Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His plan includes tax credits for stay-at-home-moms. Doesn't necessarily sound like a bad thing but in reality discriminates against working mothers and rewards the better off. Nowadays, most stay-at-home-moms have a husband making good money. And it shows he wants it to be 1955 again.
Trump is not proposing six weeks paid maternity leave. He is proposing that a woman get 6 weeks unemployment compensation at her state rate. In other words, they go on unemployment for six weeks. In my state that would be about $150/week for a lower wage mother. Some proposal. Most women would not be able to afford to take time off anymore than they now can. Clinton has a real plan. 2/3 of salary, 12 weeks.
Trump is not proposing six weeks paid maternity leave. He is proposing that a woman get 6 weeks unemployment compensation at her state rate. In my state that would be about $150/week for a lower wage mother. Some proposal. Most women would not be able to afford to take time off anymore than they now can. Clinton has a real plan. 2/3 of salary, 12 weeks.
Clinton's plan would still be the worst in the world though.
Just like Papua New Guinea has. Papua New Guinea is NOT a good country to model the US after. It is PURE third world. This seems to be the goal of people on the far right. Make America resemble the third world as much as possible. A huge and desperate underclass, a political system that serves the super rich and their interests and massive crime, fear, inequality and despair.
the issue to conservatives is not the idea as is. It is that it is a federal plan. If this was offered by a state it would be fine based on the constitution. This is a state issue.
the issue to conservatives is not the idea as is. It is that it is a federal plan. If this was offered by a state it would be fine based on the constitution. This is a state issue.
Wrong. Businesses are not charities. They should not be forced to pay an employee who is not there, working. That's the principled argument against it, not to mention the practical effects it will have on small businesses.
Nor should we create yet another entitlement and use tax payer dollars to subsidize new mothers.
the issue to conservatives is not the idea as is. It is that it is a federal plan. If this was offered by a state it would be fine based on the constitution. This is a state issue.
Labor law acts are federal acts. We already have legislation on 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, child labor and other labor regulations. Are you against it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
