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

[LateForLunch]

Since Trump has no ties whatsoever to farm lobby for funding or support, he is the only candidate who likely has the political independence to generate reforms in Farm subsidies, his endorsement of ethanol subsidies to the side. I will gladly trade keeping some ethanol subsidies if we eliminate countless billions is wasted subsidies to the sugar, milk, pork, beef, corn, wheat, sorghum, beet, lettuce, barley etc. producers .

@LateForLunch

  You still Waiting on that Publishers Clearing house guy to show up????

In the language of my people that was, "ah goo d'wahn"! Even if I disagree with you substantively, I can appreciate a good joke! 

No need to look at the Farmer's Almanac to see clearly who has cornered the market on glib, cynical witticisms!!

[LateForLunch]

@LateForLunch

Cruz came out strongly against ethanol subsidies and won Iowa, but I digress.

Are you trying to say that Trump is saying what he thinks he has to say to win, regardless of what he really believes?  And if that's the case, then how can one believe anything he says on anything?

hah hah a legitimate question for sure! Although Sen. Cruz (my first choice BTW) only won by one delegate ( eight to Trump's seven with 3.3 % margin of victory). So Trump likely accomplished his objective at boosting his showing in a state where Cruz led for most of the election cycle. Trumps gratuitous endorsement of Ethanol subsidies may have been the difference between a second and third place finish, with Rubio nipping at his heels.

There are a lot of elements in political campaigns which have nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Read Nicolo Machiavelli's "The Prince". If you think that there is any successful politician in national races whose first or only criterion for any policy position is their personal preference or one that is solely based on morality, you are kidding yourself. 

There is an old saying about politicians - there are only two kinds, ones who admit that they sometimes take positions that they don't believe in strongly, because they are politically expedient and those who do this but deny it.

The reason Trump may be somewhat honest about his policies going forward is that he is more likely to be elected and then reelected if he is mostly truthful and ethical because (in recent history)  most voters still seem to strongly prefer presidents whom they believe to be mostly honest and ethical.

[Truthsearcher]

@LateForLunch

Cruz came out strongly against ethanol subsidies and won Iowa, but I digress.

Are you trying to say that Trump is saying what he thinks he has to say to win, regardless of what he really believes?  And if that's the case, then how can one believe anything he says on anything?

Because I'm special so Donald would never lie to me, he'd only lie to other people.

[Sanguine]

Because I'm special so Donald would never lie to me, he'd only lie to other people.

Sadly, I think you nailed it.

[LilLamb]

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.

Maybe she shouldn't get pregnant is she can't afford it.

[GrouchoTex]

Maybe she shouldn't get pregnant is she can't afford it.

What a novel idea!

[ABX]

Since Trump has no ties whatsoever to farm lobby for funding or support.....

You may want to think about that 'no ties whatsoever' comment-- absolutes can be killers.  His campaign has basically be run by the Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly  lobbying firm (currently listed as Prime Policy Group) which are neck deep in all sorts of lobbying, including farm and energy subsidies.

[LateForLunch]

Sadly, I think you nailed it.

That's a very humorous if flippant reply. I give it a ten on humor and a "O"  on substance. Sniping at someone like Trump is easy no?  Maybe even easier than Clinton, who is not only feisty but sort of pathetic. Trump attracts a sense of wanting to knock him down because there is a tacit respect felt toward someone who is a billionaire. A sense of wanting to be the one who "takes them down". Nailing down exactly how he is equivalent to or even inferior to Hill-O-Lies as a candidate less so. I notice a great deal of the former and much less of the latter in threads discussing it.

Being dismissive and insulting toward Trump shuts down dialogue which serves what or whom? Those who delight in insulting people with whom they disagree, but few others. I submit also that as enjoyable as bash-fests may be to the principles, they lack effectiveness in convincing or persuading people of one's POV.

[TomSea]

Trump is wrong, Larry Elder vocalizes on this on twitter. This is an entitlement and would cost millions. Bosses though should already do this.

[corbe]

Being dismissive and insulting toward Trump shuts down dialogue which serves what or whom? Those who delight in insulting people with whom they disagree, but few others. I submit also that as enjoyable as bash-fests may be to the principles, they lack effectiveness in convincing or persuading people of one's POV.



   @LateForLunch I hope that you came here for Dialogue, Insight and Entertainment and not affirmation.

   IMHO there are few #NeverTrumpers here that can be convinced that your Candidate is the BEST OPTION now and there are near Absolute ZERO Trumpers/Trumpettes that will admit that they screwed the pooch.  So be it, have fun, enjoy life and most of all don't take it to serious or the Dr will up your Lisinopril.

[Night Hides Not]

Being dismissive and insulting toward Trump shuts down dialogue which serves what or whom? Those who delight in insulting people with whom they disagree, but few others. I submit also that as enjoyable as bash-fests may be to the principles, they lack effectiveness in convincing or persuading people of one's POV.



   @LateForLunch I hope that you came here for Dialogue, Insight and Entertainment and not affirmation.

   IMHO there are few #NeverTrumpers here that can be convinced that your Candidate is the BEST OPTION now and there are near Absolute ZERO Trumpers/Trumpettes that will admit that they screwed the pooch.  So be it, have fun, enjoy life and most of all don't take it to serious or the Dr will up your Lisinopril.

The reaction to Trump's plan on TOS has been hilarious...just ask newcomer Truthsearcher.

@Truthsearcher

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I'm interested in knowing what the pure "conservative" child/elder care plan would look like.

Please ... tell me.

Like most "conservative" plans I expect the government to leave me the F^#& alone and do it myself. I don't remember seeing childcare listed as a power of the federal government in which case amendments 9 and 10 apply.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Like most "conservative" plans I expect the government to leave me the F^#& alone and do it myself. I don't remember seeing childcare listed as a power of the federal government in which case amendments 9 and 10 apply.

In theory this is right, I hear Limbaugh say this as well... how will you sell this to the voters when the Democrats can just frame it as some sort of "heartless" conservative plan?

[driftdiver]

I haven't seen the score on Trump's proposal but I do know that it will be part of a more comprehensive tax reform proposal to be presented on Thursday.

I also know that $4 billion represents approximately 10 million weeks of unemployment insurance which would cover almost 2 million paid leaves under the proposal.

The alternative of course would be the Clinton plan which is a lot less business friendly, so choose carefully.

@Night Hides Not @Longmire

I see how you present this as only two options.  The alternative is to let people negotiate with their employer for the benefits they want.If people weren't so brainwashed into accepting living in debt they could go a measly 12 weeks without the second paycheck.

[driftdiver]

In theory this is right, I hear Limbaugh say this as well... how will you sell this to the voters when the Democrats can just frame it as some sort of "heartless" conservative plan?

Once again the GOP lets the demonrats set the agenda and write the script.

Taking the focus off everything bad the demonrats are doing.

[Night Hides Not]

In theory this is right, I hear Limbaugh say this as well... how will you sell this to the voters when the Democrats can just frame it as some sort of "heartless" conservative plan?

You don't beat Democrats by being Democrat-lite.

[GrouchoTex]

Like most "conservative" plans I expect the government to leave me the F^#& alone and do it myself. I don't remember seeing childcare listed as a power of the federal government in which case amendments 9 and 10 apply.

I 100% agree with you.
It is not in the Constitution, so it would be for the states to decide how best to deal (or not deal) with it.
The 10th amendment is a big deal with me.

[Night Hides Not]

@Night Hides Not @Longmire

I see how you present this as only two options.  The alternative is to let people negotiate with their employer for the benefits they want.If people weren't so brainwashed into accepting living in debt they could go a measly 12 weeks without the second paycheck.

I simply object to the creation of another federal mandate. Large corporations have their own bureaucracies to handle the regulatory overload. Small businesses do not, and small businesses are usually the job creators in our economy.

[GrouchoTex]

You don't beat Democrats by being Democrat-lite.

Exactly.
I believe, at the end of the day, this is what did Romney in.
Romney had Romneycare and supported Gay marriage.
He received less votes than McCain did.
While I voted for him, I think many did not, as by doing so, what would you gain?
What would be the point?

Democrat-lite.

[Bigun]

You don't beat Democrats by being Democrat-lite.

   and   

[driftdiver]

I simply object to the creation of another federal mandate. Large corporations have their own bureaucracies to handle the regulatory overload. Small businesses do not, and small businesses are usually the job creators in our economy.

Oh I was agreeing with you.   Both of these "options" are nothing but new entitlement programs.  Because people DESERVE a paycheck right?   

Small business creates far more jobs then big business in America.   Far more.    As a small business owner I'll tell you I cannot afford to pay someone for 12 weeks without working.   I already give them vacation and sick time. 

[musiclady]

Anyone still want to know why I can't vote for Trump?

Nope.

Every day more of the same liberalism.

It's his core, and it's going to get worse.

[LMAO]

Thanks everyone for the welcome.

The rationalization I used was that I should fight the battle I'm in now and worry about the battles in the future in the future.  So take Trump over Hillary now, and then oppose Trump whenever he is tempted to swing left should he win.

But the enthusiastic response this proposal got on FR simply because it's proposed by Trump really made me pause: as I wrote on FR,  I’m entirely unsure that a Trump presidency where he pulls half of the conservative constituency drastically to the left, is any preferable than a Hillary presidency where the conservative opposition is dug in and determined to oppose her agenda.

@Truthsearcher

Welcome. I saw your reply at FR. If one could, it would be fun to go back in time and take Trump's proposal, go to FR,  and tell the folks there it's Hillary's and watch the reaction

[geronl]

Since Trump has no ties whatsoever to farm lobby for funding or support, he is the only candidate who likely has the political independence to generate reforms in Farm subsidies, his endorsement of ethanol subsidies to the side. I will gladly trade keeping some ethanol subsidies if we eliminate countless billions is wasted subsidies to the sugar, milk, pork, beef, corn, wheat, sorghum, beet, lettuce, barley etc. producers .

Trump's people are talking about subsidies and "stimulus" that would make FDR blush.

Trump is very much pro-subsidy

[Idaho_Cowboy]

In theory this is right, I hear Limbaugh say this as well... how will you sell this to the voters when the Democrats can just frame it as some sort of "heartless" conservative plan?

I prefer the Dr. Walter E. Williams approach the best.

He's used other examples, this isn't the best but it was handy:
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2009/04/01/our_problem_is_immorality

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The other argument is that the government by instituting these regulations are taking away opporutnites and prosperity from people. Good intentions aren't enough. Making it more expensive to hire women comdemns more of them to  unemployment. It's the same argument about the minimum wage. We need to argue how the government is taking jobs from people through their actions. We cannot give them a pass for claiming good intentions.