backintexas2013 said:

---

Did you see the original post I was replying to? It was about government paying for leave for mothers and taking care of olds. That's not ok

---

It was about a child tax credit, no? I don't think I would support $15,000 per year/child. But I wouldn't be against something like exempting husbands of stay at home moms from taxes all together. It would incentive returning children to the care of their parents, and restoring parents to their proper role of their children's primary educators.

Married women and parents vote in much larger numbers for conservative policies. You want a return to fiscal sanity? That is as much a cultural problem as anything.

deddog said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

I believe two parent homes are important but the government shouldn't pay for it. That's what this thread is about. Forced taxation so a mom can stay at home isn't ok

---

If there is anything the government should support, it's two parent households and where possible, ensuring one parent is not deprived of staying home and raising the child due to economic burdens. The federal and state government gives credits and assistance to have strangers care for the child, why not encourage married mothers to care for their child?

---

Because feminazis
And because it doesn't work for the vote bank that has single parent households.

---

Feminists and single parents are the most destructive poisons in society today. The prisons are full of the consequences of modern feminism. And, the LBGTQ tsunami is propelled by modern feminism and its refusal to acknowledge the fundamental differences between men and women and their natural biological purpose.

Now it's pretty clear to me the true reason why Roe vs Wade was overturned.

Jack Boyette said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

There will be a compromise. In return for tougher immigration there will be federal incentives for childcare. My prediction in next 4 years.

---

There shouldn't be. Nobody else should pay for your ****ing childcare. That's why Republicans don't "offer a solution." The government shouldn't be involved at all.

---

there should be an incentive that encourages having and raising children. It should not come in the form of a payment from the government. A tax deduction sure. Not a credit either. Have to be a net payer of taxes to see the benefit.

If government is the problem, then why isn't that used as an argument for all the f16 threads complaining about younger generations noticing out and buying homes, or for them putting off marriage and children? Government is never the problem in those threads, it's always the lazy millennials or whatever generation of the day.

Not sure what you mean. Government is the problem. If people want to have kids go for it. Don't expect paid child leave provided by the government.

If people want to have houses before kids that's great. Get the government out of paying for people's choices. That's what this is about. Stop trying to thread hi Jack because you can't defend your position.

Paid family leave, etc. is a great idea!

I mean, just as soon as Trump & co. can find someplace in the constitution that empowers the federal government with anything resembling the authority to make laws mandating such things.

I'm old enough to remember when the Republican Party at least pretended to consider the constitution before it passed or even proposed laws.

Get off it. I'm having an open honest discussion just like everyone else. If anything, you're derailing by accusing me of hijacking.

What does what you said have anything to do with the OP?

This is about government paying to take care of kids people choose to have. You seem to be for either government paid leave or forcing companies to pay for leave. You haven't really taken a stand on which you want other than government legislating something you believe in

ChemAg15 said:

---

Part of me thinks like a hard nosed capitalist and says everyone should pay their own way, no handouts for kids or new parents beyond what your company will offer. The other part knows that's not realistic and leaves a lot of people struggling. The cost of living is too damn high.

---

Almost everyone can cut costs. People choose not to do it. Almost everyone can make more money. People choose not to. It's about choices not government handouts. Life is tough. Choices have to be made.

No company should be forced to provide paternity or maternity leave. If you want time off, quit your job or take vacation.

The people that you want to have kids are punished by the state by taxation and childcare costs, so they have less children as a result.

The people that you DONT want to have kids, are subsidized and supported by the state, which incentivizes them to have more, and create an anchor around your neck.

And we wonder why the growth of the second group is greater than the first. It's a stupid conversation to even have.

It really is that simple.

tmaggie50 said:

---

No company should be forced to provide paternity or maternity leave. If you want time off, quit your job or take vacation.

---

Yep... I mean it's great if they offer it to attract talent, but in no way should it be mandatory.

backintexas2013 said:

---

What does what you said have anything to do with the OP?

This is about government paying to take care of kids people choose to have. You seem to be for either government paid leave or forcing companies to pay for leave. You haven't really taken a stand on which you want other than government legislating something you believe in

---

im not taking a stance on "who should pay." My comment was building off the one previous to mine from AggieDub14:

Quote:

---

Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want people to have more kids, there needs to be some flexibility in our culture that makes it less of a burden early on. It's also better for the kids and family building when parents have an opportunity to bond with their children at a young age.

---

I tried to point out the f16 routinely has posts complaining about the younger generation not fulfilling the ideal "roles" this thread has gone on about. Simply put, conservatives have to decide whether fulfilling those roles is more important to them than figuring out a way to make these things easier. It's not the 60s and 70s. I finished high school 25 years ago. It took me 14 years to feel comfortable enough to have a kid and another 3 to purchase our first home. It wasn't easy then, and it's a whole heck of a lot worse now.

So you post this

TA-OP said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Sounds like build back Better plan from few years ago. I'm thinking in the next 4 years there will be federal paid year since both sides support it.

---

When it comes to paid family leave or making early childcare more affordable, it's only ever been the occasional lip service from the GOP.

---

But you don't want to take a stand.


The idea of paid family leave is stupid and Trump is completely wrong.

It is easier. Cut costs. Make more money. It's not hard.

backintexas2013 said:

---

So you post this

TA-OP said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Sounds like build back Better plan from few years ago. I'm thinking in the next 4 years there will be federal paid year since both sides support it.

---

When it comes to paid family leave or making early childcare more affordable, it's only ever been the occasional lip service from the GOP.

---

But you don't want to take a stand.


The idea of paid family leave is stupid and Trump is completely wrong.

---

I'm sorry. Did I post something not factual? No, I don't want to take a stand because I don't know what the solution is; but I know the status quo ain't it.

lol ok. That's too funny.

backintexas2013 said:

---

ChemAg15 said:

---

Part of me thinks like a hard nosed capitalist and says everyone should pay their own way, no handouts for kids or new parents beyond what your company will offer. The other part knows that's not realistic and leaves a lot of people struggling. The cost of living is too damn high.

---

Almost everyone can cut costs. People choose not to do it. Almost everyone can make more money. People choose not to. It's about choices not government handouts. Life is tough. Choices have to be made.

---

This times a million. They are correct when talking about the federal deficit when it is said it isn't a revenue problem but a spending problem. Same is most likely true in many households. They live beyond their means in good times, and in lean times as well. We should not subsidize that behavior. The last thing we need is a larger deficit caused by picking winners and losers via handouts, government programs, tax credits, and the like.

Again. The government should incentivize people to have children. It is the n our country's best interest to grow the population. Economically and for national security.

backintexas2013 said:

---

lol ok. That's too funny.

---

Trying to have an open discussion about the issue and ways it might be helped, if not resolved, is too funny? It's almost like you'd rather be in an echo chamber than have someone challenge you to come up with something better than stick your head in the sand and ignore the problem.

Cut taxes. Cut government spending. Lower interest rates. All those will help people.

Encourage people to cut costs. Almost everyone can. Also almost everyone can make more money.

Government isn't the answer and the suggestion of paid family leave either by government or forcing employers is not and will never be right.

You don't seem to have any suggestions. Others have made suggestions. That's what's funny.

Jack Boyette said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

As a Gen X, I completely and totally enjoy the forced changes for the better that the Millennials have brought on. Time for the old farts to get pushed out the door and make some real changes for the better. Companies will be forced to make good changes or they will die. Easy peasy.

---

Yeah, what do the "old farts" know? It's not like they have more life experience than you.

You and I are the same age. I don't know anyone my age who's even moderately successful that thinks what you just said.

---

. Well Ocean Gate only wanted young, innovative people and that turned out fantastic.

Same with people. It's a spending problem. They complain about having no money but if you look at their spending they can cut expenditures.

The ones proclaiming that everyone should should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps are always the ones who had some help along the way, be it parent's money or the "Aggie Network" or whatever. I'm someone who actually did it with almost zero help (a prof paid for my grad school application fees) and I'm telling you it's not so easy as just stating almost anyone can do it.

I paid my own way through college. It took me 8 years. I would take semesters off. I lived in **** holes and made it. It's called sacrifices. It's called working a second job. It's called eating at home and not buying coffee at Starbucks or a smoothie at juice land. It's not easy but it can be done.


I stand by what I said almost everyone can cut costs and almost everyone can make extra money

backintexas2013 said:

---

I paid my own way through college. It took me 8 years. I would take semesters off. I lived in **** holes and made it. It's called sacrifices. It's called working a second job. It's called eating at home and not buying coffee at Starbucks or a smoothie at juice land. It's not easy but it can be done.


I stand by what I said almost everyone can cut costs and almost everyone can make extra money

---

And you did all that and never once relied on your Aggie Network to put you in touch with people?

Edit: Including after graduating until this very day.

TA-OP said:

---

The ones proclaiming that everyone should should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps are always the ones who had some help along the way, be it parent's money or the "Aggie Network" or whatever. I'm someone who actually did it with almost zero help (a prof paid for my grad school application fees) and I'm telling you it's not so easy as just stating almost anyone can do it.

---

everyone gets a little help sometimes, the pull yourself up by the bootstraps folks are the ones who recognize the help and become determined to no longer need that help and work to make that true and repay what they received.

Not sure what point you are making here. As I am sure you are aware, recipients of government help are not those types of people.

Never worked for an Aggie. Lived in four states to better my career. Also worked two jobs starting out. Sorry it can be done. It's called sacrifices.



Also didn't walk across the stage. Was working when my graduation ceremony was going on.

TA-OP said:

---

The ones proclaiming that everyone should should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps are always the ones who had some help along the way, be it parent's money or the "Aggie Network" or whatever. I'm someone who actually did it with almost zero help (a prof paid for my grad school application fees) and I'm telling you it's not so easy as just stating almost anyone can do it.

---

I grew up in a single parent home with a mom whose last grade completed was 10th. I studied, went to A&M, paid my own way, and now am "wealthy" by every measure. I have 3 degrees. My kids live in one of the nicest neighborhoods in the country and go to private school. I own 3 businesses.

Tats what's possible if you work hard. Your statement is false. You thinking people can't do it if they actually try and follow a path like I just laid out (there are many variations) is you being brainwashed to believe the American Dream isn't real. You're being manipulated by people that don't want you to believe in it.

As an aside, if it took you 8 years to finish college; how much longer did it take you to get your first home and have kids? Isn't that the crux of the OP and a lot of the faith-based societal norms and how they aren't feasible today? My understanding of the conservative viewpoint is that these things take too long to satisfy those ideals. In a way, it feels like we may have had similar experiences getting to now. The difference is you have an opinion on what might solve the problem. I fear it's not so cut and dry and deserves more discussion than boo government.

I chose not to have kids. Once again it's a choice. It's not the government pushing choices.



I also have spent my whole life working with at-risk kids. I give back and help others. Keep trying with the gotchas.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Same with people. It's a spending problem. They complain about having no money but if you look at their spending they can cut expenditures.

---

Yeah, that is what I was saying. Owned a CPA practice in the town I was born in, and grew up in. Everyone knows a lot about most people in the town and, as their accountant, you know even more. You see the good, bad, and ugly. Not unusual that they have two pretty new cars, don't keep them long, a boat, pitching lessons for Penelope, deer lease or go on high dollar high-fence hunts, combined income of $200,000 or $300,000 and almost no interest income or dividend income. Don't contribute much to their 401(k), not even up to the company match. Nice vacations. Family of four and four iPhones, four iPads, two laptops, and cable TV with 9,037 channels. A lot of money in, but a lot of money right back out.

And that is fine with me, their business. Just don't increase my taxes to pay for a government subsidized program or tax policy to help people like that get by, when they could easily cut back and be fine. The more you keep the government out of, the better.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Never worked for an Aggie. Lived in four states to better my career. Also worked two jobs starting out. Sorry it can be done. It's called sacrifices.



Also didn't walk across the stage. Was working when my graduation ceremony was going on.

---

It can be done. But most won't do it. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic.

Pragmatic? By getting the government to subsidize it? Should we subsidize the poor to not have kids? Should we subsidize being skinny because lol fat tubs of goo are a waste to society?

Jack Boyette said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

The ones proclaiming that everyone should should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps are always the ones who had some help along the way, be it parent's money or the "Aggie Network" or whatever. I'm someone who actually did it with almost zero help (a prof paid for my grad school application fees) and I'm telling you it's not so easy as just stating almost anyone can do it.

---

I grew up in a single parent home with a mom whose last grade completed was 10th. I studied, went to A&M, paid my own way, and now am "wealthy" by every measure. I have 3 degrees. My kids live in one of the nicest neighborhoods in the country and go to private school. I own 3 businesses.

Tats what's possible if you work hard. Your statement is false. You thinking people can't do it if they actually try and follow a path like I just laid out (there are many variations) is you being brainwashed to believe the American Dream isn't real. You're being manipulated by people that don't want you to believe in it.

---

Yep, my dad quit school and ran away from home at 11 years old, in 1930. Everyone but the truly disabled (which is a small fraction of those on disability) has everything they are willing to work for and to sacrifice for. They should not ask the government and taxpayers to pay their way through life, to provide things they choose not to provide for themselves.