Scotty

Remember Trudeau's last campaign? The ghost campaign? They produced almost no platform, kept him away from the press as much as possible so they couldn't ask difficult questions, and yet he still won. I think it was against Clark, and my memory says he refused any debate too (could be wrong...)

How come when it's me it's 'prejudices' but when it's you it's 'opinion?' Or do you even equate your words with opinion as opposed to gospel. I've never seen anything which contradicted that parents raise their children better than a rotating bunch of ill-paid babysitters in an institutional setting. Children like and need the security of knowing their care-givers, and institutional daycares change employees all too often. That's in addition to the fact that none of those employees feel for the children what parents do. They don't have the same degree of commitment and interest and never could. And by the way, go ahead and assail my 'prejudices', but so far you haven't produced any of these 'hard facts', and I think you'll need a few.

I thought that was what I said, so yes.

Hey, if I wanted to make a story up I could do a better job of it and make. I don't know what the stats say but I personally have no doubts whatever that parents make better parents than some 'early childhood educator' in an institutional setting.

Because I know. They decided the kids were better off with a stay-at-home-parent. I'm all for providing parents with support. But a national daycare only provides support to people who put their kids into daycare. I would be more in favour of tax breaks and direct aid to families. That, at least, helps all parents. Again, direct aid and tax breaks would do this just as well. And besides, I don't want to provide overall complete child care to parents. It's not up to society to pay for the raising of their children. There SHOULD be economic sacrifices in raising a child. There are economic sacrifices in all the positive choices we make. that's what life is about.

Family One probably see their kids for maybe an hour a day (mother works lots of unpaid overtime), more on the weekend, though both parents often do some work on weekends. The Second family do exactly as you say. The father takes care of them all day, and the mother has foregone promotion so as to not work overtime so she too can spend time with her kids. Whenever any other child care is required their extended family take care of it. Their children have never had a non-family babysitter. It should be interesting how those four kids turn out. The oldest son in family One is already showing behavioural difficulties.

No, you're being told to use your bloody head and think about things a little.

Either your thread is poorly named or you're a tad confused. For the question was whether they contribute to tax revenue. and that is not really something which can be argued. There are numerous services performed by public sector employees whose absence would markedly lower tax revenue. These workers exchange their services for money, just like any other worker out there, and pay taxes, just like any other worker out there. Yes, their salaries come directly from the taxpayer, but innumerable private sector enterprises work in whole or in part for the public, and so every employee's salary also comes from the taxpayer. You can start with everyone who builds and maintains roads, highways and bridges, as an example, whether they are public sector workers or work for a private sector company contracted by the government. Does the existence of roads and highways contribute to tax revenue? Well uh, yeah.

The way I slice it, Duceppe is a whiny, sniveling, sulky boy complaining because his brother got a toy he didn't. That's understandable when the two children are six. It's pretty bloody silly when one is nine and the other is twenty four. And it's the older one complaining! It's impossible to count the ways Quebec's economy has been subsidized by the feds. If Harper had said no to a simple loan guarantee it would have pissed off not only Newfoundland but Atlantic Canada. And for what? Because Quebec, which screwed Newfoundland out of Churchill Falls, feels selling Hydro to the Americans is somehow their monopoly? And I like how he's complaining that Quebec money will be going into it! As if Quebec isn't a net drain on the federal treasury! Here's a news flash Quebecers: Once you subtract out what the feds pay you, you don't PAY any taxes!

Yes, well, they invented the tactic, you see, and they alone use it. So I could see why you'd be so upset.

Read the comments in the Globe and Mail or CBC or Star some day. You won't find much right wing in any of them. Mostly you'll find rabid left wing commentary.

I know two couples. One couple both work, and their kids are in daycare. They made the decision to do that. The other couple decided to do without the extra money and consumer goods etc. and the husband has stayed home to look after their kids. The income of the first couple is about $150k per year. The income of the second couple is about $70k per year with only one working. Btw, there is absolutely no question in my mind the second couple made the right choice. Their kids are happier and better behaved, and they see far, far more of them. So the problem I have with a national daycare program is it takes money from the second family and uses it to help the first family. That doesn't strike me as particularly fair.

Here guys. Settle down now. Here's a nice story for you to watch.

We separate prisoners by type of offense, or are supposed to. Thus burglars would go to a minimum security pen and murderers to a maximum security pen. That's the theory. Only often enough, in their bureaucratic fashion, Corrections Canada decides to move the murderers down to medium or minimum security. As in the case with that seven foot tall murderer who simply took away his 'escort's car during a day trip - from minimum security. The people at Corrections actually seem to think they can read a man's mind, that their psychologists can decide whether a man is violent or not without regard to his history. That's proven wrong time and again. The best way to judge a man is by his deeds.

I thought the whole argument from the opposition was that this change in law would REQUIRE more prisons because of all the prisoners. Now you're saying that these prisoners are imaginary? Then what's the problem with the policy? I guess it won't cost that much after all!

Do you have any evidence of this? Because that is not my impression. The police don't seem to pay much attention to small time soft drugs or prostitution unless they get a direct complaint.

Not necessarily. We're talking about various means to qualify on the national stage so I don't think running candidates outside one local area ought not be one of them. How about, if you can't elect MPs from at least two provinces you aren't a national party and you don't get on the national debate?

Well _I_ don't count them as Canadians. I count them as foreigners interfering in Canada's election.

On a number of issues that is the refrain. But when the talk turns to corruption and ethics I think it fairer to say "But the Liberals were ten times worse!" Like I said before, get back to me when Harper takes a quarter of a million in public funds and gives them to an ex-con business partner of his.

Might be effective with stupid people. It sounds like it has the same soundtrack as "guns, in the streets" thing they did last time around. "A top adviser"? I guess that sounds better than "A guy who was a top adviser a couple of years ago". The senators that could face jail? Uh, yeah, technically, I guess, but no one has EVER faced jail for what they did. It's all pretty piddling stuff. This is the worst they can do in the way of insinuating corruption? I guess that's why I'm voting for Harper and not the Liberals.

The cost per prisoner is frankly ridiculous. As I said before, if you have free labour, basically, can you not set up labour intensive factories and make some profits? In case you're wondering the average cost to house a male prisoner is about $87,000 per year. The average cost to house a delicate, dainty, oh so sad, not-her-fault, female prisoner in a lovely cottage atmosphere with all the amenities is between $110-$250,000 per year, depending on which holiday resort we send them to, and how many servants they have, I guess.

They've disenfranchised themselves.

Not all of us live in the boonies.

Yes and no. Dangerous offender status is only for violent offenders, and even then, only the most dangerous of violent offenders. Judges are very hesitant to impose this designation, even then. Ie, a bank robber is not going to get a dangerous offender designation, not unless he shoots people with every robbery. Drug dealers don't qualify either. The legislation for dangerous offender status was altered and strengthened by the tories in 2008 to make it provide for a reverse onus on those who commit three dangerous offenses, but as I said, this only applies in fairly narrow circumstances. If we're going to accept that something like 37% of inmates re-offend I think we have to look at either longer sentences or some sort of treatment combined with training, if anyone can imagine some that would reduce that rate.

Maybe, but that's a highly complex issue which has challenged governments around the world for centuries. I don't believe the opposition has tried to actually make an economic case, merely said we shouldn't be spending money on prisons, but instead should spend it on health care, or education or whatever. I'm not a baseball player. I'm not saying three strikes. I am saying that surely there comes a time, when someone has proven over a period of years that they are nothing but a criminal, that they have no intention of doing anything other than being a predatory leach on society, when we ought to just say "Enough" and lock them away indefinitely. And the start of that is longer sentences, particularly for repeat offenders.