Trump Childcare Speech – knocks it outa the park

Well, I was prepared to be underwhelmed. I’m generally against Government Funded Benefits of any kind. They are typically overly complicated boondoggles with layers of crap in them that make them nearly impossible to use, unless you have lawyers and tax accountants on staff. Then they load up various timers and penalties so that to actually USE any money you put in a plan is painful, and if you DON’T use it all each year, screws you over by taking your money away. “Tax savings account”, to me, means “Use or lose it complicated Tax taking scheme”.

So I tuned into the Trump speech fully expecting to hear pandering to the masses with the typical crap. I was wrong.

The Trump plan has the usual parade of actors, but they have had a significant costume change. The “childcare savings accounts” let you keep your own money at the end of the year and roll it forward. At 18 years old, any left can be used for higher education costs. Just one example.

It is modestly complicated, but only where it needs to be to assure fairness. The bulk of the plan is just various ways to let folks with children shelter some of their own money from taxes via various kinds of savings accounts. Basically, a kind of IRA or 401K for kid and elder care. There’s a 6 week maternity leave payment for mothers not covered by their employer, but that is paid for from the unemployment insurance fund via tighter control of fraudulent payments. Nice.

Overall, it was very clear this plan was cooked up by involving families and working mothers, and not by some back room “deal” between professional politicians and various industry lobbyists. How do I know? One example to illustrate: IF you want to use your child care money to pay your grandparents to baby sit, you can. Gee, keeping your own money in your own family…

Whenever the speech is up on youtube, if anyone sees it there, please post a link. (I have to run off and cook dinner now ;-)

Oh, and Ivanka did a lead-in speech that was just great. I’d like to see her as the first woman President. MUCH better than Hillary. Smarter, brighter, positive outlook on life, more eloquent. She’d make a great First Lady President. Maybe in 2020 or 2024 … Whenever Daddy Trump is back running the Trump Companies and they can spare her…

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Trump Childcare Speech – knocks it outa the park

  1. Larry Ledwick says:

    I just finished looking at the initial coverage of the speech and share your positive feelings on how this is structured. It is great that he has stolen a beat on the Democrats, they are so busy spinning HRC’s lies that they can’t focus on a program to backup their historical strengths. HRC will be hard pressed to take control of this topic even with massive spending and face time on the media and her history will keep cropping up and breaking the PR spell.

  2. gallopingcamel says:

    Thanks for recognizing the amazing Ivanka. Donald’s other children are pretty impressive too. How could Donald find the time to be such a good parent given the demands of his wide ranging business interests?

    Many great men (e.g. Ronald Reagan) would be envious of Donald’s highly functional children.

    It also impresses me to learn that Trump was so affected by his dysfunctional brother Freddy that he will not drink alcohol.

  3. Larry Ledwick says:

    Here is the full speech 1:24 long

  4. Larry Ledwick says:

    This is obviously totally unedited, feed coverage first 52:20 minutes is filler, Ivanka comes out at this time to begin the program.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    GallopingCamel, I do not have the link and I don’t know if it is true but I think it was Chrystalia who mentioned that Trump would interrupt his work if his kids needed him.

    I do know that his son said his dad picked out the best craftsmen to instruct them in each aspect of building so they are as comfortable driving big construction equipment as they are a car. They were aware they had it good but were not allowed to let that go to their heads.

    Think about it, he has four adult kids who are completely amazing productive adults. That alone is a good reason to vote for him. No shirt sleeve to shirt sleeve in three generations for the Trump’s.

  6. Power Grab says:

    That _is_ refreshing news! I always think it helps to know what a leader’s closest friends and children are like.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    Trump has a real bug about loyalty and not screwing up. You blow it you are out.

    On the other hand when they tried to railroad Corey with the faked Michelle Fields — ‘He Grabbed my arm’ crap, Trump refused to toss him under the bus. (Corey was only in it for the primaries.) Manafort was working for free. When it was obvious that the Ukraine thing was going to bite him (what a crock) he left so as not to harm Trump.

    OH, and just to clear the air, the MSM did a real knife job on Trump about the disabled Reporter. As usual it was a complete twist of the facts to cover-up their previous distortions about muslims in NJ cheering the fall of the Twin Towers.

  8. philjourdan says:

    I did not see the speech, but have been hearing the talking heads pontificate about it. I note 2 things.

    #1 – They said the child care was a “liberal” idea. What???? I know of no liberal that wants to allow you to keep more of your money. (Indeed, Obama slashed the MSA plans with his Obamacare.) Which is how the plan works (I would have prefered a straight tax credit versus a savings plan, but the latter works for those with a modicum of planning). It is ANYTHING but a liberal plan. And it is a good one (the idea of the standard deduction originally was to allow a family to “live on” that amount before taxes kicked in. Of course that idea is gone along with the concept of personal responsibility).

    #2 – On the other hand, the “huzzahs” of the maternity leave is pure liberal. UI? That is a tax that employers already have to pay (based upon an index by industry of how often it is used). The idea that the elimination of “fraud” will pay for it is poppycock. The taxes will merely be raised. This will be an additional burden on employers, which of course they will pass on to the workers through lower stated wages (the cost to the business of the employee just went up in hidden taxes). I am no fan of the plan. it facilitates the lying of liberals (free money) and raises costs once again.

    But then I never expected Trump to be a conservative, so that his plan is at least half conservative is good news. And he is correct about the Maternity leave. Because that is a hidden cost, it is more likely to pass congress than Hillary’s give away.

  9. Gail Combs says:

    Phil Jourdan,

    Today a real conservative does not have a prayer of getting elected. Trump is walking a very narrow line and doing a darn good job.

    You really have to look at his entire set of plans. This is off the top of my head:

    #1. Build the Wall — Yes he means it and Mexico WILL pay for it.
    How? a Surcharge (or outright confiscation in the case of illegals) of money going from the USA to Mexico. Individual Mexicans ship more money from the USA to Mexico than Mexico makes in oil.

    (Mexico) Remittances sent home by Mexicans working outside the country surpassed petroleum revenues in 2015 for the first time. There was a 4.75% increase in money sent from abroad, most of which comes from the U.S., to total US $24.8 billion last year, up from $23.6 billion in 2014, said the Bank of México….

    As Sundance said. “If you want to begin a mass plan to deal with illegals, start first by eliminating, or regulating, Money Transfer services to Mexico (western union etc) Watch how quickly the problem begins to self-correct.”

    #2. stop illegal immigration. Start with tossing out the violent predators instead of turning them loose on US streets.. Kill off sanctuary cities, bennies to illegals and go after companies hiring illegals. In other words remove the bait and the illegals will self-deport. (Oh, and it seems American immates are complaining that Obummer is setting free illegals but not them….)

    #3. Trump wants to lower taxes especially Corporate Taxes so money can be brought home from outside the country without penalty.

    #4. Trump wants to rip up about 70% of the idiotic regulations.

    Those two items means the ‘maternity leave tax’ will not be the burden you see it. More important to me is the fact that small businesses are now on a more level playing field since they do not have to offer paid maternity leave or deal with ridiculous red tape.

    #5. Energy. Trump says CAGW is bullsh1t and wants us energy independent with a mix of gas, coal, oil and nuclear.

    #6. Trump wants to do away with 501C3 tax exempt status put in place by Johnson in 1954 to muzzle churches. If you want conservative values giving the churches a voice again is the place to start rolling back the insanity.

  10. philjourdan says:

    @Gail – You are preaching to the Choir. I am voting for Trump. Cruz was my first pick, Carson my second. But the reason I am voting for Trump is not the reason I was supporting Cruz and Carson, so even if he decided to make Child care a government monopoly (I would hate it), I would still vote for him. I know his positions. My only “hope” is that he follows through on this plans for the Supreme Court.

    However, since I am not voting for him on his promises, but rather who he is, I can objectively look at his promises and categorize them without trying to equivocate on them.

    But I do disagree with you. A conservative can be elected. But he has to have the ability (like Trump and Reagan) to bypass the media. Trump does not so much bypass it as he does manipulate it. And I would vote for him for that reason alone. He has exposed how stupid the media really is with his ease of manipulating them.

  11. Larry Ledwick says:

    One of the reasons Trump is getting support in areas not traditionally Republican.

    Also serves as a commentary on what is China’s real agenda, were they just growing capacity to grow (a way to employ peasants off the farm) or random business owners trying to capitalize on a market, or is there an intentional agenda here to break the back of the producers of key commodities world wide (dumping steel too)? Once the other producers all go broke leaving China as the last man standing and holding a functional monopoly on several key strategic material production streams?

    If they succeed in breaking the worlds leading industrialized countries key strategic materials manufacturing capacity (think Sun Tzu here) they would be at a major advantage against their opponents in any confrontation.

  12. Ian W says:

    There is an interesting post on Scott Adam’s blog about Trump that may be appropriate here. A totally different viewpoint:

  13. Larry Ledwick says:

    Scott Adams and I obviously think alike,I was completely amazed at some of the absurd things people were saying about Trump on the flimsiest evidence. Maybe it is because I have worked around people like him and knew that at heart they were actually soft touches but they talked tough and did not beat around the bush when they had something to say.

    That is why he has played the media like banjo at a ho down, they keep falling for his opening gambit and going nuclear over it, giving him millions of dollars of free publicity and pushing HRC off the front page so she can’t get into a rhythm and develop a campaign that clicks with people. He keeps breaking her china before dinner can be served.

  14. H.R. says:

    The trouble with running anything through a government bureaucracy is a) it creates a ‘rake’ for the overhead required, b) the agency always succumb to mission creep, c) the upper echelons need to show that they are doin’ sumphtin’ so there’s additional O.H. for studies, surveys, writing and rewriting pamphlets, etc., d) if they accomplish their mission, they are out of a job so there is never any incentive to get anything done, and the biggie e) no-one ever gets rid of a bureaucracy once it is created.

    Still, I think it’s a great opportunity to buck the usual outcome. Trump could get rid of all the other government childcare programs and – go ahead and use government employee rules of seniority or what-ever is SOP – draw as many as needed from the displaced bureaucrats to fire up his program.

    I could go for that.

  15. philjourdan says:

    @H.R. – The vigorish, as the mob called it. Yes, I saw it up front. Education. The grant was written such that “up to 10%” of the money could be used for administrative purposes. The grant administrators took that as “at least 10%”, so they bought things they could not use. And wasted thousands (on just that one program in one state).

  16. Gail Combs says:


    Phil, I say a conservative is not electable because of the deliberate brainwashing of generations of students thanks to John Dewey, George Count and Willi Münzenberg. Think about it. Capitalism is now a dirty word yet it wasn’t when I was a kid.

    I think it was Huxley that said something to the effect, ‘what is considered shocking to one generation is considered acceptable to the next.’

    If someone told my great grandma she could get arrested for spanking a child her jaw would drop yet they are now pushing yelling at a kid as Child Abuse.
    State by State Spanking Laws

    They are also pushing ‘post-birth abortion’ up to the age of four!
    After-Birth Abortions: College Students Increasingly Support Infanticide

    This is why I said a conservative is not electable. Think of how often the abortion issue is used to marginalize a conservative?

  17. Gail Combs says:

    H.R., Phill,
    Government is ALWAYS a money waster (Grace Report) There is no incentive to do it better, faster with less because there is no competition and short of a revolution you don’t go out of business if you screw-up.

  18. philjourdan says:

    @Gail – 2 things. #1 – The young are stupid (so were we), but they do not vote very much. And #2, the young grow up and learn. We did. So I think a conservative IS electable. But he has to be able to bypass the MSM.

  19. philjourdan says:

    @Gail – Re: Money waster – even if they did things efficiently, they would still be a money waster. They produce nothing. They only consume.

  20. Gail Combs says:

    Phil the problem is Education AND the MSM AND Hollywood AND the muzzling of the churches AND the INTENTIONAL destroying of American communities by destroying independent farmers that fueled their economies. (BTW Trump wants to get rid of LBJ’s 501c3 muzzle. )

    …With World War II, America saw its agricultural system intentionally subjected to political policies that radically transformed it. What was once a decentralized system that provided a means to self sufficiency and independence for tens of millions of farmers was purposefully centralized into a capital-intensive fossil-fuel dependent system that restructured local economies, permitting their wealth to be extracted by what are now transnational cartels dedicated to the so-called free market and globalized trade at all costs.

    This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful — though unelected — financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation’s foreign policies….

    Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn’t help but congratulate itself in another agricultural report called “A New US Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs” for the efficiency of the tactics they employed to drive farmers from their land.[5]

    The human cost of CED’s plans were exacting and enormous.

    CED’s plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers’ lives ended in suicide [6], not unlike farmers in India today who have been tricked into debt and desperation and can see no other way out.[7]

    CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers were taught. Farmers found themselves encouraged to give up on a farming system that employed minimal outsourced inputs and capital and get “efficient” by adopting instead a system that required they go into debt in order to purchase ever more costly inputs,…

    What was the goal?

    In the end, the main goal of Covert Influence Active Measures against the U.S. was to move political and public opinion “away from the conservative parties that were opposing our policies,” in the words of a KGB Active Measures manager. …

    Thomas Boghart, writing in the CIA’s Studies in Intelligence, provided a taxonomy of the activities that the Soviets considered Active Measures. According to Boghart, “The basic goal of Soviet active measures was to weaken the USSR’s opponents — first and foremost the “main enemy” (glavny protivnik), the United States — and to create a favorable environment for advancing Moscow’s views and international objectives worldwide.” Weakening and if possible destroying the U.S. was most effectively and efficiently done by attacking from within. Striking America’s inner strength required hitting its cultural transmission institutions.

    From the book Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe

  21. philjourdan says:

    @Gail – I do not disagree. However, that is not a new thing (I had the same brain dead idiots in HS with me back in the 70s). I never said a conservative could win easily. Only that they can still win today.

  22. Gail Combs says:

    On minimal government you will not get a fight from me.
    Enviornment?? ENFORCE Property rights/criminal trespass type laws. You can pollute your own nest all you want but the gases and liquids and solids must not show up on MY property!

    I suggested this to my very liberal caving buddies back in the 1970s and they were completely dumb struck. It never occurred to them that the EPA and environmental laws were not needed because we already HAD Property rights/criminal trespass type laws on the books but just never enforced them. “The Cost of Progress is Pollution!” we were told as the courts found in favor of the Rockefellers and their buddies.

    We need laws about crimes against property and persons, like rape, murder, theft, fraud, trespass. National defence including protecting our borders. And I would possibly include roads just because of the military needs and road width. Everything else leave to the individual, city, county or state.

    Social Welfare?? That belongs to the churches and local community. We ended up with the welfare mess after the government took it over.

    Unfortunately we have a hundred years of creeping communism to unravel. It has to start with the economy. Trump is correct about that — trade, taxes and regulation rewriting and slashing. Also unmuzzling the churches will help a lot. After that it is really up to the kids as to whether they want heavy socialism, light socialism, anachro-capitalism.

    At this point I am just glad we got a chance at a reprieve from the slippery slope to Venezuela.

  23. p.g.sharrow says:

    This is strange. From time to time wordpress eats a comment that I am building or try to post on certain subjects…pg

  24. p.g.sharrow says:

    I pay attention to little things that show up and then quickly disappear in the media. Often years pass before the connections jell…pg

  25. p.g.sharrow says:

    When the Soviet Union collapsed, the secretariat was moved to San Fransisco,California, where it operates as an NGO…pg

  26. p.g.sharrow says:

    A vast array of interlocked NGOs has been created, funded with “Eastern European” money and government matching funds…pg

  27. Larry Ledwick says:

    Also unmuzzling the churches will help a lot.

    Unfortunately the churches have also been corrupted many of them are becoming socialist fronts.

  28. p.g.sharrow says:

    All of the churches that I know of are socialistic cults.
    Most are even communist. Nothing different in their basic philosophy of society organization. Just a difference in WHO is in charge. Organized churches are vehicles for evil and should be avoided.
    To them, a godly man, that does not belong, is the greatest evil! Everyone must join.

    We don’t need them…pg

  29. Jon K says:

    @ P.G.sharrow
    As a christian that goes to church regularly, I’m sorry that you’ve had those experiences and feel that way. I can tell you that, in every church I’ve attended, there are no socialist views being taught. It’s all about your personal walk with God and your own personal responsibility. Church is a tool to help you, but is by no means required, and those who do not attend are not shunned in any way. Jesus loved all, and as his followers, we are supposed to do the same. Anyway, I’m not here to preach at you, just wanted to let you know that there are good churches out there.

  30. Jeff says:

    @ Jon K. Amen. As in everything else, discernment is needed.

    There are lots of wolves out there in sheep’s clothing. In addition to that, like bad code, politics ruins everything it touches (“Tidy-bowl touch” Peg).

    The WCC are affiliated with the globalist movement(s), and are further muddying the waters. Here in Germany it’s not any better with Käßmann &co. My son has been studying Theology at Uni Tübingen and it is not the place it was when Bonhoeffer (or even Ratziner) was there…..

    They (the Uni) have an Islamic studies center, and seem to have drifted far left. Geeesh.
    (Kinda cool all the old buildings, etc., there. Wonder if anyone ever gets a lunch that’s been sitting there 400 years….. I suppose the Greens (and the PC police) would consider that healthy, though…..

  31. p.g.sharrow says:

    Jon K.
    Many years ago I would spend time in the local small town restaurant/coffee shop in discussion on all things with the local Baptist preacher. During one such visit, he remarked “I hate you PG.”
    Says I “John! why would you say such a thing”. We had been friends for years. Says John, ” You consider the existence of GOD a matter of fact, While I only have faith and I hate that.”

    I do not need a religious cult leader or spokesperson to educate me or intercede for me. I do not require a doctrine that only a ordained priest can smooth my way to “The heavenly thereafter.”

    GOD is everywhere and a part of everything. We are all a part of GOD,

    Religious Cults! We don’t need them!…pg

  32. David A says:

    Regarding electing a conservative. My view is Trump may be ideal for what is needed.
    The US is a very big ship and turning it requires will and wisdom. It cannot just reverse. The more I listen to what Trump actually says, the more I like. (Gail, thank you for helping that process) In my view Trump has a rapid learning curve, and the high end of that curve is way above average.

  33. E.M.Smith says:

    @David A:

    He’s a Wharton grad. That puts him in the way above average class. News avoids that…


    The name of the type of christianity tells you their attitude about who can proclaim and explain things. Your view puts you in the evangelical style (anyone can set up their own church and interpret gospel for themselves). A Presbyter is a church elder, so Presbyterians are saying church elders, any of them, are in charge of setting things up. An Episcopal is a bishop, so for Episcopalians, only the Bishop sets doctrin. Catholics think only their one head Bishop, the Pope, has authority…

    Those with Apostolic in their name claim authority via a founding apostle. Protestants are protesting the Papal authority, but a bit vague on just whom ought to have authority, so often it is their own head guy. Baptists are a kind of protestant derived sect that thinks as long as you’ve been dunked and believe, you are good to go (I was baptised by them).

    In some ways, I like the Jehova’s Whitness approach best. No one is in authority. No preacher or popes. The Sunday meeting is a group cooperative reading and discussion of some Bible text, with anyone chipping in and open acceptance of ideas for discussion even if not in keeping with traditionally their position. Yes, there is a process leader, but they are just a congregation member. They do have common accepted conclusions, like why to use the actual name Jehova instead of avoiding it; or that everyone ought to go out and “witness”, but each is based directly in biblical text. (I find them a bit too litteral for me, but appreciate their clean “sola scriptura” approach.)

    At any rate, realize that christianity is painted with a broad brush on “who has authority” and your “It is me” falls under sola scriptura evangelical. Any one can read the scripture, decide what it means, and evangelize as they see fit… even it 90%+ of religion is central authoritarian, there’s lots that isn’t.

Comments are closed.