Election 2016 (Page 18)

That's fine.  One thing is for sure though, Hillary trying to pin the personal email server on him has horribly backfired.

Only if Kellyanne Conway can keep Trump's teeny tiny hands away from Twitter long enough to let the whole national disgrace thing blow over. But he's incapable of turning his cheek to an insult, so I imagine it won't be long before he's tweeting what a loser Powell is. Getting in to a pizzing match with Powell is not going to do him any good. I'll give him credit, he's bit his tongue so far. Maybe we're finally seeing the boring presidential Trump that he's promised to turn in to.

The more he goes along the more it seems like the "outrageous" approach was all part of a bigger plan.  You're right that he's kept his tongue (and fingers) in check the past several weeks and it's paying huge dividends in the polls.  If he does stay on this heading Hillary will have to change her strategy.

What did you guys think of Trumps Childcare plan last night?  Seems to be a flanking move towards women in the middle.
Hillary has to come up with something besides "make the rich pay their fare share" and "charge an exit fee to companies going over seas" when faced with Trumps real policy on the issues people care about.

Like I said, going for the middle.  lol

I read the plan and it's more of a "tax credit for childcare" than it is an entitlement program which is a really good idea.  The one I thought was really interesting was giving childcare cost credits for stay at home parents.  That's Yuge.

Seems strange for a sexist pig to come up with a plan like this though, wonder how Hillary will spin that one.   But But But, the rich need to pay their fair share...

On a serious note I would like to see some of the areas Trump would like to cut spending.  If he wins Obamacare is gone day one which is a big saver, but there's a lot more to be had.  In order for his plans to be viable the economy has to grow and spending has to be cut.  The last thing we need is more and bigger deficits.  bleh

When he said expansion of government entitlements, I believe he was referring to Trump's plan to use unemployment insurance to cover the cost of the 6 weeks paid maternity leave.

I'll help you out, it comes from me the employer not the government.  I get reports on my unemployment insurance balance and based on how much has been drawn down my rates go up and down respectively.
The government doesn't contribute anything towards unemployment.

The nice thing about using the unemployment insurance component is that it makes it cheaper for me the employer to provide maternity leave.  Meaning if an employee just takes normal leave I have to pay them regular salary and all associated taxes.  Whereas unemployment is just a straight expense with no additional taxes.  I'll be curious to see it fully written out, but it sounds like a win win to me at this point.

Lol you guys are funny.  You talk the smaller government talk but walk the walk?  Not so much when it comes to benefits for things you want.  Food stamps and welfare?  BAD.  But a tax credit for child care?  Bring it on!

I think you're the one being funny.  smaller government is taking money from the government and keeping it in the hands of those that earn it in the first place.

To suggest that welfare benefits which is taking money from those that pay taxes and giving it to those that don't (not even to mention deficit spending) is the same as giving an individual a tax credit which lets them keep more of the money that THEY earn tells me you really don't understand the government at all.

Ummm, do you willingly make direct payments to the people you lay off to help them out until they can find another company to work for, or does your state government impose a mandatory tax on your business and put those funds in to a big state-wide pot that they then pay out to anyone who they deem is eligible for unemployment benefits? A federal program requiring businesses to pay in to a fund that pays out benefits to a select group of people, sounds a bit like an entitlement program to me. 

Regarding your last paragraph, it might be a win win for employers, and it's certainly a win for any woman working at a company that doesn't provide any maternity leave, but it's a big f'ing loss to any woman who's company already has a maternity leave program. As you said, why pay full salary when you can just cover their unemployment rate. 

You're still not understanding unemployment.  My company has a single account that is only for my company that I pay unemployment insurance into.  If I never have a claim I don't pay any more into the pot until somebody from my company draws from the account.  It is not a state wide pot, it's basically a "checking account" if you will for my company and every company has their own account.  If I have a bunch of claims I then pay a lot more in insurance, what I pay doesn't effect any other businesses.  It's not an entitlement program in any way, it is more of a workers rights type thing such as paying overtime for people working over 40 hours.

The way I read the proposed law isn't that they "draw unemployment" while on maternity leave, it's that an employer can draw upon the funds to pay their employees maternity leave.  Maternity leave has always been full pay.
Obviously we won't know the details until they come out, but to say it is an entitlement program isn't even close.  An entitlement program would be the state or federal government paying money to the employees when they are on maternity leave and the company would have nothing to do with it.

Not everyone has kids you know... it's still wealth redistribution.

I'm not an employer, I am an employee. I pay absolutely nothing for unemployment. If I'm laid off, I can go to the state and receive money, paid for through a mandatory tax on my employer. You defined welfare as "taking money from those who pay taxes and giving it to those that don't". 

Unemployment is supposed to be forward funded, so you had to pay in to your account. You had no choice, a federal program administered by your state required you to pay, correct? Maybe if you never had any claims you were able to quit paying in to your account, but you don't get your money back. That balance remains held by the state. You paid a tax. And whenever you do lay someone off, they are entitled to receive money that you, not them, paid.  

On a side note, the federal government paid the states $2.4 billion last year for the operations of their totally not an entitlement unemployment programs.  

Don't fool yourself into believing it's Big Goverment Hillary verses Small Government Trump.  Trump, not unlike most Republicans, will have plenty of things to spend our taxes on.  Republicans are no more small government than Democrats - they just want to spend the tax dollars on different things.

I know that anything Trump does or says you guys will hate, but calling unemployment an entitlement program is the equivalent of saying that me having to pay overtime is an entitlement program.  It's a law that I have to follow to hire employees and it factors into the overall cost of running a business.  When I do it well, my rates are virtually zero (where they are now) and if I suck and have a lot of turnover I will pay more.
Unemployment is not a tax, it is an insurance.  It has actuarial tables just like any other type of insurance that determines my individual rates.

Now here's a question for you, why did the federal government have to pay the states $2.4B last year?

swing and a miss.  You are correct, but why did they exceed their maximum level?  They exceeded their maximum level because state unemployment benefits have always been calculated on 50% wage for 26 weeks and Obama forced the states to extend it to 52 weeks and knew that he couldn't make employers pay for it so the Feds subsidized it.  The additional time from 26 weeks to 52 weeks is straight up federal welfare that has nothing to do with unemployment insurance I pay or states paying out of the unemployment insurance pool.  Now if Trump were to create a Federal program to "fund" unemployment insurance for maternity leave then I would agree with you guys that it is a welfare like entitlement.  However, I've seen nothing anywhere that suggests that.

I've seen that line of attack before, but so far it's fallen completely flat because he's an international business guy.  Of course he has financial interests in other countries.
I do like how the article completely dismisses the Clinton Charity as nothing more than a charity that does great things throughout the world.  It does do good things, but that's a small portion of where the money goes.  The next of multiple charities with money flowing between them is so complex that no charity organization will even rate it and the Clinton family is obviously taking many millions of dollars personally from it.

Hillary has taken straight up bribes from very bad countries and you're more comfortable with her doing what's right for America internationally than a guy who has international businesses and sells his name rights?  You certainly have that right, but Trump hasn't done anything illegal and Clinton has.  The system is just so corrupt that they'll never charge or convince Hillary.  If Trump did something illegal we both know that he would have been charged long ago.

You honestly believe that the Clinton's have received none of the foundation money?  Even though the charity sends money to other charities such as ones called Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the majority of the spending overall is on salaries, offices, travel and perks.

Okie dokie

I know for a fact that the IRS would never prosecute them no matter how egregious they broke the law.  The IRS is nothing more than Obama's KGB who will go after his political enemies. 
That being said, I don't feel the Clintons are breaking any charity laws, even if they are using it for their own personal slush fund.  The problem with the charity is that they've raised over $3B from all over the world for access to the SoS and they're using the money as a personal slush fund.  I believe the last report showed they were spending $30M per year on Salaries, Travel, and Housing allowances.  Would you be shocked if anyone named Clinton were on that payroll?  (they are)

Back to the start of this discussion.  There is no comparison between the selling of government influence by Hillary and Bill to Trump having international businesses.  It's laughable in comparison.

The amount you pay to the state is earmarked for benefits paid out to the unemployed. The feds pick up the cost of the bureaucracy and pay the states for running the program. And bureaucracy is never cheap or efficient. 

It is a tax. FUTA & SUTA. There's IRS forms to fill out, 940 & 941. Just because you can lower your rate to virtually zero doesn't mean it's still not a tax. Trump lowered his personal tax rate to virtually zero, but the tiny amount he does pay is still considered taxes. 

I get that we're arguing semantics. If you want to think of it as just insurance, go for it. But in my opinion, when the government taxes every single business, and then gives that money to people who are not working so they can make ends meet, that to me is an entitlement program. I'm not saying it's a bad program. Much better than welfare. But still an entitlement program.