Hillary Clinton has just announced that she’s going to make child care cheaper by raising the incomes of child carers.
We’re into Toynbee territory here, right?
Hillary Clinton has just announced that she’s going to make child care cheaper by raising the incomes of child carers.
We’re into Toynbee territory here, right?
Is this really necessary? Chelsea seems to have done OK despite not having her Dad in the nursery.
bloke in france – “Chelsea seems to have done OK despite not having her Dad in the nursery.”
Define OK. Because this looks like a new definition of OK that I was previously unaware of.
We all obviously need HilaryCare to control the nation’s childcare industry. It takes a village you know. And after all, Obamacare is working out so well. The obvious need is for an NHS for todlers. What could go wrong?
Young, childless women vote Democrat by a huge margin. Young, childless women are heavily over-represented in the provision of childcare.
Bloke in Costa Rica – “Young, childless women vote Democrat by a huge margin. Young, childless women are heavily over-represented in the provision of childcare.”
Single women voted for Obama is huge numbers. Married ones for Romney. Reason alone to turn back the tide of divorce.
Single mothers are a key Democratic demographic and Hilary is clearly aware of that.
BICR
Shorter version:
Women provide childcare.
Who knew?
SMFY
So she should take them for granted then.
Why? Who’s being persuaded by this who’s voting Trump? Say nothing, offend nobody, win. Where’s my $1 million, Hillary?
Single women voted for Obama is huge numbers.
I think it was Mark Steyn who pointed out that for single women, government is the ultimate sugar daddy.
Very nice for the moustachioed cow but she needs new voters not bribes for those already likely to vote for handouts.
It was supposed to be the handout recipients that were gonna vote Milliboy into his glorious reign.
Look how well that worked out.
By the simple application of borrowed cash she can make childcare both cheaper and better paid. At this point, what difference does it make?
RLJ,
Doesn’t matter whether she’s spending borrowed money or taxed money; either way means less money to spend on something else.
‘bloke in france – “Chelsea seems to have done OK despite not having her Dad in the nursery.”
Define OK. Because this looks like a new definition of OK that I was previously unaware of.’
And by what definition of ‘OK’ isn’t she doing OK? Was there a point, any point at all, to that comment?
No doubt the logic is that increasing the price of something increases supply, which decreases the price.