Ivanka’s Childcare

Published by

Clarissa

March 15, 2017

The reason I’m crabby is that on Monday I stayed at home with Klara but there was a snowstorm, and I couldn’t take her out. I stayed home today but it’s the coldest day of the year, and I can’t take her out. It will be warm on Friday but I’m in meetings all day long, so I won’t be able to stay home and go out with Klara. And I have such great, fun plans for taking her out! Grrrrr.

There’s good news, though, and it concerns Trump’s childcare plan:

“[The plan] was just a total sell-out to everything that the left has been clamoring for.”

Since then, many more details about the plan have come out. At an estimated cost of $500 billion over ten years, it allows families to deduct childcare expenses from their taxes, up to the average cost of childcare in each state. The proposal also includes a new tax-free savings vehicle for childcare expenses, and a smaller tax credit for low income families.

This is way more important than some ancient tax return that proves absolutely nothing and serves no purpose at all. But the dumb tax return is being covered non-stop while the childcare plan isn’t.

And nobody can say anything against Ivanka working on this since both Clinton and Obama foisted their wives onto our collective notice constantly. And a wife doesn’t even have unbreakable permanency inscribed in the nature of her relationship with a president like a child does.

As for the objection that the plan is somehow insufficient, it’s idiotic because Obama had 8 years for a “sufficient” reform but nothing was done.

Rate this:

15 responses to “Ivanka’s Childcare ”

Shakti

March 15, 2017

This is way more important than some ancient tax return that proves absolutely nothing and serves no purpose at all. But the dumb tax return is being covered non-stop while the childcare plan isn’t.

Please. If they [Ivanka, et al] were so concerned about getting coverage for their childcare plan they could focus attention on it. They’re all masters of making stupid statements every two days and getting people to cover them ad nauseum. Instead they’re focusing political capital and attention on “repealing the ACA” (for real this time).
I’m sure Ivanka is hard at work convincing
prolife reps like this to vote for any kind of childcare proposal!

The woman couldn’t even make it through an interview with a slightly snotty women’s mag reporter to answer questions about it. She’s never had a boss or her supervisor that wasn’t her daddy and it showed. Let’s see if she makes anything more than a token PR effort for anything that doesn’t personally enrich her.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  March 15, 2017
  
  You can’t focus other people’s attention. Believe me, I’m a teacher. I try every day. Journalists cover what they feel like. The coverage they gave Trump throughout the election was unforced. It was a clear choice.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Shakti
    
    March 15, 2017
    
    If it’s their choice to cover all of the inane tweets, it is equally Trump and his administration’s choice to utter something dumb and outrageous every two days. I don’t buy that they’re trying to focus attention on this childcare plan at all. I’ve never heard any Trump supporters offer, “He’s not sexist” and then mention Ivanka’s childcare plan. Ever! However even the most checked out person knows the administration is all about a wall.
    
    I simply don’t believe two reality tv stars are inept at focusing attention to things they want to focus attention on. In addition they have all kinds of spokespeople who are very good at repeating the same inane talking points regardless of what other people in the same interview are saying. If they were really trying it would filter down to shows like The View and I’d be hearing about it umpteen times from all of these spokesladies on the Sunday shows, on cable, etc.
    
    Frankly, I don’t even check twitter or the news much because all of the breathless inane coverage of the stupid things manages to reach me. If their efforts get drowned out in all the garbage they put out, that’s their fault.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      March 15, 2017
      
      Oh, of course the Trumps aren’t trying to call attention to the childcare plan. It goes against every piety of their party and considered terribly leftist even on the tame American Conservative. Why would they want to attract a lot of attention to it?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Shakti
        
        March 15, 2017
        
        Oh, of course the Trumps aren’t trying to call attention to the childcare plan. It goes against every piety of their party and considered terribly leftist even on the tame American Conservative. Why would they want to attract a lot of attention to it?
        
        If they are at all sincere about making it a reality, they would call attention to it. They’re very excited about the travel ban and that plan to repeal the ACA. All of the photo ops! Lots of publicity!
        For that reason, I don’t give any kind of credit to Ivanka for her plan. I know more about her merchandise than her plan.
        
        I know people who would benefit from the plan and would see lower taxes under a Trump tax plan. But funnily, none of them voted for Trump. When you’re a Republican and you lose people who have joyous conversations about states with no income tax, you are doing something terribly wrong.
        
        .
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Clarissa
        
        March 15, 2017
        
        I think the Trumps are putting out feelers to see if there is interest in this plan. They have no reason to pursue it if it won’t bring popularity and votes. Now it’s our turn to show that we want it.
        
        I wish people concentrated on showing enthusiasm for the plan than posting ridiculous “We resist, day 57” articles. What it is that these dumbasses resist is entirely unclear.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Shakti
        
        March 16, 2017
        
        I think the Trumps are putting out feelers to see if there is interest in this plan. They have no reason to pursue it if it won’t bring popularity and votes.
        Exactly who would they be trying to be more popular with? Exactly whose votes would they be trying to win? Reality tv stars don’t do “subtle.” Look, Trump already filed to campaign for 2020, and in Nashville he held a rally last night and the first words out of his mouth were about the travel ban. Their “feelers” are leaks. What “leaks” are there about this plan? Two tweets ever about this plan isn’t a “feeler.”
        
        You have also said that the people who voted for Trump in your area don’t want childcare help and maternity leave but want a life in which both of those are unnecessary and perceived the more generous plan as an attack on their lifestyle. He is still more popular than the Congressional leaders of either party (nobody has more people approving than disapproving of them though) and is at 86% approval with Republicans or people who lean Republican.
        
        What’s the best link you have about that revised plan that’s just the details?
        
        LikeLike
anon

March 15, 2017

Sounds like an okay deal for middle and upper class folks. I’m not sure if it will be so helpful for the poor though since they don’t get charged so much in taxes and already are getting their withholdings returned (or at least they should be if taxes are as progressive as I’d like). It’s a start I guess? Closest thing to a complement to Trump that’s ever come out of me!

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  March 15, 2017
  
  If “the poor” wanted something else, they could have voted for representatives of a different party. But they haven’t done that in years. They should now enjoy the full measure of their electoral choices.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. JProf
    
    March 15, 2017
    
    “They should now enjoy the full measure of their electoral choices.” ?! This is not exactly a progressive position.
    
    Poor people often don’t vote at all, and that’s probably in large part due to the fact that neither of the two political parties represent their interests.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      March 15, 2017
      
      Yes, I’ve noticed that the progressive position today is “There is no heroin epidemic, and if there is it’s not a bad thing” and “There is no unemployment, and if there is, let the unemployed improve their violin skills while out of a job.”
      
      I’ll never rise to these heights of progressivism, so I won’t even try.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
Clarissa

March 16, 2017
“Exactly who would they be trying to be more popular with? ”
- Not to engage in excessive psychologizing of Trump, but I don’t see him as being very picky in this regard. I think he wants to be admired and doesn’t care much who he’s admired by.
“What’s the best link you have about that revised plan that’s just the details?”
- I don’t have one, which is precisely the problem. I have a list of news sources in my newsfeed that’s over 1,200 sources. And the only article on the subject is an angry one in American Conservative. That this plan even exists should be an enormous big deal for, say, feminists. Because it’s absolutely huge that a Republican president would even remotely think in this direction. But feminists are pretending that the plan doesn’t exist. This should be a red-letter day for all of us but it’s not. And that stuns me. Do people not want something that’s very good because they disapprove of the source of it?
Let’s remember that Evangelicals, for instance, voted for Trump by 81%, I think. They bit down on their moral objections and did what they thought would further their political interests. And I want to see this happen on our side, too. Crowds of Democrats repelled Pat Quinn or Hillary because they were not sufficiently morally pure. And the elections were lost. Fuck it, I’d rather have the hugely imperfect Quinn than Rauner.

LikeLike
Reply
1. Shakti
  
  March 16, 2017
  
  I agree that purity was a problem with Pat Quinn or HRC.
  
  OT: How do you manage all those news sources?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    March 16, 2017
    
    I have them in feedly. I’m useless without my feedly because it’s my compensatory mechanism. The sources are in all the languages I know, and it’s a great feeling to scroll through them fast. That’s how I relax.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Shakti

March 16, 2017

Not to engage in excessive psychologizing of Trump, but I don’t see him as being very picky in this regard. I think he wants to be admired and doesn’t care much who he’s admired by.
I didn’t ask from a psychological point of view, that’s boring, terrifying or pointless. To clarify: who don’t they already have as a supporter that they could win? Who is about to withdraw their support? I don’t get it.

And the only article on the subject is an angry one in American Conservative.
Again, why is it that people who are joyous about tax breaks so angry about this plan? Conservatives should LOVE this plan and framing it as a thank you for hard working successful families for raising the next generation of citizens. But they’re not. Hmm why? I direct you to Shimkus (R-Illinois), who throws a tantrum over the idea of prenatal care in insurance because the idea of women getting something even indirectly or in the service of someone else makes so many Republicans fucking angry. Has anyone in that party told him to shut up because they’re pro-life? Where did all the rhetoric about unborn babies go?

They bit down on their moral objections and did what they thought would further their political interests

It’s a bit easier to do that when the message isn’t “Fuck you, and you’re the problem with America and the reason America isn’t great right now” repeatedly.

That wasn’t a message he was saying to evangelicals, so while they might’ve morally disapprove of his past behavior, there was never outright hostility towards them. Plus he did offer them something substantive — the promise of a really conservative SCOTUS justice and a very conservative VP in Pence.

LikeLike

Reply

Clarissa's Blog