Donald Trump Unveils Child Care Subsidy Aimed at Women, Suburban Swing Voters (Mandatory Paid Maternity Leave)

[LateForLunch]

"Cutting waste, fraud, and abuse" as a solution to "saving money" is the cry of someone who has no idea what to do.  No president or Congress has ever "saved" by doing this or has even done this.  Trump wouldn't either, as it is the nature of bureaucracies to be inefficient. 

Unlike you, I will not vote for Trump because he is unfit for the office of President.

Well, that is your opinion. What do you calculate is the percentage of chance that you are incorrect? Zero? Such considerations would seem prudent to me in a decision of such profound gravity rather than basing an opinion on the intensity of one's personal emotional intensity or some "community consensus" largely based in the final analysis upon the same thing - emotion/intuition.

Please don't take that as a criticism, sieur,  I fully recognize the validity of "non-rational" opinions, even if anti-Trump commentators like Michael Medved do not (instead he dresses up his personal animosity in sophistries and thinly veiled hypotheticals or speculations). I harbor no animosity whatsoever toward people who feel vehemently opposed to Trump - I seriously don't. Most are sincere, well-adjusted conservatives in most other regards as you no doubt are. That's why I detest militant anti-anti-Trumpers, but try to reason with people instead. But I hope that anti-Trump voters will at least acknowledge that their vehemence is based largely in emotion (intuition), not in rational, objective, measurable criteria.

Voting is a reductionist issue very similar to a circuit having voltage applied to it which ends up going to lighting up circuit "A" or going to ground at circuit "B' . Nuance and peripheral concerns do not affect this routing of current to either one or the other of two circuits. All other elements aside, we either apply voltage to one circuit or to ground.

I could not live with myself for failing to apply voltage any circuit which fries a Communist lunatic like Hill-o-Lies. She is a walking disease in every sense of the term. Donald, for all of his flaws, remains at least to some degree a question mark.

[GrouchoTex]

They always end up spending more money locating and rooting out the waste, fraud, and abuse than gets returned in savings from eliminating the waste, fraud, and abuse.

Ain't that the truth!

[ABX]

[LateForLunch]

Ain't that the truth!

Undeniable. Yet, even though statistics are correlated to a reduced possibility of success, they are not a guarantee of failure.

With application of one very simple, straightforward presidential order (the implementation of Lean 6/ Sigma training for all departments of the government) some significant improvement in reduction of waste (especially in duplication of programs) could be achieved.

I was not raised to believe that cynicism and realism are identical. Often very close surely, but not always exactly the same thing.

Lean 6/ Sigma training was applied to the military with great success in previous (Republican) administrations, so it has some history of positive results already.

[Night Hides Not]

Can you say "Earl Warren and William Brennan?"

To give you an idea how small Earl Warren looms today, my junior high school in Castro Valley CA was originally named for him. I went back a few years ago, and it was renamed "Creekside".

Pretty disgusting when you think about it. The man was a Chief Justice at the time of Brown v. Board of Education, and a former Governor of California.

[GrouchoTex]

Undeniable. Yet, even though statistics are correlated to a reduced possibility of success, they are not a guarantee of failure.

With application of one very simple, straightforward presidential order (the implementation of Lean 6/ Sigma training for all departments of the government) some significant improvement in reduction of waste (especially in duplication of programs) could be achieved.

I was not raised to believe that cynicism and realism are identical. Often very close surely, but not always exactly the same thing.

Lean 6/ Sigma training was applied to the military with great success in previous (Republican) administrations, so it has some history of positive results already.

Good points, with some exceptions.
Being myself a veteran of Lean/six Sigma/ISO/Kaizen I would say Six Sigma/lean manufacturing would work in the military, but it doesn't always work so well where unions are involved.
The largest union in America? the government union worker union.
Wholesale elimination of some departments would be the only real thing that would work there.

Frankly, the only thing "undeniable" in this election cycle is how I am routinely lectured by Trump supports, in this case, stating that you were "not raised to believe that cynicism and realism are identical", inferring that I was.

[corbe]

   Offering franchises selling paddles up on $hit creek, and to think the creator of this fluster cuck can't even vote for him.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I'm ok with tax rebates... outright subsidies no.

This is truly turning out to be a lesser of all evils election.

[ABX]

I'm ok with tax rebates... outright subsidies no.

This is truly turning out to be a lesser of all evils election.

The problem with this proposal, as another article posted earlier mentioned, was that this 'tax rebate' translates to a cash rebate for those on EITC- ie, it is another welfare payment. It is identical to the Democrat proposal.

[LateForLunch]

Frankly, the only thing "undeniable" in this election cycle is how I am routinely lectured by Trump supporters, in this case, stating that you were "not raised to believe that cynicism and realism are identical", inferring that I was.

I understand your sensitivity but let me assure you that it was not my intention to make any of my remarks personal. It is a general proclivity that I am observing. Some of the most obnoxious characters I have observed on web forums have indeed been Trump supporters. It seems a lot of them are very emotionally-centered in their POV and are not overly concerned with supporting their position with rational, substantive argument.

[geronl]

Mo' Big Giverment

He will make FDR look like a free-market guy

[LateForLunch]

Mo' Big Giverment

He will make FDR look like a free-market guy

Well, it's true that what you express is entirely possible. But it is also true that an opinion is not a fact but a speculative conjecture. So to state an opinion as a fact, even if you strongly believe it to be a fact is to some degree disingenuous. It would be more correct to state that you believe the evidence strongly supports your opinion. That may seem like a minor point but I have observed a lack of willingness to admit even small areas of doubt on both sides of the Trump / anti-Trump issue which tends to shut down dialogue or any sort of rational dialectic, rather than to promote it - which is after all part of the very worthy mission statement of this fine forum, right?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Well, it's true that what you express is entirely possible. But it is also true that an opinion is not a fact but a speculative conjecture. So to state an opinion as a fact, even if you strongly believe it to be a fact is to some degree disingenuous. It would be more correct to state that you believe the evidence strongly supports your opinion. That may seem like a minor point but I have observed a lack of willingness to admit even small areas of doubt on both sides of the Trump / anti-Trump issue which tends to shut down dialogue or any sort of rational dialectic, rather than to promote it - which is after all part of the very worthy mission statement of this fine forum, right?

That is a brilliantly vacuous reply. I salute you, sir.

[geronl]

Well, it's true that what you express is entirely possible. But it is also true that an opinion is not a fact but a speculative conjecture.

Trump is a liberal.

[LateForLunch]

Trump is a liberal.

 Define "liberal". I ask not to be a smartypants, but because that term has lost all definitive meaning in the larger world due to the plethora of interpretations which abound everywhere.
 
The only really consistently accurate definition I find for "liberal" in my own examinations of evidence is the term "anti-conservative" since it is defined as 'being in opposition to anything or anyone who self-identifies as conservative".

Liberal most definitely does NOT mean Classical Liberal, since those Enlightenment-derived values are embodied more by conservatives in our current age far more than anyone who self-identifies as "liberal".

I'm guessing that you are referring to, "big government Statist" (likely correct, if not nearly as bad on his worst day than Hill-O-Lies on her best) and Trump has a history of that for sure. NOT GOOD!!

What I always say about his leftist (anti-conservative) proclivities is that Trump may be able to better obtain a second term if he moves right and away from his leftist inclinations, since conservatism generally is a synonym for "intelligent" and for that reason, more likely to be a guideline for effective policy-making. 

The only time self-described moderate leftists generally forgive a president their conservatism is when the president is able to actually improve the conditions of the nation dramatically - as Ronald Reagan did in his two terms. Even a lot of leftists generally acknowledged that RWR was a decent president at worst.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Attempting to reduce the election to one or two issues then claiming that this is an indication of no significant difference? Just sayin'. Can you say, "Supreme Court appointments"?  I note that Ronald Reagan's picture is on this website's header, but that many who post here against the Republican candidate have absolutely no respect for the Eleventh Commandment.

Don't worry I only criticize the NY democrats. I'm not like that Trump guy who mugs every Republican he finds. 

[corbe]

   Welcome to the Forum.

Define "liberal". I ask not to be a smartypants, but because that term has lost all definitive meaning in the larger world due to the plethora of interpretations which abound everywhere.
 
The only really consistently accurate definition I find for "liberal" in my own examinations of evidence is the term "anti-conservative" since it is defined as 'being in opposition to anything or anyone who self-identifies as conservative".

Liberal most definitely does NOT mean Classical Liberal, since those Enlightenment-derived values are embodied more by conservatives in our current age far more than anyone who self-identifies as "liberal".

I'm guessing that you are referring to, "big government Statist" (likely correct, if not nearly as bad on his worst day than Hill-O-Lies on her best) and Trump has a history of that for sure. NOT GOOD!!

What I always say about his leftist (anti-conservative) proclivities is that Trump may be able to better obtain a second term if he moves right and away from his leftist inclinations, since conservatism generally is a synonym for "intelligent" and for that reason, more likely to be a guideline for effective policy-making. 

The only time self-described moderate leftists generally forgive a president their conservatism is when the president is able to actually improve the conditions of the nation dramatically - as Ronald Reagan did in his two terms. Even a lot of leftists generally acknowledged that RWR was a decent president at worst.

   Simple - A NEW YORK Politician or anyone affiliated with such, EXAMPLE A: Donald Trump, there is nothing, nothing conservative about him, or Hillary, deblasio, Schumer, Weiner or even America's mayor Giuliani.


   Wouldn't it be easier for you, @LateForLunch to list any Conservative New Yorkers?

 

[ABX]

Democrats seek to unveil NEW MANDATORY maternity leave paid by YOUR payroll taxes. Wait, no. No, that's Trump. #suckers #NeverTrump

— Brittany Pounders (@LibertyBritt)

September 13, 2016

[Vulcan]

[Longmire]

The proposal also calls for providing six weeks of paid maternity leave through unemployment benefits to parents whose employers don’t offer paid maternity leave.

The alternative would be to pay unemployment benefits to the mother for a longer period after she loses her job for not being available to work due to her pregnancy. The Trump approach may also keep single mothers off welfare by providing an incentive to stay employed.

Hard to see how this doesn't score well with values voters.

[RoosGirl]

I note that Ronald Reagan's picture is on this website's header, but that many who post here against the Republican candidate have absolutely no respect for the Eleventh Commandment.

Neither does the Republican nominee.

[RoosGirl]

The proposal also calls for providing six weeks of paid maternity leave through unemployment benefits to parents whose employers don’t offer paid maternity leave.

The alternative would be to pay unemployment benefits to the mother for a longer period after she loses her job for not being available to work due to her pregnancy. The Trump approach may also keep single mothers off welfare by providing an incentive to stay employed.

Hard to see how this doesn't score well with values voters.

Employers are required to provide 3 months of unpaid maternity leave already; they must hold the woman's job for her during that time of absence, at least here in Florida, but I believe that is a national requirement.  Why should they also be required to pay the woman when she is not there, plus potentially have to temporarily hire and pay someone to do that job while the woman is gone?

[ABX]

I note that Ronald Reagan's picture is on this website's header, but that many who post here against the Republican candidate have absolutely no respect for the Eleventh Commandment.

Reagan's 11th Commandment was actually a tongue in cheek comment by California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson. In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan explained he followed it 'as a politician' not criticizing opponents.

This did not apply to free citizens standing up for our values and speaking out for them. I don't see Reagan ever telling private citizens to shut up, don't criticize and don't hold politicians accountable because they are in your own party- just the opposite.

The values, the commandments if you will, we stand for are the same rules Reagan found important- The Constitution of the United States of America.  That's what we stand for when we oppose corrupt liberalism destroying the Right- even if it happens to have a Republican name tag this time.

[ABX]

Employers are required to provide 3 months of unpaid maternity leave already; they must hold the woman's job for her during that time of absence, at least here in Florida, but I believe that is a national requirement.  Why should they also be required to pay the woman when she is not there, plus potentially have to temporarily hire and pay someone to do that job while the woman is gone?

Translated, with all else being equal, why would an employer hire a young woman if the employer knows there is a financial risk involved. Don't think that is a sexist comment either, I know a lot of women in the HR field and they ascribe to that and are open about that far more than men are. They can't say that is the reason or document it, but it is part of the subconscious cost benefit analysis one does when they hire.

[XenaLee]

Employers are required to provide 3 months of unpaid maternity leave already; they must hold the woman's job for her during that time of absence, at least here in Florida, but I believe that is a national requirement.  Why should they also be required to pay the woman when she is not there, plus potentially have to temporarily hire and pay someone to do that job while the woman is gone?

The unintended consequences of forcing companies to pay out the wazoo for maternity leave would only encourage employers to hire more males vs. females.  Of course, then the federal government would swoop in and force companies to hire more females (gender quotas).  Oh wait....they already have.

The fed gov has no frigging business forcing companies to provide certain benefits to their employees.  It's just another leftist attack on capitalism, since they hate and loathe the private sector and especially large corporations.