Drea

My son's biological father.... First I got pregnant -- moved away, never asked him for a cent. Then his next g/friend got pregant, he lived with her for a bit, got pregnant a second time. She then left him. Then he had a young g/friend and once again, pregnant. There he is with 4 kids with 3 different mothers. He pays child support for all of them (when I had to go on welfare, they MADE me go after child support, so I got the lowest possible -- $100 per month). To the other mothers he pays $250-$300 per kid. The $100 he sends me goes into an RESP for my son. I'm one of the fortunate ones who doesn't need the money for day to day expenses. The other moms stay at home looking after the kids, don't make alot of money. My son, call him kid #1 (raised by a career mother) is a B honours student, has a paperroute, is an air cadet.. kid #2 (raised by a stay at home mom) has behaviour issues -- his father told me the other day (we are in contact, we are friends) that he has obssessive compulsive disorder, a weird fear of germs. Kid #3 (raised by same stay at home mom) is a good little girl who loves her daddy. Kid #4 (raised by the young stay at home mom) has been kicked out of kindergarten (he's 5) for violent behaviour. Gee, I wonder why the child with the career mom turned out the best? According to some, I wasn't even there to raise him.

Good one No Crap!

I raised my son with no religion involved. He is a very kind boy. He knows the difference between right and wrong. Neighbour's son, from a stalwart churchgoing family, killed a neighbourhood cat a while back. Where are his morals? My son would never even think of hurting an animal, let alone a person. The brattiest kids I've ever seen come from so called "religious" households. Way back in the day, when I was a waitress, Sunday after church was the absolute worst. Parents would bring in their brats and they'd run roughshod throughout the restaurant. On the other hand, one of my clients, a large family of 9 children, invited me to sit in during prayer before lunch. I was soooo impressed by those wonderfully behaved kids. The point is, being raised under religion does not guarantee morals. Being raised without religion does not guarantee that a child will be immoral. McQueen wrote: What brand of "social engineering" are you referring to. LOL My son who is 12 doesn't yet like girls, should I be concerned that he's been engineered to be gay? LOL You say "the least of which is the refinition of marriage". If that's the least, in your opinion, what is the worst? IMO, we are raising a boy who will know that life is work. There is no "free" ride. I work, hubby works, son works (paper route) and does chores and helps out. We are all in this family together so we all work together to make it easier for each other. Why should a family sacrifice their financial future so Mom can stay home and wait hand and foot on Dad and the kids? I get home later than hubby and son. Dinner is usually on the table when I get home (hubby is a great cook) and then son does the dishes after. How immoral are we! Wow, teaching our son that roles in the family are not carved in stone and both males and females can work, earn, clean and have fun.

You are so right -- we were terribly disappointed (as were her parents) when she got pregnant with the 2nd one. But what can you do? Abortion was not an option for her. No sense being angry with her -- what's done is done. Now, 7 years later, she has the older boy in hockey and the younger one in soccer. She never parties, she never has "strange" men over (that I've ever seen), she's quiet, she pays the rent. What more could a landlord want? My niece had a kid at age 17. She is now almost 20 and lives with her parents. She parties like there's no tomorrow because she knows gramma and granpa will look after her child. (They really have no choice when she simply leaves the house after the baby is asleep -- even when my sister and her husband say no -- she talks her 16 year old sister into looking after the baby -- for free) She doesn't have a job and she refuses to go on welfare. IMO, I would rather see her go on welfare and learn what looking after a baby is really like, instead of being a "free and wild teenager", collecting the child tax credit and living off her parents (all the glory of being a mom without the responsibility). Our tenant at least has to raise the children herself. The neice simply believes her parents "owe" her. I have much more respect for our tenant than this spoiled brat.

While I don't agree with the language used here, I do agree with the concept he's trying to get across. Conservatives have never supported Canada's social safety net -- yet now, the Harper gov't is giving $1200 a year in welfare just to "encourage" parents to stay home. I don't get it -- vilify the woman who leaves her husband and needs to work and needs daycare subsidy -- yet give out money when it's NOT required. Why should I pay $100 to a family who is NOT below the poverty line? I agree, once again Betsy. Leeches DO abound. I believe our welfare system should be thus: 1. Rent cheque directly to the landlord. 2. Hydro bill paid directly to hydro -- same with local phone service. 3. Food stamps or vouchers from the grocery store of their (the payee's) choice. 4. $ maybe a bit of extra cash for incidentals. There needs to be some kind of "incentive" program for women like the one you described. Perhaps some kind of "points" system where you can earn cash if you (and you can prove it) are attending training, etc.

Yes, we are quite proud of her (she's almost like a daughter to us, she moved in 7 years ago, at age 17, with her first as an infant, then the had the second one 1.5 years later). She is a really good tenant and we hope she never wants to move.

the article says "He joined the Marine Corps. He was not a "draft dodger", but a "deserter". Big, huge difference IMO. I don't believe a gov't should be able to force it's citizens into becoming soldiers (the draft), but I do believe if you sign up, you should honour your commitment.

Women and girls will continue to get pregnant "out of wedlock". Men will continue to abandon women with the children. Women will continue to leave abusive relationships. A world where women and children are not abused, where everyone stays together for life in wedded bliss is not reality -- would be wonderful, but, alas, we cannot live in a wishful thinking dream world. We need real solutions for the real world. I was a single mom, I chose to leave the man who got me pregnant, I chose to raise the child on my own. Does this make me an evil, lazy, feminist? Of course, I could've had an abortion -- but then I wouldn't have the wonderful son I have today. When I first left, I needed (and got) welfare. Then I got a lowpaying job and the gov't paid for my daycare. Now, if the gov't hadn't paid for my daycare back then, I would probably be still sitting on welfare sponging off the taxpayer instead of being a taxpayer myself. Today I pay almost the equivelant in taxes that I used to get on welfare. Govt programs that help low income people get on their feet is extremely valuable IMO. Including paying for daycare while a family gets on it's feet.

I agree Betsy. Welfare recipients (except the mentally handicapped) should be required to take training. A single mom should have one year on welfare with her child -- then she should have to go to school to take some kind of education/job training. Our tenant -- a single mom with 2 boys -- went back to school and took ECE. Now she has a little daycare. Now, of course, the amount she earns from taking in 2 children isn't enough to support her family, but she is recieving less from welfare (and therefor is less of a burden for taxpayers).

The only way this is going to happen, Renegade, is if we invent some kind of temporary sterilization techniqe that is removed once a family "makes enough money". What is "enough" money to raise a child? Who determines what is "enough"? As I'm not in the market for daycare anymore -- no I do not know what is fair in today's market. Yes, I agree it is. And daycare costs have risen since I needed it. So I only said the price was insane because 9 years ago $750 would've been insane. I'm sorry for looking at it from a past point of view -- I know realize $750 is fair. (If the gov't kicks in some for low income earners). It's in the best interest of the government to obtain as much income tax as possible. In order to raise the same level of revenue as 2 income families, the govt would have to raise income tax. A family making $80,000 a year pays more in tax than a family making $40. The family that has extra disposable income buys more products, which in turn employs more people at all levels; realestate, retail, manufacturing, advertising, etc.

Back when I needed care -- $400 was fair IMO. Perhaps $750 IS fair. Of course the only reason to open any business is to make money. But not all people are cut out to be care providers. I'm not. If you've got 4 children under school age -- stay home! But why should I pay you $100 per child to do so? Is it not your choice to stay home? If the person with 4 kids decides to work, their provincial govt will more than likely pay at least a portion of your care. I had one child, daycare expense was not a big deal. Of course it's ridiculous to simply price people out of the market! I make $40,000+ per year, Now if it costed me $40,000 per year to put my child in care, I would not be able to work (if I had a little child -- which I don't). If daycares made $40,000 per year per kid I would quit my job and open a daycare and tend 2 kids and make $80,000 a year even though I really hate babysitting -- I'd do it for the money.

The cost of daycare can't just rise unchecked until people are forced out of the workforce as suggested earlier. That would simply be ridiculous. The price needs to be fair. Fair for the payee, fair for the earner. What is the problem with this? I would imagine (I haven't lived in Surrey for 10 years) that the home daycare provider I spoke of charges more than $400 today. Perhaps I'm completely off base and she is earning enough to take a vacation in Disneyland! The point is that price is not the issue -- as you said "In my view paying the market cost of childcare IS fair to parents, just as it is fair to chldcare providers." Finding space is the issue. Not all women are nuturers who want to open daycares. I would not want to see people opening daycares just for the love of money, instead of the love of children. I do my job for the love of money, btw

The daycare I mentioned takes care of children from infant to kindergarten. She has three children of her own, age 8, 4, and 2. She tends a 6 month old, a 1 year old and a 4 year old. I can't imagine packing all these little ones into a van and going to the park everyday. Outside of her home she has a nice large yard with playground equipment and outdoor toys. As the babies probably nap at different times and the toddlers get cranky all at the same time... it is much much easier for her and the children to simply go outside. I need a detached home for peace of mind. I grew up on a ranch where the nearest neighbour was 3 miles away and town 25 miles. So, yes, I need at least a tiny bit of outside of my very own. I believe he does; and also takes the kids every second weekend. Since I've required fulltime daycare (7 years) obviously the price has risen. $750 may seem insane to me only because it's a fair bit more than I paid. Of course I want it both ways. Daycare costs should be fair to parents -- Daycare income should be fair to providers. There needs to be balance. The cost of daycare can't just rise unchecked until people are forced out of the workforce.

$750 is wayyy to much IMO. When the gov't paid my daycare subsidy I upped it by $10 a day to $35/day. The govt only paid up to $25/day for 20 days a month -- even though some months have 22 working days! Daycares should not be able to charge whatever they want because of demand. That's pure robbery. Now, I used daycare a number of years back, so of course, it probably costs more than $400 but it certainly shouldn't be $750 per child! That's insane.

Arguments like this are just ridiculous. What do you think the border guards would say if you had a half finished mickey on the front seat? I don't care if you only drank it while stopped. Your truck is your place of business and places of business should not have alcohol or drugs in them. If crossing into the USA and a mickey is found then the driver should be tested for alcohol levels. If a roach is found -- well I pity that poor s.o.b for forgetting to throw it out on the Canadian side.

Maybe someone can explain this because I'm not getting it. When I was looking for daycare, I had no problem finding available daycare spaces. Mind you, they didn't come cheap. What cities have a lack of daycare and what is the obstacle in creating more? Surely if parents were willing to pay the price for purely profit reasons, more spots would open up. Why is this different than other demand which needs to be filled? As I live in a small city, I too had no trouble finding a day/night care spot for my son. I believe the woman waiting 3 years for the daycare spot was in Vancouver, but I'm not certain. It's not easy operating a daycare. I know that I'm certainly not cut out for looking after children all day long. Home daycares are allowed three children over and above the children that already live in the home. Friend of mine operates a home daycare in Surrey. She makes $1200 per month ($400 per kid). This is NOT enough to live on. Her husband left her and she was uneducated so she did the only thing she had experience at -- raise children. She wanted to move out here in the Valley (cheaper housing, etc) but the father lives and works in the city and she didn't want the kids to be far from him. So there she is, earning $1200 a month, paying $1000 a month rent for her home (she NEEDS a detached home with a yard so that the children have somewhere to play, you can't keep 'em locked inside a 10th floor condo!). The lack of daycare is because there is no decent living wage in looking after children.

When I first went back to work after my son was born, I worked nights in a hotel (LOL NOT like THAT! -- the front desk) Anyway... because I was working at minimum wage, I recieved $395 per month to pay my daycare provider. Someone said earlier (or on another daycare thread) that following the original liberal plan there would be no help for those who work other than 9 to 5. Not true, our (at least BC) provincial governments pay for daycare for low income families no matter what shift they work. Someone said earlier "I saw nothing mcqueen625's post which said that he advocated PAYING people to stay home." Advocating for or agreeing with the conservative policy of giving every family with small children $1200 per year per child is indeed paying people to stay home. Once again, we already have a system in place to assist low income families. Federally and provincially. This $100 per month was simply a vote grab. It certainly won't be of much help to the low income family where both parents have to work. As as I said before I am inscensed that that family of 6 is going to take their $5000 and spend it on a vacation. I haven't taken a vacation since 1984. Is the government going to give ME the money to go? The most valuable thing that the government can do regarding child care is to offer incentives (ie; tax breaks) for people to train for and open daycares (and nightcares for shiftworkers). Again, money is not the issue -- subsidies already exist -- space is the issue. In some of the larger cities it's virtually impossible to get into any daycare at all. Should the woman give up her $40,000 a year job and stay at home because there is no daycare space? How does the gov't feel about losing her $8000 in taxes? (No skin off the gov't ass if she works -- because she makes 40 grand she does not qualify for any subsidy -- federal or provincial. Lots of skin (8 grand worth) off the gov'ts ass if she is forced to stay at home). If she is forced to stay home because of a lack of daycare space, the govt not only loses the revenue from her taxes but now her family qualifies for the child tax benefit. So instead of collecting 8 grand in taxes they are paying out $3300 per year in child tax benefit. How senseless is this? Mimas wrote: A number of states in the US have done this already or are working on it now. Scary gov't control IMO.

The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so. There are numerous industries from retirement homes to geriatric care which cater to taking care of the aged. These are not charity industries. Where there is a need an industry will fulfill it. I for one am not expecting the younger generation to fund my retirement, nor am I expecting that I shoud have to foot the bill for the care and feeding of children other than my own. Not that I entirely agree with Mimas BUT taxpayers do pay for old age pension. Currently (depending on your age of course) that is you and me. Our children will be the taxpayers and foot the bill for our gov't pension cheques. (If there is a gov't pension available). I have no faith that there will be so I save and invest as much as possible today for old age. And where does the money to pay geriatric (sp) nurses come from? Taxpayers. Mimas, you make some good points but no one wants to respond to someone who is using the type of language you are now. Tone it down and you will see there are people who agree with you.

More than anything I am sick of being called a femi-nazi/immoral/moonbat/American-hating/terrorist supporter for holding beliefs other than right of centre. I have come to the conclusion that rightwingers have respect and compassion for only those who hold their beliefs.

Something I've always wondered about, people fall on hard times and need a helping hand up, but why have more kids then? Bottom line, don't have kids if you can't afford them. Who was it who said they had sex with their wife and ended up with unplanned children? Happens to rich people, also happens to poor people. Are you saying poor people shouldn't have sex just in case they accidentally get pregnant? NEW! Get the INCOME TEST! and we'll remove that chastity belt! LOL

Until my son was 10 he went to after school care at the next door neighbour's. She has a small daycare. He got tired of being the "too big guy" and we decided he was responsible enough to be on his own for 1.5 hours. I have only one though -- if I had two, such as yourself, I would keep at least the youngest, in after school care (2 can conive and get in trouble together!) In BC a child, after taking a babysitting course, can look after his/her siblings at age 12.

Jerry the real issue isn't monetary. Provincial governments already have a program in place for low income families (whether they be headed by one parent or two -- daycare subsidy is available) I don't want the conservatives to give every family a hundred bucks for producing children. We already have a national and provincial Child Tax Benefit. (which I might add, CAN be used to pay for daycare for the child). When I was low income a number of years back I got $275 per month in Child Tax Benefit. On top of $375 per month from the govt for daycare costs. Today, I'm certainly not at the poverty level anymore (yaaah!) I still get $23 of the Child Tax Benefit per month for my son. BTW, my income has more than doubled; so, no, the gov't doesn't take the benefit away from families who simply get a raise from minimum wage.

Women are still making -- what was it -- 72% of what their male counterparts make. So this isn't going to happen for a generation or two. I should have clarified and said: Conservatives are making it harder for women to work. I should have said BY THE WAY, it takes $129,000 income to buy a house. My bad, sorry for not clarifying. I for one, NEED a detached home. I don't want gov't to control everything. I have no hate on for conservatives. Some of the best conversations I've had are with conservatives. (Actually they are more than likely just centrists who lean a bit to the right LOL)The birth control thing? Well this comment says to me: "I am a MAN and you WILL have sex with me, I don't care if you get pregnant, I don't care what happens, I just want to get my rocks off" Perhaps that's not what he meant, but that's certainly how it came across. Hydraboss, my apologies, you are correct, I should have asked why she still works nights. By law, a 9 or 10 year old can stay home (after school for a couple of hours) by themselves. How do I know? I looked into it when my son was 10 and didn't want to go to after school care anymore. Sparhawk said: I don't think that daycare availability will encourage anyone to make bad choices (a bad choice to you, may be a good choice to someone else, btw). The entire issue revolves around the fact that there are not enough daycare spaces. Money is not the issue. There is already daycare money available for low income families, as you pointed out. It would be rather silly (from a business point of view) to encourage 50% of the population to stay home. Income tax is paid only by those who work. I don't think the gov't wants to cut it's revenue stream LOL. Just last night, a co-worker went and picked up her little guy (age 2) and brought him back to work with her. He's a sweet, well adjusted doll of a boy who has been in daycare since she came back maternity leave when he was one. Everyone I know who has their children in daycare have good kids. The bad ones I see are the one's where Mom waits on them hand and foot. Kids in daycare aren't "indoctrinated" into anything. Kids need to be around other kids IMO.

OMG where do you live? BTW, I love the women's clothes. I love the sari and wish I didn't look like a fool wearing one. My Sikh g/friend dressed me all up in her eyeliner, sari and gold jewellry. As a blonde I guess I'm just not "exotic" looking enough to pull it off. LOL What an awesome family they are (my g/friend's). I was working for them in their home office and they kept bringing me food, wonderful food I'd never tried before. And ginger tea, mmmmm.... Her father, a strict Sikh, was a very kind and knowledgeable man. I have nothing but respect for him.

10 years later and the poor woman is still on nights! Why doesn't she get a day job now that the kids are in school and be there for the evening. So she gave up every evening for the past 10 years because you couldn't bag it? Guess it was your conservative "husband's right" to have sex without birthcontrol huh? IMO, give the woman a break -- you try the night shift for the next 10 years. LOL and Geoffrey says "nothin' wrong with that set up!" Hyuk Hyuk. On the news the other night -- a stay at home mom with a 2 year old, 1 year old twins, and one on the way. She's looking forward to spending the $5000 from the gov't on a vacation to Disneyland. Grrrreat! She's spending MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS in another friggin' country. Un-be-lievable. Another woman, same news broadcast. Is on a 3 year waiting list for daycare space. By the time she gets the space, she won't need it anymore. What a screwed up system the cons are putting in place. Give the "traditional" family a vacation in Disneyland -- while the "regular" family struggles to find a space for their child. The second family (the one looking for daycare space) pays much much more in taxes (2 income earners) than the glorified "traditional" family. Thats quite a feminist selfish attitude. Maybe the mother actually values her childs upbringing more than her selfish personal interest. It's obvious that you'd perfer a system where you give birth and thats the last you see of your kids other than a couple hours at night and the weekends. All in the name of 'women's right' to her selfish interest. How ridiculous. What part of my post makes me a selfish feminist? The part about the family going to the states on MY TAX dollar or the part where 2 income earners pay more taxes? Or the part about the woman working nights.