Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau

Argus · May 17, 2016

How much of that would be the child care subsidy Harper legislated for himself while his wife did it for free?

.

Are you saying you're against universal programs?

And by the way, doesn't dear Sophie get the same cheques while having government paid nannies take care of her kids for her?

Edited May 17, 2016 by Argus

waldo · May 17, 2016

And by the way, doesn't dear Sophie get the same cheques while having government paid nannies take care of her kids for her?

and by the way, Justin Trudeau won’t accept his family’s child-care benefit --- Liberal leader will instead donate it to La Maison Bleue, a group that helps vulnerable women during pregnancy

.

cybercoma · May 17, 2016

They weren't whining about it and demanding more money from the taxpayer.

Whining and demanding :rolleyes:

jacee · May 17, 2016

Are you saying you're against universal programs?

Do wealthy people really need assistance from the middle class with their child care costs?

And by the way, doesn't dear Sophie get the same cheques while having government paid nannies take care of her kids for her?

No.

Her husband cut off those benefits for wealthy people like himself. (Try to keep up.)

Harper got those child care cheques though, used his majority to legislate those cheques for himself and his wealthy supporters.

Payback?

Remember the CPC propaganda?

Justin would take away the $160-per-month benefit from hard-working Canadian families ... Justin doesnt think its fair to help every family.

"Every family" ... like Stephen Harper's family! Lol

(Bet you're sorry you didn't do your homework on that, Argus! Lol)

.

Edited May 17, 2016 by jacee

jacee · May 17, 2016

and by the way, Justin Trudeau wont accept his familys child-care benefit --- Liberal leader will instead donate it to La Maison Bleue, a group that helps vulnerable women during pregnancy

.

Yes ... and that was before he got elected and cancelled it for himself and other wealthy people ... like Harper.

.

Smallc · May 17, 2016

Yes ... and that was before he got elected and cancelled it for himself and other wealthy people ... like Harper.

.

You're mistaken - everyone still gets it, and will continue to until June.

WestCanMan · May 17, 2016

Trudeau said rich people didn't need the government child care subsidy cheque.

Right. And then he went and eliminated it for everyone else in his income bracket at the same time as he started taking even more than anyone else ever had. Get it?

Harper never suggested rich people like him didn't need the child care subsidy. He just took it! ...

And so you're admitting that he isn't a hypocrite. That must have been tough for you.

TBH when rich people get a child care subsidy in a lot of cases it's beneficial for the country. Say a couple of doctors get it. Now the wife goes back to practicing medicine earlier (bonus) and they create a job for someone else (bonus).

It's not beneficial when someone is going to be at home with no job anyways, and now they just get to spend more time doing their hobbies. Like public speaking engagements, playing candy crush saga, etc.

We all know that Trudeau became a wealthy man via family.

How did Harper BECOME a multimillionaire while in elected office?

It helps when you can legislate yourself an extra monthly cheque!

IIRC the Cons reduced their pensions while in office and Trudeau raised the pay scale.

jacee · May 17, 2016

You're mistaken - everyone still gets it, and will continue to until June.

Oops! You're right. Technical lag there. Lol

Harper is still getting his child care subsidy.

.

Edited May 17, 2016 by jacee

jacee · May 17, 2016

Right. And then he went and eliminated it for everyone else in his income bracket at the same time as he started taking even more than anyone else ever had.

Harper had the child care subsidy, never needed it but didn't donate it to anyone else either, had the same perks as Justin but lied and pretended he didn't have any household staff trained as nannies.

Left his kids with the house cleaners, he claimed. Lol

.

capricorn · May 17, 2016

Harper is still getting his child care subsidy.

.

I could be wrong, but wouldn't the Harper children be too old to qualify for child care benefits?

BubberMiley · May 17, 2016

Canadian politics has really come down to "my guy is better than yours because he says his kids never had a nanny"?

Smallc · May 17, 2016

I could be wrong, but wouldn't the Harper children be too old to qualify for child care benefits?

The Conservatives extended it last year so that it was $160 per child for children 6 and under, and $60 for children 7 - 17.

Big Guy · May 17, 2016

The Star may have it right:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-staff-1.3581071

Argus · May 17, 2016

and by the way, Justin Trudeau won’t accept his family’s child-care benefit --- Liberal leader will instead donate it to La Maison Bleue, a group that helps vulnerable women during pregnancy

.

How generous! Of course, with his trust fund and his enormous salary, not to mention a free house, car and food, he hardly needs it. Hey, why not put it towards hiring extra help for his fashionable wife to do more fashionable things?

Argus · May 17, 2016

The Star may have it right:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-staff-1.3581071

I have nothing against rich, pretty people. What I oppose is using taxpayer money to help the rich, pretty people enjoy themselves more.

cybercoma · May 17, 2016

Canadian politics has really come down to "my guy is better than yours because he says his kids never had a nanny"?

Think about how good we have it, if the biggest arguments are about nannies.

jacee · May 17, 2016

I have nothing against rich, pretty people. What I oppose is using taxpayer money to help the rich, pretty people enjoy themselves more.

You didn't object to Harper's

child care cheques,

nanny staff,

Laureen's assistant.

Now it's suddenly a problem?

You really get het up with partisan bile, Argus.

Sauce-goose-gander ... you know. ?

Or maybe ... hold the sauce?

.

Edited May 17, 2016 by jacee

cybercoma · May 18, 2016

Conservative bloggers didn't tell him he's supposed to be upset about that, so he wasn't.

poochy · May 18, 2016

You didn't object to Harper's

child care cheques,

nanny staff,

Laureen's assistant.

Now it's suddenly a problem?

You really get het up with partisan bile, Argus.

Sauce-goose-gander ... you know.

Or maybe ... hold the sauce?

.

You forgot the part where Sophie already has all of that, and wants more so she can be the celebrity she's always dreamed about. Never honest.

Smallc · May 18, 2016

You forgot the part where Sophie already has all of that, and wants more so she can be the celebrity she's always dreamed about. Never honest.

Mind reading ability may vary.

jacee · May 18, 2016

You forgot the part where Sophie already has all of that, and wants more so she can be the celebrity she's always dreamed about.

There seems to be plenty of demand for her 'celebrity' presence.

However she'll learn to pick and choose what she can and can't do.

.

DogOnPorch · May 18, 2016

There seems to be plenty of demand for her 'celebrity' presence.

However she'll learn to pick and choose what she can and can't do.

.

Seems being zee key word.

waldo · May 18, 2016

Seems being zee key word.

that's fair... you want to see particulars of that demand, those requests. Good on ya for laying down the foundation of your acceptance of the need. Oh wait now, that's already been given, to varying degrees, through an assortment of thread posts and related reference citation. So you're 'good to go' then, right? Good on ya!

.

DogOnPorch · May 18, 2016

that's fair... you want to see particulars of that demand, those requests. Good on ya for laying down the foundation of your acceptance of the need. Oh wait now, that's already been given, to varying degrees, through an assortment of thread posts and related reference citation. So you're 'good to go' then, right? Good on ya!

.

I want my nannies, too. Lead by example, I say.