Debates

Sanders: 'When a Mother Has a Baby, She Should Stay Home With That Baby'

Bernie's debate gaffe reveals a serious problem with mandatory family leave policies.

|

Baby for Bernie
Bernie Sanders

Here's the thing: What Bernie Sanders meant to say in yesterday's CNN debate was that he believes the federal government should make it easier for women to choose to stay home with their newborns, if they so desire.

But here's what Bernie Sanders actually said

Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby. 

Which is what we call a Kinsley gaffe—where a politician accidentally reveals a truth he did not intend to admit.

Because as well-intentioned as family leave policies mandated by the federal government might be (and they are undeniably wildly well-intentioned), there's a negative consequence that doesn't get talked about too much: There can be a blurry line between government subsidizing something—whether though regulation, transfer payments, or tax breaks—and requiring that thing.

A nudge can become a shove if you're not careful.

Take generous Germany, for instance, where a good chunk of maternity leave is actually mandatory—not just for employers to provide, but for women to take:

By default, expectant moms are expected to stay out of the workplace six weeks before giving birth, and many don't even know that they have a right to keep working past that deadline if they state it explicitly to their employer. They are not allowed to work during the two months after giving birth; this portion of the maternity leave is mandatory to protect women against pressure from an employer.

After that, she has a year of leave available to her at 65 percent of her salary and job protection for another three years. At least partially contrary to the original goal to make life better for working moms, however, the policy seems to have spawned a constrained and judgmental culture around working women's parenting choices:

The amount of maternity leave available also seems to put pressure on German women to stay home longer than might be good for their careers. A German friend returned to work before the first year of government-subsidized parental leave was up and was frowned upon when she took her eight-month-old son to daycare….

Being able to take a lot of time off lowers the pressure on society to create adequate child-care options that the government has guaranteed by law but that are nevertheless still not available in many German cities.

(Feel free to substitute "lowers the incentive for companies to get into childcare business" at the top of that last paragraph to get the same effect in a more market-oriented scenario.)

Advocates of federal family leave policies, like Sanders, tend to lean progressive. Which means they need to grapple with the fact that pushing for family leave can wind up wrenching open that wage and opportunity gaps they're so desperately trying to close.

In countries with big maternity benefits, mothers are (often) more likely to stay in the workforce, but are also more likely to get pulled off the management track and into dead-end jobs. The New York Times tackled this issue in a story last May pointing to several new studies that look at the before-and-after in countries that have increased benefits.

In Chile, a law requires employers to provide working mothers with child care. One result? Women are paid less.

In Spain, a policy to give parents of young children the right to work part-time has led to a decline in full-time, stable jobs available to all women—even those who are not mothers.

Elsewhere in Europe, generous maternity leaves have meant that women are much less likely than men to become managers or achieve other high-powered positions at work.

The Spanish example is particularly illuminating: 

Spain passed a law in 1999 giving workers with children younger than 7 the right to ask for reduced hours without fear of being laid off. Those who took advantage of it were nearly all women.

Over the next decade, companies were 6 percent less likely to hire women of childbearing age compared with men, 37 percent less likely to promote them and 45 percent more likely to dismiss them, according to a study by Daniel Fernández-Kranz, an economist at IE Business School in Madrid, and Núria Rodríguez-Planas, an economist at City University of New York, Queens College. The probability of women of childbearing age not being employed climbed 20 percent. Another result: Women were more likely to be in less stable, short-term contract jobs, which are not required to provide such benefits.

In general, advocates for increased family leave are a little more circumspect than Sanders, typically employing gender neutral language and rhetoric about choice. 

But all those applause lines about the wage gap—which are admittedly more Hillary's stock in trade than Bernie's—are too often at odds with the applause lines about the empowering potential of maternity benefits.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

138 responses to “Sanders: 'When a Mother Has a Baby, She Should Stay Home With That Baby'

  1. I was wondering tonight about the effects these sorts of regulations have on female employment, thanks.

    1. They have legalized prostitution in Europe, and A LOT of brothels. I’m sure it helps keep the population of childbearing age women employed.
      although without socialists forcing all the other opportunities for making good money closed though unintended consequences of market manipulation, i guess that the only way for a younger single mother to earn a living there is prostitution.

      1. Yes, it’s just insane how the only job a woman in the country of Europe can get is hooking, isn’t it? It’s amazing how no women in Europe have real jobs, and I’m amazed we don’t talk more about that.

      2. What’s the minimum wage for hoors?

        1. $5, same as downtown.

        2. $15 an hour!11! Feel tha Bern!11111!

          /derp

    2. Female employment? That’s crazy, women don’t have jobs.

    3. HR guy: “Hello, young, fertile female applicant. So, if I hire you, how long will you be around until you get pregnant and leave empy the position I’m offering for a year of family leave? Okay, don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

    4. l can help you with my powerful spell e.g below

      E-MAIL: v.spellcaster@aol.com

      If you want your ex lover back to you with-in 24 hours. I can help you with my powerful spell.
      If you want your husband/wife to love you forever I can help you with my powerful spell.
      Stop your marriage or relationship from breaking apart I can help you with my powerful spell.
      If you are having trouble getting pregnant or you are not able to get pregnant i can help you

      All you need to do is to send an e-mail to: v.spellcaster@aol.com

  2. “But all those applause lines about the wage gap?which are admittedly more Hillary’s stock in trade than Bernie’s?are too often at odds with the applause lines about the empowering potential of maternity benefits.”

    It is the hope of the left that choices have negative results. And unicorns.

  3. Where I work, women simply use short-term disability , which is 70% of salary for 12 weeks.

    But I agree that a year of maternity leave is insane. That would be career suicide. No sane employer would trust a woman with serious responsibilities if she was likely to up and disappear for a year.

    1. No sane employer would *hire* a woman if she was up and likely to disappear for a year and that employer was required to *hold that fething job open* until she decides whether or not she’ll come back.

      If you can be done without for a year, your position wasn’t necessary in the first place.

      1. If we can do without you for a year, we can do without you completely.

        1. Depends on the size of the company. If it’s IBM sized then you can lose one employee for a year. If it’s “Bob’s Fruit and Veg” then it’s a bit more of a problem. Once again the State does things that just happen to knobble small business compared big business.

          1. You missed the point – we know a large company can do without any individual employee.

            But if you can be done without for a whole year – then either you weren’t producing or your coworkers were able to take on the extra work with no difficulty.

            In which case, why would you be hired back?

            The small company can’t do without you for a year – so they replace you.
            The large company can – so they let you go.

            1. Or, if the government forces them to take you back, they will make sure that (if you’re a woman) you’re not doing anything in the first place that is irreplacable and can’t be picked up by other employees easily. They just won’t put women in critical positions.

            2. Just because your employment is guaranteed doesn’t mean the company can’t hire someone to fill the position while you’re gone. It just creates a bigger market for temps and contract employees. Which leads to fewer full-time jobs and Mom gets shafted anyway.

              1. Yeah, but if Mom takes a year of leave at 65% salary, that means that a man hired for that position won’t cost any more than 100% of the salary rate for the position, but a woman hired for the position might end up costing the company 165% of the intended salary to get the job done.

                That seems like an excellent reason to never hire a woman for anything.

                1. Look at all you people, making arguments from the side of running a business.
                  Don’t you know that those running businesses are there just to provide a paycheck and that such considerations, as you are taking into account, are along the lines of evil profit making.
                  You are just not looking at a business in the same way progtards do.

          2. As someone who works at an IBM sized company… no, no you can’t. if the position exists you not being there for a year is a problem; if it’s not a problem then the position doesn’t exist or is not long for this world.

      2. Preach

    2. Doesn’t a doctor have to confirm a ‘disability’? Women with children at home are preoccupied, but they are ‘abled.’

      1. Yes, and you can’t go back to work until the doctor clears you.
        But this doesn’t seem to hinder anyone. You need a doctor’s note for FMLA too, so it’s convenient to just apply for both at once. The doctor might only say 6-8 depending on circumstances.

      2. I should note that the STD is privately insured. It’s not a government benefit.

        1. Where can I sign up?

  4. After that, she has a year of leave available to her at 65 percent of her salary and job protection for another three years.

    What is often left out in praise for European (and Canadian) maternity leave policies is that the amount of salary they receive on a percentage basis at various point in pregnancy are capped. For example in Germany it is capped at ?1800 a month ($2050). That’s the equivalent of a $24,500 a year income, doesn’t seem so much does it?

    My wife’s employer offers 2 months uncapped full salary and another 4 months uncapped half salary. Its a much better offer than what she’d get these other countries and if there was government mandated maternity leave there would be a pretty good chance that such benefits would be dragged closer to the mandated level.

    1. $24k for literally not working? That seems like quite a lot. Someone has to pay that.

      1. That’s what I was going to add – $24k is probably a lot to the employer who has to pay it *in addition* to whatever he has to spend training a temp worker to take her place in the interim.

    2. And then, of course, after paying your wife for six months to do no work, your wife’s brain is half-in-half-out of the office when she does come back to work. All to support you and your wife’s personal lifestyle choice to reproduce.

      Sounds like a bonanza.

  5. So, are we now supposed to be outraged that Sanders didn’t use the most PC terms to express his point? Women are naturally more inclined to spend much more time than men with newborns. Yes, it will hinder their management-track careers. But why should we, as a society, care so much about it? Men are perfectly capable of leading the human race, as they’ve been doing since times immemorial. On the other hand, if ambitious women don’t have kids, they can advance as much as men. Just look at Angela Merkel.

    1. You don’t see the problem with an old white man* saying what women should do? Rather than what they should be allowed to do.

      *Just co-opting their own rhetoric.

      1. I give Sanders the benefit of a doubt. I actually watched that part of the debate and don’t believe he meant that maternity leave had to be mandatory.

        1. Today.

          Tomorrow is a different day and the ratchet only turns one way.

          1. In Sweden they’ve been trying to force fathers to use half the time as paternity leave.

            1. Does that mean single parents’ exes get to take off work to?

            2. Which they did. During sports events.

        2. It is going to be quite easy to paint him as a misogynist and between this and his women dig being raped article I am not sure that is wrong.

          1. Yeah, you’re wrong. Bill Clinton is a great example: His treatment of women is horrible, but the feminists cared more about Team.
            Bernie can be as misogynist as he wants; the fact that he is an authoritarian statist trumps (drink) his misogyny.

            1. Sorry, didn’t mean to sound argumentative. Let me edit that first line:
              ” yeah,I think you’re wrong, and here’s why:”

              1. Obviously the true believers won’t be convinced. When I am saying he will be painted that way I am talking about the way his opponents (Hillary right now) will easily paint him as a misogynist to those who aren’t fellow travelers. I don’t expect him to get the nomination but if things get ugly Hillary will pull that arrow out of the quiver. I have no doubt republicans would if he was nominated.

                No offense or need to edit. I’m OK with you thinking I am wrong.

                1. I’m triggered by the notion that you are wrong. Off to the Gulag with you!

    2. grrizzly|10.14.15 @ 12:51AM|#
      “So, are we now supposed to be outraged that Sanders didn’t use the most PC terms to express his point?”

      No, I think we are to be outraged that the lying POS presumed a government can mandate that benefit without mentioning the costs involved.

      1. I identify as female.

      1. +2 manboobs

      2. Ok, from now on, before you post ask yourself, “Is this too much information?”.

        1. Are you kidding? That’s great information.

    3. Well, women should have the option of taking less than the maximum amount of leave.
      An environment where women are expected to take 3 months to a year off isn’t going to encourage employers to give serious responsibilites to women.

      1. But don’t you see the beauty in this? It means there will be more gender discrimination to complain and sue about, and more money for the trial lawyers to donate to leftist causes and politicians. The cycle continues….

        1. Plus, by doing a dodgy statistical ‘analysis’ they can point to a systemic inequality in pay for women compared to men in ‘substantially similar work’!

          Meaning the woman who chooses a career in HR because its a track where advancement caps out early and is telecommute friendly so she can be the family’s primary caregiver while still bringing some outside money in is held up against a male CTO who came up the STEM track.

          1. There you go.

        2. The thing is, what about the other employee, male or female, who takes over your job for a year? Is the company just supposed to demote or fire them when you come back?

          1. No, they have to do their job AND yours, for the same pay

          2. No, that’s where all the temporary positions come from.

      2. Well, then, we’ll just have to create the Equal Hiring Agency.

        No problem unsolved by government!

    4. You entirely missed the point of the article, and even people who don’t (seriously) read Salon could find it sexist. She went out of here way to give the benefit of the doubt to Bernie and put it in proper context. She also just made the point that the effect is basically the same. Women have no choice, no autonomy in whether they can or should work even if they want the extra money or want a career and children.

      But why should we, as a society, care so much about it?

      I tend to care about all people having the right to make choices, personally. I thought that was the whole point of this whole libertarian thing.

      In order for the maternity leave to work, it pretty much has to be mandatory. The whole system creates massive disadvantages for women who don’t even have children.

      if ambitious women don’t have kids, they can advance as much as men. Just look at Angela Merkel

      A career politician since 1989? Not the same thing at all.

      1. Carly Fiorina?

        Look, there are *costs* associated with your life choices. All mandatory maternity leave does if push those costs onto someone else. This changes your incentives. Why should maternity leave need to ‘work’ in the first place? You want kids, the couple is going to have to figure out how they’re going to bear the cost. Traditionally that meant one of the couple leaves the work force, even if only temporarily, and that will hurt your advancement prospects – *if* you’re looking to reach the pinnacle of the management track.

        There are perfectly valid career choices where taken time off from your career will not hurt as badly or at all.

        No matter how Sander’s phrased it or what he meant – he was still wrong, its not government’s place to ‘ensure you can have it all’.

        1. Yes! It is not the government’s responsibility to ensure you have it all. So here is my counter to the left: The leading cause of pollution and consumer of natural resources is humans. We are reaching a point where market/societal forces are causing people to choose to have fewer kids. Why is this so bad? Finally less strain on mother earth.

        2. Traditionally that meant one of the couple leaves the work force, even if only temporarily, and that will hurt your advancement prospects

          Yes and why assume it’s going to be the female all the time? Shouldn’t men get paternity leave in the event they are going to be the stay-at-home parent?
          And as long as were going to be gender neutral, shouldn’t it be called parental leave?

          1. Well, at the very least, it’s going to be the female that actually bears the kid…

    5. So you didn’t read KMW’s article, just her headline?

    6. Why not? The press excoriated Romney for the phrase “binders full of women” when he meant “binders full of women’s resumes”.

      Also, what this gaffe appears to represent is not a threat of mandatory leave, but the quaint paternalistic that women should stay at home with babies. In other words, Bernie seems to think that barefoot & pregnant is where women belong.

    7. Agreed. The mythical “wage gap” is virtually undetectable in women without children.

      It’s called “opportunity cost,” and it’s one of the first terms you learn in Econ 101. You make personal lifestyle choices that might reward you in one way but ding you in others. If you choose to have kids–and it is a choice at every step of the process–then you’ve chosen to ride in the slow lane career-wise. All of this Free Shit: Neverending Maternity Leave Edition is militant feminism trying to repeal the laws of economics and physics.

  6. The Burn is a conservative when the government pays for it.

  7. Being able to take a lot of time off lowers the pressure on society to create adequate child-care options that the government has guaranteed by law but that are nevertheless still not available in many German cities.

    You mean to tell me that passing a law isn’t the same thing as actually carrying it out? Who would have thunk it.

  8. I fucking HATE the media.

    Lamar Odom is in a coma, and the media is describing him as “Khloe Kardashian’s ex-husband”. What in the fucking fuck?

    I HATE THE MEDIA.

    1. They are just reflecting today’s America on that one.

    2. Don’t hate the media, hate *people*. They’re the ones who decided that being the husband of Kim Kardashian’s sister was a higher prestige position than, you know, actually making it into the NBA.

      1. “Don’t hate the media, hate *people*”

        It’s true, the media is 100% made up of people!

        1. Corporations are people, my friend.

          1. Soylent Green

  9. I’m guessing that it’s legal for some countries to “discriminate” against pregnant women or pay them less. That will be illegal in the United States.

    Anyways, this sort of thing won’t fly with progressives who run big business (because the “small business” will be exempt from this mandate). Pregnancy is not a race or a sexual orientation, so contracts will be common if paid leave becomes law.

    1. Oh believe me they will make discrimination against the pregnant illegal. If it happens in the Western world and it’s leftist, it’s probably going to happen in America.

      “(because the “small business” will be exempt from this mandate). ”
      Don’t bet on it they’re not here (in Australia).

  10. Bernie is an old school socialist. He doesn’t want a government that makes suggestions, he wants a government that issues orders and he wants to see those orders followed. Well intentioned orders, for sure, but orders nonetheless.

    1. There’s nothing well intentioned about wanting to destroy the country and murder hundreds of millions of people.

    2. I think it’s funny when he’s described as a libertarian socialist, and spouts massive government control ideology at his rallies.

      He’s a kook, and a dangerous one at that.

      1. Remember in Europe “Libertarian” means “the guys in Spain who were slightly less totalitarian than the Stalinists”.

        He’s that sort of “libertarian”.

      2. If Sanders is a libertarian, then he is of the Peart/Brin type “libertarian” wherein once all food, housing, education, health, and utilities (to be defined later) are “free”, then we’ll have “true libertarianism”. Again, the reality of economics – individuals and their value judgments and the material world – is so misunderstood by so many. Once the belief that there is some sort of cornucopia that pre-exists humans – and the states they build – is a real problem. It’s pretty much the watershed between individualists and statists, which is the real contrast that means anything. Left/Right, Conservative/Liberal, or whatever are largely statists, who have a form of “duality” of one kind or another that has them believing in the “super-ordinate” and that THEY are the priests gifted enough know how the pre-existant bounty is to be allocated (sometimes ghosts and fearies are created, sometimes just Top Men suffices – preferably former poets, artists, librarians, community organizers.

        1. (cont.)

          That the earth is beyond simply one big ball of chemicals ONLY comes about by value judgment by a human being. A HIGH ORDER value judgment, with the ability to understand time preference. And there’s 7,300,000,000 of us, all trying to make sense of a life unasked for. And for every “resource” there’s hundreds or thousands of values that could be imprinted on it. And mental and physical labor are necessary to make greater from lesser, depending on clashing value judgments. And the creation of one thing into a future state is at the cost of a present state. And there’s no pre-existing cornucopia or “super-ordinate” state. And those who think they can direct 95%+ of human activity and yet still correlate themselves to “liberty” are delusional. But they’re delusion is hidden behind a structure of “duality” that somehow makes something that manifestly one thing suddenly become another. It’s why governments can do things individuals are forbidden to do. It’s the magic that exists outside of us mere humans – only the Priests are gifted enough to reconcile the obvious contradictions.

          In short, Sanders is a crazy shitbag.

          1. they’re=their

    3. Bernie is an old school socialist

      Old school socialists want to take away private property. Old school socialists would want mothers to work in state-owned factories while sticking their children into government-run collective child rearing organizations. Trust me on this, I have seen it first hand. The middle class and the bourgeoisie don’t like that sort of thing.

      Bernie is, in fact, an old school fascist. He wants a government that issues orders, but if you obey them, you can still have your private property. That kind of message appeals to the angst ridden middle class.

      Bad as socialists are, fascists are worse.

      1. Fascists organize all aspects of society around the national narrative, then give orders that are to be carried out – or else. The mob will be loosed on those who dissent.

    4. How is that different from any other candidate, such that you attach that definition to “socialist”?

  11. No one seems to have mentioned this angle: it’s an unintentional slam on working mothers in general.

    1. unintentional?

      1. Of course leftists love working mothers. Their kids are in unionized daycare and everyone is more dependent on the State.

        1. Yes, it’s insane the way 100% of left-leaning people in this country are in unions and are immune from the everyday troubles of the people, who are all, presumably, right-leaning.

  12. In Spain, a policy to give parents of young children the right to work part-time has led to a decline in full-time, stable jobs available to all women?even those who are not mother

    Gee, its almost like increasing the cost of something dampens the demand for it. Someone should maybe come up with like, rules for this or something.

    1. They have.

      Unfortunately they called them “economic laws,” which led politicians to think they can be amended and rescinded like the laws they think up.

  13. Should a mother do what’s best for her career or what’s best for her baby?

    1. Both, you unsympathetic cislord

    2. WHY SHOULD SHE HAVE TO CHOOOOOOOOOOOOSE!

      1. ‘When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.”

        Just seeing Meryl Streep say that line gives me the willies, because it is exactly what progressives believe, which is why they strive to control everything (ignoring the fact that so many of their own choices are wrong).

    3. A new mother should do what is best in her situation, without outside judgements or interference by people that pretend to know how it should be, based on their having met a new mother once.

    4. If Heather has Two Mommies, does it really matter?

    5. She should be able to make that choice for herself or in collaboration with her partner.

      It may be true that enacting policies that favor allowing new parents to stay home with their children may put pressure on them to stay home with their children, but things being the way they are currently puts pressure on them to not stay home with their children. Inaction is action, as it were. Neither is ideal.

  14. It’s a wonder that German companies bother to hire anyone.

  15. I am sure Sander’s explanation sounds better in the original German.

    1. “Nicht arbeit macht frei”?

    2. Work makes your maternity leave free.

      1. Nice.

        But if paid maternity leave is a *right*, then why must one be a *worker* in order to receive it?

        1. Someone else’s work, Rich, someone else’s.

    3. He does have a stunning resemblance to the crazy scientist Rotwang in Metropolis.

  16. Government making important life choices for people and mandating crucial business decisions.

    Let’s do it! What could go wrong?

    “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” – T Sowell

  17. Sanders: ‘When a Mother Has a Baby, She Should Stay Home With That Baby’

    Yes, indeed! And if she can not financially afford to do so, then perhaps she shouldn’t have one to begin with – instead of expecting everyone else to pick up the tab. Life is full of choices.

    1. At the same time, do you want a world in which only the wealthy are able to have children? What do you think that would look like? How do you think that would work?

      1. Fewer poor kids = fewer poor kids shot by rogue cops. (insert racial undertones as needed)

  18. Another data point: Quebec has cheap daycare (I think $7/day). The result? Major shortages of cheap daycare. You better sign your future-kid up as soon as you are thinking of getting pregnant if you want to get into a daycare, and even then the chances of getting into the one you want are vanishingly small.

  19. Screw that. I say make her work and I’ll stay home with the baby, collecting pay. Why should she have the fun of taking care of the child, going to the park, doing things all the while getting paid to do so? Sound’s sexist to me.

    1. For some new parents, being able to stay home with their baby full-time is a joy; for others having to stay home with the baby full-time is a nightmare. That depends on lots of factors like whether they have friends/family/a social support system or it’s just them and the baby nearly all the time, their own personality, and the individual needs and temperament of the kid.

      It’s damn hard work for any parent who does it, even if both parents pitch in equally and have lots of help, and it’s extremely important work, since 100% of us were raised at one point and we like to blame all our problems on kids these days not being raised properly/parents who halfass their parenting jobs.

      With that in mind, I have no idea where you’re going with your comment, besides feeling the need to insert backhanded sarcasm in anywhere you can. It’s plain that a statement like “a mother should be home with her child” carries generalization and stereotyping, and that regardless of their positions most people would take issue with it to some degree. Trivializing all new parents down to the level of welfare-queen is not productive, and implying that you would like that job solely because you believe it’s easy is sleazy to the extreme.

      1. Lots of parents just one or two generations ago half-assed it by helicopter parents’ standards toward their precious snowflakes.

        I grew up in the 70’s, high-school class of ’84. Most days I’m certain my parents had only a vague idea where any of their kids were or who they were with. “Mom, I’m going over to Cooper’s.” “Ok, be home before dark.” At which point I’d ride off on my bike (sans helmet) and almost always went to Cooper’s house, unless he wasn’t home, at which point I’d make a circuit of the neighborhood to find out where he and the rest of the group were. Might be damming the creek, or playing football in the the street, or building an ice fort (Ohio!), or building a ramp to jump bikes off of, or blowing up army men with firecrackers.

        We played sports, but our parents didn’t obsessively attend every game (usually only when it was their turn to pick up the carpool). We’d go the lake and kids were allowed to use a boat with an outboard motor and, gasp, leave sight of the cabin and only the little kids had to wear a life jacket. Fishing for hours in the sun without sunscreen or bottled water.

        But for all that, if you did something wrong, by god you knew it. Today’s precious snowflakes have never even kept score in their everyone-gets-a-trophy soccer league, let alone been actually punished.

        1. This. I grew up in northeast Iowa in the 60s and 70s. In the summer I’d wander in the woods for whole days with a .22 rifle, a sandwich and a couple of cookies in my pocket. Sometimes I’d stay out overnight. Mom would fret a little, Dad would point out “he’ll come home when he gets hungry.”

          Amazingly, I survived. So did all my friends who did exactly the same shit.

          1. irrelevant

        2. irrelevant

        3. irrelevant

      2. irrelevant

  20. The harder it is to dismiss an employee, the more resistance there is to hiring them.

    -jcr

  21. Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby.

    You know who else wanted mothers to stay at home?

  22. Of course, Bernie didn’t mean that.

    He meant that women should stay home and make babies. Preferrably man child. And preferably clothing optional.

    Why is everyone giving him a hard time?

  23. One thing you can say for The Bern and his ilk: They cannot (and will not understand the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    1. How can there be unintended consequences when their proposals are good for the people.

  24. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

    1. You’d think you’d be able to buy some subject-verb agreement.

  25. Obama considers babies a punishment, she should have gotten a taxpayer funded abortion. Her paycheck is more important than a baby to the future of the country in obama’s eyes.

    1. Herpa derpa bloop you gots opinions n stuff omg

  26. Sanders reveals what he really thinks. If he were Republican the hits would never end. On Dem sites today he was being roundly supported with the crowd saying ‘he obviously misspoke’. The fact is he didn’t misspeak. He said what he thought. He might not have meant to reveal this, but he said that he thinks women should stay home with their babies.

    So do I!

    It is not unreasonable. Careers are less important than being a good mother.

    1. Well said!

  27. I love how everyone is fawning over Sanders, when just an election or two ago, these same people were against the ‘party of old white men’. In fact, wasn’t that the status quo that was eradicated? Not sure these days..

  28. The left never thinks any issue though, because they don’t give the electorate credit for being able to. Consequently, their positions become indefensible.

  29. It’s never explained by the “Free Shit” brigade what exactly we’re getting, as employers, in ROI in employees who take a year or three’s paid vacation just for grunting out another human. Maybe you could, if you’re a Free Shit supporter, stretch out the argument that it’s a good idea for employers to “invest in the next generation” of their customers.

    But producing more babies is something people do anyway, whether it’s “encouraged” by reaching into my pocket and taking money for zero work, or not. Why force me at gunpoint to subsidize some woman’s personal lifestyle choice? She was gonna have kids anyway (either because she wanted to, for any number of self-serving reasons, or she didn’t want to but can’t be bothered to take personal responsibility for her own fertility). Even the dumbest, poorest people we got can’t resist the lure of fecundity…this is not something that requires employer subsidy in any way. There’s no shortage of humans.

    Also, FFS, just because something’s “a good idea”–assuming you could even make the case that employer subsidy of procreation is a good idea–doesn’t mean it must be a government mandate.

  30. The freedom to have guns costs 10,000 lives a year. Let’s ban guns. Abuse of a freedom is not a license to end that freedom. Family leave is pro family. If free market forces worked we’d have more businesses with paid leave than we do now. The right worries so much about business they ignore people

    1. l can help you with my powerful spell e.g below

      E-MAIL: v.spellcaster@aol.com

      If you want your ex lover back to you with-in 24 hours. I can help you with my powerful spell.
      If you want your husband/wife to love you forever I can help you with my powerful spell.
      Stop your marriage or relationship from breaking apart I can help you with my powerful spell.
      If you are having trouble getting pregnant or you are not able to get pregnant i can help you

      All you need to do is to send an e-mail to: v.spellcaster@aol.com

  31. Can someone please help me by showing me where in the Constitution ANY such authority is given FedGov? That is a STATE ISSUE, and the pres can’t be making noises about handling such a matter. Not his bailiwick. That fact alone tells me he’ll make a rotten president.

  32. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

    1. But do you get paid maternity leave, Ms. Spambot?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.