Trumps child-care plan will disproportionately benefit the wealthy

[fskimospy]

That looks like campaign time material, has there been anything proposed since the election?

That's his most recent proposal. While it is campaign time stuff it's entirely fair to take him at his word when he so specifically claimed this was what he wants to do. (And reiterated this during his quasi-SOTU) If he submits a new and hopefully better proposal I'm sure they would revisit it.

 

[Double Trouble]

That's his most recent proposal. While it is campaign time stuff it's entirely fair to take him at his word when he so specifically claimed this was what he wants to do. (And reiterated this during his quasi-SOTU) If he submits a new and hopefully better proposal I'm sure they would revisit it.

I don't disagree, it's fair to evaluate whatever he has proposed. I just don't put much stock into campaign time proposals or materials. Candidates propose all sorts of stuff during the campaign, none of it seems to matter a whole lot once they actually get elected.

 

[Mai72]

The poor?

Pfftt.. why can't the neighborhood dog watch little poor Johnny and Mary?

 

[fskimospy]

I don't disagree, it's fair to evaluate whatever he has proposed. I just don't put much stock into campaign time proposals or materials. Candidates propose all sorts of stuff during the campaign, none of it seems to matter a whole lot once they actually get elected.

Interestingly enough, research shows the opposite. Presidents generally make a good faith effort to follow through on most of the things they propose.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/

I was as surprised as anyone, considering the conventional wisdom is that they say whatever will get them elected and then ignore it.

 

[glenn1]

Meh, the GOP is going to hugely cut taxes for the rich anyway and without the veneer of bipartisanship they are easier to repeal. All of these cuts will be unable to get 60 votes without Democrats and therefore will have to be passed through reconciliation, meaning they will go away on their own in time.

Sounds like the problem solves itself to me!

Anything proposed by a GOP congress would be undone anyway once Dens regain power, so why should the GOP care what Dems want? This is likely the best deal Dems will get, if they want the poor to get zero because they hope for a better deal in 4, 8, or ? years from now is stupid. They could still get that better deal in 4/8/? years no matter if they take or reject this plan. Refusing it gains nothing but less money for poors.

 

[fskimospy]

Anything proposed by a GOP congress would be undone anyway once Dens regain power, so why should the GOP care what Dems want? This is likely the best deal Dems will get, if they want the poor to get zero because they hope for a better deal in 4, 8, or ? years from now is stupid. They could still get that better deal in 4/8/? years no matter if they take or reject this plan. Refusing it gains nothing but less money for poors.

Anything the Republicans enact won't necessarily be undone and political capital has to be used to undo it. The gains here for democratic constituencies are so small as to be almost meaningless and there's a high political and fiscal cost to doing it.

Democrats aren't stupid, they won't take a deal this bad just because it provides some tiny amount of money to poor people. It will be easier to get a better deal in the future when removing the expensive tax credits for rich people won't be viewed as 'raising taxes'. In addition, if they can cause this plan to fail they will further weaken Trump's political leverage and increase their odds of winning control of one of the houses of Congress, at which point all conservative legislation stops.

So no, if you think refusing this gains nothing then you're just showing your own ignorance.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm fine if you do, it shows you don't know the basics of game theory. Refusing tax credits for the poor just because the rich get "more" (since their income is higher) is a stupid strategy but I expect nothing less from you or Democrats. If you'd rather have zero than a 30% split then enjoy your zero.

The proposal doesn't do anything for poor people. It grades away to nearly nothing long before it even gets to median families whose income is less than $60K.

 

[glenn1]

Anything the Republicans enact won't necessarily be undone and political capital has to be used to undo it. The gains here for democratic constituencies are so small as to be almost meaningless and there's a high political and fiscal cost to doing it.

Democrats aren't stupid, they won't take a deal this bad just because it provides some tiny amount of money to poor people. It will be easier to get a better deal in the future when removing the expensive tax credits for rich people won't be viewed as 'raising taxes'. In addition, if they can cause this plan to fail they will further weaken Trump's political leverage and increase their odds of winning control of one of the houses of Congress, at which point all conservative legislation stops.

So no, if you think refusing this gains nothing then you're just showing your own ignorance.

Again the history of things like the Bush tax cuts suggest otherwise. If you think Dems will put up anything but a facade of opposition to tax credits for the poor and additional maternity/paternity leave then you stand to be sorely disappointed. They'll do just enough to convince rubes like you "hey we tried" as the bill passes into law.

 

[fskimospy]

Again the history of things like the Bush tax cuts suggest otherwise. If you think Dems will put up anything but a facade of opposition to tax credits for the poor and additional maternity/paternity leave then you stand to be sorely disappointed. They'll do just enough to convince rubes like you "hey we tried" as the bill passes into law.

So how many Democrats do you expect will vote for this bill?

 

[Jhhnn]

Again the history of things like the Bush tax cuts suggest otherwise. If you think Dems will put up anything but a facade of opposition to tax credits for the poor and additional maternity/paternity leave then you stand to be sorely disappointed. They'll do just enough to convince rubes like you "hey we tried" as the bill passes into law.

Even after it's been pointed out that this bill benefits poor people not at all you maintain that it does. The bill does damned little if anything even for median families. It's tax relief for people who don't need it, standard Republicanism.

Or do you now count 80% of the population as Poors?

By the time anything like it comes up for a vote Repubs will likely have stripped away paid maternity leave, the only thing in it that benefits the less than affluent.

 

[1prophet]

Good, we need more children from successful families and less children from those that can't afford them.

 

[glenn1]

So how many Democrats do you expect will vote for this bill?

Let's see - for Medicare Part D (Medicare Modernization Act of 2003) where similar complaints were made the bill passed with 11 Dems in the Senate. For extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2012 it passed Senate 81-19. The 2001 Bush tax cuts got 12 Dem Senate votes.

See a pattern emerging here? I'd say given that history there's probably a 50/50 chance the childcare bill gets enough Dem votes to not even be filibustered.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's see - for Medicare Part D (Medicare Modernization Act of 2003) where similar complaints were made the bill passed with 11 Dems in the Senate.

False, Medicare part D did not have similar complaints at all. Democrats complained it wasn't paid for and that it was wasteful by not negotiating over prices, not that it was a giveaway to the rich. Democrats are fundamentally in support of a medicare drug benefit.

For extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2012 it passed Senate 81-19.

To be clear, you mean the extension of the Bush tax cuts that that removed roughly $600 billion of the $800 billion in tax cuts for the ultra rich that were originally present while retaining the tax cuts for lower incomes. ie: something that made the tax code more progressive. No shit they supported that.

The 2001 Bush tax cuts got 12 Dem Senate votes.

Interesting how you neglected to mention that overall Democrats voted overwhelmingly against it. You also left out the 2003 tax cuts which were overwhelmingly voted against. Any particular reason you didn't include that one?

See a pattern emerging here? I'd say given that history there's probably a 50/50 chance the childcare bill gets enough Dem votes to not even be filibustered.

I see a pattern of you desperately trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. If the childcare bill stays in its current form I would be willing to bet heavily that the chances of it achieving a filibuster proof majority are effectively zero.

 

[Thump553]

Same is true for Trumpcare-while nominally a health care reform, in actuality it is a vast transfer of benefits to the richest. TrumpCare also will eliminate two current taxes (one on high earners, the other drug suppliers) that go to Medicare.

Who else sees the next domino ready to fall-to save Medicare Trump will adopt Paul Ryan's plan to push everyone's eligibility start date out another two years.

I'm a year and half from normal retirement age and am solidly middle class in income. My best guessimates is Trump's "reforms" will cost me somewhere between $30,000 and $100,000 out of pocket. Some populist he is.

 

[pcgeek11]

No, they are basing it off of a detailed proposal on his website. It's one of the few policies he actually fleshed out in detail. The link was contained in the OP's link.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/fact-sheet-donald-j.-trumps-new-child-care-plan

Missed it.

 

[Maxima1]

Good, we need more children from successful families and less children from those that can't afford them.

Well, if you made incomes more equitable, then more will be "successful" to some extent. We already know by comparison with other countries that productivity isn't hurt if jobs are more equitable in compensation. You also can do this minus the costs of subsidizing by taking skilled foreigners as pop replacements.