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.
Interesting twist, though it could create an incentive to discriminate against women in the workplace if it is not offered to men as well.
That is a 10th amendment issue.
The federal government is only authorized to give it to federal employees, but not the public, without amending the constitution.
Im not sure it would be too much of a burden on taxes. I think the budget needs to be examined with an ax not a pen...a program like this is fine. The rest of the world does it. I see families where the wife takes 2 weeks off for a new born then back at work, baby at daycare all day. Kid grows up to be a disrespectful a hole an we wonder why?
My babies were in daycare at six weeks old, and they turned out just fine. In fact, the daycare was a great experience for them, and I was able to quit working for a while and be home with them when they were old enough to be in school, which was great because they really needed me around then to help with homework and stuff.
Now they're both teenagers, and I am back at work. There is nothing wrong with daycare for little ones. They play all day and learn and do crafts. They aren't plopped in front of the television while the mom has to clean.
And while they do get sick a lot as babies, they get super immunities by the time they're school age, and they're more easily adjusted to the full day kindergarten they have now.
Sounds like he could be pandering to women for their vote, or he actually is in favor of this, or this is just another empty promise, or some combination thereof. I just find it interesting because conservatives usually oppose policies like this, not that I consider Trump to be conservative, but some of his supporters are on the record saying that Trump is conservative.
Donald is way behind with women voters, and he knows that.
I think it is a just a desperate attempt to sway women voters.
He has to do something to make the Republican Party more appealing to millennials and to women
Even as a tax write off, this would mean that other taxpayers would be making up the tax shortfall that's created. Also, just think of the oversight and regulation that this would require to ensure that it operates efficiently and fairly, without con artists taking advantage of a program like this. The idea is is inconsistent for someone who's in favor of less regulation.
Even with, or without tax dollars going to support this, to whatever degree, it would jeopardize the financial stability of small companies. This is idealism worthy of Bernie Sanders. It shows
I'm sure it wouldn't be forced on small businesses. Probably just large corporations or federal workers.
There is already discrimination against younger married woman who might have or do have kids. I have heard of HR people checking out their cars for toys, carseats, etc., because they are not allowed to ask.
This will never pass. Some larger corporations do have paid maternity leave already. The smaller companies end up having to have someone cover on overtime or hire a temp. Not such a family-friendly place -- our corporate world.
I would like to point out its not always men, I have known women that have felt discriminated for being pregnant by other women in management/hiring positions.
That is a 10th amendment issue.
The federal government is only authorized to give it to federal employees, but not the public, without amending the constitution.
That's only if you do not reinterpret the Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean.
Can you explain why other republicans would be against a mother staying home with a newborn for 6-12 weeks before returning to work?
Because #1, it's yet another costly "entitlement" that adds to the ever expanding scope and reach of government....
#2, it's just one more burden on small businesses on top of an already existing mountain of regulations that create a climate that makes it difficult to thrive and expand...
And #3, who's going to pay for it? Are you going to force a business to pay an employee who's not working? Or is the government going to pay for it, on top of our already massive national debt?
Republicans might be able to get on board with just "leave", but "paid leave"? No way.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-14-2016 at 02:07 AM..
Neither Hillary or Trump will appoint anyone to the SCOTUS.
POTUS nominates.
The Senate either confirms or rejects.
BTW, a Democrat Congress confirmed Scalia.
You say that as if it actually means anything at all in today's political climate.... In political time, that was centuries ago. Things have changed. It didn't happen yesterday.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-14-2016 at 01:32 AM..
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.
