Smallc Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 It's more than a little pathetic to see the lick-spittle grovelling of liberals on this board on an issue where Trudeau is clearly being both hypocritical, and helping himself to taxpayer money without justification. Some of them sound like whatever Trudeau wants, whatever perks he decides on, is fine with them. It's like they're so in awe of his smiley face and pretty hair they don't care what he does or says. I defended the same type of things for Harper. The complaints are petty and come from the partisanship of the people making them - that or jealousy and loathing. Quote
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25332-trudeau-childrens-nannies-being-paid-for-by-taxpayers/?p=1121350 Who leaves their kids with a housekeeper, untrained and unscreened for child care? Nobody. . Who hires a housekeeper out of the blue without references? And what paranoid worries about leaving the kids with the housekeeper now and then after they've known them a while? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 So he didn't have her paid for by taxpayers. I'm not complaining when Trudeau flies his wife and kids around on our dime either. I'm complaining that he's taking two of his servants and putting them on the public dime because his wife is too lazy and self-indulgent to look after them herself. Too busy working for the taxpayer for free, you mean. Are you one of the 'experts' commenting on child care when you've never done it full time? Because you don't have a right to an opinion on this if you haven't done it, IMO. Quote
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I defended the same type of things for Harper. The complaints are petty and come from the partisanship of the people making them - that or jealousy and loathing. No, they come from not being an adoring fanboy who cries tears of joy at the sight of Trudeau's smiles. There is no justification whatsoever for us picking up the tab for a rich boy's servants just because he's got elected. And it's particularly obnoxiously hypocritical for this guy to pompously declare that rich guys like him don't need government help raising their kids then stick us with the bill for his. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Too busy working for the taxpayer for free, you mean. She does ZERO work for the taxpayer. She has ZERO responsibilities to us. She can spend the next four years soaking up the sun on the Rivera and it will not affect us in the slightest. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Who hires a housekeeper out of the blue without references? And what paranoid worries about leaving the kids with the housekeeper now and then after they've known them a while? Who hires someone with housekeeper skills to do child care? Housekeepers' jobs are housekeeping. Your lack of knowledge of child care is showing. . Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 The King and Queen of Canada need servants. Like a Parliamentary Page, working as maids, footmen, butlers, etc, for the Royals should be viewed as an opportunity for those lucky ones involved. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Boges Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Too busy working for the taxpayer for free, you mean. Still haven't provided any evidence that she has any job description whatsoever. Quote
Wilber Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 There is no justification whatsoever for us picking up the tab for a rich boy's servants just because he's got elected. And it's particularly obnoxiously hypocritical for this guy to pompously declare that rich guys like him don't need government help raising their kids then stick us with the bill for his. I think this is a dumb move on his part. It will dog him for the next four years. Any time he spouts off about the 1%, this will get thrown back in his face. Not worth the grief. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Who hires someone with housekeeper skills to do child care? Housekeepers' jobs are housekeeping. Your lack of knowledge of child care is showing. . Your statements are inane and laughable in their frantic attempt to justify Trudeau's gouging of the taxpayer on behalf of his servants. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I bet you would have had a problem if the prime minister was named Harper. You lost your bet. Harper's children were older and they each had their "nannies" - they are called RCMP. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
overthere Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I think this is a dumb move on his part. It will dog him for the next four years. Any time he spouts off about the 1%, this will get thrown back in his face. Not worth the grief. Yep, which is why he will backtrack and find a way to pay for it himself that saves face. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 You lost your bet. Harper's children were older and they each had their "nannies" - they are called RCMP. No one begrudges the necessity of drivers for the PM and his kids, or the servants to look after the house they are assigned to live in or the security which surrounds them. Picking up the tab for rich boy Trudeau's servants because his wife doesn't feel like looking after the kids is another thing entirely. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
overthere Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 You lost your bet. Harper's children were older and they each had their "nannies" - they are called RCMP. They were not older when Harper took office as PM, a verifiable fact. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 I think this is a dumb move on his part. It will dog him for the next four years. Any time he spouts off about the 1%, this will get thrown back in his face. Not worth the grief. It's partisan bs. Mulroney had nannies paid for by government. He just lied about it and called them maids. . Quote
Keepitsimple Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 It's not a question of whether it's permitted within the rules. It's about braying that "rich people like Mr. Harper and myself" don't need the money for childcare. It's about using that as part of a narrative where "the rich" pay a little more so the middle class can keep more in their pockets. It's about hypocricy. Is it a big thing? On it's own, no.....but don't forget how the cumulative narrative on Harper was built - secretive and controlling. The foundation of a narrative on Trudeau (by critics) starts with arrogance, privileged, reckless. His team should be working hard to avoid giving fodder to those traits. In that context, it's a substantial faux-pas. Our Liberal supporters can't seem to understand that they won the election. It's now OK to point out some mistakes or miss-steps that might be taken by our new Prime Minister. It's OK guys - he's there for the next 4-5 years......no need to defend his every action. Hopefully, you'll have much more to praise him for. But to think that this was not a mistake is just willful blindness. Quote Back to Basics
dialamah Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 . I'm complaining that he's taking two of his servants and putting them on the public dime because his wife is too lazy and self-indulgent to look after them herself. You mean, the same way Laureen was too lazy and self-indulgent to cook and clean for her family - like a good wife and mother ought to? And she still expected the other household staff to take care of the kids ... and not be paid for it. "In 2006, Harper was sued for wrongful dismissal by his former chef, who claimed the prime minister never paid him for additional duties that included babysitting, washing the family car and burying one of Harper’s pet cats." http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/whats-it-pay-to-be-stephen-harpers-chef-or-housekeeper Quote
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) It's partisan bs. Mulroney had nannies paid for by government. He just lied about it and called them maids. . He had a housekeeper in Stornaway. There is no evidence he hired anyone once he got elected PM and moved to 24 Sussex. Edited December 2, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 No one begrudges the necessity of drivers for the PM and his kids, or the servants to look after the house they are assigned to live in or the security which surrounds them. Picking up the tab for rich boy Trudeau's servants because his wife doesn't feel like looking after the kids is another thing entirely. That sort of seditious talk will get you in hot water with the Royal Family. Do we have an equivalent of the Tower of London? You'll be seeing the inside before long. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 You mean, the same way Laureen was too lazy and self-indulgent to cook and clean for her family - like a good wife and mother ought to? And she still expected the other household staff to take care of the kids ... and not be paid for it. What a ludicrous comparison! The chef comes with the house because the occupant will be hosting important visitors on occasion. No one begrudges that. Bringing your servants in and then putting them on the public dole because your wife couldn't be bothered to look after your kids is something else again. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Still haven't provided any evidence that she has any job description whatsoever. Dates back to the dinosaur era when women were just expected to work for free.Maybe it's time to update the job description and fund it like most countries do. And pay for her child care while she's working. And pay for Justin's half of the child care responsibilities too, since he's required to work overtime. . Edited December 2, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Dates back to the dinosaur era when women were just expected to work for free. Maybe it's time to update the job description and fund it like most countries do. What other countries pay for the spouse of their leader? Would these be the same countries which are filled with corruption, and the ruling class steals whatever they want? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Boges Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Dates back to the dinosaur era when women were just expected to work for free. Maybe it's time to update the job description and fund it like most countries do. And pay for her child care while she's working. And pay for Justin's half of the child care responsibilities too, since he's required to work overtime. . So no then. The government of Canada doesn't require her to do anything. Quote
dialamah Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 It's not a question of whether it's permitted within the rules. It's about braying that "rich people like Mr. Harper and myself" don't need the money for childcare. It's about using that as part of a narrative where "the rich" pay a little more so the middle class can keep more in their pockets. It's about hypocricy. Is it a big thing? On it's own, no.....but don't forget how the cumulative narrative on Harper was built - secretive and controlling. The foundation of a narrative on Trudeau (by critics) starts with arrogance, privileged, reckless. His team should be working hard to avoid giving fodder to those traits. In that context, it's a substantial faux-pas. Our Liberal supporters can't seem to understand that they won the election. It's now OK to point out some mistakes or miss-steps that might be taken by our new Prime Minister. It's OK guys - he's there for the next 4-5 years......no need to defend his every action. Hopefully, you'll have much more to praise him for. But to think that this was not a mistake is just willful blindness. Just saying, I do kind of agree with this. I'm not against paying for the PM's nannies as part of the job - whether Conservative or Liberal, but agree that the optics on this particular PM are a little bit off because of his campaign - and especially if other PMs with young children did not employ nannies or other child-care help. On the other hand, it has occurred to me that Trudeau also campaigned on openness and transparency. For all we know, the previous administration had nanny care hidden among other household costs and we only have the chance to criticize JT because he's not hiding it. Quote
The_Squid Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 You mean, the same way Laureen was too lazy and self-indulgent to cook and clean for her family - like a good wife and mother ought to? And she still expected the other household staff to take care of the kids ... and not be paid for it. "In 2006, Harper was sued for wrongful dismissal by his former chef, who claimed the prime minister never paid him for additional duties that included babysitting, washing the family car and burying one of Harper’s pet cats." http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/whats-it-pay-to-be-stephen-harpers-chef-or-housekeeper So the Harper's did have a paid nanny... they just called him "chef". Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.