For low-income individuals who have no net income tax liability, we will offer an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in the form of a childcare rebate....
Next, our plan allows every parent in America to open up a Dependent Care Savings Account.... the funds in these accounts do not expire at the end of the year... The funds will remain in the account until the age of 18. Whatever still remains at that time can be used to help offset the costs of higher education.
For low-income individuals, the federal government will provide matching funds – if parents contribute $1,000 dollars, the federal government will provide a $500 dollars match....
Our plan includes incentives for more employers to offer on-site childcare as well....
Finally, our plan offers a crucial safety net for working mothers whose employers do not provide paid maternity leave....
१३ सप्टेंबर, २०१६
Trump announces his child care plan.
"The first part of my childcare plan allows every parent or family in America – including adoptive parents and foster parent guardians – to deduct their childcare expenses from their income taxes...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११२ टिप्पण्या:
Good for Trump. The only way to get elected is to throw out some boob bait for the voters with boobs.
Sounds expensive.
It is much needed. But how much will it cost in net revenue loss?
Great idea!
Let's discuss this after you are elected..
What's in this for the childfree and for seniors?
When will the tsunami wave of anchor babies this creates come ashore.
We better get some industrial jobs back soon.
Hillary promises free college education, Trump free childcare. Which is more expensive? At today's prices, college clearly.
Is this just for deplorables, or everyone?
"Luke Lea said...
Hillary promises free college education, Trump free childcare. Which is more expensive? At today's prices, college clearly."
Uh, it's not free childcare. And free college ain't gonna happen.
This was my comment at WSJ: "I would like to, but can not, agree with the hard core " conservative" types that see this as another give away. If this program is coupled with a reform of the corporate tax to remove special giveaways to corporations and transfer some of that money to improving child care I will be all for it. I would much rather see the government invest in childrens' futures than see Elon Musk, Jeffrey Immelt, Warren Buffett and similar continue to benefit from unneeded and unwarranted tax breaks."
Yes this is social engineering that seems repugnant to "pure conservatives", but I feel it recognizes the reality of politics today and helps disarm Clinton. Republicans - and Democrats - have for too long been willing to grant special, and unneeded, benefits to the well heeled and powerful. If the Republicans are going to continue as a viable party this is the kind of policy shift needed. Many will moan "How will we pay for it?". My answer is set priorities, get rid of the unnecessary or non-productive programs, people and departments and use the money where it will do the most good for people and politics.
The House Republican response was: "Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he hadn’t yet reviewed the details of Mr. Trump’s plan, saying only that the nominee’s overall tax package “is very close to the House Republican blueprint.” Good.
Jimbino asks: What's in this for the childfree and for seniors?
lifetime passes to all the national parks if you're lucky.
Free! Free! Free! Finally, it's sunk in and our leaders understand that you don't have to pay for anything! The economy is just one great big wonderful credit card with no spending limit.
The American people, raising kids and caring for parents, thank you Mr. Trump.
"Free! Free! Free! Finally, it's sunk in and our leaders understand that you don't have to pay for anything! The economy is just one great big wonderful credit card with no spending limit."
I heard on the radio that some part of DJT's giveaways go to folks making up to 500 grand a year. Even in expensive areas half a million is pretty good dough. I know there's a private school in Seattle that puts the financial aid cut off north of 300 grand, presumably most folks making half a million should be ok.
OTOH, these half mill folks are actually paying real percentages of their dough in taxes (assuming they're W2 type income where it's hard to dodge). And sure, a lot of folks in this range, not to mention below it, get stuff like this paid by the employer. But, as soon as it becomes free or partly free from the gov, you can be assured that the employers will whack this out of the compensation packages so the dough can be redirected straight to the employees, or better yet, to the share holders (public) or owners (private).
Cha-ching!
Anywho, at some point I'm thinking that more folks in these threads will start to understand why I've stated that DJT is not a conservative.
P.S. It's probably worth repeating that folks who say they'll vote for DJT because he's the kind of person who gets the better of the folks he's making deals w/ must realize that they are the folks he's making a deal with. Think about it.
Income taxes. Same old same...
We need to ween the country off of the 20th Century income tax, and move to a consumption tax.
I would begin with a 20% VAT in addition to the Income tax, to pay directly on the debt (not the unfunded liabilities). Then reduce the VAT as the debt falls below 1 Trillion. Then phase out the income tax while reducing the VAT one for one.
I would exempt all groceries and prescriptions from state, federal, county, and city taxation.
I would charge sports players and their team 1 million dollars a game for every flag they don't salute.
Very smart and certainly superior to the Democrat's have-another-block-o'-government-cheese programs. Working people and families are enabled. How is that not conservative?
Certainly more effective than insulting half the population or pitching dummies on YouTube.
It's worth noticing that this is not just a "giveaway" of that which the federal government decides you can have. It's more like school vouchers, in which the beneficiaries have free reign over how and where to spend the money and, in the case of savings accounts, requires the beneficiaries to have a stake.
This is exactly the way we should want a social safety net to work. This is a market-based social program that runs on individual choice. If we find that it works, it could be a model for more social programs to be consolidated into or ditched in favor of such a model, which would make them more efficient.
The Donald tacks left. Sort of like "Grant Comes East" which led to winning the Civil War,
Actually the Dems and Hillary supporters (not necessarily congruent groups) have been banging on for years about the USA being the only first world country that does not offer some sort of maternity leave--which is another part of The Donald's proposals.
As long as we are drinking that free 7 Up and eating rainbow stew, The Donald's plan has something for everyone. Middle class types get six months maternity leave. Welfare single moms get extra dough on the EITC. Whoo hah, here we go!
Seriously you don't know what you are going to get with The Donald. I do know what I'm going to get with Hillary, and I'd rather deal with the Devil I don't know.
You know who else benefits big time from this? Immigrants. And by immigrants I mean Hispanics, natch.
Meanwhile: Wikileak DNC Email Dump part Deux
Wikileaks strikes again with DNC document dump part 2. Could be another rough patch that Hillary will power through.
Not a lot there for couples who choose to have one of them stay home to raise the kids. In Trumps world, Moms raising young children are losing out on what people who outsource raising their children get.
There is currently a childcare expense credit, a per child credit, two college tuition credits and the Earned Income Credit. I'm pretty sure by consolidating these into this plan we could come out close to even.
jimbino said...
What's in this for the childfree and for seniors?"
What exactly do you want the childfree to get from the government?
I get that you detest children and do not want people to reproduce. How did that work out for the Shakers?
Reconciliation of moral, natural, and personal imperatives is an American (i.e. conservative) enterprise. Ideally, the policies will be accompanied by moral reform (e.g. end abortion rites, limit female chauvinism), economic revitalization, and contributory entitlements (e.g. pregnancy insurance) in order to mitigate human debasement, trickle-up poverty, and progressive corruption.
"It's worth noticing that this is not just a "giveaway" of that which the federal government decides you can have. It's more like school vouchers, in which the beneficiaries have free reign over how and where to spend the money and, in the case of savings accounts, requires the beneficiaries to have a stake.
This is exactly the way we should want a social safety net to work. This is a market-based social program that runs on individual choice. If we find that it works, it could be a model for more social programs to be consolidated into or ditched in favor of such a model, which would make them more efficient."
Hunter is funny. A little mixed up w/ the talking points. It's good to give the blank check when feds shoot dough to the states, but it's terrible to let folks decide what to do w/ gov dough, otherwise, for example, they use food stamps to buy fillet mignon and cigarettes. In this situation, w/ total freedom, they could use the dough to buy crack. So, there will need to be some limitations, e.g. ensuring that there are some minimal standards for where these funds can be used. Just as schools need to be certified, so to should any place where this dough ends up.
And, fellow capitalists (i.e. not the rubes who ape what they're told), don't worry about the so called certification process, as w/ the for profits that sold out folks will filling their bank accounts w/ gov supported dough, there'll be plenty of fat to go around.
I would begin with a 20% VAT in addition to the Income tax, to pay directly on the debt (not the unfunded liabilities). Then reduce the VAT as the debt falls below 1 Trillion.
The VAT is used extensively in Europe because it is a hidden tax. Politicians love it because they can tax consumers without the consumers realizing it. A VAT is a VERY bad idea if you are against higher taxes. Once you get a VAT you NEVER get rid of it – it is just too tempting, too easy of a way to collect taxes without penalty from the voters.
That is the for profit so called higher ed places like ITT
Not a lot there for couples who choose to have one of them stay home to raise the kids. In Trumps world, Moms raising young children are losing out on what people who outsource raising their children get.
Mark, I would like to see more mothers stay home with their young children, too. But the reality is, because of high divorce rate, out-of-wedlock children and the two-income trap for many couples, there needs to be some childcare write-off to give people a chance to get a bit ahead--or even to just keep up with increased expenses while wages remain stagnant. Child care is ridiculously expensive. And most grandmas today are, themselves, working.
These are the kinds of things that republicans SHOULD have been proposing for decades. Taking care of children is a great investment. There is no federal agency here, just help for parents. With the decrease in religion more help and support is needed.
Republicans should OWN children's issues, that they do not shows how much in thrall to business we have become.
We are closing in on $20trillian of debt. We are printing free money as fast as we can because we are scared to death of charging anything for it lest we tank the economy. We are masking the resulting inflation by gaming the nunbers.
Speaking of the economy, we are lucky to put two good months together much less two quarters. Unemployment is under control only because so many have given up looking, or settled for working part time.
Our foreign policy is in tatters.
And yet, one clown named Hillary touts universal pre-K, while the other clown annouces his child care plan. These are the issues of the day.
"there needs to be some childcare write-off to give people a chance to get a bit ahead"
Is this plan an earned income credit type of thing, where you get the reimbursement even if you haven't paid enough in taxes?
[That's a completely earnest question. I'm too lazy to look for the answer myself. But, the answer drastically changes what this proposal means, where the rubber hits the road.]
Dupes!
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy"
A.F. Tytler, or insert your preferred wise old guy...
Who said we can't have it all? This should turn out well.
The CNN Crew was furious with Trump for taking Hillary's issue for his own. They passionately talked over the token GOP guy Jack Kingston saying Hillary had been working on this for 35 years, using the it had always been blocked by the GOP in Congress talking point.
Kingston who was actually in Congress for 22 of those years told them they were all wrong. But if the Dems had always failed despite 16 years of Clinton and Obama, then why not try someone different...someone who is not all talk and no action.
CWJ...exactly what is a better investment than successful families? I understand debt, but childcare is really tough. If we could get something like 20% more nannies for example, that would be awesome.
I predict that Trump will propose to make student loan debt dischargable in bankruptcy.
What Grackle said. I don't think a VAT or even a national sales tax will happen. How would you tell seniors who paid income taxes all their lives and saved for retirement that they will be taxed a second time?
"CWJ...exactly what is a better investment than successful families? I understand debt, but childcare is really tough. If we could get something like 20% more nannies for example, that would be awesome."
One thing about human nature cannot be changed: incentives matter. Why not pay every person w/ a kid $20,000 per kid per year? That's still less than $2,000 a month, per kid. So, a single gal w/ 5 kids could be pulling down $100,000. If she lives in some back country area, this could be viable.
Will the kids grow up to be contributors? I dunno. I guess every gal kid could rack up a six pack of kids so they can get by. Maybe the dudes will bounce around hanging for a bit as they land to inseminate this or that gal.
Anywho, I think a lot of Northern European countries do have the gov help a lot w/ kid expenses. Not sure that's been a typical source of inspiration for Rs, but this is the DJT era. Of course DJT says that he will make this happen w/o the taxes to pay for it that the Scandinavians count on. Got it.
"...exactly what is a better investment than successful families?"
Indeed! And investing in familial success used to be a primary objective and responsibility for families. Please illustrate how farming that out to Uncle Sugar has improved the situation over the last half century.
"What Grackle said. I don't think a VAT or even a national sales tax will happen. How would you tell seniors who paid income taxes all their lives and saved for retirement that they will be taxed a second time?"
It's cool how the very thing that allows them to live longer and better lives is the same thing that means they're getting more than they paid for. Medical advances and the futile stuff that can be done as end of life care are amazing, but not cheap.
Anywho, we need to be sure that they siff us w/ the biggest possible check, so let's not ask them to pay 20% more, as a VAT, for their leisure suits and hair dye.
Coupe wrote:
"I would begin with a 20% VAT in addition to the Income tax, to pay directly on the debt (not the unfunded liabilities)."
So the people that live hand-to-mouth would see a 20% reduction what their money would buy.
Good luck.
As I recall, Ivanka was unable to vote for Daddy in the NY Primary. Why? She failed to CHANGE her party affiliation registration on time. Probably means nothing. Not saying they're all a buncha Democrats with New York values. Ted Cruz said that.
Deduct from your taxes or deduct from your income? If it's deduct from your taxes, nobody will pay taxes. Spend it instead on your kid.
PB&J wrote:
". . . so let's not ask them to pay 20% more, as a VAT, for their leisure suits and hair dye."
Hillary wears pant suits. She does, however, dye her hair.
All politicians put forth lots of plans.
Some they can get past Congress, some they cannot. Some are realistic, some are not.
Reagan did the same thing, and like Reagan Trump knows you need a strong economy FIRST before you can implement such plans (unlike Obama where the 'stimulus' was just a graft machine for the Democrats, just like Obamacare, and the economy went nowhere as nothing was done to cut taxes and regulations.)
We will see what Trump can do as for what he puts forth. What we do know is Hillary will do nothing unless you donate to the Clinton Foundation. She is all pay-to-play.
Paul,
You seem like the sort of person who thinks DJT should be supported because he always gets the best of whoever it is that he's making a deal w/.
Do you realize what the deal is that he's currently working on? Do you know who it is that he's trying to outmaneuver and take advantage of?
Or, are you assuming that he isn't in deal making mode as he looks to collect votes? It's impossible to realize that you, and folks like you, are the ones he's outmaneuvering, isn't it.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Hunter is funny. A little mixed up w/ the talking points. It's good to give the blank check when feds shoot dough to the states, but it's terrible to let folks decide what to do w/ gov dough, otherwise, for example, they use food stamps to buy fillet mignon and cigarettes.
I don't have a problem with that, except that the bleeding hearts would give people all these advantages and STILL demand we bail out those who make stupid decisions. But still, I am for a safety net mostly in the form of guaranteed minimum income. Let people waste their money if they want. You might be surprised how quickly they learn.
Alternatively, they will end up living the way they prefer to live. Social-planning gods forbid! We can't have the dirty poor living dirty lives, unless they are living the dirty lives WE prescribe them with Section 8 and shitty public schools...
In this situation, w/ total freedom, they could use the dough to buy crack. So, there will need to be some limitations, e.g. ensuring that there are some minimal standards for where these funds can be used. Just as schools need to be certified, so to should any place where this dough ends up.
Duh. This doesn't mean that voucher based benefits aren't still better. Food stamps are an example: government doesn't run the grocery store, it just provides funds. Else we'd have bare shelves and bread lines like every socialist country.
Incidentally, people are still able to buy cigarettes (and less legal things) with their benefits by selling them for cash. Of course they have to do so at a huge discount, so the beneficiaries lose and the taxpayers lose, while "urban entrepreneurs" profit from the contempt of social planners toward the common peons' ability to make their own choices.
Don't worry Paul. Between lowly educated folks who are wise, highly educated folks (some of which are wise), conservatives who are conservative, and libs who are smart and dopey: we'll take care of this for you, and folks like you.
Looks more and more like civil war followed by a groovy Mad Max dystopia. Zika 2016!
Can't tell where the Democrats leave off and the Republicans begin.
Hunter,
I figured you'd flesh it out.
But, just as you see that there needs to be strings to at least make it harder for folks to use gov dough for cigarettes, hopefully you'll consider looking at States w/ a little skepticism when they push for Fed dough w/o strings, as block grants. Sometimes, they want the dough for innovation and effectiveness. But, they could also be looking for dough to plug this or that hole, or to support this or that pet project or donor. Only a sucker would default to trusting pols at any level, regardless of party, they are still politicians, after all.
Paid maternity leave will have a lot of unintended consequences for women at the lower end of the economic ladder I fear.
But the dependent savings account with the government kicking in for low income families? Not bad.
Also Hunter,
If the common peons want to make decisions w/ gov dough, there do need to be some hoops.
Just sayin'.
Birches,
Where should the dough come from for the gov dough that is contributed?
Or, will that just work itself out w/ dynamic budgeting?
As I noted up-thread, the Scandinavian countries are generous w/ this sort of thing. But, they pay for it, too.
Of course, they probably don't know about dynamic budgeting. If they did, they wouldn't need tax revenue.
He could tax the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood. They are a first-order cause of catastrophic anthropogenic child carnage. He should also promote a separation of Pro-Choice Church and State that promoted a quasi-religious fantasy in order to normalize abortion rites and clinical cannibalism.
Sounds Highly Persuasive to me.
Also, I wonder if the so called conservatives who are lining up to join the DJT train w/ these giveaways have a logic based justification for thinking that the same constituents (not to mention many more) who are looking for this giveaway will not also be looking for healthcare giveaways. Presumably, if you give away conservatism here, you can retreat and hold the line a bit further back. Got it.
Terry said...So the people that live hand-to-mouth would see a 20% reduction what their money would buy.
These people would have tax free groceries, and you can get free shoes anywhere. I get them at Goodwill. Nice shoes!
The timing is good too. While Clinton is in blackout figuring out if she is too overheated to go on.
He could tax the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood. They are a first-order cause of catastrophic anthropogenic child carnage.
The more we can do to make popping out kids a way of life, the more types of folks who are inclined to pop out kids as a way of life (instead of working, striving and contributing to society) you will have.
Incentives.
Trump talking about EITC's reminds me of the Tweet that Ann Coulter posted right after Trump's apparent immigration reversal; when Trump talked about immigrants staying legally if they had been here for years, had not been convicted of any other crimes, "and paid their taxes."
Ann Coulter, quite brilliantly, observed that for a whole lot of low-wage immigrants with young children that might mean we'd be paying illegals "30k apiece in EITC."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8669/ann-coulter-unloads-trump-over-immigration-flip-james-barrett
The only refuge for any self respecting con voting for DJT is to say the dude is full of BS and doesn't mean what he says.
Of course, it's got to be hard to not see the irony and lack of wisdom associated with using this as a justification for pulling the lever.
Chuck,
The cool thing is that folks who actually care about stopping immigration (not that I'm one of them) all know that the "pay their taxes" line is a complete BS, red flag which is only intended to trick the rubes.
Anywho, good times.
Exiledonmainstreet wonders: I get that you detest children and do not want people to reproduce. How did that work out for the Shakers?
Same way it worked out for Jesus and St Paul.
I know this is a crazy concept, but if some single (or not single) gal can't afford to have one or six kids: maybe she shouldn't have one or six kids. Kids cost dough. Are we sure that the gov should pay for folks to have as many kids as they can manage to push out?
BTW, don't some of the Powell/Rice leaked emails seem like ass covering that they were hoping would be leaked? The stuff about Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz seem hyped.
Or, maybe this is just typical catharsis and blame displacing that helps folks w/ errors on their records feel better. I don't think they'd want it leaked that they thought Stevens was in any way responsible for what happened to him. At least they also had HRC in the crosshairs, with all sorts for other folks. Presumably, the Rs can latch on to the HRC part while ignoring the rest.
Blogger Chuck said...
Trump talking about EITC's reminds me of the Tweet that Ann Coulter posted right after Trump's apparent immigration reversal; when Trump talked about immigrants staying legally if they had been here for years, had not been convicted of any other crimes, "and paid their taxes."
Ann Coulter, quite brilliantly, observed that for a whole lot of low-wage immigrants with young children that might mean we'd be paying illegals "30k apiece in EITC."
The fact of the matter is that the tax code already permits illegals to get Earned Income Tax Credit and billions of dollars per year for Child Care Tax Credits claiming non-dependents residing in Mexico with the blessing of American tax preparers and non-enforcement by the IRS.
"Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
The only refuge for any self respecting con voting for DJT is to say the dude is full of BS and doesn't mean what he says."
“National Review will support the rightwardmost viable candidate.”
W.F. Buckley
People who pulled the lever for Romney and McCain should have no problem with Trump's announced policies. For whatever that is worth.
In 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 there was no requirement that the candidate be a Reaganite conservative. In 2016, apparently, there is.
Of course, the government paying for gals to push out kids is never going to be too lucrative. So this sort of incentive will only be appealing to folks who are participating in the lower income professions. It's, literally, an incentive for un-success. I don't doubt that, for some low skill folks, making kids could be a financially wiser choice than making burgers at the golden arches. I guess that's how you make America great again.
It's a shame that Trump isn't the strong, powerful, pure conservative that Mitt Romneycare Romney and John McCain-Feingold McCain were.
Sad days.
Eric,
You sound like you've conceded to Trump in the deal he's proposing to you.
The cool thing is that it seems to take many of you a while to figure out that you've been had. From the hundreds of folks who made deals and regretted it to the TumpUers who gave great reviews before coming to their senses: you are not alone.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
So, let me get this straight, PB&J: GW Bush, McCain, and Romney were acceptable candidates to conservatives, but Trump is not? And this is why?
Terry,
Unless I missed something, they didn't speak admirably of Putin leadership skills and they didn't insult POWs.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
"The only refuge for any self respecting con voting for DJT is to say the dude is full of BS and doesn't mean what he says.
Of course, it's got to be hard to not see the irony and lack of wisdom associated with using this as a justification."
A person who is voting for Hillary said this. You have no self awareness.
A president gets to do one thing after they are elected in the legislative arena. One. This won't be that one thing. I appreciate that Trump wants to actually win the election. Things like this would be marginally better but not worth fighting for. A flat tax or balanced budget amendment would be.
Hopefully after he wins we can have a few IG's and special prosecutors and a useful DOJ and an angry FBI go through the Clinton foundation, fast and furious, the IRS, the EPA and the other lawless bureaucracies.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Eric,
You sound like you've conceded to Trump in the deal he's proposing to you.
The cool thing is that it seems to take many of you a while to figure out that you've been had.
Huh? I love Trump. Can't wait to vote for him.
Whatchoo Talkin bout, Willis?
Blogger Terry said...
So, let me get this straight, PB&J: GW Bush, McCain, and Romney were acceptable candidates to conservatives, but Trump is not? And this is why?
Because reasons. Duh.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
The only refuge for any self respecting con voting for DJT is to say the dude is full of BS and doesn't mean what he says."
Exactly. He is a mild Democrat. However when given a choice between a mild Democrat or a fascist with Communist tendencies I'll go for the lesser of the two evils. Trump probably won't lower my taxes. Hillary definitely will raise them. For me it's that simple.
"PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
I know this is a crazy concept, but if some single (or not single) gal can't afford to have one or six kids: maybe she shouldn't have one or six kids. Kids cost dough. Are we sure that the gov should pay for folks to have as many kids as they can manage to push out?"
Who knew you were a Libertarian? Indeed, let's abolish welfare. If I don't share DNA with the kid, I don't see the need to pay that child support. The government shouldn't be forcing us to wear the horns.
Achilles,
You, like many of the hundreds of folks who came to regret being fooled by taking a DJT deal, may eventually see the light. Btw, have you followed his POV regarding a deficit spending? Not to mention his POV re the US paying it's debts?
Anywho, your comment about a vindictive POTUS run amuck as he focuses on the rear view mirror to attack rivals may not be as appealing to as many folks as you think it is. OTOH, if folks like that sort of thing, DJT is your guy. He even wants to fund PACs against other Rs as part of his score settling.
Here's BHO, going the other way to give cover to W admin:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-to-obama-mr-president-i-wish-you-could-hear-yourself_us_57d7f4a2e4b09d7a687f8b3c?
PB&J-
Are respect for POWs as POWs and disrespect for Putin's leadership skill now conservative positions? how would you compare Putin's leadership skills with Yeltsin's leadership skills?
I see Trump criticized for what he says, and Hillary criticized for what she has done (her recent 'deplorables' comment notwithstanding).
"Are respect for POWs as POWs and disrespect for Putin's leadership skill now conservative positions?"
In America they have been, and still are.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Achilles,
"You, like many of the hundreds of folks who came to regret being fooled by taking a DJT deal, may eventually see the light. Btw, have you followed his POV regarding a deficit spending? Not to mention his POV re the US paying it's debts?"
You are completely unserious and disingenuous. Obama has borrowed and printed 10-20% of our GDP for the last 7.5 years and managed less than 2% growth in the economy. The taxpayers are being raped by the cronies that are giving Obama and now Hillary incredible sums of money to get elected.
"Anywho, your comment about a vindictive POTUS run amuck as he focuses on the rear view mirror to attack rivals may not be as appealing to as many folks as you think it is. OTOH, if folks like that sort of thing, DJT is your guy. He even wants to fund PACs against other Rs as part of his score settling."
I wholeheartedly support Trump in trying to take out GOPe cronies who have been selling us out. The GOPe is just as much a part of destroying our country as the left. I would like to see corrupt republicans join Hillary and Obama in jail.
"Here's BHO, going the other way to give cover to W admin:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-to-obama-mr-president-i-wish-you-could-hear-yourself_us_57d7f4a2e4b09d7a687f8b3c?"
Obama sent the IRS after his and the GOPe's enemies. He has used the government bureaucracy to advance his power and attack citizens of this country solely to advance ideology and has done serious damage to the moral underpinnings of our republic. Citing GWB as anything other than part of the DC machine is a joke.
Obviously, Democrats will never support this- where are all the unionized child care providers going to come from in Trump's proposal. And you can be sure that will be the key reason for opposition, though they will never state it out loud for obvious reasons.
Second Hunter's first comment.
"In America they have been, and still are."
Says who? The Big Book of Conservatism?
" . . . where are all the unionized child care providers going to come from in Trump's proposal."
This is always the problem, isn't it? Don't think of it as the feds helping women to pay for child care, think of it as the feds handing out buckets of money. The distribution will be controlled by lobbyists, not parents.
If a woman's sister says that she will take care of kid while she is at work, sister will not be paid.
Need to think this through, and esp the ramifications. One thing we don't need is to further subsidize fatherless child raising. That is a good part of the cause of the inner city violence, esp in poorer Black communities. Already, we subsidize it too much. I know that divorce is sacred these days, but I would tend to only subsidize married and widowed parents, and not those who got divorced or didn't bother getting married in the first place. The problem with divorces is that in most cases, the woman gets the kids, meaning we are back to fatherless chil rearing.
On the flip side, we need more kids. More kids to keep the social safety nets, like Social Security and Medicare, working (but not Medicaid - which is why we need do disincentivize, not incentivize, single parent child rearing). So incentivizing parenting is good. But not so good is that, absent good controls, the two groups most likely to use it, are the two that we should want to disincentivize. One is low education, often illegal, mostly uneducated Catholic Hispanics. Not the ethnicity or the religion (which only go to why they are having so many kids), but that they are so often so functionally illiterate. We can only really afford a limited number of gardeners and maids. To do more these days, you really should have some education, and should be able to speak, or at least learn, English, or, at a minimum, Spanish. The other worrisome ethnic group are the Muslims. Not all of them - a lot of westernized ones have discovered family planning, and a softer interpretation of Islam. They assimilate. But a lot of them still buy into a more militant strand of the religion, which is trying to pick up the fight for world domination that they gave up at the Gates of Vienna a mere three and a half centuries ago. I fear Europe is already lost. But the Muslims who are having the big families are also the ones who are refusing to assimilate, and who keep alive the dream of a world under Islam. We need fewer, not more, terrorists in our midst, striving, through armed Jihad, to destroy what we have built here, in order to build a worldwide Islamic state. The solutions to both of these issues is to strictly tie these benefits to citizenship.
We have a big problem in this country, and that is that govt, and esp the federal govt, has grown too big and powerful. The big problem with that is that there is too much money at stake, and with money at stake, we inevitably have monied interests butying political favors that cast, in terms of purchased politicians, far less than they are worth. For established businesses, often the best investment, in terms of ROI, is in lobbying and otherwise purchasing politicians and political power, often far better as an investment than building new factories, innovating, etc. it is all over the place, even when you last expect it. Thus, Google purchased the directorship of the USPTO, along with a number of members of Congress, in order to weaken patent law, because that was far cheaper than paying patent royalties and damages for the technology they routinely appropriate for others. How the big investment firms controlled Dodd-Frank, protecting themselves (despite helping to create the problem supposedly being solved), and greatly disadvantaging smaller banks. And all those contributors, cronies, and family members of Dem politicians who got those Green Energy loans, most of which have long gone south. I could go for the entire 4K characters here on instances of monied interests buying political favors. The bigger the govt, the more powerful it is, the more valuable the special favors are that it can dole out, and the bigger the incentive there is to buy politicians. And incentive to grow the govt. even bigger, so there is more largess to sell.
Part of the relevance here is that our income tax code is already filled with almost innumerable special deals and incentives purchased by monied interests. This would be just another add on to its complexity. The tax code is already too complex for most people to understand even their own taxes adequately to do them theirselves. It also is highly inefficient. And, under Obama, we saw another problem, which is that a complex tax code requires a large bureaucracy to implement and enforce it. And, that one of its constituencies is its own employees, who turned enforcement of taxes into a political weapon. We desperately need a much more streamlined tax system, along with a much smaller IRS to enforce it, instead of just more complexity.
Finally, the current political side. A vote for Crooked Hillary is a vote for more crony capitalism and encroaching fascist socialism. The Clintons may be the best example today of selling influence and political favors for money that we have in this country, putting Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Chris Dodd, and even Slo Joe Biden, to shame. They have been selling their influence and political favors at an industrial, unprecented, level. She was able to trade hundreds of millions of dollars directly, and billions to their foundations/slush funds mostly through selling foreign policy. As President, she would have the entire govt to use as a private profit center. The biggest scandal being suppressed by the MSM right now is not her health, but rather how ubiquitous pay-to-play was while she was Sec of State.
Blogger Bruce Hayden said...
We have a big problem in this country, and that is that govt, and esp the federal govt, has grown too big and powerful.
The federal government is not unpopular because it is big and powerful, but because it is intrusive. It tries to manage what it never was designed to manage -- your choice of light bulbs and laundry detergent, for example. The federal government is also our least democratic level of government. To the Left, this is a virtue. If you are going to have a federal government which sees its mandate as assessing and reassigning social privilege, you don't want a democracy if the people who are being relieved of privilege are more numerous than those to whom it is being transferred.
I found this quote about H in an article from First Things:
"There is a kind of baby-boomer Pharisaism in Clinton’s outlook. It’s an outlook that recognizes the existence of evil, yes, but the evil is always located in other people, never in oneself; it’s always out there somewhere—in society, in discriminatory practices, in “backward-looking policies,” in partisan climates, in “an interlocking network of groups and individuals who want to turn the clock back on many of the advances our country has made” (this last an explanation, in Living History, of her notorious reference to a “vast right-wing conspiracy” in 1998)."
The Hillary statement about 'an interlocking network of groups and individuals who want to turn the clock back on many of the advances our country has made' was made about the Whitewater scandal. She believes that the people who criticize her dishonesty and lack of integrity are really criticizing what she sees as the progressive vision.
So the plan is to let you keep more of your own money to have and help raise your children. Those who are too poor will have help from the government if they make an effort to do it themselves.
As long as we no longer have to support illegals it's doable.
VAT. PB&J is sounding like a conservative. VAT is shit economics no matter what percentage. It will open black markets in those goods and services that a VAT makes too expensive.
Mark, I would like to see more mothers stay home with their young children, too. But the reality is, because of high divorce rate, out-of-wedlock children and the two-income trap for many couples,
As Bruce Hayden said, you get more of what you subsidize.
I can't get on board unless there is a bigger deduction for children of parents who have one stay home to raise the kids.
Otherwise, their money is going to pay for people who have dual incomes. Someone pays for this, and it shouldn't be people who stay together and raise their children on one income, which can often be a real challenge.
He's lying. I will guarantee you that if Trump is elected president he will deny he ever came up with this plan. It will be the Iraq war all over again. He was always against it.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
He's lying.
That's why I am voting for the honest candidate in this election, Frederson!
Darrell Castle, Constitution Party.
Jesus, Freder. Where were you in 2009.
So the childless get to subsidize the breeders once again.
Our taxes should be made simpler, not more complicated with Congress handing out goodies for their pet causes.
@ PBandJ_LeDouanier
I would rather the reverse. Let the money come with as few strings as possible. This allows more choice, and more choice means better market signalling and more freedom.
Hayek wasn't against a social safety net. He just thought the government should not be making people's decisions for them.
If you aren't willing to provide a certain benefit with very few to no strings attached, reconsider the necessity of providing it and the reason why you're providing it. In many cases the reason for providing benefits with strings attached seems to be so that somebody can yank those strings to make people do what they want.
Of course this is all in the interest of "what's best for you" -- as defined by your betters, the social planners, who are The Smartest People in the World.
'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it' <== named by Politfact as "lie of the year" in 2013.
So Trump is no more dishonest than Obama or Hillary. Not much of a slogan, but still no reason to vote for Hillary.
"So the plan is to let you keep more of your own money to have and help raise your children. Those who are too poor will have help from the government if they make an effort to do it themselves.
As long as we no longer have to support illegals it's doable."
"Keep your own money" sounds nice until you realize every tax deduction for one person means someone else needs to pick up the slack on the tax bill.
"This allows more choice, and more choice means better market signalling and more freedom."
But market signalling and freedom are what the Left opposes. Why do you think that they love the public school system?
Ann Coulter, quite brilliantly, observed that for a whole lot of low-wage immigrants with young children that might mean we'd be paying illegals "30k apiece in EITC."
Readers, if you want to know Coulter’s opinion of Trump and his policies never rely on a NeverTrumpster for your info. Below is the URL to a recent interview of Coulter by Tucker Carlson. They start talking about Trump around 6:45.
At about 58:10 Tucker asks her if Trump wins the election what is going to happen to all the NeverTrumpers and the disappointed progressives(“an actual fracture in the country”).
My reply would be, “Well, maybe they’ll have to get used to someone in the Whitehouse they don’t like – like the rest of us have had to do since 2008.”
http://tinyurl.com/jp8bmmx
Terry said...
"This allows more choice, and more choice means better market signalling and more freedom."
But market signalling and freedom are what the Left opposes. Why do you think that they love the public school system?
Well, yes. That's rather the point. Some people desire to control others. Some people don't trust the peons with freedom, because they'll make the wrong choices.
We need strings on the peons, like we need leashes on dogs, to keep them from going astray and hurting themselves because they don't know any better.
So Trump is no more dishonest than Obama or Hillary.
Actually, Trump lies a lot more than Hillary, and continues to repeat lies even after he has been called on them (being against the Iraq war from the beginning is a glaring example).
Politifact has Trump lying 71% of the time (i.e., he lies more than he tells the truth). Hillary lies about a third of the time.
Given the Democrat bias of Politifact, Fredersen, that makes Hillary, Obama, and Trump par.
No one out-lies Hillary.
She is a Clinton. They lie about matters large and small, they tell meaningless lies just to stay in practice.
You can't seriously be proposing that Hillary has more respect for the truth than Trump.
Brando: So the childless get to subsidize the breeders once again.
To listen to libertardians like Brando and jimbino, you'd think no "breeders", or responsible people who want to breed, were being forced to subsidize other people's reproduction, diverting resources that they'd rather invest in their own or their own potential offspring. (Only the holy childless, who just give give give and get nothing in return from society, the put-upon darlings.)
Who uses the term "breeder" besides libertardians or vindictive catty gays?
If we don't reproduce, we'll end up like Europe. With all of their social programs there are not enough younger workers to support them which is why they have [or had] encouraged so much immigration. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of the immigrants are on welfare and most of them are Muslims who have no intention of assimilating.
Trump is not talking about free child care. He's talking about tax-deductible child care enabling women to work. Would you rather thy go on welfare? And if you think the cost of child care only affects the 'underprivileged', you don't get out much.
"Keep your own money" sounds nice until you realize every tax deduction for one person means someone else needs to pick up the slack on the tax bill.
Only as long as government spending stays the same (or, as usual, goes up).
If government actually made an effort to only spend what it takes in, this wouldn't be the case.
Trump is not talking about free child care. He's talking about tax-deductible child care enabling women to work. Would you rather thy go on welfare? And if you think the cost of child care only affects the 'underprivileged', you don't get out much.
If you think the cost of raising children only applies to those who choose to put their kids in childcare, you need to rethink that.
@Freder - of course Politifact (or whatever) says that about Trump. They are a well known left wing hit job organization. Kinda like putting credence in the NYT fact checkers. If they were honest, they would have his opponent lying at 95%. But with Trump, their standard discounts obvious exaggeration, hyperbole, and sarcasm, treating them as lies.
All these plans are fucking stupid. The EITC is widely abused, a pain in the ass to administer and should be abolished.
If you want to work and have babies, pay for it fucking yourself, you bottom feeders.
We are a two income family, out of economic necessity. Our mortgage (on a modest $125,000 home) and our health insurance would take up roughly 75% of one of our paychecks.
I received a 2.5% salary increase, plus a stipend for completing my Masters degree this year. That amounted to a $42/month increase in my take home pay, principally because my insurance went up so much. ($92/month for me and my child)
The conservative in me does not like Trump's plan. And we take care of ourselves in our house, thank-you-very-much. But if we struggle to get ahead, and there are two bachelor's degrees, a Masters degree, and certifications in our respective fields, and things are still tight for us, I absolutely have no idea how lower income families are making it. And in a contest between more welfare or and this plan, perhaps it's the lesser of two evils.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा