Paul Ryan Wants to Have His Cake and Eat it Too

The steady stream of hypocrisy from the right is starting to flow more like a river.  Paul Ryan is definitely riding down the lazy river with his beer koozi in hand.  He demanded  time with his family during the "formative, foundational years of their lives" for him to even consider running for the speakership.  The rest of the country has to just take it or leave it if they want a job. Ironic coming from someone who doesn't support paid maternity leave.

Is Sheryl Sandberg right about Paul Ryan?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/opinions/drexler-ryan-sandberg-paid-family-leave/index.html

Dr. Jones wrote:The steady stream of hypocrisy from the right is starting to flow more like a river.  Paul Ryan is definitely riding down the lazy river with his beer koozi in hand.  He demanded  time with his family during the "formative, foundational years of their lives" for him to even consider running for the speakership.  The rest of the country has to just take it or leave it if they want a job.  Ironic coming from someone who doesn't support paid maternity leave.

Is Sheryl Sandberg right about Paul Ryan?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/opinions/drexler-ryan-sandberg-paid-family-leave/index.html

One of many questions:

why should an employer be required to pay for an employee not working, nor producing for the employer, when the employer had nothing to do with the employee getting knocked up?

nightlight88 wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:The steady stream of hypocrisy from the right is starting to flow more like a river.  Paul Ryan is definitely riding down the lazy river with his beer koozi in hand.  He demanded  time with his family during the "formative, foundational years of their lives" for him to even consider running for the speakership.  The rest of the country has to just take it or leave it if they want a job.  Ironic coming from someone who doesn't support paid maternity leave.

Is Sheryl Sandberg right about Paul Ryan?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/opinions/drexler-ryan-sandberg-paid-family-leave/index.html

One of many questions:

why  should an employer be required to pay for an employee not working, nor producing for the employer, when the employer had nothing to do with the employee getting knocked up?

That's exactly my point. Paul Ryan would definitely say the employer has no obligations in this situation.  Your comprehension of my post is exemplary.  Pat yourself on the back.  Rank and file congressional leaders make $175,000 a year, while the SoH pulls down $223,500.  I don't see where he offered to do the job at any sort of a discount, and yet he is still demanding time to be with his family.  Did the American people have anything to do with him knocking up his wife?

Unlike liberal slackers, he negotiated it as a condition of employment re: taking the speakers job. There is an option of not to hire him......................

Clicker wrote:Unlike liberal slackers, he negotiated it as a condition of employment re: taking the speakers job.  There is an option of not to hire him......................

OIC...you earn the right from your employer to spend time with your family, and get paid to do it. Brilliant.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:Unlike liberal slackers, he negotiated it as a condition of employment re: taking the speakers job.  There is an option of not to hire him......................

OIC...you earn the right from your employer to spend time with your family, and get paid to do it.   Brilliant.

OK clueless, you don't "earn" a right. You negotiate a plan whereby you can spend time not on the job for certain events etc with pay. Again, the employer doesn't have any obligation to hire you since the deals were being made as a condition of employment.

Clicker wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:Unlike liberal slackers, he negotiated it as a condition of employment re: taking the speakers job.  There is an option of not to hire him......................

OIC...you earn the right from your employer to spend time with your family, and get paid to do it.   Brilliant.

OK clueless, you don't "earn" a right.  You negotiate a plan whereby you can spend time not on the job for certain events etc with pay.  Again, the employer doesn't have any obligation to hire you since the deals were being made as a condition of employment.

Ya, that'll go over real well. It'll be a big fat N...O. If you don't like it you can sit and spin. You forget, our integrity is long gone.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:Unlike liberal slackers, he negotiated it as a condition of employment re: taking the speakers job.  There is an option of not to hire him......................

OIC...you earn the right from your employer to spend time with your family, and get paid to do it.   Brilliant.

You're about as bright as a burned out CFL. Not everything is a right. This is a privilege and as well as a condition of employment. If Ryan wants more family time, then he should move them to DC (Virginia or Maryland would suffice). Other Congressmen do.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/for_some_members_families_dc_is_the_place_to_be-229162-1.html

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:Unlike liberal slackers, he negotiated it as a condition of employment re: taking the speakers job.  There is an option of not to hire him......................

OIC...you earn the right from your employer to spend time with your family, and get paid to do it.   Brilliant.

You're about as bright as a burned out CFL. Not everything is a right. This is a privilege and as well as a condition of employment. If Ryan wants more family time, then he should move them to DC (Virginia or Maryland would suffice). Other Congressmen do.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/for_some_members_families_dc_is_the_place_to_be-229162-1.html

I'm sure Ryan will jump right on that.  Or maybe House Republicans will cue him in on that thought?  I doubt it. Do you think that our forefathers subscribed to your philosophy that family time would be a "privilege" in their counrty?