So what, specifically, do our new overlords have planned for us?

[Irving]

That's not what was posted.

If the issue is that the proposed bill is terrible, why is the anger not aimed at the people proposing the bill?

[Great-Kazoo]

That's not what was posted.

If the issue is that the proposed bill is terrible, why is the anger not aimed at the people proposing the bill?

Because the people proposing it play on white guilt to get what they want. Knowing as the demographic sits, there's no repercussion for anything tax and social spending related.
So one can write letters, send emails, post comments in the local papers, protest at the capitol. No one cares, no one gives a fuk what we the common folk say.
The CO Voters spoke and they not only listened, they went above and beyond to make sure. When the CO state legislature convenes, the magic word of the session will be TAXES! High high and how much will be the question.

Buzz words to trigger white guilt.

The Children

Think of the Kids

Living Wage

income equality

Better schools / education for Everyone. (see below)

Immigrants. Not illegal, just immigrants. The all inclusive umbrella which shines false hopes on those coming to America, Illegally.

Common Sense Gun Laws

We need to do something / provide for the Homeless.

Keeping in mind all the above have been tried over & over with minimal results, Except taxes and Fees going up.
Of course if you don't agree with those ideals. There's always the worn out buzz words.
RACIST and Xenophobic

[Irving]

That doesn't address what I'm asking at all.

[Great-Kazoo]

That doesn't address what I'm asking at all.

You asked why the anger is not aimed at the ones who come up with these bills. I replied, the ones who do/did don't care what you think. or how angry you are. So like most forums, it's an echo chamber voicing ones displeasure of being screwed over.

Or did i get lost in the prs post

[Irving]

You got lost. It's okay, I'm trying to make clarifications before accusations so it's a bit hard to follow.

[Great-Kazoo]

You got lost. It's okay, I'm trying to make clarifications before accusations so it's a bit hard to follow.

Ahh ye ol j'accuse ploy. enteresting. very enteresting.

[buffalobo]

Meh, should be between a worker and their employer. No need for govt involvement.

[Great-Kazoo]

Meh, should be between a worker and their employer. No need for govt involvement.

That ship sailed after Johnsons Great Society.

[Irving]

Quick math off the top of my head:

1% of everyone's salary capped at 12 weeks. Assuming 45 working years, and avg 2 children per family, that's 45% of your annual salary committed towards paying benefits of 24 weeks (46% of year). Seems equal on it's face, but the child bearing age will have the lowest wage (and thus, lowest benefit) while the last 20 years of work will have the highest wage by far (probably a factor of 2x), and ofc few people could actually take 12 weeks off of work for a variety of reasons. It seems to me that quite a bit more will be deducted than will be paid. Unless of course, benefits are paid to a lot of non-contributors to make the avg child per income far higher than 2, which seems likely.

I don't necessarily have an issue with this, but I think it should sorta be pay-to-play, in many regards. This should be built like an HSA account, that rolls over and can be invested. And you can draw down unused portions after age 65. Reward people for being invested in their future, and make it equal between child and non-child families. Have 8 kids before 25? Yeah, you're probably not getting 12 weeks of for each of them. Have on kid at 30? F it, take 16 or 20 if you can swing it through your account if you want. Or only take what you need and build it for retirement. (Could also open it up to medical costs after an arbitrary age, like 45)

Problem with handout benefits is its a "commons" problem... people use it to the maximum, even if unnecessary to do so.

Bolded is the only reason they want this. On it's face it's an issue that every conservative that has ever uttered anything about the importance of family should be behind 100% if they actually believed what they were preaching. In reality, it's a way to create yet another pool of free money that can just be invested and used on an unlimited amount of other projects with no strings attached and with zero oversight. Individual plans as suggested by foxtrot would provide the most long term benefit to people as a whole, but probably wouldn't work that well in reality for the same reasons as in the bold section. Even if everyone was allowed some sort of very broad use HSA from the very first day of their working life until they were old, the vast majority of young workers wouldn't contribute, and even those that did may not have earned enough money to be useful by the time they had their first kid.

[TFOGGER]

Unless it wasn't voluntary as much as it might piss some people off, the long term benefits of low mandatory HSA, 401K, and in this case - FAM (family account), help everyone in the long term.

Except, as with Social Security, the natural tendency of government to spend money left in their care on shit that was never intended is inevitable. If it was a mandatory contribution to a privately held investment fund, the government would simply nationalize the banks and seize the money "for the good of the people".