Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Trump spells out his child care policy

Busting a move toward women and working families, Trump gives the details on his plan for maternity leave, for child care tax deductions, for variable accounts set up for specific children that can be rolled over with unspent sums applied later to their higher education.

He speaks about how his program will be self-funding. Implausible, but that's to be seen.

His speech is introduced by his daughter Ivanka, who stands beside him and behind him the entire speech and I must say she is distracting just being there on stage with him. You can just turn off the sound and enjoy just watching her.

So that's what Obama means by Trump idolizing the Russians. No wait, I have that wrong. Actually, picking up for incapacitated Hillary Clinton while she recovers from heat, no, dehydration, no conk on the head no, pneumonia, oh what difference does it make anyway what she thinks we'll believe she's recovering from behind her new massive wall and other neighborhood barriers put up to block view of her home until she powers through, Obama avers Trump idolizes Putin.

Idolize. That's a thing with them. Give him a break. It's a thing people see when they have no real religion to speak of. It's only natural.

Meanwhile, his loving -- adoring, is it? -- wife, Michelle, reveals to Stephen Curry, whoever that is, how to get Obama's goat; by mocking his ears. Maybe it was flicking his ears. Nice. Funny gal, that one. I wonder what he does get her goat. No I don't. I lied again. I won't even guess because that would be mean and juvenile. Harambe. Oops.

And the whole time I was admiring Ivanka, I meant to say listening to Donald Trump speaking, the whole thing was ruined a bit by also imagining Chelsea Clinton standing there instead and the comparison is so ridiculous I couldn't stop laughing.

Nice soft touch, a baby makes a noise as they do and Trump deftly weaves it into his speech.


Sixty Grit said...

Trump, you old communist you, you should have kept your mouth shut.

Jim in St Louis said...

If this came out of a democrat’s mouth I would call it pandering and make a joke about ‘vote for me, I’ll give you more free shit!’

I anticipate being told by supporters that this is another brilliant move by Trump, and just amazing how perfect it is. Maybe in horse race campaigning it does score some votes, but to my ears, it sounds like more government spending for special interest groups- which I thought that good conservatives would be against.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

It's pandering.

I am not a fan, but his daughter wants it and he has to try to win women.

Hillary tired to scape goat a black guy.

edutcher said...

Trump does seem to have a plan - close down a few useless Cabinet departments - and he seems serious.

If he can do it, it may well set the stage for a real housecleaning in government.

AllenS said...

I think that Trump wants to treat childcare as a business expense, or something like that, to be used as a tax deduction.

AllenS said...

Checking my property taxes, I see that more than half of my money goes to the school district. I haven't been in school since 1964. I have no children in the school district. Something tells me, that if Trump can find a way to use schooling as a business arrangement between parents of school children and schools, that will be a step in the right direction on improving schools.


bagoh20 said...

If you want to take people's money by force (to get votes), don't use a gun - use a child....
and call yourself a Democrat. I expect a President Trump to be another government growing spender. He will want to buy love and approval like all the rest: his legacy - our bill. Same old shit. We have never had a conservative President, or even a nominee.

AllenS said...

Remember, bags, that Trump isn't a politician. He's not beholden to anyone.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

A tax deduction for big companies like Google etc, that provide child care either on site or that provide a subsidy to an offsite child care facility for working mothers and fathers is actually a pretty good idea. And would be cost effective in the long run for the company.

It keeps the employee around to do the work, instead of calling in sick every time the kid has the sniffles. This way productivity and continuity in the workplace is improved. Also the parent's are happier at their job because the gigantic cost and burden of finding quality child care is taken away and the worker will be more likely to remain in their position.

I didn't hear his plan so I'm just guessing that is what he meant by tax credits.

However, the same cost/burden placed on a small business, a mom and pop store or less than 25 employees would be crushing to the company.

A tax credit for the personal return is also a nice idea for those parents who do not work for a company that provides for child care, yet still have to shell out THOUSANDS of dollars a year for babysitting, pre school and other child care. Yes it would reduce their income tax burden a bit.

However, if the small reduction in taxes from those tax payers is offset by elimination of some of the most egregious and redundant government programs, eliminating whole departments, waste and fraud......It would be a Yuge thing!

Economically it makes sense and anytime you can reduce government it is better for everyone.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Bags.

You are a business man who employees many people. I know from your posts that you care about your employees on more than just an employee/boss relationship.

If you could get a bottom line business deduction, or tax credit for subsidizing (giving your employees funds for child care) or optimally providing a child care facility on site, would you consider this a benefit for your company and for your employees? Would it help or harm your business? Assuming that the offset cost or tax credit would be affordable that is. Obviously you would have to crunch the numbers.

Again a small company, with a slim margin already (like a mom & pop restaurant) would have a hard time financially with this, so I would also hate to see it become a mandate. If it did become a mandate, expect the elderly to become more employable :-) Not likely to get pregnant and have kids.

bagoh20 said...

There is no free lunch. How do we do it now? How have we done it forever. Both my parents worked full time, and I was not neglected, nor did our family need our employer's help or the government to raise kids. This will be abused, expanded, and corrupted until it cost more than it helps. The main reason two earners in a family is mandatory now is because the government helps us so much. All you need for a progressive idea to get support from conservatives is to have their guy suggest it. You want kids? Plan, save, work hard, and sacrifice. Don't expect others to do it for you.

Trooper York said...

I am not necessarily in favor of this. I want to see how it falls in the whole mosaic of the changes that Trump wants to make in the tax code. But as DBQ says if it helps businesses and everyday working class Americans.

This is a class election not a ideology election. Conservatism is dead. It accomplished nothing. It is a big bag of bullshit. Small government is just not going to happen and you are full of shit if you think it is going to happen. So I want mine. I want my people the white working class to get the goodies instead of the protected classes who are the clients of the government. Clients of the Democrats. More for them is less for me and mine.

We are the heirs of Andrew Jackson. Trump is a Jacksonian Populist. Jackson invented or more correctly perfected the spoils system in American Politics. Look it up.

Amartel said...

Trump is a politician. He's running for political office. Enough with the fantasy that he's not "really" a politician just because the establishment bros don't like him. He's a politician.
Exhibit A: Pandering. It's what politicians do, make promises of free shit that other people will pay for. It may be necessary to his cause but don't call it something it's not. The taxpayer will pay for this. One more fucking promise of free shit from the almighty God of Government and paid for by hard working people.
It's a no class election.

Amartel said...

Instapundit has a post on what we don't get told about the poor in this country:
Poor households routinely report spending $2.40 for every $1 of income the Census says they have.

The average poor American lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair and has more living space than the average nonpoor person in France, Germany, or England.
Eighty-five percent of poor households have air conditioning.
Nearly three-fourths of poor households have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds of poor households have cable or satellite TV.
Half have a personal computer; 43 percent have internet access.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

Maybe sell that playstation and ditch the satellite tv so you can pay for your child care yourself.

Sixty Grit said...

Live, walkin' aroun' commie versus fallin' over dead granny commie.

At least he has good hair.

bagoh20 said...

Shorter Trooper: "I surrender! I'll even carry your flag for you."

bagoh20 said...

The same people who bitch about jobs leaving the country also support the government making them unsustainable here. This is exactly the kind of thing that keeps people unemployed and poor. Why do you think the labor participation rate is so low, and half the citizens take more than they make? Because they can. Eventually, this handout will be used by illegals, the lazy, people working under the table, and flat-out frauds just like every other government program. Meanwhile companies will continue to send their jobs elsewhere, and the bitching about it will grow. It's like Democrats bitching about the plight of the cities they run. Leftism ruins everything it touches and it's out to ruin the Republican party.

Rabel said...

Not sure I follow Your comment about keeping people poor and unemployed. You have to be employed to qualify for maternity leave, you have to be employed to qualify for on-site child care, you have to be employed to qualify for the EITC. The proposals for new tax avantaged savings accounts for child care don't affect employment. Maybe you're just venting without looking over the data.

Is this a good move by Trump? Since it is getting almost no coverage on Hot Air, PJ media and NRO I have to assume that it is.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Bagoh

Here is the outline of Trump's plan

It seems economically sensible to me. Doesn't appear to be a giveaway of tax payer funds or a rape the rich scheme. It also doesn't seem to be a mandatory punishing program for businesses either.

Read the summary before you get all hot and bothered. I'm not for all of it, but it does seem to be well thought out and an economically achievable program.

Rabel said...

From DBQ's link I see that the maternity leave pay would be equivalent to the state unemployment benefit.

Rabel said...

A little off topic but:

"I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect. A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy,not [sic] transformational, with a husband still d**king bimbos at home (according to the NYP)."

-Colin Powell

Amartel said...

Yes, in the abstract it's fine, just one more brick in the pile of all the other "free" stuff subsidized by OPM.

Trooper York said...

You are exactly right Bags. I surrender. I surrender to the fact the me and my people have to get ours. The conservatives have done nothing. They accomplish nothing. They raise money and make a nice living. But who are you going to put your faith in that they will decrease the size of government? Paul Ryan? Mitch McConnell? The Freedom Caucus? Ted Cruz? It's a mugs game.

The working man should get his. How do we pay for it? Eliminate those three departments the Trump wants to close. Get rid of all the illegals collecting government benefits. End our involvement overseas or at least get the countries involved to pay for it instead of the taxpayer. Spend money on Americans. In America. Raising their kids.

Of course I know that it is effective because as Rabel says all the usual suspects who hate Trump and his supporters are deathly silent. They just want to talk about David Duke.

Sellouts and quislings each and every one.

Amartel said...

Between the leaks and the document dumps, this election is the Real Housewhores of DC or Survivor election. As in any "reality" show, We see what happens for the cameras and then we get the "character's" confessionals in the form of their unvarnished thought processes in the emails, etc. Quite entertaining!
Apparently he said something mean about Trump, too. Because equity. That's what the story was on NPR this morning. Powell thinks Trump is bad... and has concerns about Hillary's health.
I bet Powell still votes for Clinton.

Trooper York said...

You are right Amartel. So what. It is time for the working stiffs to get theirs instead of the illegals and the protected classes. That includes the student loan program which is the biggest rip off in the federal government.

What do think that government is going to get smaller? Forget it. It's not. So we have to get ours. That is what Trump is doing. He is taking the issue away from the Democrats because he is going to spend the money in different ways. Not on green energy boondoggles. Not on fancy Education department oversight which is a complete and utter failure. Not on pouring money into endless wars to satisfy the neocon agenda and the oh so serious and important foreign policy establishment.

IF we win we get the spoils. It is as simple as that. Naked self interest. It is a winning strategy which is why the NeverTrumpers and the so called conservatives hate it. Because they don't want to win. Because they know they can't win. They just want to do the kabuki dance.

Amartel said...

Good to know.

bagoh20 said...

It doesn't matter what Trump's plan is. If it takes money away from workers to pay non-workers, it will get corrupted like every other "good idea", and become another leftist sacred cow like all the rest." Show me one program that hasn't gone that way. Is this stuff really not understood in here? Why does Trump make you suddenly blind to what you once understood. If Clinton proposed this, you'd know exactly what's wrong with it

Rabel said...

I suppose you could argue that the gross tax reductions in Trump's plan should be distributed evenly to all workers rather than to parents and caregivers. And, you could argue (more successfully) that the shift in unemployment compensation funds from misallocation to new mothers is a giveaway that should be returned to employers. And, the $500 match in the childcare savings plans for low income savers does come close to meeting your complaint except that the recipients won't necessarily be non-workers.

But those rather weak arguments and it looks like you haven't taken the time to look over the details and are just knee-jerking in an anti-government sort of way. That's often a good thing but it helps to be informed before going on record.

ndspinelli said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

"This is a class election not a ideology election. Conservatism is dead. It accomplished nothing. It is a big bag of bullshit. Small government is just not going to happen and you are full of shit if you think it is going to happen. So I want mine. I want my people the white working class to get the goodies instead of the protected classes who are the clients of the government. Clients of the Democrats. More for them is less for me and mine."

Damn this is well said - agree 100%.