betsy

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know??? Especially when it comes to war?? What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear? A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore? Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others! Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real!

It is a different world now. I guess this must be due to the sad fact that I am now considered ancient. Relationships aren't what it used to be. Boy, romance definitely isn't the same anymore either...thanks to feminism, I suppose. The power struggle between male and female, the collapse of marriage (with the no-faulty divorce), the endorsements of Hollywood and the media, etc.., all contributed in changing the values of society. I think majority of men and women, in the end, want to have a family...or a relationship akin to it. You hit a certain age and you start wanting it. It's hard to explain. And it's not just the sex either...it has to be something deeper than that. But again, I'm still part of that "old" world. Maybe the young ones now won't feel that way. Who knows.

Licensing agencies have no problems about home providers living in highrise buildings. As long as the careprovider takes them out...usually to a park or a long walk. Why does it have to be a DETACHED house btw??? Rowhouses or semi-detached homes have their own yards, right? I know careproviders with government agencies operating from such types of houses, so it can't be a regulation.

Well in my daycare when I used to be under a government-funded agency, some people who gets subsidized DO NOT NECESSARILY want to work and pay taxes! I got a mom who was being funded for school and thus getting daycare subsidy, who did nothing but miss school from day one and usually comes to pick up her kid in a TAXI, waiting for her as she yaps her head off telling me what shopping center she'd been into instead of school! This said agency had tons of parents (qualified only for PARTIAL subsidy due to their income), who don't even pay their share of the daycare expenses...ripping off the taxpayers who are already paying for these partial subsidies! Leeches abound from those who use the system!

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). You know what moms ought to be trained with? Budgeting (including time management) and simple Home Economics. I always thought wouldn't it be practical to include basics of cooking and nutrition in education....to learn how to cook from scratch! I don't know how much this tenant earns from taking care of 2 children, but let me just tell you where her extra earning and perks from having this home daycare comes from: *She doesn't have to take her own children to a daycare. That, in itself, is big-time savings already. *She gets to be with and take care of her own children, eliminating the angst and worries other parents feel when they leave their kids to someone else. That's quite a perk! *Percentage of all her expenses (including utilities, groceries, phone, etc.,) are tax deductible. She just have to save her receipts! Those who are professionals at preparing taxes will know and show her all the breaks she can get! Imagine the savings there! *She gets to work in the comfort of her own home and environment. She need not spend commuting to and from work...eliminating the time consumed from commuting! Time means money! *By following a daily planned routine, she'll even get things done around the house thereby being able to enjoy some time to herself! It means a less hectic schedule...and less stress!

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. A full-time daycare usually consists of ten hours. And that usually includes two snacks and a lunch. Quality daycares provide nutritious lunch and snacks. Overhead expenses also include various toys that meet various needs (age appropriate) and purpose (developmental aids), supplies for arts and craft, cleaning supplies (including laundering blankets) and maintenance of the premises that accomodate all these children and insurance. Some daycares transport children thereby that means car expenses. PARENTS should get over the absurd notion that people operating daycares SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT from doing childcare. I once saw an ad from a mom looking fo a daycare that specified, "must not be in it for the money." Actually the cost of daycares from where I operate had gone down due to competition. Even the government-funded agency that operates home daycares had to lower their price because they're not getting any children.

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. In Ontario you're allowed 5 children over and above that live in the home (depending on their ages). There should be a uniform sets of regulations.

Intelligence said Canada is a potential target. What do you think?

OOOOPS.

I don't know if this poll topic will be posted rightly...I've been tinkering with it. Intelligence had repeatedly warned that Canada is a potential target. Experts said it's only a matter of time. How possible is it?

That immigrants had read and understand what Canada stands for, including her values, rights and freedoms, and are expected to honor and uphold them as any citizen of Canada would.

Is Harper the former Reform leader you're talking about? No, Preston Manning said he wouldn't live there but did. Just as I thought. Just wondering what Manning's got to do with this Harper incident.

There are indeed self-centered and self-interest posts in here...but I don't think they come from those who have been contributing all along and saying, enough is enough! We know who will be footing the bill for this grandiose ill-planned national childcare. If I will be doling out more money to support someone else other than my own family, I would rather support other worthy causes like CHEO, cure for cancer and other research that will benefit everyone, including the future generation. I would like to be able to help the poor elderlies who have no one...or who have been abandoned by their own! I would like to be able to help orphanages...the mentally retarded....the families with dying members, etc.., The list go on and on. There are others who desperately need help too! We already support several social programs that benefit single parents. Do you think everything should be funneled towards them? WHY? Of course we aren't born equal. And of course, it impossible to solve all the problems in this world! What is the solution? One thing I know. It certainly isn't through giving an all-out financial support...for I think this only makes matters worse. We only encourage this feeling of "entitlement". Instead of going out there to brave the world...they end up waiting for dole outs...and become masters at whining.

Some couples choose not to have any children until they are ready and can support a family!

I empathize with your loss Margrace...and that of others who had found themselves suddenly alone trying to raise a family. But, widows and single-parents have more monetary support now...what with widow's pensions, insurance, child allowance, child support and alimony. Make do with that! Instead of whining about no one helping (as if those government freebies just materialized out of thin air), tackle the situation and make the most of what they have. Why should other people, who had nothing to do with the planning and choice that these women made in having children be obligated to support them financially? Tax payers are supporting these children and women and children already! These women should have to try to make ends meet, even if it means hand-to-mouth existence. Didn't they know there's a consequence for every action? So they live on poverty line....and that's the price for some. Some will just have to bite the bullet and weather the storm.

That probably won't be an issue. I don't think chicks dig conservative guys anyway. You must mean, Liberal chicks don't dig conservative guys. Chances are, it won't work anyway. So better off to find someone with similar views.

Is Harper the former Reform leader you're talking about?

It may be our government now.... But Shapiro's been appointed by the FORMER government...and very partisan with his investigations and decisions. This inquiry he's doing with Harper is clearly just politics, that's why he conveniently overlooked the recent cases of Brison, Valleri and Stronach. This guy definitely has to go. Just a few months back, MPs were calling for him to resign. His credibility is zero.

It is the personal barbs and personal insults that truly stinks...and infuriates in this forum. It is so tempting to sink to this low level and start firing away....and if posters start getting infuriated to respond in kind, this forum will end up being trash. It is good to know that there are at least only a couple of ones I've seen (unless I've missed some other posts) who seem to hurl personal insults freely and have total disregard for the rules in this forum that have been explicitly explained. For the sake of protecting this place from turning into one of those trashy forums that ends up attracting foul-mouthed posters (you probably know the kinds I mean)....then rules ought to be implemented. It is impossible I guess for the moderator to follow every thread...therefore, it is up to us to either warn off anyone who steps over the line...and report if the problem persists.

Whether it was a discussion board or a letter isn't really relevant. Way to miss the point. No, you're the one who's missing the point. You've automatically "reached" for an excuse to justify uncalled-for hostility and rudeness to someone due to his gender. The last thing the Movement needs is for somebody to exploit it for whatever personal reasons they may have...using it to vent insensibly for whatever chips they do carry on their shoulders. Women have worked hard to have what we have gained so far.

How cute. You're getting creamed so you try to turn the tables. But here's the thing: I've already specifically pointed out groups that have been perpetuating ridiculous generalizations about feminists and feminsim, while you've done nothing but spout the same generalizations I've took issue with in the first place. Your pathetic diversions won't work. I posted a source. And what did you say about it? "Betsy, check your source...yada-yada-yad" You took the time to find the background of this Baxter guy (Elvis impersonator/Minister...big deal). Since when do backgrounds automatically mean falsehood to statements? What you should have done was find something to negate the allegations from CourtWatch. Then I told you about the odd reaction of a womens' group spokeperson towards a man who was throwing his support behind the movement. What was your response? You answered: "Well, in my personal experience, even "femisist" men have a tendancy to barge in and dominate discussions with their views. Sometimes women just get tired of men telling them how to soleve their problems, y'know. I think this post from another discussion board sums it up." It was not even a discusion board. It was a letter of support sent to the group! Your view is terribly clouded by your obvious bias. Therefore, unless you can substantiate your allegations, your opinion, regarding this, imho, is not credible.

How cute. You're getting creamed so you try to turn the tables. But here's the thing: I've already specifically pointed out groups that have been perpetuating ridiculous generalizations about feminists and feminsim, while you've done nothing but spout the same generalizations I've took issue with in the first place. Your pathetic diversions won't work. You mean, you can't support your allegations.

No, I'm not against women who work outside their homes. For a lot, it is a necessity. I guess I lament those gone days during our parents' time....it will never be like that again. I'm also a romantic...so there you go.

Traditional. It is something that the now generation do not understand about and will never understand about....at least, not the kind that you had experienced with your family and neighborhood who was there to offer you support. A lot of self-less acts and sacrifices by parents or relatives or even friends..... It's a different world now. It's brutal.

The world had changed dramatically since the time of our parents, and we do know that a lot of women are driven to work outside the home out of necessity. It is not a question of who is the best parent...or what environment makes the best child. For we do know that being a stay-at-home or a career-mom does not necessarily make an ideal or rotten child. This is about those women, who either by luck of having spouses who can comfortably support a family with one income....or those women, who had decided to "tighten" their belts and do without that second car, or bigger house, or swimming pool...in lieu of staying home with their children and devote their time to home-making. It is also about single moms struggling to make do with welfare and child allowance, or child support and alimony...opting to raise their own children instead of going out there to start a new career. For some women, family and children means everything....and it's all they've ever dreamed about and the only thing that gives meaning to their life.