterbuzzette pointed out that just sounded like a great big ponzi scheme.  But I'll just leave it at, I don't think we need to be encouraging population growth.

 

Tying to social security is dumb, I agree, but the reality of a shrinking workforce and aging population that other countries tries are going through is very real.  That has direct negative economic impact. 

 

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Fair point.  And that is a decent argument for 4 weeks, not the 12 weeks that is being pushed for.

 

Two things, I believe you are underestimating what those first couple months are like, especially if one or both parents have to go back to work.  And two, which I haven't seen you address yet, is the rest of the developed world is ahead of us on this, if so many other countries can figure this out, why can't we?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/upshot/paid-leave-democrats.amp.html

 

Quote

Globally, the average paid maternity leave is 29 weeks, and the average paid paternity leave is 16 weeks, the center’s data shows up to 2019.

 

[The Evil Genius]