Paid Leave
Comments
-
Successful business will pass the costs along to consumers, just as a tax will pass the cost along to those who actually pay taxes. Either way, it's wrong.TurdBuffer said:
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses.
Subsidizing poor people to have kids is FS, that's a different issue, and no doubt it needs to be fixed. -
Yeah, but that's the old "just write it off or pass it on" argument. Thing is, I have to charge it, earn it, collect it, set it aside, calculate it, and pay it to the government, without being compensated for my extra time or my bookkeeper. Plus I run the risk of getting sued or being on the hook during a slow season when profits are low. Why should that ever be the business's responsibility to pay AND administer? There's a cost to everything, and all those extra steps to pass it along take time and money, too, and no customer wants to pay higher prices. Direct vs Indirect costs. WTF does this perk have to do with my mission statement? That's where I need to be spending my time and investment, while creating more jobs, not paying more for a speculative, theoretical benefit to my business.Southerndawg said:
Successful business will pass the costs along to consumers, just as a tax will pass the cost along to those who actually pay taxes. Either way, it's wrong.TurdBuffer said:
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses. -
TurdBuffer said:
Yeah, but that's the old "just write it off or pass it on" argument. Thing is, I have to charge it, earn it, collect it, set it aside, calculate it, and pay it to the government, without being compensated for my extra time or my bookkeeper. Plus I run the risk of getting sued or being on the hook during a slow season when profits are low. Why should that ever be the business's responsibility to pay AND administer? There's a cost to everything, and all those extra steps to pass it along take time and money, too, and no customer wants to pay higher prices. Direct vs Indirect costs. WTF does this perk have to do with my mission statement? That's where I need to be spending my time and investment, while creating more jobs, not paying more for a speculative, theoretical benefit to my business.Southerndawg said:
Successful business will pass the costs along to consumers, just as a tax will pass the cost along to those who actually pay taxes. Either way, it's wrong.TurdBuffer said:
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses.
You're arguing with yourself. We don't disagree on this point ..... "Either way, it's wrong" -
Ouch!!!BallSacked said:
I wish the govt had paid your mom to give you a scrape job.greenblood said:Now Trump is making this part of his agenda.
Having a child is a choice. If you can't afford a child don't have a child. An employer shouldn't have to pay for paternity or maternity leave.
I don't care if other countries pay it. The other countries have it wrong. -
Got it. It's just not as simple as simpletons think it is.Southerndawg said:TurdBuffer said:
Yeah, but that's the old "just write it off or pass it on" argument. Thing is, I have to charge it, earn it, collect it, set it aside, calculate it, and pay it to the government, without being compensated for my extra time or my bookkeeper. Plus I run the risk of getting sued or being on the hook during a slow season when profits are low. Why should that ever be the business's responsibility to pay AND administer? There's a cost to everything, and all those extra steps to pass it along take time and money, too, and no customer wants to pay higher prices. Direct vs Indirect costs. WTF does this perk have to do with my mission statement? That's where I need to be spending my time and investment, while creating more jobs, not paying more for a speculative, theoretical benefit to my business.Southerndawg said:
Successful business will pass the costs along to consumers, just as a tax will pass the cost along to those who actually pay taxes. Either way, it's wrong.TurdBuffer said:
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses.
You're arguing with yourself. We don't disagree on this point ..... "Either way, it's wrong" -
Think this is bad policy for a right idea. Don't care much either way on the paid leave...we have enough other govt hands in the business' pockets not that much of a deal to have this, especially if its reward desired behavior (i.e. working). If it's set up to push companies not to offer it because the govt picks up the tab its 'effed up policy though.
Only saw a bit of the "speech", but as far as the tax breaks/etc for day care looks like not the best policy but still towards what is really the right concept/desire. If you look at the 50's, the govt set up a $10K/kid tax deduction and suddenly there was a big boom in the middle class having kids. Now, that tax deduction has barely moved and we've seen the birth rate for the middle class going down and down, while its not impacting other sections of society. Its kinda nuts...
I'd just make it simple...don't set up another program or even paid leave and just bump up the child tax credit to $20K or $25K...think it would accomplish much the same in a much more simple manor. -
The best part of the speech as always, was the intro by Ivanka
-
Yup. If an employer wants to offer paid leave as part of the deal of you working there, then great. If they don't offer it, and it's something you really need, then go work somewhere else or make them work it into the budget. Offer to take like 10k a year or less in salary/wages in exchange for continuing to get normal paychecks while on leave.
If a company automatically gives all it's employees paid leaves, then the people who don't have kids wind up getting screwed over because wages across the board will be cut so that there is money available to pay people to not work. -
The point is it's beneficial to the kid and parents to allow the mother time to spend with the newborn. Tax credits several months after the fact don't do much to offset the lack of income at the time of birth.HoustonHusky said:Think this is bad policy for a right idea. Don't care much either way on the paid leave...we have enough other govt hands in the business' pockets not that much of a deal to have this, especially if its reward desired behavior (i.e. working). If it's set up to push companies not to offer it because the govt picks up the tab its 'effed up policy though.
Only saw a bit of the "speech", but as far as the tax breaks/etc for day care looks like not the best policy but still towards what is really the right concept/desire. If you look at the 50's, the govt set up a $10K/kid tax deduction and suddenly there was a big boom in the middle class having kids. Now, that tax deduction has barely moved and we've seen the birth rate for the middle class going down and down, while its not impacting other sections of society. Its kinda nuts...
I'd just make it simple...don't set up another program or even paid leave and just bump up the child tax credit to $20K or $25K...think it would accomplish much the same in a much more simple manor.
Fair point about the inefficiencies of setting up a new program. Wonder if something like the Bush stimulus credit could work. Get the money at the time of birth and pay it back on the next tax return (preferably offset by the additional child tax credit). -
If you want to spend time with your newborn, go spend time with your newborn. There is no law against spending time with your newborn.
-
AbundanceTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Why do you hate mixing in some RU-486 into her drinks?PurpleThrobber said:
Planning if wrapping that Jimmy up and not being in a spot where this is even an issue.greenblood said:
Exactly. I'm not against forced maternity/paternity leave. I'm just not in agreement that the government should force it to be paid. Many companies allow people to roll over sick days, vacation days, etc. People just need to get creative.dnc said:
I think 6 weeks maternity/one week paternity leave should be mandatory, but I think paid or unpaid should be the company's choice.greenblood said:
If businesses want to offer it they can, but the government shouldn't make them. I think it's a good thing if a business offers it, but again it should be their choice. This is an issue the government has no business getting into. Maternity/Paternity leave is already offered, and paid depending on the business.doogsinparadise said:You are so fucking wrong that it hurts.
If your company doesn't offer it, then find a new job. But don't gripe about it being unfair.
I took two weeks vacation time for paternity leave with both of my kids. It was awesome, I wouldn't have traded it for anything. And I didn't resent my employer for not paying for it, we planned our vacation time for it. My wife took 6 weeks maternity for both of them, unpaid. Would have been awesome had it been paid, but we weren't in that position. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility to pay for me to have kids. If they wouldn't have let her get the time off or would have let her go during her time off I would have been pissed though.
It's called planning -
This thread has taught me that if you have a kid you should LEAVE
-
Many of you have pointed out some valid economic reasons why this is problematic and difficult, and you're not wrong. If there was an easy solution, it wouldn't be a problem.
But think of it like education: if you don't have kids, you still get taxed to pay for schools, which you do not directly benefit from. But the overall good to society that education provides is unquestionable. Could schools be more cost efficient, less bureaucratic, etc? Sure, but that's a separate issue. The solution to those problems isn't to eliminate public education.
Allowing families, regardless of class, to spend time with their newborn child is a net positive to society too. It's easy to tell someone to switch jobs to someplace that offers paid leave or to "plan better", but that's not an option for many folks out there. What if you planned well, but then have a complicated pregnancy/delivery and get wiped out (financially, banked vacation/sick days) due to extra/urgent care needed for baby and/or mom?
All I'm saying is shit happens, and not everyone that has kids can plan for every contingency. This seems like a valid reason for providing assistance and having a little compassion. The fact that some small fraction of people abuse entitlements and lack personal responsibility does not mean this isn't an issue worth solving.
Look, I have plenty of extended family that I wish would get sterilized and stop popping out more fucking kids. They're poor or stupid, usually abundance. But I also know plenty of well off professionals that have high stress high paying jobs where they are afraid to even use the leave that is offered because of the negative perception around this topic. We? can do better. -
DisagreeThomasFremont said:Many of you have pointed out some valid economic reasons why this is problematic and difficult, and you're not wrong. If there was an easy solution, it wouldn't be a problem.
But think of it like education: if you don't have kids, you still get taxed to pay for schools, which you do not directly benefit from. But the overall good to society that education provides is unquestionable. Could schools be more cost efficient, less bureaucratic, etc? Sure, but that's a separate issue. The solution to those problems isn't to eliminate public education.
Allowing families, regardless of class, to spend time with their newborn child is a net positive to society too. It's easy to tell someone to switch jobs to someplace that offers paid leave or to "plan better", but that's not an option for many folks out there. What if you planned well, but then have a complicated pregnancy/delivery and get wiped out (financially, banked vacation/sick days) due to extra/urgent care needed for baby and/or mom?
All I'm saying is shit happens, and not everyone that has kids can plan for every contingency. This seems like a valid reason for providing assistance and having a little compassion. The fact that some small fraction of people abuse entitlements and lack personal responsibility does not mean this isn't an issue worth solving.
Look, I have plenty of extended family that I wish would get sterilized and stop popping out more fucking kids. They're poor or stupid, usually abundance. But I also know plenty of well off professionals that have high stress high paying jobs where they are afraid to even use the leave that is offered because of the negative perception around this topic. We? can do better. -
Sounds like a great culture where they work. Winners using peer pressure to keep the slackers in line.ThomasFremont said:Many of you have pointed out some valid economic reasons why this is problematic and difficult, and you're not wrong. If there was an easy solution, it wouldn't be a problem.
But think of it like education: if you don't have kids, you still get taxed to pay for schools, which you do not directly benefit from. But the overall good to society that education provides is unquestionable. Could schools be more cost efficient, less bureaucratic, etc? Sure, but that's a separate issue. The solution to those problems isn't to eliminate public education.
Allowing families, regardless of class, to spend time with their newborn child is a net positive to society too. It's easy to tell someone to switch jobs to someplace that offers paid leave or to "plan better", but that's not an option for many folks out there. What if you planned well, but then have a complicated pregnancy/delivery and get wiped out (financially, banked vacation/sick days) due to extra/urgent care needed for baby and/or mom?
All I'm saying is shit happens, and not everyone that has kids can plan for every contingency. This seems like a valid reason for providing assistance and having a little compassion. The fact that some small fraction of people abuse entitlements and lack personal responsibility does not mean this isn't an issue worth solving.
Look, I have plenty of extended family that I wish would get sterilized and stop popping out more fucking kids. They're poor or stupid, usually abundance. But I also know plenty of well off professionals that have high stress high paying jobs where they are afraid to even use the leave that is offered because of the negative perception around this topic. We? can do better. -
I don't really hate this poast. I'd still prefer things to stay as is, but if paid LEAVE! became a thing I'd hate it a hell of a lot less than most of our gubmint programs. The education poont was well stated.ThomasFremont said:Many of you have pointed out some valid economic reasons why this is problematic and difficult, and you're not wrong. If there was an easy solution, it wouldn't be a problem.
But think of it like education: if you don't have kids, you still get taxed to pay for schools, which you do not directly benefit from. But the overall good to society that education provides is unquestionable. Could schools be more cost efficient, less bureaucratic, etc? Sure, but that's a separate issue. The solution to those problems isn't to eliminate public education.
Allowing families, regardless of class, to spend time with their newborn child is a net positive to society too. It's easy to tell someone to switch jobs to someplace that offers paid leave or to "plan better", but that's not an option for many folks out there. What if you planned well, but then have a complicated pregnancy/delivery and get wiped out (financially, banked vacation/sick days) due to extra/urgent care needed for baby and/or mom?
All I'm saying is shit happens, and not everyone that has kids can plan for every contingency. This seems like a valid reason for providing assistance and having a little compassion. The fact that some small fraction of people abuse entitlements and lack personal responsibility does not mean this isn't an issue worth solving.
Look, I have plenty of extended family that I wish would get sterilized and stop popping out more fucking kids. They're poor or stupid, usually abundance. But I also know plenty of well off professionals that have high stress high paying jobs where they are afraid to even use the leave that is offered because of the negative perception around this topic. We? can do better.
You've made me THINK and CARE more about this issue.
TYFYS. -
Valid points FremontThomasFremont said:Many of you have pointed out some valid economic reasons why this is problematic and difficult, and you're not wrong. If there was an easy solution, it wouldn't be a problem.
But think of it like education: if you don't have kids, you still get taxed to pay for schools, which you do not directly benefit from. But the overall good to society that education provides is unquestionable. Could schools be more cost efficient, less bureaucratic, etc? Sure, but that's a separate issue. The solution to those problems isn't to eliminate public education.
Allowing families, regardless of class, to spend time with their newborn child is a net positive to society too. It's easy to tell someone to switch jobs to someplace that offers paid leave or to "plan better", but that's not an option for many folks out there. What if you planned well, but then have a complicated pregnancy/delivery and get wiped out (financially, banked vacation/sick days) due to extra/urgent care needed for baby and/or mom?
All I'm saying is shit happens, and not everyone that has kids can plan for every contingency. This seems like a valid reason for providing assistance and having a little compassion. The fact that some small fraction of people abuse entitlements and lack personal responsibility does not mean this isn't an issue worth solving.
Look, I have plenty of extended family that I wish would get sterilized and stop popping out more fucking kids. They're poor or stupid, usually abundance. But I also know plenty of well off professionals that have high stress high paying jobs where they are afraid to even use the leave that is offered because of the negative perception around this topic. We? can do better.
I'm just concerned about the trickle down effect when something like this goes through. Decreased overall pay and gender discrimination to name a couple.
Will both parents each get the paid leave, or is it limited to one per household? That needs to be answered.
Is there a max that companies have to pay? For instance, someone making $5000+/month puts the company at a very difficult position to have to pay that and pay temporary help while he/she is away.
But don't underestimate companies making consumers and employees pay for that one way or another. That's what has me concerned. -
Ahh... Let the fuckin snotter cry himself back to sleep!!!!topdawgnc said:Someone doesn't have a child.
Or he doesn't give a fuck the other dad is having to get up multiple times a night as his lazy ass sleeps.
That's what my parents did to me and I turned....
I need to call my sponsor. -
Guys enough with this agreeing with each other crap. This is the fucking Tug. Start posting a bunch of links no one is going to click just so CirrhosisDawg can get mad and tell everyone to die some more.
-
Lemon party, not lemon party? #nevergoinagainstasicilianwhendeathisonthelineCuntWaffle said:Guys enough with this agreeing with each other crap. This is the fucking Tug. Start posting a bunch of links no one is going to click just so CirrhosisDawg can get mad and tell everyone to die some more.
-
The real lesson to this thread is the one immutable truth I always preach. Having kids is dumb.
-
The same reactionaries always freak out over things like this and act like unemployment and prices will spike 10 percent.
95% of countries on earth have this, including all the other rich ones. It can be done.
Fugly bitch with saggy tits having four kids with four different men for government money....that's a different issue.
Like Fremont said, 40 or 50 years ago, the man of the house could support a family and the wife could stay home in most cases. My mom quit being a teacher after a year or two in the 60s before my oldest brother was born. That's the way it was then. If the labor force and wages were similar, I don't see much of a need for this, but it's not even close... -
Part of me doesn't want to have kids. But another part of me says "what if we run out of people?"Swaye said:The real lesson to this thread is the one immutable truth I always preach. Having kids is dumb.
-
All that needed to happen for agreement was the R candidate to step in line with the D's.CuntWaffle said:Guys enough with this agreeing with each other crap. This is the fucking Tug. Start posting a bunch of links no one is going to click just so CirrhosisDawg can get mad and tell everyone to die some more.
-
There are two options:
1. No kids, be a cool uncle. Or don't. Either way....you know
2. Sire bastard children across the us, keep tabs on them. Claim the ones who are looking to be successful.
-
What? I always assumed your household had a whole throng of 'lil Swayes?Swaye said:The real lesson to this thread is the one immutable truth I always preach. Having kids is dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLgc3Lxs7us -
@FMB: The issue is whether it should be an employer mandate, not whether it's a good idea or not. And if so, what size employer? It will be arbitrary and unfair, because some employers are big enough to shoulder it and offer it as a perk, while other employers, whether smaller or just less profitable, can't. And many will be exempted, so, just like salaries, some people get the perk and some don't. I'd favor it across the board, or not at all. Anything between interferes with market forces and picks winners and losers, which government should never do.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:The same reactionaries always freak out over things like this and act like unemployment and prices will spike 10 percent.
95% of countries on earth have this, including all the other rich ones. It can be done.
Fugly bitch with saggy tits having four kids with four different men for government money....that's a different issue.
Like Fremont said, 40 or 50 years ago, the man of the house could support a family and the wife could stay home in most cases. My mom quit being a teacher after a year or two in the 60s before my oldest brother was born. That's the way it was then. If the labor force and wages were similar, I don't see much of a need for this, but it's not even close... -
If by household you mean trailer with a steady stream of low confidence whores with great tits, then the answer is still no to little Swaye's.unfrozencaveman said:
What? I always assumed your household had a whole throng of 'lil Swayes?Swaye said:The real lesson to this thread is the one immutable truth I always preach. Having kids is dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLgc3Lxs7us
-
Yes I am quoting myself so fuck off. Just got to thinkign about this reply. So, I raw dogged a slut in New Jersey two nights ago (more details in the Wigwam - shameless plug), and that may have produced a child. Or AIDS. Or both. Using that metric, I could have dozens of little Swaye's roaming around the US. Lucky for me, and them, I am no part of their lives.Swaye said:
If by household you mean trailer with a steady stream of low confidence whores with great tits, then the answer is still no to little Swaye's.unfrozencaveman said:
What? I always assumed your household had a whole throng of 'lil Swayes?Swaye said:The real lesson to this thread is the one immutable truth I always preach. Having kids is dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLgc3Lxs7us -
Viva La Raza! Close as I could get. Can't speak Cherokee for shit.Swaye said:
Yes I am quoting myself so fuck off. Just got to thinkign about this reply. So, I raw dogged a slut in New Jersey two nights ago (more details in the Wigwam - shameless plug), and that may have produced a child. Or AIDS. Or both. Using that metric, I could have dozens of little Swaye's roaming around the US. Lucky for me, and them, I am no part of their lives.Swaye said:
If by household you mean trailer with a steady stream of low confidence whores with great tits, then the answer is still no to little Swaye's.unfrozencaveman said:
What? I always assumed your household had a whole throng of 'lil Swayes?Swaye said:The real lesson to this thread is the one immutable truth I always preach. Having kids is dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLgc3Lxs7us
Wait! One little, two little, three little Indians....
