Subversion and hooch afoot! Unapologetic liberals are gathering for libations at Wiley's Tavern at 330 North Main in Sioux Falls after work today, 5 p.m., as they reconstitute the Sioux Falls chapter of Drinking Liberally. Among topics that may stir conversation:
The National Partnership for Women and Families finds South Dakota is one of the crappiest places to be a working mom:
Hmm... probably won't see Governor Daugaard plastering that map on a banner ad for South Dakota in the Minneapolis airport... where NPWF finds much better conditions for working moms.
The Affordable Care Act still hasn't caught the United States up with other countries in terms of quality health care. For the fifth year in a row, the U.S. ranks last in the Commonwealth Fund's scoring of eleven industrialized nations' health care systems.
Continuing a long-standing trend (compare the numbers from 2010), the United States continues to spend far more (50% more than extravagant Switzerland, 88% more than colder Canada, 150% more than clammier Great Britain) per capita on health care than any of our industrialized counterparts. Interestingly, many of those countries also drink more alcohol per capita than we do. Hmm... Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls, what can you do about that?
Of course we know poor working-parent policy, inefficient health care, and all of our other problems are caused by irrational, ignorant, unempathetic conservatives... or are they? Discuss, tonight, Willy's Tavern, 5 p.m.!
If you want to be a mom, thats fine. If you want to work, get after it. But if you want to be a working mom, or dad, just remenber that none of the rest of us were with you when that kid was conceived. I have no interest in helping you raise your kids.
Nobody was there when I could have used a break working dogs, my guess is kids are about the same if they are raised right. Did I want a break? If the state would have footed the bill, maybe. Nope I would never have trusted anyone else with my dogs, but then that was just me. My dogs, my problem, your kids, your problem.
I would love for everyone to have a job, but not at my expence.
The Blindman
Sounds like fun.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Aw, Bill, now you're just being stingy. Folks gotta work. Folks gotta have kids. If society wants work and kids, society's gotta make accommodations. Lots of other countries make it easier for moms and dads to pursue fulfilling and lucrative careers and enjoy happy family lives. What's so bad about that?
Agreed Cory,
I'm not going to get caught up in what a livable wage is other than to say wages need to equitable and sufficient to raise a family in some comfort.
In a civilized society where trickle down economics are a failure, we have an obligation to demand better for American workers.
Cory there isn't a darn thing wrong with that as long as they pay for everything they want for their kids. If you look at what I've paid in property taxes, and then look at where those taxes went when they left my bank, you will see that I'm not stingy and in fact have educated a lot of other peoples kids without getting much in return.
If you aren't paying 100% to raise your kids someone else has been picking up the slack. If you want kids take care of them so other people wont have to.
The Blindman
I drank liberally in the 1980s and it brought me pretty close to having other people take care of my every need.
ah...the politics of addiction. (i married drugs and booze, had 4 kids, and it has not been pleasant.) the nation's number one health problem. stigma vs. science!! Almost 18 million abuse booze. 20% of the population pops pills for non-medicinal use. Fatal disease. we jail addicts like we used to warehouse mentally ill. Brain gets rewired, and not in a good way. Self-medication and pot legalization, here we go! John Boehner is likely alcoholic, is orange and seems to run things for the repubs. that explain anything?? Google Obama's science authority, Nora Volkow, MD, director of NIH's substance abuse institute.
Bill, I'm all for families being self-sufficient. Giving them liberal parental-leave and sick-leave protections helps them stay and advance in their most fulfilling, productive professions and be more self-sufficient in the long run.
Cory, you refer to "the long run", it seems to me most conservative belief and policy is more concerned with the "now", while not showing much concern for the long run. It's that "what can you do for me now" versus "what will be best for everybody down the road". Kinda like climate change, what can we profit on now because we will be dead in a hundred years, let the future worry about the future. Then when the future arrives, blame dems because they didn't do anything about it.
Bill, you are talking about families being self-sufficient, how are they to do that in a place with the wages South Dakota has? Can I assume you would also be one of the people that would throw a fit if your McChicken costs $1.25 instead of a dollar so McD's employees and others like them could make a decent wage? And while you are at it, repeal the ACA because it helps people get affordable insurance? Or maybe you don't feel the need to pay as much in property taxes now because your kids are grown and out of school or you didn't have kids? Where does it end with the self-sufficiency argument? Maybe we could end it with all the extra money the state takes in from the feds versus the taxes we pay for roads, what is your argument then, we all park our cars because we are not self-sufficient and don't deserve the roads we have? Just where does it end Bill?
Tim, in 100 years, we'll be lucky if Democrats and Republicans even exist. We'll be lucky if the USA exists. Shucks, sometimes I doubt that people will exist. Only bugs and bunny rabbits.
Stan, if we as a people don't get a handle on what we are doing to the only planet we have to live on, there won't be anything left but bugs left, even bunnies won't make it.
In an ideal world couples planning to have children would do just that plan. I don't, but I guess the majority of parents do plan for how to raise their children in a responsible manner.
It would be ideal for couples to get themselves a good education or technical training and get themselves entrenched in the workplace before even thinking of having children.
But that is the ideal world. In the real world pregnancies happen to not just married couples, but to single parents. Even in married relationships there is always the possibility of a love child.
For the most part, I think single and married couple both want to do the best for their children and are responsible.
When income from employment isn't sufficient to raise a child, when debt and the cost of living outweigh income, society as a whole has an obligation to help the children without judging the parent or parents
Well Tim I dont have any kids, and I planned on never having any kids from an early age. In the last two years, the county road by the ranch was maintained twice. The rest of my property taxes went to education. Now I dont mind paying a little for other peoples kids to go to school, but really why should I have to pay for other peoples projects, accidents, or religious teachings, "go forth and multiply?"
As for the roads, if I hadn't donated the gravel for the road that went by the ranch it wouldn't have been done.! Let me see, that would be me paying taxes plus also donating the gravel at extra cost that the taxes should have paid for in the first place. Add to that the price I'm being charged to educate other peoples kids, when I have none and it does kinda piss me off.
Just for giggles, lets post what every family would owe if they had to pay the taxes to support their kids from first through twelve.
Now let's put that number in a file somewhere for future reference. Sure some of these people will never pay off what they owe but if they ever did make it big there should be a triggering mechanism to force them to make it right. Otherwise, I'm paying directly for their future success while all I'm getting for my money is? Less then nothing? That doesn't sound like much of an investment in the future to me.
For thr record, I'm for higher wages, all the ACA needs is some fine tuning and it will be fine. In fact single payer would fix it.
Personal responsibility would go a long way toward fixing these problems. If you want to have sex, that's fine as lomg as it doesn't cost me for your fun. If you want kids, that's great as long as you are willing to step up to the plate and pay the price for the finnished product. I dont mind paying a little to put your kids through school but really they are your kids, shouldn't you be paying more the I do?
We have lived within our means. For forty years if I needed something and didnt have the money I just didnt get it. The last time I went to the arches was six years ago. We ate out twice last year. For some strange reason both times were when we we're in town to pay taxes.
"Just where does it end?"
You tell me.
The Blindman
Just to set the record straight, I have 3 kids, all raised and contributing members of society. I have never collected any assistance from any sector of government, but two of my kids were twins, how was I supposed to plan for that Bill? As far as that gravel road you are so proud of, better not drive on any asphalt your tax dollars are not responsible for. Everybody has to chip in to help, it's the right thing to do, if you have a problem with that, then keep voting republican. And yes I agree, single payer is the answer, good luck getting your republican friends to go along with that.
I don't drive and haven't for a number of years now. Yet every time I go shopping for food and other necessities a tax is placed on me, a portion of that tax goes to maintain roads and highways in South Dakota. Since I don't use the roadways, why should my tax dollars go to fix roads in Bennett County?
RC, if everybody takes the attitude that, I don't use it my taxes shouldn't go for it, then we would have no roads, no schools or none of much of what tax dollars do pay for, as contributing members of society we all have to kick in to make society work, otherwise we can all just go back to living in the stone age. You say, for example, that you haven't driven for years, suppose you need emergency medical care, isn't the ambulance going to use those same roads? Just an example that pops into my head.
First Roger, how did those things you went shopping for get to the stores? That's right they came by trucks driven over the roads your taxes helped paid for.
Tim I dont care if a person has one, three, or ten, you pay to play. Again the number of children you have is none of my business. If you had two instead of one, again not my problem. No wait, I guess it is isn't it?
Here's how it looks at face value. You have three kids, that was your choice. They have gone through school and are productive members of society. That's great, and it was because they got what every other school age kid got in SD gets, a pretty damn good education. Now you through your property taxes helped pay for some of that education, at least I hope so.
At the same time I was being responsible to both myself and the rest of the state by being careful where my little swimmers were headed. Yet I continue to pay even though I will never get any of the services im paying for.
" As far as that gravel road you are so proud of, better not drive on any asphalt your tax dollars are not responsible for."
What kind of an argument is that? Im already paying for that stuff, and useing it. Apples and oranges man.
In one instence we are all paying for something we all use.
In the other instence, only the people with kids get anything out of those education dollars at the time the money is spent. For those of us that didn't have any kids, purposely, it looks like we are being penalized for, what's that again? Oh ya, not having kids.
The Blindman
Aren't we all,as solid,patriotic 'murricans obligated to pay taxes? Isn't that what allows us to have a military to protect us,to build infrastructure,schools,educate our children,take care of the elderly and poor and the rest?You know-promote the general welfare of all. Seems like the biggest crybabies have the most and pay the least or a hell of a lot less than they should pay.
What most don't understand, Blindman, my township funded by my property taxes pays my road maintenance and construction. Not, Tim's taxes, only those citizens of my township. Tim's taxes never touch my township roads. If they are county roads there is possibly a very small fraction of Tim's taxes end up there. So, when Tim drives the gravel off my roads, road hunting pheasant, he isn't paying a damn dime for the birds or the gravel.
.
Somehow, Tim splitting an egg is your problem, Bill. Does one of those twins have a humorous slightly twisted poetic lingo, Tim?
Bill, you're missing the point, my kids are raised and gone, my property taxes are going up again with most money going to RCAS, you know what, I don't mind, those kids in school today will at some point contribute, and you never know when you or I might need help of some kind from one of them. What comes around goes around, I believe that.
No Les they don't, but they both defend your right to post shit and be an idiot. Done
Tim,
I was being arrogant, sarcastic or whatever with that comment, I also anticipated your response.
Obviously, taxes are an important part of our society and provides us with many protections and benefits.
Much to the dismay of grumpy taxpayers, no one gets to pick and choose where tax dollars are directed, that is why we elect local, state, and federal officials.
What many taxpayers fail to realize is that once the city, state, and federal government collects your tax dollars, they are no longer yours, they belong to the government entity that collected them.
Can you imagine the chaos if we were all free to choose exactly what our tax dollars were used for? I like the idea of young people getting an education and becoming productive members of society, so in the future, I want my 6% sales tax to go for education and nothing else.
Well RC, we were having a conversation, I know where you stand, we have had this chat before in the RCJ. My response to your comment is what it always will be, we can't go through life cherry picking where we send our tax money, it goes into one pot and gets spent where needed. I see Bill's point of view, the problem is, it won't work the way he wants it too.
"Post shit and be an idiot". And Tim claims responsibility for defending anyone's rights? Maddville sinks to a new high.
Tim,
I recall those conversations on Mt. Blogmore and elsewhere on the Journal sites, and like you my position never changes.
There is always one that actually thinks that they have control of "my tax dollars" and will go their graves thinking so. That is totally naive.
I see Bill's point of view too, but it is not realistic
Hold on. I think we got a bit off track. The first part of the story, talking about better workplace policies for parents, isn't talking about redistribution of wealth or major tax policies. Parental leave and sick leave aren't taking any money out of Bill's pocket via taxes. The National Partnership for Women and Families is talking about policies that help parents keep their jobs when they have kids. Good parent-support policies could include flexible scheduling and telecommuting, which don't cost Bill or anyone else a dime. Minimum-wage laws may cost us some more as consumers, but they can also ensure that workers are receiving a moral wage and can feed their families by working 40 hours a week instead of 80. (Remember, the 40-hour work week is another of those liberal inventions that recognizes and protects the value of parenting and family life.)
You liberals work 40 hour weeks and us conservatives work 80 hour weeks. Now you want us to pay for your shortfall?
Conservatives have to work 80 hours a week because it takes them twice as long to do the job right.
Cory's last comment is right on. That said, I must say I usually agree with the Blindman, but not on this issue for the following reasons: (1) Uneducated adults in our society are much more susceptible to the half-truths and outright lies of talking heads and politicians who form public policy - I think all of us benefit when other people's children are educated and it is not a matter of whether the kids are mine or yours - educated voters make smarter decisions when electing policy makers; and (2) I agree with those who point out that once we pay taxes the money each of us pays is not be isolated enough to avoid paying for a policy we might disagree with.
It would be an interesting experiment to enact legislation that allowed each of us to direct where our taxes should be used, but I wonder how that might affect a small state like SD. I doubt that anyone in the USA outside of SD would want a single dollar spent here rather than in their particular home state, thus for SD we would lose a substantial portion of the federal money we now receive. On the other hand, such a new rule might actually result in less money for wars and foreign affairs, which could hurt our troops if our leaders persisted in sending them to war, or could help if we did not start unfunded wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.
When I had my baby, that huge medical organization I work for in MN gave me six weeks paid maternal leave and the second six weeks 50% paid medical leave. I also had the option from my manager of coming back at a lesser FTE if I wanted and flexible scheduling. I can not complain.
'maternity leave'