General Discussion

FreeState

(10,702 posts)

37. Depends on location

Thu Feb 4, 2021, 02:56 PM

Feb 2021

In my area it’s not atypical - just on my street there are more stay at home dads than moms. I think law should support all regardless of numbers.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

133 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mitt Romney has a plan to give parents up to $15,000 a year [View all] MelissaB Feb 2021 OP

Well, the Mormons will love it. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #1

Thank you! LuvNewcastle Feb 2021 #7

Same here Auggie Feb 2021 #12

Anyone who thinks $350/month encourages people to have kids hasn't had to pay for children DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #14

Why would you give people ANY money for having children, beyond BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #26

It's for children not parents DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #42

Um, there's no guarantees on how that money will be spent--really, you think BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #52

There's NEVER a guarantee for how the money will be spent. StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #62

I think people who make 200,000-400,000 are pretty wealthy. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #67

How do you prove they used the money for their kids? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #70

Why create a financial incentive to have large families, for anyone? Poor or wealthy. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #73

You must not have children StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #75

I have two kids who are adults now. I would have thought this was dumb BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #83

Correct! Goodheart Feb 2021 #107

I thought I was the only one who heard that Bettie Feb 2021 #97

Good point DeminPennswoods Feb 2021 #114

Other Modern Industrialized Democracies do it. Tommymac Feb 2021 #119

Yeah, the argument against it sounds suspiciously like "welfare encourages women to have more Blue_true Feb 2021 #116

Exactly. Utah. TomCADem Feb 2021 #19

My husband's younger cousins all have massive families--3-4-5 kids and up--they're all BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #31

"Opposed to paying people to have children"? But why would you punish the child for that? Towlie Feb 2021 #27

How is it "punishing" children to NOT pay a tax-supported stipend to support other BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #36

So is it the means tested that you object to. DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #44

I'd like to see a better use of money than just cutting checks, regardless. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #47

I am not for telling people what they need DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #55

This is the welfare queen myth come to life--actually paying people for each kid, every month. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #69

No, it's NOT "the welfare queen myth come to life." It is YOU who is propagating that myth StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #78

How am I propagating that myth, when the proposal is literally to pay BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #85

I suggest you change your language if you wish to engage in a discussion with me StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #87

I wasn't cursing at you. But I removed the curse word so as not to offend you. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #89

Thank you StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #90

It absolutely pays people to have children. Three or more kids BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #93

I was thinking the same thing. Nt marlakay Feb 2021 #51

This isn't "paying people to have children" - shitloads or otherwise StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #61

I hope it fails. Direct the money to things that actually help people far more broadly. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #71

This Meowmee Feb 2021 #118

Rule No. 1. The money is paid to the woman My Pet Orangutan Feb 2021 #2

Why? FreeState Feb 2021 #24

Those 'several households' are atypical. My Pet Orangutan Feb 2021 #34

Depends on location FreeState Feb 2021 #37

I can't say I've heard of too many cases My Pet Orangutan Feb 2021 #38

Really? FreeState Feb 2021 #88

Abuse happens "way more more common(ly)" to women. My Pet Orangutan Feb 2021 #92

How about lgbtq couples ? JI7 Feb 2021 #56

It will be interesting to see if this gets traction. still_one Feb 2021 #3

Hell no! I guess the purpose is to encourage white childbearing Dream Girl Feb 2021 #4

It's a great idea Loki Liesmith Feb 2021 #22

I am listening DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #45

How does this promote white childbearing FreeState Feb 2021 #28

You've kind of supported my point. White children bearing is lower than black and Hispanic. Dream Girl Feb 2021 #33

Um no. Are you a parent? themaguffin Feb 2021 #77

HE'S RUNNING greenjar_01 Feb 2021 #5

I agree. He is running DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #18

Why do you think that? He's not too popular among... brush Feb 2021 #39

Literally in the one line post greenjar_01 Feb 2021 #41

But you said he'd win the presidency. brush Feb 2021 #46

It's telling that you won't even say who "our candidate" or "the Democrat" will be greenjar_01 Feb 2021 #48

Whoa! Unusual thoughts for a Democrat. brush Feb 2021 #50

What the fuck??? greenjar_01 Feb 2021 #54

First off, we just won by 7 million votes. We outnumber repubicans.. brush Feb 2021 #57

People with children already get tax breaks TheRealNorth Feb 2021 #6

Correct! Goodheart Feb 2021 #100

Question. Why doesn't it kick in under 11,000 DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #8

presumably other help available at that level of poverty Kali Feb 2021 #17

Income limit is way too high. highplainsdem Feb 2021 #9

Cripes, who writes this stuff at vox? Other countries do far better at these benefits. And, one niyad Feb 2021 #10

Yes other countries have a sort of mom's pension DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #20

And paid family leave. niyad Feb 2021 #25

We're not calling it universal basic income, or universal health insurance lindysalsagal Feb 2021 #11

Seems like a reasoned approach JT45242 Feb 2021 #13

I like it. n/t Laelth Feb 2021 #15

What about people caring for aging parents? They are Politicub Feb 2021 #16

A very good point. niyad Feb 2021 #30

We've got to start somewhere StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #63

not so fast bigtree Feb 2021 #21

That doesn't bother me Loki Liesmith Feb 2021 #23

I'm not sure of the consequences bigtree Feb 2021 #60

I was not aware that mittens is part of TLP. niyad Feb 2021 #29

I use the term perjoratively bigtree Feb 2021 #59

I understood you very well. Your feelings about TLP are well-known. niyad Feb 2021 #72

that's absurd bigtree Feb 2021 #96

I oppose ANY proposal, Republican or Democratic, that encourages people to have children. Goodheart Feb 2021 #32

Why do you think this encourages people to have children? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #65

I wouldn't, no, but some would, yes. Goodheart Feb 2021 #98

So you could be trusted to make responsible choices, but "some" other people can't. StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #104

More a matter of budget. Goodheart Feb 2021 #106

THIS. roamer65 Feb 2021 #76

Then don't worry, because this doesn't. themaguffin Feb 2021 #79

This message was self-deleted by its author themaguffin Feb 2021 #80

As someone who has a toddler, this would be a lifesaver. bearsfootball516 Feb 2021 #35

should recipients be required to prove they spend the money on their kids? nt msongs Feb 2021 #40

Why should they have to prove that? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #66

Read the fine print. What will this do to current EIC, Child/Dependent Care and Tax Credits? haele Feb 2021 #43

But how about those parents who would like to stay home? DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #49

If this is a stimulus payment to help parents with raising children, I am good with that. haele Feb 2021 #68

"The Family Security Act " LudwigPastorius Feb 2021 #53

I trust Robert Reich's take on it Bettie Feb 2021 #58

TNAF and the child tax credit have been so demonized DeminPennswoods Feb 2021 #115

Looking at this post, for a lot of people Bettie Feb 2021 #117

This sounds promising StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #64

No subsidies for baby production. roamer65 Feb 2021 #74

Wow StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #81

Believe it. roamer65 Feb 2021 #84

I don't have a problem with your concern with population StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #86

I don't have a problem if it goes for adopted or foster children. roamer65 Feb 2021 #91

That's not what he said, and you know it. Goodheart Feb 2021 #102

Totally agree. Goodheart Feb 2021 #101

It's easy to spot non parents in this thread. JFC, the ignorance displayed here is sad. themaguffin Feb 2021 #82

Much of this thread reads like something we'd read on - well, let's just say -slightly less StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #94

I agree. DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #103

Sometimes true colors shine through when least expected ... StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #105

Ignorance? I have one son, and had enough income to afford several more Goodheart Feb 2021 #99

.. roamer65 Feb 2021 #108

Hold, I didn't say ignorance referring to having kids or not. FFS themaguffin Feb 2021 #109

Ontario has a similar program. roamer65 Feb 2021 #110

Ok, just the scientific information that we are looking for, your co-worker. themaguffin Feb 2021 #111

Since you love the idea so much, how do you propose to pay for it? roamer65 Feb 2021 #121

JFC, where did I say my thoughts on the policy at all? themaguffin Feb 2021 #130

Yes, people would have kids because of the proposed money. Goodheart Feb 2021 #122

That's ridiculous StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #125

Not to people who understand money. Goodheart Feb 2021 #126

Let's just keep creating money until we start a currency crisis. roamer65 Feb 2021 #127

It has nothing to do with understanding money StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #128

Oh, yeah? Which discussion board would that be? Goodheart Feb 2021 #129

Exactly. Some of the comments here are ignorant, both on policy & regarding parents themaguffin Feb 2021 #131

This message was self-deleted by its author DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #132

How is it not understanding money DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #133

Paid for by social security. Once again, Republicans are trying to kill madinmaryland Feb 2021 #95

I don't love it BGBD Feb 2021 #112

I hope this comes with backpay. egduj Feb 2021 #113

There was a study that indicated having another child... Buckeye_Democrat Feb 2021 #120

...or we can use them for Soylent Green. roamer65 Feb 2021 #123

Romney can vote for the Democrats proposal JonLP24 Feb 2021 #124