Quote:

---

WTF is a "not for profit bank"???

---

My definition would be a member owned credit union. Hers would be a bank with a board of directors that all have v@gin@s or snipped off p3ck3rs that siphon off seven figure salaries from depositors.

lead said:

---

I think it is inappropriate to attack political bystanders like family and friend unless they've injected themselves into the discourse.

---

Yeah. Leave the no-taste dorky beta alone!

What we should really have is like free money and stuff.

Quote:

---

Yeah. Leave the no-taste pasty white everything that she rails on politically dorky beta alone!

---

FIFY

coolerguy12 said:

---

The Lost said:

---

I love how they fail to mention the money written off through bankruptcy that these banks also have to deal with...

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this exactly what got us into the housing crash? Banks forced to give loans they wouldn't otherwise give and then thrown under the bus as "predatory lenders". I guarantee you this bill won't allow you to deny loans to minorities so instead of having the intended effect of lowering debt it's going to make debt easier to obtain and there will be more of it. This is junior high level economics that she is failing to wrap her mind around.

---

You are not wrong about what got us some into the mortgage crisis. You are wrong about her failing to wrap her mind around it. I give her more credit for nefarious intent than mere stupidity. This type of consumer debt-bait is how they set up the test for the Clowaed-Piven hypothesis.

Look what the mortgage crisis did for Obama from almost the instant he was inaugurated? In under 45 days he had used the crisis to justify passage of the $978B Porkulus. That "one time" injection of nearly a trillion dollars of public debt was then baked in to the budget baseline for all future years. Then the news media lied about his fiscal moderation because of the small percentage increases over the baseline while ignoring the trillion dollars step function bump in 2009.

AOC and Bernie have the bailout for massive consumer debt already planned because it will be another massive giveaway to unions to break the system and justify government takeover of everything: banks, healthcare, etc. Remember that FRR even tried to tax "money at rest" to punish those who "horde" cash. These are truly despicable anti-Americans.

3 Months paid leave. So BOLD, when it's NOT HER MONEY!!!

Prognightmare said:

---

---

How exactly does giving dad's less leave contribute to the pay gap?

exactly. It should help it.

MooreTrucker said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

How exactly does giving dad's less leave contribute to the pay gap?

---

I assume that it's meant to counteract the argument that men get paid more because they aren't off on maternity for awhile, thus they have more official time working and gaining experience and potentially earning raises and promotions. So in essence this levels that playing field since now both men and women work less, so neither can get ahead.

I guess it's a lot easier to take 3 months off if you don't have a real job. I can't imagine the sh**storm I'd come back to if I checked out that long.

Quote:

---

How exactly does giving dad's less leave contribute to the pay gap?

---

Im not sure it does, but I can easily see the rationale that it could lead to inequities that arent easy to quantify. It is essentially a benefit, so while you are talking about adding benefits to the men's side, which seems counterintuitive, not doing so definitely divides employees and job candidates into 2 groups. One group is automatically demanding a leave benefit, and one that is not. So theoretically an equivalent offer to a man not requiring leave should be more money? How much more? Personnel within the company will also have widely varying opinions on the value of salary vs extra required leave too. Having men and women automatically have all of the same benefits would absolutely make the comparisons more transparent, it just depends on if you think the companies should have all of those options or be forced to deal with true equality on a much less flexible basis.

Cstrickland05 said:

---

I guess it's a lot easier to take 3 months off if you don't have a real job. I can't imagine the sh**storm I'd come back to if I checked out that long.

---

I left for 3 days and came back to a s-storm created by my peers.

22 years ago my son was born at 4:00 am and I was in class teaching at 9:00 am that same day. My wife was out for 2 weeks and back at work. This "dad needs 12 weeks too" stuff is over the top.

I've always maintained that taking months off every time you have a child will also have the unintended consequence of negatively affecting your career. Somebody has to do the work. If that person shows to be more adept at it than you? Or just isn't likely to be gone for several months and gets more important assignments? It's no different than athletes who get hurt and come back to find they've lost their job to a rookie.

mathguy86 said:

---

22 years ago my son was born at 4:00 am and I was in class teaching at 9:00 am that same day. My wife was out for 2 weeks and back at work. This "dad needs 12 weeks too" stuff is over the top.

---

I have no issues with companies offering prolonged paternity leave. It's a valuable benefit, and I'm at work to support my family. If I can get paid while also helping at home, even better.

But that's a private transaction between me and my employer. If I had a job that expected me in 5 hours after my kids birth, I'd be immediately searching for something new.

I do, however, think differently when it's my tax dollars being used. I wonder where AOC's office is getting the funds for things like this.

If a company wants to build compensated paternity leave into its benefits package go for it. It's their money. But to mandate it is wrong.

mathguy86 said:

---

If a company wants to build compensated paternity leave into its benefits package go for it. It's their money. But to mandate it is wrong.

---

Absolutely agree. I'm "millennial" in the fact that I value the life side of work-life balance, but think any attempt to legislate it is idiotic. I'm also a fan because I plan on having more than the average amount of kids. So if they're budgeting for 2 kids an employee and lowering salaries by X dollars, I'm gonna maximize my return on X.

third coast.. said:

---

I took 3+ months off for each kid, some paid. Fortunately, that's the nature of my industry and my schedule allows it.

---

Offset by being gone for months at a time, though.

Nobody tell her that stay at home moms are important too, or that studies show that's best for the kids.

are these the new "I walked to school in the snow uphill, both ways" stories?

WGAS?

Her whole premise is ridiculous.

Pay gaps don't exist because of maternity leave. That is patently absurd. Whether it's two weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks, six month. That's not enough time to create a pay gap. And very few women (career women at that) have been having more than two kids for decades now. Missing a few weeks or a few months of work a couple of times in your career will have no distinguishable effect on your pay. None.

One of the causes of the pay gap is women taking years out of the workforce to be stay at home moms. But that is not remotely comparable to maternity leave.

techno-ag said:

---

Nobody tell her that stay at home moms are important too, or that studies show that's best for the kids.

---

14 years ago my wife was pregnant with our first one and I remember kind of sweating bullets about having this conversation. So I just basically said "no one but you can decide whether you want to go back to work or not, I'll support your decision either way". Sometime during 3rd trimester we're driving home from her doctor appt and she says there is no way chance on earth she's going back to work. She ended up being out of the workforce for ten years. She went back to teaching for two years and didn't like. Took a year off and then last fall walked in to her dream job which she'll probably do just for the sure joy of doing it until retirement.

It all works out, and it really is in the best interest of young children.

Urban Ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Nobody tell her that stay at home moms are important too, or that studies show that's best for the kids.

---

14 years ago my wife was pregnant with our first one and I remember kind of sweating bullets about having this conversation. So I just basically said "no one but you can decide whether you want to go back to work or not, I'll support your decision either way". Sometime during 3rd trimester we're driving home from her doctor appt and she says there is no way chance on earth she's going back to work. She ended up being out of the workforce for ten years. She went back to teaching for two years and didn't like. Took a year off and then last fall walked in to her dream job which she'll probably do just for the sure joy of doing it until retirement.

It all works out, and it really is in the best interest of young children.

---

My wife quit work shortly after our second child and never went back to work full time. We took quite a cut in standard of living as her pay, when including her bonus, was higher than mine. I didn't care about the money. All through grade, junior high and high school she was active in the schools.

That is not to say raising well adjusted children properly with both parents working is impossible, but it is at minimum less stressful on the parents and children when there is a stay at home parent.

AOC's attitude is what gets in my craw

She makes this statement like its any kind of sacrifice on AOC's part. Like she's some kind of ****ing "hero"

She won't be inconvenienced one ****ing iota. No profits lost. No other employees lose jobs due to profits lost

Such a sorry ass POS