A plank in some political party's campaign

[punked]

No they didn't. They promised that they would have one ready by then. They didn't say that they'd show anyone.

Ohhhh so Iggy does have an alternative way to govern and vision for the country it is just a secret plan like Nixon. Never was a big fan of Nixon and always thought his secret plan sucked.

[August1991]

I'm not concerned about the world. I'm concerned about Canada.

Hmm, OK. I still think that I'm right. Try this, Argus.

Canada doesn't lack for children; it lacks educated children.

Am I wrong?

[Smallc]

Ohhhh so Iggy does have an alternative way to govern and vision for the country it is just a secret plan like Nixon. Never was a big fan of Nixon and always thought his secret plan sucked.

It's not a secret, but since no one else has any ideas right now, the Liberals have no reason to release theirs. This isn't the time for a platform.

[punked]

It's not a secret, but since no one else has any ideas right now, the Liberals have no reason to release theirs. This isn't the time for a platform.

Hey who am I to ask anything of the Liberal party however if I was liberal I would be asking for vision right now for the party and its leader to present an alternative to Harper. Heck what do I know about winning though? I just pick the party who's platform is closest to my values and run with it.

[Moonlight Graham]

If you seriously do think that we have a baby shortage, the most effective way to 'remedy' it is to deny education to your own daughters.

Ignorance breeds.

Hmm, i think you're on to something! Don't forget not educating the sons too, we'll need them too of course . Basically, we need to change the sex-ed they learn in school. make them watch pornos instead.

And no more safe sex. WE NEED TO BAN CONDOMS AND BIRTH CONTROL!! We need the good ol' days back when everyone had 5-10 siblings.

[jdobbin]

Finally, I think that it's wrong to consider this debate as being between "home care" and "daycare". In fact, when we think of government intervention, we shoudl really be thinking about the children who would benefit most.

IMV, there are too many children born to parents who are irresponsible, inept or incapable of raising children. IOW, government money should go to help children who need this help the most. Argus' scheme would use government money to help children who are probably the least likely to need the help.

The missing information is here is how does the government decide which children need help.

You blame the parents here but don't offer anything about how the government decides who is irresponsible and which kids should get help and which should not.

[Molly]

Hmm, i think you're on to something! Don't forget not educating the sons too, we'll need them too of course . Basically, we need to change the sex-ed they learn in school. make them watch pornos instead.

And no more safe sex. WE NEED TO BAN CONDOMS AND BIRTH CONTROL!! We need the good ol' days back when everyone had 5-10 siblings.

Don't mistake my tone of utter disgust with being funny or false.

That relationship between minimal-education/illiteracy/hopelessness/powerlessness among women and high birthrate is linear and pretty much universal, including here in Canada. Poverty, poor population health, and serious social problems are also part of the package. (Weird religious nutjobs are a subset.)

IOW, the likliest outcome of providing more support for parents is fewer, not more babies born.

[Argus]

Hmm, OK. I still think that I'm right. Try this, Argus.

Canada doesn't lack for children; it lacks educated children.

Am I wrong?

You are right in that our educational institutions are poorly run and poorly designed. You are wrong in that we do indeed lack for children. We are not, as a people, reproducing ourselves. The inevitable result would be extinction if carried on over a period of time. We are covering up just how big the shortfall is with immigration, but that carries its own inherent risks. How many immigrants do you think Quebec can take in before "quebecois" are outnumbered by, whatever, Hispanics or Asians or whomever. What culture will you be preserving then, and who will care about it?

[Argus]

Don't mistake my tone of utter disgust with being funny or false.

That relationship between minimal-education/illiteracy/hopelessness/powerlessness among women and high birthrate is linear and pretty much universal, including here in Canada. Poverty, poor population health, and serious social problems are also part of the package. (Weird religious nutjobs are a subset.)

So what you're saying is, the better off we make women, the more educated we make them, the fewer children they will have. So hopefully, if all women could be really well-educated and have great careers, there would be no more children.

Great outcome!

[jdobbin]

So hopefully, if all women could be really well-educated and have great careers, there would be no more children.

Don't think that will ever happen but it will mean fewer children receiving more of the parent's resources in raising them.

[Argus]

Don't think that will ever happen but it will mean fewer children receiving more of the parent's resources in raising them.

I don't know what the answer is to busy career women, but I would love to encourage the scientific establishment in their cloning efforts, and I think cloning humans, growing children in vats or creches or whatever, and then being able to hand them over to parents rather than being carried in the womb would cause a large upsurge in the number of children out there.

[Molly]

So what you're saying is, the better off we make women, the more educated we make them, the fewer children they will have. So hopefully, if all women could be really well-educated and have great careers, there would be no more children.

Great outcome!

Ceaucescu achieved higher birthrates.

If you don't like the idea of artificially creating ignorance, poverty, disease, social problems to increase birthrate, you could always go with the suspension of fundamental freedoms. (Well, except that when you do manage to increase birthrate, those others inevitably come along for the ride. )

Totalitarian religious law regimes work, too. If we did that, that would really show those other undesireable mass-breeding societies who is better.

[jdobbin]

I don't know what the answer is to busy career women, but I would love to encourage the scientific establishment in their cloning efforts, and I think cloning humans, growing children in vats or creches or whatever, and then being able to hand them over to parents rather than being carried in the womb would cause a large upsurge in the number of children out there.

If we are going to the scientific route, perhaps we will see men give birth. At that time, we will probably have two to three years of family leave and a fully supported homecare and daycare program. We would also see the end of all daytime soaps and sports would be on daytime hours.

[Argus]

Ceaucescu achieved higher birthrates.

France has achieved higher birthrates with a mixture of child care and economic incentives

Totalitarian religious law regimes work, too. If we did that, that would really show those other undesireable mass-breeding societies who is better.

Those other mass-breeding societies ARE undesirable, which is why I'd just as soon not import them here on a massive scale.

[fellowtraveller]

In some cases, I think that offering a service without the hassle of collecting fees saves time and effort. For example, basic medical care has less administrative hassle than trying to collect deductibles or sending people separate bills.

For childcare, the debate will always be over home care versus daycare. I think it is probably better to make deals as was done with the provinces to increase daycare spaces in general while at the same time trying to increase maternity and paternity leaves to longer lengths of time.

My other thought is that some school divisions offer nursery prior to Kindergarten. It is worth considering how this could be expanded.

I'm not entirely sure Kindergarten is offered everywhere. I think even making efforts to deal with that on a federal/provincial level would help families.

Would this increase the amount of children being born? Somewhat. If we encourage kids to stay in school and keep telling them that they won't get a good job unless they have high school and some post education, we will see young men and women graduate at 21 to 25 in greater numbers. This already cuts back how many children might be born based on the 10 years when they are most likely to have kids.

One approach is not going to work. The social, cultural, fiscal, functional and educational reasons for a lower birthrates have to be looked at.

Lastly, some people might ask why would we encourage a higher birthrate? The argument might be that immigration might be able to address the issue of supporting an older population. For Japan, they are looking at whether there is a technological solution. Silly as it might sound at first, they are looking at robotics.

Your p[remise that the center of the dsebate is around home vs institutionalized daycare is incorrect, only correct if you assume that the govt should be involved in any significant way in the care of children outside social services cases.

And don't assume that Canadians suppport that view....

I have two children, and both were our choices and our responsibility. B3efore we chose to conceive them, we knew that one of us would spend a lot of time at home and that our incomes would suffer because of our choice. Big deal, it is a small sacrifice.

I don't seek any help or daycare subsidy of any kind, and I don't belive in offering any to ordinary nuclear families.

If people are genuinely in need of help, no problem, but if the 'help' goes to maintaining the new home mortgage and two cars and the bigscreen TV, tough luck. Either go without the luxuries or go without the kids, no need to involve my money in your lifetstyle choices.

[jdobbin]

Your p[remise that the center of the dsebate is around home vs institutionalized daycare is incorrect, only correct if you assume that the govt should be involved in any significant way in the care of children outside social services cases.

I don't assume anything. I said the whole area has to be multi-pronged and not just government.

And don't assume that Canadians suppport that view....

Don't assume Canadians support your view either.

I have two children, and both were our choices and our responsibility. B3efore we chose to conceive them, we knew that one of us would spend a lot of time at home and that our incomes would suffer because of our choice. Big deal, it is a small sacrifice.

Is isn't a sacrifice your children asked for though and that is why government have become involved in multiple ways from legal, social, fiscal etc.

I don't seek any help or daycare subsidy of any kind, and I don't belive in offering any to ordinary nuclear families.

To what extent? Do you you believe in getting rid of public schools as well? They are set up to support families, right?

If people are genuinely in need of help, no problem, but if the 'help' goes to maintaining the new home mortgage and two cars and the bigscreen TV, tough luck. Either go without the luxuries or go without the kids, no need to involve my money in your lifetstyle choices.

So, no public schools in your view.

[fellowtraveller]

Is isn't a sacrifice your children asked for though and that is why government have become involved in multiple ways from legal, social, fiscal etc.

What sacrifice is that? A few dollars less in pocket? Baby clothes don't have pockets, so I doubt they noticed and if they found some money within reach they would have eaten it.

Using your logic and love of strawmen, children should be removed from their families and placed in the care of the state, who will enusre they are correctly raised.

Do you you believe in getting rid of public schools as well? They are set up to support families, right?

No, I do support schools. And no, their purpose is not to 'support families', it is to provide a standard education of reasonable quality to children. Would you have them be places of indoctriantion for your ideology? That would obviously be convenient.

[jdobbin]

What sacrifice is that? A few dollars less in pocket? Baby clothes don't have pockets, so I doubt they noticed and if they found some money within reach they would have eaten it.

Sounds like you don't support any program helping families.

Using your logic and love of strawmen, children should be removed from their families and placed in the care of the state, who will enusre they are correctly raised.

Think I already said, no one program is the answer. By your logic though, all programs should be stopped.

No, I do support schools. And no, their purpose is not to 'support families', it is to provide a standard education of reasonable quality to children. Would you have them be places of indoctriantion for your ideology? That would obviously be convenient.

Public schools were there to help families by spreading the costs to everyone, including those without children. Or do you disagree with that?

[fellowtraveller]

Sounds like you don't support any program helping families.

There you go with the assumptions again.

I don't expoect other Canadians to pay for my day care needs. My kids don't suffer by having a parent home with them, the opposite is true. If people choose to give their children to others for the first few years of their lives while those parents choose to earn money, feel free. But don't expect me to pay for it.

[jdobbin]

There you go with the assumptions again.

It was a broad statement that you made. I had no idea how far your level of self sufficiency went.

I don't expoect other Canadians to pay for my day care needs. My kids don't suffer by having a parent home with them, the opposite is true. If people choose to give their children to others for the first few years of their lives while those parents choose to earn money, feel free. But don't expect me to pay for it.

And why do public schools have your support?

There are a few people on the right around here who believe that those with kids should pay and no one else.

[fellowtraveller]

And why do public schools have your support?

Come now, you are not so dense that you cannot see public schools as the same as publicly funded, universal daycare.

I already explained this, but public schools create an educated populace, a condition that ultimately benefits every citizen, not just those with young children. Personally, I don't see kids raised in government funded institutions as having any benefit to society as compared to kids raised by their parents.

Having children is voluntary, and it comes with plenty of joy and plenty of responsibility. Neither of those is the role of taxpayers to enjoy or finance. Having kids can have side effects including less money, a smaller house, an older car, a career delayed for a few years. None of those are obigatory and few of those situations require the involvement of taxpayers. It is a personal choice.

There are exceptions, as there alwas are, but in general there is no compelling reason to finance lifetsyles through universal access to daycare.

[jdobbin]

Come now, you are not so dense that you cannot see public schools as the same as publicly funded, universal daycare.

Given your explanation, no.

Are you capable of replying without additional commentary directed at the person?

I already explained this, but public schools create an educated populace, a condition that ultimately benefits every citizen, not just those with young children. Personally, I don't see kids raised in government funded institutions as having any benefit to society as compared to kids raised by their parents.

You don't see any benefit at all? Seems to me one of the benefits is that parents can phase themselves into work again or use the program for the difficult before and after times around work when a parent is commuting to and from work. Seems to me that one benefit would be to ensure that a single parent can work and not go on welfare.

Are these not benefits to all of society?

Having children is voluntary, and it comes with plenty of joy and plenty of responsibility. Neither of those is the role of taxpayers to enjoy or finance. Having kids can have side effects including less money, a smaller house, an older car, a career delayed for a few years. None of those are obigatory and few of those situations require the involvement of taxpayers. It is a personal choice.

Then once again, this argument can be made in regards to public schools.

There are exceptions, as there alwas are, but in general there is no compelling reason to finance lifetsyles through universal access to daycare.

Or schools for some people.

[fellowtraveller]

You don't see any benefit at all? Seems to me one of the benefits is that parents can phase themselves into work again or use the program for the difficult before and after times around work when a parent is commuting to and from work. Seems to me that one benefit would be to ensure that a single parent can work and not go on welfare.

Are these not benefits to all of society?

The first example is a benefit to the family, but we as a society are not obliged to provide financial benefits to one segment while other pay for it with no demonstrable benefit to society overall. I agree that in some cases having a single parent avoiding welfare is of potential benefit to all of us, mainly where there is an expectation that employment will eventually lead to less reliance on social services. There is njo need to rehash all that though, I have mentioned in previous posts that there are legitimate exceptions. needing before and after school chilkd care is not one of them for middle class people.

Same for training of the unemployable, I have no objection at all to a hand up for those in circunmstances outside their control.

But most people do control their reproductive choices and should be obliged to accept responsibility for those choices, inclduing budgetting for the care of the children if both parents choose to return to work..

Then once again, this argument can be made in regards to public schools.

So what? The facts are different. The argument for public funding of public schools is better grounded than public funding of universal child care. Different siutuations, different facts, different results.

[Argus]

The first example is a benefit to the family, but we as a society are not obliged to provide financial benefits to one segment while other pay for it with no demonstrable benefit to society overall.

You don't consider a continuation of that society to be a benefit? We are clearly not reproducing ourselves. That leaves fewer and fewer Canadians to carry on this society of which you are a part. Ultimately, we will have to import foreigners so that there is someone around to push your wheelchair in the old folks home. In fact, that's what we've BEEN doing the last twenty years.

But replacing our populace with someone else's people because our economic system discourages our people from having children is absurd. We need to adjust our economic realities so that economics is less of a deterrence to people having children.

[jdobbin]

The first example is a benefit to the family, but we as a society are not obliged to provide financial benefits to one segment while other pay for it with no demonstrable benefit to society overall. I agree that in some cases having a single parent avoiding welfare is of potential benefit to all of us, mainly where there is an expectation that employment will eventually lead to less reliance on social services. There is njo need to rehash all that though, I have mentioned in previous posts that there are legitimate exceptions. needing before and after school chilkd care is not one of them for middle class people.

Your view of what is legitimate is fairly narrow. Open to supporting your kids in school but not for kids before school age.

Same for training of the unemployable, I have no objection at all to a hand up for those in circunmstances outside their control.

But most people do control their reproductive choices and should be obliged to accept responsibility for those choices, inclduing budgetting for the care of the children if both parents choose to return to work..

The same could be said of you in regards to your choice of having kids. Pay for their schooling yourself some would say.

So what? The facts are different. The argument for public funding of public schools is better grounded than public funding of universal child care. Different siutuations, different facts, different results.

The facts are not different. If you don't have children or your children have grown up, the same arguments are made about supporting someone else's decision.

Edited September 24, 2009 by jdobbin