Drea

If you'll look past that resentment towards those who "can afford".....you'll see that at least, your tax dollars is not wasted on another grandoise out-of-a-hat-desperate-last-minute-decision-by-a-desperate-Liberal Party, who dilly-dallied and have not produced any childcare spaces in all of 13 years. At least, Harper's plan is not an astronomical boondagle in gigantic proportions...and it eliminates middle men and red-tape bureacracy...handing the money directly to the parents! I was not advocating for Martin's daycare plan either. He wanted to follow the Quebec universal daycare plan which subsidizes the actual space, not the family. I don't like it because it is "institutionalized" (only registered national type daycares would've been subsidized). Those who use home daycares wouldn't have benefitted at all. What I think needs to be done is encouraging more people to open daycares/eveningcares. As I've said before, out tenant looks after children so there are 3 extra spaces now in our little city.

How do you know? What is your criteria of a "pittance?" Anything less than 50% of the actual cost of raising the child. Many dads pay upwards of $350 - $500 per month. If this were 50% of the cost of raising the child, then it must only cost $750 to $1000 per month to raise a child. Not in my life. I have a university education to save for! My ex pays the minimum because I just wanted to get the heck outta there and away from him. At the time I was much more concerned with raising my son in a positive environment than having extra money. We struggled financially at first, but now I make more money than the ex anyway. (He hates that -- freaks right out because he has to pay the $100 a month even though I make more money than he does).

Drea, if I remember, you have claimed to be a supporter of universal health care. Which in our system means the same healthcare for everyone, rich or poor. The argument can be made that the rich are capable of paying for their own health insurance, so potentially free (or subsidized) healthcare should only be provided for the poor. Why is it you have an inconsistent position in that you think healthchare should be universal but childcare should not, afterall do the same principles not apply? No the same principals do not apply. I have a child, my choice. I am born (and therefor need medical care), not my choice (my parents' choice). How often do I see my chiropractor? More than once a month and it comes right out of my pocket. How often do I see a medical doctor? Once a year, because they make me go. I pay for it by the way -- comes off my paycheque as I have blue cross. We can deny childcare benefits, but we cannot deny healthcare. Healthcare I might add, that is offset by those such as myself who have private insurance through employment. Should we deny coverage to those who don't work for companies that have private insurance? Of course not. Should we deny work for the low income family because they need a subsidy? (Oh you can't go earn $8.50 an hour because there is no one to look after your children, so you can just stay home on welfare -- good luck later in life when you have no job experience -- you stayed home! and can't get welfare as your children are grown and moved out!) Of course not. Should we pay parents for having children? Of course not.

I attacked the issue, not the poster. This is a political forum and issues and opinions will be attacked. Far different than attacking a person IMO. Why should I, as a taxpayer, pay a family to have children? Having children is a choice is it not? I wait with bated breath for the "The Great Daycare Space Plan" to offset "The Great Baby Payment Plan". Gee I must be more rightwing than I thought -- rightwingers here are advocating paying people (all people) all they have to do is have sex and produce a baby. The family that earns $100 grand a year whining "Oh, Mr. Harper, I need to get away from the children for an hour or two a day, can you pay me for this? My life is just sooo busy and such I can't seem to find any time away from my children, please help me offset the cost of staying at home." The plan (not a person, not a poster on this board) is idiot pie in the sky. It, (the plan) is a lame excuse for a daycare plan. I stand by my comment.

Amazing parallels... check it out. China: New World Order Litmus Test Anyone with binoculars or a video camera (or even a notebook!) can be considered a terrorist.

Isn't there a private organization/business that deals with survival issues? Why should the govt have to spend money telling people to put away water? For pete's sake go to the library -- don't whine and cry that "the government didn't tell me how to survive". Sheesh.

We already have provincial daycare subsidies that offset the cost of daycare for low income families. High income families do not need subsidy and should not be recieving money from the government for having babies. Out here in BC we laugh at this program. We are already fit and healthy we don't need the federal government holding our hand or paying for after school programs. What's Harper doing? Giving more money, becoming Daddy Nanny? Yes, children are tax deductible. Yes, there is a child allowance it's called the Child Tax Benefit. A low income family recieves approx. $250/mo (non-taxable). Don't single moms have child support payments from spouses? I read that line and spiffed my coffee on the computer screen! I get $100 a month from my ex. Yessiree that's 50% of the cost of raising my son -- it sure is!! Pfffft. The majority of absent fathers pay a pittance. How much do you conservative winers want? Parents already get the national child tax benefit and now you want ME to pay you an additional $100 every month because you screwed and produced offspring! We already subsidise low income parents -- what the heck do you conservatives who advocate this "daycare $100 plan" expect? A free ride all the way through?! I like that -- nip and tuck here and there. I bet there will be, under Harper's $100 per month plan, women who use the money for plastic surgery. Why not? They have nothing better to spend the money on. Hubby earns $100 grand a year and the extra gov't money will go to an "extra" like nips and tucks. LOL $100 a month does not even cover the cost of diapers these days. But then again, those who benefit from the program (those who won't be taxed on it) don't have any issue affording diapers. The low income family where the mom works part time at Tim Hortons and the dad works as a WalMart greeter will be taxed on it, therefor having less money in their jeans than before The Great Harper Baby Plan.

You got that one line correct. I am certainly against Harper's child care package. The rest you got wrong. I am not a leftist -- I'm a centrist, just like the majority of Candians. If you had read my posts you would know this (unless of course you label anyone left of the far right a "lefty") How do I know the majority of Canadians are centrists? Because we haven't voted in the NDP! LOL Actually I'm in sales. I have lots of write-offs -- just found out from my accountant yesterday I can get away with paying hardly any income tax at all! Anyway, here you are advocating for the $100 allowance which boils down to a payment for screwing. Yippe the govt is going to pay me $100 a month if I have a baby! Talk about taxing away every dollar... talk about "nanny states"... Say all you want about anything. No one has an issue with it. The issue is that you are being rude and I do believe this board has rules about that. Yes, I read it. They are changing the name and re-releasing the book -- it's going to be called "America, in the Year 2020." Very good. Twisting a poster's handle into a nasty name is rude and childish. Glad to hear you will not do it again. I like having nocrap here too! Anyway, regarding the title of the thread. I do not support this lame excuse for a childcare plan. Parents are not lacking in money to send their children to daycare, they are lacking in daycare spaces to put their children. This idiot pie in the sky plan by Harper just puts more of a burden on the taxpayers and does very very little to offset the cost of raising kids. Heck, just yesterday I spent $100 at the pet store. $100 does not go very far these days. A tax break would have been much more beneficial to all Canadians.

- ALLCRAP ... You might like to know that in Canada we have a means of determining which of our political parties is in closest touch with the feelings, views, needs and wants of the grassroots and which of our parties has grown out of touch with the grassroots and what they want their representatives to do. It is called an ELECTION. In this interesting and innovative process, all the people who want a voice in how their country is governed get to vote to select the representatives they deem to be most in touch with them and their values, views and priorities. - Strangely enough, we just had one of these new fangled election thingies just three months ago tomorrow. And guess what, ALLCRAP? The plurality of voters decided that Harper's Conservatives and their five immediate priorities including their child care policy was most in touch with their views and needs. - Since then, all that has happened is that the Conservatives have continued to gain in popularity and the Liberals have continued to implode and to decline in popularity (the gap in popular support ranges from a low of ten points to a high of 19 points) so that an election today would result in a Conservative majority government. - But you keep on pitching, ALLCRAP. I get a kick out of you and your inventive posts. No wonder you are so enamoured of Count Iggy. He in one of his rare and brief sojourns in the country he now seeks to lead taught a creative writing course at Banff. So like you, he values "creative" writing. Indeed, examining the Liberal Red Books and annual surplus projections and other writings, it seems that they are all highly "creative" and so perhaps Count Iggy Ignatieff does after all have one qualification to lead the Liberals in that he is "creative" with the language. TB, do we have to ask Greg to step in here? The name of the poster is Nocrap. While it's fine to state your feelings, please try to curb your tendency to insult others.

Did anyone else see the documentary last night on CBC called "Nuclear Jihad"? Nuclear Jihad Pakistan has sold nuke technology to anyone and everyone. Scary stuff IMO. Some crazy son of a bitch is eventually going to get ahold of a nuclear bomb and use it. The trouble is there is nothing we can do. If we kill off all the fanatical muslims the moderate ones will just become fanatics. The one guy says "we are not afraid to die". He may not be afraid to die, but I rather like life on earth and would like to complete mine! God* help us all. *whatever God may mean to you.

That'd be me I'm in my early 40's and fortunately (I work at it) I look hardly 30. I remember my mom at my age and her attitude was that of a much older person. She felt old, she acted old, she died young. A person should not have to become old and stodgy just because they hit 40. I will be young forever. Regarding the music: I hate most rap, but the popular stuff they play on the radio is great -- Nellie Fertatto (sp) etal. My nieces and nephews all like the music I grew up on -- Led Zepplin, Nazareth, Van Halen, etc. IMO there is much less of a gap between my generation and our kids than between my generation and our parents.

Nocrap, I was responding to the poster who was expecting mass protests. People don't protest getting money regardless of whether or not it's taxed. They still think of it as "free" money from the govt. I am absolutely infuriated that my tax dollars will go to families with high 5 or 6 figure incomes while the young family stuggling to get by gets a slap in the face.

Public outcry? What are you expecting? Mass protests? Car burning? Most people will just shrug and accept the money (no one is going to send it back LOL) and continue searching for daycare space. When the gov't says it's going to give people money they take it. Heck, I certainly wouldn't send it back -- it's free money after all.

Very, very good point. That is why I am opposed to both the Harper and Martin models. Having children is a private decision and I don't see the justification for taxpayer subsidies. But if we are going to go back into the old "family allowance" concept lets give it to parents of ALL young kids, not just those who choose to send their kids to daycare. We already have that too. It's called the Child Tax Benefit. Low income parents get $273 per month per kid. Even at my income level I still get $27 per month for one kid. If I were still a single mother and my child was still daycare age I would need a partial subsidy to help me make it. Would you, as a taxpayer, rather pay me $1500 per month to stay at home on welfare or would you rather partially subsidize my daycare so I can go out and earn $40,000 per year (I'm currently paying about $8,000 in tax) so that I can be a contributing member of society?

The woman does have the freedom to choose if she wants to work and send the kid to a day care center. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. The question in my mind is: "why should the taxpayer get stiffed because she chooses to work outside the home"? Why should the taxpayer get "stiffed" because she decides to stay home? Harper is an idiot. We (provincially) ALREADY have daycare subsidy for those who cannot afford daycare. The issue is space -- the LACK of daycare space. On CTV News last night a woman said daycare costs $945 per month PLUS there are 300 (300!!!) children waiting for daycare space. Money isn't the issue for these parents, finding the space to put their children while they earn tax dollars to support this lousy friggin govt is the issue.

On CTV News last night - a report from Iran that men are signing up to be suicide bombers in the event that they are *attacked by the US or Isreal. And another Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a restaurant yesterday killing more Israelis. IMO Isreal is going to finally get fed up and nuke them, then Iran will nuke Isreal and we can all kiss our butts goodbye. *doesn't matter if they are literally attacked, but they'll do it even if attacked figuratively for not being "allowed" to have nukes. Now, because I have a friend in Iran, I've always given them the benefit of the doubt. No more, they are simply friggin crazy.

Alcohol is legal though it's still against the rules to fly a plane drunk. Even blasted, I have better reasoning skills than that. It's illegal to fly while impaired, period. No kidding. No one is advocating people smoke pot then fly airplanes, drive cars or otherwise put themselves or others in danger.

Just finished viewing it. Almost brought me to tears, particularly as the woman said there was nothing they could do, no one to turn to. I finally got to watch and it's definetly not pretty. The good thing though, is that there are journalists getting the word out to the rest of the world -- the last thing the Chinese gov't wants is for the rest of the world to know how terrible their human rights are. They have been very good at "hiding" but in this technological age it's getting harder and harder to keep information under wraps.

I was banned from Rabble for being too right wing. I didn't agree that teens as young as 14 should be learning what a "tossed salad" or a "rainbow party" is. They got mad at me when I posted a bunch of jobs (unskilled labour jobs) from the Province newspaper on the "Squeegie kids to form union" thread. I won't go back, nor will I go to their "new" board. This is by far a much more diverse forum. Thanks Greg!

keep 'em locked up in prison. Ok now?

huh? What do you mean? Your argument is that everything you said doesn't apply to pedophiles, because they aren't people? Hate to break it to you, as vile as the things they do, pedophiles are people and do qualify for all the same rights. Oh, and BTW, you avoided answering the simple question I put to you. What question? you keep askin and twisting everything -- Jesus are you a friggin lawyer LOL What do you want me to say?

oh for pete sake get a grip. Pedophiles aren't people! OKAY ALREADY!!

Many posts ago I said that was not okay for child molesters to have kids.... you wrote: My response: The thread is about women raising children in jail. Not about whether or not we should neuter child molesters...

No absolutely not. Personally I would have preferred a completely non-interventionist model. Let anyone who wants to be parents be parents and if the child gets screwed in the process, well tough luck for that child. If the parent doesn't have enough resources to feed the child, but because of their own stupidity continues to have more children, well tough titty for both parents and children. I'm fine with that kind of world. Are you? Funny, we think it is "humane" to spay an neuter animals (not requiring their consent) to avoid them from procreating, but for humans who are too stupid to exercise good judgement, we don't offer that service. Actually, I'm quite fine with the way our world is now. We have a nice social safety net and generally most people are good parents. Most kids grow up ok. I cannot believe anyone would advocate "neutering" human beings for no better reason that "someone" determined they would not be suitable as parents.

We'll see I guess. As long as just anyone who can procreate at will can become a parent, we then always have child poverty, child abuse, and kids being brought up in unhealthy environments. Only in a totalitarian society, like say China, can the gov't regulate child birth and rearing. Surely you don't want our gov't modelling itself after China's!