Hillary Totally Wants Other People To Pay For Child Care

Over at the Washington Post today, a woman who charges $250,000 a speech to Wall Street corporations, who has made a ton of money along with her husband and child running a so-called charity, that is more pay-for-play, has her piece on the cost of child care, and other things, published

Hillary Clinton: Child care now costs more than rent. Here’s how to fix this crisis


In every state in the country, child care for two kids now costs more than the average rent. You read that right — child care costs more than housing. And in many states, it’s even more expensive than college tuition.

How to fix this? Other People’s money and Government! Because it’s a crisis, and there’s nothing like more government taxation and regulation and control to fix it

Today’s families have it worse. Child care, college and housing costs have skyrocketed while incomes have barely budged. And workplace policies haven’t changed even though families have, with women earning more of the family income than ever and men doing much more to care for kids and aging parents.

Many workers don’t have paid family leave. Many women don’t even get a single paid day off to give birth. The pressures are so intense that some workers worry that taking an earned vacation day will be seen as slacking off. (snip)

As president, I would work to make quality, affordable child care available to all families.

I’m committed to increasing federal investments and incentivizing states so that no family ever has to pay more than 10 percent of its income for child care. This is a big idea, and I’m determined to fight for it.

Let’s double our investment in programs I helped develop as first lady:Early Head Start and the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership program. These programs bring an evidenced-based curriculum to child care and make sure kids get the best possible start in life, no matter how much money their families have. (there’s just too much to excerpt)

Under my plan, working Americans would earn up to seven days of paid sick leave each year. They would be guaranteed up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to care for a new baby or sick family member or to recover from an illness or injury. And we can fully fund this program by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.

OK. Let’s ask Hillary and Bill and Chelsea, who have made some pretty good money running their “charity” and giving speeches, to pony up themselves.

Of course, what this is really all about is making people even more dependent on the federal government, while the same federal government will have even more control and power over day care and what the kids learn. And pandering to people by offering them “free” stuff, of course.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Hillary Totally Wants Other People To Pay For Child Care”

  1. john says:

    Yea Teach why should YOU have to pay for child care? Or schools?
    Quite frankly I think if Hillary’s prime motivator was money she would not be trying so hard to get a job that pays so little. She could certainly make more NOT being POTUS
    “Free stuff” for kids is abhorrent to true conservatives?
    Teach if there was more access for child care do you think that might reduce the number of abortions?
    The Clinton’s pay about 36% tax rate. Most people with high incomes pay much less. Whatever they pay even if it was 505 would have little effect on their lifestyles. Neither really seems to enjoy spending money or has a luxurious lifestyle. Living in the best suites at hotels isn’t how I would like to spend all my days

  2. john says:

    that should be 50% not 505

  3. Jeffery says:

    Our economic system, created by Republicans and Dems alike, rewards the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. The economy of the past half century requires two workers to maintain middle class status for a household – or even to stay out of poverty. And as household income has plateaued, even decreased, over the past decades, expenses haven’t. Of course it would be better if household income wasn’t dropping – if jobs paid more – but they don’t. Our economy is letting the citizenry down.

    What is Trump’s plan to rebuild the middle class? Tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate deregulation and increased debt. The same Reaganesque policies that decimated the middle classes.

    The right objects to any policy that short circuits the wealthy and powerful’s march to having all the wealth and power. The right objects to any policy that helps the working classes.

  4. Dana says:

    Our family calculation, when it actually mattered, in 1988:

    1 – Elaine was making $5.50 an hour as a nursing assistant;
    2 – Of that $5.50 per hour, she’d lose at least 50¢ per hour to taxes, bring her net down to $5.00 per hour;
    3 – Of that $5.00 per hour, she’d spend at least $1.00 per hour on working, in the form of automobile expenses going to and from work, and food while at work, bring it down to $4.00 per hour;
    4 – Of that $4.00 per hour, we’d spend at least $2.25 per hour for day care, assuming we could find day care for only $20 per day. That brought the net down to $1.75 per hour.

    The answer is no, of course not. We were living poor, but we weren’t on welfare or food stamps, and Elaine had to learn to stretch $1.00 into $1.13 for us to make ends meet, but the result is that our kids never spent a single day in day care, have never been brought home by the police at 3 AM, both were graduated from high school, both went to college, both are in the Army Reserves — which also means that neither uses drugs, since they are subject to frequent drug testing — and neither got knocked up.

    It seems to me that the better policy is not for more government paid child care, but less, to force families to take the right decisions, those decisions being not to have children out of wedlock and not to have strangers rearing your children.

    Now, was it really worth working 40 hours a week, plus an extra five ours a week in commuting time, plus having our daughter reared by a stranger, to net $70 a week?

  5. Jl says:

    Why yes, why wait to have children before we can afford them? Not to worry, the government will step in and help those who are being irresponsible.

  6. Jl says:

    “Free stuff for kids is abhorrent to conservatives?” It wouldn’t be free, genius

  7. Conservative Beaner says:


    It’s not about the money she will make in the Whitehouse, it’s the money she will make with the influence peddling that the Clintons and friends will make through paid speeches, jobs and contracts. The Presidency is power and that power will bring immense wealth.

    It will be on the top of her agenda to change the makeup of SCOTUS which will result in further erosion of our freedoms. I can see a future where the SCOTUS will uphold hate speech laws. SCOTUS will deny ordinary citizens the right to own firearms, the true agenda of the left.

    As usual John both you and Jeff fail to see the whole picture.

    • John says:

      Neither Clinton will ever live long enough to spend the money they have already earned
      Take a look at their houses bought over 10 years ago one for 2.5 million the other for 2.5 million
      Neither have chosen to live a lavish luxurious lifestyle
      By the time she leaves the White House she will be well past retirement age accumulation of money for personal gain is NOT what motivates the Clintons

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    One might wonder how the Clintons made $57.5 million (taxable) income during her term as SecState.

  9. Liam Thomas says:

    “Trump and Clinton are currently the two most unpopular likely presidential nominees in the history of the NBC/WSJ poll,” the pollsters said.

    It does not matter what the agenda. neither candidate is in this to help America. They are in it because they are power hungry SOBS. Both of them.

    The real difference is which one of them will be better at Foreign policy because lets be honest a presidents forte is foreign policy not a domestic agenda.

    They do not pass legislature….they encourage legislature but they leave it up to the congress….that is congress job. No ones going to touch this with a 500 billion dollar debt per year.

    And if all child care was free that would encourage more people to have children which in turn would put more people into an already non existent job that pays well. Unless you want to include 15.00 per hour to work at McDonalds or Walmarts which are right now busily shutting down stores because no ones gonna pay 15.00 for a big mac meal or 9 dollars for a gallon of milk to pay these wages AND…..


    pay exorbitant special child care taxes to help the US government pay for child care.

    There is no free lunch. the Left will never learn this….they think there is always a free lunch somewhere.

  10. Jeffery says:

    There is no free lunch. the Left will never learn this….they think there is always a free lunch somewhere.

    That’s untrue. The left is pragmatic and understands the nation works best with a successful and vibrant middle class. The right has been misled by the plutocrats to believe the wealthy few deserve to rule.

    The middle class deserve what has been taken from them by decades of relentless assaults by the plutocracy and their minions (government).

  11. david7134 says:

    What has the middle class had “taken from them”. That has to be one of your more stupid comments. Then this comes from a guy who was educated on our dollar and even runs his business with it. The fact is the middle class is destroyed by left policy.

  12. Dana says:

    John wholly misunderstands:

    Neither Clinton will ever live long enough to spend the money they have already earned
    Take a look at their houses bought over 10 years ago one for 2.5 million the other for 2.5 million
    Neither have chosen to live a lavish luxurious lifestyle
    By the time she leaves the White House she will be well past retirement age accumulation of money for personal gain is NOT what motivates the Clintons

    What motivates the Clintons is victory. Money is the tangible reward, and power is the goal, but the real motivation is victory, is winning. At bottom, that’s what competition is all about.

  13. Jeffery says:


    Taken from the middle class: jobs, jobs, jobs and wages, wages, wages.

    So-called “free trade” agreements (both Dem and Repub – we put our lowest paid workers in direct competition with even lower paid foreign workers), fiscal policies (look it up, since you don’t know), monetary policy (look it up, since you don’t know), labor law (legal union busting), tax law (shifts the responsibility for paying for societal needs from the wealthy to the poor – drastic cuts in fed income taxes and unearned tax rates combined with increases in payroll taxes (look it up yourself) shifts the tax burden to regressive local taxes (i.e., sales taxes, property taxes and fees)), patent, copyright, trademark laws keep getting tighter (rewarding large corporations while making consumers pay more than market prices – in the pharma area this costs consumers an extra $250 BILLION a year!!), immigration (again we put our middle class workers in competition with foreigners but highly regulate foreign doctors, lawyers, researchers coming into the US).

    Our monetary and fiscal policies sacrifice employment at the altar of low inflation. Full employment allows workers to bargain for higher wages.

    All of these actions reward the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. All these policies, largely supported by both mainstream Repubs and Dems, harm the working classes.

    We can judge if they are liberal or conservative ideas with just a few questions.

    Do you favor loosening restrictions for importing foreign doctors?

    Do you favor modifying patent laws to reduce the State-sanctioned monopolies that are now created?

    Do you favor deficit spending during recessions to stimulate economic growth?

    Do you favor raising the fed rate to squelch high employment?

    Do you favor a progressive fed income tax with a top marginal rate of about 50%, with much of this money being returned to the states reducing local tax burdens?

    Do you favor policies to strengthen labor unions?

    Do you favor universal healthcare insurance funded by general revenues?

    We would bet you answered “no” to all the questions you understood, didn’t you?

    Reagan era conservatism, sustained by Clinton, Bush and Obama have crippled the US middle class.

Pirate's Cove