Daycare

[jdobbin]

This study ranks each province based on the subsidy, daycare spaces and access to quality care.

By some of the comments in the CTV forum afterwards, you can see the attitude of the right wing is no money and no responsibility for daycare.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Here are the province-by-province grades on child care:

* British Columbia: D-

* Alberta: D

* Saskatchewan: C

* Manitoba: B+

* Ontario: D

* Quebec: Exempted due to strong performance

* New Brunswick: C-

* Nova Scotia: C

* P.E.I.: C-

* Newfoundland and Labrador: C+

* Northwest Territories: C

* Yukon: C

* Nunavut: C

[Drea]

Perhaps the conservatives would be happy if all those people in low income jobs just quit and went on welfare so they could stay at home and raise their children.

How about it conservatives? How about if each and every single mother gets $2000 a month so she can stay home

OR

We can give her $600 a month for daycare for a few years.

Which would cost the taxpayer less? This IS a test!.... I know math and intelligence aren't really important for cons, but do give it a try. Here is the question: Is $2000 greater than or less than $600?

No asking liberal family members - that would be no fair!

[segnosaur]

This study ranks each province based on the subsidy, daycare spaces and access to quality care.

Ummm... I think you missed the most important part of the article, where it stated:

The Canadian Labour Congress has given the federal government and most of the provinces a poor grade .

Given the rather obvious socialistic bias that a group like the Canadian Labour Congress has, I'd be rather skeptical of any of their results. (Unfortunately, the article doesn't contain any sort of link to a more detailed analysis, such as how exactly they weighted the given subsidy vs. number of daycare spaces, whether they counted private or family-provided care, etc.)

By some of the comments in the CTV forum afterwards, you can see the attitude of the right wing is no money and no responsibility for daycare.

Actually, the attitude seems to be no government-money for daycare. Some people have this strange concept that people should have both the right and responsibility to make their own choices regard child care, and that having a government-subsidized system does not necessarily provide the best solution. After all, the subsidy money comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the pockets of the taxpayer. Why not simply cut taxes and let people use their tax savings to find their own daycare solutions?

[segnosaur]

Perhaps the conservatives would be happy if all those people in low income jobs just quit and went on welfare so they could stay at home and raise their children.

How about it conservatives? How about if each and every single mother gets $2000 a month so she can stay home

OR

We can give her $600 a month for daycare for a few years.

Which would cost the taxpayer less? This IS a test!.... I know math and intelligence aren't really important for cons, but do give it a try. Here is the question: Is $2000 greater than or less than $600?

No asking liberal family members - that would be no fair!

Here are all the 'problems' with your arguments...

- You are incorrectly assuming that such government-run daycare facilities are set up to benefit low income people. Yet if you look at the Quebec experience, what has been found is that a huge number of subsidized spaces are taken up by financially successful couples who could probably afford their own day care

- You are also assuming that anyone in 'low income' jobs would be able to actually make use of such government daycare. However, many low income jobs involve working hours outside the traditional 9-5 schedule. (Food service work, janatorial jobs, etc. often involve working evening shifts). Anyone working such a job would likely not be able to use government-run day care (yet they would be forced to subsidize the daycare of others, many of whom earn more, because even low-income people pay taxes)

- People against government-run day care (note: I'm not just saying conservatives; I'm more libertarian and have the same opinion) are not against helping people with their child care... we just want the money to go to the parents themselves (so they can make their own decisions) through tax cuts, rather than being filtered through a large (and often extremely inefficient) organization like the government.

[jdobbin]

Ummm... I think you missed the most important part of the article, where it stated:

The Canadian Labour Congress has given the federal government and most of the provinces a poor grade .

Since I gave a link to the whole article, I didn't miss anything. It was there for anyone to read. You can dismiss it if you want but please someone let me know if there is any other comparative study out and I will post it.

Given the rather obvious socialistic bias that a group like the Canadian Labour Congress has, I'd be rather skeptical of any of their results. (Unfortunately, the article doesn't contain any sort of link to a more detailed analysis, such as how exactly they weighted the given subsidy vs. number of daycare spaces, whether they counted private or family-provided care, etc.)

Here is the full report.

http://canadianlabour.ca/updir/finalenglis...nprintMay26.txt

I'm up for any other comparative study.

I do know that when Monte Solberg was asked about daycare spaces, he said the government would not hit its commitment.

Actually, the attitude seems to be no government-money for daycare. Some people have this strange concept that people should have both the right and responsibility to make their own choices regard child care, and that having a government-subsidized system does not necessarily provide the best solution. After all, the subsidy money comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the pockets of the taxpayer. Why not simply cut taxes and let people use their tax savings to find their own daycare solutions?

I'm all for cutting taxes but like in education, it doesn't necessarily build schools. Of course if the right wing wants to make the argument that Canadians should find their own education solutions then we will know the true difference between right and left.

[White Doors]

Good post Seg. The only reason the Canadian labour congress is concerned with daycare is because they want to add more union members to the payroll. No more no less.

It is a laugh that they have the audacity to release a study on it thinking that educated people cannot see their study.

They exempted Quebec? Why? because of poor results, but 100% union? lol

[segnosaur]

Since I gave a link to the whole article, I didn't miss anything.

Hey, quite possible that you didn't miss anything... however, you never stated the author of the survey in your opening post... that was what 'missed'... details that you should have given.

(And yeah, it is relatively easy to click on the link and read it myself... however, when you do provide summaries of information, its always good to provide all relevant information so people have the opportunity to decide if its worth reading.

Here is the full report.

http://canadianlabour.ca/updir/finalenglis...nprintMay26.txt

If this is the study, then it really, really, really sucks.

Some of the problems:

- As expected, the only thing they dealt with was public day care. Never mind if everyone was a millionaire and private daycare was only $1/day, the CLC would still fail a province over lack of public funding

- Look at the data and see how many of their entries are missing information

- Their assignment of grades seems rather arbitrary. What qualifies as a C? What qualifies as a D? It would be just as relevant if they were making the C an equivalent of an A.

I'm up for any other comparative study.

I do not have any other comparative study. (Given the complexity of the issue, when you factor in public, private, and home-provided care, I doubt you'll ever find any study that actually addresses the issue properly.)

However, you don't need to have a comparative study to recognize the CLC study as bunk. (As an analogy, if someone claimed they saw a U.F.O., I would not have to come up with an alternative explanation to know that they probably didn't see little green men from mars.) The CLC study is bunk. It fails on its own.

I do know that when Monte Solberg was asked about daycare spaces, he said the government would not hit its commitment.

Which to me is irrelevant to how much this study fails.

I'm not a hardcore conservative supporter... I'm more of a libertarian (although I have voted conservative in the past because their policies were the ones that I felt were currently closest to what I want implemented.)

I'm all for cutting taxes but like in education, it doesn't necessarily build schools. Of course if the right wing wants to make the argument that Canadians should find their own education solutions then we will know the true difference between right and left.

Ummm... there are some rather large differences between daycare and education/schooling:

- Schooling is a requirement for everyone; daycare is, in many cases optional (in a large number of cases, one of the parents may choose to stay at home with the child during the earlier years; the length of time a parent will stay at home may also vary.)

- Daycare does not necessarily teach skills required later in life, unlike schools

Because of those differences, daycare should be looked at as being totally different from traditional school education. (I sincerely doubt you'll find many conservatives who favor eliminating public schools, even if they are against subsidized daycare.)

[MontyBurns]

This study ranks each province based on the subsidy, daycare spaces and access to quality care.

In this case the word study should be written as "study".

[Bryan]

Why do some people think that the only form of child care that exists is government funded? Why do they think that the UCCB was a bad thing in its own right?

I said this in another thread yesterday:

I'm not opposed to a tax rebate of some form or a needs-based subsidy for lower income families to apply to their child care expenses. I just don't believe in the day care itself receiving any funding whatsoever. If there "has to" be government funding for child care, give it directly to the families, and let them decide how to apply it.

[scribblet]

. I know math and intelligence aren't really important for cons, but do give it a try. Here is the question: Is $2000 greater than or less than $600?

No asking liberal family members - that would be no fair!

Well, it might not be important for convicts if that's is what you mean by cons, I don't know, I doubt convicts would like to be demonized like that or painted with a broad brush you know.

However, why should anyone have to pay for someone else's lifestyle choices - it's pretty simple really, if you can't afford to raise kids without leaching from the taxpayers - don't have them. Do the math on that one..

This is just the usual welfare state parasites wanting their "entitlements" you know.

[Renegade]

How about it conservatives? How about if each and every single mother gets $2000 a month so she can stay home

OR

We can give her $600 a month for daycare for a few years.

OR

We can give her diddly squat.

[jdobbin]

Hey, quite possible that you didn't miss anything... however, you never stated the author of the survey in your opening post... that was what 'missed'... details that you should have given.

You'll have to speak to Charles about. I've been told that we should really limit how much we quote from another source. I try to limit myself to either the first paragraph or the the key data which in this case, I believe was the ranking.

(And yeah, it is relatively easy to click on the link and read it myself... however, when you do provide summaries of information, its always good to provide all relevant information so people have the opportunity to decide if its worth reading.

I've done that and been asked to shave it down even if it is two or so paragraphs. I always include the link so it isn't like there is something hidden. The original post should be set to the topic, express a view and show a link if the information is from another source.

If it is your view that who did the study is important, that is a legitimate point. However, I guarantee that when you post a quote someone will always say you left something out. You can't win.

If this is the study, then it really, really, really sucks.

The study was on daycare spaces and subsidies for people to find daycare on their own.

I'd love to see other material on the subject.

Because of those differences, daycare should be looked at as being totally different from traditional school education. (I sincerely doubt you'll find many conservatives who favor eliminating public schools, even if they are against subsidized daycare.)

And that is why I disagree. I think that daycare is necessary if we are going to continue to support families, employers and employees. It isn't enough to just give people a subsidy. It doesn't create daycare spaces nor does it necessarily give someone enough for childcare that they find themselves.

The Tory program has not reduced demand, created spaces or helped to resolve an important issue for families, especially women. I think it goes without saying that a woman who get the Tory subsidy, finds it clawed back in tax, can't find a babysitter or a space is not going to be too impressed with the Conservative party.

[BubberMiley]

it's pretty simple really, if you can't afford to raise kids without leaching from the taxpayers - don't have them. Do the math on that one..

Too bad you weren’t around to fight the good fight against publicly funded education in the 1840s. Maybe today we could proudly have a medieval country firmly divided into illiterate labourers and educated elites to exploit them. Maybe that’s what the CPC is striving for now.

Unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to tell people to do the math, because most wouldn't know what you're talking about.

[MontyBurns]

OR

We can give her diddly squat.

I like your idea. Good thinking.

[Bryan]

I think it goes without saying that a woman who get the Tory subsidy, finds it clawed back in tax, can't find a babysitter or a space is not going to be too impressed with the Conservative party.

The only reason it goes without saying is it isn't true. The CPC plan has benefitted my family far more than any previous programs. It gives parents more options and more control over their own children's welfare. Not only did we have more money in our pockets each month to put towards the child care we needed, but we also paid less taxes thoughout the year, and got more back on our returns.

The Liberals plan I was especially opposed to. A national social program is a euphemism for taking choices away from citizens, and charging them more taxes to do it.

[scribblet]

Too bad you weren’t around to fight the good fight against publicly funded education in the 1840s. Maybe today we could proudly have a medieval country firmly divided into illiterate labourers and educated elites to exploit them. Maybe that’s what the CPC is striving for now.

Unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to tell people to do the math, because most wouldn't know what you're talking about.

I agree with publicly funded education, at no time have I seen the CPC suggest that we should not fund education, so don't make silly statements like that.

I just don't agree with paying for lifestyle choices. If you can't afford em, don't have em, kids that is. Granted people come upon hard times and need assistance, which is why we have a social safety net, but there is no way we need cradle to grave nanny state.

I don't have a problem with the CPC plan and as we know, the Liberals think it would only be spent on "beer and popcorn' anyway, better the gov't tells us how and when to spend our money I suppose. Income splitting would help towards making a decision to use daycare, which is, a parental choice.

[jdobbin]

The only reason it goes without saying is it isn't true. The CPC plan has benefitted my family far more than any previous programs. It gives parents more options and more control over their own children's welfare. Not only did we have more money in our pockets each month to put towards the child care we needed, but we also paid less taxes thoughout the year, and got more back on our returns.

The Liberals plan I was especially opposed to. A national social program is a euphemism for taking choices away from citizens, and charging them more taxes to do it.

You must have been one of a smaller number of people who benefited then. A lot of families, according to some of the polls on the issue, have found it hard to find care or pay for it based on the Tory plan.

There was a lot more support for the Liberal plan.

http://action.web.ca/home/ccaac/alerts.sht...9e4dd6dfba5c7f0

Environics poll asked more than 2,000 Canadians their views on child care and the response was clear – 76% of Canadians support a national affordable child care strategy such as the 2004 federal-provincial agreemetn that was cancelled by the Conservative government.

Edited June 14, 2008 by jdobbin

[Bryan]

You must have been one of a smaller number of people who benefited then. A lot of families, according to some of the polls on the issue, have found it hard to find care or pay for it based on the Tory plan.

There was a lot more support for the Liberal plan.

http://action.web.ca/home/ccaac/alerts.sht...9e4dd6dfba5c7f0

^^Dead links^^

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who thought that the Liberal plan was better were people who think the government should hand them everything and raise their children for them (and there are a lot of those), and those who clearly did not understand the real costs of the Liberal plan.

What has happened every time a national social program was ever implemented in this country? First, they made it mandatory, to the exclusion of all others. When it comes to taking care of my kids, this is unacceptable. Then, they made it cost exponentially more than was proposed, and raised taxes to cover the difference.

I don't care what the purpose, if the Liberals say "new social program", the answer is "NO!!".

If you can't make arrangements to take care of your own kids without government holding your hand for you, you have no business having kids. These people who want the government to warehouse their children at everyone else's expense should have those kids taken away from them.

[jdobbin]

^^Dead links^^

I only highlighted the conclusion of the Decima poll which in quotes.

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who thought that the Liberal plan was better were people who think the government should hand them everything and raise their children for them (and there are a lot of those), and those who clearly did not understand the real costs of the Liberal plan.

And those people numbered 76% according to the the poll.

The Liberal plan is what the Tories used in the first year of their government and was costed out. It didn't end up costing anymore than what was promised.

[Bryan]

I only highlighted the conclusion of the Decima poll which in quotes.

And those people numbered 76% according to the the poll.

The Liberal plan is what the Tories used in the first year of their government and was costed out. It didn't end up costing anymore than what was promised.

CPC continued the EXISTING fed-prov agreement, they did not implement a new national daycare social program (based on Quebec's $7/day program) that the Liberals were promising during the election. That's why the CPC scaled back the existing plan too: to prevent it from escalating in cost as more people held out their hands. "$2 billion, then $5 billion", the Liberals said (while some economists said the real cost could be over $15 billion). "Screw that", the CPC said, "here's $250 million, now STFU". What they DID, was manage the cost, instead of turning it into another gun registry money pit. Lot of people were in favor of that, look how it turned out.

Also remember that the Liberals promised over and over again such plans since Pearson, and never delivered. While what the CPC did does fall short of what the Liberals promised (thank god), unlike the Liberals the Conservatives actually did SOMETHING. People for some reason seem to think that broken promises are OK, as long as they are BIG promises, but promising less, but actually delivering is somehow worse.

[jdobbin]

CPC continued the EXISTING fed-prov agreement, they did not implement a new national daycare social program (based on Quebec's $7/day program) that the Liberals were promising during the election. That's why the CPC scaled back the existing plan too: to prevent it from escalating in cost as more people held out their hands. "$2 billion, then $5 billion", the Liberals said (while some economists said the real cost could be over $15 billion). "Screw that", the CPC said, "here's $250 million, now STFU". What they DID, was manage the cost, instead of turning it into another gun registry money pit. Lot of people were in favor of that, look how it turned out.

Actually, the Liberals said their plan would cost $11 billion through to 2015. The Tories said their plan would cost $10.9 billion to 2011.

If you believe that the Tories were elected based on their daycare plan then you are probably kidding yourself. Women still are not supportive of the Tories in a big way and support has dropped precisely because issues like daycare remain a large concern. Polling has borne that out since 2006.

Also remember that the Liberals promised over and over again such plans since Pearson, and never delivered. While what the CPC did does fall short of what the Liberals promised (thank god), unlike the Liberals the Conservatives actually did SOMETHING. People for some reason seem to think that broken promises are OK, as long as they are BIG promises, but promising less, but actually delivering is somehow worse.

I realize that the Liberals had promised for years and didn't deliver. However, Martin had a program in place in 2005 and funding was flowing and creating spaces.

The Tories also promised to create daycare spaces. Solberg says that promise has failed to deliver in a big way.

[RB]

Perhaps people should start a future SAVINGS plan to have kids. Put a money value early to coincide with puberty, sexual gazing and engagement, so that they are proactive and encouraged to take responsibilities early. I mean we already have education, retirement and funeral plans way in advance, called planning for the future. So if you didn't save and can't support having children just don't have 'em, plus you shouldn't have sex if you didn't save.

I mean the choice is yours to have children, why do you expect the government to subsidize your responsibilities and carry your burden of child care.

[Renegade]

Perhaps people should start a future SAVINGS plan to have kids. Put a money value early to coincide with puberty, sexual gazing and engagement, so that they are proactive and encouraged to take responsibilities early. I mean we already have education, retirement and funeral plans way in advance, called planning for the future. So if you didn't save and can't support having children just don't have 'em, plus you shouldn't have sex if you didn't save.

I mean the choice is yours to have children, why do you expect the government to subsidize your responsibilities and carry your burden of child care.

Completely agree RB. Some people seem to believe that they are doing society a favour by having kids and society ought to pay for that priviledge.

[Topaz]

Completely agree RB. Some people seem to believe that they are doing society a favour by having kids and society ought to pay for that priviledge.

Well, aren't they. Canadians have kids, kids become adults then TAXPAYERS and supports government so they can spend the TAXPAYERS money that benefits the party seating in the PMO.

[Renegade]

Well, aren't they. Canadians have kids, kids become adults then TAXPAYERS and supports government so they can spend the TAXPAYERS money that benefits the party seating in the PMO.

No they aren't. Yes kids will grow to be taxpayers, but kids will also consume services and resources, contribute to destruction of the planet, and overcrowding. People aren't having kids to do Canadian society a favour. They are doing so to satisify their own urges and needs. They should pay the full cost of their choice.

If people were made to face the full cost of their choice to have kids, perhaps less of them would have kids, and the world would be a cleaner, healther place.

How about this: Since you believe that paying taxes is a "favour" done to society, we can simply lower taxes to the point that no "favour" is being done?

Edited June 17, 2008 by Renegade