Liberal universal child care plan

[Bonam]

It would be valuable if both sides were to provide proof. But the fact is that the economic conditions make one parent staying at home very difficult in many areas, so the arguments against have a potentially large impact on a rather large group of families. As dangerous as setting policy based on no evidence is making policy based on some sort of optimal and ultimately unachievable situation.

Beyond that, the whole thing is a load of bull anyways. The Liberals have promised this so many times now that even if I sat firmly in the pro-daycare camp, I wouldn't see any reason to believe it. But what makes me uncomfortable is that the Tories and their social conservative supporters want to use this as part of some sort of social engineering-oriented benefits system. I would prefer that if one side or another be chosen, that something other than prejudices, naivete and nostalgia were at play.

But the reality is, whether you, I, or anyone else likes or dislikes it, there are a significant number of parents placing their children in daycare and a significant number who want help from the government. Whether it's right for them to have their hand out, they are also voters, and clearly the Liberals have mined that vein... several times in fact.

If we are back to the economic argument, then I see no reason that taxes, which are collected from all families including those that choose to make the financial sacrifice to have one parent stay at home, should be used to finance daycare for other families that choose to have two working parents. That is where the social engineering would be, using financial incentives to increasingly encourage parents to give over the raising of their children to the state.

If it's a matter of voters, there are plenty of people like Scotty, who would oppose such a plan.

On the other point, I agree with you, Ignatieff's promises are pretty much meaningless, mainly because his chances of becoming PM are almost nil.

In any case, I much prefer the conservative approach. Give the money to parents directly, and let them decide. Some parents may choose to use the money to help pay for daycare, others to help to be able to afford to have one parent remain at home. There is no reason that this decision should be made for everyone by the government, especially since, as you argue, there is insufficient evidence to base such a decision on.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

The belief in the superiority of parents as caregivers is pretty universally accepted in our culture (and all other cultures). As such, I feel no particular need to defend it, especially in the complete absence of evidence to contradict it.

Perhaps not, but widely held beliefs can't be successfully challenged without evidence and a reasonably coherent theory against them, neither of which have been presented.

How about providing some proof that "the superiority of parents as caregivers is pretty universally accepted in our culture and all other cultures?" That it's a "widely held belief?" Because I know plenty of people who don't think that children of stay at home parents have a superior situation to children of parents who both work and therefore spend some of their time with a caregiver.

As I said earlier, there are two sides to the issue with lots of gray in between -- and positives and negatives with each scenario.

[Scotty]

How about providing some proof that "the superiority of parents as caregivers is pretty universally accepted in our culture and all other cultures?" That it's a "widely held belief?" Because I know plenty of people who don't think that children of stay at home parents have a superior situation to children of parents who both work and therefore spend some of their time with a caregiver.

Yes, I know some people I make jokes about too.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, I know some people I make jokes about too.

I'm sure you do, and it says a lot about you. And way to avoid the request for confirmation of your claims..... I take it you have nothing to back it up.

Edited April 1, 2011 by American Woman

[guyser]

As I said earlier, there are two sides to the issue with lots of gray in between -- and positives and negatives with each scenario.

I would bet there is more grey than black or white .

Some kids thrive outside the house, some dont.(black and white)

Most probably do just fine (grey)

Some may do a bit better at home, some may do a bit better outside.(grey)

[Guest American Woman]

I would bet there is more grey than black or white .

Some kids thrive outside the house, some dont.(black and white)

Most probably do just fine (grey)

Some may do a bit better at home, some may do a bit better outside.(grey)

I totally agree.

[Scotty]

I'm sure you do, and it says a lot about you. And way to avoid the request for confirmation of your claims..... I take it you have nothing to back it up.

I don't feel an obligation to prove to you that water is wet. Not even as an intellectual exercise. The fact that children do better under their parents care than in an institution setting populated by constantly rotating strangers is so self-evident I can't but wonder how anyone sane would even question it.

Certainly I don't regard the question with sufficient respect to bother researching citations about it. If people want to worship snails or postulate that Ramadama the space alien watches over us, or that children should be in institutions where they'll be happy, well, they can feel free to do so.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

I would bet there is more grey than black or white .

Some kids thrive outside the house, some dont.(black and white)

Most probably do just fine (grey)

Some may do a bit better at home, some may do a bit better outside.(grey)

Let me ask you a question then: Should we do away with foster homes and put children without parents into orphanages the way it was done in years past?

For it seems that the powers that be, those in charge of looking after children, are under the impression that even a shallow version of a homelife with parents is better than an institution. Apparently some feel they're mistaken.

[ToadBrother]

I don't feel an obligation to prove to you that water is wet.

Your claim is hardly on that level.

Not even as an intellectual exercise. The fact that children do better under their parents care than in an institution setting populated by constantly rotating strangers is so self-evident I can't but wonder how anyone sane would even question it.

And you have the... um... what was it that you were basing your claim on again?

Certainly I don't regard the question with sufficient respect to bother researching citations about it. If people want to worship snails or postulate that Ramadama the space alien watches over us, or that children should be in institutions where they'll be happy, well, they can feel free to do so.

Which seems to roughly translate to "don't burst my bbubble."

[kimmy]

It's funny how everyone points to the Gun Registry, which was undoubtedly a mess, but it's not fair to infer that every government program will end up a disaster. Whereas I can't even tell you what problem was addressed by the Long-gun Registry, the daycare program actually addresses a problem.

I'm not inferring that every government program will end up a disaster. I'm just pointing out that there's a large potential to waste a catastrophic amount of money for little benefit if this is not done very carefully.

You could put mothers through a needs test, but there's no point in having mothers that are on weflare go through an additional needs test after already having one. Personally, I would rather have the program available for anyone that wanted to use it. I'm sure the situatino of those looking for a double-income would happen, but I'm equally sure that most people who can afford and have the supports to raise their own kids would do so. There's no point scrapping an entire program that can do a world of good solving a pretty significant problem because a handful of people may or may not take advantage of it. Either way, the "abusers" would be paying into the system with their taxes just the same. So would they really be "abusing" the system?

Those looking for a double income "could happen"? They likely already constitute the majority of parents with children in formal daycare environments. They'll likely continue to do so, at a discount subsidized by you and me, in the future.

I don't believe struggling single parents are prime customers for organized daycare programs. The struggling single parents I know make things work by relying on the assistance of family and friends, because they really can't afford daycare right now. That's why I'd like to see means-testing. There are people who really could use help. I'd like to make sure they're the ones my money is actually helping.

If I'm helping parents who need a daycare subsidy so they can earn enough to make a life, I'm ok with it.

If I'm helping parents who need a daycare subsidy so that they can free up a few hundred bucks a month to outbid me for the home I'm trying to buy, I'm much less happy about it. If couples want to buy bigger cars or bigger homes or retire at 50 instead of 60, that's awesome for them, but I don't see why my money should be used to subsidize that sort of selfish objective.

Do you think there should be a needs assessment component to public schooling?

No. Why do you think that has any relationship to daycare?

-k

[guyser]

Let me ask you a question then: Should we do away with foster homes and put children without parents into orphanages the way it was done in years past?

No.

For it seems that the powers that be, those in charge of looking after children, are under the impression that even a shallow version of a homelife with parents is better than an institution. Apparently some feel they're mistaken.

No, but you are free to attempt to equate the two. Good luck with that.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't feel an obligation to prove to you that water is wet.

Good. Because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing to do with your claim.

Not even as an intellectual exercise. The fact that children do better under their parents care than in an institution setting populated by constantly rotating strangers is so self-evident I can't but wonder how anyone sane would even question it.

Whether or not you can understand something or not doesn't determine whether it's a fact or not.

Certainly I don't regard the question with sufficient respect to bother researching citations about it.

I can understand why you'd take that position. There is no proof. You made your claim up based on what you think; what you can or cannot understand.

If people want to worship snails or postulate that Ramadama the space alien watches over us, or that children should be in institutions where they'll be happy, well, they can feel free to do so.

Clearly you don't understand. Quite a few things.

[betsy]

<groan>

taxes....taxes....more taxes....

[NSLiberal]

<groan>

taxes....taxes....more taxes....

Yeah, I hate paved roads, Firemen and ambulance drivers too.

[Alta4ever]

Yeah, I hate paved roads, Firemen and ambulance drivers too.

Oh so you support the Conservative tax credit proposal for volunteer firefights that was in the 2011 budget document......

[kimmy]

Yeah, I hate paved roads, Firemen and ambulance drivers too.

Roads... firemen... ambulance drivers... subsidized childcare... As Bert and Ernie would say, one of these things is not like the others.

-k

[bloodyminded]

There's a big difference, BM, and if you don't see it, then you are willfully blind.

IMHO, there are two issues here: First, to what extent should the State take care of our children and second, who should pay for the raising of children.

No, I understand the argument. What I don't care for is the (whether ignorant or wilfully misleading) rhetoric that is used when discussing "The State."

Or should I write "THE STATE."

My point was that, whether you personally hire someone to take care of your children, or if it is a publically-funded option, there is no clear distinction in what is happening to the child.

There is not some Stalinist entity called THE STATE--cold, impersonal, inhuman--that indoctrinates your children into worshipping the govenrment, or becoming a tree-hugger and supporting the NDP, or that is taking child-rearing choices away from parents.

There are issues to be debated, certainly. The implied one, which yes, is very much present every time THE STATE is invoked in scary tones, is not one of them.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I literally felt my skin crawling in disgust as I read this post. Wtf happened to parents actually raising their own children? It is not all about the goddamn freaking workforce or "insurance benefits". Holy crap. What a brainwashed socialist-materialist attitude is this?

That's a ridiculous response. "Brainwashed socialist-materialist," indeed.

[bloodyminded]

I don't feel an obligation to prove to you that water is wet. Not even as an intellectual exercise. The fact that children do better under their parents care than in an institution setting populated by constantly rotating strangers is so self-evident I can't but wonder how anyone sane would even question it.

But the so-called "conservative argument" isn't about child-rearing; that's just a selective and convenient talking point.

What keeps coming up more and more is the idea that "with tax breaks, parents can hire their own child-care workers or babysitters."

So there is no practical and substantive difference here, not in terms of child-rearing; the child is still being cared for by someone else.

Sure, they might not have the scary word "government" or "state" hanging like a Communist sickle over their heads...but it makes zero practical difference.

Kimmy has made the single cogent argument....and she isn't even stating declaratively that it shouldn't be done, only that it be done carefully so as not to subsidize those who don't need it.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bloodyminded