Harpers 5 Priorities, which is most important to you?

[sage]

Black Dog for whatever reason you criticise and chastise every idea that anyone ever came up with.

Unless someone (read NDP) came up with a plan where everyone was guaranteed a salary of $45,000/year regardless what they did or how much they worked, you wouldn't be happy.

The point other's were trying to make was that the focus should be on keeping a parent at home to raise their children and not abdicate their responsiblities on the social welfare state. Nobody said they could do this on Harper's plan, but they point is to recognize the goal, and work backwards from there.

What exactly is your goal? Have everyone be a civil servant and have their children raised by civil servants?

[Hicksey]

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?

I think we're of the same opinion, we just got there from different routes. I'd much rather the government just leave me and my money alone so I'd have the money to provide for myself. When they take 50% of my paycheck, of course I'm going to be short changed. I think we should have tax revolt and allow no more than 30% taxation to be split between all levels of government. If they need more money they need to make cuts or get more efficient.

Truth be told, I think the dirtiest secret behind all the broken promises is that even the politicians know that they can't afford to fund all these programs they're promising.

[Hicksey]

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".

I have never purported that Harper's plan would solve any problems. And I don't DEFEND it on the basis of "every little bit helps" either. I have said that I think its the closest to the "universal child-care program" we have been promised over and over and over.

Layton's and Martin plans help virtually no one because the child care program is for people earning less than $25,000 per year, and even if you don't get under that threshold but still manage to get one of the promised spots the cost is such that unless you make upwards of $15 an hour that you're farther off keeping one parent home. And if you don't work days in my neck of the woods you have to pay for daycare and then a babysitter besides. At least Harper's plan benefits everyone equally. And that's been the only defense of Harper's plan I have offered.

[SamStranger]

I hate jack laytons attitude. he thinks the governemnt should take all your money and do things with it. I dont think so jack. A result to me is a TAX CUT. NDP is scared of tax cuts because they bring money back into our pockets, not into social programs that only help %15 of the polulation. $9 billion dollars for affordabel housing... that doesnt help me, I own my home. Does that help anyone on this site?? I doubt it. it only helps poor people, which is only a very small percentage of the population. that 9 billion should have went back into our pockets threw a TAX CUT.

I say HIT THE ROAD JACK.

jack layton speaks for %15 of the poluation, if that...

He does not speak for anyone earning $45,000 a year or more... which is the vast majority of our population.

[Hicksey]

I hate jack laytons attitude. he thinks the governemnt should take all your money and do things with it. I dont think so jack. A result to me is a TAX CUT. NDP is scared of tax cuts because they bring money back into our pockets, not into social programs that only help %15 of the polulation. $9 billion dollars for affordabel housing... that doesnt help me, I own my home. Does that help anyone on this site?? I doubt it. it only helps poor people, which is only a very small percentage of the population. that 9 billion should have went back into our pockets threw a TAX CUT.

I say HIT THE ROAD JACK.

jack layton speaks for %15 of the poluation, if that...

He does not speak for anyone earning $45,000 a year or more... which is the vast majority of our population.

He speaks for unions largely too. Unions have that same entitlement mentality. They push and push and push and then wonder why it is that at some point it becomes cheaper for their employer to make the products they used to make overseas and send them halfway around the world, pay the duties, and truck them to their customers and retailers from there.

I'm not going to say that I wouldn't like to be making some of the wages that unions get for their employees. But I will say that when you're an unskilled worker making $30 an hour, that you've outpriced yourself in the marketplace. Even GM's trophy plant for quality in Oshawa, ON isn't immune.

The only reason he gains any traction is his nonsensical class-warfare message. It amazes me how much support that party gets.