• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should All Companies be Required to Provide Paid Maternity Leave?

Should Congress Pass A Bill That Requires Employers to Provide Paid Maternity Leave?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 30.8%
  • No

    Votes: 58 63.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 5.5%

  • Total voters
    91
Sounds to me like you are precisely saying, "screw the company".


Why should it be the company's responsibility to ensure new generations are born? And, don't you think that any woman's skills and competence can be matched by men? Why shouldn't a company hire a man instead of a costly woman?


Uh-huh...in the long run...assuming the company can last till the long run with the added costs you want to pile on top of them.

Well many countries like for example mine Sweden it works very well with maternity. But it all boils down to your belief in society if you see the connection that makes the society works. That companies can't work in a vacuum, that try for example to start a company in Somalia instead of USA and see how easy it is. And basic for societeis to work is children to be born and todays international competence, you can't afford wasting 50 % of the societys competence.

It is also boils down to fairness. Because children can't choose their parents. So either society take a responsibility for children or you end up with a socitey their who can start a sucessful business or ends up on the street is a lot based on badluck.

That having children is a very strong basic human instict, and that is because that we are all here. That we have all ancestors that didn't afford to have children and still had them. So if poverty and terrible life would stop people from having children no one of us would be here.
But today both my country Sweden and USA is rich to give ever child a change of a good life. Also how can how can you talk about personal responsibility to fail and sucessed if a childs destinity is so much based on the parents it is lucky to have?


That even if you dislike welfare you may see that you need welfare for children for a fair society.
 
Last edited:
Pero, I don't know how much clearer we can make it to the idiots in DC, on both sides of the aisle! We are sick and tired of the partisanship being shown. You and I, and lots of other people, remember the good old days when both sides compromised in order to get things done! It wasn't "my way or the highway" back then, and we were better off as a country. I fear that many people took BHO's statement that Republicans were the "enemy" literally, so we have this thinking controlling DC, to our continuing detriment. He justified and solidified the partisanship, and I blame him for doing so. He is supposed to be the POTUS for all the people, not just those who think like him! Very stupid move on his part, IMO. Neither side is always right and never wrong, in any situation! His insulting words, just to further his agenda, are affecting everything, and we have gridlock. Then he complains, and goes around Congress to do what he wants to do, and is being slapped down by the SCOTUS, on unanimous votes - which means even the Dems on the Court believe he is being unlawfully over-reaching! Unintended consequences, indeed! Suggestions?

Okay, as is my want let us look at some number from November 2008 when President Obama was first elected and as they stand today. I think they will confirm what you just said. But this numbers guy would like to though the rigamoro.

Party affiliation, on 9 Nov 2008 it stood at Republicans 28% Democrats at 33% Independents at 37%, breaking down the indies further we have 12% leaning Republican for a total of 40% for the GOP, we had 18% leaning Democratic for their total of 51%. It is no wonder Obama won.
Today the Republicans stand at 24%, a loss of 4 points, the Democrats are at 28% a loss of 5 points, Independents are up to 46%, a gain of 9 points. Indies lean Republican 20% for a total of 44%. Indies lean Democratic 16% for a total of 44%. So yes, Obama has hurt the Democratic party. The total of 44% is misleading for each party as it would seem the Republicans actually gained over the last 5 ½ years. But they lost 4% of their most reliable voters, them being replaced by leaning independents which are finicky and can be lost quite easily. These types of voters can switch their loyalty in a heartbeat. So both parties in reality have taken a serious hit.

Party favorability, the Republican Party stood at 35% in November 2008, the Democratic Party at 53%. Today the Republicans are at 34% and the Democrats at 37%. In other words the Republicans are just as disliked today as they were back in November of 2008, but the Democrats have really taken a fall, down to Republican levels.

I could go on, but I think the numbers prove your point and post. One last thing in reference to your compromise statements. Congressional job approval in November of 2008 stood at 37% approve, 52% disapprove. Today with the “My way or the highway approach,” congressional job approval is at 9% approve, 72% disapprove. One has to wonder who the heck are those 9% who approve, probably relatives of the congressmen and senators.

And then there is this, total lost of confidence in all three branches of government.

Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of U.S. Gov't
 
Back
Top Bottom