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

[Rivergirl]

As usual, he is very generous with other people's money.  He then takes all the credit unto himself.

[Sanguine]

Of course there is no "requirement" to hire a temp worker, or for a colleague to work OT (paid or unpaid.)  However, the work MUST be done.  Do you suggest that the work simply stagnates for 3 months at a time?  If so, then we don't need the employee to begin with.

@CSM

It depends on the work being done doesn't it?

If it's project related sometimes it can stagnate or be split out among other members of the team. Or someone new wears that hat which may be an opportunity for them to step up and shine.

If we're talking about shift work then yes, more hours for the remaining workforce or other improvements in efficiency. The expectation is that the employer will know how best to make the adjustments in the employee's absence.

But I really couldn't care less about an employer who would otherwise fire a pregnant employee for taking time off to have a child, and I'm guessing Trump doesn't either.

Yeah, I mean, really!  What do people think those nasty employers are in business for?  And, it's not like they worry about feeding their own families, paying their own employees (the ones who are at work anyway) and providing a service or product to their customers.  Rotten business people!

[musiclady]

Your mind works in an exact opposite manner as mine.  When I read the other poster's comments, I defaulted to Individual responsibility, the other half of the freedom equation.  It appears that your's defaulted to government responsibility, the other half of the tyranny equation.  Now that I realize this supposition in our thinking, I am really not sure which side you are espousing.  In all honesty, you may be saying this type of thing as something you might be opposing, but given our disconnect, I am simply not sure.

He's thinking like a liberal because he IS a liberal.

That's why it's exactly the opposite of your thought process or any other conservative.

And that's why he's a Trump zealot.   

Trump's a liberal too, so everything he says has to be good to a loyal leftist.

[roamer_1]

Trump attracts a sense of wanting to knock him down because there is a tacit respect felt toward someone who is a billionaire.

Well, that says more about you than about anyone else (that you would think such is the case). In my case, wealth is more likely to engender a tacit disrespect - Those who have become wildly successful financially, normally have chased mammon to it's natural end ~ And that ain't a good place.

I do not respect rich people because of their money - more often than not, I pity them for that which they lost to gain those riches. Not always, mind you - there are a few that, in spite of their riches, have gained my respect... But on the whole, there is a reason why Yeshua stated so plainly that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to gain the kingdom of heaven.

Wealth is not success.

[GrouchoTex]

Of course there is no "requirement" to hire a temp worker, or for a colleague to work OT (paid or unpaid.)  However, the work MUST be done.  Do you suggest that the work simply stagnates for 3 months at a time?  If so, then we don't need the employee to begin with.

@CSM

It depends on the work being done doesn't it?

If it's project related sometimes it can stagnate or be split out among other members of the team. Or someone new wears that hat which may be an opportunity for them to step up and shine.

If we're talking about shift work then yes, more hours for the remaining workforce or other improvements in efficiency. The expectation is that the employer will know how best to make the adjustments in the employee's absence.

But I really couldn't care less about an employer who would otherwise fire a pregnant employee for taking time off to have a child, and I'm guessing Trump doesn't either.

Which, again, should not have a federal government response to it.

[Frank Cannon]

Your mind works in an exact opposite manner as mine.  When I read the other poster's comments, I defaulted to Individual responsibility, the other half of the freedom equation.  It appears that your's defaulted to government responsibility, the other half of the tyranny equation.  Now that I realize this supposition in our thinking, I am really not sure which side you are espousing.  In all honesty, you may be saying this type of thing as something you might be opposing, but given our disconnect, I am simply not sure.

You will have to wrap your mind around the fact that Trump supporters are not nor have they ever been to the right of center. Their view of Nationalism includes a big progressive Govt' tackling their problems with money and goodies. They don't like Hitlary because the Rats never include them in the Free Stuff schemes. The National Socialists of years ago were the same way. They even had scapegoats.

[roamer_1]

If people weren't so brainwashed into accepting living in debt they could go a measly 12 weeks without the second paycheck.

Especially so if the people did not have to work for Uncle for six months of the year - I don't expect folks can even envision what it would be like for their pocketbook if the government was constrained within it's rightful bounds.

Then they could afford to take care of their parents, and their children, without the need for the nanny state to intervene.

[musiclady]

You will have to wrap your mind around the fact that Trump supporters are not nor have they ever been to the right of center. Their view of Nationalism includes a big progressive Govt' tackling their problems with money and goodies. They don't like Hitlary because the Rats never include them in the Free Stuff schemes. The National Socialists of years ago were the same way. They even had scapegoats.

This!

[Sanguine]

Especially so if the people did not have to work for Uncle for six months of the year - I don't expect folks can even envision what it would be like for their pocketbook if the government was constrained within it's rightful bounds.

Then they could afford to take care of their parents, and their children, without the need for the nanny state to intervene.

 

[roamer_1]

Your mind works in an exact opposite manner as mine.  When I read the other poster's comments, I defaulted to Individual responsibility, the other half of the freedom equation.  It appears that your's defaulted to government responsibility, the other half of the tyranny equation.  Now that I realize this supposition in our thinking, I am really not sure which side you are espousing.  In all honesty, you may be saying this type of thing as something you might be opposing, but given our disconnect, I am simply not sure.

Let's not forget the simple equation that for every responsibility the government assumes, it is necessarily paid for in liberty lost, and that it necessarily stunts the character of the people:

If I am left to myself, I can take the decision to be benevolent to my employees.
If I am left to myself, the responsibility of taking care of my elder family members is inherent in the nature of societal norms...
If I am left to myself, it is inherent upon me to instill my children with knowledge, and to teach them what they must know.
If I am left to myself, it is upon me to exercise charity - to take care of those local to me that are in dire need.


Those responsibilities are best laid upon the citizen as they offer the opportunity to rise above the baser human kind - And that opportunity is lost the moment someone else will do it. Thus the nanny state reduces or breaks the moral societal contract, and none will rise above.

And I might add that it is often best that the citizen does indeed rise to those responsibilities, as they are likely to be the most effective.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

If Tump thinks this is such a great idea. Is he already offering this benefit to the foreign or domestic workers he hires at his casinos?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Especially so if the people did not have to work for Uncle for six months of the year - I don't expect folks can even envision what it would be like for their pocketbook if the government was constrained within it's rightful bounds.

Then they could afford to take care of their parents, and their children, without the need for the nanny state to intervene.

But it's so great every spring the government gives me some of my money that they borrowed with no interest back to me and everybody puts TVs on sale.

Bread and circuses. It's this kind of complacency that makes me cynical.

[roamer_1]

Bread and circuses. It's this kind of complacency that makes me cynical.

Rightly so.

[LMAO]

THIS is why conservatives can't get elected dog catchers.  Step back and read the tortured logic you've used @LMAO---all to prevent new working mothers from receiving 6 weeks pay, keeping them off unemployment and welfare and giving them an incentive to return to work.

Huh? What tortured logic should I step back and read? I simply posted Trump's proposal, the part you ignored, from the link you yourself provided

[GrouchoTex]

But it's so great every spring the government gives me some of my money that they borrowed with no interest back to me and everybody puts TVs on sale.

Bread and circuses. It's this kind of complacency that makes me cynical.

I wish election day was April 15th.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I wish election day was April 15th.

Darn straight.

[DB]

Of course there is no "requirement" to hire a temp worker, or for a colleague to work OT (paid or unpaid.)  However, the work MUST be done.  Do you suggest that the work simply stagnates for 3 months at a time?  If so, then we don't need the employee to begin with.

@CSM

It depends on the work being done doesn't it?

If it's project related sometimes it can stagnate or be split out among other members of the team. Or someone new wears that hat which may be an opportunity for them to step up and shine.

If we're talking about shift work then yes, more hours for the remaining workforce or other improvements in efficiency. The expectation is that the employer will know how best to make the adjustments in the employee's absence.

But I really couldn't care less about an employer who would otherwise fire a pregnant employee for taking time off to have a child, and I'm guessing Trump doesn't either.

So again, you never actually run a business with employees and a payroll to meet. You've worked at larger businesses as an employee and think you know all about it because you were involved with hiring people - yet have never actually done it on your dime. You have no idea what you're talking about and it plainly shows.

[roamer_1]

So again, you never actually run a business with employees and a payroll to meet. You've worked at larger businesses as an employee and think you know all about it because you were involved with hiring people - yet have never actually done it on your dime. You have no idea what you're talking about and it plainly shows.

That is true.

[NavyCanDo]

Reading the same story in my Seattle Times, Trump is quoted as saying

"It's pro-family, it's pro-child, it's pro-worker. These are the people we have to take care of"

Sound like a Liberal Democrat statement  to you?    Sure does.   the old if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

[Luis Gonzalez]

You will have to wrap your mind around the fact that Trump supporters are not nor have they ever been to the right of center. Their view of Nationalism includes a big progressive Govt' tackling their problems with money and goodies. They don't like Hitlary because the Rats never include them in the Free Stuff schemes. The National Socialists of years ago were the same way. They even had scapegoats.

Well said.

[guitar4jesus]

Reading the same story in my Seattle Times, Trump is quoted as saying

"It's pro-family, it's pro-child, it's pro-worker. These are the people we have to take care of"

Sound like a Liberal Democrat statement  to you?    Sure does.   the old if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

That's been his dead giveaway the whole campaign.  He keeps saying he's going to take care of the blacks, take care of the LGBTQXYZ, take care of the mothers, take care of the consumers... ad infinitum.  That is democrat talk. He is a democrat period.  He has always been and the people supporting him that call themselves conservative are deluded, dumb, drunk or complicit.

[roamer_1]

He has always been and the people supporting him that call themselves conservative are deluded, dumb, drunk or complicit.

Complicit, regardless - I wonder how many know they are selling us into servitude with all the 'free' stuff they support?

[sinkspur]

Limbaugh has thrown in the towel on conservatism:

[sinkspur]

[ArneFufkin]

This has Ivanka's grubby hands all over it.

Terrible policy proposal.