Parents will blow childcare cash on beer & popcorn

[PocketRocket]

I don't see this thread as being so much about day-care costs or needs, as being about the Liberal "popcorn" commenys.

I first heard these last night.

Was not at all impressed.

That an MP would say such a thing is truly vile.

Besides, I prefer nachos with a nice cheese dip

[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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand corrected, they actually made a half-assed issue out of it.

[cybercoma]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does building childcare facilities help all parents? Not at all. Some parents prefer staying at home with their children, should they not benefit? How about those who don't want to put their kids in a Liberal funded "institution" and would much rather hire a childcare worker?

The Liberal plan gives parents ZERO options. Either put your children in the facilities we've allocated money to, or so sorry...too bad for you.

[shoop]

Pharmer,

You are correct, but after adscam that is an *IF* I don't believe the Liberals capable of doing. i.e. investing our money conscientiously.

I agree with cc, why not give parents the option to stay at home with their children?

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Liberal plan gives parents ZERO options. Either put your children in the facilities we've allocated money to, or so sorry...too bad for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[August1991]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is an option that involves the following: I will tax you and use the money to build a house. Now, you have the option of eithering living in the house I have built for you or using your after-tax money to build your own house that you prefer.

That's a strange definition of "option".

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...).

I am not against child-care. I can see the benefits of young children socializing and some parents simply prefer not to stay at home. I think I would prefer that the government transfer money to families with children and then let the families choose how to use the money. Nevertheless, I am not against direct State involvement in child care. In some cases, it may be easier to organize it this way.

All Stephen Harper has proposed is something the federal Liberal Party itself instituted. Give money to parents, focussing if need be on low-income parents.

The Quebec system doesn't do that, and the current proposals of Dryden don't do that.

This issue is one of degree. The Liberals are going too far into nanny-state territory. I don't think they are doing this because of ideology. Dryden got mixed up with many federal and provincial bureaucrats and it appeared to him this is what people wanted. Women, in particular, are inclined to like the idea that the State will take care of their children. This is a false security; in Quebec, only half of children have ready access to day care:

When many Canadians talk about day care, they talk about day care in Quebec.

This is the model the federal government says other provinces should be following, and why not? Universal day care, high quality care, and it costs parents just $7 a day. Sound too good to be true? For thousands of Quebec families, it is. The problem is everyone wants in. And many day-cares have waiting lists 900 names long.

"We have 30 children who are leaving to go off to kindergarten. Just the brothers and the sisters of kids who are already in the program are filling up those spaces. So we're not even opening our doors to anybody from outside or somebody who may have their first child," says Selina Itzkowitz of CCJ Daycare.

CBC

[Shakeyhands]

I think its very funny that anyone would get worked up over that statment. Seems pretty minor to me.

[Montgomery Burns]

I think its very funny that anyone would get worked up over that statment.  Seems pretty minor to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for letting us know what you think about Canadian parents--which apparently is not too much.

[FTA Lawyer]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is only public money after it has been taken from the individual who made it in the first place.

Just don't take it from me, and I'll do what's best with it thank you.

FTA

[Leafless]

The CPC plan is fair and beats out on the Liberals institutionalized plan that it is to plain expensive and unfair.

FACTO- 71% of mothers of children age six and under are in the workplace.

FACTO- Only 8.4% of children have access to REGULATED child care spaces.

Below is a list of what provinces received 1n 2004 in cash transfers in support of the multilateral framework on Early Learning and Child Care.

Newfoundland and Labrador-16.7 Million

Nova Scotia- 30.4-Million

New Brunswick- 24.4 Million

Quebec- 247 Million

Ontario- 408.8 Million

Manitoba- 38.3 Million

Saskatchewan-32.3 Million

Alberta- 106.1 Million

British Columbia- 138.2 Million

Nunivet-1.4 Million

NWT- 1.4 Million

Yukon 1-Million

Total- 1.050 Billion

Simple math will tell you to accomodate all Canadian only supporting the multilateral framework concerning Early Learning and and child care expenses.

[Leader Circle]

If a Conservative had have said what Reid said, the Conservatives would have lost the election on it!

Since it was a Liberal who said it, these screwed up media outlets will play it for one day and then Martin will step in and it will be forgotten. It is sad, but this is how a Communist government works. At least the media people who commented on this shouldn't be killed because of it, so we are not completely Commies yet!

I am like you FTA, my wife decided that she would prefer to stay at home & raise our daughter and although I own my own business and can tend to afford to have a single income, it was a HUGE adjustment! This plan by Stephen Harper will give money to my wife to help out on costs that would normally come back to me.

Not everyone wants someone else to raise their kids for them. I agree that it would be nice for kids to have steady contact with other kids like they would at daycare, but why not raise your own kids and take them to events where they can be with other kids on a regular basis?

[FTA Lawyer]

Not everyone wants someone else to raise their kids for them. I agree that it would be nice for kids to have steady contact with other kids like they would at daycare, but why not raise your own kids and take them to events where they can be with other kids on a regular basis?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the point really is that the government has no business whatsoever telling me how to raise my children...so, it's wrong to set up a scenario that has huge economic incentives favouring one method over another.

We pay for our daughter to go to swimming and gym classes and all kinds of "daycare equivalents" with respect to socialization...the only difference is either my wife or myself take her to all of these things, not a federally funded public servant.

I really resist using inflammatory statements about communist ideologies, but on this issue, I don't see it any other way. Big Brother wants to raise my kids while both of the real parents are forced to toil away for the "public good".

Can someone explain to me why I am being forced to fight this fight with the State? Why can't I be given funding to take care of (read responsibility for) my own family when everyone else gets funding for the government to do it for them?

FTA

[kimmy]

I think its very funny that anyone would get worked up over that statment.  Seems pretty minor to me.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, it's minor, because in a lot of cases he's probably right. One of the main reasons a lot of poor families are poor is that they don't understand how to handle money. One of the main reasons I don't hand out cash to panhandlers is that I suspect that a lot of them are more likely to use the money to try and buy a bottle of "Big Bear" rather than food. For a while I carried around grocery store coupons to give to panhandlers... I quit doing that because the panhandlers did not seem very pleased with the idea. Some of them became downright agitated; others just crumpled up the coupons and threw them back at me.

When you get right down to it, this gaffe amounts to people saying what a lot of us are really thinking, instead of what's polite to say. And if the Liberals are not happy at seeing their opponents make hay out of this breach in political correctness, tough cookies. They've been doing the same to their opponents for years.

-k

[shoop]

The arrogance and ignorance of the statement knocked me over. Do you agree with his low opinion of many Canadian parents?

Is there anything the Liberals could do or say to get you worked up *against* them?

I think its very funny that anyone would get worked up over that statment.  Seems pretty minor to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[yorkman]

Of course parents will abuse this system just as many did with the baby bonus. Or does everyone think all parents used the baby bonus to further their children's education and to buy clothes and food for them and not to get their hair done or to buy gin. It didn't work that way nor will Harper's plan. When people speak the reality of the situation they are shouted down for telling the truth. When they pussy foot, they are shouted down for pussy footing or being politically correct. Lets face, it many parents will buy beer and popcorn and go to the movies with such day care money.

[normanchateau]

I think its very funny that anyone would get worked up over that statment.  Seems pretty minor to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it's minor, because in a lot of cases he's probably right. One of the main reasons a lot of poor families are poor is that they don't understand how to handle money. One of the main reasons I don't hand out cash to panhandlers is that I suspect that a lot of them are more likely to use the money to try and buy a bottle of "Big Bear" rather than food. For a while I carried around grocery store coupons to give to panhandlers... I quit doing that because the panhandlers did not seem very pleased with the idea. Some of them became downright agitated; others just crumpled up the coupons and threw them back at me.

I thought the Liberals were being politically correct when they made reference only to popcorn and beer. A US Republican politician might have said cigarettes and lottery tickets. Isn't that why in the US, those in need receive food stamps rather than cash? Kimmy's experience with panhandlers suggests that food stamps rather than cash might be more appropriate.

[shoop]

There is a practical angle to this. A 'voucher' or any other system aside from giving parents the cash directly will involve a large amount of overhead.

Am I the only one who found the *popcorn* side of the issue really quite strange? I have spent my fair share on beer, but why popcorn? Was that code for weed?

I thought the Liberals were being politically correct when they made reference only to popcorn and beer.  A US Republican politician might have said cigarettes and lottery tickets. Isn't that why in the US, those in need receive food stamps rather than cash?  Kimmy's experience with panhandlers suggests that food stamps rather than cash might be more appropriate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[pharmer]

There seem to be a few concerns with a Quebec-style childcare system. Perhaps the defintion of a social program should be revisited briefly;

http://www.answers.com/topic/social-security

So, in short, a social program is designed to deliver services to citizens who have "a deficiency in income"--see above link for a more comprehensive defintion.

Therefore a childcare system should cater to the families who NEED two incomes to sustain themselves (ie. putting food on the dinner table not subsidizing their summer home on the lake). The Quebec system does just that. Yes there aren't enough spots for all families to qualify, but there is a means test (based on net family income) which determines which families NEED the program. The program is available to the families who need it the most which fits the definition of a social program.

As previously stated, Mr Harper's suggestion, although attractive in the short term, does nothing to address the problems that low-income families face.

To find a childcare system that works, you must go further to the left.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/na...-childcare.html

A clear outline of the Quebec model-

http://www.childcarecanada.org/pt98/pq/pq.html#top

[shoop]

Two questions to these statements. Why and why?

If yuo couple the child care tax credit, with the cut in the GST that will put more cash in the hands of working parents who need help in arranging child care for their children...

As previously stated, Mr Harper's suggestion, although attractive in the short term, does nothing to address the problems that low-income families face.

To find a childcare system that works, you must go further to the left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Shakeyhands]

I think its very funny that anyone would get worked up over that statment.  Seems pretty minor to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for letting us know what you think about Canadian parents--which apparently is not too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well seeing as though I am a Canadian parent to 4 children I think I can have3 my say. Please tell me that you haven't procreated?

The best way to handle this is to work out a dollar amount and issue a daycare chit that is accepted by whomever you want to provide daycare. Handing out dollars is silly and would lead to abuse ala beer and popcorn.

[Black Dog]

A question about the Tories' plan: is there an income cut off? Or will anybody with a kid under six get the money?

[Riverwind]

A question about the Tories' plan: is there an income cut off? Or will anybody with a kid under six get the money?

It is taxable on the lower income spouse so people with higher incomes will have more clawed back.

Ironically, the tory approach actually screws single income families because giving income to the lower income spouse reduces the tax credit the higher income spouse gets. The net result is single income families will likely see the bonus taxed at the highest marginal rate.

[Biblio Bibuli]

A question about the Tories' plan: is there an income cut off? Or will anybody with a kid under six get the money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your question is probably aimed at the high end earners ... ie will the Aspers pick up their $100 a month?

My question is the same ... but at the low end. Will people sitting on the dole with kids get their "day care" chit, even though they don't work & don't need daycare.

We need specifics ... the devil is in the details.

[pharmer]

A question about the Tories' plan: is there an income cut off? Or will anybody with a kid under six get the money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The torie plan:

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/previous_sto...6c35daf582865bf

"The Conservative plan supports the choices of all parents, regardless of where they live, regardless of income, and regardless of whether they choose to work or stay home with their children."- see above link

All families with children under 6 years of age will receive the $1200 annually.

[FTA Lawyer]

Of course parents will abuse this system just as many did with the baby bonus. Or does everyone think all parents used the baby bonus to further their children's education and to buy clothes and food for them and not to get their hair done or to buy gin. It didn't work that way nor will Harper's plan. When people speak the reality of the situation they are shouted down for telling the truth. When they pussy foot, they are shouted down for pussy footing or being politically correct. Lets face, it many parents will buy beer and popcorn and go to the movies with such day care money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the precise argument that "deadbeat dads" (and less often moms) use to justify not paying child support. And the courts have repeatedly said "tough luck"...you can't put the money in a trust fund, you can't restrict how your former spouse spends...just pay the damn support.

So, I guess the Liberal-minded on this topic are suggesting that we scrap that part of our legal system?

Yeah...I didn't think so...

FTA

[August1991]

A question about the Tories' plan: is there an income cut off? Or will anybody with a kid under six get the money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Conservative proposal would be taxable and in the case of a two parent household, taxable at the rate of the parent with lower income.

The new allowance would be available to all parents regardless of income, but would be taxable for the lower-earning parent in a couple. It would come on top of the child tax benefits low-income parents already get, and to the income tax deduction for child-care expenses.

Toronto Star

----

Sorry, I just saw Sparhawk's response.

Ironically, the tory approach actually screws single income families because giving income to the lower income spouse reduces the tax credit the higher income spouse gets. The net result is single income families will likely see the bonus taxed at the highest marginal rate.

In fact, the Tory proposal goes some way to redressing the anomalies in the tax and legal systems which discourage marriage, or at least two people living together.