Occupy Wall Street Movement

[ksst]

Just about everything to do with having kids is screwed up- unless you're already wealthy, sometimes even then. So everyone will admit that children are needed, I hope, to continue the human race. But if you have kids, most people need two parents working to support them. Then you have to pay some one else a very small amount (although it seems big to the payer) to basically raise your kids 9 hours a day up to school age. When we decided to have kids this equation didn't make sense to me. We discussed who would stay home and my husband basically said, I will stay home if you want to work, but it's not my first choice. My first choice was to stay home. At that point he was in school (post college) and I was the sole earner. He graduated and I gave birth to our first in the same month, then we moved across the county to where he was offered a job. New baby, new city, no friends or relatives. It was hard, but you do what you have to do.

Now that the kids are in school, I'm working part time, but if there is ever a day I have to put them in day care, that, plus my gas to get to work, uses up my paycheck for the day, so I try to avoid doing that and rely on my days off being flexible. I feel I am extremely lucky as far as being able to do this; I know a lot of other parents who have it much harder. Part of it is not luck, though.

As far as the new decision, that was what I was hearing on the radio, I don't claim to really understand the ruling. I hadn't even heard it was about a movie.

[js207]

Just about everything to do with having kids is screwed up- unless you're already wealthy, sometimes even then. So everyone will admit that children are needed, I hope, to continue the human race.

Rather like the obesity problem: yes, we need food to survive as individuals and kids to survive as a species. Preferably without confusing the two! In both cases, though, we have the problem that we are producing far, far more than is good for us - and in both cases the government's promoting this unhealthy excess for political benefit. Maybe if more of us took a stand against these unhealthy and counterproductive subsidies...

As far as the new decision, that was what I was hearing on the radio, I don't claim to really understand the ruling. I hadn't even heard it was about a movie.

It's sad - the Green Party made a particularly dishonest comment at the time, trying to pretend they were different from other political parties in not taking contributions from corporations and claiming this ruling "hurt" them as a result, while Obama made some rather bizarre and misleading claims, along with dog-whistle xenophobia about "foreign corporations", about it in his State of the Union: apparently in Obama-math, 2002 was "a century" before 2010. Maybe that explains his wonky budget numbers...

Unlike the Green Party, though, he could at least claim to be worse affected than his opponents: the previous censorship law exempted media companies, which largely support him and his party, so he did stand to lose with the restoration of a level playing field.