Distributed this week to the five local newspapers in Halton.
Does the state have an obligation to help parents look after children?
Politicians have been struggling to answer that question for years, and as they do, the situation in Halton blossoms. We have kids, kids and more kids. There are more than 35,000 children six or under, and over 10,000 more up to the age of nine.
There’s been a 17% jump in the under-six crowd in the past six years, which means we now has the largest baby boom n Canada. As you’d expect, the surge in children has come along with a mushrooming of the population, as this area I represent – Milton, north Oakville and north Burlington – has seen 22,000 more names added in the past few years.
This is not news to anyone driving around. New subdivision streets have been going in weekly, especially along the Dundas highway where the farmers’ fields of two years ago are now bustling with homes, streets and minivans. The growth has put a lot of pressure on services, schools and our roads, but nowhere is it being felt more than by parents looking for child care.
Face it: With the cost of housing around here, most families need two incomes, so child care becomes an economic necessity. However, there isn’t enough of it. And it costs a bundle.
There are about 7,000 licensed child care spaces in all of Halton, and the Region figures we need another 9,000. Right now I’m told by both parents and child care operators there’s a wait of up to six months to get a space – and the cost runs from a low of $200 a week to about $260. That equals more than $13,000 a year, in after-tax dollars, which means many people are working full-time just to pay for gas and someone to look after their offspring.
So, what are politicians doing, at least at the federal level?
The Conservative solution of Stephen Harper has been to send $100 to each family every month for each child six or younger. This $1,200 is taxable in the hands of the lower income-earner within each family.
The money’s appreciated, but $1,200 (taxable) is a long way from $13,000 (in after-tax dollars). So, lots of people tell me they’re quite unhappy and feel like they’re falling further behind financially.
In the last election the Liberals campaigned on the idea of a $5 billion national child care plan in conjunction with the provinces, that in Halton would have seen the addition of a couple of thousand more spaces. In the coming election campaign I suspect the Liberal will expand on this, while the Conservatives may propose adding some more funds to their monthly payments.
Personally, I have mixed feelings. Realistically, promising every family affordable child care amounts to a massive financial commitment. But giving a hundred bucks a month to defray costs of over $1,000 every 30 days can hardly be called a solution to anything.
So, the questions is: Does the state have on obligation to help mind children? How much? At what cost? What do you think?
This is the topic of three special MP Town Hall meetings coming up. If you want you voice heard, then please show up. In Oakville, Feb. 19 at the municipal offices; in Milton, Feb. 20 at the Sports Centre and in Burlington Feb. 21 at Tansley Woods Library. They all start at 7 pm. See you then?
125 comments ↓
This is not an easy issue, but $100.00 a month is not only a joke, but an insult. I think Day Care spaces are needed. There is a shortage. That they are subsidized is a different issue, in my opinion.
“Face it: With the cost of housing around here, most families need two incomes, so child care becomes an economic necessity. However, there isn’t enough of it. And it costs a bundle.”
You hit the nail on the head. The cost of housing is the problem.
I can think of a hundred different ways that the government could reduce the cost of housing. Everything from lending policy to rural property rights to initiatives to create new communities.
Instead we’re spending billions to create density with extortive nanny councils, and then wondering why the housing price is unsustainable.
It doesn’t take a genius to see why housing prices are what they are — it might take one to fix the problem though.
Finally Garth, I think I might agree with you on something. The state’s responsibility is a great debate. I think we need to keep at the forefront, the parent’s responsibililty to raise a family. We have to be responsible for all our other actions, why not with the family as well. I’m sure my kidless neighbours want to pitch in and help financially with my three, as I would want to pitch in and help with their 60K new diesel and 70K new trailer. Which is why the solution the Cons have is the best solution if the state is going to help. The argument then is how much is the right amount of help. Your party’s solution amounts to intervention, not help, except to those who wish to use daycare. And it leaves out so many, who cannot utilize daycare. If the state is going to help raise Canada’s children, let the parents choose how, and figure out a dollar amount from there.
Kerry, proud father of three wonderful kids
There’s more to this than meets the eye; few know, or care what is really going on behind the scenes. This particular scenario, whether true or not, stinks.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59713
Garth:
This is a no brainer, “Our Children are our Future” as I now see my grandaugter grow as I did see my daughters grow I sit here proud that I am a Canadian, But I am more than worried 30% of Canadians never stopped to think how Neo Conservative policies of funding an economy with the Winds of War could destroy years of hard work all couched in one political party playing the blame game and not looking to the future with positve measures to ensure the middle class can raise their families in the same manner they were.
I want my Canada back! No more lies, no more dictatorship! No more Steve Harper and his selected sheep.
Creating a giant Government run childcare system may sound good to some now, but what happens when the boom that you are experiencing ends? Government programs are much more difficult to cut, even if the need is waning. The Conservative plan makes more sense, to subsidize the people, not the system. Less kids, less subsidy, no enormous Government program to try to shrink.
Of course the state has an obligation to nurture children. The issue is “To what degree?” I personally believe “To the utmost” but we must be mindful of what is acceptable and practical now.
I can tell you this: the cost of getting it wrong is very great indeed. Young people who do substance abuse, and are in the sex trade or involved in criminal activity, are a huge social and health cost. What do you want to do? Throw the aging children into expensive jails, or spend a few more dollars on childcare, summer camps, skates and hockey-sockem stuff? Children are an investment, eh? When you’re old and grey, who’ll be your buddy? Jim Flaherty or a young person?
VERY INFORMATIVE POST. I GUESS THE CENSUS SHOULD BE ABLE TO INFORM US OF THE GROWTH IN CANDA.
I will not be at your town hall as I do not live in your area. personally, I do not believe it is the governments responsibility to baby sit our children. However, I feel government should aid in the conditions to bring about some form of public day care spaces or provide sufficient funds for the following people to have daycare.
1. Single parents who are on social assistance so they can leave the home and seek employment.
2. Single parents who make less than say $25K annually.
3. Single parents who make over $25K be given some assistance until they reach say $35K
4. Couples get full assistance under $25K and some assistance up to $35K.
We have to give some people a handup not a handout. They cannot be allowed to double dip with assistance and also get the tax breaks that are now availble as a deduction.
Another method is to join with the private sector (big companies) to be encouraged to place day care centres at the place of work.
In our area the school enrollment has declined. Some of these schools could be reconfigured to accommodate day care spaces.
The provinces could start Jr kindergarden programs for early child hood learning.
There are many ways to resolve this problem if all levels of government had the will.
I tend to agree with D. Halfkenny but his income levels appear too low. One of the major problems is that the private sector has failed to supply adequate spaces because day care is not profitable.
If everyone had incomes in areas such as where Kerry Busse lives day care could be profitable. In the areas where it is most needed, the incomes are the lowest and it takes two working parents to afford a child.
The Martin plan which provided money to provinces that could be used for non-profit and other local solutions seemed to be the kind of middle of the road plan that could work.
One solution would be to pay parents higher incomes so they could afford to pay more for private day care. I am sure the same people who oppose public funding would oppose paying their employees more.
The government’s role in childcare, IMHO, is to insure that all have equal access, and support those who are incapable of working and paying for day care.
We need a minimum income guaratee to set the floor level for such assistance. I suggest $25,000 is the minimum, and that is per parental person.
I strongly suggest such coures as financial management, budgeting, birth control, child psychological development, and life management.
If I had my options they would be mandatory BEFORE a marriage license is granted.
‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ as the old wisdom teaches.
By D Halfkenny on 01.16.08 8:49 pm
I see we agree on the floor level minimum income. Interesting!
I recall in Jan ‘06 how you felt that the $100 per month solution was the right one so that parents could choose how they wanted to spend the money,particlarly if Moms decided to stay home.AND that the burocracy contemplated by the Liberals would see more funding go to the Government Managers and Supervisors than to people actually watching kids.So it will be interesting to know your opinion on what we should do now.
I think the $100. is too low,but I don’t want to see a government program that for every $100 spent,we get $25. worth of value.So this is a very contentious issue.
Why not make daycare 100% deductable for incomes under 40k and have a sliding scale of deductability as incomes go up and some some type of subsidy for those earning less than 25k.Just a suggestion-don’t have the answers.
My kids are 21 and 19 now so I no longer have that problem,but my wife stayed at home and raised the kids and we did without a bunch of stuff for 15 years,so I’m not inclined to pay more taxes so that someone can go out and make 50k and up and get a deeply subsidized ride.For those who are earning low salaries and are single parents with a deadbeat spouse,I’m ready to subsidize them so that they can make ends meet.
I thought it might be a workable and welcome compromise, as did many. We were wrong. This has not halped parents at all. We need a better solution, but an afforable one. — Garth
The Government currently funds education for children 4 year and older.
It is the norm. Why the magic 4 year cut off?
Do we not value the early childhood education that all children deserve from birth to age 4?
Why do we hesitate to fully fund early childhood education centers?
Or are we confusing baby sitting with quality early years education?
Will users of government run daycares be responsible for part of the costs, or will childless couples like my situation have to chip in equally so other parents can work?
There appears to be sufficient humans. Perhaps some of the present problems could be attributed to, maybe, too many humans.
It may not be smart to reward their production at this time. That is what universal day care does at least to some extent.
But hey what do I know about smart? I spend my time trying to find places where humans are at least rare. The very best of these places are those where humans have never been. It’s possible the universe may be a MORE interesting place without us.
David please, stop being such a drama king. Mine, your Canada is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago. Libs never did anything for child care the past decade, the cons 100 bucks today isn’t much for daycare. The Libs sent us to Afghanistan, the Cons still have us there. All the parties agreed to reopen Chalk River, both parties spent like drunken soldiers buying votes. Vote another party in if you want, but it is going to look almost identical whoever is in power. All the main stream media last election said there was really no difference between the Libs and Cons, and despite all the bluster on here, there still isn’t.
Kerry
D Halfkenny, Excellent post, I could handle and support means tested day care. I cannot handle paying for day care for a family of four making 100 grand a year. My problem for a universal day care is when does it stop, do we run it 24/7 for shift workers, what is the expected distance to travel for small rural villages and towns. There so many variables to be considered to make it reasonable. My other concern is how to we then compensate the spousal member who decides to stay home for the early years of a child’s life, do they deserve some kind of compensation since we are assisting with the childcare expenses of those who chose to return to the workforce immediately. You know what really scares the shit out of me, the govt of any color of political banner setting this up, we all knows how that works, remember the gun registry or any other “small expenses will be incurred” programs they set up.
“So, the questions is: Does the state have on obligation to help mind children? How much? At what cost? What do you think?”
Absolutely not!
If the provinces want to subsidize daycare then that is their choice, the federal government should not be involved in this at all. A huge federal daycare bureaucracy is the last thing we need in this country. People who live outside of urban areas would be left out entirely and parents who choose to raise their own children would be forced to pay for others daycare with no similar benefit granted to them. Maybe we wouldn’t have so many problems with our kids abusing hard drugs and being involved in violent crime if their parents were actually involved in their lives for more than 4-5 hours a day.
“Face it: With the cost of housing around here, most families need two incomes, so child care becomes an economic necessity ………………. which means many people are working full-time just to pay for gas and someone to look after their offspring.”
If one (or both) of the parents are only making enough at work to pay for daycare and gas then they are better off staying at home in the first place. They would be better off working from home part time, or during school hours, and society would benefit as a whole.
Anyway, that’s my $0.02
There are all sorts of issues to be resolved to even know what, if any, obligation the “State” has to supply childcare.
The cost for waht the “advocates” say we need is in excess of $10 billion dollars per year, every year, from now on. Have we determined how the pie will be divided? None of our federal parties, including the Liberals, have ever committed to funding anywhere near that level.
If we do committ to funding this what won’t be be fully funding?
How does someone in a rural or isolated area receive their share.
If it does cost $13,000 per year how much is “affordable”?
I’m inclined to agree with those who say we should consider supplying access to chidcare but not at some absurdly low price so as to be a subsidy program for folks who don’t need subsidies.
A good first step might be to provide a plan of some sort, cost it out, determine funding sources and have a committment from the politicos. If we’re going to consider it those pushing it should be expected to do some homework.
When a young family has one or more children under six the second parent can only go to work outside the house if that second person’s income allows for that. When the second person, usually the mother , goes to work , she earns income which is taxable and guess what the mother’s income can allow the family to buy daycare. This saves the Gov’t $ 1200 per child.
A single parent family must work but th $ 1200 does not cover daycare at all.
What was Harper thinking when he came up with idiotic idea anyway ?
Thanks for bringing this issue up, Garth. Ken Dryden dropped by UBC a while back and he was discussing the need to have a paradigm shift in the attitude of what constitutes “daycare”. Unfortunately, a lot of people regard this simply as state-sponsored baby-sitting, but it should really be thought of as an opportunity for providing a way to educate our children, not academically, but through social and emotional development. My kid’s daycare provides a rich stimulating environment that we are in no capacity to provide by ourselves. And the benefits of this care to his development as a person are simply astounding.
And yes there is an economic side to it to which you’ve nicely laid out in your post. And I think that it would benefit everyone if the government stepped in and realized the benefits to Canadians from both of these angles, the present and the future.
Clearly there is a huge gap in the quality of care that is available. There are huge gaps in the way these services are delivered. There are huge gaps in the living standards. And there are huge gaps in the ability of parents to raise children. Under these kinds of circumstances, it makes sense for the government to intervene and regulate this, since it is about the future of Canada.
But three things:
1. The argument that “well, we are childless, so why should we pay into it?” is, I think the wrong argument to be taking. I go to the doctor rarely, yet I’m supposed to pay for someone else’s cancer treatment? That is a pretty callous attitude, don’t you think? We pay taxes to pay it forward i.e. because we care about the welfare of our fellow canadians.
2. The argument about families that make $200K+/year. The idea is to provide a standard level of care, not unlike the public school system, and not to the lowest common denominator. I’m sure the rich among us would simply pay for the exact kind of care they would like for their children anyway, despite contributing their tax dollars to a universal child care system. And maybe there wouldn’t be a bunch of self-centred mewlers ruining the country.
3. Kids become screwed up even if they have never set foot in a daycare. It is about the attention spent on their development, wherever it is from. Elementary schools can do a wonderful job making up for a screwed up household.
Austin
Definately Not!!!!
If people cannot afford to have kids then quite frankly they should not be having them.
We should try to make housing more affordable so that people can afford to raise kids.
I dont think all the growth should be in the GTA.
Lets take pressure off the GTA and find ways to spread the growth out to areas such as Owen Sound, Sarnia, Fort Erie, etc.
I think it should be done by “means”. When Harper was proposing his pitiful $100./month – I was watching people on the street type interviews. One woman got out of a limo and said “yes” I think it’s great – it will help pay for my live-in nanny.
Do really wealthy people need it?
Amazing! D. Halfkenny has posted something I can agree with!
The parent(s) who need daycare the most aren’t millionaires. (thats what blows my mind, daycare checks are issued to parents with millions like they need it) This is a class issue, pure and simple and should be subsidized as such. The question is how.
The reality is that it comes down to standards and access. Child safety and development standards have to be ensured with legislation. Do we have this already? Likely, but I don’t know the specifics.
As for access, this is the issue for all concerned. A $100 check doesn’t cut it. access varies from urban to rural as well. One thing is clear. To ensure equal access, the government has to spend, but what needs to be decided is how. Should the government encourage for profit daycares, non-profit daycares or both? And should there be a different subsidy scheme for both?
Does the government need to build and provide daycare centres to ensure standards are met and access is available? I don’t think so. As suggested, children grow up and demographics change, so material infracstructure is one that should be avoided as much as possible.
Should the government just stroke a check to rich and poor alike and call it solved? Nope. Throwing $100 a month to parents and telling them to spend it as they see fit like the Cons have done, just doesn’t cut it.
I believe we can all agree on is that the feds could spend more, but how? How do we get the best bang for our buck? We’ve got people saying that if it doesn’t benifit me cause I have no children, I don’t want money spent on daycare… or on seniors… or on anything but me… is that functional?
Money has to be spent here, but how and why?
Again, it comes down to standards and access.
Schools most definitely could begin as early as the age of 5, maybe even 4 and the numbers should be crunched to see just what kind of relief that would place on existing daycares that are swamped with parents looking for help. And… it could be voluntary!!! If parents want to raise their own, there’s nothing stopping them (if they really do have a neighbor who wants their children over $70,000 dollar fifth wheels, or have their mother live with them)
Daycare that takes infants to 6 year olds needs standards and some kind of incentive if it is to be for profit. If its to be non-profit with standards and guidlines set, I’m not so sure how the federal government cannot get more directly involved than legistlation and grants for new spaces.
Its not an easy issue. Costs of living vary, access to daycare spaces vary, its an urban problem more than it is rural and as such, the funding and the universal standards might have to vary depending on population density and cost of living. Schools are an option, but thats only a part of the equation. Should we go non-profit, for profit or both with daycare service? Should we fund them differently?
One thing we do know is this. Stroking small checks blindly to parents regardless of their cost of living and income, isn’t working. We can do better and so far, its not even on this current Con governments radar to do more than what little they’ve done.
For Trevor:
To the question, absolutely! I’m not a British Columbian or an Albertan, or a Manitobian or Ontarioan or Quebecois etc., I’m a Canadian first and foremost. If I have 7 kids, the last thing I want to ask myself is which province has the best budget and standards for daycare and shop for a place to live accordingly.
Its not just federal governments that have stinkers for governance, here. Provincial governments have them too, and new governments have a habit of inheriting hangovers of mismanagement. Question is, do I want to rely on a provincial budget for my services, or a federal one, or both? Ideally its both, not one or the other as we need safeguards in place for times of bad governance… and we’ve integrated revenue taxation and spending precisely for such reasons.
But for me to not recognize just what nation it is that I belong to and what the nation of Canada is truly responsible for… there needs to be standards set for all Canadians. There needs to be standards set for access to all social services as well, regardless of what for profit corporations have to say, and there needs to be some kind of parity concerning the levels of service from province to province and if its not there, then why bother having a nation at all? For that matter, a province? Lets just every person for themselves, including the young and we’ll all pay as we go, with money as our God. Thats functional.
I know it sounds absurd to think this way, but really, there’s ideology to think about here, people to think about besides ourselves and our own sufferings from our “individualism.”
Education is related to productivity so is daycare. I resent Harper’s approach. Those parents who stay home are subsidized because that is the senario he favours. It is the poor who need to be subsidized.
I sure hope that you are not proposing the Quebec model of childcare. Stephane Dion, your leader is.
I know Quebec families who are earning over 100,000$, that were able to take advantage of the 7$/day and were able to take their vacation @ Disneyworld and other exotic places.
And I know Quebec families, who are earning less than 50,000$ who had to wait for years to get their children in the 7$ program – so one of them stayed home or in case of single parent, were on assistance.
By all counts less than 40% of all Quebec families have been able to use the 7$/day program AND it’s still costing Quebec 3 Billion/year.
The state can help by subsidizing those families whose income is less than 3,000$ per month, but, I am not interested in having my taxes used to subsidize the other families.
Hey Garth, what’s this thing I am reading that says Stephane Dion supports invading Pakistan?
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=242249
“Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn’t move to track terrorists.”
Huh? Is he suggesting that Canada (with Nato) invade Pakistan? He wants Canada not to have a combat role in Afghanistan, yet he wants Canada to have a combat role in Pakistan? Seems his statements and his vision is really confusing!
TWO-PARENT DAYCARE NOW POSSIBLE
UNEMPLOYMENT KEEPS BOTH PARENTS AT HOME
My, what a friend we have in Stevie!
Union president calls for forestry summit
Grand Falls—Windsor, Newfoundland
http://www.gfwadvertiser.ca/index.cfm?sid=97779&sc=291
Coles unimpressed at lack of consultation with industry stakeholders
“Having decisions made on the future of the forestry industry without directly having input from the industry, the workers working in the industry and the communities involved, it’s ineffective,” said Mr. Coles. “It won’t work, and you get screwed-up announcements as you got yesterday – ones that have no bearings on the forest industry whatsoever.
Mr. Coles pointed out that there are 325 communities in the country totally dependent on the forestry industry, adding that if the trust’s $10-billion fund had been dedicated to the industry, it would probably be meaningless anyway.
With the proposed forestry summit, the union is preparing to have a big picture look at the industry. CEP will suggest in February going to the bargaining table a year early; according to Mr. Coles, they want to bring every pulp and paper union local in Canada to Montreal in February.
Stephen Harper says, “Must I come down there?”
TWO-PARENT DAYCARE NOW POSSIBLE
Assistance welcome, but forestry package falls short
http://www.kapuskasingtimes.com/Top%20News/368698.html
“By tying this package to his next budget, Mr. Harper is engaging once again in partisan politics designed so he can blame the woes of the forestry and manufacturing sectors on the opposition,” he said. “This announcement does nothing to help the tens of thousands of unemployed workers, their families and their communities who need immediate aid.”
It is important to remember, the MP also said, that it was the Conservative government that negotiated a bad Softwood Lumber Agreement with the U.S. and has ignored requests for help from the ailing forestry sector for two years.
To which Stevie asks, “Must I go there?”
TWO-PARENT DAYCARE NOW POSSIBLE.
‘Cept maybe for ‘fat-city’ Ottawa
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/columnists/story.html?id=d649fa7a-8b87-4ba2-9208-a5deba8a2a21&p=1
A tale of two cities
The outrageous stonewalling over the $30 million in federal assistance needed to reopen Ford of Canada’s Essex Engine Plant speaks volumes about how out of touch with reality this government and its fat cat mandarins have become.
While Windsor sheds jobs and watches its best and brightest, not to mention its most desperate, pack up and move away, the Stephen Harper government is either taking its sweet time — as in waiting for the next election campaign — in deciding whether to invest in this no-brainer project or it’s allowing brittle ideology to stand in the way of a common-sense decision that would give the Windsor area economy a badly needed boost.
How good is life in the capital? The Ottawa Citizen trumpeted last Friday that “Fat City” was back, with the capital region having increased its “core public administration” workforce by 12,800 jobs — a staggering 20 per cent — between 1995 and 2006. “If this keeps up, we may not swagger, but we may soon jiggle,” boasted the paper as it happily described how the region “has been feasting at the buffet table while the rest of Canada has been on a diet” in terms of hiring civil servants.
FOREIGN AID IS BETTER!
A week before Christmas the feds announced a $300-million contribution to an international aid package aimed at building viable institutions for a future Palestinian state. That was welcome news for the Palestinians and perhaps for eventual peace in the Middle East.
But if Canada can find $300 million to pay the salaries of Palestinian policemen and bureaucrats, why on earth is it so difficult to come up with one-tenth of that amount to put hundreds of our own citizens back to work and restore hope in a downtrodden city?
Meanwhile, Ottawa doles out $60 million annually in foreign aid to support projects in the People’s Republic of China. That’s right. This global superpower and economic titan, the communist China that’s eating our collective lunch while growing exponentially, is still on Ottawa’s charity list.
They’ve wiped out industry after industry here with their cheap labour advantage and have piled up such massive surpluses that they can bail out major American banks, and yet Canadian aid dollars are still being funnelled into China.
And Stevie says, “I won’t be coming!”
‘Cos apparently, FEBRUARY THE TOOTH looms, which is when Peter Van Loan, aka “CUZZ,” is going to see his shadow.
PVL wants to screw Ontario out of its entitlement to fair representation by shortchanging us ELEVEN SEATS, Bill C-22
under his claim “there’s no room, and you don’t have an ‘IN’ with this government.” S’okay Pete, we can screw all forty-one of your CPC members right back, when we cast our ballots.
By Catherine on 01.17.08 4:53 am
By Catherine on 01.17.08 4:59 am
Your silly irrelevant comments do nothing whatsoever in terms of dealing with the ‘real-world’ problems the country is facing. Everything you say can be summarily filed under ‘dypstyk.’
Send DER FUBAR across the land … in order that he can SENSE the dissatisfaction at his GAMESMANSHIP. We’d like to see him accompanied by his entire cabinet … Plump Lips and all!
The question to me would be the cost of not supporting young families and their need for child care.
How many ‘at risk’ kids will be the result of families seeking cheap child-care with not enough thought towards the stimulation, nutrition and well-being of our young.
Give families an option, though. Though expensive, income splitting may provide parents the ability to decide for one to stay home and nurture their own.
Huh? Is he suggesting that Canada (with Nato) invade Pakistan? -Lorraine
Did you see the word “invade” used by Dion in the article? I didn’t. I saw the word “discuss”. Don’t mind me for extrapolating that word to mean “negotiate”.
But maybe we shouldn’t believe everything we read like you suggest, Lorraine. For example, I rarely believe anything I read that you post here and it works for me just fine!
I will be so dissapointed if there’s ever a childcare system put into place. I realize that everyone must pitch in for the greater good, this is the core of a socialist society but I’m already paying for schools I’ll never use and I’d rather not have to pay for daycares I’ll never use as well.
Here’s my solution, however extreme it may be. Make it so that every couple who wants to become parents have to go through the same rigorous process put in place to adopt a child. This means interviews, checking if the family can support the child and if it will be raised in a loving home. If all this criteria is met then this couple is issued a child license and can reproduce.
Currently people have kids with the idea in mind that “everything will work itself out” and then expect everyone else to pitch in when they have trouble raising that kid. They can’t afford daycare, they can’t afford to sign them up for hockey, they can’t afford college. Does anyone plan all this stuff out before hoping in bed? I doubt it.
Confirmation of Harper’s VooDoo, and brittle ideological revenge, foisted upon the electorate by one of the several mental midgets in this government.
http://corrigan.ca/jan10-08.gif
http://corrigan.ca/jan17-08.gif
We, the people, will act as surgeon veterinarians to end their capacity to propagate the CPC species.
By Catherine on 01.17.08 4:53 am
Parents in Québec who cannot get their children in to a $7/day daycare centre are reimbursed at the end of the year, at tax time.
Either way, everybody is paying $7/day for daycare in Québec.
-R
Hey Garth, is that tall guy in the back row of the photo Dr. Phil? What does he think?
(joking of course).
The state has an obligation to help parents, and not raise our children for us.
What I mean here is to only fund one style childcare is forcing parents hands. We need more than $100 a month and more than a Liberal childcare plan.
Right now Bill C303 keeps popping up and it will make private daycares extinct only leaving non profit sector up for parents. What happens when the government changes parties or we go into a recession, we’ll more than just bankrupt Canadians that way.
High income earners do not need subsidy nor do they need $100 a month.
We need to deal with taxes for middle income earners, cash or voucher for low income earners and we must figure out the actual poverty level.
Making $50,000 a year is great but not when you have 7 children.
There needs to be a middle ground between the Conservatives and the Liberals on childcare. All parents must be recognized and no child should go without (and I don’t mean without a Wii!).
The National Family Childcare Association and Canadian Child Care Management Association have already put together a policy that would help all parents in childcare, we just need all parties to listen to us.
http://www.careofthechild.com
By Dan on 01.17.08 7:56 am,
You mean trade off one kind of socialist, centrally planned society for another?
http://www.politicswatch.com/casey-november15-2007.htm
Message to Stevie: ’sTOO LATE NOW!
The electorate will soon speak to your inadequacies as a ‘leader’ who dismisses any type of reasoned input from the largest province in the land.
Just make like the stetson-wearing character from Dr. Strangelove and RIDE THE BOMB DOWN.
Ontario population: 33,091,228 and counting, and Harper and his minions act like we don’t exist.
Series of Confirmations
Tory government takes aim at bureaucracy
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/294898#
Payback time for McGuinty
http://www.thestar.com/article/293736
I’m already paying for schools I’ll never use
What exactly do you mean by schools you’ll never use?
Maybe you have no direct need as in you don’t have children, but I presume that you need to interact with people on a daily basis that have an education. I would suggest that any doctor, or mechanic, or any other person that you need services from presumably has had an education. Indirectly, that means you have ‘used’ a school.
I don’t profess to have any answers, but it is in our best interest to make collective investments in the development of our children. We are counting on them to maintain and sustain this country when we no longer can.
Maybe there should be needs tests. Fairness is important and an acknowledgement that there is not a single answer should be addressed. I.E. encouragement to raise children at home as well as trying to address day care needs.
That equals more than $13,000 a year, in after-tax dollars, which means many people are working full-time just to pay for gas and someone to look after their offspring.
So why are these people working. Stay home, take care of the kids and reduce the need for daycare.
Money Drop Alert! Please keep children indoors.
Zimbabwe is issuing 10 million dollar bank notes…It is assumed that these will be dropped from Benny helicopters to provide stimulus for the beleagured American economy.
Canada expects a certain amount of border drift…enough to pay for child care and Quebec Pension shortfall. Wind Turbines in Pincher Creek are being set in reverse to provide maximum Canadian sucking action.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jv5SrWID4gXHdQgtam1Bp9BHrP5A
*Ontario population: THIRTEEN MILLION AND COUNTING, and Harper and his minions act like we don’t exist.*
And, if we have to, we’ll use Winston Churchill’s battle plan and start breeding on the beaches.
A minor correction, for Stevie and his ONTARIO CPC Dunderheads [all forty-one]
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/economy/demographics/projections/2007/images/demog07-1.gif
For clarity: The 2-line intersection is where the population has parted company with the CPC agenda
The population of Ontario in the reference scenario is projected to grow by 30 per cent, or 3.8 million, from an estimated 12.69 million on July 1, 2006, to 16.49 million on July 1, 2031. The population reaches 14.71 million under the low-growth scenario and 18.01 million under the high-growth scenario by 2031
Apparently the prime minister is getting to the point where he can number his friends on the finger of one hand. That’d be the one he flips in the direction of those who disagree with him. I think it was Peter Sellers who coined the phrase, “BIRDY-BIRDY NUMB-NUMB!”
Former Alta. premier takes shots at Harper
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=dbbc43d5-f462-43a7-89c9-e37d2da0d347&k=62686
As one who raised two kids without the benefit of subsidized day care and with minimal income, I am in agreement that it is the parents responsibility to care for their children and pay for day care if that be their choice. There are several problems with government subsidized day care one being that those who choose to look after their own children or chose a relative or neighbor to look after their child when required (a common practice in rural areas where day care is NOT available) are not compensated whilst those in urban areas where day care is available and who use it to enable both parents to work are. In that regard I think that any subsidy (if deemed socially necessary) should go directly to the parents in the way off taxation adjustments or income weighted assistance for those in the LOWER income brackets. Any direct payments for daycare should be taxable, this would have minimal impact those who truly need help but claw back the payments from those who could afford to pay their own way.
The state has no business taking care of someones kids. That includes roviding cheap child care and/or sending them beer and popcorn money. If a women/man choses to have a child(ren) and stays home, too bad. You made the choice so pay for it yourself. Enough with the nanny state, people need to budget themselves and that includes budgeting whether you can afford kids or not. Save the beer and popcorn cash for the tories, and institutionalized daycare to the NDP.
If our wages had increased over the last two decades the way prices have we wouldn’t have to beg for handouts from our own tax dollars. Fix the wage issue and the rest follows. People will then be responsible for their own state of affairs and the mess they make of it.
Pecked to Death by Ducks 01.17.08 10:20 am
The new 10 million note is the equivalent of about £2 at the dominant black market exchange rate in the Robert Mugabe-governed nation. A hamburger at an ordinary cafe costs about 15 million Zimbabwe dollars or £3.
Which precious metal is used for the equivalency standard? Is it true that the Harper and Baird international consortium is planning to buy carbon credits from Zimbabwe? [Now that everything's been burned to the ground and Mugabe has driven the MDC and their sympathizers into the bush?]
From an editorial in the Toronto Star, November 6, 2007, before the assassination of B. Bhutto, the following:
Musharraf risks Pakistan’s ruin.
From behind a wall of rifles and razor wire, Gen. Pervez Musharraf looks out on crisis-racked Pakistan and blames everyone but himself. (1) The chief justice of the Supreme Court is a busybody who “interferes” with the military and needs replacing. (2) Oppostion figures are uniformly corrupt, to be co-opted, ignored or jailed. (3)Journalists are alarmists to be censored. (4)Rights activists are to be rounded up.
The parallels to Harper are striking and ominous.
(1)Harper changed the Supreme Court selection process by loading the panel so that government appointed members are now in the majority.
(2)Harpers guilt by association tactics are well know and intended to smear all Liberals. He has often lamented that there are no Liberals in jail. Hyper partisan smears in the House of Commons are now frequent.
(3)Extreme measures are taken to control the press. Questions at scrums, which are held infrequently, are only received from those who are screened.
(4)Starting with the Court Challenges Program, funding has been withdrawn from advocacy groups.
Does Harper risk Canada’s ruin?
In view of his dictatorial handling of the AECL isotope issue I believe this is timely.
If Harper isn’t a dictator he will do until one comes along. What would he do with a majority?
By rural on 01.17.08 10:40 am
Rural, you got that right! We rural folk already pay for urban transit so why not pay to raise their kids?
I get a real chuckle at the Liberal day care ‘plan’. They’ve been planning it for what? 13 years? On one hand we’ve got Lib. MP Garth saying we are headed for economic disaster and on the other they are screaming for an urban state institutional run day care system that will cost us $14 billion per year. I guess going by what they are saying; when all the jobs are lost, mom and dad become suicidal drunks…so we better house the kiddies in a safe place? LOL
Oh well, once we pull out of Afghanistan and bomb Pakistan the day care scheme will make sense?
Yup…chuckles and giggles all the way.
Leasa
Where did I say we are headed for “economic disaster”? Where did I call for a “$14 billion state run day care system”? You have no credibility when you put words in the mouths of others. — Garth
Regarding the long term view of economic issues. I awoke this morning, and like most mornings found myself in the usual state of philosophical receptiveness that brings forth great clarity to complex issues at hand.
We are, again, being victimized by the money changers, i.e., banking industry on a global scale.
The banking industry has a very poor track record, and every time they screw things up we end up holding the bag they insisted we take. I think it is time to STOP them.
Consider the Great Depression of 1929. What caused it? The banks had been very happy lending money to ‘investors’ (a PC word for gamblers) to front their purchase of stocks and bonds by letting them ‘float’ the payments. When the banks decided to correct their mistake the world’s economy came crashing down, and it all was due to the almighty U.S.. The result was the formation of the SEC and the rule that all transactions must be paid for at the close of that day’s business. (Watch ‘Changing Places’ with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd for an insight into this world of idiocy and gambling)
Then we saw it happen, only much less severely, numerous times since, always on about a ten year cycle.
Back in 1980 Presidents Carter and Reagan brought in the Credit Control Act under then Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. The result was the banks rose interest rates to as high as 24% and, again, destroyed the world’s economy. What caused this? Simple, the banks lent billions to foreign countries at the request of the U.S. Government to ‘buy friends’, but those friends took the money, had a wonderful life, and screwed the world in the process of defaulting on repayment. Who held the bag? WE DID!
Now, they again made ‘minor corrections’ to the market in the 1990’s. Who suffered? WE DID!
Now we see the worldwide collapse of huge financial institutions due to their sub-prime mortgage fiasco. We also see the U.S. inflation rate at 4.1% which is astronomical for North America.
All this was brought on by the banking and financial industries who, with the legislative help of scumbags like Dim Jim Flaherty, went merrily around creating a sense of false value on the most basic of human needs…OUR HOUSING!
It has allowed the real estate marketeers to profit like a Cha-Ching machine at an arcade…7% added with every sale. It has allowed ‘investors’ to buy new homes, adding on more cost to the actual home BUYER, until now the entire House of Cards has come tumbling down.
Last week ML called it a RECESSION, and since that moment all these deluded morons have been fighting hard to deny reality. Denial is not just a river in Egypt!
If you want to see how pervasive the MSM is in the U.S. (especially) then watch Jon Stewart’s ‘A Daily Show’ that aired last night. He clearly illustrates how it works using disinformation, and inaccurate opinions by talking heads regarding the raising of the ‘race’ issue between Senators Clinton and Obama. Neither has said anything to even justify such claims by people like Chris Matthews of MSNBC.
The Race Card
Las Vegas Debate
Like the crazed old man screamed ‘I’m mad as Hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!’
Ah, and if you do not believe the connections then read this U.S. housing starts post biggest drop in 27 years
Home starts in the U.S. last year posted the biggest decline since 1980, according to year-end figures released Thursday by the U.S. government.
The U.S. Commerce Department said there were 1.354 million units started last year. That was the lowest level since 1993’s 1.288 million units.
The 24.8 per cent drop seen from 2006 to 2007 was the biggest decline since 1980, when the Federal Reserve was raising interest rates to fight inflation.
BINGO! Twenty seven years ago was 1980, the last MAJOR CRASH!
Catherine – You just love spreading lies on here don’t you…I watched the statement made by Dion, with Coderre there too…He said that if things in Pakistan do not improve on the gov’t front, that NATO should intervene and discuss and negotiate with the gov’t there to return things to the way they were before….He said nothing about combat or war or invasion….But you being a Harepre seal can only scream and lie, then clap when your leader screams and lies…Which he does everyday it seems….
Hi Garth, I got to ask, regarding the picture you used here…tall guy leaning against the wall…I thought Dr. Phil was busy helping Britany find her underwear.
Leasa
I thought Dr. Phil was busy helping Britany find her underwear.
By Leasa on 01.17.08 12:14 pm
Britany wears underwear?
“On one hand we’ve got Lib. MP Garth saying we are headed for economic disaster and on the other they are screaming for an urban state institutional run day care system that will cost us $14 billion per year.”
Garth is not screaming for institutional run daycare system, it seems to me like he is asking the voters what you WANT!
What a change don’t you think, an MP actually caring about the voters views over an MP who decides there views are what is best for us.
Yupc…huckles and giggles all the way.
By Leasa on 01.17.08 11:27 am
By Leasa on 01.17.08 12:14 pm
I really don’t know why Garth and others here would waste their time being polite to you obvious troll nincompoops.
Like the crazed old man screamed ‘I’m mad as Hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!’
By Bill-Muskoka on 01.17.08 11:39 am
In that era, Marc Lalonde was finance minister, and he was forced to incur an operating deficit for ‘82-’83 in the amount of $15 Billion. I don’t know whether I’m crazy or not … I leave that to the OTHER SIDE to judge until I look DEEPLY into their eyes, and they appear undecided whether to s**t or go blind.
Seems the ‘plan’ is to create new jobs by burdening families with never ending expense increases.
Corporations seldom have real retirement plans; the good jobs are sent overseas, and you either are management or a burger flipper/sales associate at minimum wage with no real benefits?
This all goes back to the outofdate management theories William Deming tried to get American business to adopt. They refused to rid themselves of the top heavy management pyramid. Japan took his advice. Who won?
Here are Deming’s 14 points and things to avoid:
Deming’s 14 points
Deming offered fourteen key principles for management for transforming business effectiveness. In summary:
1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of a product and service with a plan to become competitive and stay in business. Decide to whom top management is responsible.
2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. We can no longer live with commonly accepted levels of delays, mistakes, defective materials, and defective workmanship.
3. Cease dependence on mass inspection. Require, instead, statistical evidence that quality is built in. (prevent defects instead of detect defects.)
4. End of the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, depend on meaningful measures of quality along with price. Eliminate suppliers that cannot qualify with statistical evidence of quality.
5. Find Problems. It is a management’s job to work continually on the system (design, incoming materials, composition of material, maintenance, improvement of machine, training, supervision, retraining)
6. Institute modern methods of training on the job
7. The responsibility of the foreman must be to change from sheer numbers to quality… [which] will automatically improve productivity. Management must prepare to take immediate action on reports from the foremen concerning barriers such as inherent defects, machines not maintained, poor tools, and fuzzy operational definitions.
8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.
9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales and production must work as a team to foresee problems of production that may be encountered with various materials and specifications.
10. Eliminate numerical goals, posters, slogans for the workforce, asking for new levels of productivity without providing methods.
11. Eliminate work standards that prescribe numerical quotas.
12. Remove barriers that stand between the hourly worker and his right of pride of workmanship.
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and retraining.
14. Create a structure in top management that will push every day on the above 13pts.
The Seven Deadly Diseases:
1. Lack of constancy of purpose.
2. Emphasis on short-term profits.
3. Evaluation by performance, merit rating, or annual review of performance.
4. Mobility of management.
5. Running a company on visible figures alone.
6. Excessive medical costs.
7. Excessive costs of warranty, fueled by lawyers who work for contingency fees.
A Lesser Category of Obstacles:
1. Neglecting long-range planning.
2. Relying on technology to solve problems.
3. Seeking examples to follow rather than developing solutions.
4. Excuses, such as “Our problems are different.”
Seems government could learn a lot from reading these and applying them as well?
By PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 1:10 pm
LMAO! Yeah, sounds about right.
I still laugh when I think of Dr. Strangelove aka Robert Strange McNamara, and Kissinger. There was a real pair of woowoos!
I truly appreciated McNamara finally admitting after 30 years ‘We made mistakes in Viet Nam!’ Duh! Really?
I wonder how many decades it will be before we hear the same admittion regarding Iraq and Afghanistan?
Geez, the things we have been witness to are mind boggling, eh?
Fix the wage issue and the rest follows. People will then be responsible for their own state of affairs and the mess they make of it.
By T-Roy on 01.17.08 11:00 am
Only one SERIOUS PROBLEM. If there are no jobs, what does an unemployed person do? What if it’s both mom and dad? There can be nothing more GRATING and NERVE-WRACKING, than being unemployed. Most unemployed view job loss as the second most serious life event, after a death in the family, with a tremendous loss of self-esteem.
This is not a rural vs. urban issue…don’t any of you think that a childcare system that goes beyond simply dropping off billy and susie to the neighbors is desirable?
I get it…for those living in the rural areas, $100/month is actually useful. But that is a poor waste of funds since it is inherently biased by living standards. What you are asking is that those raising families should simply move to the rural areas, and give up their jobs and their training. But then what? What is going to happen with the influx of people and children?
I’m sorry to say, but frankly, more money per capita comes from the urban centres. If you want to play that game, then we should all be complaining about unprofitable infrastructure investments into mail services, roads, sewage, airports, hospitals, etc…you guys want to live in the boonies, then by all means live in the boonies and live without the services that a given by urban tax dollars.
Don’t you see? This kind of argument is counterproductive to progress and evolution. So please don’t engage in it.
Austin
By Sara Landriault on 01.17.08 12:54 pm
I bet someone will suggest Residential Schools be brought back? Seems that is about par for The Thunk Tank in Ottawa?
Someday it will all be like the Axlotyl Tanks in Dune. Breeding vats of genetically engineered specialty beings for use by the power structure as slaves.
I see there is a big debate on about cloned beef cattle in the U.S. right now. The FDA has refused to mandate labelling to let people know of course, because politicians love to control regulatory agencies…Just ask Harper and Lunn.
Geez, the things we have been witness to are mind boggling, eh?
By Bill-Muskoka on 01.17.08 1:23 pm
I watched McNamara on Charlie Rose, when he was doing his ‘cry me a river’ routine … and I sure as hell wouldn’t give Westmoreland or Kissinger the time of day. Westmoreland thought body-bags were the sole determinant of the war’s effectiveness, and Kissinger was brought in for the wrap-up abandonment of the S.V. army … after Nixon’s pin-point bombing of Hanoi, which was really, fly over Hanoi in a ‘52 and open the bombay doors. Yeah, that’s pin-point alright.
By Austin So on 01.17.08 1:28 pm
Good points, however, the problem has always been the projected ideaology of ‘Them versus us!’, and what we really need is an ideaology of ‘We!’
The city dwellers are only capable of living their because of the people who live and prodcue the products in the rural areas. I am talking essentials like timber, raw mining products, and food, items that cannot be garnered in an urban environment.
As Pogo said ‘We has found the enemy and they is us!’
The rest of the stuff we all think is so important are generally not necessities.
If one looks at the history of Ontario, especially, they will find a bi-directional flow of goods from rural to urban and back. That is how the Muskoka became so prominent.
In the late 1800’s the goods travelled up Yonge Street to Barrie, then by steamship to Orillia, and then via horse drawn wagons to Gravenhurst on a log and dirt road, where the goods (both directions) were once again transferred to steamships, and then up to Bracebridge where they were portaged to Port Sydney, to again be loaded on steamships to and from the northern frontier.
The lumberjacks prepared the timber in square form to get more capacity aboard ships that sailed to England to supply the Crown with high quality wood to build the British Navy. Those ships sailed out the St. Lawrence and acros the Atlantic. They also brought goods back from Europe.
When the CN built its railroad and bypassed Port Sydney for Utterson, the town became a residential village with little industry to support the residents. Bracebridge is called ‘The Heart of The Muskoka’ because it was there that commerce focused the distribution hub.
Today, the CN and CP run around Lake Simcoe carrying goods in both directions all the way to the ports in Vancouver, BC, and east to and from the Maritimes.
I do not think most people have a clue about how commerce really moves. It is not just by semi-truck. Take a long look at the CN yard at Highway 7 and the 400, and gaze upon this nation’s massive support system.
Look at the auto manufacturing rail yards around Toronto and realize that those products are also travelling to distant desitnations.
Look at the ships at the piers, the massive freight aircraft at Pearson International.
We are all interdependent on each other, but people still act like they are living in the wilderness of the early times. We are not.
Today we rely on the slaughter and packing houses that are still in the GTA to process the livestock we consume by thousands of tonnes daily. That is why the cities were able to grow and expand, because they became the processing centers for so much produces in the rural areas.
We are still in a very complex symbiotic relationship with each other, and as such, should share the wealth equally, because neither can survive without the other anymore.
So Austin,
Should Ontario and Quebec be the only provinces to get some sort of child care program? Using your logic, as the largest source of tax income(because they have largest pop), should the other provinces be excluded? If it is a “universal” program it has to be universal.
By Kerry Busse on 01.17.08 2:03 pm
Goodness, last time you were here, you were either Betty White or Leasa. Which are you today? … Not that I have a deep compulstion to examine your S-4-B mentality. What’s the matter, can’t find an ideological blog suitable to your lack of intelligence?
Let’s leav it this way. YOU WILL KNOW ME WHEN YOU MEET ME.
Absolutely Bill, we have to find solutions that address issues from both ends of the divide. And as we live in a global environment, both centres feel the impact of open borders and must find a solution that benefits both of us against this “assault”.
But personally, I find it hard to believe that parents regardless of where they lived would hesitate at an opportunity to drop off their kids for 4 hrs a day to a childcare centre with licensed qualified teachers and an intellectually, socially stimulating environment that they themselves cannot provide. Even if the only reason is to give themselves a break from the demands of child-rearing.
We are no longer living in a subsistence, agrarian society. There are a different set of demands placed on us in how we achieve productivity and prosperity. And it is not fair for anyone to demand of others to adjust or “deal with it”.
Austin
I could support an idea like Smitty preposed. If the childcare is means tested and the ones who need the help the most get it then that is a good idea. It would most likely be better run provincially as at least in B.C. the provincial government has a right to check my earnings via the fair for some pharmacare program. Creating another layer of beurocracy for checking incomes seems wasteful in my opinion.
I think you misunderstood my post, Kerry.
It should be equal and accessible, like our health care and our schools.
And if the government gets involved, costs are more likely to be scaled according to local living standards, instead of across the board pay-outs.
My opinions, BTW…
Austin
By PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 1:47 pm
I still love both the book, by Stephen Coonts and the movie ‘Flight of The Intruder’ where Danny Glover and Brad Johnson ‘Go downtown’ and take out the SAM sites in Hanoi. I imagine Senator john McCain likes that a lot too. He spent many years as a guest in the ‘Hanoi Hilton as a POW.’
The USAF and Navy/Marines totally revised their battle tactics as a result of ‘Nam. In Tom Clancy’s book ‘Every Man A Tiger’ the evolution of the USAF as revealed by General Chuck Horner.
rural on 01.17.08 10:40 am,
The problem is one of supply. We had a major problem with accessing day care and I really do not wish what I had to go through on anyone.
Those who live in rural areas tend to have familiar and trusted family networks to provide day care at a reasonable cost. In the highly impersonal urban environment that network does not exist and the safety of one’s children becomes a major concern.
I don’t believe anyone should generalize from their own experiences because times have changed and there are major differences in the situation between urban and rural areas and even from one urban or rural area to another.
The major problem here is “supply” and that the “free market” is unwilling to address. When there is a demand but inadequate supply then I believe there is a role for government. Giving tax breaks to parents or $100 a month does not deal with the supply problem.
By Kerry Busse on 01.17.08 2:03 pm
It must be a national program for all Canadians. This is where the problem always comes up between national interests and provincial responsibilities.
Layer up on layer of bureaucrats administrating a program that merely consumes the funding. Again, we all get to hold the bag because of the lack of maturity of politico types and their lust for power.
Someday we will figure out the way to exclude them once a law is passed, and also before it becomes law that the funding is preserved for generations or unles a sunset clause is carefully included. Goal assessment reviews should be mandatory as they are in business.
By PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 1:47 pm
Just so you never feel alone, we ‘older’ folks understand this comparative in ways no younger generations can.
1977: Long hair
2007: Longing for hair
1977: KEG
2007: EKG
1977: Acid rock
2007: Acid reflux
1977: Moving to California because it’s cool
2007: Moving to Arizona because it’s warm
1977: Trying to look like Marlon Brando or Liz Taylor
2007: Trying NOT to look like Marlon Brando or Liz Taylor
1977: Seeds and stems
2007 : Roughage
1977: Hoping for a BMW
2007: Hoping for a BM
1977: Going to a new, hip joint
2007 : Receiving a new hip joint
1977: Rolling Stones
2007: Kidney Stones
1977: Screw the system
2007: Upgrade the system
1977: Disco
2007: Costco
1977: Parents begging you to get your hair cut
2007: Children begging you to get their heads shaved
1977: Passing the drivers’ test
2007: Passing the vision test
1977: Whatever
2007: Depends
Just in case you weren’t feeling too old today, this will certainly change things. Each year the staff at Beloit College in Wisconsin puts together a list to try to give the faculty a sense of the mindset of this year’s incoming freshmen. Here’s this year’s list:
The people who are starting college this fall across the nation were born in 1989.
Britany wears underwear?
By Bill-Muskoka on 01.17.08 12:41 pm
LOL…That’s why Dr. Phil is helping her find it…trouble is; she can’t remember where she left them!
Doesn’t that guy in the pic. look just like him?
Leasa
By Marc on 01.17.08 2:32 pm
I tend to agree that a means test must be applied. We should not be funding day care for millionaires or those able to afford it on their own. This not the same a Healthcare.
The whole problem with most ’social problems’ are those who think fraud is OK because their friends do it. Trying to establish a fair system would be easy were it not for all the safeguards and hoops people are made to go through just to protect the honest folks from the fraudsters.
That is the biggest problem I think everyone, conservative, liberal, or whatever, has with ’socialism’ per se.
We seriously need to teach ethics in our schools at all levels from K-12 through our universities. In fact, i think anyone seking a diploma should have had to prove they comprehend the effect their actions have on others.
Maybe some Sweat Lodges would go a long way to getting such points across to the miscreants in our society? We have a lot we could, and should learn from our Aboriginal citizens.
If things ever really went bad, all the smug city folks would be depending on the rural and aboriginal people to SURVIVE! The battery shortage for their precious iPods were help refocus their attention to reality, eh? LOL
Peter,
I post an occasional comment, perhaps two to three per week. If that is a problem, Garth can block me. Unlike you, I do not call others names, I respect but disagree with some other comments and I have the self respect to post my name. I prefer to make an occasional post then listen to other points of views instead of posting ad nauseum all day.
The one, the only,
Kerry
We are no longer living in a subsistence, agrarian society. There are a different set of demands placed on us in how we achieve productivity and prosperity. And it is not fair for anyone to demand of others to adjust or “deal with it”.
Austin
By Austin So on 01.17.08 2:30 pm
I agree with you.
We watched out grandson grow tremendously once he started Junior Kindergarten. He was the first born and had the rule for attention for three years until his brother came along. He needed to learn socialization skills, and that comes from socializing in a group.
I am pleased to say he is doing fine now, but he was a spoiled brat to some extent until he learned that he is not alone in society.
His younger brother bypassed the experience altogether because he learned from day one he had to share and be polite. Our grand daughter, the youngest, will have a very easy time, and rapidily figure out how to drive both her brothers nuts. LOL
Their situation was ideal to some extent. Both the mother and father work, at the same company, but on rotating shifts. The father’s mother lives with them so they have a live-in babysitter. The mother is off on maternity leave now, but applying her time properly by going to school and getting her professional certification.
If she has a job (the company has eliminated her position due to the marvel of ‘downsizing’) when her leave is over, then she can choose between returning to her old job, or starting a new career, one which she has wanted for a long time. She will have a severance package waiting if her job is not there.
None of those things would have been there for them had it not been for laws mandating they be. We can thank the NDP for those laws mostly, and we should be glad that workers are not treated like expendable livestock as much as they used to be.
By Austin So on 01.17.08 2:36 pm
Austin, our National Healthcare is not equal to every Canadian. Politicians and prisoners get front of the line access. This is in no way equal. They should be on the same waiting lists with the rest of us.
Leasa: So rural folk pay for urban transit. Don’t urban folk pay for rural farm subsidies and hand ups? (as you like to call them)
Please Pyoter, is it alright if I leave a post for Bill?
Bill, I agree that it must be a program for all Canadians. That is the problem with the Libs version of universal day care, it excludes so many. That is the reason why I see the only way to provide it is to either give it to the parents directly, or indirectly through tax credits. The rest of the argument is only about how much, whether or not there should be a means test and where is the cutoff.
Kerry
By PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 1:47 pm
Here is the rest of the comparative. LOL
Those born in 1989…
They are too young to remember the space shuttle blowing up.
Their lifetime has always included AIDS.
They do not know the song ‘Duck and Cover’
Bottle caps have always been screw off and plastic.
The CD was introduced the year they were born.
They have always had an answering! machine
They have always had cable
They cannot fathom not having a remote control.
Jay Leno has always been on the Tonight Show.
Popcorn has always been cooked in the microwave.
They never took a swim and thought about Jaws.
They can’t imagine what hard contact lenses are.
They don’t know who Mork was or where he was from.
They never heard: “Where’s the Beef?”, “I’d walk a mile for a Camel”, or “de plane, Boss, de plane.”
They do not care who shot J. R. and have no idea who J. R. even is.
McDonald’s never came in Styrofoam containers.
They don’t have a clue how to use a typewriter.
Do you feel old yet? Pass this on to the other old fogies on your list. Make sure and use larger type, that’s for those of you who have trouble reading…
So have a nice day!!!!! It is good to have friends who know about these things and are still alive and kicking!!!!
Catherine – You just love spreading lies on here don’t you…I watched the statement made by Dion, with Coderre there too…He said that if things in Pakistan do not improve on the gov’t front, that NATO should intervene and discuss and negotiate with the gov’t there to return things to the way they were before….He said nothing about combat or war or invasion….But you being a Harepre seal can only scream and lie, then clap when your leader screams and lies…Which he does everyday it seems….
By Nelson G on 01.17.08 11:52 am
Nelson, what do you think NATO is? It is not a diplomatic corp! It either does “peace-making” or it uses its forces for combat. Nelson, don’t you think that diplomacy isn’t being done now, or even when Paul Martin was PM, or even when Jean Chretien was PM? Nelson, maybe Stephane Dion needs to explain by “intervention by NATO”!
But, hey nice spin, Nelson…. Trying to explain what your leader really means. But, we, the great unwashed, like to actually see practical and realistic proposals to these solutions. And not some high, pie-in-the-sky crap that we often hear from Stephane Dion.
Doesn’t that guy in the pic. look just like him?
Leasa
By Leasa on 01.17.08 2:56 pm
Yes, he does actually! Maybe a little thinner than Dr. Phil. My wife watches him everyday, And I listen. He surely shows how wacky people can be, and there is an unlimited supply out there! LOL
Dr. Phil could write years of shows with one visiting to QP I think? LMAO!
By Catherine on 01.17.08 3:30 pm
They still have you with that portfolio at the CPC Death Star?
We all know when it comes to CRAP, you and your fellow trolls have terabytes to draw from. Thanks for letting us know you are on duty today!
By Kerry Busse on 01.17.08 3:23 pm
You, Leasa, Catherine, Reid, Lux, Dim-Schitz Sean, Betty White, HJ, MM, and all the other idiots too numerous to mention, have contributed nothing to this blog. When someone clarifies, you don’t provide support for anything you say … and, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, YOU’RE LYING!
As for NATO, not one M/f’n one of you knows anything about NATO, THE ARMED FORCES OF ANY COUNTRY, OR THINGS MILITARY.
1977: Whatever
2007: Depends
By Bill-Muskoka on 01.17.08 2:53 pm
Not a mind-bending cultural change at all. I like the ending note. It’s typical Tiger Williams but he’s running a farm in SK now … no longer ragging the puck.
Did I strike a nerve?
All of my posts are opinion dude, pretty hard to lie about an opinion.
Keep up the good work though,
Kerry
By Catherine on 01.17.08 3:30 pm
The TWIST AND TURN of a whirling dervish, or better still, a Benny Hinn supporter. Pointless HORSE[POOP]INGS personified, objectified and enshrined by the CPC.
TO KH ONT 01.16.08
You have listed some very interesting points.
1. Should day care be 24/7. I would say yes in order to treat everyone fairly
2. Should spouses be compensated if they wish to remain at home and provide child rearing. Again I would say yes. This could be done through the tax system by raising the personal exemption similar to the age exemption.
3. How do we treat everyone fairly. Again, I believe to do this successfully it would have to be done through the present tax system. If the amount of money was sufficient to support these families would give the private sector some incentive to work with government to create spaces to fulfill the need.
TO BRAIN ON 01.17.08
You posted some very thought provoking points in your article. It shows you have a interest in this topic.
I feel this is not that difficult to resolve. What I would like to see is our MP’s we send to Ottawa and our Provincial posts work together on a plan for canadians instead of who will end up gaining politically. This is our problem in Canada. We fail to do what is right for all canadians.
To quote a Rodney King. “why can’t we all get along”
By PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 4:11 pm
I think that meant Deapends, as in the product, not the poser. LOL
oops…make that ‘Depends’!
Listening to Robert Gates today drew attention to a major problem. NATO was created as a defence organization to counter the Soviet Bloc.
Gates talked about the difficulty that NATO was having in transitioning from a defence organization. In other words, the expectation of the United States is that NATO should transition in order to adapt to the U.S. concept of pre-emptive war. Instead of being a defence organization he believes it should transition into a vehicle for offensive military action.
If you are going to invade other countries and set up puppet governments insurgency will be result. Insurgency is a rising up of a segment of the civilian population against “government” whether it is a puppet government or one that has seized power by other means. In general it reflects a strong belief by elements in a society that a government is illegitimate. In Kenya you have an insurgency because so many people believe that the elections were rigged.
Personally, I am opposed to the role the U.S. has selected for NATO and for Canadian troops.
TO PYOTR PETROBITCH 01.17.08
YOU STATED THAT NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT NATO, THE ARMD FORCES OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY OR ANYTHING MILITARY.
THIS IS AN INSULT.
There is a gentleman (Herb) who makes the odd comment on here who served in NATO similar to myself from 1965 to 1969.
In addition we have both served on United Nations missions and have spent considerable time in the Armed Forces.
I will refrain from using the language that you have used but I do feel that you should apologize to the persons who use this site.
What you have shown is that you lack tolerance and fail to give people the benefit of the doubt.
By PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 3:59 pm
What’s the matter today sweetheart? Mom cleaning the basement again?
Always…Leasa
By D Halfkenny on 01.17.08 4:37 pm
I apologize to nobody. I stand by what I’ve said. I know about Herb and I trust what he has to say. I don’t know you and I take your ‘’slant” with a grain of salt. I’ve served in the Canadian and US armed forces. I know Bill has served in the US forces … Marines, I think. So, Herb and Bill I know about. That’s all I take as being important to me.
Meanwhile, take one last recce, ‘cos very soon we’re gonna see Stevie and the Morons gone. The DIPPERS will have a much-reduced champagne and cake opportunity too.
By Leasa on 01.17.08 5:11 pm
Someone let you ”out” on a pass without your escort? I knew they suggested those who were borderline should be rehabbed and given greater freedoms … Psych’s can make a mistake in their assessments … Look at the coroner, Smith, who even got to the ‘motive.’
By C. B. Innes on 01.17.08 4:36 pm
NATO (aka OTAN) Stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization and was formed solely to counter the Soviet threat against western European nations and North America.
It was never meant to be used as it has in Afghanistan, and someone has twisted the law to please Bush. They should be ashamed. NATO has absolutely no legal mandate to be in the Middle East!
Another fine example of political whores, like Lunn, who refuse to abide by the laws as written.
NATO should be dissolved immediately. If anyone has authority it is the UN, and no other cute letter group some schmucks thought up around a Star Bucks in a Star Chamber!
Bill – Muskoka (and all the others with similar concerns)
C. Northcote Parkinson wrote about the inevitable growth of bureaucracies a good 50 years ago – and nothing has changed. The latest fashion in government is to be ‘more businesslike’, so guess where the growth is. It really hurts those government(like) organizations that actually DO things – see the growth of administration at the hospital as the number of beds and patient caregivers are reduced – see the numbers of conservation officers in the forest at any point in time reduced as the ‘business unit’ grows – and on and on.
The only way to stop it is to abolish the organization and create a new one, and you know the chances of THAT ever happening.
Personally, I am opposed to the role the U.S. has selected for NATO and for Canadian troops.
By C. B. Innes on 01.17.08 4:36 pm
I watched him making his presentation and semi-apology to NATO, for what he led us to believe was a misunderstanding. (on our part) I agree with you wholeheartedly. We should not take on a role, which, in effect, promotes US territorial ambitions. A spokesman from RAND was more to the point viz. face-to-face formalized engagement, with appropriate ROE, as compared to the ever-changing, flexible needs of insurgency. Either way, if we continue in NATO, we must have two things;
1. A commitment my all NATO members to the ‘all-for-one, one-for-all,’ with fully shared military operations … Not large forces engaged in cherry pick assignments in quiet parts of the country.
2. A much greater role for the UN in international operations where combat is necessary to protect large innocent populations as in Darfur … Where the UN has pretty much failed to secure agreement with the armed factions. (both government and rebel) If the UN fails to secure agreement, with a clear ROE for Canadians, we walk away. The Africans have not taken on any large share in Darfur, despite the UN/NATO pledge to provide arms which are surplus to our requirements, or are not at the current level of bells & whistles.
I am told, our troops were involved in a friendly fire incident and the required transponders were not in place on the vehicles. I am told, with proof, three of our fatalities were operating at a FOB, with what was essentially an ATV. I have serious doubts about the current command structure.
PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 6:31 pm,
You have to be careful to understand what insurgency is all about. Insurgency is a civilian population that is rising up against a military body that is fighting to protect a government. They are not easily identified although the “spin” is to merely classify them all as Taliban in the Afghanistan context.
Seth Gates of Rand did make the point that the security situation in the south and Kabul is deteriorating.
His other point I found even more troubling. He said that the NATO soldiers have been trained, in their stand-off with the Soviet Bloc, to kill other soldiers. What he implied, and what has been implied by the U.S. Defence Secretary, is that they have to be re-trained to kill civilians. He did it in a round about by referring to those who support insurgents but the point was clear. He also suggested that they have to deal with the insurgency on a “regional basis.”
What he is suggesting is a major escalation of the war, a broader defination of “the enemy,” coupled a change in military culture to target civilians who support the insurgency.
Dion took Ignatieff with him to Afghanistan and Dion’s comments, no matter how much damage control the party tries to do, suggests that Dion is being influenced by Ignatieff’s hawkish position on the use of military power to spread U.S. values.
TO PYOTR PETROBITCH 01.17.08
You do not have to apologize. It is obvious by some of your comments that you must of rose to the dizzy heights of Lance Corporal.
We canadians can only hope they never trusted you with troops.
suggests that Dion is being influenced by Ignatieff’s hawkish position on the use of military power to spread U.S. values.
By C. B. Innes on 01.17.08 7:48 pm
As usual, C.B., you are clear in your distinctions. What you are telling me, despite Ignatieff’s public apology regarding his former hawkish stand on Iraq, is that he has not changed his former position at all. I assure you, I will ask him as soon as I have an opportunity to do so.
In the stance you’ve described, you don’t have to check anything, just fire at will, based on suspicion. I don’t like that idea at all.
I also understood the role change was to be stand-aside, protecting the Afghan police and army, if they found they required assistance.
I will have to learn more about what our intended role is. In the meantime,
thanks!
By William Laidlaw on 01.17.08 6:18 pm
We have very compitent people employed in our government, and I can offer a dramatic comparison between Canada and the U.S. from personal experience.
In the U.S. they tried to purge the welfare rolls by hiring on uneducated single, predominantly minority, moms. The result was a mass of people granted power they had no concept of any limits to.
In Canada our government employees seem to undertsand the rules, and they are educated at university level. Our quality is much, much higher than the U.S..
Our employees are actually quite helpful and courteous, whereas, in the U.S. it is always ‘attitude’ and trying to avoid work.
I will gladly take Canada over the U.S. any day.
BTW, Lou Dobbs had a dynamite show tonight on CNN and ‘debated’ (more like decimated) a very biased pro-trade rep. If you get an opportunity I highly suggest watching it.
One of Lou Dobbs key points was that the U.S. shipped all its basic manufacturing overseas and cannot even cloth its own people anymore. He is NOT a trade protectionist…he is a trade realist, and I sincerely hope Canada gets the lesson before it goes any further towards the dependency side of glabalism.
John Ralston Saul’s book ‘The Collpase of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World’ clearly tells the real story.
What we have now are people who produce nothing of tangible value, shuffling papers to make others money without any creative labour involved.
Dobbs clearly exposed this fraudulent economy for what it is…Slavery in a nice PC idea.
The globalists, who have milked our economy with ‘trade deals’ have been sucking up our lives at the troguh way too long. I firmly beleive that Harper and Flaherty, along with the Backroom Boys of the CPC, are firmly entrenched with them. Their chief Dough Boy is John Manley IMHO!
Oh, and can we wait for Bush to announce his brilliant scheme to save the American economy tomorrow? YAWN!
By C. B. Innes on 01.17.08 7:48 pm
Regardless of what anyone else may say, it is my firmest belief that Iggy is Pro American, and has been well trained in their deceptive Imperialism. I also firmly believe he will destroy the Liberal Party and a good and honourable man in Stephane Dion if the party does not cull him out immediately.
His professorship tenure mandates he be part of the ‘Proper thinking establishment’ and his words and actions clearly tell me…he willfully accepted their stringent mandates. Nothing is more political than an Ivy League University!
NATO should be dissolved immediately
By Bill-Muskoka on 01.17.08 6:11 pm
That would put my Father out of work. That would ruin our cheap European holidays and our touring of Brussels and Den Hague. What has our family done to you?
Sorry I missed out on the discussion of Aghanistan and Pakistan (and NATO). It’s too late to give it the necessary thought tonight. More tomorrow, or when the subject continues.
By PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 3:59 pm
Well thank God, that you are out of the armed forces. Seems that you have some personal issues to resolve.
Your writings are full of anger and venom. Please get some help. Cheers.
Dear Garth,
Any talk of daycare must begin with the emotional and physical welfare of the child being cared for.
One could argue fairly successfully that parents and close family relations will provide the best emotional and physical welfare for the child in their care. I say FAIRLY SUCCESSFULLY because almost all of parents and close family relations caring for the child DO HAVE the requisite love for the child, but lots of them DON’T have the requisite skills and training for providing what would be recognized as a top-notch daycare situation.
So the key is EDUCATION and ACCREDITATION of the parental or close family relation daycare provider. That way each child would get love and expertise in a brick and mortar place that is familiar and comfortable for the child.
Get the federal government to invest in accreditation programs for parental and close family relation daycare providers, and let the providers register as accredited daycare sole proprietorships, charging whatever they want (if not the parent) and getting the tax write-offs associated with owning a home-based daycare business.
Sincerely,
MB
Bill-Muskoka on 01.17.08 8:43 pm
Yes – the quality of appointees to the civil service here in Canada is by and large quite high – but I was talking about the inevitable growth in size, especially the administrative side of the organization, who are invisible to the general public. They work away diligently, they create work for themselves to the point where they overwork themselves, justifying the need for 2 assistants – and on and on it goes.
You will be surprised to find out the number of administrators and clerks it takes to keep one conservation officer in the forest with a truck, snowmobile, and gasoline.
PYOTR PETROBITCH on 01.17.08 8:15 pm,
What I am telling you is that Michael Ignatieff is still a “hawk” even although his support for the Iraq War transformed itself from full support, to support but criticizing how it was carried out, and finally, as a politician, to realizing that it was not expedient to support it.
That does not mean that he has transformed into a dove. He was one of the 24 Liberals that voted for the Conservative plan to extend the mission in Afghanistan. He has been quoted as stating that “the thing that Canadians have to understand about Afghanistan is that we are well past the era of Pearsonian peacekeeping.” He is in favour of an extended role for NATO forces in other conflicts in the developing world. He has always been a major proponent of using force to spread western ideals.
Field promotion by the Raj, to L-L/Cpl., 01.17.08 7:58 pm
Will this man be awarded the cross of velour?
You mean valour, don’t you?
Not really, the CAF are riven by an officer class unwilling to defend the honour of its people.** They’re like some of the political class, they’d sooner work the ‘politics’ of the system to promote themselves. So you get the award of velour.* (soft velvet)
Year 1: “You have a great future in CAF.”
“What about my request for special training?”
“We’re looking at that right now. We’ve already spent big bucks for your current level of training.”
Year 2: “Great year, great future in CAF.”
“What about my ’special’ training request?”
“That’s pending, and still under review.”
Year 3: “Another super-great year. You really have a great future with CAF. we think you should re-enlist now.”
“Re-enlistment bonus?”
“No, the Americans have that feature, we don’t.”
“Well, I guess I won’t see you again.”
**See Anaconda
Comments attributed to Stéphane Dion are untrue.
Editorial: Montreal Gazette
Friday, January 18, 2008
“Diplomatic intervention. Diplomatic. That’s what Stéphane Dion was really talking about, he told The Gazette’s editorial board (and anyone else who would listen) yesterday. And we believe him.
To all of which we can only reply: yes, but. Everyone agrees that what’s really needed is for France, Germany and others to pull their weight. But the people of those countries ask, as Canadians do, must this go on forever?”
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=f57912d6-8e3b-461b-955e-7d914abe839f
Footnote:
CPC has had well over a year to square the circle in regard to other NATO countries’ commitment to shared military responsibilities. Up to now, there have been no serious uptakers.
By Catherine on 01.18.08 4:16 am
I’ll drop everything right away in order to ignore Catherine, Leasa and all the other BIM-BOTS.
He has been quoted as stating that “the thing that Canadians have to understand about Afghanistan is that we are well past the era of Pearsonian peacekeeping.”
He is in favour of an extended role for NATO forces in other conflicts in the developing world. He has always been a major proponent of using force to spread western ideals.
By C. B. Innes on 01.18.08 7:05 am
Well, C.B., I still have the option of whether I support him or I don’t, and as of right now, I don’t.
A basic truth about the war in Afghanistan that should not be drowned out by noise: “Afghanistan was never Canada’s war” -
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/295277
By William Laidlaw on 01.18.08 6:45 am
Actually, I have numerours friends who work for either the provincial or federal government so I hear it straight from the horse’s mouth you might say. They are all dedicated, and choose to overwork too much of the time.
Were it not for the plethora of micro-management freaks running things they would have a far less difficult job simply fulfilling their legal mandates.
Too many politcos wanting to analyze this or that to cover their arse after they have been exposed as incompetents. the poitical appointees are the primary problem. All politician, no competency…Like Lunn, Baird, Clement, Harper, and numerous others of all parties!
By Marc on 01.17.08 9:54 pm
Sorry Marc, your family have been re-classified as ‘expendable assets’. Such is life, eh?
Like Lunn, Baird, Clement, Harper, and numerous others of all parties!
By Bill-Muskoka on 01.18.08 8:51 am
All disassembled and found with MAJOR PARTS MISSING. That doesn’t mean they’re incapable of dissembly, falsehoods, hypocrisy and other phoney façades.
My next *field promotion* from the RAJ had better come swiftly … Otherwise, he’ll have to lead the 600 up the valley alone. Yours, in deep true-blue velour, L-L/Cpl., ETC.
I don’t believe that any government should provide “universal day care” or whatever you might call a tax-funded daycare systems. But that’s not to say that the government should have no hand in helping to raise all children of Canada. It wasn’t so long ago, perhaps only one generation, that single income families were the norm and the provincial, territorial and federal governments helped families out financially, either directly or indirectly, to have one parent stay home and raise the kids. What has changed since then? Why is it so expensive to live in Canada such that there needs to be two incomes just to “make ends meet?” Are goods and services too expensive? Are taxes too high? Are wages and salaries too low? Or is our society becoming too capitalist, self-centred and toy-hungry that we need to pawn our kids off on some stranger to take care of while we go out and earn the extra dough so we can buy stuff to “keep up with the Jones’?”
This should not be a debate in economics or tax structures or specific government programs and policies, but rather a bigger picture social studies investigation into why and how we got here in the first place and where we want to be. Sure, I believe that we all have a role to play and we should all pay our share to help out society as a whole. Just how we pay for it, from a big picture perspective, should be reviewed.
Today’s capitalist-leaning society almost demands a multi-income household just to keep afloat. Would heading back towards a single-income family environment help solve the daycare issue, and perhaps a host of others as well. I think so.
We need a national day care system and a supplement for mother’s who choose to stay home, too.
I’d like to know the stats regarding a) parents who say “if only I could…” and b) those who choose to stay home, despite the financial sacrifice this means.
We need a national day care system and a supplement for mother’s who choose to stay home, too.
I’d like to know the stats regarding a) parents who say “if only I could…” and b) those who choose to stay home, despite the financial sacrifice this means.
William,
The stats are 80% and more. There was a study done on that exact question.
A quick scan shows only one other person in this forum suggesting income-splitting as the first step towards helping families afford their kids.
Don’t do anything else until all families with the same income pay the same taxes, just as they receive the same benefit payments.