Parents will blow childcare cash on beer & popcorn

[Montgomery Burns]

Canadian Press

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Liberals scrambled Sunday to control the damage from their first serious gaffe of the election campaign...

First serious gaffe of the election campaign? Thank God for our "fair and balanced" Canadian Press. They are often good for a chuckle.

When a reporter asked PMPM if it was a Christmas wreath or a holiday wreath (Martin was buying a wreath), there was an uncomfortable silence before PMPM blurted out, "It's a $240 wreath." How embarrassing that a 67 y/o Christian man was too PC to say "Christmas wreath". But not a serious gaffe.

And Paul 'Mr Enviroment' Martin calling on the US to have a "global conscience" regarding Kyoto--when Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have risen 24.4% since the 90s (compared to 13% for the US) is not a serious gaffe. After all, he attacked the US, which--in Liberal Land--is a good thing! Yay PMPM.

I won't even bring up the fact that the Martin campaign jet--a Boeing 727--consumes 1289 gallons of fuel per hour, whilst the Harper campaign jet--an Airbus A320--consumes only 767 gallons per hour. Oops. I just did bring it up.

...after a top aide to Paul Martin suggested Canadian parents could blow any extra child-care money they get from Ottawa on beer and popcorn.

Scott Reid, the prime minister's director of communications, quickly apologized for his televised comments, while his boss hastened to explain that he doesn't share the view that families can't be trusted to decide what's best for their children.

[...]

By then the problem had been compounded by John Duffy, another Martin adviser, who went Reid one better by suggesting parents could take the child care allowances promised by Harper and use them help pay for beer, popcorn or a new car.

Got that? Canadians are too stupid to be trusted with their own money. They cannot be trusted to decide on their choice of childcare; they will "blow" it on beer, popcorn, or a new car.

The state needs to take our money, spend it for us, and have liberal elitists guide us dumb Canadians towards govt-run unionized daycare. Canadian parents cannot be trusted. Trust the Liberal Party; they have earned our trust, haven't they?

Reid also said "there were no controls towards what that money [CPC annual $1200 towards childcare for families] goes towards."

Got that? There are no controls on how you spend YOUR OWN damn money! :angry:

I would link to John Duffy's remarks, but the "fair and balanced" CTV has already yanked the Question Period video from their website.

[Montgomery Burns]

Too bad CTV, but I found the video to Duffy's remarks on Question Period and Reid's remarks on our state-run taxpayer-funded CBC.

[Kliege]

Its typical Liberal double-speak. They say and do whatever they want and the voters of Ontario will eat it up and ask for more.

[sharkman]

You know all you have to do with the Liberals is wait. They can't help but let their arrogant power corrupted attitudes get the better of them and step into all kinds of trouble.

[Guest eureka]

You people are amusing. This is what your political persuasion says that welfare recipients will do if they were to be given enough money to sustain them.

[Canuck E Stan]

Eureka,

Like one of your Liberal talking heads you like to make up statements that have no basis.

What happened to your supporting the NDP after all these months that makes you a die hard Liberal all of a sudden?

[lovecanada]

Canadian Press

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Liberals scrambled Sunday to control the damage from their first serious gaffe of the election campaign...

First serious gaffe of the election campaign? Thank God for our "fair and balanced" Canadian Press. They are often good for a chuckle.

When a reporter asked PMPM if it was a Christmas wreath or a holiday wreath (Martin was buying a wreath), there was an uncomfortable silence before PMPM blurted out, "It's a $240 wreath." How embarrassing that a 67 y/o Christian man was too PC to say "Christmas wreath". But not a serious gaffe.

And Paul 'Mr Enviroment' Martin calling on the US to have a "global conscience" regarding Kyoto--when Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have risen 24.4% since the 90s (compared to 13% for the US) is not a serious gaffe. After all, he attacked the US, which--in Liberal Land--is a good thing! Yay PMPM.

I won't even bring up the fact that the Martin campaign jet--a Boeing 727--consumes 1289 gallons of fuel per hour, whilst the Harper campaign jet--an Airbus A320--consumes only 767 gallons per hour. Oops. I just did bring it up.

...after a top aide to Paul Martin suggested Canadian parents could blow any extra child-care money they get from Ottawa on beer and popcorn.

Scott Reid, the prime minister's director of communications, quickly apologized for his televised comments, while his boss hastened to explain that he doesn't share the view that families can't be trusted to decide what's best for their children.

[...]

By then the problem had been compounded by John Duffy, another Martin adviser, who went Reid one better by suggesting parents could take the child care allowances promised by Harper and use them help pay for beer, popcorn or a new car.

Got that? Canadians are too stupid to be trusted with their own money. They cannot be trusted to decide on their choice of childcare; they will "blow" it on beer, popcorn, or a new car.

The state needs to take our money, spend it for us, and have liberal elitists guide us dumb Canadians towards govt-run unionized daycare. Canadian parents cannot be trusted. Trust the Liberal Party; they have earned our trust, haven't they?

Reid also said "there were no controls towards what that money [CPC annual $1200 towards childcare for families] goes towards."

Got that? There are no controls on how you spend YOUR OWN damn money! :angry:

I would link to John Duffy's remarks, but the "fair and balanced" CTV has already yanked the Question Period video from their website.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is going to seriously tick off parents!! Is foot in mouth disease contagious? Reid said it and Duffy supported it? Unbelievable arrogance!

[justcrowing]

Canadian Press

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Liberals scrambled Sunday to control the damage from their first serious gaffe of the election campaign...

First serious gaffe of the election campaign? Thank God for our "fair and balanced" Canadian Press. They are often good for a chuckle.

When a reporter asked PMPM if it was a Christmas wreath or a holiday wreath (Martin was buying a wreath), there was an uncomfortable silence before PMPM blurted out, "It's a $240 wreath." How embarrassing that a 67 y/o Christian man was too PC to say "Christmas wreath". But not a serious gaffe.

And Paul 'Mr Enviroment' Martin calling on the US to have a "global conscience" regarding Kyoto--when Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have risen 24.4% since the 90s (compared to 13% for the US) is not a serious gaffe. After all, he attacked the US, which--in Liberal Land--is a good thing! Yay PMPM.

I won't even bring up the fact that the Martin campaign jet--a Boeing 727--consumes 1289 gallons of fuel per hour, whilst the Harper campaign jet--an Airbus A320--consumes only 767 gallons per hour. Oops. I just did bring it up.

...after a top aide to Paul Martin suggested Canadian parents could blow any extra child-care money they get from Ottawa on beer and popcorn.

Scott Reid, the prime minister's director of communications, quickly apologized for his televised comments, while his boss hastened to explain that he doesn't share the view that families can't be trusted to decide what's best for their children.

[...]

By then the problem had been compounded by John Duffy, another Martin adviser, who went Reid one better by suggesting parents could take the child care allowances promised by Harper and use them help pay for beer, popcorn or a new car.

Got that? Canadians are too stupid to be trusted with their own money. They cannot be trusted to decide on their choice of childcare; they will "blow" it on beer, popcorn, or a new car.

The state needs to take our money, spend it for us, and have liberal elitists guide us dumb Canadians towards govt-run unionized daycare. Canadian parents cannot be trusted. Trust the Liberal Party; they have earned our trust, haven't they?

Reid also said "there were no controls towards what that money [CPC annual $1200 towards childcare for families] goes towards."

Got that? There are no controls on how you spend YOUR OWN damn money! :angry:

I would link to John Duffy's remarks, but the "fair and balanced" CTV has already yanked the Question Period video from their website.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is going to seriously tick off parents!! Is foot in mouth disease contagious? Reid said it and Duffy supported it? Unbelievable arrogance!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe the Liberals are thinking that if Canadians are stupid enough to re-elect them then they are stupid enough not to know how to spend their own money. Does Martin's stance on childcare not smack of communism?

[lovecanada]

Maybe the Liberals are thinking that if Canadians are stupid enough to re-elect them then they are stupid enough not to know how to spend their own money. Does Martin's stance on childcare not smack of communism?

It smacks of something, let's see, STATE controlled, or UNIVERSAL if you like that word better, daycare...don't we have one black hole called medicare already? At least we need medicare, but universal daycare for 25% of the population? And we parents are told by Reid that we can't be trusted to spend daycare money? Sure, cause we really really TRUST the Liberals to tell us what to do, how to do it, and who to vote for! No thanks, not in my Canada!

[cybercoma]

This is going to seriously tick off parents!! Is foot in mouth disease contagious? Reid said it and Duffy supported it? Unbelievable arrogance!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you mean, this would tick off parents if they find out about it. You don't seriously think the newspapers and televised news are going to jump on this, do you?

[err]

And Paul 'Mr Enviroment' Martin calling on the US to have a "global conscience" regarding Kyoto--when Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have risen 24.4% since the 90s (compared to 13% for the US) is not a serious gaffe.  After all, he attacked the US, which--in Liberal Land--is a good thing!  Yay PMPM. 

And you NEVER hear about the CPC promoting environmental consciousness.... The NDP have a viable plan, the Liberals talk a lot about it, and the CPC... just pick faults with everybody...

...after a top aide to Paul Martin suggested Canadian parents could blow any extra child-care money they get from Ottawa on beer and popcorn.

Check out the thread Mike Harris did Nothing Wrong - Provincial Politics This seems to be a popular theme for Conservatives in the referenced thread. Is this another case of the pot calling the kettle black (and no, let's not diverge into the topic of pot/marijuana)

By then the problem had been compounded by John Duffy, another Martin adviser, who went Reid one better by suggesting parents could take the child care allowances promised by Harper and use them help pay for beer, popcorn or a new car.

Got that? Canadians are too stupid to be trusted with their own money. They cannot be trusted to decide on their choice of childcare; they will "blow" it on beer, popcorn, or a new car.

Again, check out the above referenced thread... I think the Liberals changed the old Conservative line from "Beer and Drugs" to "beer an popcorn"....

The state needs to take our money, spend it for us, and have liberal elitists guide us dumb Canadians towards govt-run unionized daycare. 

Handing out a 20% of the cost of daycare to all parents seems rather foolish. Many of these parents don't need the financial assistance, so why not direct the funds to how they can be best applied to help those most in need. Where are the people most in need going to get the other $6000 or so additional to send their kids to daycare... If this money isn't enough to make a difference in a parent's ability to pay for daycare, then what's the point.... They'll have to spend it on something else.... And so the money won't really be for daycare, will it ????

Montgomery, you're probably too young to remember Brian Mulroney's ploy to get rid of the "family allowance" cheque.... He put commercials on the television showing the wealth woman deciding whether to buy perfume or chocolates with the cheque.... And so that the general public didn't get "ripped off" giving tax money to rich people, he cancelled the family allowance cheque for everybody... including the people who needed it....

Why shouln't this Conservative philosopy apply to the CPC party ????

[August1991]

Check out the thread Mike Harris did Nothing Wrong - Provincial Politics This seems to be a popular theme for Conservatives in the referenced thread.  Is this another case of the pot calling the kettle black (and no, let's not diverge into the topic of pot/marijuana)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err, I see a difference between people on welfare who may be committing fraud and giving money to families with young children. Do you?

----

The real irony here, as Paul Wells has noted, is that the Liberal Party has instituted programmes similar to what Harper has proposed. They are the Canada Child Tax Benefit & National Child Benefit (which get clawed back at incomes above $70,000).

Except, Wells failed to note that the NCB is not available in Quebec because all the money Quebec receives has been put into its day care network, precisely the direction Ken Dryden and the Liberal Party want to go.

[cybercoma]

Where are the people most in need going to get the other $6000 or so additional to send their kids to daycare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Out of YOUR benevolent pockets, not mine.

[cybercoma]

err, I see a difference between people on welfare who may be committing fraud and giving money to families with young children.  Do you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He doesn't at all see the possibility that sometimes people are responsible for "being down on their luck" by not trying to better themselves. Canada is chock full of opportunities for those whom would seek them.

[err]

err, I see a difference between people on welfare who may be committing fraud and giving money to families with young children.  Do you?

Are we to suppose that people on welfare are more likely to commit fraud than the population at large, and therefore, we should not give them money ???

----

The real irony here, as Paul Wells has noted, is that the Liberal Party has instituted programmes similar to what Harper has proposed.  They are the Canada Child Tax Benefit & National Child Benefit (which get clawed back at incomes above $70,000).

The funny thing here is that Harper is acting like a Liberal... and one has to ask why....

First, how is Harper a liberal.... Running around promising money like he's competing with Paul Martin.... against the principles of the CPC....

Why..... Because he knows he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected standing on his social conservative platform, or suggesting we buy aircraft carriers, or promoting hatred agains homosexuals.... So he's acting like a Liberal to try to get elected....

The real irony... He'll be a true Liberal and reneg on all his promises.... then he can get on with his social/moral agenda....

[cybercoma]

how is putting taxpayers dollars back into their hands acting like a liberal?

last time I checked my paystub then read the newspaper, the liberals were taking almost 40% of my income and telling me where it would be best spent.

[Guest eureka]

What this does "smack of" is concern for community and society as opposed to concern for those individuals who may not need the concern: the phony individualism of the CPc that is all about government support for thise who already have money.

[FTA Lawyer]

Currently, my wife and I are just making ends meet. We have a two-year-old and another baby due in February.

Yes, I am a lawyer...but a young self-employed criminal lawyer...and I am currently bringing in $4,000.00 per month (before taxes). I have no benefits and no pension plan. Our family income was slashed in half after our daughter was born because we feel it is far better to raise our own children than to have a daycare worker do it for us.

As it stands, we get totally screwed by the federal government...and would continue to get screwed by the Liberal plan. Stay-at -home parents are worthless in the Liberal's minds. My wife gets $18.00 per month from the Child Tax Benefit cheque...and income tax laws forbid her being paid a "salary" for taking care of our children and running our household.

I will vote Conservative on this issue alone...and I guarantee I would not spend one cent of the $1200 per child on beer or popcorn.

Now I accept that it is our choice to have one parent stay at home, but can anyone, Liberal or otherwise, explain to me why those who choose to seek more family income get a leg up while we just have someone stand on our heads?

FTA.

[cybercoma]

What this does "smack of" is concern for community and society as opposed to concern for those individuals who may not need the concern: the phony individualism of the CPc that is all about government support for thise who already have money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you insist on punishing people who you perceive as having money?

[Montgomery Burns]

What this does "smack of" is concern for community and society as opposed to concern for those individuals who may not need the concern: the phony individualism of the CPc that is all about government support for thise who already have money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you insist on punishing people who you perceive as having money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just got back from a beer and popcorn run...

...and to answer your question: Leftist ideology is about unrelenting class warfare.

[pharmer]

Basically, from reading the above posts, there are two options: money delivered to the pockets of the parents or money for developing facilities and training staff.

Is the conservative plan actually childcare? No. Will it help ALL Canadians access quality Childcare? No. The money, if invested in a Childcare program, can be accessed over and over again by parents. Compare this to the $100/month which can be spent but once, which plan will actually better deliver quality childcare to the parents who need it?

The point being that public money, if invested conscientiously rather than frivolously, can actually work for the public.

Here is a link to a successful, comprehensive model for national childcare:

http://www.norway.org/policy/family/daycare/daycare.htm

[August1991]

As it stands, we get totally screwed by the federal government...and would continue to get screwed by the Liberal plan.  Stay-at -home parents are worthless in the Liberal's minds.  My wife gets $18.00 per month from the Child Tax Benefit cheque...and income tax laws forbid her being paid a "salary" for taking care of our children and running our household.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would be better to hire your wife as a live-in nanny. She would be entitled to CPP and could draw EI. You could declare the costs as child care expenses against your income. She might be entitled to subsidies.

For all I know, some couples have done this.

----

Here is a link to a successful, comprehensive model for national childcare:

http://www.norway.org/policy/family/daycare/daycare.htm

Pharmer, you fail to note that the Norwegian government receives extremely large resource royalties to finance this system.

And you avoid the true question: Should the State encourage parents to send their children to day care or should it be neutral in this decision?

This question is distinct from the other question of taking from rich families to help poor families.

One of the truly frightening aspects to this debate is that if the State takes over child-rearing, people won't have children. Norway, for example, has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. (Chart.)

Women seem to prefer State-provided day care because it appears to offer security. The State is a seductive instrument and its security is illusory.

[pharmer]

And you avoid the true question: Should the State encourage parents to send their children to day care or should it be neutral in this decision?

Answer: The state is providing parents with an option for childcare, options are good.

State-run childcare is not as scary as some people may believe. These programs are not methods of control and conspiracy but are an attempt to promote healthy child development through proper lifestyle (think of long-term health outcomes and preventative medicine) and prepare pre-school children for their continuing education (e.g. importance of diet, exercise, pro-social behaviour...).

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anti-social

Childcare should have its roots in community-based facilities (contrary to Mr Dryden's vision), government can provide the infrastructure to train and develop facilities. The benefits would be a more favourable ratio of childcare-worker/child and provide services that target the specific unmet needs of the community. Access to these facilities and programs can be allocated based on needs (means test).

Here's a study done on a child-based preschool program:

http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/do...orkshop_ANG.pdf

I'm sure you've all read this before: http://www.caw.ca/campaigns&issues/ongoing...amilypolicy.asp

[Montgomery Burns]

Pharmer:

Is the conservative plan actually childcare? No.

Is the CP allowing the individual to do what they want with their own money? Yes.

Will it help ALL Canadians access quality Childcare? No.

Of course it will. It includes ALL Canadians with pre-school children.

The money, if invested in a Childcare program, can be accessed over and over again by parents. Compare this to the $100/month which can be spent but once, which plan will actually better deliver quality childcare to the parents who need it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "once?" You would get $1200 annually for each pre-school child under the Conservative Party plan.

The point being that public money, if invested conscientiously rather than frivolously, can actually work for the public.

Oh brother. I'm not sure about Norway, but that statement will make Canadians laugh. Govt here can't hold a candle to private business.

Unionized govt daycare workers with generous benefits going on strike at the drop of a hat...like Canada needs more of that!

Plus, like August1991 said, there is the social aspect of having the govt raise your child.

Do you really think your child should be subjected to liberal indoctrination? Canadians are already relentlessly indoctrinated by our mainstream media (MSM) in liberalism; anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Christianity, anti-capitalism, pro-UN, etc.

[Argus]

You people are amusing. This is what your political persuasion says that welfare recipients will do if they were to be given enough money to sustain them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think anyone has said that. What they've said is that if you make welfare too attractive too many people will decide to make use of it rather than working at dificult, unpleasant, low paying jobs.