Child Care Plan

[Nocrap]

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?

Children under six are not the only little ones who need help. It is interesting to me that Mr Harper, when a guest speaker for the Reform Party at an NCC dinner held at the Hamilton Golf and Country Club on May 24, 1994, discussing their progress - "These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party of Canada and in part to groups like the National Citizens’ Coalition...What has happened in the last five years? Let me start with the positive side...the family allowance program has been eliminated..." If this was such a 'positive' thing, why is he bringing it back?

I think he is trying to buy us off. Everytime a difficult question is raised to any member of his caucus or PR staff, they answer it by saying "the cheques are going out" What does that have to do with Afghanistan or ethics? You be the judge.

[scribblet]

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

Who looks after your kids then.

The parents themselves should be raising their own children. No wonder children today are growing up with no values or morals, and our politicians are foisting their brand of social engineering on the people of this country in many ways, the least of which is the refinition of marriage. I guess having Canadian values means having no values at all. That part about Canadian's having no values at all comes from an article I read on the Canadian Free Press.

Exactly and not the State, its called choice, and having no values at all or guidelines within which to raise your kids, is part of the religion of secular humanism. And, the religion of secular humanism is being foisted on everyone, and here I thought there was separation between church and state.

[cybercoma]

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?

Children under six are not the only little ones who need help. It is interesting to me that Mr Harper, when a guest speaker for the Reform Party at an NCC dinner held at the Hamilton Golf and Country Club on May 24, 1994, discussing their progress - "These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party of Canada and in part to groups like the National Citizens’ Coalition...What has happened in the last five years? Let me start with the positive side...the family allowance program has been eliminated..." If this was such a 'positive' thing, why is he bringing it back?

I think he is trying to buy us off. Everytime a difficult question is raised to any member of his caucus or PR staff, they answer it by saying "the cheques are going out" What does that have to do with Afghanistan or ethics? You be the judge.

kids under 6 aren't in school. after that you get free daycare, called public education.

[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?

Children under six are not the only little ones who need help. It is interesting to me that Mr Harper, when a guest speaker for the Reform Party at an NCC dinner held at the Hamilton Golf and Country Club on May 24, 1994, discussing their progress - "These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party of Canada and in part to groups like the National Citizens’ Coalition...What has happened in the last five years? Let me start with the positive side...the family allowance program has been eliminated..." If this was such a 'positive' thing, why is he bringing it back?

I think he is trying to buy us off. Everytime a difficult question is raised to any member of his caucus or PR staff, they answer it by saying "the cheques are going out" What does that have to do with Afghanistan or ethics? You be the judge.

kids under 6 aren't in school. after that you get free daycare, called public education.

lol.... good one.

[Drea]

Exactly and not the State, its called choice, and having no values at all or guidelines within which to raise your kids, is part of the religion of secular humanism. And, the religion of secular humanism is being foisted on everyone, and here I thought there was separation between church and state.

I raised my son with no religion involved. He is a very kind boy. He knows the difference between right and wrong.

Neighbour's son, from a stalwart churchgoing family, killed a neighbourhood cat a while back. Where are his morals? My son would never even think of hurting an animal, let alone a person.

The brattiest kids I've ever seen come from so called "religious" households. Way back in the day, when I was a waitress, Sunday after church was the absolute worst. Parents would bring in their brats and they'd run roughshod throughout the restaurant.

On the other hand, one of my clients, a large family of 9 children, invited me to sit in during prayer before lunch. I was soooo impressed by those wonderfully behaved kids.

The point is, being raised under religion does not guarantee morals. Being raised without religion does not guarantee that a child will be immoral.

McQueen wrote:

The parents themselves should be raising their own children. No wonder children today are growing up with no values or morals, and our politicians are foisting their brand of social engineering on the people of this country in many ways, the least of which is the refinition of marriage. I guess having Canadian values means having no values at all. That part about Canadian's having no values at all comes from an article I read on the Canadian Free Press.

What brand of "social engineering" are you referring to. LOL

My son who is 12 doesn't yet like girls, should I be concerned that he's been engineered to be gay? LOL

You say "the least of which is the refinition of marriage". If that's the least, in your opinion, what is the worst?

IMO, we are raising a boy who will know that life is work. There is no "free" ride. I work, hubby works, son works (paper route) and does chores and helps out. We are all in this family together so we all work together to make it easier for each other.

Why should a family sacrifice their financial future so Mom can stay home and wait hand and foot on Dad and the kids?

I get home later than hubby and son. Dinner is usually on the table when I get home (hubby is a great cook) and then son does the dishes after.

How immoral are we! Wow, teaching our son that roles in the family are not carved in stone and both males and females can work, earn, clean and have fun.

[Nocrap]

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?

Children under six are not the only little ones who need help. It is interesting to me that Mr Harper, when a guest speaker for the Reform Party at an NCC dinner held at the Hamilton Golf and Country Club on May 24, 1994, discussing their progress - "These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party of Canada and in part to groups like the National Citizens’ Coalition...What has happened in the last five years? Let me start with the positive side...the family allowance program has been eliminated..." If this was such a 'positive' thing, why is he bringing it back?

I think he is trying to buy us off. Everytime a difficult question is raised to any member of his caucus or PR staff, they answer it by saying "the cheques are going out" What does that have to do with Afghanistan or ethics? You be the judge.

kids under 6 aren't in school. after that you get free daycare, called public education.

lol.... good one.

So if you're 7, you can just roam free before school, after school, PA days, March Break, Summer Holidays?? I think that's called child neglect, which would result in a 'public' trial.

[Drea]

Good one No Crap!

[scribblet]

kids under 6 aren't in school. after that you get free daycare, called public education.

lol.... good one.

So if you're 7, you can just roam free before school, after school, PA days, March Break, Summer Holidays?? I think that's called child neglect, which would result in a 'public' trial.

Only if you have irresponsible parents who don't give a care anyway and wouldn't have had kids they couldn't afford if they really cared about them (kids). Either way its not up to the government or the taxpayers to provide 24/7 day care.

[cybercoma]

So if you're 7, you can just roam free before school, after school, PA days, March Break, Summer Holidays?? I think that's called child neglect, which would result in a 'public' trial.

You make arrangements. Not cry to the government for handouts.

Y'know...if you're into having someone else raising your kids 24/7.

[Drea]

So if you're 7, you can just roam free before school, after school, PA days, March Break, Summer Holidays?? I think that's called child neglect, which would result in a 'public' trial.

You make arrangements. Not cry to the government for handouts.

Y'know...if you're into having someone else raising your kids 24/7.

I don't know about you, but if my boss made me work 24/7 I'd not be a happy employee. Maybe you oughta talk to your boss about maybe a workshare program so that you don't have to work all day and all night.

I was low income when my son was in primary school. The govt provided me with money for after school care.

Once again, I NOW pay more in taxes than I collected on welfare... IF the govt had NOT provided childcare monies I WOULD NOT be where I am today -- I would either be working in a low-level, low-paying job or have no job at all.

I'm sorry I'm going "all caps" on yer butts, but I'm tired of people saying low income people CRY for a handout. Its not a hand OUT its a hand UP.

A hand OUT is giving $100 a month to the family who doesn't need it.

[justcrowing]

Why should a family sacrifice their financial future so Mom can stay home and wait hand and foot on Dad and the kids?

I get home later than hubby and son. Dinner is usually on the table when I get home (hubby is a great cook) and then son does the dishes after.

How immoral are we! Wow, teaching our son that roles in the family are not carved in stone and both males and females can work, earn, clean and have fun.

So mom works and has the rest of the working family waiting on her hand and foot. Perfect feminisim!!

[Drea]

Why should a family sacrifice their financial future so Mom can stay home and wait hand and foot on Dad and the kids?

I get home later than hubby and son. Dinner is usually on the table when I get home (hubby is a great cook) and then son does the dishes after.

How immoral are we! Wow, teaching our son that roles in the family are not carved in stone and both males and females can work, earn, clean and have fun.

So mom works and has the rest of the working family waiting on her hand and foot. Perfect feminisim!!

Whoever gets home first cooks.

Just so happens I work til 5, hubby works til 3:30 when on days.

When he's on nights I cook.

On Tuesdays when both my men go to cadets, I cook and do the dishes. I cook and do the dishes on the weekends

Wassa matter? Jealous?

It's not 'feminism' darlin' -- it's r-e-a-l-i-t-y.

In my family no one is waited on... we all do our share.

[justcrowing]

Why should a family sacrifice their financial future so Mom can stay home and wait hand and foot on Dad and the kids?

I get home later than hubby and son. Dinner is usually on the table when I get home (hubby is a great cook) and then son does the dishes after.

How immoral are we! Wow, teaching our son that roles in the family are not carved in stone and both males and females can work, earn, clean and have fun.

So mom works and has the rest of the working family waiting on her hand and foot. Perfect feminisim!!

Whoever gets home first cooks.

Just so happens I work til 5, hubby works til 3:30 when on days.

When he's on nights I cook.

On Tuesdays when both my men go to cadets, I cook and do the dishes. I cook and do the dishes on the weekends

Wassa matter? Jealous?

It's not 'feminism' darlin' -- it's r-e-a-l-i-t-y.

In my family no one is waited on... we all do our share.

Nothing to get jealous over. Gimmes always get.

[Drea]

As long as we are all happy.

If you are happy staying at home. I'm happy for you.

I'm a very fortunate woman to have a wonderful man who supports my career.

The further up the ladder I climb, the better off our family will be.

As soon as I make enough to fully support the family, hubby will quit his job and open his own business.

THEN I'll be the one cooking as he'll be pretty darn busy.

[Spike22]

As long as we are all happy.

If you are happy staying at home. I'm happy for you.

He's a pansy and wants you to make more money so he can eventually stop working in his deadend job. This nonesense about starting his own business is just a ploy, he wants to loaf around in his poop stained underwear, drinking milk out of the container and scratching himself all day watching porn. Man some people will buy anything.

I'm a very fortunate woman to have a wonderful man who supports my career.

Yeah babe make lots of dough at work so that I can spend my mornings watching Barkers Beauties on the Price is Right.

The further up the ladder I climb, the better off our family will be.

And the less your man will wear pants

As soon as I make enough to fully support the family, hubby will quit his job and open his own business.

THEN I'll be the one cooking as he'll be pretty darn busy.

He wishes you could cook. He will have to re-introduce you to the women's work room the kitchen [not to mention the love shack] that you have neglected since you started your self fulfilling occupation. His only dream of owning a business is a business like Seymore Butts has.

[Renegade]

I was low income when my son was in primary school. The govt provided me with money for after school care.

Once again, I NOW pay more in taxes than I collected on welfare... IF the govt had NOT provided childcare monies I WOULD NOT be where I am today -- I would either be working in a low-level, low-paying job or have no job at all.

I'm sorry I'm going "all caps" on yer butts, but I'm tired of people saying low income people CRY for a handout. Its not a hand OUT its a hand UP.

A hand OUT is giving $100 a month to the family who doesn't need it.

Drea, your post seems to imply that you feel that the taxes you now pay more than compensate for the welfare and subsidies you recieved from the government at one time. This may or may not be true. Your taxes today have to pay for medicare, your children's education, government administration, debt interest, etc.. It has been estimated that the government spending is about $15,000 per person. So, assuming you are also responsible for 50% of your son's expenditures, the amount of government expenditure on you and your son is about $22,500 ($15000 + $7500). In effect you would need to be paying over $22500 in taxes and anything above that you can legimitately claim is offsetting the amount you recieved in previous subsidies.

Statistics Canada reports that in 2002, spending by all levels in Canada reached $457.8 billion or 39.6% of GDP or $14,574 per person

link

You also seem to feel that what low-income people need is a "hand UP" not a "hand OUT". That is great rethoric, but what is really the difference? Should we expect that they will pay back subsidies which are given as a "hand UP" instead of a no obligation "hand OUT" (Kind of like we expect students to pay back student loans). Or maybe it is an investement we make for which we should expect a return at some point down the road. If it is an investment, it is not a very good one. Most people won't achieve the level of success you seem to, and end up contributing to the public purse to the extent it would offset the initial investment.

[margrace]

I was low income when my son was in primary school. The govt provided me with money for after school care.

Once again, I NOW pay more in taxes than I collected on welfare... IF the govt had NOT provided childcare monies I WOULD NOT be where I am today -- I would either be working in a low-level, low-paying job or have no job at all.

I'm sorry I'm going "all caps" on yer butts, but I'm tired of people saying low income people CRY for a handout. Its not a hand OUT its a hand UP.

A hand OUT is giving $100 a month to the family who doesn't need it.

Drea, your post seems to imply that you feel that the taxes you now pay more than compensate for the welfare and subsidies you recieved from the government at one time. This may or may not be true. Your taxes today have to pay for medicare, your children's education, government administration, debt interest, etc.. It has been estimated that the government spending is about $15,000 per person. So, assuming you are also responsible for 50% of your son's expenditures, the amount of government expenditure on you and your son is about $22,500 ($15000 + $7500). In effect you would need to be paying over $22500 in taxes and anything above that you can legimitately claim is offsetting the amount you recieved in previous subsidies.

Statistics Canada reports that in 2002, spending by all levels in Canada reached $457.8 billion or 39.6% of GDP or $14,574 per person

link

You also seem to feel that what low-income people need is a "hand UP" not a "hand OUT". That is great rethoric, but what is really the difference? Should we expect that they will pay back subsidies which are given as a "hand UP" instead of a no obligation "hand OUT" (Kind of like we expect students to pay back student loans). Or maybe it is an investement we make for which we should expect a return at some point down the road. If it is an investment, it is not a very good one. Most people won't achieve the level of success you seem to, and end up contributing to the public purse to the extent it would offset the initial investment.

Once again the Me generation, its all mine, I don't care if that person starves I should not have to give taxes to help him. It is my God given right to keep it all and it is their God given right to starve. I've heard that before many times.

[Renegade]

Once again the Me generation, its all mine, I don't care if that person starves I should not have to give taxes to help him. It is my God given right to keep it all and it is their God given right to starve. I've heard that before many times.

You're correct, I don't think my taxes should fund what in essence are charitable programs. In my view, charitable programs should be funded out of voluntary contributions. The fact that you have heard the argument before, does not rebut it, and would indicate that many others feel the same way.

[Drea]

Drea, your post seems to imply that you feel that the taxes you now pay more than compensate for the welfare and subsidies you recieved from the government at one time.

Was not meant to imply such.

Means that without the "hand up" from the govt, perhaps I would not be a taxpayer at all. Now that the gov't hepled me (for about 9 months) I have, once again, become a productive member of society. Thanks govt! for being there when I really needed you and for helping me when I was low income.

You also seem to feel that what low-income people need is a "hand UP" not a "hand OUT". That is great rethoric, but what is really the difference? Should we expect that they will pay back subsidies which are given as a "hand UP" instead of a no obligation "hand OUT" (Kind of like we expect students to pay back student loans). Or maybe it is an investement we make for which we should expect a return at some point down the road. If it is an investment, it is not a very good one. Most people won't achieve the level of success you seem to, and end up contributing to the public purse to the extent it would offset the initial investment.

Also untrue.

And by the way. I did have to pay back $2600 which was the "living expense" portion of the welfare I collected for 9 months. They are sooo generous, they didn't make me pay back the "shelter" portion.

As I was not deemed "unemployable" (I have a college education) as soon as I got a job I had to pay back that portion of what welfare gave me (not the daycare subsidy tho -- thank goodness).

They called it "hardship" not "welfare".

You know what's wonky? If I would have stayed on welfare longer, I would not have had to pay it back.

Later in life (2002), I was on EI and wanted to change careers (or thought I did). The federal gov't paid me my EI while I went back to college. Hand Up or Hand Out?

I didn't change careers, I went back to sales, but now I have updated computer skills which are invaluable in the position I now hold.

I agree though, I am one of the fortunate ones. I didn't go into this totally uneducated like most who wind up on welfare. I had a college education and years of experience behind me.

Last night I was thinking about my little boy when he was about 2 and how hard it was to drop him off at daycare. How badly I just wanted to stay home with him. But I did not want to raise a child on welfare. I did not want to teach him that welfare was an option in life.

[Renegade]

Also untrue.

Which part is untrue?

And by the way. I did have to pay back $2600 which was the "living expense" portion of the welfare I collected for 9 months. They are sooo generous, they didn't make me pay back the "shelter" portion.

As I was not deemed "unemployable" (I have a college education) as soon as I got a job I had to pay back that portion of what welfare gave me (not the daycare subsidy tho -- thank goodness).

They called it "hardship" not "welfare".

You know what's wonky? If I would have stayed on welfare longer, I would not have had to pay it back.

Later in life (2002), I was on EI and wanted to change careers (or thought I did). The federal gov't paid me my EI while I went back to college. Hand Up or Hand Out?

I didn't change careers, I went back to sales, but now I have updated computer skills which are invaluable in the position I now hold.

I agree though, I am one of the fortunate ones. I didn't go into this totally uneducated like most who wind up on welfare. I had a college education and years of experience behind me.

Last night I was thinking about my little boy when he was about 2 and how hard it was to drop him off at daycare. How badly I just wanted to stay home with him. But I did not want to raise a child on welfare. I did not want to teach him that welfare was an option in life.

You know Drea, your attitude is extreme admirable and you used weflare and EI as they were intended (ie as temporary measures, on your way to self-reliance). You also set a great example for your children.

It would seem that whether a subsidy or benefit is a Hand-Up or a Hand-Out depends more upon what the recipient actions are, and what they do with the benefit. Some welfare and EI reciepients may just squander the benefits or use them for dettimental purchases. In this case what they are getting is a hand-out. Others may truly use them to work their way to self-reliance, and in this case they are infact getting a hand-up.

The tragedy in our system is there are no checks and balances to distinguish one attitude from the other and only give "hand-ups" and not "hand-outs"

[Drea]

In BC, a while back, Gordon Campbell was going to put a three year limit on welfare wherein a single parent could only stay on welfare until the youngest child was 3yo.

I know my tenant was forced to go back to school -- she took ECE and has that small daycare now. Although she is not completely independent of govt assistance, she is less dependent than before she took the training.

As welfare is a provincial responsibility, I expect it will be different in all the provinces.

I am all for forced training. No one should be allowed to sit on welfare for life (except the mentally handicapped or the unemployable ie; seniors or those too ill to work).

[Montgomery Burns]

Another example of what happens when you have cold heartless bureaucrats looking after your children:

2 Quebec daycare workers fired for closing up shop and forgetting about toddler locked inside

LAVAL, Que. -- Two daycare workers in Laval, north of Montreal, were fired after they forgot a sleeping toddler inside their daycare and went home for the night.

The mother of the 21-month-old baby arrived around 6 p.m. Tuesday night to find the day care's doors locked and the lights off.

She called 911 and firefighters smashed a window to get her child.

[Concerned]

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).

A three bedroom condo in Vancouver would cost between 500 and 600K...sorry you're out of touch here.

[geoffrey]

So what do you want done about housing prices? There is nothing that can be done.

Move elsewhere.

P.S. I found 25 houses and condos below $400k in Burnaby. That's Vancouver no? Not from there so I don't know. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable distance from anywhere (it looked it was in the middle), so your claim is false anyway. (mls.ca)

[michao]

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?

Hahaha, that is the most arrogant and selfish BS I have ever heard.

First off, notice that this money is meant for people who have to send their children to the day care, not for people that don;t send their children to the daycare but they want money, of course having complete ignorance to the purpose of the day care program, that money should go to people who need it for daycare.

Not to some person that thinks that even thought they don;t need the money for daycare they want it.