Harpers 5 Priorities, which is most important to you?

[geoffrey]

Well I don't see why we should have to pay for the poor's kids. Seriously, work another job or something if they are so determined to have a kid. Next thing, we'll be buying everyone cars and stuff.

I don't know when this entitlement to have Ottawa pay for everything in your life came into effect, but I sure don't approve of it.

Again, look at the numbers from the Caledon Institute. The Conservative plan benefits the rich much more than the poor.

The Liberal plan doesn't give anyone free child care, as far as I am aware. Here in Manitoba, it allowed for increased operating grants to licensed programs (centre and family child care based) so the staff could have raises without increasing fees (parents currently pay $18.80/day for a preschool child). It also allowed for 3100 new spaces to open in urban, rural and Northern settings. It also provided training grants for post secondary education in Early Childhood programs. When Harper rescinds that money in June, the spaces will close, the grants will dry up, and the raises will be reversed (unless parent fees go up, which is a distinct possibility seeing as how parents will supposedly have another $1200 for child care).

One of the arguments I have heard here over and over is that institutionalized care is going to produce a nation of government brainwashed little socialists. I wonder who you think is working in these programs? Or who you think is running them? Having a small amount of government funding, and a licensing and monitoring system in place, doesn't make a child care centre a mini gulag. A non profit centre is run by a parent board of directors, who decide policy and procedure for their children, hire and fire staff, and ensure any money is rolled back into the program. A private centre is accountable only to the owner, and the owner's bank account.

Why oh why all of a sudden do I have to pay for someone else kids though?

When I have kids however far down the line that might be, I sure as hell will make sure I can afford to have them around.

[Melanie_]

You're going to with either party. Is it better to build a regulated system so that when you do have kids, if you do need to access child care, it will be available? Or is it better to fund an underground economy of unlicensed providers who parents take their chances with?

Staying at home is the best option. I did it for a number of years, when my younger kids were small. But it isn't always viable for everyone, regardless of the tired and trite assumptions about SUVs and trips to Cuba. Parents put an awful lot back into the economy; some support to enable them to do so isn't that much to ask.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Agreed Argus. But don't you know that everyone deserves a 3-bedroom split level and a huge SUV. Not to mention 4 trips per year to Cuba. All paid for by you and me.

Where is this coming from ? I mean seriously, why should the incompetence of one family making $120k be enough justification to punish a lower income family ? Do you seriously think that most people are like that ? If you're making $25k a year, you won't be buying a 3-bedroom split level house unless the loan officer at the bank is really drunk.

Haven't you noticed everybody want to be that $120 family; but it doesn't work that way. If some are considered rich, then some of them have to be poor. But it shouldn't be a reason to punish them !

[geoffrey]

You're going to with either party. Is it better to build a regulated system so that when you do have kids, if you do need to access child care, it will be available? Or is it better to fund an underground economy of unlicensed providers who parents take their chances with?

Staying at home is the best option. I did it for a number of years, when my younger kids were small. But it isn't always viable for everyone, regardless of the tired and trite assumptions about SUVs and trips to Cuba. Parents put an awful lot back into the economy; some support to enable them to do so isn't that much to ask.

I see your point, but this isn't going to end up being an economic engine, it will be another top heavy, over budgetted social program.

I don't agree with any party on the issue, hopefully the other parties block Stephen Harper's plan on this and we all forget about it before the next election. Definitely wishful thinking though.

[Melanie_]

I see your point, but this isn't going to end up being an economic engine, it will be another top heavy, over budgetted social program.

I don't think it has to be. Parents still pay the bulk of the cost of child care; the provinces provide the licensing and regulating already. The federal money would have allowed for expansion of the system, but it wouldn't have changed the fact that parents are responsible for most of the costs.

I agree that child care isn't an economic engine, but it does allow the engine to function. Next time you go into a bank, or a school, or an office building, look around at all of the women in their 20's and ask yourself what would happen if they all decided to have kids and stay at home. And if I remember correctly you are a student - look around your university and ask yourself why all these women are pursuing post secondary education. Our economy is booming and we need women in the workforce. It isn't viable to say they should all stop working when they have children.

[geoffrey]

I see your point, but this isn't going to end up being an economic engine, it will be another top heavy, over budgetted social program.

I don't think it has to be. Parents still pay the bulk of the cost of child care; the provinces provide the licensing and regulating already. The federal money would have allowed for expansion of the system, but it wouldn't have changed the fact that parents are responsible for most of the costs.

I agree that child care isn't an economic engine, but it does allow the engine to function. Next time you go into a bank, or a school, or an office building, look around at all of the women in their 20's and ask yourself what would happen if they all decided to have kids and stay at home. And if I remember correctly you are a student - look around your university and ask yourself why all these women are pursuing post secondary education. Our economy is booming and we need women in the workforce. It isn't viable to say they should all stop working when they have children.

I believe that sometimes families are more important than the economics of the situation. And its not an anti-woman thing. I'd be just as much in favour of a dad staying home with his kids.

I really understand where your coming from, but when do we accept that sacrificing a child's upbringing in exchange for a nicer car and house is the way to do things?

[Melanie_]

I believe that sometimes families are more important than the economics of the situation. And its not an anti-woman thing. I'd be just as much in favour of a dad staying home with his kids.

I really understand where your coming from, but when do we accept that sacrificing a child's upbringing in exchange for a nicer car and house is the way to do things?

I didn't mean to imply you are anti-woman; sorry if it came across that way. I just meant to point out that parents are necessary in the workforce, and most often people expect mothers to stay home rather than fathers.

I don't really think that having working parents means that a child's upbringing is being sacrificed, especially if we have good child care options that give kids quality care while recognizing the central role of families in their lives. Not every kid has a grandma who is available - I know, I am a grandma! That is why a regulated system, that ensures caregivers pass the Child Abuse registry, have first aid training, and have a basic understanding of child development, is needed. The reality is families often need two incomes; they need a system that they can trust to provide good care for their kids.

[sage]

How ironic that on the same thread reference is made to crime and parenting and no-one puts the two together?

I actually think a national daycare plan is the worst thing this country can do. Put more children in the control of people other then their parents so that these parents can work and make more money. Then act dumbfounded when the entire generation of these kids raised by someone else has no sense of responsibility or accountability for their actions, no sense of family.

All so people are free to work, to make more money, to consume. And to think this program is the left's notion.

Honestly you people sometimes can't see the forest for the trees.

[tml12]

How ironic that on the same thread reference is made to crime and parenting and no-one puts the two together?

I actually think a national daycare plan is the worst thing this country can do. Put more children in the control of people other then their parents so that these parents can work and make more money. Then act dumbfounded when the entire generation of these kids raised by someone else has no sense of responsibility or accountability for their actions, no sense of family.

All so people are free to work, to make more money, to consume. And to think this program is the left's notion.

Honestly you people sometimes can't see the forest for the trees.

The problem with universiality is that it believes everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their situation.

Imagine a 19 year-old single mom with three kids who is working and going to school. She is going to need a lot of government assistance.

Imagine a married 28-year old husband and wife with one child. They are going to need much less government assistance.

The point is that, the CPC is the better plan because it allows parents to spend the money as they see fit, when they see fit, and treats each case on a more individual basis.

[sage]

I agree that the CPC plan is better, my point was that the focus should be in assisting parents to stay at home with their kids, which the CPC plan does (modestly) and the nationalized daycare program does not.

[SamStranger]

You guys are missing the point.

Under the Liberal plan parents get NOTHING if they dont use daycare. Under the Prime Minister Harper's plan you will get $1200 bucks for each kid under 6...in addition to Provincial help you may be getting. I have some low imcome friends who are currently getting around $300 a month for their kids--- so this $1200 will be in addition to that $300 they get every month.

[politika]

Definatly minimum sentences for gun crimes. Crim is geting way ou tof hand in Canada. Torontos streets are starting to look like downtown Chicago at night.

[Hicksey]

Definatly minimum sentences for gun crimes. Crim is geting way ou tof hand in Canada. Torontos streets are starting to look like downtown Chicago at night.

Its gotten to the point I feel more confortable and safe in Detroit than Toronto. This is a big one.

[geoffrey]

How ironic that on the same thread reference is made to crime and parenting and no-one puts the two together?

I actually think a national daycare plan is the worst thing this country can do. Put more children in the control of people other then their parents so that these parents can work and make more money. Then act dumbfounded when the entire generation of these kids raised by someone else has no sense of responsibility or accountability for their actions, no sense of family.

All so people are free to work, to make more money, to consume. And to think this program is the left's notion.

Honestly you people sometimes can't see the forest for the trees.

Good call sage. I couldn't agree more. Having parents at home being responsible would definitely make inroads in cutting down involvement in gangs and drugs. Kills two birds with one stone.

[tml12]

Definatly minimum sentences for gun crimes. Crim is geting way ou tof hand in Canada. Torontos streets are starting to look like downtown Chicago at night.

Its gotten to the point I feel more confortable and safe in Detroit than Toronto. This is a big one.

The theory behind the gun registry never worked from day one.

Good citizens will "register" guns and bad ones won't. It cost almost $2 billion for this failed program.

Then the Liberals wanted to "ban" handguns...is this a democratic society or what??? Good citizens have the right to bear arms if they choose and use them in a responsible fashion.

I hope the CPC will get tough on sentences and not on good citizens who wish to use guns.

[geoffrey]

Definatly minimum sentences for gun crimes. Crim is geting way ou tof hand in Canada. Torontos streets are starting to look like downtown Chicago at night.

Its gotten to the point I feel more confortable and safe in Detroit than Toronto. This is a big one.

The theory behind the gun registry never worked from day one.

Good citizens will "register" guns and bad ones won't. It cost almost $2 billion for this failed program.

Then the Liberals wanted to "ban" handguns...is this a democratic society or what??? Good citizens have the right to bear arms if they choose and use them in a responsible fashion.

I hope the CPC will get tough on sentences and not on good citizens who wish to use guns.

All you liberals will need your guns to protect yourselves from Harpers American invasion.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the gun registry hasn't helped solve any crime whatsoever. Am I making things up or is this true? I can't find anything on this.

[tml12]

Definatly minimum sentences for gun crimes. Crim is geting way ou tof hand in Canada. Torontos streets are starting to look like downtown Chicago at night.

Its gotten to the point I feel more confortable and safe in Detroit than Toronto. This is a big one.

The theory behind the gun registry never worked from day one.

Good citizens will "register" guns and bad ones won't. It cost almost $2 billion for this failed program.

Then the Liberals wanted to "ban" handguns...is this a democratic society or what??? Good citizens have the right to bear arms if they choose and use them in a responsible fashion.

I hope the CPC will get tough on sentences and not on good citizens who wish to use guns.

All you liberals will need your guns to protect yourselves from Harpers American invasion.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the gun registry hasn't helped solve any crime whatsoever. Am I making things up or is this true? I can't find anything on this.

Geoffrey,

It is true. I remember reading an article in the Montreal Gazette a week or so ago where they listed the facts. The gun registry does not and has not and will not do anything to reduce crime. Cocaine-addicted teens can still get AK-47s in Toronto while David Miller rambles on about the Americans this and the Americans that.

People kill people, guns do not kill people.

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey,

It is true. I remember reading an article in the Montreal Gazette a week or so ago where they listed the facts. The gun registry does not and has not and will not do anything to reduce crime. Cocaine-addicted teens can still get AK-47s in Toronto while David Miller rambles on about the Americans this and the Americans that.

People kill people, guns do not kill people.

I wouldn't mind seeing those gangster if found with loaded handguns being locked up for 10-15 years. That'd be a solution. A loaded handgun in a city is pretty much saying you want to kill someone, there is no justifiable reason for it. Lock 'em up.

[Black Dog]

Agreed Argus. But don't you know that everyone deserves a 3-bedroom split level and a huge SUV. Not to mention 4 trips per year to Cuba. All paid for by you and me.

So let me get this straight: subsidized day care is bad because we shouldn't have to pay for oteh rpeople's irresponsible spending habits. But for Christ's sake, don't say people are irresponsible spenders because that's, like, "insulting to families".

Why oh why all of a sudden do I have to pay for someone else kids though?

When I have kids however far down the line that might be, I sure as hell will make sure I can afford to have them around.

Then I sassume you won't be requiring any government hand outs then.

Having parents at home being responsible would definitely make inroads in cutting down involvement in gangs and drugs. Kills two birds with one stone.

Working to support your family is "irresponsible" now? Get a grip. no one is going to be able to quit their job because of Harper's plan.

[Hicksey]

Agreed Argus. But don't you know that everyone deserves a 3-bedroom split level and a huge SUV. Not to mention 4 trips per year to Cuba. All paid for by you and me.

That's as bad as the beer and popcorn comment.

Why oh why all of a sudden do I have to pay for someone else kids though?

When I have kids however far down the line that might be, I sure as hell will make sure I can afford to have them around.

Then I assume you won't be requiring any government hand outs then.

We'll see about that. Even the best laid plans of mice and men do not always work out. More people than not end up needing assistance at one time or another.

Its one thing to offer assistance, but another thing entirely to coddle people through life.

I'd rather be in a position to solve my own problems, rather than to depend on politicians to give me enough of my own money back to help.

Having parents at home being responsible would definitely make inroads in cutting down involvement in gangs and drugs. Kills two birds with one stone.

Working to support your family is "irresponsible" now? Get a grip. no one is going to be able to quit their job because of Harper's plan.

I don't think that was the spirit of the comment. I think it was along the line of lowering taxes so families can afford to have one parent stay home and that that parental involvement would go a long ways toward of combatting the trend of our young people turning to gangs.

However I do agree that Harper's plan won't allow for it.

[geoffrey]

Having parents at home being responsible would definitely make inroads in cutting down involvement in gangs and drugs. Kills two birds with one stone.

Working to support your family is "irresponsible" now? Get a grip. no one is going to be able to quit their job because of Harper's plan.

I don't think that was the spirit of the comment. I think it was along the line of lowering taxes so families can afford to have one parent stay home and that that parental involvement would go a long ways toward of combatting the trend of our young people turning to gangs.

However I do agree that Harper's plan won't allow for it.

No plan will allow for it. Society's attitudes can't be changed by public policy. It'll be this way until people realise that something is more important than that SUV and trips to Cuba.

That wasn't as bad as the beer and popcorn comment. I'm stating that it's ridiculous for parents to choose these material gains over their children's upbringing. I'm also stating that alot of people that claim they need assistance have nothing to complain about, anyone in this country can make ends meet reasonably, it might take a little sacrifice, but its possible.

[Hicksey]

Having parents at home being responsible would definitely make inroads in cutting down involvement in gangs and drugs. Kills two birds with one stone.

Working to support your family is "irresponsible" now? Get a grip. no one is going to be able to quit their job because of Harper's plan.

I don't think that was the spirit of the comment. I think it was along the line of lowering taxes so families can afford to have one parent stay home and that that parental involvement would go a long ways toward of combatting the trend of our young people turning to gangs.

However I do agree that Harper's plan won't allow for it.

No plan will allow for it. Society's attitudes can't be changed by public policy. It'll be this way until people realise that something is more important than that SUV and trips to Cuba.

That wasn't as bad as the beer and popcorn comment. I'm stating that it's ridiculous for parents to choose these material gains over their children's upbringing. I'm also stating that alot of people that claim they need assistance have nothing to complain about, anyone in this country can make ends meet reasonably, it might take a little sacrifice, but its possible.

I've had neither a trip to cuba nor an SUV. I drive a 13 year old minivan with 410,000 kms, drive a 18 wheeler truck for a living and I can't afford day care so my wife can go to work. The cost of daycare is such that unless she can get a job working for $15 or more it's not worth it. And considering most daycare programs are for 9-5ers (including all where I live) unless she gets a job with straight days it won't happen.

The people you speak of are few and farther between than you think. There are a lot of good people this could help. If they're going to continue to tax us at exhorbitant rates, then when we need help they better come running. Of course, I wish they'd let me just keep my money and so I would have enough to deal with it on my own, but in this country that's a pipedream. Alas, here I stand ready to give in and holding my hand out.

[geoffrey]

I've had neither a trip to cuba nor an SUV. I drive a 13 year old minivan with 410,000 kms, drive a 18 wheeler truck for a living and I can't afford day care so my wife can go to work. The cost of daycare is such that unless she can get a job working for $15 or more it's not worth it. And considering most daycare programs are for 9-5ers (including all where I live) unless she gets a job with straight days it won't happen.

The people you speak of are few and farther between than you think. There are a lot of good people this could help. If they're going to continue to tax us at exhorbitant rates, then when we need help they better come running. Of course, I wish they'd let me just keep my money and so I would have enough to deal with it on my own, but in this country that's a pipedream. Alas, here I stand ready to give in and holding my hand out.

Whoa there Hicksey. The taxation issue is still huge with me too. This is a much better way at approaching the child care issue. I don't know you or your wife's personal opinions, but its normally safe to assume that if money wasn't an issue, someone would want to stay home with the kids. If you paid 5 or 10% less in taxes this would be alot more comfortable right?

I worry that the estimates for the cost of this child care program (whether the Liberal or Conservatives) is severly underestimated, meaning we won't see the tax cuts that we deserve. This also causes me concern. Why have this cheque or day care system when we can just take alot less of your money to begin with right?

[Black Dog]

Hicksey:

I don't think that was the spirit of the comment. I think it was along the line of lowering taxes so families can afford to have one parent stay home and that that parental involvement would go a long ways toward of combatting the trend of our young people turning to gangs.

Kids from single parent families are more likely to end up with criminal records, so I don't know of any amount of tax relief that will help them out.

The way I see it, 25 per cent of kids between 6 months and 5 years of age are in a daycare centre. I see nothing wrong with bulding a good quality system for them. that doesn't preclude doing something for stay at home parents, or people who use other forms of child care. It seems to me that supporters of the Conservative plan knock the Liberals' plan for not doing enough for everyone, yet defend Harper's plan on the grounds that "every bit helps".

Geoffery:

That wasn't as bad as the beer and popcorn comment. I'm stating that it's ridiculous for parents to choose these material gains over their children's upbringing. I'm also stating that alot of people that claim they need assistance have nothing to complain about, anyone in this country can make ends meet reasonably, it might take a little sacrifice, but its possible.

Then Harper's Handout is totally unneccesary.

[geoffrey]

Then Harper's Handout is totally unneccesary.

Yes thats my thoughts on it. I think I've made myself clear on the idea that I don't believe in child care programs whatsoever. Tax cuts help parents more.