David Brooks, NYTimes: Women should have children and then a career

[BrklynLiberal]

Neil Gilbert observes in the current issue of The Public Interest that as women have entered the work force, they have adopted the male model, jumping directly into careers. Instead, he suggests, it would be better to make decisions based on what he calls the "life-course perspective." It's possible that women should sequence their lives differently from men, and that women may need a broader diversity of sequence options.
<snip>
It might make sense, for example, to give means-tested tax credits or tuition credits to stay-at-home parents. That would subsidize child-rearing, but in a way that leaves it up to families to figure out how to use it. The government spends trillions on retirees, but very little on young families.

I suspect that if more people had the chance to focus exclusively on child-rearing before training for and launching a career, fertility rates would rise. That would be good for the country, for as Phillip Longman, author of "The Empty Cradle," has argued, we are consuming more human capital than we are producing - or to put it another way, we don't have enough young people to support our old people. (That's what the current Social Security debate and the coming Medicare debate are all about.)

Any opinions on this???

[frogfromthenorth2]

1. Great idea!!!

[shrike]

5. Great idea?

A 40-year-old woman fresh out of graduate school, no professional work experience, 15+ years at home, goes out in the job market and finds -- what?

[frogfromthenorth2]

7. I was being sarcastic...lol

[shrike]

15. Good

You are a DUer, you're smarter than that.

[TomClash]

24. That fries come with a shake nt

[shrike]

28. LOL n/t

[mopinko]

2. we have plenty of young people

to support our old people. they are lined up 1,000s deep at our borders, just let them in. oops, i forgot, we only want WHITE young people.
what a load of crap.

[JPJones]

3. David Brooks is the token conservative, idiot , neo-con at NYT n/t

[bobbieinok]

60. 'token'????? J Miller, Safire, etc

[Coventina]

4. Ok Mr. Brooks, wanna give me the $$$ for these kids?

How the FUCK are people supposed to raise a family BEFORE they have the career and the money to do it??????

What a FUCKING MORON!!!!

[neverforget]

9. What? You're not rich? A man's place should be in the workplace

a woman's in the kitchen just like the 1950's <sarcasm> And they call liberals "elitist". :eyes:

[Clark2008]

38. Yeah! And a decent man to marry, too!

I'm sure there are many fine young men here at DU, but, in the regular world, a good, hard-working, mature and intelligent man (who isn't already taken) is hard to find.
I've been divorced for three years and have been on a total of about three dates. Pickin's are slim and I'm picky.

But, then I just turned 35, so I guess it doesn't matter anymore.

(For the record, I was married and have a child. Guess I did my "duty" in the world according to David Brooks.)

[phylny]

48. I did it that way, actually.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that every woman should do it, nor do I think everyone CAN do it. But we did.

We got married and I worked for four years before we had kids. I stayed home with them, went back to grad school, and got a graduate degree. I've been working now full-time since our youngest was 7 years old.

Of course, economic times were different back then (married in 1981, first child in 1985), but my husband didn't make near the money he makes now either. We did it by being frugal, by driving our cars until they dropped, by not buying a lot of stuff that we might need, using cloth diapers, buying toys and clothes for the kids at garage sales. There was a lot of self-sacrifice, but it was worth it, and I wouldn't have done it any other way.

[Coventina]

49. Congrats to you on your success

But a lot of us are ALREADY driving our cars until they drop, being frugal, etc. etc. etc. WITHOUT the added responsibility of kids.

I don't see why it isn't a bad idea to try to have children when you can offer them more.

[phylny]

51. I don't think it's a bad idea, and "success" didn't come until about

a year or so ago.

Recall that I never said that it's the way everyone should or COULD do it. I was responding to the notion that nobody could do it.

[notadmblnd]

6. I think now is the wrong time to be bringing children into this world

I have two children andif I had ever thought the country could have taken the turn it has.. both parents having to work....jobs being offshored...the possibility of a draft along with an eternal war and the fake religious facists slant the current regime is determined to bring about, makes me wish I had never brought them into this world.

I don't fear for myself, it's their futures I'm worried about.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. The world is already overpopulated

so we should encourage more fertility? And women should wait for careers-what about women like me, who didn't find their spouse until they were middle aged? Or does he think all women should be forced to marry when they are in their twenties?

[hfojvt]

20. Twenties? What are you, some kind of progressive?

Think 19th century when lots of "women" got married (and had children) before they were 18. And over-population? What are you, anti-life? Don't you know you can give everyone on this planet 10,000 square feet and still fit them all in the state of Texas? (I read a conservative argument that said something like that about ten years ago. I did the calculations and they were only off by 100.) Besides that, once the war machine gets cranking it can consume 50,000 people a year without breaking a sweat. It is like a giant plant in the basement of the White House saying "feed me, feed me." In Bush's first term, he demolished the "bridge to the 21st century", now the digging has commenced for the 2nd term's goal a "tunnel to the 19th century".

[hfojvt]

10. I love how the Republican solution to everything

involves tax credits. Thanks to the per child tax credit, a family of four making $40,000 is already only paying $45 in income taxes. So another tax credit is not going to do much of anything for people on the lower end unless it is refundable. When the per-child tax credit was increased to $1,000, Republicans went out of their way to make sure it was not refundable.
I suspect the real reason the right wing wants to see more kids is so we will have more young bodies to send into the meat-grinder of their eternal war.

[Inland]

14. Nothing that can't be fixed by tax credits to the already high incomes!

Anyone going to wonder if you have an income high enough to pay taxes with one wage earner, you have already won out in the ability to have children?

[shrike]

17. People with lots of kids have fewer choices

and will put up with their crap just to put food on the table.

[hfojvt]

23. who can afford a table?

In Bushland we now put "food on our families."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Right, all we need is for all the women who want children to

be sure to find husbands right out of college (which, of course, every woman can do just by wishing it to be so) and then join the workforce at the bottom of the ladder (or start medical or law school) when they're 35 or 40.

Meanwhile, their husbands, who are starting at the bottom of the ladder at age 22 (or perhaps going through medical or law school) are supposed to support them entirely.

What planet is David Brooks living on?

[LizW]

12. Rising fertility rates would be bad for the country

The reason the cons want more babies is that it keeps women out of the work force.

We have plenty of young people to support our old people if there were enough jobs that pay a living wage.

[vixengrl]

13. Now, look at how this reads:

It might make sense, for example, to give means-tested tax credits or tuition credits to stay-at-home parents. That would subsidize child-rearing

Hmm...

Will we have enough *old* people to subsidize our *young* people? At either end, you need money to live. The way I see it, even though biology might make a certain window of time more ideal for a woman to give birth and raise children, culture and economy are also important factors. I'll be egocentric and use myself as an example--the man I married after college was not the man I stayed married to, and we could not have survived on his salary alone in any case--but especially not with children. And if I didn't start a career then, after twentysomething years of raising kids and in a society that values youth over experience, how am I going to start out--at the bottom? I might as well stay home for good, and never be in a "man's world". There is a reason women adopt the "male model" for life sequence.

[moggie12]

16. This is bizarre

I am thouroughly confused, as usual. Brooks is a conservative commentator yet he seems to be advocating government "assistance" to promote earlier child-rearing by women. (Tax credits isn't much assistance, of course, but still, this is weird.)

Whole thing is impractical anyway. Couples need to work and build nest egg to buy a house, cars. etc. (Unless, of course, you're born rich...)

[against all enemies]

18. Brooks is an idiot, the NY Times has really lowered the bar. I guess

anyone can write for them now.

[TomClash]

25. He was Safire's replacement nt

[against all enemies]

46. Safire just announced his retirement, Brooks has been there a while.

I hope you are correct and that they don't replace Safire with another right wing asshole. Safire is plain senile, Brooks a lightweight. Krugman kicks their ass always.

[TomClash]

63. Safire had already told them he was retiring but had not set a date nt

[Mz Pip]

19. Women should do

what they damn well please. We don't need some guy telling us what is "better" for us to do.

We do what we have to do to make things work based on the needs of our families.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Inland]

21. The real truth--conservative natalists want more white babies.

The fact is that our "fertility" problem is PRESENTLY being cured by immigration of healthy, working people. But they aren't white. And that's a problem.

Moreover, I can think of a way to increase the number of children today in a manner that costs less--how about making our infant morality rate as low as, say, Cuba's? Once again, we know why--the babies that are dying are brown and black or at least poor.

Brooks and fellow natalists are falling over themselves to find a way to encourage white, upperclass people to have four to eight children by the application of money. They can't. You can't pay people enough to have kids. As a monetary matter, they are too expensive. Moreover, bankupting the country in the future just puts the demographic "problem" down the road in a destroyed country, so that neither whites nor others get a decent America.

[neebob]

22. And in the future, all the CEOs will be grandmas. nt

[Nobody]

26. Don't you just love it when women keep getting told what to do

and how to do it and no one hounds men with an overabundance of similar advice?

What if daddy wants to opt out of the rat race and stay at home with the kids so mommy can go out and earn the dough?

Is this commentary a means to convince a bunch of workers to quit trying to find work so the job loss hemorrhage seems smaller?

Oh yes, we need you women to keep the kids coming, preferably big strong boys we can send to the next generation's quagmire. All Hail the Bush Dynasty!

Note to all conservative idiots: I am woman and I'll live my own damn life, thank you very much.

[amazona]

27. not on my tax dollar

This is insane. There are too many people here already. We should not be doing anything to subsidize rising fertility rates, if anything, we should get rid of any exemptions for couples with more than two children. And we should also be putting a stop to illegal immigration and doing all we can to cut legal immigration of any but the most highly skilled.

We don't have enough jobs as it is. We are turning our entire western part of the country into a great desert. Over-development has despoiled our landscape and destroyed our frontier heritage.

There is no room for more people and anything that encourages the production of more people is insanity for it brings the death of the planet that much closer. I'm tired of the B.S. spouted by liberals and conservatives alike who would rather cater to fantasy than to reality because it's unpopular to say anything about over-population. People who value solitude are aware of how difficult it is to find any.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Piltdown13]

29. Yeah, it would sure be nice....

...if women who wanted children (and were lucky enough to find a mate young) could have and raise them young, then start out their careers with no difficulty getting a job and advancing up the ladder. It would also be nice if we could, say, wave a magic wand and make poverty disappear. Brooks seems to imply that his fantasy could occur if our society became more friendly to young families, but of course he knows as well as we do that it's not going to happen. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic, but I can't imagine the kind of change that would allow women (or men, for that matter) to begin careers after having kids at age 35-40 without penalty unless and until it becomes common among both women and men to choose early stay-at-home child rearing, until we have a living wage, until age discrimination disappears...you get the idea. As it is, if women acted the way Brooks suggests, the effect would *not* be to push society in that direction, it would be to exclude them almost completely from most careers. Funny how that works. Not surprisng, considering that your typical Republican pundit isn't exactly interested in promoting more choices for women.

[Ellen Forradalom]

30. I have something to say to the ever-helpful Mr. Brooks

It starts with an E, ends with an E, and has an ATM in the middle.

[NC_Nurse]

31. Another maddeningly stoopid commentary from

Butthead Brooks. Why doesn't he go make some children, stay at home with them and give us all a break from his hot air. :eyes:

[acmavm]

32. This is weird. Personal choices like career and when to have children

are just that, personal. It is not the business of the government, the church, or some hack columnist with an overinflated sense of their own importance or intellect.

[lostnfound]

52. Well put. And I know one woman who would have been a lousy young mom.

I don't think I was mature enough until I was in my late 30s. There can be major advantages to waiting, for some.

[BrklynLiberal]

33. I am so glad to see that you agree with me that this idiot came up

with one of the top ten dumbest ideas ever espoused on the OPED pages of the NYTimes. I could not believe my eyes when I read it.

[BrklynLiberal]

34. I apologize for not posting the link with this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp

[okieinpain]

35. yeah, that's what we need a bunch of yates type moms. and of

course pops will just stop off at the strip club for a bite, and a little bonding with the fellows. and of course the women should have dinner, and house clean by the time he gets home.

[liberalhistorian]

36. I"m so fucking sick of men

deciding that they have the right to tell all women what to do and how to do it, from abortion to careers to children to what we wear, ARRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

[Nobody]

39. Why don't we ...

women start writing a bunch of idiotic op-ed pieces telling men that they have to wear what we tell them, work where we tell them (and that may include the home), eat what we tell them, have sex the way we want. We can credit Brooks for the idea and say that if he really advocates telling women what to do, it's only fair that we tell men what to do.

Ever notice how the women espousing the same idiocy on the right are never the first ones to step up to the plate and do it? They never quit their jobs and be the Surrendered Wife (tm) that they want the rest of us to be. They're too busy writing books and giving paid speeches.

Of course I don't really advocate limiting men's choices, but it would be food for thought for the Brooks-type people. The problem is that the people who insist on telling women what to do are dead serious about it, and those who are women think the rules apply to all females other than themselves.

[liberalhistorian]

40. That's actually a great idea!

I would LOVE to see the male howlfest shitstorm that would be the definite result!

And yes, that's always irritated the hell out of me about RW women who love to tell other women what to do. Take Dr. Laura, for instance. She goes on and on and on and on about the importance of women being there 24/7 for their children, that they shouldn't work when their children are growing up and that they're selfish bitches if they do, etc., etc. Yet SHE has a demanding career, SHE certainly isn't home with her son, she even travels a lot leaving her husband to deal with their son!!!!! Same with Phyllis Schlafly too.

[diplomats]

50. Just to set the record straight -

Dr Laura didn't travel away from home when her son was small. He is now in high school, so it's a moot point.

And when she was away from home in the daytime doing her show, her husband was home with their son.

I used to listen to her because I thought her advice was pretty good. She always encouraged women to get the best education they can and make good choices about relationships. She's even written a couple of books that have good advice in them.

I happen to agree with her about one parent staying home with their children when they're little, if possible. Although it's usually the mother who has to make the choice and the decision isn't always easy. You just can't have it all. You can usually tell which children have had stay-at-home mothers - they're much calmer becaue their mother has had time to spend with them and it shows.

My station stopped carrying Dr Laura so I can't listen anymore. She was becoming too right-wing politically, anyway.

[BrklynLiberal]

53. Not exactly a good example of mother-daughter relationships

http://talkshows.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesmokinggun.com%2Farchive%2Flauramomaut1.html

April 9--Despite initial police reports that the estranged mother of radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger was a murder victim, the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office has determined that the 77-year-old woman actually died of natural causes. Chief Craig Harvey of the medical examiner's office told TSG that while coroners couldn't pinpoint the exact time of death, Yolanda Schlessinger may have been dead for more than two months prior to her body being discovered by Beverly Hills cops on December 16 (below you'll find the statement released today by the L.A. Coroner). Officers responded to the elder Schlessinger's condominium after a neighbor called to say she was worried "after not seeing the resident for several weeks." Upon learning of her mother's death, Laura Schlessinger released a statement which you can find here. (1 page)

*** 1/2 UPDATE: The body of Yolanda Schlessinger sat in the Los Angeles morgue for 10 extra days before her daughter Laura claimed the 77-year-old woman's remains on December 28. The delay, coroner's officials told TSG, was apparently caused by a mixup on the part of the radio host, who thought that it was the responsibility of the coroner to inform her when the body could be claimed. In fact, a decedent's loved ones--or a funeral director hired by the family--must initiate contact with the coroner and arrange to pick up the body. The body of Yolanda Schlessinger--who was apparently murdered in her Beverly Hills condo--was delivered on December 17 to the L.A. coroner's office, where an autopsy was performed the following morning. It was at that point--Wednesday, December 18--that Schlessinger's body could have been removed from the morgue. But the remains were not claimed until 10 days later, when Yolanda Schlessinger's body was transferred to Hollywood Hills's Forest Lawn cemetery.

Police are investigating the recent death of Dr. Laura Schlessinger's mother as a homicide, according to Beverly Hills cops. The body of Yolanda Schlessinger, 77, was discovered Monday (12/16) by officers who responded to the elderly woman's condo after a neighbor called to say she was worried "after not seeing the resident for several weeks." According to Lt. Gary Gilmond, Beverly Hills cops are investigating Schlessinger's death as a homicide. On Wednesday, cops spoke with Laura Schlessinger, but the radio star has not identified her mother's body, nor does she plan to, said Keven Bellows, a Schlessinger spokesperson. In the below statement released through her radio syndication firm, Schlessinger said of her estranged mother, "I am horrified by the tragic circumstances of my mother's death, and so sad to learn that she died as she chose to live--alone and isolated. My mother shut all her family out of her life over the years, though we made several futile attempts to stay connected. May God rest her soul." Details of Schlessinger's death were first reported by Norma Zager of The Beverly Hills Courier. (2 pages)

[liberalhistorian]

61. Excuse me, but Dr. Laura

is one nasty, selfish, self-righteous, smug, holier-than-thou, know-it-all bitch who can't seem to understand that millions of women don't have the money and resources she's lucky enough to have and that some women may actually disagree with her and that doesn't mean they're the idiots she thinks they are. Each persons's situation is different and her one-size-fits-all-I-know-what-I'm-talking-about-and-I-always-know-what's-best-for-everyone-no-matter-what-even-if-I-have-no-idea-who-they-are-or-what-their-life-is-like advice just doesn't cut it. And her doctorate is in PHYSIOLOGY, and NOT psychology, so where does she get off claiming any great, wonderful wisdom, anyway? And her books are full of self-righteous, know-it-all shit, I never managed to get through any of them without wanting to hurl.

And as for children of stay-at-home moms being better than working moms, thanks for making this single mother feel even more guilty. Most women do the very best they can and many simply don't have the luxury of being able to stay home. And I've known kids of single and married, working mothers who were a lot better than kids of stay-at-homes, so that's a pretty broad, ridiculous generalization.

I finally had it with her after this little scene in her stupid, ridiculous, sexist, misogynistic book The Care and Feeding of Husbands: A young wife and mother of a newborn was also caring for her terminally ill mother, who had only a few more months to live. Between the demands of a newborn, and the emotional and physical demands of caring for her dying mother, she was physically and emotionally drained and exhausted. Her husband, however, was no help at all, since all he did was complain that she never had any time for him, that the house wasn't being kept as clean, that her cooking wasn't as good, blahblahblah, yaddayaddayadda.

Instead of praising the woman and telling her what a selfish insensitive jackass of a husband she had, and that it would be nice if he stepped up to the plate and helped out more physically and emotionally, the good doctor actually told the WOMAN that SHE was selfish and insensitive and not thinking of her poor, neglected, deprived, little boy of a husband, whose needs were all-important and should be considered first and foremost ALWAYS; she told the poor woman that she needed to forget about her mother for awhile, organize her baby routine better, and find more time to spend with and soothe her poor idiot husband's feelings. Well, FUCK THAT! If I were married and in that situation and my husband pulled that shit instead of being emotionally and physically supportive, and helping out a little more, I'd tell him where he could put it and what he could do with it, and tell him to kick his ass in gear and start acting like a real husband.

That was it for me as far as she was concerned, not that I ever could stand listening to her or gave a damn about her in the first place.

[hfojvt]

44. "Wives do it, all the time"

"You are not going to wear THAT, RU?"
Sorry, I was going to type a detailed response, but my wife just handed me a honeydew list.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. Declining birthrates are a GOOD THING.

THe planet is overpopulated as it is. This person is a fucking moron if he thinks otherwise.

[fortyfeetunder]

41. Once again, missed important points.

Now if this moran had studied the circumstances regarding working women and maternity leave.

Among the industrialized nations, the USA (along with S. Korea and Australia) offer only UNPAID maternity leave. So some new moms are going to return to work as they are able to. Especially some metro areas where it's almost impossible to live on one income...

There is NFW most women can realistically expect to take a 12-15 year hiatus to raise children after graduating from college, and even going back to school, the expect to return to the work force at the salary of someone who had been in the work force the entire time she was out raising a family.

Consider the price of post-secondary education is becoming expensive, and its price rises faster than the inflation rate. Until there is a way to make PSE costs more affordable, then people will be spending years after graduation paying off their education debts. And then they might be able to afford a child or two.

David Brooks has qualified himself as a moran, if not one of the top ten conservative idiots!

edited to clarify a point

[Viking12]

42. Hand-outs to support the fundy baby boom

Brooks had a column 6 weeks ago championing the "Natalism Movement" that the bushbots are supporting in order to breed more bushbots. Nevermind what is good for the country or the planet, what is best for the future of the Repuglican party??

"December 7, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New Red-Diaper Babies
By DAVID BROOKS

There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The movement is “natalism.”

All across the industrialized world, birthrates are falling - in Western Europe, in Canada and in many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer kids. But spread around this country, and concentrated in certain areas, the natalists defy these trends.

They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling.

In a world that often makes it hard to raise large families, many are willing to move to find places that are congenial to natalist values. The fastest-growing regions of the country tend to have the highest concentrations of children. Young families move away from what they perceive as disorder, vulgarity and danger and move to places like Douglas County in Colorado (which is the fastest-growing county in the country and has one of the highest concentrations of kids). Some people see these exurbs as sprawling, materialistic wastelands, but many natalists see them as clean, orderly and affordable places where they can nurture children. "
-more-

The NYT link to this column is dead, but a quick google search will lead you to the full text.

[Missy Vixen]

45. Okay, now my blood pressure is rising

To quote "Macbeth": Something is rotten in Denmark.

>They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do.<

This is a concerted effort if there are two op-eds on it within the last two months. I'll be interested to see if other papers follow the lead of the NYT; we'll know that this is the latest policy coming out of Mr. Rove's office: If we can't outvote 'em, we'll outbreed 'em.

Lemme' tell you about our neighborhood; I'm sure it's a bastion of "red-diaper" babies. There are three different families who have four kids. All three families are right-wingers, all three consider themselves born-again Christians. All three families have husbands with very lucrative positions (one sales manager at local car dealer, one Nintendo executive, one project manager at Microsoft.) I would estimate their income to be in excess of $100K per year. All three have stay at home moms who are "homeschooling" - "I bought the curriculum, that must mean I'm teaching, right?" Brooks' insistence that these families are forgoing the "good life" is crap. I just love knowing that the tax breaks we subsidize go to their new cars, their vacation cabins, and that all-important yearly trip to Disneyland.

aaaaAAAAARGGGHHHHHHHH.

Julie

[bobbieinok]

62. where I've e seen families with 3+young children....Utah and OK

ie, Mormon area and religious right area

Mormons (at least they used to) had the concept of 2 families--3+ children close together, then a break of several years and again 3+ children close together....this was the pattern a good high school friend of my ex (who grew up in Ogden) followed....

[Missy Vixen]

43. How long have you got?

First of all, Brooks references a supposed Gallup poll stating 70% of those women who are over 40 and childless "regretted" that choice. I call BULLSHIT. Every indicator or poll I have seen (and I've seen lots of them; I am childfree,) have stated that the now 15% of women over 40 who did not have children by choice are happy with that decision. The more educated any woman is, the better chance there is that she will remain childless/childfree by choice. There's also the famous Ann Landers/Dear Abby survey in which 70% of their readers said that they were unhappy that they had chosen to have children. I wonder if Mr. Brooks is getting the same kind of "encouragement" Armstrong Williams got to assimilate the Boy King's new edict, i.e., less Caucasians = more Democrats.

DH and I already pay quite a bit in taxes to subsidize those who choose to raise children. I will fight additional tax breaks to any parent making $100,000 plus per year while there is breath left in my body.

I feel a LTTE to the New York Times coming on...

Julie

[leesa]

47. Men should shut their damn mouths if they don't know what they are talking

about.

[Solly Mack]

54. How would I ever manage my life without some man telling me how to live it

Go breed for the good of the economy, ladies! It's the patriotic thing to do!

You're helping an old person tomorrow by making a new person today. Breed!

Think of your fellow man....breed today for the retirements of tomorrow!

Breed! The tax-base needs you!

Don't delay, breed today!

A baby saved is a baby that will one day earn.

Why do you hate old people? Breed!

Ladies! America needs you (to breed)

Save Social Security! Breed!

[LeftyMom]

55. Speaking as a young mother of rather modest means

I do feel that young, low to moderate families need more help. Doing somthing about the crazy cost of housing or the shitty job market would help my family a lot more than the promise of tax credits when I go back to school. Considering how little we pay in taxes (we son't make much money and we have a kid) I have about as much use for a tax credit as I do for a two seater car.
Changing the job market so more parents can work at home at least some of the time would be a boon. (Tax credits might prove more useful here, the hard part would be writing them so they don't get abused.)I didn't work for pay after I had LeftyKid until I got a job I could do from home, and I can't imagine how I'd get by if I had to be away from him all day, assuming I could find someplace competent enough to deal with his allergies and I could actually afford it.

[cap]

56. on a young man's salary, these days???

men are living at home because they cant afford an apt. How can they afford wifey? Never mind kids???? So many college grads are working two McJobs!

David Brooks, is NOT, in the position to discuss these things.

[suziedemocrat]

57. Hitler's famous slogan - "Kinder, Kirchen, Kuchen." More Nazi deja vu. nt

[roguevalley]

58. David Brooks should go fuck himself. Oh, that's cloning and

illegal. Nevermind.

[bloom]

59. And then - those women who suffer from a marriage break up

or whose husband becomes disabled... or whatever...(before they have established their career at age 50) are really screwed.


(I saw the title of the article and couldn't stand to read it.)