What is it about Harper?

[betsy]

What is it about Harper that the media and other people are complaining about?

I look at the guy on tv and I don't get why they're endlessly "harping" about his looks.

Okay, let's get shallow and focus on the "looks".

They say he doesn't reach across, and he lacks warmth.

I see a dignified young man.

During the debate, he certainly reached across to me revealing his policies.

When Mike Duffy commented on this criticism of him, to me Harper's reply was just so right. "I don't do the song and dance routine".

C'mon, we all know politicians all get down to take advantage of phot-ops during election time....most of them going overboard with their theatrics, so saccharinely sweet and charming.

You see them cuddling children, embracing single moms, group-hugging with pandas at the zoo, blatantly buttering up to women, singing Doris Day songs at Nursing Homes, leading gay-pride parades. Everything is just so "rehearsed" and "staged" and phony. So, are the people saying they want to be taken for fools, practically treated with contempt by these politicians who obviously think majority of the people are dumb enough to fall for these gimmicks?

Well, I want my Prime Minister not to behave like the usual sleazy used-car salesman they always portray in the movies.

I want my Prime Minister to have class...after all, he is representing my country.

[hiti]

The media printed a recent picture of Harper at Calgary airport hugging his kids as he arrived home. His kids were stiff and their shoulders were withdrawn and hunched up and their arms were hanging down at their sides.....

Why is that? Why did Harper's kids look like they were just tolorating his hug? Why weren't Harper's kids not returning their dad's hug with hugs of their own?

Kids responding to a parent hug is not a gimmick. Kids looking like they don't want their parent hugging them says alot about that parent.

[betsy]

The media printed a recent picture of Harper at Calgary airport hugging his kids as he arrived home. His kids were stiff and their shoulders were withdrawn and hunched up and their arms were hanging down at their sides.....

Why is that? Why did Harper's kids look like they were just tolorating his hug? Why weren't Harper's kids not returning their dad's hug with hugs of their own?

Kids responding to a parent hug is not a gimmick. Kids looking like they don't want their parent hugging them says alot about that parent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I work with children. Children, especially the boys at a certain age don't want parents hugging them. Oh, that is just too "un-cool", especiallyand definitely not in public!

I have a four year old boy who shrieks and squirm away from his mommy whenever she attempts to kiss him. At least Harper's kids were not shrieking and running away. Imagine the ribbing those kids will get from their peers in school.

[scribblet]

The media printed a recent picture of Harper at Calgary airport hugging his kids as he arrived home. His kids were stiff and their shoulders were withdrawn and hunched up and their arms were hanging down at their sides.....

Why is that? Why did Harper's kids look like they were just tolorating his hug? Why weren't Harper's kids not returning their dad's hug with hugs of their own?

Kids responding to a parent hug is not a gimmick. Kids looking like they don't want their parent hugging them says alot about that parent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I work with children. Children, especially the boys at a certain age don't want parents hugging them. Oh, that is just too "un-cool", especiallyand definitely not in public!

I have a four year old boy who shrieks and squirm away from his mommy whenever she attempts to kiss him. At least Harper's kids were not shrieking and running away. Imagine the ribbing those kids will get from their peers in school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Especially in front of media et al. I agree, it is extremely shallow of people to focus on Harper's appearance, but then, I suppose they don't have much else to Harp on about these days.

[kimmy]

I reject the notion that Canadians' dislike of Harper is inspired by his haircut, his waxy complexion, or his forced-looking smile. Afterall, this is the country that elected Jean Chretien to 3 straight majorities; a country that would give such resounding endorsement to a fugly, palsy-stricken goon with a speach impediment is obviously not influenced by such superficial considerations.

-k

[Montgomery Burns]

The media printed a recent picture of Harper at Calgary airport hugging his kids as he arrived home. His kids were stiff and their shoulders were withdrawn and hunched up and their arms were hanging down at their sides.....

Why is that? Why did Harper's kids look like they were just tolorating his hug? Why weren't Harper's kids not returning their dad's hug with hugs of their own?

Kids responding to a parent hug is not a gimmick. Kids looking like they don't want their parent hugging them says alot about that parent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree with your assessment. Here's the pic (December 26 entry).

I report, you decide.

[The Honest Politician]

What I've seen from Harper is a person who appears to have to force a simple smile. His T.V. interview in Atlantic Canada at the beginning of the campaign is a perfect example. Almost creepy.

I was unimpressed with the debates. I thought everytime he left his script he fell on his face. What was with that smirk he had going on anyway? Made me want to smack him.

The policies Harper has suggested simply don't make any sense. GST, Childcare, puttting the same Airborne division in two different Canadian Forces Bases.

Once you do the math, you find that what has been suggested, won't do what the CPC claims it will do.

This is a person who wants to limit the rights and freedoms of some, who just happen to have a different lifestyle than his own. So after banning GAY marriage, what group will be the next to have rights stripped away? Will he ban mentally ill people from reproducing? Will those who carry hereditary diseases be sterilized?

You may think it is far fetched, but once the ball starts rolling, how do you stop it?

After you take the rights from one group it only becomes progressively easier to remove more rights from more groups.

GST - Do the math. Only people who have large amounts of disposable income, will save any real money. Remember; under the 1cent reduction, you have to spend Ten Thousand Dollars to save yourself a measly Hundred bucks. Under the full 2cent reduction you ONLY need to spend Five Thousand dollars to save that same One Hundred dollars. And this tax cut is designed t o help the poor? Makes no sense.

Childcare - One thousand dollars a year to help raise a child. How many families will actually qualify for this? First off $25 won't pay for a day of daycare, let alone a full week. Second, with the horrors that in the news, do we really want people to be forced to place their children into unmonitored situations? It will be impossible to have a minimum standard of childcare if there are a million individuals who are suddenly looking after a couple of kids. How long will it be before some near hysterical mother is crying on T.V. saying " It was the only daycare I could afford."

That's what it is about Harper for me. I guess I'm 30/70 as far why I don't like him. My views about him personally, are only reinforced by his policies. But mainly his policies are why I don't like him.

Oh ya, that, and I think he's an idiot.

As for the picture with his kids. It just looks like a couple of kids who don't really want to be there, and are maybe a bit mad that Daddy has to be away so much. Hell from what you can see they may even be smiling.

[Montgomery Burns]

Betsy:

What is it about Harper that the media and other people are complaining about?  I look at the guy on tv and I don't get why they're endlessly "harping" about his looks.  Okay, let's get shallow and focus on the "looks".

Ipsos Reid released a poll after the 2nd debate and one of the questions was:

Which leader do you think was the most visually attractive?

36% - Stephen Harper

29% - Jack Layton

14% - Paul Martin

12% - Gilles Duceppe

9% - Don't know

I don't put much stock in stuff like this, but thought I would post it for your interest (amusement?)

[betsy]

What I've seen from Harper is a person who appears to have to force a simple smile. His T.V. interview in Atlantic Canada at the beginning of the campaign is a perfect example. Almost creepy.

It may seem to some that his smile is forced. Who knows, maybe he is just one of those who are painfully uncomfortable in front of the cameras. Any normal person will definitely have a tougher time "posing" if he is aware that the very media that is now photo-shooting him, and the people who blindly believe the media demonizing him might be actively nitpicking for every physical flaws.

OR maybe that is just the way he is naturally! I have seen some people borne with smiles that could use some help with a crowbar to make those teeth show....and some who have perpetual smiles even when they are not actually intending to smilel...well, their "smile" just plastered there without them realizing it at all. Somehow I'm reminded of an awful yet sickeningly sad yet powerful scene in a movie. Have you seen the old movie PLATOON btw? You know the part when this GI soldier found a mentally retarded man in a village who sported that "retarded grin" on his face? The soldier proceeded to beat the daylights out of him...and throughout the beating, the retarded man was still "grinning". Finally the soldier just shot him in the face to wipe out that grin.

What I am saying is that sometimes, mannerisms (such as nervous ticks, etc..,) and other physical impediments, which we cruelly make fun of, are actually considered handicaps by those who actually suffer them.

For a supposedly TOLERANT society that we have become, thanks to the achievements of the Liberal-minded media and society, why the obsessive focus in a person's inability to reach the "SET STANDARD" by these very people as far as a smile goes?

Who are these people who rate a smile? What are their qualifications to make them credible experts?

A "smile" is in the eyes of a beholder. You may see Harper's smile as "forced"....I don't. I see a "nervous smile" on Martin that somehow convey to me that he is panicked or desperate, and I know that others don't. Layton has a charming mischievous smile.

BTW, what does smiling have to do with running a country?

With all the sleaziness and corruptions that's been happening left and right in the past several years, I say maybe it is time for less shallow posing and preening, and get down to the nitty-gritty of cleaning up the mess!

Give me a scowling guy anytime, as long as he will do his job right as my Prime Minister! Smiles mean nada to me!

I was unimpressed with the debates. I thought everytime he left his script he fell on his face. What was with that smirk he had going on anyway? Made me want to smack him.

That was not a debate. That was some sort of a panel discussion. Like you, I was not impress with the format for I want a real debate....arguments and rebuttals!

I found that format went well for Harper since this time, he was able to lay out the party's policy. I was able to understand what the CP have to offer. In the past election, being a gentleman I guess he could hardly explain his policies for his opponents were trying to drown him out with their endless banshee screeching....which actually is the special tactical weapons of those who are either losing in the logical point or sensible arguments, drown out the other's voice so he could not be heard.

Mike Duffy had media guests commenting after the debate and most of them said that Harper was at least able to bring out his real alternative policy.

I found Martin struggling. His warrior-speech about his passion for Canada...well, the same media said that it was obviously rehearsed.

Oh my God! I can't believe you said that about wanting to whack the smirk! Just like Platoon?

The policies Harper has suggested simply don't make any sense. GST, Childcare, puttting the same Airborne division in two different Canadian Forces Bases.

Once you do the math, you find that what has been suggested, won't do what the CPC claims it will do.

Actually his policies are sensible. He stressed being "realistic" in expenditures.

Unlike the scary spendings of Martin policies (a few weeks before the elections suddenly he's doling out funding left and right like as if there's no tomorrow. And who do you think will pay for all these? I'm tired of taxes, taxes, taxes..and more taxes hidden in words such as "registration fees") Anyway, there's a good chance that Martin's promises will be broken again ( Liberals had become adept at promising you the moon while looking at you straight in the eye)...or almost definitely they will be another hastily ill-planned schemes and programs....another waste of tax-payers money. Years from now we'll most probabaly be having another inquiry, and Sheila Fraser will be bringing down her wrath asking where did the money go?

Childcare - what is wrong about letting the parents decide where they want to take their children? Why does the government need to control and take away that parenting decisions from parents?

I am in the childcare business. Some parents do not want to "institutionalize" their children at an early age. Media and so-called childcare experts had demonized homecare providers like me steadily....just so to sell the idea of National Child Care.

Parents want stability for their children. There's a big turn-over of staff from bureaucratic institutions and agencies...and it's not purely because of the pay. It is because of the bureacracy involved....and they're getting burnt out at a fast rate. I had children who went through the pains of divorce and during those turbulent times when their world suddenly shifted, coming to me seem to be the only thing stable at the time.

Harper's policy is more advantageous for everyone....no monopoly by bureaucracy on this, meaning careproviders like me will still have a chance to earn our income.

Harper's policy will foster a healthy competition...careproviders (institution and private) will be competeing, therefore standards of care will improve and keep everyone on their toes if they want to be in the ball game.

But the main thing is that parents will have a range of choices....they don't have to do what the government dictates as to how they should raise their children. Every parent will benefit!

Call it a tax-cut or whatever....labelling is moot as long as it offers a break.

As for "unmonitored situations", let me ask you....who will monitor the ones who are supposed to monitor just so we know that they're doing their job, and doing it right? The best ones to act as monitors will be the parents themselves! If they want a real peace of mind, drop by un-announced to your daycare at different hours of the day until you are confident that your child is in good hands.

When I was with a licensing agency funded by the government, I only got "monitored" once a month, and the kind of "monitoring" depends on the individual. One "monitor-er" just reads a questionaire from a sheet of paper to which I answer yes or no. Finally I said, "you know that I'm only saying what I know you want to hear." What a joke! One "monitor-er" treated it like a social visit...boy did we ever sat down for a good gossip!

Guess what too! They do go over the ratio sometimes....when a careprovider suddenly gets sick, they have to place those children elsewhere...I ended up with more than 5 on few occasions. Oh yes, the Ministry "monitors" these agencies too...once a year. The directress will warn us when the season for Ministry inspection will come up so we will be "on our toes".

The agency is actually nothing more than an 'employment agency". A "middle-man" that is driving the cost of daycare (which is no problem since the taxpayers are the ones paying for this) sky-high.

And the bureacracy is pathetic! The petty power trips. One "monitor-er" obviuosly was not warm towards me and looked under my sink. She did not find any hazardous cleaning products....but guess what, she just want to assert her "power". She told me I should remove the big container of cider vinegar because the children might drink it. Oh well, if she looked at it that way, what can I say....but the ridiculous part is she did not say about the big container of cooking oil and the garbage container! See how stupid some of these "monitor-ers" are? And you think parents will feel safe with these kind of mentality going around?

Military defense - well, I don't know much about the technicalities of defense but I sure hope so that our military will not have to go through the humiliating process of "hitching a ride" with our neighbor just to get to a destination. Especially now, after Martin called the kettle black, who do we call when we need a ride?

I'm all for improving our military! I want the best for our boys! And girls.

GST - realistic target! Attainable and believable!

Did the Liberals promise anything about the GST again?

This is a person who wants to limit the rights and freedoms of some

,

Oh my God! Review all the so-called achievements and wasteful boondagles!

The word "LIBERAL" actually means, control, control, control. In that order.

It also is defined as "you will live your life the way I think you ought to live your life because I say it is good for you."

Also known by the moniker, "BIG BROTHER".

See the word "MONITOR."

Another definition is, "forget about your freedom to choose. Just do as I say!"

Followed by, "Rights? Of course you have the rights! You have the right to remain silent because anything you say will be interpreted to mean you are intolerant and a bigot. Hah!"

And this definition, "having the knack for word-play and word-twisting, and the genius mind for making long, passionate speeches that spellbinds but upon closer and sober reflection, did not say much at all."

So after banning GAY marriage

,

Is it banned?

what group will be the next to have rights stripped away?

The group who feels entitled to help themselves with taxpayers money!

Will he ban mentally ill people from reproducing? Will those who carry hereditary diseases be sterilized?

You may think it is far fetched, but once the ball starts rolling, how do you stop it?

After you take the rights from one group it only becomes progressively easier to remove more rights from more groups.

OOOOO, scary! Got that from the new Liberal ad? So what else is new?

You forgot the one that says, "women will have to go back to the kitchen, barefooted to boot!"

You know, I say the Liberals are doing a great job in one thing:

SCARE-MONGERING. Ciao.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Honest Politician:

This is a person who wants to limit the rights and freedoms of some, who just happen to have a different lifestyle than his own. So after banning GAY marriage, what group will be the next to have rights stripped away?

Do you work for - or get all your news from - the Canadian Press? That's EXACTLY what they reported a week or two ago. Do yourself a favor and go to the Conseravtive Policy website and look at their policy on gay marriage. They want a FREE Vote on it. That's what usually happens in democracies. Polls show that the majority of the public wants a free vote on this attempt at radical social re-engineering. Are you worried that the majority of the public is against changing the 2000 year definition of marriage?

Will he ban mentally ill people from reproducing?

Will he stop 100,000 babies from being killed in Canada every year?

Will those who carry hereditary diseases be sterilized?

Puhleeze.

You may think it is far fetched, but once the ball starts rolling, how do you stop it?

Yep. Once the ball starts rolling....what's next? Two gay men adopting a young girl? That's progressive!

Once the ball starts rolling...what's next? Preachers being hauled before a Human Rights Commission for preaching Church Doctrine (anti-gay marriage)? Oops. That has already happened--in Alberta.

After you take the rights from one group it only becomes progressively easier to remove more rights from more groups.

Many believe that the traditional definition of marriage is the bedrock of civilized society. Don't these people have the right to vote on something that has been around for thousands of years in every part of the world?

GST - Do the math. Only people who have large amounts of disposable income, will save any real money.  Remember; under the 1cent reduction, you have to spend Ten Thousand Dollars to save yourself a measly Hundred bucks.  Under the full 2cent reduction you ONLY need to spend Five Thousand dollars to save that same One Hundred dollars. And this tax cut is designed t o help the poor?  Makes no sense.

YOU do the math. People with less income spend a larger proportion of their money on GST. And a reduction in the GST helps everybody, which is fair. Besides Harper has promised more taxcuts are coming. I'm hoping that he drops all the federal tax rates one point.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Honest Politican cont'd:

Childcare - One thousand dollars a year to help raise a child. How many families will actually qualify for this?

First, it is $1200/yr. Second, every one with a child under 6 qualifies. The Liberal plan does not cover everybody.

First off  $25 won't pay for a day of daycare, let alone a full week.

Not all families have 2 full-time working parents. Some have home-based businesses. Some people don't have 9-5 jobs; they have shiftwork. What if one parent works a 3-11 shift? It's a lot easier to drop off the kid(s) at Grandma's for a bit until Dad (or Mom) gets home.

From the CP website:

Choice in child care: We will support parents whether they choose formal day care, a babysitter, neighbourhood child care, or having one parent stay at home.

Do you think having no choice - other than the state - is best for raising your children?

Most parents believe in family member care.

Do we really need another Liberal bureaucracy with vast administrative expenses?

You know darn well - I hope - that govt programs always end up costing more than planned. Gun Registry? Quebec's govt-run daycare program?

Remember the 7000 Quebec daycare workers who went on strike the very first year and held up the taxpayers for a fat raise? Can parents (and non-parents) afford more unionized public sector workers and their vast costly benefits?

Second, with the horrors that in the news, do we really want people to be forced to place their children into unmonitored situations?

How is that different from govt-run daycare centres? With Harper's plan, if you are unhappy with the daycare, you can take your business elsewhere. Competition is better than a monopoly.

It will be impossible to have a minimum standard of childcare...

So the parent is not to decide what is the standard for their childcare, but the state decides? Didn't they do similar things in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

...if there are a million individuals who are suddenly looking after a couple of kids. How long will it be before some near hysterical mother is crying on T.V. saying " It was the only daycare I could afford."

Sorry, but I don't understand your above quote.

[Argus]

What is it about Harper that the media and other people are complaining about?

I look at the guy on tv and I don't get why they're endlessly "harping" about his looks. 

Okay, let's get shallow and focus on the "looks".

I don't know what it is exactly, but you can't see his eyes very well. Maybe they're particularly deep set. He also seems to have very heavy eyelids. Dunno, but it's particularly noticeable when he's in a picture with others side by side.

[The Honest Politician]

Monty:

First, it is $1200/yr. Second, every one with a child under 6 qualifies. The Liberal plan does not cover everybody.

So even a family with $450,000 income per year is entitled to an extra $1200, for child care? What a crock.

Not all families have 2 full-time working parents. Some have home-based businesses. Some people don't have 9-5 jobs; they have shiftwork. What if one parent works a 3-11 shift? It's a lot easier to drop off the kid(s) at Grandma's for a bit until Dad (or Mom) gets home.

I am sorry I must have missed the day when the Liberals made it illegal to have a relative look after your kids. There has always been choices. A tax break for those who use extended family daycare is a much more realistic approach.

And I do frequently check the Conservative site.

How is that different from govt-run daycare centres? With Harper's plan, if you are unhappy with the daycare, you can take your business elsewhere. Competition is better than a monopoly.

Under Harper's plan poorer families may be forced to put their kids in unhealthy situations because they simply can't afford proper daycare. They will have no alternatives because there will be no Govt. spaces, or other affordable childcare.

So the parent is not to decide what is the standard for their childcare, but the state decides? Didn't they do similar things in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

One big difference in your complete over exageration. People in Canada are not dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night, for speaking up about Govt. shortcomings. If there is a problem within the public system, the minimum standards can be raised in one shot, where all daycares must comply. It will be next to impossible to ensure the health and safety of the children if they are placed into the private homes of friends or family.

How long will it be before some near hysterical mother is crying on T.V. saying " It was the only daycare I could afford."

Sorry, but I don't understand your above quote.

What I was inferring to I will now say very bluntly. If children are placed with friends and family instead of supervised daycare it is only a matter of time before a child is abused or killed. All you have to do is look at who the abuser is in the majority of cases, and that is a relative or friend of the family. Someone of trust and familiarity. By not creating more supervised daycare spaces we are encouraging the possibility of this occurring.

Do you work for - or get all your news from - the Canadian Press? That's EXACTLY what they reported a week or two ago. Do yourself a favor and go to the Conseravtive Policy website and look at their policy on gay marriage. They want a FREE Vote on it. That's what usually happens in democracies. Polls show that the majority of the public wants a free vote on this attempt at radical social re-engineering. Are you worried that the majority of the public is against changing the 2000 year definition of marriage?

They want to take the rights away, and that is why they want a "free vote". Not for one second do I believe they would even consider a vote if they didn't think there was enough rednecks/homophobes in the house to pass such an obvious infringement of rights. They want to use peoples personal views, on homosexuality to force the removal of a groups right to marry. Totally small minded. Democracy means majority rules and minorities have rights. To remove any of those rights underminds the entire democratic society.

Will he stop 100,000 babies from being killed in Canada every year?

Are you suggesting the removal of a womans right to choose? I sure hope this isn't prevalent in the CPC. If it is, Canada should be made aware that the CPC wishes to reopen the abbortion debate.

Yep. Once the ball starts rolling....what's next? Two gay men adopting a young girl? That's progressive!

Once the ball starts rolling...what's next? Preachers being hauled before a Human Rights Commission for preaching Church Doctrine (anti-gay marriage)? Oops. That has already happened--in Alberta.

First, you are sounding more like a scared homophobe with every post.

It is quite possible that two gay men or women could raise a child just as good or better than you or I even could.

The preacher was preaching anti-gay marriage rhetoric. It obviously was viewed as unacceptable by some of those who heard it. They in turn brought it to the attention of the authories. With the hate crime laws that are in place, it is a fine line a person walks when they are presenting personal views about a minority or any "group".

The Church is not forced to perform gay marriages, so what's the problem.

Many believe that the traditional definition of marriage is the bedrock of civilized society. Don't these people have the right to vote on something that has been around for thousands of years in every part of the world?

What are the current divorce figures?

Accoring to The Department of Justice, Child Support Initiative, Evaluation Report, August 1997, divorce rate in Canada is about 48%. What it means is, one marriage out of every two marriages end up to divorce. But remember that for many, divorces and marriages are repetitions.

I find it laughable to be defending something as an "INSTITUTION" or "BEDROCK" of society when such a large number of the people involved break their vows and get separated or divorced.

YOU do the math. People with less income spend a larger proportion of their money on GST. And a reduction in the GST helps everybody, which is fair. Besides Harper has promised more taxcuts are coming. I'm hoping that he drops all the federal tax rates one point

Uh huh. And just how much is a poor person going to save?

Since you like percentages,

What percentage of low income family's income goes towards food and shelter?

What percentage of a middle income family's income goes towards food and shelter?

What percentage of a high income family's income goes towards food and shelter?

Not only do the higher income brackets live in nicer houses and eat a better quality of food, they also have more money left over after paying bills.

Answer me this, because not a single conservative can: If a family has no disposable income, how will a cut in the GST save them any money?

I am talking about people who's family income is under $40,000. Let's say $10,000 is gobbled up in taxes. They spend $15,000 per year ($1250 per month)on shelter, and $8,000 per year($666.66 per month) on food. that would leave $7,000 of disposable income, for clothing, transportation and other expenses. If every dollar of that $7,000 was spent on items subject to the GST it would save the family an entire $140 with the full 2 cent reduction. It is less than $12 a month in savings.

This is not the way to put money into the pockets of the less fortunate.

Contrast that with the millionaire who spends $700,000 and saves enough to almost buy a small car.

Who is really saving the money.

Betsy:

It may seem to some that his smile is forced. Who knows, maybe he is just one of those who are painfully uncomfortable in front of the cameras. Any normal person will definitely have a tougher time "posing" if he is aware that the very media that is now photo-shooting him, and the people who blindly believe the media demonizing him might be actively nitpicking for every physical flaws./QUOTE]

You obviously did not see the interview that I saw. It was plain that he was reminding himself to smile and that each smile was forced, and unnatural looking.

He has gotten a bit better but a "real" smile is a very rare thing.

Oh my God! I can't believe you said that about wanting to whack the smirk! Just like Platoon?

Damn right. His little half assed smirk, that he wore for part of the debate was arrogant and made him appear immature. I wanted to smack it off his face, and get him to show some class. He is a terrible figurehead for a political party.

That was not a debate. That was some sort of a panel discussion. Like you, I was not impress with the format for I want a real debate....arguments and rebuttals!

Harper is not smart enough to last in a real debate with Martin and Layton. Harper is so lucky the previous Liberal Govt. screwed up so bad, because that is the only issue he can actually stand behind and not be made to look like a fool.

[willy]

Under Harper's plan poorer families may be forced to put their kids in unhealthy situations because they simply can't afford proper daycare.

Residential schools were run by our government. Was that not an unhealthy situation? What makes you think our federal government is in a good position to manage child care in such a diverse country with diverse needs?

Add up for a middle class working family with two kids the difference after the Conservatives put this policy in place.

Two kids equal $2400.00 in additional income.

$1000.00 tax credit if they participate in organized sports.

%2 reduction in consumption tax on every book, sheet and clothes they need to buy.

This program does not matter where you live or how much you make. (If you make less than $20000.00 you don't pay income taxes any way but will in a relative way be much better off with this modest increase.) This program also does not discriminate shift workers, rural workers or anyone who doesn't work for government 9 - 5 Monday - Friday in a large urban center. This plan is also not contingent on years of bargaining with the provinces to implement. It can happen immediately.

Now with the fiscal imbalance being addressed the provinces which are in a better position to implement a plan for early childhood education can do as they see fit. The voters at local levels can make this a priority and we can achieve a system that fits the needs of each region and not a bureaucratic design created in Ottawa.

Harper is not smart enough to last in a real debate with Martin and Layton. Harper is so lucky the previous Liberal Govt. screwed up so bad, because that is the only issue he can actually stand behind and not be made to look like a fool.

Very articulate, it reminds me of a school yard with five year olds "your a stupid head, no your a stupid head, oh ya your a super duper stupid head." Please show a little more respect for the intelligence of the average person on this site. I may not agree with my lefty friends but I don't think they are stupid heads.

[The Honest Politician]

Two kids equal $2400.00 in additional income.

And how much is the now unsubsidized daycare going to cost them?

$1000.00 tax credit if they participate in organized sports.

That's odd. I kind of like it though. Is this for only kids under 6 like the daycare?

%2 reduction in consumption tax on every book, sheet and clothes they need to buy.

You are assuming they can afford to spend. 2% of nothing is still nothing.

2% of $100 is only $2. How much will they have to spend to save enough make spaghetti and meatballs for dinner?

1 pack of Spaghetti: $0.99

1 pound of Regular Ground Beef: $1.69

2 cans regular spaghetti sauce: $1.98

Cost of basic Spaghetti dinner: $4.66

Money needed to spend to save enough to buy a basic spaghetti dinner: $233.00

I know people who barely have $233.00 of disposable income per month. I am sure they will be glad to know they can have more spaghetti dinners with the money they'll save.

Very articulate, it reminds me of a school yard with five year olds "your a stupid head, no your a stupid head, oh ya your a super duper stupid head." Please show a little more respect for the intelligence of the average person on this site. I may not agree with my lefty friends but I don't think they are stupid heads.

Please! I would love to see Harper try to defend his policies to Layton and Martin. He may be book smart but he can't think on his feet, and appears to need a script.

[Riverwind]

Two kids equal $2400.00 in additional income.

And how much is the now unsubsidized daycare going to cost them?

The same amount that it would cost under the Liberal plan which would only provide enough spaces to meet a fraction of the need. In Quebec, only 50% of people who want subidized spaces are able to get them. The Liberal plan basically offers no cost day care to the priviledged few able to get the spaces and everyone else is SOL. The Tory plan gives less money per child but a least everyone benefits from the program.

[The Honest Politician]

Two kids equal $2400.00 in additional income.

And how much is the now unsubsidized daycare going to cost them?

The same amount that it would cost under the Liberal plan which would only provide enough spaces to meet a fraction of the need. In Quebec, only 50% of people who want subidized spaces are able to get them. The Liberal plan basically offers no cost day care to the priviledged few able to get the spaces and everyone else is SOL. The Tory plan gives less money per child but a least everyone benefits from the program.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So with greater demand put on the private sector, the price for daycare will be less than now?

Doesn't that violate the Supply/Demand theory of economics. How is the price going to be the same with higher demand for the same number of spaces?

We both know that increased demand and lower supply equals higher prices.

[Riverwind]

We both know that increased demand and lower supply equals higher prices.

In normal free market situations if the supply cannot meet the demand then the price will go up in the short term until the free market is able to increase the supply - then the price goes down. In addition, if the price goes up, the demand will decrease as some parents simply choose to stay at home because the cost of daycare exceeds the income gained by working.

Gov't subsidized daycare distorts the market by keeping prices artificially low. This means the demand will always exceed the ability of the gov't to pay for it. As a result the gov't has two choices: only supply daycare to the poor or limit supply. Limiting supply is what happens in healthcare today. Lineups for surgeries and tests are not caused by lack of people or equipment. They are caused because gov'ts control costs by limiting the number of procedures paid for.

For that reason the Conservative plan is fairer because the limited dollors available for daycare are distributed equally to everyone instead of arbitrarily benefiting the few who are lucky enough to get one of the available spaces.

[shoop]

The Conservative plan is also more fair because it doesn't penalize parents for choosing to stay at home with their children...

For that reason the Conservative plan is fairer because the limited dollors available for daycare are distributed equally to everyone instead of arbitrarily benefiting the few who are lucky enough to get one of the available spaces.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[willy]

I have to add that the Conservative plan also looks for matching investment dollars. They intend to make available $250 000 000.00 in tax incentives for private delivery providers to reinvest in new spaces.

The Liberal problem with this is that it is not early child hood learning but day care.

I must remind the Liberal's out there that the Montessori program is privately run through out Canada and under the Conservative plan would be able to expand with help. This is leveraging a greater level of investment and the provision level with a built in incentive to provide value. I know I would never want my business to fail, but when has a government center gone out of business?

Interested in the Montessori progarm: Link

I was asked about the sports program tax rebate. It is offer to every child under 16 yrs. $500.00 per year.

[The Honest Politician]

In normal free market situations if the supply cannot meet the demand then the price will go up in the short term until the free market is able to increase the supply - then the price goes down. In addition, if the price goes up, the demand will decrease as some parents simply choose to stay at home because the cost of daycare exceeds the income gained by working.

So for the price of daycare to go down there has to be more spaces created. Isn't that what the Liberals are proposing. Unless of course you meant private daycare spaces would be created. In that case I would have to wonder how the govt. will deal with the expense of monitoring all these private institutions to ensure child welfare.

So, you can see that this proposal will, in the end, force some parents to stop working in order to provide their own daycare. It is a good thing they will have the $25 a week the conservatives want to give them.

I have to add that the Conservative plan also looks for matching investment dollars. They intend to make available $250 000 000.00 in tax incentives for private delivery providers to reinvest in new spaces.

So you are telling me that Harper would rather see Govt. money handed out to a bunch of private business owners, who may possibly cut corners, at the risk of a childs safety, in the name of profits, instead of creating the daycare spaces within the subsidised, supervised system. Is he daft?

I must remind the Liberal's out there that the Montessori program is privately run through out Canada and under the Conservative plan would be able to expand with help. This is leveraging a greater level of investment and the provision level with a built in incentive to provide value. I know I would never want my business to fail, but when has a government center gone out of business?

This is here, so what's all the whining about "no choice" for daycare crap for then?

Send your kid to a Monessori program. What is this? Again you mention the govt sinking funds into private childcare. If the Govt is going to be investing money or incentives into a program then it had better have some say as to how the program is run. But then it wouldn't be private would it? Does Harper plan to give the private childcare facilities money and then walk away? That sounds very foolish.

This is leveraging a greater level of investment and the provision level with a built in incentive to provide value.

Hahahahahahahaha

What? I don't speak Harperese.

Are you talking about his plan to make sure the childcare provided is of good value? Where are all the inspectors going to come from to ensure value? I hope you are paying for them.

I was asked about the sports program tax rebate. It is offer to every child under 16 yrs. $500.00 per year.

That won't cover costs for more than one basic sport, like Soccer or Basketball. Hockey is out of the question. Again it would appear that this is for people who can already afford to do things. Granted there will be a few families that fall into the area where the rebate is the difference between playing and not. But for the most part it will not help those who are already too poor to play. Since it is a tax rebate, where are the poor people supposed to come up with the registration and uniform fees in the first place? Plus there is proper footwear and any other equipment required. Transportation and other incidental costs that are added to the family budget. All this must be paid for, possibly months before filing for the rebate. Sorry, but it is just another policy that doesn't appear to help anyone who doesn't already have money.

[Canuck E Stan]

Dear Hornest Politician,

Your ignorance of child rearing is showing through.

You DO NOT have children,therefore you DO NOT know why parents raise THEIR children as they do.

Better stay away from this issue, you are beyond the slightest comprehension of child rearing.

[Guest eureka]

Sparhawk, the point of the Liberal programme is to create daycare spaces. The Conservative programme will not create one space.

Willy, have you ever checked the price of Montessori? 95% of those who need daycare could not afford it.

[Riverwind]

Sparhawk, the point of the Liberal programme is to create daycare spaces. The Conservative programme will not create one space.

The Liberal program will create a few spaces that will benefit some people - all others get nothing but still have to pay taxes for the day care that other people get. The Conservative program gives everybody something that will help with the care of children. Whether the people use in on day care or not is irrelevant.

[lovecanada]

Sparhawk, the point of the Liberal programme is to create daycare spaces. The Conservative programme will not create one space.

Willy, have you ever checked the price of Montessori? 95% of those who need daycare could not afford it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Liberal program will create another black hole of funding for a useless program that no-one wants or needs. In a true supply and demand situation, if daycare spaces were needed, the free market would create them. There is no demand for them, I had no problem finding proper care for my children when I needed it. I put my first kid into a dayHOME, one lady looking after 3 kids, It was excellent for one kid. I paid full price at that time $350 and others who were subsidized, paid $80. Everyone seems to forget to mention that single Mom's, or low income parents are ALREADY getting a HUGE break in childcare. So, why didn't subsidized parents put their kids into dayCARE? Cause they knew that a dayHOME was way better!

After my second child, we got a nanny, we paid her $900/month instead of the $700 a dayHOME would have cost. We are not rich, I worked on extra evening a week to help make up the difference. But, she came to our house, cared for only 2 kids, they love her, I didn't have to pack them up early in the morning, and she cooked some meals and helped keep the house clean.

We never in all those years got a break from the government, not as a 2 income family, and even with our taxes there were times we couldn't claim the full expense, because only the lowest income earner could claim the expense.

SO, this money directly to parents, who after all, are the EXPERTS, would have been greatly appreciated! So, to parents out there now, the Conservatives include all parents, stay at home or put child in daycare.