betsy

Would you be content with a registry meant for the eyes of law enforcers only? In other words, not made public?

Well, the media must have been lying all along....including Dosanj and Graham...who had always maintained in no uncertain terms during discussions that our soldiers will be at war with Taliban insurgents. Those blasted liars...I just knew it! They're in on it together in fooling the public! Telling us this is war when in fact it is not!

The latest edition on grumbling.... Oh-ho-ho, Craig Oliver's got his tail tied in a knot this afternoon on MDuffy! Apparently media was just told that Trenton base is off-limits to reporters tomorrow when the slain soldiers arrive home. Of course he's saying what we've heard before..."he should not alienate the media....I know and support the importance of this war...etc..," Looks like this is the next round.

Then she's got to weigh her options and do what is best in her situation. For some, the best solution is to postpone going back to work until your child is of school age. That $100 is there whether she wants to stay at home, take part-time jobs etc.., At least she's got the flexibility to maneuver as best she could in her circumstances, with that $100 providing some help. When you're counting pennies, everything adds up.

It IS my reasoning that providing the low income family with daycare subsidy will prevent them from being on welfare. For instance... a single mother currently on welfare. Welfare says "get a job". She says "Ok" and proceeds to get a job at WalMart. She now needs daycare! She now needs daycare subsidy! If the gov't said "sorry, no daycare subsidy for you" then she would not be able to work. What could be the reason why a single mom on welfare is not qualified for subsidy?? Do you mean, real welfare...not something to do with education assistance? FYI, I had a mom getting into the entry level...not on Walmart, but Independent Grocery as a cashier. Of course she works shift...and being new, you bet she had the oddest schedules. I referred her to a gov-funded agency dealing with home daycares. Sorry, they could not accomodate her sked...they want only regular full-timers. Now why is that??? This was under the Liberal government, mind you...just happened last summer.

I have a mom who's pregnant again, and is moving out of town. She doesn't want any institution for a daycare...wanting a home environment for her kids. She's thinking about staying home and taking on a couple of kids. You'll see that this Harper daycare plan will induce a lot of moms opening up daycare spaces in their homes. Btw, come to think of it, all of my parents do not want institutionalized daycare. Some of them do not even want to know whether they are qualified for sibsidy or not. The issue I have with Harper's plan, Betsy, is that it goes to even those parents who are "rich". If I had a baby, I would of course get the money, even though last year our family income was over $100,000 and we really don't need a government hand-out. At my income level there is just no way it would be feasible for my family to lose it if I had a baby and decided to stay home. I would have no issue paying a daycare out of my own pocket -- I would be concerned about finding a space to put my child. What I'd like to know, is those news reports that tell us there are no spaces, do they include home day/evening cares or care like the YMCA provides? In our little city we have some daycare providers that are advertising that they have space. Think past whether they can afford it or not. Who's to know who really needs help or not? There are folks that by outward appearances seem to have it all...and yet, you'd be surprised that they're up to their eyeballs in debts. Don't forget, we live in a society when materialism and posturing are the norm. So anyway as you'd said before, $1200 is peanuts....are you going to fret and grumble over this? Just because people whom you think do not need the money are going to get it anyway? I do not have children of my own. I will not benefit from this. Harper's plan is actually going to multiply my competition God knows by how may folds, whereas now I find it's easy to compete with the current government-funded home daycare we have in our area since they seem to have a bad rap here. And yet I support it. Because it gives the parents the freedom to choose. And believe me, it will raise the standard of daycare....don't believe the propaganda of the so-called experts and childcare advocates. They are just fighting to ensure they've got a coshy well-paying job with all the perks and all that comes naturally to those who had acquired and developed a liking for the culture of entitlement.

Thank you for those valuable tips, Army Guy.

Is that the only way you know how to honour someone? Lowering the flag at half-mast for every soldier who dies will eventually render that gesture meaningless. Typical Liberal outlook...all pomp and no substance! Same as all talk and no action!

I agree. Hometowns honoring their own soldiers at half-mast has a deep meaning. These are their own sons and daughters...most likely known by or acquainted with other locals, with families and attachments in the community....not just some faceless strangers. And yes it's true as one other poster mentioned, if we always have the federal flag at half-mast (since we're at war and therefore more casualties can be expected), it will lose its meaning. If there is a need to publicly show some solidarity....can we not just have a moment of silence nationwide?

That's sensible....keeping the deaths out of the public eye...especially when you're at war. Right now, the way our media cover it, it sort of seem like they're keeping score as in hockey. Anti-war and anti-Bush/anti-Harper are only too quick using the dead as heat-seeking guided missiles targetted towards Bush, and to say "I told you so....". The more casualties the better? That they almost seem to want it...and secretly gleeful about it. Of course, they're all in the guise of extensive "mourning"...but politicized nevertheless. Talk about "meat." I noticed that Canadian media seem to have a morbid fascination with deaths actually, not only among soldiers of war. The coverage of the rituals....from the wake...to the funerals...some coverage run for more than a week! Well I like the answer of a top military brass when asked about the deaths of these soldiers and how our men feel (forgot the exact question). He said the men are "saddened by it...but there will be no grieving or any touchy-feeling about it." That's how it should be at war. Turn that emotion for fuel at combat! Sheeesh!

Apparently, family of one of the slain soldiers in Afghanistan is requesting that the flag be lowered. Jane Taber on Question Period criticised Kenny for not acquiescing to the request, saying "how hard is that to do?" Altho we want to honor these men, I think we can do it through other ways. If we lower the flag for one...then we have to lower it for everyone who dies. Since we are at war, the flag could end up being at half-mast most of the time! And what about law enforcers who died in the line of duties....shouldn't they be honored the same way too? Isn't this gesture reserved for statesmen and other dignitaries?

I'd like to see manufacturers required to put a clear best-before date on all products, after all nutritional value and ingredients are required to be listed. This is just practical information for the benefit of the consumer.

Drea, most of those sites you've linked are selling kits or other products. Sure you could pick up a few pointers or two...but in the end, they're all trying to sell! Survival plan in cases of disaster falls under Public Safety! A comprehensive information should be provided that changes with the kind of threats the population could be facing. An organized response to attacks, including that of the citizenry, is part of a good defense plan.

I have a mom who's pregnant again, and is moving out of town. She doesn't want any institution for a daycare...wanting a home environment for her kids. She's thinking about staying home and taking on a couple of kids. You'll see that this Harper daycare plan will induce a lot of moms opening up daycare spaces in their homes. Btw, come to think of it, all of my parents do not want institutionalized daycare. Some of them do not even want to know whether they are qualified for sibsidy or not.

Then, Harper's plan is the answer! It will encourage daycares such as that provided by your tenant. Competition is the name of the game...and Harper is encouraging that! And with competition....think of the evening cares that will surely sprout just so to be ahead of the game. Private enterprises will surely offer these!

Well, you made your choice that's why he's paying only the minimum. At the end of the day, it was your own decision why he's paying only a pittance. You agreed to it.

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!

How do you know? What is your criteria of a "pittance?"

Well, why don't you go after him for more? After all, he is half-responsible for the baking. We, the taxpayers on the other hand, had nothing to do whatsoever at all with this production...and we're already doling out some.

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. Drea, can you stop and analyze the message you're saying? Who comprise the "we" in your statement? ALL OF BC? Besides I'm talking about children with weight problems...not adults like you. Just because YOU are already fit and healthy does not mean this program therefore is not needed....by children. Obesity is a growing problem among them, if you have not read yet about it. Count yourself fortunate that your children do not have this problem....I assume that they are, since YOU are fit and healthy. However, there are other people in this nation besides you and your friends.

You mean the private businesses that says you need their products to survive???

Well, if one cannot afford having a child....then that plan must be shelved until one can without being a burden to others. Much as I agree that we do need more children.....I have to re-assess what kind of children will grow out from these mentality and environment. Maybe we're better off with no kids at all! What good is having lots of children if more than half of them (as adults), will feel entitled to be supported by society all the way through. We're then back to square one! Children are the future. Yeah, yeah, yeah...but as kids, they're still raw materials and have yet to prove who will end up productive or a dud. So, worth-wise...too risky.

You seem to confuse having children to a money-making scheme. Twice you've referred that the government "pays for having children." You sound like those single moms in the laundromat in Quebec when I was just new to Canada. They adviced me to have children so I will get money from the government. A parent shouldn't think that way. A parent should have children not because "they are paid to have children"...but because they WANT to have children. Sorry but I just have to comment on that. It's an eye-opener from a different perspective. If a lot of people think of having children that way...that must explain this absurd expectation that society should pay for the way of these children.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you don't know what you're talking about. It is the Liberal plan that fits the description of "nanny states" perfectly to a "T?" It is the government who will tell you what is good for you and how you should live your life....it will make the choice and decide for you, (in this case, how and where to raise your children). Oppressive regimes such as Communist places will indoctrinate your children to their philosophy. You don't count as a parent. You are nothing more than a baby-maker and then they take over. THAT is a nanny state!

$1200 per child is about 20% and higher percent of daycare help (depending on the child's needs and age). That is a sizeable amount, considering a child's welfare and upbringing is a parent's responsibility...and yes, that includes the expenses involved! Not to mention Haprper's physical fitness incentive program that not only addresses the growing weight problems of children...but also can be used as an after-school assistance. Those, plus the deductibles as dependents? Isn't there a child allowance somewhere?? Don't single moms have child support payments from spouses?? How much more do these whiners want others to pay for their daycare expenses? 100%? I say these parents are already getting a lot! There are other social programs that badly need more funding...areas that benefit EVERYONE in society. If you can't pay for most of your daycare...then obviously you've got to change your game plan! Of course there'll be some sacrifices, nip and tuck here and there...what do you think? A free ride all the way through???