world

Obama says U.S. should offer paid maternity leave

95 Comments
By NEDRA PICKLER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

95 Comments
Login to comment

OH MY GOD!!!! IMPEACH HIM!!!!!

;)

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Yes! This is where government should be spending its time, improving the welfare of all of its people, not just those who can pay for the next election cycle. http://cascadianabroad.com

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Right, the solution is to further expand the welfare state. Economic idiot.

-29 ( +3 / -32 )

I hear more grumbling to pack up shop and move to Mexico. Just what a sluggish economy needs. This accompanied with an increasing national debt we cannot afford to loose ANY business. On the contrary we need to increase domestic business and create career jobs. McDonalds and Walmart aren't them!!!

And BTW, doesn't he have more critical issues at hand!

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

The fact is that with socialism(call a spade a spade), eventually you run out of other people's money.

-23 ( +4 / -27 )

It's been 6 years since I retired, but my company (The Fortune Top 10) was already providing the paid maternity leave to administrators about a month. I was told that many European countries are doing this already and we are catching up with them. Correct me if I am wrong on this.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"The fact is that with socialism(call a spade a spade), eventually you run out of other people's money."

That's hardly a "fact." Scandinavian countries have been "socialist" for decades. How come they're so rich and well educated...and in absolutely no danger of "running out of money" (apart possibly from Eurozone member Finland)?

How does the US govt run out of its own money, which it has authority to issue (barring stupid "sequester" politicians or a breakdown in the bank electronic transfer network)?

And where did those "other people" get their money in the first place?

15 ( +18 / -3 )

I suspect that if paid maternity leave had already existed, and Obama eliminated it, the right wingers would accuse him of attacking mothers and traditional family values.

Paid maternity leave makes sense economically, it's not a 'welfare' program. It's an investment/incentive to do something (have a baby) that will pay dividends in the future. The women taking maternity leave are employed full time, so they are, in right wing parlance: Makers not takers. Because their mothers are employed, their kids are statistically likely be productive members of society.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

The US doesn't have paid maternity leave? Good grief. I take it paid paternity leave will be a no-no too. The richest country on the planet can't offer something that poorer countries can - shame on you. Good for Obama for addressing the problem.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

I suspect that if paid maternity leave had already existed, and Obama eliminated it, the right wingers would accuse him of attacking mothers and traditional family values.

:)

9 ( +11 / -2 )

@ globalwatcherJUN. 24, 2014 - 09:56AM JST It's been 6 years since I retired, but my company (The Fortune Top 10) was already providing the paid maternity leave to administrators about a month. I was told that many European countries are doing this already and we are catching up with them. Correct me if I am wrong on this.

Of those nations doing this how many are in financial chaos?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Scary that some people see paid maternity leave as socialism. Why not close all the schools, too?

15 ( +17 / -2 )

Financial chaos. Like, oh, refusing to pay their bills? Not the US. Thanks to the Democrats.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The fact is that with socialism(call a spade a spade), eventually you run out of other people's money.

As compared to capitalism where it doesn't run out, it just gets hoarded by 1% of the population.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Paid maternity leave is a benefit introduced to encourage women to have children by countries with Low Birthrate problem. Is U.S. faced with an issue of population decrease? NO! Nice smart move by the administration to encourage inflation and steady the current economic model of continuous growth in demand (consumption). People are like sheep. Mehehehe

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

The Land of the Free is so far behind the rest of the developed and not so developed world. Can you believe it? The world's richest country does not have maternity leave. Neither do workers have any statutory rights to holidays. That's right, your holiday entitlement by law in the US is zero. What's more, the US is one of only about 3 countries in the world that has not signed up to the UN convention on banning child labour. And then incredibly you have the republicans running a campaign promising to reduce health benefits. Land of the free alright, free from most of the things the rest of the world take for granted.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Hate to say it, but benefits should be earned. Productive members of society absolutely should get aid in some form (read: anyone with a steady job and/or putting in solid effort to do something..anything)... but where I grew up there were so many families who were milking the welfare system.

Everyone should be free to get married and have kids, but I don't think the Gov't blanket-paying is a good idea. At the end of the day, we should think of what's best for the kids- families with no steady income should not be encouraged to have more children than they can support.

Anyway, shouldn't this be provided by an employer in contract form? Wouldn't it be much more effective to have the Gov't offer incentives to companies that pay?

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

That's hardly a "fact." Scandinavian countries have been "socialist" for decades. How come they're so rich and well educated...and in absolutely no danger of "running out of money" (apart possibly from Eurozone member Finland)?

That's because your still behind the times by 20 years. Scandinavian countries in particular Sweden, the poster child for the socialist advocate are hard socialist any more. These are some of the most free market oriented and pro free market reform countries in the world. Socialism collapsed Sweden back in 1991, forcing them to raise interest rates to a whomping 500%. They have since learned their lesson the hard way and have been moving gradually away from that system. Many Swedes would rather use private health care, as opposed to socialized health care. Which their country has both.

As for the main topic at hand, I have no problem with paid maternity leave. So long as it's negotiated between employer and employee. Using the force of Govt to force all employers to abide by paid maternity leave just does not work. Most companies are small businesses, not big. A business main priority is to grow and become profitable. It does not care about some leftists happy happy make everyone comfortable and accommodated world view. You create an environment where everyone child bearing women gets paid for not working, your ideals become an impediment to this end goal, thus your reckless ideal destroys prosperity. That's the end of it.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Hate to say it, but benefits should be earned.

Hate to say it, but based on this level of comprehension, maybe some schools should be closed down.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The smart people will safely and easily win again. The voters are too dumb. First pandering the black votes..now for the women votes. Slam dunk. Once getting to keep the Throne (Game of), pharma and other Dem affiliated industries win bigger chunks of taxpayer money than GOP affiliated industries like the Defense (war) industries.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

SenseNotSoCommon: Are you saying then, that parents who aren't working, don't keep a job (not can't, there is always work to be done), buy their kids expebsive brand name goods while getting free food handouts should be given a blank check to have as many kids as they can and be getting a salary to do it?

Do you honestly not see the situation that this can create?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

If COMPANIES decide to offer paid maternity leave to their salaried employees, that's wonderful! That would be a decision made by those with skin in the game, meaning the fiscal health of their company. But when the suggestion is made that a royal decree may be proposed, imposing a one-size-fits-few-or-none edict, no, sorry, that's quite a different matter. Thumbs down all you want, but that's wanton foolishness and economic lunacy at best.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

Paid maternity benefits are earned in most countries. In Canada for example, maternity leave payments are just an extension of the Unemployment Insurance system. Meaning, you must work for an employer for a certain minimum number of months/hours per week and pay unemployment insurance premiums in order to qualify. You receive a percentage of your current salary and it is not 'means tested' unlike a set amount of a welfare payment.

It's insurance which these mothers have paid for rather than a welfare program. It certainly isn't simply paying mothers of all kinds to have babies. An unemployed mother gets nothing since she hasn't had to temporarily give up her job. The better critique of paid maternity leave is that it caters only to those who are better off by being employed and effectively discourages the unemployed from having babies.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

That's hardly a "fact." Scandinavian countries have been "socialist" for decades. How come they're so rich and well educated...and in absolutely no danger of "running out of money" (apart possibly from Eurozone member Finland)?

Small, productive, and peaceful populations combined with vast oil reserves? What's next, are you going to compare the US to Luxembourg?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@John Galt

The problem with each individual company deciding whether or not to pay for maternity leave is that many companies may institute such a generous policy, but then stop hiring women altogether when profits start to go down. It is better that workers contribute a small percentage of their salaries into an insurance fund that they may dip into if they ever decide to have a baby. You will probably say that the insurance fund should be private, and I would say that it should be public so that we can keep the profits and pay more to the mothers.

This is very similar to the health insurance debate. When every other country other than the US is paying for health insurance and maternity leave, it puts US companies at an unfair advantage with other companies around the world. I understand your idealistic pure capitalist point of view but you can't ignore the reality of global competition.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Thanks, @Kaynide.

The topic is paid maternity leave for working women, not social welfare.

They are totally unrelated issues (see M3M3M3 post 12:21pm). Mixing the two is disingenuous.

If you want to compete with sweatshop nations in a race to the bottom, be my guest.

If you prefer, however, to not only move up the value chain with engaged and motivated working mothers, but to also incentivize more people off welfare, paid maternity leave is a no-brainer.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@global

It's been 6 years since I retired, but my company (The Fortune Top 10) was already providing the paid maternity leave to administrators about a month. I was told that many European countries are doing this already and we are catching up with them. Correct me if I am wrong on this.

If the company can afford it, I have no problem with it, but NOT every company can afford it and with all that is happening right now, this is the last issue that should be looked at. So before you get hired on with a company, look and see which one can provide maternity. But to make it mandatory at the expense of the tax payers, we can't afford it. Also, we are NOT Europe. We have 370 million people, we have to pay for Obamacare, higher and higher premiums and also for many illegal aliens and now maternity?

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Wow I didn't even consider any country would not offer paid leave for having a baby.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

@bass4funk

So before you get hired on with a company, look and see which one can provide maternity. But to make it mandatory at the expense of the tax payers, we can't afford it.

So what about someone in America with a great idea who starts a small business that could be a global success if only they could hire the right people, but they cannot afford to pay maternity leave? No talented people will choose to work for them and America will lose a great oppertunity. I'm sure Germany or Canada would be happy to have these business relocate.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

to make it mandatory at the expense of the tax payers, we can't afford it

Can the sweatshop advocates kindly pay attention?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what about someone in America with a great idea who starts a small business that could be a global success if only they could hire the right people, but they cannot afford to pay maternity leave? No talented people will choose to work for them and America will lose a great oppertunity. I'm sure Germany or Canada would be happy to have these business relocate.

Most countries don't have a 17 trillion debt and is printing money and pays out more than it takes in. You are NOT looking at the numbers, you are approaching it in an emotional manner. If we were NOT in this financial quagmire, I would tend to agree with you, but as long as we keep spending and spending and spending, we just don't have that kind of disposable income and I really hate those comparisons to these other countries, if women want to move there, change their citizenship and take enjoy their maternity, I couldn't care less, but we just don't have the money.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Most countries don't have a 17 trillion debt and is printing money and pays out more than it takes in.

Actually, most countries do, proportionately. And yet they somehow find ways to support their mothers.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

President Obama is proposing a strategy that will genuinely help American families?

Conservatives will no doubt object to it.

As they always do. 

5 ( +5 / -0 )

And as the world goes to s**t, Obama plays the "feel good" card.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@laguna

Actually, most countries do, proportionately. And yet they somehow find ways to support their mothers.

Yes, most countries, but with everything we have to pay, we don't have that kind of budget at least for the near foreseeable future.

@Sushi

Conservatives will no doubt object to it.

As they always do.

But that's the difference, you guys don't care where the money comes from because it's NOT your money, so why would you care as long as someone pays for it. This is why we have so much debt, because the politicians like you just react impulsively and say, we need to do this, implement this and never have far-sight about the long-term costs.

Typical liberal logic at its worst as usual.

@techall

Exactly!

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

@bass4funk

America could have the money if you cut back on all the military spending.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@bass4funk

If we were NOT in this financial quagmire, I would tend to agree with you

I'd like to stress again, the workers in Canada receive paid maternity leave by paying premiums into the unemployment insurance system. The government does not borrow to fund the program. The premium rates are calculated to match what is being paid out and admin costs. There is absolutely no cost to the taxpayer except their own premiums.

I suspect the reason that paid maternity leave has never been implemented in the US is the same reason that the US is/was the last country to have employer healthcare. Some large companies like to keep their workers locked in at lower salaries but offering them benefits. These benefits are not all that expensive when the company negotiates with insurance companies but it would cost the employee a fortune if they tried to buy them in the private market, so the employees accept lower salaries thinking that they are getting a pretty good deal. They don't understand that it doesn't have to be this way.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Well of course Repblicans are against paid maternity leave.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Geez, is there no end to what USA sold out to? Can't join the metric system, can't have holidays, can't have maternity leave, can't have well paying jobs, must work weekends, nights, no breaks, must sell out to China...

Happy to say that as a Canadian, we have the highest number of days, the days are transferable between mother and father and it generally works out well for the employer as the employee has a new perspective on life and family. In Canada it's covered under employment insurance (EI), the employer has nothing to do with it. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Maternity-leave-chart-final.png list of maternity leave by country.

Oh it's a maximum of 50 weeks. Can you imagine? Companies are not allowed to fire you during your leave. They can temporarily replace you though. Often a temporary job is posted and would mention maternity leave replacement in the description. So it creates a job. The employer isn't out a worker. And the new family gets the time they need to settle their lives. Winning! And here I was thinking we need to value family more in Canada. USA please join the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Your a country, not a factory plant

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@B4F and fellow travelers,

Conservatives often claim to embrace pro-Life, Christian family values.

What would Jesus say about paid maternity leave?

And how would it impact the number of abortions?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

“Many women can’t even get a paid day off to give birth — now that’s a pretty low bar,” Obama said at the White House Summit on Working Families. “That, we should be able to take care of.”

One cannot go a day without seeing another pregnant women giving birth at their place of employment. It's such a terrible problem. Just the other day I heard that two female employees at a Target in Obama's hometown of Chicago gave birth side by side in an aisle near the Pharmacy. Luckily the ladies were able to count the time lost towards their union mandated break time and were able to complete their shifts without losing any pay. Thank goodness Obama is going to end this once and for all in America.

The president is talking about paid maternity leave in the midst of an election campaign season focused in many respects on women voters, raising questions about how he would fund such a system. “If France can figure this out, we can figure this out,” Obama said.

There is no problem that cannot be solved by another $17 trillion in debt.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@max

America could have the money if you cut back on all the military spending.

Dems already done that, any more and we'll be like Denmark, which is what the Jihadists want as well as liberals to make sure the US has no military. Hey, how about cutting some of the high premiums the people have to pay for Obamacare, cut the cost and we might have room to spare or tighten up our borders and send all these kids back to where they came from. That's about $350 for each American that we could save, also cut more or trim the larger entitlements that are crippling the country.

@super

Well of course Repblicans are against paid maternity leave.

Nonesense, we just don't think with the financial burden of Americans that we have to subsidize more and more government entitlements. If it's private, I don't have a problem with it, I support it 100%

@sf2k

Geez, is there no end to what USA sold out to? Can't join the metric system, can't have holidays, can't have maternity leave, can't have well paying jobs, must work weekends, nights, no breaks, must sell out to China...

First, we've done fine without the metric system so far and we will be ok even if we don't adopt the system. As for holidays, it depends on what company, in all my years of working as an adult, I have always had holidays and most people do. My wife had 90 days maternity leave. And the rest of what your rambling about is an over stretch to say the least. I've been to Canada many times and it also depends on what job you have, come on dude.....

@sense

Conservatives often claim to embrace pro-Life, Christian family values.

That doesn't apply only to Christians, but unlike liberals, and Atheists, we tend to try to make things more cost effective in order to uphold strong family values for a better quality life. You can't do that if you don't have money.

And how would it impact the number of abortions?

You tell me, since libs support it overwhelmingly.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

You mean in America mother's don't get paid maternity leave? You're joking... jeez. That's pretty shocking to be honest.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

B4F,

Q. Conservatives often claim to embrace pro-Life, Christian family values.

A. That doesn't apply only to Christians, but unlike liberals, and Atheists, we tend to try to make things more cost effective in order to uphold strong family values for a better quality life. You can't do that if you don't have money.

Q. What would Jesus say about paid maternity leave?

(Conveniently ignored, although you bash spendthrift Atheists)

Q. And how would it impact the number of abortions?

A. You tell me, since libs support it overwhelmingly.

Don't try to worm out of this one. If more women could afford to keep their children, how would this impact the number of abortions? Have the testicular fortitude to answer questions.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bass - "But that's the difference, you guys don't care where the money comes from because it's NOT your money, so why would you care as long as someone pays for it. This is why we have so much debt, because the politicians like you just react impulsively and say, we need to do this, implement this and never have far-sight about the long-term costs."

Hey wow! I'm a politician now? :-)

"Typical liberal logic at its worst as usual."

Bass, when you have calmed down from your usual emotional outburst, you might like to try to understand that a key reason America has 'no money' is because misguided individuals like yourself voted for wars you couldn't afford.

It's people like you who are the problem, not Global Liberals. 

Thanks for finally seeing reality. :-)

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@AiserX

"Sweden, the poster child for the socialist advocate are hard socialist any more"

Nor is the United States. But govt still plays a much bigger role in Sweden than in the US in social policies. That's why I put "socialism" in quote marks.

The US conservatives, however, need something to bash Obama with, and they're pretty desperate these days. So they're grasping at lies, Pathetic, but true.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

any more and we'll be like Denmark

You could do a lot worse than to be like Denmark.

with the financial burden of Americans....

The richest country on the planet, and you can't afford to see to it that your new citizens have the best possible start in life?

we've done fine without the metric system so far

UN bless you count the $327.6 million that NASA lost when it used the wrong units to calibrate the Mars Climate Orbiter.

Or NASA's Constellation programme, which was virtually scrapped when it was realised that converting to metric would cost $370 million.

My wife had 90 days maternity leave.

A measly 3 months???

unlike liberals, and Atheists, we tend to try to make things more cost effective in order to uphold strong family values for a better quality life

What makes you think an atheist doesn't want cost-effectiveness, strong family values and a better quality life?

Why does everything with you have to be US and THEM? Republicans vs Democrats, conservatives vs liberals, Christians vs Atheists...?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

**Are you saying then, that parents who aren't working, don't keep a job (not can't, there is always work to be done), buy their kids expebsive brand name goods while getting free food handouts should be given a blank check to have as many kids as they can and be getting a salary to do it

Um, you only get mat leave when you are working so those who aren't working, don't benefit from it...

Yes, it's much better to give single moms no mat leave so they are forced to quit their job and go on welfare. Some of you really need to get your head examined and look at what Canada is doing. Be health care, mat leave, gun control... The US needs some serious help.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This from the UK Government:

Statutory Maternity Leave is 52 weeks. It’s made up of:

Ordinary Maternity Leave - first 26 weeks Additional Maternity Leave - last 26 weeks You don’t have to take 52 weeks but you must take 2 weeks’ leave after your baby is born (or 4 weeks if you work in a factory).

Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) is paid for up to 39 weeks. You get:

90% of your average weekly earnings (before tax) for the first 6 weeks £138.18 or 90% of your average weekly earnings (whichever is lower) for the next 33 weeks SMP is paid in the same way as your wages (eg monthly or weekly). Tax and National Insurance will be deducted.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@sense

Conveniently ignored, although you bash spendthrift Atheists

No, I just think that your question was not worth answering, however you cash bash conservatives, that's ok, right? Gotcha! Lol

Don't try to worm out of this one.

You should know me better than that, I never do, nor need to.

If more women could afford to keep their children, how would this impact the number of abortions? Have the testicular fortitude to answer questions.

So now you want to blame that on conservatives? Moving on....

@sushi and Jeff

Hey wow! I'm a politician now? :-)

My father once said to me, never get into politics if you have a conscious.

The US conservatives, however, need something to bash Obama with, and they're pretty desperate these days. So they're grasping at lies, Pathetic, but true.

It's people like you who are the problem, not Global Liberals.

No, it's how you liberals view life, it's the reason why we have accumulated staggering $17 trillion debt and still growing, that's the reason we have high unemployment in particularly Blue states of the largest cities, that's why minorities are failing, that's why unemployment benefits and other entitlements are through the roof and next you guys will lose the Senate and you guys are losing more elections, sorry, this around and I know it aches you libs to death, but 2014 is NOT your year and no amount of slandering and griping and throwing ad hom attacks will change that. And as for lies, reading the news the last few days, you guys literally invented the word. Deal with it, heck, I am. Thanks for finally seeing reality. :-)

Bottom line is, we can't afford it, if you want to implement the program, talk to your local representative.

@cleo

You could do a lot worse than to be like Denmark

After the last 6 years, I seriously doubt that.

The richest country on the planet, and you can't afford to see to it that your new citizens have the best possible start in life?

We don't have the funds for it. I don't think you realize the debt we are in.case used to, but now, give it a few more years, that too, shall change.

UN bless you count the $327.6 million that NASA lost when it used the wrong units to calibrate the Mars Climate Orbiter.

I like my phone, I like talking on it.

Or NASA's Constellation programme, which was virtually scrapped when it was realised that converting to metric would cost $370 million.

Thank our sainted anointed president for gutting NASA.

A measly 3 months???

Yes, my wife wanted to return to work after one month, but decided to stay a bit longer, hey, we make a lot of money have A lot of clients, travel and no one will pay our bills, I can't speak for others, but I like to hustle. I don't think 3 months is bad at all. But that depends on each family.

What makes you think an atheist doesn't want cost-effectiveness, strong family values and a better quality life?

It goes both ways, I just threw that out there. Conservatives also want and uphold the same values, but in a more cost- effective way.

Why does everything with you have to be US and THEM? Republicans vs Democrats, conservatives vs liberals, Christians vs Atheists...?

Please before you ask me that kind of ludicrous question, ask all the other so called self-identified liberals or progressives that like to take shots at conservatives, traditionalists or libertarians. If you go back and read their posts, it's always about ideology to them and partisanship. Nothing wrong with that. We all play it. Please don't cherry pick.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Obama could even join 21st century. Maternal leave is obsolete. Now, modern companies have a parental leave plan, it's an insurance system that allows mothers or fathers to get several months of paid leave whenever they have a new child (by birth or adoption). That's in addition to having sick leave covered by health insurance, for all the medical care that a pregnancy may entail, and sick child leave in case the kid requires special cares.

We don't have the funds for it.

That could have been said about slavery. Plantation owners had surely not the funds to pay the workers.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Please do not capitalize "atheist." We are not a religion; that's the whole point.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Nearly a trillion dollars wasted in Iraq while some of the right wing proponents of that debacle are moaning about budgets or sprinting down the street with pitchforks screaming 'socialism!' at the idea of maternity leave. Bloated military expenditure anyone? Outside of the weird and not too wonderful world of the US right, this looks very strange.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If the UK, a country of less than 70 million people, can give parents statutory paid maternity leave (including giving fathers some parental leave) then why can't the juggernaut that is America?

Japan gives mothers 26 weeks paid leave, twice what the UK gives. Even Greece, poverty stricken Greece gives mothers 34 days paid leave.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

paid maternity leave. LOL why would companies need to do that when they can just hire cheap mexican labour in there place

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's actually just another issue trumped up to unite the people. It must be successful now that Obama has lower approval rating than both GWB and Jimmy Carter.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Wonderful. More like France? Does Mr Obama also want France's high unemployment rate and stagnant economic growth? He has already succeeded in surpassing France's debt vs GDP ratio.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Please do not capitalize "atheist." We are not a religion; that's the whole point.

So then you mean it has no real legitimacy then. Gotcha!

@jim

Nearly a trillion dollars wasted in Iraq while some of the right wing proponents of that debacle are moaning about budgets or sprinting down the street with pitchforks screaming 'socialism!' at the idea of maternity leave. Bloated military expenditure anyone? Outside of the weird and not too wonderful world of the US right, this looks very strange.

It looks strange only to people that don't really understand what "debt" means. And yes, I will agree with you that Bush spent money like a drunken, but who approved that money? Also, just because Bush spent a lot of money and Obama triple that, doesn't mean we need to add even more to it. Had both presidents not waste all that money, money that MY kids will be paying for in the future, we could have enough for maternity leave.

@Thunder

You are using Greece as an example, Come on, really?

Also, I could give a squid what Europe does, we are NOT Europe, there was a reason why we left. Besides, that European entitlement culture is slowly but surely coming to a slow end anyhow, so enjoy, drink and live it up while you can.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@b4f,

I was hoping for proof of cojones, not shrill evasion.

Once more, what would Jesus say about paid maternity leave?

And would paid maternity leave likely: a) increase OR b) decrease the number of abortions?

No spin, deflections, diversions or ad hominem attacks, just rational manly answers, thanks.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Bass4funk,

Military spending has been greatly cut in the last few years?? You care to provided some links for that?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@SenseNotSoCommon

It's not worth asking the question about what Jesus would do. I'm now convinced they have read a different book to the rest of us. Did Ayn Rand write a gospel? I'm sure it would have been an improvement on the other things she wrote. In my book, if he was preaching his message in the US today, the right would probably label him a socialist and want him deported for preaching against the American way.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass4funk: It looks strange only to people that don't really understand what "debt" means.

When Republicans voted to explode the Border Security budget, was it because they understood debt? When they vote to strip the government of revenue, is it because they understand debt? When they vote to continue funding the military to the extent that they do, it's because of their healthy understanding of debt?

You pick and choose the times when you use that statement. It's insane to you that we could offer maternity leave at a time of high debt, yet building a useless fence between us and Mexico doesn't seem to get the same response. You think a wall is necessary, others think paid maternity leave is necessary. If you lived by your own statements then you'd be forced to support cutting the things you yourself support, but you don't.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

bass -

Your country doesn't have the funds to look after new-born Americans and their mothers, but you see fit to sneer at Obama for cutting funding to NASA? Spaceships and going to Mars is more important than Mom?

Do you choke on apple pie, too?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is an important step Americans should embrace. Perhaps sponsoring mothership is controversial now, but if USA wants to keep its edge as a world power, a large population is essential to that. Take a look at what is happening to Japan right now. If Japanese population would be at around 200 million by now, it surely would be a in a better economic shape. At least there would be the perspective of a younger generation that could do better that the current one. Retirees would appreciate that.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass -

Your country doesn't have the funds to look after new-born Americans and their mothers

What is the annual cost of defence?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

"Only four countries have no national law mandating paid time off for new parents: Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and the United States."

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I was hoping for proof of cojones, not shrill evasion.

Yes, I have THE Cajones (as I have been told) and I already gave you and explanation.

No spin, deflections, diversions or ad hominem attacks, just rational manly answers, thanks.

Rational, dude? Lol

@super

When Republicans voted to explode the Border Security budget, was it because they understood debt? When they vote to strip the government of revenue, is it because they understand debt? When they vote to continue funding the military to the extent that they do, it's because of their healthy understanding of debt?

More like Dems and the anointed one lying about having secure borders when it's anything but, adding to the national debt, trying to downsize and defund our military at this clear and present time while China, Russia and the Jihadists increase theirs, there I fixed it for you. Did I mention about adding to the $17 trillion that Dems never want to discuss? Silly me....

You pick and choose the times when you use that statement.

But you libs don't? Once again, partisan hypocrisy at its worst!

It's insane to you that we could offer maternity leave at a time of high debt, yet building a useless fence between us and Mexico doesn't seem to get the same response.

Useless fence?!? I can't believe I just...WT....

Dude, you once again made my point, I will just leave it at that

You think a wall is necessary, others think paid maternity leave is necessary. If you lived by your own statements then you'd be forced to support cutting the things you yourself support, but you don't.

Hey, I mean, who cares about security, right, it's just a small bag of peanuts. 2 more years can't fly by fast enough!

@cleo

Your country doesn't have the funds to look after new-born Americans and their mothers, but you see fit to sneer at Obama for cutting funding to NASA? Spaceships and going to Mars is more important than Mom?

No, not at all, but the truth of the matter, both parties from the last 2 years of Bush to Obama taking the mantel and continuing the spending added with steroids and the constant printing of money is killing this country, you don't live here, but I do and I see what's happening and I see my home state being raped by taxes. It is an absolute tax hell and we can't afford it, let alone the entire nation, so if Dems would meet halfway on seriously cutting back on entitlements and the Repubs cutting some of the military, I wouldn't object, but to add more burden on the already over taxed American public is unsustainable and not manageable at this point and time, but if private companies want and can provide maternity, then go for it, not a problem.

Do you choke on apple pie, too?

Never, but it is my absolute favorite, but can't see that ever happening to me, slow bites is the key and chewing properly also helps!

@zichi

What is the annual cost of defense?

What is the annual cost of US entitlements?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

"raising questions about how he would fund such a system"

Cut military aid to Israel, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No, not at all, but the truth of the matter, both parties.....

Then why the constant sneers at Obama and never a word against Bush?

we can't afford it....

Then why is Obama 'sainted anointed' for cutting ('gutting') the NASA budget? Wasn't it the sensible thing to do? Or are toys for boys more important?

How is it meeting halfway when you want one side to be 'seriously cutting back' while you want the other side to be only 'cutting some'? Why not both 'cutting some'? Or both 'seriously cutting back'? Or even completely gutting the money-guzzling programmes like flying to Mars and building bigger, better bombs for killing people with?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Then why the constant sneers at Obama and never a word against Bush?

Then you need to read my posts, I criticized Bush on many things where it was necessary and there were things he did that urked me, I am NOT a partisan, it's just that he's not in the WH, he is NOT the president and there is no need to go back and say, "you know Bush did..." that's the past, can't change it, now we have Obama and he is screwing up majorly and I will call him out on his flaws and sadly, he has way too many, especially for these last 6 years.

How is it meeting halfway when you want one side to be 'seriously cutting back' while you want the other side to be only 'cutting some'?

I believe in a strong military and protecting the homeland and our allies, pure and simple and you can't do that with Tonka Toy guns. I don't feel comfortable when China and the Jihadists (a little different, they stole the cash) are increasing their yearly defense budget as well as Russia and we are decreasing ours, that doesn't sit well with me at all!

Why not both 'cutting some'? Or both 'seriously cutting back'? Or even completely gutting the money-guzzling programmes like flying to Mars and building bigger, better bombs for killing people with?

I hear what you are saying and I don't think it's unreasonable, but I do believe in preventing another attack from happening on our shores and I want our men and women to have the best. We have to be right and vigilante all the time, the terrorists have to be right just once.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Rational, dude? Lol

Thank you very much for the latest evasion.

Proof of the yawning chasm between conservatives' moral positions and Christ's teachings, and their utter inability to face it.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Proof of the yawning chasm between conservatives' moral positions and Christ's teachings, and their utter inability to face it.

No, just proves that God doesn't need to be part of the argument, you are talking about personal faith which varies from person to person, Obama is the person that is the president, so keep the argument relevant to the discussion, when JT has a debate about religion, then we can talk about the teachings and the philosophy of Christianity. By the way, there are millions of liberals that are religious as well.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@bass

Nonesense, we just don't think with the financial burden of Americans that we have to subsidize more and more government entitlements. If it's private, I don't have a problem with it, I support it 100%

Yes, private programs are the perfect solution. Choice instead of coercion. Americans have proven over and over again that they are the most generous people in the world. The Federal government has a negative cash flow. The Democrat party can easily create a private foundation to support programs and incentives for business to provide this need to people. It is not necessary to further impoverish the nation and future generations.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

That's the problem, they don't care and why is that? Because with all their PhDs, logic and science and so called rationale, they can't apply and use simple math. It frankly and profoundly astounds me. But it's ok, to have open borders and Swiss sized neutered military, with everything that is going on in Geopolitics, I'm amazed that at this point and time, this topic comes up.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No, just proves that God doesn't need to be part of the argument, you are talking about personal faith which varies from person to person.

Keeping it secular then, the great "family values" conservative demographic opposes supporting those many women for whom abortion is anathema, but are forced to take that harrowing decision for economic reasons.

Obama is the person that is the president, so keep the argument relevant to the discussion.

The argument is a moral one, sufficiently compelling that almost every other country has paid maternal leave. If Pakistan could legislate 12 weeks in 1958, what's the big issue for your beloved superpower?

By the way, there are millions of liberals that are religious as well.

Like the hippy guy who preached love; threw the money changers out of the temple; and on taxation, said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?" Or does personal faith allow us to airbrush these inconvenient teachings?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Wow, add me to the list of non-Americans who are gobsmacked that the US doesn't currently offer it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Keeping it secular then, the great "family values" conservative demographic opposes supporting those many women for whom abortion is anathema, but are forced to take that harrowing decision for economic reasons.

I oppose ANYTHING that will further burden the tax payers if it is NOT for a major crisis. I'm conservative, YES. I'm not an ideologue, but we can't keep kicking the can down the road and keep adding to the debt. Spend, spend, spend. Greece did that and look what happened and the same is slowly happening throughout most of Europe. If a woman wants to get an abortion, that is her choice, I have no say in the matter and the woman is the one that has to deal with it either emotionally or physically. So yes, the safety and the stability of the country first. But I am against funding anything that should belong to the private sector-period!

The argument is a moral one, sufficiently compelling that almost every other country has paid maternal leave. If Pakistan could legislate 12 weeks in 1958, what's the big issue for your beloved superpower?

I already outlined it for you, of course it is a very compelling argument, but we are NOT Pakistan or Sweden or France or Bangladesh for that matter, I ONLY care about what happens to the US of A! If I envied those countries I would have moved there, been there, nice place to visit, but I like the US better, even if liberals destroy it.

Like the hippy guy who preached love; threw the money changers out of the temple; and on taxation, said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?" Or does personal faith allow us to airbrush these inconvenient teachings?

Sense, you are not making ANY sense. For someone who hates religion and mocks it, you seem to know your Bible quite well. 2000 years ago, Jesus didn't have to deal with sky rocketing 417 trillion dollar debt, an open border, over taxed citizens, mortgages and the list goes on. Bad comparison.

@spanki

I'm NOT surprised that you non-Americans are surprised.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I read an anecdote today in a different paper. "If a family buys a Lamborghini, then cannot afford to buy dinner for their children, that does not mean the price of food is too expensive".

As long as the US continues to spend $600+ billion on their military, they will not have enough money to pay for their people. That does not mean that the costs of the people are too expensive, it simply means the US has bad priorities on how it spends its money.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I oppose ANYTHING that will further burden the tax payers if it is NOT for a major crisis....I am against funding anything that should belong to the private sector

Then why did you disapprove so strongly of cuts to the NASA budget? Going into space is not a major crisis.

For someone who hates religion and mocks it, you seem to know your Bible quite well.

I think you'll find a lot of those most scathing of religion are those who had it stuffed down their throats (whether by over-zealous parents or church schools) as kids - the more we know of the BIble, the more glaring the discrepancies, both within the scriptures themselves and between the teachings of Jesus and the various interpretations put forward by organised religion. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Jesus didn't have to deal with sky rocketing 417 trillion dollar debt

No, he advocated poverty: What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? (Matthew 16:26) and not spending what you don't have in the first place: For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' (Luke 14:28-30)

an open border

His homeland was occupied by the Romans. The borders don't get much more open than that.

over taxed citizens

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Matthew 22:21)

mortgages

Well he was a carpenter, he could build his own house.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So yes, the safety and the stability of the country first

Any nation is about people. How can all men be created equal when a mother working in a supermarket cannot afford her own childbirth?

If I envied those countries (which provide paid maternity leave) I would have moved there.

Contradicting yourself. Japan provides paid maternity leave too. Living with the social system here must really get you down. Wouldn't you rather pay more for your dentist?

For someone who hates religion and mocks it.

When did I mock anyone's religion?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@stranger

As long as the US continues to spend $600+ billion on their military, they will not have enough money to pay for their people. That does not mean that the costs of the people are too expensive, it simply means the US has bad priorities on how it spends its money.

Entitlement spending has been one of the highest in 20 years and is approaching $2.2 Trillion and that was in 2010 alone, we are spending more than we are taking in. Which equals the GDP of Italy and close to that of the UK. And you complain about military cost being out of control??? Yeah, I see where the priorities are and where they need some serious cuts and it's NOT the military. How about the Dems cutting it down to an even $600 billion, I would go for that. Make it even.

@cleo

Then why did you disapprove so strongly of cuts to the NASA budget? Going into space is not a major crisis.

Kinda is, when it comes to the advances of China, Russia and the other countries. I like to stay ahead.

I think you'll find a lot of those most scathing of religion are those who had it stuffed down their throats (whether by over-zealous parents or church schools) as kids - the more we know of the BIble, the more glaring the discrepancies, both within the scriptures themselves and between the teachings of Jesus and the various interpretations put forward by organised religion. Familiarity breeds contempt.

True.

Also, I was talking in 2014 terms. It's a bit more difficult to compare the lifestyles back then and today. We have cars and cellphones, they had camels and pigeons getting around and sending messages took a lot longer.

@sense

Any nation is about people. How can all men be created equal when a mother working in a supermarket cannot afford her own childbirth?

Don't give me that crap! Of course, all men are created equal, has nothing to do with tax payers having to foot the bill for every woman's maternity leave!

Contradicting yourself. Japan provides paid maternity leave too.

So what's your point?

Living with the social system here must really get you down. Wouldn't you rather pay more for your dentist?

I have money and also, I don't go to a Japanese Dentist, I usually go when I get back to the states. I fly back 4 times a year. My cousin is an Orthodontist, so I wouldn't really know about Japan's social system.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"the United States should join the rest of the industrialized world and offer paid leave for mothers of newborns....There is only one developed country in the world that does not offer paid maternity leave, and that is us,” Obama said"

Shouldn't all the non-developed countries also get with the program here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Entitlement spending has been one of the highest in 20 years and is approaching $2.2 Trillion and that was in 2010 alone, we are spending more than we are taking in. Which equals the GDP of Italy and close to that of the UK. And you complain about military cost being out of control???

Hello apple, meet orange.

As I said, America has a priority problem. $600 billion on the military, but they cannot afford to give mothers some time off after birth? Just goes to show that the American government places more priority on taking life, than creating it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

">Don't give me that crap! Of course, all men are created equal, has nothing to do with tax payers having to foot the bill for every woman's maternity leave!

So it's fine for a company to offer its management paid maternity leave, but not its staff.

That seems to be the corporate eugenics at play, aided and abetted by "family values" zealots who block any initiatives requiring firms to provide these benefits to all.

Circle the wagons because your demographic is threatened. Don't let 'em in; don't let 'em breed!"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hammer hits nail.

As I said, America has a priority problem. $600 billion on the military, but they cannot afford to give mothers some time off after birth? Just goes to show that the American government places more priority on taking life, than creating it.

And as I stated before we have a $2.2 Trillion just for entitlements, now we are going to add more to the already exploding deficit? Dems don't want to give up anything, but as long as they can get money from people, who cares. The IRS took in last year over $900 Trillion in revenue, how much more money do they need to take from us. You say the priority is life, so given the developing circumstances in the ME and many other countries, we need to build up our military and tighten up our borders first before anything else, that should be first priority! Second, cut many of the heavy entitlement programs, bring down or repeal Obamacare in its current form and bring down premiums, then there should be room left over for maternity, if companies can afford it and it's not a burden on the tax payer and the length of time would be up to the mother and her employer, I wouldn't object to that.

@sense

So it's fine for a company to offer its management paid maternity leave, but not its staff.

I never said that, but maternity costs more, so if the employer can afford it. When I was at NBC, we had an excellent health benefits and maternity up to 6 months and negotiable if more time needed. Again, it depends on the company.

That seems to be the corporate eugenics at play, aided and abetted by "family values" zealots who block any initiatives requiring firms to provide these benefits to all.

No, it basically boils down to Big government sticking its nose once again in peoples lives, telling them what they must do and it's wrong IMHO. If you don't like what your employer offers you, get a better job that does offer the care that you want, simple.

Circle the wagons because your demographic is threatened. Don't let 'em in; don't let 'em breed!"

If it's breeding a liberal monstrosity, then that would be scary.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Some misunderstanding up there.. To clarify, the Canadian system is paid out of EI, employment insurance. You have to have paid into general EI from your working life (which is automatic here. We also get paid vacation...anyways..). The government is merely the service provider of our money, not the original payer. Companies do not pay this either. It's from ourselves back to ourselves. Insurance yo?

Go to ca.indeed.com and type maternity leave in the search, and you will see tons of jobs. Often on contract from 6 months to 12 months, but more often than not the listing will say 'for 1 year'.

While it may look like an example of companies recognizing that they have a social responsibility, and in America that may have to be the case to have attractive perks, but in reality in Canada it's not like they have a choice as they have to abide by the laws of our country. The company does not wag the Canadian in this case.

Oddly USA doesn't like government, even though they elect them in?! I don't know what's going on there. It's like citizenship has no value if a company doesn't grace it first.

For any Japanese reading these threads I hope you find it interesting. You can really spot the differences in our countries around the world compared with USA. Basically it comes down to that we like our governments. We elect them in after all. Our choice was to have a lot of maternity leave. Other countries may have differences and that's fine, that's what they decided.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Stranger

Any nation is about people. How can all men be created equal when a mother working in a supermarket cannot afford her own childbirth?

You are confused. To say "all men created equal" means that all citizens are of equal worth and that they should all be treated equally under the law. It does not mean that all should be provided with the same material goods or services by the government. All are allowed to pursue their own happiness in whichever manner they choose. Even in heavily socialist countries there are privileged people that have way more than others. The ability to afford childbirth is a wholly separate matter worthy of debate in a different context.

@Bass

The IRS took in last year over $900 Trillion in revenue, how much more money do they need to take from us

I think you over shot that just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_federal_budget

Actually the US federal government takes in a bit more than $3 trillion a year. The problem is that about $700 billion more will be spent than what is taken in. This is obviously unsustainable. It is why the total debt is upwards of $18 trillion. And it just keeps going up and up far into the future. The last thing America needs is yet another expensive entitlement program. The current generation is mortgaging their own children and grandchildren's futures for their own wants today. It's pretty sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are confused.

No, I'd say you're confused, seeing as I didn't make the comment you are attributing to me.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Stranger

No, I'd say you're confused, seeing as I didn't make the comment you are attributing to me.

I was indeed confused and attributed a comment by SenseNotSoCommon to you. That was my mistake and I apologize for that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Short Term Disability for Maternity Leave

Short term disability insurance for maternity leave generates payments while you recover from normal childbirth. Having a policy allows you to spend more time bonding with your baby, and less time worrying about how to pay your bills. Apply for maternity leave benefits after your child is born by completing an express pregnancy claims form.

I remember now the short term disability may be applicable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oddly USA doesn't like government, even though they elect them in?! I don't know what's going on there. It's like citizenship has no value if a company doesn't grace it first.

We don't like BIG government, big difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's hardly a "fact." Scandinavian countries have been "socialist" for decades. How come they're so rich and well educated...and in absolutely no danger of "running out of money" (apart possibly from Eurozone member Finland)?

I have answers to those questions!

Sweden, like the Swiss, stayed neutral during both world war 1 and world war 2. As you might have guess that not being involved in two very destructive wars plays a very large role into why they are so well off. The peace dividend it enormous, it came out with an incredible upper hand and that is intact labor and intact infrastructure that didn't need to be repaired. Just look at the US right now, war after war after war, pretty much bankrupt.

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/Swedish-economic-history/From-War-to-the-Swedish-Model/

Norway is pretty much the Saudi Arabia of Europe, if you exclude Russia. Its population is basically the size of one of the suburbs of Tokyo. Think of it like Kuwait, extremely small population but extremely wealthy natural resources wise.

Finland was pretty much an economic backwater till around the 1980's when its massive investment gamble in electronics and heavy industry paid. Think of companies like Nokia and Kone. Like Israel, Finland has a small and a well-knit population of well educated people. This strength enabled it to grow strong in the service & the information revolution since the 1980s. If it wasn't for that investment in those industries Finland would most likely still be an economic backwater.

Denmark on the other hand has been extremely wealthy for centuries. You have to remember it was a major major major major major major major colonial power back in the day. Did I mention they were a major colonial power? Like Sweden it stayed neutral during both world wars, it was occupied by Nazi Germany during ww2 but there was pretty much no damage to the country during the occupation. So you take the Sweden/Swiss economic benefits of not fighting in two of the most destructive wars on the planet and you also combined the fact that they were already an extremely wealthy country for centuries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its the right thing 2 do but they don't have the money 2 do it.

Maybe if they Holt china's growth and cut it by 5%, then get India to mop up the loss market, America can cut its army budget buy 25%. As it stands China is upgrading its army and is doing what they 100% promised they would not, building and spending mass money into weapons for war.

America needs to cut its D-Budget by 30% and 2 do that they need to Holt china's income = weapons budget and let Russia stay like they are now.

America FBI and CIA and so on need to keep hacking the banks doing fraud, that sees banks lose $50+ billion a year, from there profits. So its paid out of share holders and profits mad PA.

If America was smart, they would cut 30% from there budget after doing all that and would save it up. What they need to do is put that 30% or $215 billion dollars into a low interest can not lose banks deposit, then start self funding all gov departments. If a department needs $14 billion a year in funding, they can give them $215 billion and its put into a long term "safe" deposit that makes 6% interest pa. So 6% off $215 billion =s $15 billion pa.

What they could do is self fund NASA with 2 years of this funding for life. NASA could be living off $30 billion pa. What they need to do is save 5% of that income and put it back in making more interest. In 10 years time when wages and cost go up, that money put back in made from the interest interest will make the department self funded for life.

In the end 2 years funding can self fund NASA for life and the America Budget can save $25 billion every 2 years. Cut taxes or so on as departments are becoming self funded.

It would take 120 years to do most of them but in 10 years the results would be seen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is an idiot socialist, most companies and states offer maternity leave under sick leave. Only the lowest, temp or part time jobs do not have benefits. Obama has been busy destroying the US economy that he knows very little about, while he also encourages illegals from Mexico and South America to take American jobs and give their children free educations, medical care, and food. they also are perpetrating massive voter fraud to keep the socialist Democrats in office against the will of the working people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is an idiot socialist, most companies and states offer maternity leave under sick leave. Only the lowest, temp or part time jobs do not have benefits. Obama has been busy destroying the US economy that he knows very little about, while he also encourages illegals from Mexico and South America to take American jobs and give their children free educations, medical care, and food. they also are perpetrating massive voter fraud to keep the socialist Democrats in office against the will of the working people.

@knight_of_Honour So do you have any facts to back this up or are you just regurgitating what you heard on Fox? You're paragraph is only filled with opinions but nothing on examples or facts. I could just as easily replace Obama with your name and get people to believe it with little effort. Last I checked, yesterday, the US has had it's 5th strait month of job growth where jobs added was over 200k. Unemployment is at 6.1%, and the DOW closed above 17k on Friday. Those are my facts... where's yours???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites