Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Examining Ways to Ease 'Family Burdens' on Working Women
CNS News ^ | 03/13/2014 | Susan Jones

Posted on 03/16/2014 10:17:46 AM PDT by Rusty0604

The Obama administration wants more women to work outside the home, and it is examining ways to make that happen.

Among other things, Stevenson said the Working Families Summit will consider ways to "release constraints" on women, including their role as care-givers, which deprive them of wages and career opportunities:

(President Obama also spoke of the "burdens" on women Wednesday. During a meeting with female members of Congress, he noted that "women are still the ones that are carrying the greatest burden when it comes to trying to balance family and work. Because of inadequate child care or the inability to get paid leave for a sick child or an ailing parent, they end up suffering the burdens, and by the way, that means families are suffering the burden because increasingly, women are a critical breadwinner for families all across the country.")

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: bho44; women; workforce
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
From personal experience in business, forcing business to give extensive time off for family matters with pay and benefits and also sometimes having to pay a temporary replacement is very costly to implement and administrate. I have known many employees that abused their "rights". Some of them would have probably lost their jobs because they were not doing it, but the business cannot make that decision if they are family leave.
1 posted on 03/16/2014 10:17:46 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

govt - we will become your parents. we’ve been doing it more and more since the 60s.


2 posted on 03/16/2014 10:19:12 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

‘burdens’ on women.

you know children are burdens. so says president mom jeans.


3 posted on 03/16/2014 10:19:59 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
I reject the WH's premise.
4 posted on 03/16/2014 10:20:36 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (15 years of FReeping! Congratulations EEE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

No need to find new ways to ease parenthood so the mom and pop can work.

Look no farther than the old Soviet Union model of removing kids from home and allowing them grow up and be indoctrinated in state run programs and institutions.


5 posted on 03/16/2014 10:21:10 AM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
Have heard of a couple in Canada--the wife gets nine months maternity, and the dad can claim a few months himself! Some Americans move there, work and have children, then plan on moving back to the US. There are some women who end up working just a couple of months out of every years.

Actually, maybe it's not such a bad idea. As it is, it seems like the only people in the US who are having children are illegal aliens and Muslims.

6 posted on 03/16/2014 10:23:05 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

They talk about War on Women, but as the labor participation rate continues to plummet, and as they try to get more women actively working, it sure starts to feel like a War on Working Men.


7 posted on 03/16/2014 10:24:41 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
So let me get this straight....the government wants more women WITH families to work? And these women then have to not only work, but take care of families? Many of these women don't have husbands and of the ones that do I'll guarantee that the majority of men don't do the majority of caring for the children.

So INSTEAD of freeing women from WORK, the government wants to FREE them from raising their family SO they can work??

8 posted on 03/16/2014 10:27:48 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

yep, and there are great economies in doing so.

indoctrination by volume.

obamidiots mass produced!

and wait! theres more! the bulk savings in buying potato greens, red oil and other groceries

welcome to the age of obam youth!


9 posted on 03/16/2014 10:27:49 AM PDT by himno hero (hadnuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

The Europeans get a lot of time off too. They say Americans are overworked.


10 posted on 03/16/2014 10:28:00 AM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem

“that Obama’s vision for federal involvement in the lives of very young children does not stop with 4-year-olds. Obama’s budget calls for HHS to spend $15 billion over 10 years to fund an Obamacare provision called the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. An HHS budget document says this program will send government-funded “nurses, social workers, and other professionals” into people’s homes to “improve parenting skills.” “I think that there still needs to be great understanding of what the president has put on the table is really a birth-to-five proposal, recognizing that you can’t start at 4-year-olds,” Sebelius said at the National Press Club. “We really need to start at birth,” said Sebelius. “So, there will be an enhancement of home-visiting”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3132384/posts


11 posted on 03/16/2014 10:30:36 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Crackhead. Besides, thanks to him and to those who share his policy beliefs, THERE ARE NO JOBS!! How can expanding the pool of labor be on the to-do list when there’s already an excess supply? Nitwit. This kind of idiocy is what happens when you let people play with the levers of power who don’t understand how stuff works.


12 posted on 03/16/2014 10:32:06 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

woe is wymyn
first they are punished with children
then they have to carry that burden that keeps them from enjoying their pink collar jobs
not to mention how hard it is to shop for groceries when letters on the labels aren’t an inch high and don’t tell you how many servings and calories per serving


13 posted on 03/16/2014 10:34:00 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
An HHS budget document says this program will send government-funded “nurses, social workers, and other professionals” into people’s homes to “improve parenting skills.”

Wow, surprisingly open-minded on The Won's part. I mean, it's obvious to all of US that drooling goobermint drones could learn a lot from normal parents, assuming they're at least the level referred to as "educable" or "trainable", but I never expected him to admit it. Kudos.

14 posted on 03/16/2014 10:34:39 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Take a load off Fanny, and they put the load right on me.


15 posted on 03/16/2014 10:35:24 AM PDT by MUDDOG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem

Yep, if mandatory kindergarten is good, why not mandatory preschool and daycare?


16 posted on 03/16/2014 10:38:47 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

not only a burden but a punishment (won’t punish them with a baby)


17 posted on 03/16/2014 10:40:36 AM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Is moochie doin’ her some thinkin’ on her vaca to china? It’s such a “burden” to have to fly on a huge jet with a whole passel of luggage toters and a couple of kids taggin’ along to see how the lower half lives. ‘Course they’ll never see how the real Chinese people live/survive.


18 posted on 03/16/2014 10:41:48 AM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Redneck. Race: Daytona 500)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604; All
With the exception of the federal entities indicated in the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 as examples, entities under the exclusive legisilative control of Congress, the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution the specific power to address family issues concerning woman. So Obama's first step to making constitutionally indefensible executive orders to demonize the family unit as a “burden” in order to win votes for the Democrats from working women is the following. /sarc

Obama needs to rally Congress to propose a working women amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification. And if the states choose to ratify his amendment then Congress will have the specific power that it needs to make legislation to support Obama to demonize the family unit as a "burden" in order to win votes from working woman and Obama will be a hero. /sarc

19 posted on 03/16/2014 10:42:39 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I like your perspective.


20 posted on 03/16/2014 10:45:11 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

See post #11.


21 posted on 03/16/2014 10:46:11 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
He doesn't want anyone's daughters to be burdened with babies; he doesn't want anyone to be burdened with their own doctor; he doesn't want the US military to be burdened with capability; he doesn't want America to be burdened with energy self-sufficiency, he doesn't want anyone on the planet burdened with privacy; he doesn't doesn't want Israel to be burdened with existence, and now he apparently wants to make sure "working women" aren't burdened with controlling any aspect of their own families' lives without government interference.

He just wants to make all of our yokes easy and our burdens light, but only in the best post-Christian, secular humanist, socialist way. Creepy.

Mr. niteowl77

22 posted on 03/16/2014 10:52:23 AM PDT by niteowl77 ("Why do we go to Iowa? Because that's where the suckers are.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Thanks God for women. God has endowed them with an abundance of love and caring for their family. But it is the government that endowed them with the burden of bread winner by making it palpable for business to export the jobs of their husband. Of course, business needs little incentive to grab for a bigger share of the money where men and women compete for the same job.


23 posted on 03/16/2014 11:02:57 AM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

How about easing working burdens on FAMILY Women?


24 posted on 03/16/2014 11:09:20 AM PDT by left that other site
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
"The Obama administration wants more women to work outside the home..."

I stopped right there.

Who cares what they "want?"

Leave us alone!

25 posted on 03/16/2014 11:09:27 AM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Hell. Let’s just give mothers 2 years off with pay and dad 2 or 3 months a year with pay to help. That would ease the burden. And mandatory minimum wage of 30 per hour now that they have kids to feed.


26 posted on 03/16/2014 11:10:25 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Egads—we’re doomed.


27 posted on 03/16/2014 11:19:37 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

How about cutting all Middle Class families’ taxes in half, so that working women don’t have to work to pay their families’ taxes? In the ‘50s, mothers could stay home and tend to their children and home because families could get along nicely on the father’s paycheck.

Then this rapacious government started hogging the families’ resources, forcing mothers to work, and our children have suffered for it. No one can “have it all” except the greedy government, of course. They can never do with less


28 posted on 03/16/2014 11:25:16 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Rusty0604; narses; little jeremiah

“So let me get this straight....the government wants more women WITH families to work? And these women then have to not only work, but take care of families? Many of these women don’t have husbands and of the ones that do I’ll guarantee that the majority of men don’t do the majority of caring for the children.

So INSTEAD of freeing women from WORK, the government wants to FREE them from raising their family SO they can work??”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No this is some kind of ploy to get obamacare to pay for abortions and birth control you just watch. I know what they are up to. If women did not have the “burden” of children then they could work.

Well it’s not going to work. Because no matter how much birth control a woman takes or how many abortions she has her biological clock will go off like a fire alarm in a high rise causing her to want a baby and from there on it’s no stopping her. Like the old saying goes “You can’t fool Mother Nature”.


29 posted on 03/16/2014 11:26:08 AM PDT by Morgana (Wagglebee please come home we miss you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

Are any “middle class” families paying that much in income tax?

The top 20% are paying 93% of all US income taxes.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757


30 posted on 03/16/2014 11:28:35 AM PDT by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

I seem to remember his relieving the “burden” would be that they never become mothers.


31 posted on 03/16/2014 11:29:53 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

You are right on.


32 posted on 03/16/2014 11:33:14 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

He already did that by pushing abortion. You know, don’t burden those gals with a baby.

I can fix this better than Obama, keep it in yer pants.


33 posted on 03/16/2014 11:34:27 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem
Look no farther than the old Soviet Union model of removing kids from home and allowing them grow up and be indoctrinated in state run programs and institutions.

BINGO! That's exactly what this is.

They started gradually. With public schools. Can you imagine giving your CHILD to strangers for 30 hours per week? If someone came down from another planet, they wouldn't believe it. But we STILL think schools are the normal thing to do. From there, K, pre-K, universal daycare, and of course, the draft, are just increments. The State becomes God and owns us.

Homeschooling is probably the most important issue out there. Look for a crackdown.

34 posted on 03/16/2014 11:34:58 AM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (On the wrong side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

And for the babies that do slip by and are born, they have plans to have the gov’t take care of them from that moment on.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3132384/posts


35 posted on 03/16/2014 11:36:40 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

If they want to work accept the burden totally or quit!

Time off for family it total bull crap.

I don’t get time off to run a business and i don’t give anyone time off from work, male or female.


36 posted on 03/16/2014 11:44:01 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

I didn’t say “income taxes.” I refer to all taxes by all governments, local, state and federal, that have their snouts in the taxpayers’ pockets. Many working women make $3000/mo. or less. If they are paying for childcare, it is a money losing proposition.


37 posted on 03/16/2014 11:57:15 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

The good part is most non-income taxes can be avoided / mitigated by lifestyle and location changes.

Even devout liberals move to Florida to die to avoid state death taxes, as an example.


38 posted on 03/16/2014 12:03:08 PM PDT by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Yes.

The guvment will then set up state run daycares to be paid for with your tax dollars.

the guvment will then be able to completely indoctrinate the kids from cradle to grave.

the guvment will then have a new dependency class.

but it’s all ok because...wait for it:

IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!


39 posted on 03/16/2014 12:15:02 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Such BS.

How about ease the burden on women who refute society’s crap and sacrifice to stay home and raise kids who become contributors to society?

That’s what I did. I stayed home and made do, did without EVERYTHING, sacrificed career, vacations, fancy furniture and raised great kids who are now contributing tax-paying non-burdensome non-criminal members of society.

What do I get for all that effort??

The working women I knew did pretty well, dressed really nice, got away from their parenting responsibilities for 8hours a day ...ate lunch out, went on nice vacations and had really nice homes. A lot of their kids turned out fine, but some also turned out really screwed up from lack of close minded parenting.

What was the NET gain or loss in these matters?


40 posted on 03/16/2014 12:19:14 PM PDT by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“The guvment will then set up state run daycares to be paid for with your tax dollars.”

And the worst part is that government daycare will be mandated. No more staying with Grandma or a daycare provider chosen by you.


41 posted on 03/16/2014 12:21:03 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Evil — there is no other word for the Democrat Party.

Just plain evil.


42 posted on 03/16/2014 1:48:20 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Taxpayers already pay for other people’s kids daycare. Most States have programs that pay for most of the daycare for low income parents. Then some States have so many licensing fees, teacher education and certification requirements and food, other regulations that the daycares that participate in the program are unaffordable, making all parents low income and thereby qualifying for gov’t assistance.
Some States have declared these daycare workers gov’t employees and unionize them.


43 posted on 03/16/2014 2:12:05 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

“How about cutting all Middle Class families’ taxes in half, so that working women don’t have to work to pay their families’ taxes?In the ‘50s, mothers could stay home and tend to their children and home because families could get along nicely on the father’s paycheck.”

Women willingly turn themselves into human batteries, working full-time jobs and caring for children, just to pay TAXES?! Make me laugh.

Families can still live on one paycheck if they embrace the 50s lifestyle: one car per married couple (no car loans), small houses, no credit cards, no passports, free broadcast TV only, one landline, and one cheap cell phone for emergencies.

All the men who are willing to give up the bonus room, the SUV, and the jet ski, raise your hands.

All the women who are willing to go back to five dresses, three pairs of shoes, two purses and a Sunday dress, raise your hands.

(I’m not seeing any hands...)


44 posted on 03/16/2014 2:29:38 PM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

I’m 52. Never had “family leave”, sick days, flexible hours or anything even close to that.

Why do folks think that employers should pay for time that the employee don’t work? Heck, I’m an employee and I don’t have enough balls to even ask.

What do you do? Go, “hey boss, my kids got a cold so I’m gonna take a few days off. Sorry. You know that’s really a burden on me so I’m sure you won’t mind being sure that you make up for the hours I’m not here.”

Then you get back to work. A cold lasts, generally, 7 days. Lets say you don’t have to work weekends so you’re only out 5 days. Of course, you catch the kids cold.

“Hey boss, I’m feeling pretty bad. Got a cold. So I’ll be taking a few of those sick days that I have built up.”

Really? I was brought up to think that I’d get paid for the hours I worked. I must be a real sucker.


45 posted on 03/16/2014 2:58:14 PM PDT by saleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saleman

When my son was a baby he was sick a lot, and I had to miss work to stay home and take care of him. The company I worked for let me go because of missing too much work. I understood why they had to do it; I would have never thought that just because I worked for them that they were responsible for my family situations.


46 posted on 03/16/2014 3:06:06 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Why not just take the children away from their parents at birth and start indoctrinating them from scratch? /sarc/


47 posted on 03/16/2014 4:01:55 PM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

This already exists at least in Ohio. “Help Me Grow” a function of local Health Departments and Districts. Apparently becoming federalized. No reason to. Local counties fund/funded it. But is an area of potential federal encroachment, like education and nutrition in schools etc. Everything! [All at First ‘Lady’s’ Fiat]


48 posted on 03/16/2014 4:03:12 PM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem

Napoleon sees little value in Snowball’s committees, but he says he believes in the importance of educating the young. When two dogs give birth, Napoleon trains their nine puppies in a secret place...

Just as Snowball finishes speaking, Napoleon makes an odd whimpering sound. Suddenly nine vicious dogs, the dogs Napoleon had reared from pups, bound into the barn. The dogs jump at Snowball, who runs. The dogs chase Snowball, who flees through a hole in a hedge that leads out of Animal Farm. Once Snowball is gone, the dogs surround Napoleon like a guard. Napoleon announces to the terrified and silent farm animals that the Sunday meetings are over. A special committee of pigs will now decide all Animal Farm policy and give weekly orders on Sunday morning when the animals gather to salute the flag and sing “Beasts of England.”

http://litcharts.com/lit/animal-farm/chapter-5


49 posted on 03/16/2014 4:22:20 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

“Like”


50 posted on 03/16/2014 4:53:29 PM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson