10 thoughts on “Clinton Offers Quiet Policy Lure to Millions of Unpaid Caregivers

  1. An important issue. If people are going to hire more paid caregivers, would be good if those caregivers were paid a living wage–childcare workers, home health aides, personal care attendants–they often make under $12/hr.

  2. Leaving your site for promoting her. If any of us had released classified info like she did we would be in federal prison not running for POTUS

    • And what about Donald? There are many acts he has committed that should have him in a prison as well. When did he address the burden of caregiving?

    • What classified information did she release? You’re an idiot. You want the thrice married casino developer crook Trump and his porno wife in the White House?

    • No, the precedents for people who’d similarly handled classified info were just the opposite. They hadn’t gone to prison, and in fact, it’s unlikely that Clinton violated federal law–though she clearly departed from department policy. That’s what the FBI director said, and that it’s extremely unlikely that if they’d tried to charge Clinton under the federal law (erroneously) cited in some recent articles that it would have stuck long enough to get to trial: the court would have dismissed it.

      Take another prominent example, General Petreus *did* share classified defense information, knowingly and arguably for personal gain, and clearly broke federal law, as well as army code and policy, but he was allowed to plead to one misdemeanor, resign from his job as head of the CIA, and served *no* time in prison. He did not have his retirement or benefits jeopardized, and is now thinking of running for public office.

      Note that in neither case was the handling of classified information at all the same as in the prominent cases of people who’ve decided to publish or disburse lots of classified information just to share it with the world or protest U.S. policy or practice, including classifying information that they judge shouldn’t be classified: that’s a clear violation of the federal law when it involves defense information and involves an obvious *intention* to share it with non-authorized people.

  3. Hillary cared for her mother? Sorry, I don’t doubt she cared, but having the resources to hire well-screened staff, or having a whole staff to help is real different from those of us with constantly growing to-do lists that revolve around older parents while holding down low wage positions.

  4. I support HRC for president, but she has NO clue whatsoever the reason women fare poorly in old age. Hint: it has nothing whatsoever to do with lifestyle differences. Few women outside of the rich can afford to take any significant time off from the labor force these days. What she is proposing is the rest of us subsidizing a lifestyle choice while ignoring long-divorced or never-married women, groups that are growing in number. Why the wage gap if not the mythical lifestyle differences between men and women? Easy. It has to do with the concept of the family wage, which lies at heart of sex discrimination in the workplace. The REASON divorced and never-married women are vulnerable to destitution in old age (and in fact all women regardless of marital status) has to do with the structure of the labor force; that is, the concept of the “family wage,” a relic from the industrial revolution and embraced by labor unions in the 20th century that says that men are the providers and women are dependents. Because of this, according to the notion, men deserve higher pay because they have families to support (whether or not this is true with individual men), while women don’t need the money the way men do because they are or will be supported by men. Men are the primary wage earners while women are secondary earners. This is a FACT and is demonstrated all across all occupations, and female-dominated occupations DENIGRATED in pay and prestige because of this “”family wage” notion. It lies at the heart of sex discrimination in the workplace. Never-married women face the worst prospects in old age because they make less money, they don’t have a second income unless they shack up with a guy (and many do), they are almost always shut out of the real estate market unless they are born to privilege (if they can afford “homes” at all, they are mobile homes or condos, not stick houses) so they don’t have that buffer, and they don’t typically become beneficiaries in life insurance policies, unlike married women. They can’t piggyback on a husband’s Social Security, like widows and divorced women who have been married more than 10 years. They are totally screwed.