Hal 9000

First off, this isn't an answer to the question, i suppose you won't answer it though. Secondly, now we're opening this up for anybody to go to work or school - not just low income? Remember, there are only 1,000,000 spots. Sorry!

So, maybe you can do the math on how much that comes to per day, per year for the taxpayer....and how much Mulcair expects back.

You must have missed this WCR.

No stats to back-up what statement? The giggle test has nothing to do with women. BTW, I'm not implying that anyone is stupid, what is stupid is your generalization that welfare moms are "highly intelligent". When you say stuff like that, you totally discredit yourself.

OK, in your opinion, should a woman be required to work or go to school to get free daycare? If so, how many hours per week?

I'm pretty sure i'm on record here as saying that I'd be supportive of helping out for reeducation. You're the one throwing around the word "stupid" - not me. I'm arguing the simple fact that if we offer to pay daycare that these women will go to work and not only will the system support itself, but it'll return 75% on the dollar - which doesn't pass the giggle test. If it did have that type of ROI, then the entire country is set for life...welfare moms will save us all. Wahoo!

No, but I assume you do know what a woman makes on welfare, and you do know what daycare costs and you do know what type of job and pay scale these women would be facing and you do know what taxes they might return to the system (approx.)...right? If you know these answers, then know the economics don't work... and the sociological aspect is working against the system as well.

But there is no value! There are no details, Good god man! Saying let 2 people take care of 8 women's kids does not mean anything. How many kids? How much is the daycare? How much do the others make? How many mothers actually get jobs?

This isn't a structure of any sort - and Argus knows that. This is a very basic, best case scenario example that doesn't take into consideration any facts, money or economics - let alone the sociological aspect - which I've tried to keep away from.

No, but it's difficult to accept or analyze a policy without consideration of how it might be structured, unless, of course, you believe free daycare at any and all costs.

If someone can answer these questions, it might help move the issue along. As far as organization, a couple questions; How much does someone have to work in order to collect free daycare, 20hrs/wk, 30,35? Does the person pay and send in receipts? Do they have to prove they were working at the time that daycare was provided? Does the mother simply drop off the kids and the daycare bills direct, do we just give an allowance? What income line do we use for free daycare? How do we regulate what a daycare is, and what they can charge?

...and so, here you are!

Look, we all support the idea that men should pay their share - if you're looking for a fight on this, sorry! But, that's not the issue were talking about.

Ok, now you're off track just a little.

How can you read and even quote my post and not realize what I wrote in the first paragraph?

Why don't you want teachers to stick to teaching the three "R's"? It's very concerning that you claim to be a teacher and all you can promote is teaching kids your socialist/marxist agenda. If I found out my kids teacher was promoting marxism, he'd be eating through a staw for a couple months.

I'm more inclined to help out a person getting their education, than make a multi Billion dollar commitment to a group of people who we don't even know want to work. Simply having kids doesn't deserve a reward - working and schooling does. We should be enable women to raise their own children, not enable them to have someone else raise them.

Argus, I understand the line of thinking you're using, and it could very well help people - anything free will. My issue is that it's a system that's ripe for abuse and can never be self-sustainable. You simply cannot pay $800-1000 per month per child and expect that the mother will earn enough (or save us enough) to counter set that cost. I would be more in favour of just raising welfare rates and for those low income people who have kids and are working; raise minimum wage a dollar or so, give them a supplement of 1 dollar per hour per child that they have, and lower their tax rate. Low income working people paying a lower rate will be more cost effective than taxing middle class higher rates and it will also give them more money.

Trying to have her prove that is meaningless. Whether the number is 80% or 50% matters not, as we all know that it's a women's program - men need not bother. As far as on and off in 3 years goes, that's simply not true unless she marries or gets put onto disability welfare. Full time day care for 1 child is nearly - sometimes more than welfare benefits. It can never be a "solid earner". The best you can hope for is like OGfT suggested - self worth. As much as there are problems with raising minimum wage, that would be way more palatable then free daycare - and that might actually help welfare moms. If Jacee or OGfT want to answer my questions, I'll explain the number of ways that the system will be scammed.

You're assuming that the average single welfare mother has 1 kid. You're assuming that 8 out of 10 welfare mothers will seek and acquire full time employment (of about 2-300$ more than welfare rates). You're not accounting for the fact that this system will be utilized by already working people - therefore not injecting any money back. You're not factoring that if/when some of these people work, they'll take work away from someone else As far as organization, a couple questions; How much does someone have to work in order to collect free daycare, 20hrs/wk, 30,35? Does the person pay and send in receipts? Do they have to prove they were working at the time that daycare was provided? Does the mother simply drop off the kids and the daycare bills direct, do we just give an allowance? What income line do we use for free daycare? How do we regulate what a daycare is, and what they can charge?

Good on ya! But, this isn't the issue. This issue is sustainability of tax paid daycare. And, common sense should tell you that money that merely passes around a circle can not ever increase - especially by 75%. Would people be better off working, sure! like most people, I wish everyone would get off welfare and work. The economics say that this program will do very little for the welfare recipients and further burden the middle class.

No, we can't confirm those figures. All we can do is use common sense. People who would benefit from this are already working parents, those who will know how to scam the system and of course the daycares. It won't generate jobs, it won't solve welfare and will never ever pay for itself.

There's enough, and I said worst case! But, even paying for 2 full time kids sets us well into diminishing returns.

I understand that having your daycare paid for is a leg up. What you and obviously Mulcair don't understand is that economically, it doesn't make sense...as I said, if welfare people need a leg up, we'd be better off giving them more money and having them stay home - simple economics! The best case scenario is a single mom with one kid in school gets her 3 hours daycare paid for - great...that works. The worst case scenario is that we fund 3 or 4 kids to go to daycare full time at a cost of approx. 2500$ per month, while mom works 25-30 hours per week making minimum wage. In that case, were all better to just have her sit at home and be a parent.

It's not possible. All that's happening is that money is going in a circle, with little bits being syphoned off here and there. Nothing new is generated, it's simply one group handing money to another group to spend. It's like taking a handful of water, passing it to your other hand and dumping back into the bucket - soon that bucket will be empty.