Child Care Plan

[SamStranger]

I personally would rather see a check in the mail then have my kids in day care. I, like many Canadians, do not send my children to a day care centre. I think its complete arrogance to shove a child care program down my throat that does not benifit me.

Direct cash on the other hand benifits EVERY SINGLE CANADIAN FAMILY with Kids under the age of 6. Not just select few.

What do you guys think?

[geoffrey]

I think parents should raise their own kids like they've always done.

I'm against any more massively expensive wastes of taxpayer funds. Axe the whole program. I'm hoping the CPC plan fails so then we have no 'child care program' to be a further burden on the taxpayer in this country.

The government wants to raise our kids apparently, I'd rather let the parents do that, on their own, like they've always done. If parents weren't wasting all this money on stupid government programs, they'd save enough in taxes to get through it.

[margrace]

I think parents should raise their own kids like they've always done.

I'm against any more massively expensive wastes of taxpayer funds. Axe the whole program. I'm hoping the CPC plan fails so then we have no 'child care program' to be a further burden on the taxpayer in this country.

The government wants to raise our kids apparently, I'd rather let the parents do that, on their own, like they've always done. If parents weren't wasting all this money on stupid government programs, they'd save enough in taxes to get through it.

Who looks after your kids then.

[geoffrey]

I think parents should raise their own kids like they've always done.

I'm against any more massively expensive wastes of taxpayer funds. Axe the whole program. I'm hoping the CPC plan fails so then we have no 'child care program' to be a further burden on the taxpayer in this country.

The government wants to raise our kids apparently, I'd rather let the parents do that, on their own, like they've always done. If parents weren't wasting all this money on stupid government programs, they'd save enough in taxes to get through it.

Who looks after your kids then.

I don't have kids. My mother looked after me. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices, I'm sick of Canadians asking for money money money when they don't have the exact same standard of living as their neighbours.

[Concerned]

So Geoffrey, when you meet the career woman of your dreams, you are prepared to stay home and look after the kids ??

I voted none of the above in favour of a full tax write off. That way we all have the choice to do what we please and favouritism doesn't go to the small town stay at home mom that has no mortgage to pay.

[geoffrey]

So Geoffrey, when you meet the career woman of your dreams, you are prepared to stay home and look after the kids ??

I voted none of the above in favour of a full tax write off. That way we all have the choice to do what we please and favouritism doesn't go to the small town stay at home mom that has no mortgage to pay.

Probably wouldn't have kids if that was the situation, if someone can't stay home with them, then theres no point in just shipping them off to other people for them to be their parents. Up until school, a parent needs to be there, otherwise babysitter or daycare provider is definiltely going to have a closer bond than you with you child. That also depends on the employment situation at the time, if I could work out of the house with them, then most likely yes.

I honestly don't see the point of having kids if your going to get someone else to raise them.

Apparently the Canadian contempt for the family is growing with the support of these institutionalised daycares (not that I accuse you of holding these values Concerned, because obviously you don't support them).

[Montgomery Burns]

Quebec's daycare plan didn't exactly work very well, so why would someone want this implemented on a national scale?

[Concerned]

So Geoffrey, when you meet the career woman of your dreams, you are prepared to stay home and look after the kids ??

I voted none of the above in favour of a full tax write off. That way we all have the choice to do what we please and favouritism doesn't go to the small town stay at home mom that has no mortgage to pay.

Probably wouldn't have kids if that was the situation, if someone can't stay home with them, then theres no point in just shipping them off to other people for them to be their parents. Up until school, a parent needs to be there, otherwise babysitter or daycare provider is definiltely going to have a closer bond than you with you child. That also depends on the employment situation at the time, if I could work out of the house with them, then most likely yes.

I honestly don't see the point of having kids if your going to get someone else to raise them.

Apparently the Canadian contempt for the family is growing with the support of these institutionalised daycares (not that I accuse you of holding these values Concerned, because obviously you don't support them).

You mean if the woman can't stay home with them. But if you could work at home and focus on your career and ignore them while you are there, then you might consider it ? Ha ha.

I support the choice of the parents, it is a personal decision, and nobody raises your kids but you. You can employ help but it is up to you to manage it. Better resources and more choices are really what parents need.

[willy]

Like rent control in the 70's the Liberal plan will not increase actual seats. They may transfer existing seats to government subsidized seats. (Seats just refers to individual space in daycare)

The Conservative plan still offers $250 million in tax incentives to have the private sector add capacity.

Early child hood development may be a noble goal but can we start with access.

Right now we don't have enough daycare spots. The Conservative plan will go further to adding new spaces.

Real choice in child care. We need a scalable plan that parents can access. A new wait list wont help me.

[BubberMiley]

Probably wouldn't have kids if that was the situation

That probably won't be an issue. I don't think chicks dig conservative guys anyway.

[geoffrey]

Probably wouldn't have kids if that was the situation

That probably won't be an issue. I don't think chicks dig conservative guys anyway.

Your obviously not from Alberta.

[Hydraboss]

I'm conservative, from Alberta, and have two kids.....

When my wife and I had kids, she stayed home with them and then worked part time when she was able. She worked nights, and I worked days. Still like that almost ten years later.

The kids were not exactly planned, but then I am an Alberta conservative....so....could you blame her?

[geoffrey]

I'm conservative, from Alberta, and have two kids.....

When my wife and I had kids, she stayed home with them and then worked part time when she was able. She worked nights, and I worked days. Still like that almost ten years later.

The kids were not exactly planned, but then I am an Alberta conservative....so....could you blame her?

Exactly, nothing wrong with that setup.

Us Alberta conservative types, just too dangerous, lock up your daughters!

[Drea]

I'm conservative, from Alberta, and have two kids.....

When my wife and I had kids, she stayed home with them and then worked part time when she was able. She worked nights, and I worked days. Still like that almost ten years later.

The kids were not exactly planned, but then I am an Alberta conservative....so....could you blame her?

10 years later and the poor woman is still on nights!

Why doesn't she get a day job now that the kids are in school and be there for the evening.

So she gave up every evening for the past 10 years because you couldn't bag it?

Guess it was your conservative "husband's right" to have sex without birthcontrol huh?

IMO, give the woman a break -- you try the night shift for the next 10 years.

LOL and Geoffrey says "nothin' wrong with that set up!" Hyuk Hyuk.

On the news the other night -- a stay at home mom with a 2 year old, 1 year old twins, and one on the way. She's looking forward to spending the $5000 from the gov't on a vacation to Disneyland. Grrrreat! She's spending MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS in another friggin' country. Un-be-lievable.

Another woman, same news broadcast. Is on a 3 year waiting list for daycare space. By the time she gets the space, she won't need it anymore.

What a screwed up system the cons are putting in place.

Give the "traditional" family a vacation in Disneyland -- while the "regular" family struggles to find a space for their child.

The second family (the one looking for daycare space) pays much much more in taxes (2 income earners) than the glorified "traditional" family.

[Renegade]

I think parents should raise their own kids like they've always done.

It is really up to parents to choose the best option on how to raise kids for their circumstances. I don't think that advocating a "one solution fits all" is viable. Of course there are limits. We wouldn't let parents leave young kids home alone, however within limits parents should be free to choose if they stay home or arrange an alternate care provider.

[Drea]

IMO The conservatives are making it harder for women to work.

The other day, once again, on the news.. A family needs an income (minimum income) of $129,000 per year to buy a house in greater Vancouver. How many men make $130 grand a year?

[Renegade]

IMO The conservatives are making it harder for women to work.

The other day, once again, on the news.. A family needs an income (minimum income) of $129,000 per year to buy a house in greater Vancouver. How many men make $130 grand a year?

I don't see how you can fault any one political party for the price of houses in Vancouver. Many global cities of similar size have housing costs which are higher than Vancouver or Toronto. House prices are driven up by demand. Everyone seems to expect a house with a yard and two cars. To meet that level of expectation two income earners are probably needed, however if expectations are lowered, so will the need for high incomes to sustain such a lifestyle.

[geoffrey]

I'm conservative, from Alberta, and have two kids.....

When my wife and I had kids, she stayed home with them and then worked part time when she was able. She worked nights, and I worked days. Still like that almost ten years later.

The kids were not exactly planned, but then I am an Alberta conservative....so....could you blame her?

10 years later and the poor woman is still on nights!

Why doesn't she get a day job now that the kids are in school and be there for the evening.

So she gave up every evening for the past 10 years because you couldn't bag it?

Guess it was your conservative "husband's right" to have sex without birthcontrol huh?

IMO, give the woman a break -- you try the night shift for the next 10 years.

LOL and Geoffrey says "nothin' wrong with that set up!" Hyuk Hyuk.

On the news the other night -- a stay at home mom with a 2 year old, 1 year old twins, and one on the way. She's looking forward to spending the $5000 from the gov't on a vacation to Disneyland. Grrrreat! She's spending MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS in another friggin' country. Un-be-lievable.

Another woman, same news broadcast. Is on a 3 year waiting list for daycare space. By the time she gets the space, she won't need it anymore.

What a screwed up system the cons are putting in place.

Give the "traditional" family a vacation in Disneyland -- while the "regular" family struggles to find a space for their child.

The second family (the one looking for daycare space) pays much much more in taxes (2 income earners) than the glorified "traditional" family.

Thats quite a feminist selfish attitude. Maybe the mother actually values her childs upbringing more than her selfish personal interest.

It's obvious that you'd perfer a system where you give birth and thats the last you see of your kids other than a couple hours at night and the weekends. All in the name of 'women's right' to her selfish interest. How ridiculous.

[Drea]

I'm conservative, from Alberta, and have two kids.....

When my wife and I had kids, she stayed home with them and then worked part time when she was able. She worked nights, and I worked days. Still like that almost ten years later.

The kids were not exactly planned, but then I am an Alberta conservative....so....could you blame her?

10 years later and the poor woman is still on nights!

Why doesn't she get a day job now that the kids are in school and be there for the evening.

So she gave up every evening for the past 10 years because you couldn't bag it?

Guess it was your conservative "husband's right" to have sex without birthcontrol huh?

IMO, give the woman a break -- you try the night shift for the next 10 years.

LOL and Geoffrey says "nothin' wrong with that set up!" Hyuk Hyuk.

On the news the other night -- a stay at home mom with a 2 year old, 1 year old twins, and one on the way. She's looking forward to spending the $5000 from the gov't on a vacation to Disneyland. Grrrreat! She's spending MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS in another friggin' country. Un-be-lievable.

Another woman, same news broadcast. Is on a 3 year waiting list for daycare space. By the time she gets the space, she won't need it anymore.

What a screwed up system the cons are putting in place.

Give the "traditional" family a vacation in Disneyland -- while the "regular" family struggles to find a space for their child.

The second family (the one looking for daycare space) pays much much more in taxes (2 income earners) than the glorified "traditional" family.

Thats quite a feminist selfish attitude. Maybe the mother actually values her childs upbringing more than her selfish personal interest.

It's obvious that you'd perfer a system where you give birth and thats the last you see of your kids other than a couple hours at night and the weekends. All in the name of 'women's right' to her selfish interest. How ridiculous.

What part of my post makes me a selfish feminist? The part about the family going to the states on MY TAX dollar or the part where 2 income earners pay more taxes? Or the part about the woman working nights.

[geoffrey]

What part of my post makes me a selfish feminist? The part about the family going to the states on MY TAX dollar or the part where 2 income earners pay more taxes? Or the part about the woman working nights.

Drea,

I agree with you on the families going to the states on our tax dollars, its ridiculous. There should be no child care program whatsoever. If families want kids, pay for them. You might have to give up a bit. My parents raised me in a cheap rental apartment for a couple years while my dad got established in his business. Deal with it. Make sacrifices! Don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.

The woman working nights is where the feminism comes. This paragraph is telling:

10 years later and the poor woman is still on nights!

Why doesn't she get a day job now that the kids are in school and be there for the evening.

So she gave up every evening for the past 10 years because you couldn't bag it?

Guess it was your conservative "husband's right" to have sex without birthcontrol huh?

You hate conservative types that think you should have someone working and someone raising the kids. In today's world, more women are educated than men, so I think you might see more stay at home dads as the woman can make more cash.

You've blamed the conservatives for housing prices in Vancouver, and you've blamed them for creating some kind of husband's right to have sex without birth control. You just hate conservatives, admit it. You'd rather have the government control every aspect of everything you do, regulate those housing prices, build warehouses to store your kids for the day, ect. ect.

How ridiculous.

[Hydraboss]

Hey Drea,

Let me clarify. My wife is an Pediatric Intensive Care RN, and gets shift differential for working nights. It also works out better for child care (provided by us). She prefers nights and remember that my kids are only 8 and 9 and therefore cannot be left by themselves (by law).

And as for me......I have been on call 24/7/365 for the last 12 years. I go to the office during the day, but I go everywhere I am needed the rest of the days and nights.

The next time you open your mouth, please use it to exude some form of intelligence. You could have just asked why she is still working nights.

[Riverwind]

The other day, once again, on the news.. A family needs an income (minimum income) of $129,000 per year to buy a house in greater Vancouver. How many men make $130 grand a year?

Your statement illustrates the entire problem: no one absolutely needs to buy a detached home in Vancouver for $600,000. A two or three bedroom condo in the $200-300K range provides adequate housing for most people. All they need to do is adjust their expectations or move to a different city.

I beleive that most people who insist they need two incomes to live are not being honest with themselves. What they really want are two incomes to support the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and are not willing to sacrifice that lifestyle to support their children.

That is why the gov't should never provide a universal daycare service because it simply encourages people to make bad choices that end up costing the tax payer a lot of money. If anything, the gov't t should provide more incentives to encourage people to stay at home to take care of their own kids. Subsidized daycare, when it is available should be restricted to the truely working poor (i.e. single parent households with low income).

[margrace]

In one breath we hear that women should stay home and rasie their children, in the next breath we are told that women, especially single parent women should be out working to support themselves and their children.

It's nice that you all are able to work one in the daytime and one at night so you don't need childcare. But there are a lot of women and some men who don't have that option.

I wonder how many women and men are suddenly, by a sudden death, the main breadwinner. I was lucky I had a mother and mother in law at home when that happened to me. That is no longer an option for many young mothers.

If all the women stayed home and their income was cut what would happen to the many jobs now depending on their buying power?

I read a diatribe not too long ago from a young person who resented the fact that families with children with problems such as Autism have no right to expect her taxes to pay for their children. She did not want children and they should not expect her to pay for theirs.

[Renegade]

In one breath we hear that women should stay home and rasie their children, in the next breath we are told that women, especially single parent women should be out working to support themselves and their children.

What you hear are different opinions, we are not all saying the same thing. IMO one parent (either one) should stay home and raise the children if that is what they choose to do and can afford to do so. If not they will need to find a childcare solution. In any case they should be fully responsible for the financial burden of child rearing.

It's nice that you all are able to work one in the daytime and one at night so you don't need childcare. But there are a lot of women and some men who don't have that option.

I certainly understand that not everyone has the luxury of being a stay-at-home parent and certainly I am not judgemental to those parents who cannot or choose not to stay home.

I wonder how many women and men are suddenly, by a sudden death, the main breadwinner. I was lucky I had a mother and mother in law at home when that happened to me. That is no longer an option for many young mothers.

Responsible parenting would suggest that the breadwinner's income should be protected against loss by taking life insurance. I'm not sure if that happened in your case, but wouldn't you agree that the parent bears responsiblity for providing for their dependant children in case of their demise?

If all the women stayed home and their income was cut what would happen to the many jobs now depending on their buying power?

This argument is a red herring. The jobs exist to supply a demand. If that demand no longer exist, then labour must adapt to where demand does exist. You statement implies backwards logic.

I read a diatribe not too long ago from a young person who resented the fact that families with children with problems such as Autism have no right to expect her taxes to pay for their children. She did not want children and they should not expect her to pay for theirs.

I can understand the logic of the young person who didn't see why she was required to financially support children whom she didn't create nor was provided input into the decision to create.

Maybe it would help if you articulated your position on why you think everyone else should shoulder the financial burden of your kids and why it should not be exclusively the parent's responsibliity.

[geoffrey]

The other day, once again, on the news.. A family needs an income (minimum income) of $129,000 per year to buy a house in greater Vancouver. How many men make $130 grand a year?

Your statement illustrates the entire problem: no one absolutely needs to buy a detached home in Vancouver for $600,000. A two or three bedroom condo in the $200-300K range provides adequate housing for most people. All they need to do is adjust their expectations or move to a different city.

I beleive that most people who insist they need two incomes to live are not being honest with themselves. What they really want are two incomes to support the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and are not willing to sacrifice that lifestyle to support their children.

That is why the gov't should never provide a universal daycare service because it simply encourages people to make bad choices that end up costing the tax payer a lot of money. If anything, the gov't t should provide more incentives to encourage people to stay at home to take care of their own kids. Subsidized daycare, when it is available should be restricted to the truely working poor (i.e. single parent households with low income).

There ya go Sparhawk, you hit the nail on the head. If you can't afford a house, rent an apartment until finances improve. Or whatever you need to do. People can get by with a roof over their heads, and food on the table for not a whole lot of money. It's a matter of lifestyle however, and some people apparently believe that having kids should have no impact on their lifestyle?

The day I understand your politics however Sparhawk, will be a great day of enlightenment for me. Who could you vote for, I don't think anyone on here is so divided between issues?