Child Care Plan

[betsy]

Whoever posted on here "parents should take after their kids withour government help" or some crap is a complete asshole. You know how much it costs to raise kids? Before I became a "master carpenter" (15 years into the trade) I was barely making enough money to raise my 1 kid, now I have 4!!! i would have gone poor. $100 a month would not be a huge deal to me now that i grosse over $70 000 a year, but to a struggling family it will go a long way.

Some couples choose not to have any children until they are ready and can support a family!

[margrace]

You know there are some pretty self centred and self interest posts on here. The main belief of our food bank is that "there but for the grace of God go I". I know there are people out there who I would like to shake and ask them what is the matter with you. But the sad thing is that we are all not created equal, there are young women who make wrong choices for some reason especially they young woman and her two children who were recently beaton to death by her husband, Just North of Toronto. On the news that night were 15 unneeded deaths. The mother who murdered her two children, the death of a young man at the hands of a friend, the mutliple deaths on snowmobiles, and so on.

It would be nice if all we had to consider on here was our choice of whether to have children or not but the world does not work that way does it. It seems to me that a lot of people buy into the belief of the American Constitution that everyone is created equal. Are they? How do you explain children who are born with mental problems, probably inherited in their family. How do you solve that little problem? Force all families who have inherited problems to be sterilized?

What do you do with people who leave families bereft of a mother or father just because they thought it was their right to drive drunk. Isn't child care the responsibility of all of us?

Yes I know there are people who believe that just because they were born with the right genes that it is their right to live the life they do and God help anyone who thinks that they just might have a little responsibily towards there fellow man.

Then there are the sociopaths out there, ever run into one of them. What is good for them is good for the world even if it means you have to starve to death to satisfy their greed.

What is the solution? I don't know do you? But I do know it isn't being addressed by anyone in our past and present governments.

[geoffrey]

Margrace,

Adding more welfare programs to the mix won't help people be empowered to improve their lives. Welfare is often a life sentence, any people don't ever get off it once they are on it.

We need to help people in acute times of crisis, support while finding another job (should take no more than 3 months) or in the case of a death of the income earner, more time to get self-sufficient.

I've made this example in another thread about the Newfoundlanders, and how our government has crushed their ability to make a living. These people are no different than us in more wealthy areas of the country. But the government's constant subsidy of this area has created a culture of reliance, and its tough to break away from. People there believe they are entitled to payments forever because of the death of their industry, instead of taking short-term EI money, going back to school with it, and learning how to function in another industry, perhaps elsewhere in the country.

In your example of the drunk driving accident, this is exactly the situation where welfare needs to come in and help people in extreme circumstances. Good choice.

People should never need the government to help them in day to day living, if it has to, then we have failed as a society to let those people thrive.

There is a place for welfare and social assistance, but handouts do not empower people to better themselves. I have faith that given fair circumstances, most people will choose to better themselves. A little tough love can go along way in helping people improve their lives.

Why do socialist types have such little faith in others?

[margrace]

Geoffrey, I grew up knowing that people could get anything they wanted in this world if only they had the desire to go and get it.

Sadly 71 years of living have taught me differently. It would be nice if all people were created equal, if all people had the same abilities but sadly they do not. I met a family who had no problem working hard however people no longer are required to dig ditches or clean out barns by hand. This is what a certain amount of the population used to do. To be absolutely blunt it was all they could do.

Now we have machines to do the joe jobs. Farmers no longer can afford to hire these people and putting one of them on a $100,000 tractor would be disastorous. Nowadays there is little one can do if one cannot read. But there are people out there who it seems cannot learn to read. My husband was one of them. Oh yes he did well for as long as he lived because when he had to pass tests I read the information to him. And tests were given orally then. I don't believe that happens now.

Several years ago a lot of young people were encouraged to get into the computer world, what happened, a huge bust and a lot of them lost their jobs. You cannot count on anything lasting. It is said that a large amount of the population is only two paychecks away from using food banks.

What will happen to Ontario when Ford and GMC go bankrupt as it is said they will. The housing market bubble is alreading starting to get a dint in it. It probably will go bust and then what.

I don't recall adding saying that adding to welfare programs is the answer and yes there are generations of them on it. But I am asking what will you do with these people. Ontario had the answer and put them all out in the streets, what good did that do?

I know some people from Newfoundland who were helped by Joey Smallwood. He forced them off their Island homes because in his opinion fishing was too hard a job. He brought in the factory ships and helped destroy the industry.He broke up their communities and forced them to come to places such as Ontario where they were far from their families and were forced to travel back and forth trying to support their parents. Now the Cod are gone and it becomes more apparent all the time that they will not come back any time soon.

When the oil is gone from Alberta what will they do?

I wonder how often you have stood and watched people beg for food and cry. Its easy to be judgemental.

[geoffrey]

Margrace,

You mention GM and Ford going bankrupt. This, in my opinion, is a result of the corporate welfare that is pretty widespread in Canada. While the Asian tigers of the automotive sector have been forced to improve their products, improve their efficiencies, our domestic manufacturers have instead just asked for handouts to maintain the status quo. This is a good example why industry should not be subsidized. Giving them a next to tax free existance might have been good for the short term, but now we see the consequences of those actions in that we have an inefficient product and nothing left to bail it out with.

The loss of unskilled labour jobs (and some skilled labour jobs too) to technological development is truly a real issue, one with not a lot of solutions. The progress by technology cannot be ignored, as its given us all a better standard of living. But your right, at the same its created a void in the employment area for those that struggle with learning new technologies and skills... I don't think anyone has an answer to this problem. None the less, there are many employers in Canada currently that need these workers, but they are stuck under the welfare blanket on the other side of the country. This is a short-term crisis, and the demand for labour will fall again back to where its an issue. But right now, there situation couldn't be better for unskilled or semi-skilled labourers.

Alberta is now sufficiently diversified I believe to withstand an oil crash, we maintained fiscal prudence during the 80's collapse and stayed a have province. Since then, we've only become more diversified. Alberta certainly won't be rich without oil, but it'll make it.

I'm simply saying increasing social programs will only worsen our unemployment and reliance on the government. If people are left to do their thing, they'll succeed. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, like you've mentioned, and these people do need to be helped by welfare.

The point of social programs isn't for people to live off, but to give them a hand up in hard times in order for them to return to being productive members of society.

Thats why I'm so opposed to this child care program. It goes against the purpose of social assistance, and instead creates an environment where everyone receieves government help, and creates a reliance on the government. Government should only be there in your most dire situation, not everyday of your life.

Programs like this also take away funds from people that actually need them. You mention that many people are only two paycheques away from a food bank. I don't doubt this. Lets make sure there is money to help these people in temporarily unemployed situations instead of creating a government paycheque to all parents.

Do people not realise what will happen in a reccession or depression when tax revenues fall and we can no longer afford our socialist paradise? The debt we could build is just staggering. You don't base your social programs on the revenues of your highest tax years, the years when the least people are using assistance. Further spending will risk our future as a fiscally responsibile nation. Tax cuts will give people both more money in their pockets and maintain our economic strength. Government surpluses should be returned to the people or invested in capital projects with little upkeep costs. Surpluses won't be there in the future. Thats a huge issue I have with the Conservative plan. Long-term spending commitments on surplus funds is an extremely dangerous proposition.

I sum it up with the thought that more government crutches won't solve any of these problems you present. I also agree though, that there aren't really many obvious solutions for any of them. Welfare isn't the answer though, its time we return dignity to many Canadians by employing them in a gainful labour.

[margrace]

I'm sure Mr. Harris agreed with you and we ended up with a huge increase of street people, a huge increase in food bank users and a case in Sudbury of a woman who was cut off her income and confined to her home who killed herself and her unborn child.

The problem Geoffrey is that it is not easy to identivy the abusers and when a policy of people reporting abuses only about .05 turned out to have any substance. Yes there are people on welfare who should not be getting it but very few I think.

One of the other items considered Welfare by a lot of people is Old AGe Pension. Do you agree with that pylosphy too?

Some of our schools were built with child care areas in them. Not only is this a good place for parents but it also can be used as a teaching facility for our children.

[geoffrey]

Mr. Harris and I agree on alot of points. I'm one of those that sees the common-sense in the common-sense revolution.

The thing with social assistance reform is that the improvements don't happen overnight. There would be a few years of suffering, of hearing people whining and complaining, before real change happened. People will find gainful labour if they are forced to either do that or live on the streets.

Of course, like you've said, there are people that genuinely need our help. Disabled people being the big one I can think of. This is what welfare is for.

These aren't even abusers I want kicked off the public pay roll. There are lots of people that legitamately have access to welfare that shouldn't. Short-term unemployment help (3 months), disability protection, and welfare for kids (through their parents) that are in an extremely disadvantaged situation. Thats it, thats all. Everyone else should be working.

Why should a perfectly capable induvidual sit on welfare for years at a time?

OAS is a very difficult form of social welfare to address. Personally, I think you have to earn your retirement, but lets be realistic here. Canadians have earned OAS, they've paid for this investment through their taxes and need to get the pay out.

The problem with this is that you can make more money in your RRSP than the government can after the administration costs. Personally, I think we'd be better off with a corresponding tax cut to the lowest income bracket or to a consumption tax and have people save for their own retirement in investments of their choice. Imagine the pride of a lower income induvidual that has saved up enough for their retirement.

All that being said, I think thats probably our best managed safety net program and I've got little issue with having it around.

About schools with child care facilities. Are you refering to high schools where in school mothers can drop off their kids? If so, great idea. These women need to finish their school. University subsidized day care also exists for mothers trying to earn a degree. Great idea.

If its for the teacher's kids, great idea again. It's a great employment benifet, there are many private sector companies that offer the same. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't think kids should be being educated formally at that age. They should be with their mothers, and/or fathers, experiencing love with their family, which is impossible at a childcare centre. Thats the best way to raise kids and as a society we should accept a second rate way to raise children!

[betsy]

You know there are some pretty self centred and self interest posts on here. The main belief of our food bank is that "there but for the grace of God go I". I know there are people out there who I would like to shake and ask them what is the matter with you. But the sad thing is that we are all not created equal, there are young women who make wrong choices for some reason especially they young woman and her two children who were recently beaton to death by her husband, Just North of Toronto. On the news that night were 15 unneeded deaths. The mother who murdered her two children, the death of a young man at the hands of a friend, the mutliple deaths on snowmobiles, and so on.

It would be nice if all we had to consider on here was our choice of whether to have children or not but the world does not work that way does it. It seems to me that a lot of people buy into the belief of the American Constitution that everyone is created equal. Are they? How do you explain children who are born with mental problems, probably inherited in their family. How do you solve that little problem? Force all families who have inherited problems to be sterilized?

What do you do with people who leave families bereft of a mother or father just because they thought it was their right to drive drunk. Isn't child care the responsibility of all of us?

Yes I know there are people who believe that just because they were born with the right genes that it is their right to live the life they do and God help anyone who thinks that they just might have a little responsibily towards there fellow man.

Then there are the sociopaths out there, ever run into one of them. What is good for them is good for the world even if it means you have to starve to death to satisfy their greed.

What is the solution? I don't know do you? But I do know it isn't being addressed by anyone in our past and present governments.

There are indeed self-centered and self-interest posts in here...but I don't think they come from those who have been contributing all along and saying, enough is enough! We know who will be footing the bill for this grandiose ill-planned national childcare. If I will be doling out more money to support someone else other than my own family, I would rather support other worthy causes like CHEO, cure for cancer and other research that will benefit everyone, including the future generation.

I would like to be able to help the poor elderlies who have no one...or who have been abandoned by their own! I would like to be able to help orphanages...the mentally retarded....the families with dying members, etc.., The list go on and on. There are others who desperately need help too!

We already support several social programs that benefit single parents. Do you think everything should be funneled towards them? WHY?

Of course we aren't born equal. And of course, it impossible to solve all the problems in this world!

What is the solution? One thing I know. It certainly isn't through giving an all-out financial support...for I think this only makes matters worse. We only encourage this feeling of "entitlement". Instead of going out there to brave the world...they end up waiting for dole outs...and become masters at whining.

[SamStranger]

I probably pay more income tax then that fucker who said im lazy cause I want support for my kids... fuck off. I have every god-damn right to want some support when Im paying income tax up the fucking wazoo. I grossed over $70 000 in 2005. You wanna know how much my take home pay was.... nearly $45 000!!! Im paying into that $100 a month, I have every right to it you fuck.

Please forgive my swearing. Im Italian and get really pissed when someone calls me lazy... im a master carpenter, im sure ive worked harder then any business person around here.

[Renegade]

I probably pay more income tax then that fucker who said im lazy cause I want support for my kids... fuck off. I have every god-damn right to want some support when Im paying income tax up the fucking wazoo. I grossed over $70 000 in 2005. You wanna know how much my take home pay was.... nearly $45 000!!! Im paying into that $100 a month, I have every right to it you fuck.

Please forgive my swearing. Im Italian and get really pissed when someone calls me lazy... im a master carpenter, im sure ive worked harder then any business person around here.

Sam, please calm down. Do not let some over-the-top posters taunt you into retaliating in kind.

I have a question for you, since you seem to believe that the level of taxes you pay entitles you to $100 a month back. Do you not agree then that other childless income earners and those who's children are over 6 are also entitled to $100 a month back if they pay the same level of taxes as you do?

[Drea]

What is the solution? One thing I know. It certainly isn't through giving an all-out financial support...for I think this only makes matters worse. We only encourage this feeling of "entitlement". Instead of going out there to brave the world...they end up waiting for dole outs...and become masters at whining.

I agree Betsy. Welfare recipients (except the mentally handicapped) should be required to take training. A single mom should have one year on welfare with her child -- then she should have to go to school to take some kind of education/job training.

Our tenant -- a single mom with 2 boys -- went back to school and took ECE. Now she has a little daycare. Now, of course, the amount she earns from taking in 2 children isn't enough to support her family, but she is recieving less from welfare (and therefor is less of a burden for taxpayers).

[betsy]

What is the solution? One thing I know. It certainly isn't through giving an all-out financial support...for I think this only makes matters worse. We only encourage this feeling of "entitlement". Instead of going out there to brave the world...they end up waiting for dole outs...and become masters at whining.

I agree Betsy. Welfare recipients (except the mentally handicapped) should be required to take training. A single mom should have one year on welfare with her child -- then she should have to go to school to take some kind of education/job training.

Our tenant -- a single mom with 2 boys -- went back to school and took ECE. Now she has a little daycare. Now, of course, the amount she earns from taking in 2 children isn't enough to support her family, but she is recieving less from welfare (and therefor is less of a burden for taxpayers).

You know what moms ought to be trained with? Budgeting (including time management) and simple Home Economics. I always thought wouldn't it be practical to include basics of cooking and nutrition in education....to learn how to cook from scratch!

I don't know how much this tenant earns from taking care of 2 children, but let me just tell you where her extra earning and perks from having this home daycare comes from:

*She doesn't have to take her own children to a daycare. That, in itself, is big-time savings already.

*She gets to be with and take care of her own children, eliminating the angst and worries other parents feel when they leave their kids to someone else. That's quite a perk!

*Percentage of all her expenses (including utilities, groceries, phone, etc.,) are tax deductible. She just have to save her receipts! Those who are professionals at preparing taxes will know and show her all the breaks she can get! Imagine the savings there!

*She gets to work in the comfort of her own home and environment. She need not spend commuting to and from work...eliminating the time consumed from commuting! Time means money!

*By following a daily planned routine, she'll even get things done around the house thereby being able to enjoy some time to herself! It means a less hectic schedule...and less stress!

[Drea]

Yes, we are quite proud of her (she's almost like a daughter to us, she moved in 7 years ago, at age 17, with her first as an infant, then the had the second one 1.5 years later).

She is a really good tenant and we hope she never wants to move.

[betsy]

You lazy leech (or is that your stay-at-home wife) already get plenty of government assistance. It's called the National Child Benefit and pays as much as $6,000 per child per year. A daycare program is assistance for people who want to work and pay taxes. The Conservative $1200 is WELFARE for lazy parents who don't want to work and want to live off other WORKING people's taxes!

You conservative hypocrites go nuts when someone says that every Canadian should have food to put on the table even when one is unemployed, but when it comes to welfare for perfectly healthy capable adults who use their children as an excuse for not working it's a wonderful idea, eh? You make me want to puke!

Well in my daycare when I used to be under a government-funded agency, some people who gets subsidized DO NOT NECESSARILY want to work and pay taxes!

I got a mom who was being funded for school and thus getting daycare subsidy, who did nothing but miss school from day one and usually comes to pick up her kid in a TAXI, waiting for her as she yaps her head off telling me what shopping center she'd been into instead of school!

This said agency had tons of parents (qualified only for PARTIAL subsidy due to their income), who don't even pay their share of the daycare expenses...ripping off the taxpayers who are already paying for these partial subsidies!

Leeches abound from those who use the system!

[Drea]

You lazy leech (or is that your stay-at-home wife) already get plenty of government assistance. It's called the National Child Benefit and pays as much as $6,000 per child per year. A daycare program is assistance for people who want to work and pay taxes. The Conservative $1200 is WELFARE for lazy parents who don't want to work and want to live off other WORKING people's taxes!

You conservative hypocrites go nuts when someone says that every Canadian should have food to put on the table even when one is unemployed, but when it comes to welfare for perfectly healthy capable adults who use their children as an excuse for not working it's a wonderful idea, eh? You make me want to puke!

While I don't agree with the language used here, I do agree with the concept he's trying to get across. Conservatives have never supported Canada's social safety net -- yet now, the Harper gov't is giving $1200 a year in welfare just to "encourage" parents to stay home. I don't get it -- vilify the woman who leaves her husband and needs to work and needs daycare subsidy -- yet give out money when it's NOT required. Why should I pay $100 to a family who is NOT below the poverty line?

Well in my daycare when I used to be under a government-funded agency, some people who gets subsidized DO NOT NECESSARILY want to work and pay taxes!

I got a mom who was being funded for school and thus getting daycare subsidy, who did nothing but miss school from day one and usually comes to pick up her kid in a TAXI, waiting for her as she yaps her head off telling me what shopping center she'd been into instead of school!

This said agency had tons of parents (qualified only for PARTIAL subsidy due to their income), who don't even pay their share of the daycare expenses...ripping off the taxpayers who are already paying for these partial subsidies!

Leeches abound from those who use the system!

I agree, once again Betsy. Leeches DO abound. I believe our welfare system should be thus:

1. Rent cheque directly to the landlord.

2. Hydro bill paid directly to hydro -- same with local phone service.

3. Food stamps or vouchers from the grocery store of their (the payee's) choice.

4. $ maybe a bit of extra cash for incidentals.

There needs to be some kind of "incentive" program for women like the one you described. Perhaps some kind of "points" system where you can earn cash if you (and you can prove it) are attending training, etc.

[fixer1]

Too bad that people could not be forced to become mature enough to take care of themselves before they ever become pregnant, but that is just the way of life. many young mothers thought having a child was a way to gain their independence, and that must have been a real shocker afterward to find out they were now more dependent then they ever were, on the help of others.

I am all for there being a place where these young mothers can leave their children and still attend classes. Maybe we should use parenting classes at high schools as on the job training for how and why Babies have needs that demand attention when they have it, not when you want to give it. The same couldbe said for Colleges and Universities. We should never purposely make a barrier to getting an education, when we can easily find other ways to make things work.

As for the young mothers who have decided to just stay home and have more children, so they can get higher welfare benefits,.... well lets just say that we should have a ceratin level of education required in this country, that all people must have or they would be denied welfare. yes we would have to make some exceptiions for those willing to learn, but those who are not willing then should be monitored and their children removed from their care until they can better take care of them. I like the $1200.00 per child under 6 better then the other plans because it directly reaches all people who have children, and treats them equally. The trouble with the other plans, it is more designed to help fewer people and not always those in most need. yes it would be nice if all p;eople who have children never had to worry about child care, while they pursue their careers. But we know that it is all part and parcel with being a parent. Today, taking responsibility is something that should be given reward and praise, but that would offend those who want to be responsible for nothing.

[cybercoma]

How about, don't have children if you can't afford them?

And if you're stupid enough to have a kid when you're obviously incapable of raising them, suffer the consequences. No one should EXPECT the taxpaying public to support your poor decisions.

[geoffrey]

I agree, once again Betsy. Leeches DO abound. I believe our welfare system should be thus:

1. Rent cheque directly to the landlord.

2. Hydro bill paid directly to hydro -- same with local phone service.

3. Food stamps or vouchers from the grocery store of their (the payee's) choice.

4. $ maybe a bit of extra cash for incidentals.

There needs to be some kind of "incentive" program for women like the one you described. Perhaps some kind of "points" system where you can earn cash if you (and you can prove it) are attending training, etc.

Add a 3 month limit on payments unless your attending training, in which case your grades would have to be excellent or you lose your funding. Do that and you've got me convinced on your plan.

[Renegade]

Our tenant -- a single mom with 2 boys -- went back to school and took ECE. Now she has a little daycare. Now, of course, the amount she earns from taking in 2 children isn't enough to support her family, but she is recieving less from welfare (and therefor is less of a burden for taxpayers).

Yes, we are quite proud of her (she's almost like a daughter to us, she moved in 7 years ago, at age 17, with her first as an infant, then the had the second one 1.5 years later).

Granted, I probably don't know all the facts, so forgive me if I jump to conclusions, but based upon what you said, I gather that the tenant, of whom you are so proud, got pregnant a SECOND time while on taxpayer-funded welfare. Does that demonstrate her level of responsibility?

[SamStranger]

Sam, please calm down. Do not let some over-the-top posters taunt you into retaliating in kind.

I have a question for you, since you seem to believe that the level of taxes you pay entitles you to $100 a month back. Do you not agree then that other childless income earners and those who's children are over 6 are also entitled to $100 a month back if they pay the same level of taxes as you do?

Thats a good point, and I never really thought of that. I suppose it is a little unfair for people to pay taxes and not use a service, but what about the NDP? They want more money for services for the poor (afordable housing, ect.) that doesnt help me, yet I have to pay into that. Its a lose-lose situation when it comes to taxes. I think more things should be privatized so we only pay for the services we use, and we dont have high taxes.

[Drea]

Granted, I probably don't know all the facts, so forgive me if I jump to conclusions, but based upon what you said, I gather that the tenant, of whom you are so proud, got pregnant a SECOND time while on taxpayer-funded welfare. Does that demonstrate her level of responsibility?

You are so right -- we were terribly disappointed (as were her parents) when she got pregnant with the 2nd one. But what can you do? Abortion was not an option for her.

No sense being angry with her -- what's done is done.

Now, 7 years later, she has the older boy in hockey and the younger one in soccer. She never parties, she never has "strange" men over (that I've ever seen), she's quiet, she pays the rent. What more could a landlord want?

My niece had a kid at age 17. She is now almost 20 and lives with her parents. She parties like there's no tomorrow because she knows gramma and granpa will look after her child. (They really have no choice when she simply leaves the house after the baby is asleep -- even when my sister and her husband say no -- she talks her 16 year old sister into looking after the baby -- for free) She doesn't have a job and she refuses to go on welfare. IMO, I would rather see her go on welfare and learn what looking after a baby is really like, instead of being a "free and wild teenager", collecting the child tax credit and living off her parents (all the glory of being a mom without the responsibility).

Our tenant at least has to raise the children herself. The neice simply believes her parents "owe" her. I have much more respect for our tenant than this spoiled brat.

[scribblet]

Conservatives have never supported Canada's social safety net -- yet now, the Harper gov't is giving $1200 a year in welfare just to "encourage" parents to stay home. I don't get it --

Maybe you could provide some backup for that statement. Conservatives do support a social safety net, what they do not support is welfare for life, or welfare without any kind of accountability or committment to finding employment.

The best form of welfare is a good economy which provides jobs.

As far as I'm concerned the CPC is giving the money to individuals to assist them in making their own choices, to decide what they want for their children, as opposed to a state run collective.

[Renegade]

Granted, I probably don't know all the facts, so forgive me if I jump to conclusions, but based upon what you said, I gather that the tenant, of whom you are so proud, got pregnant a SECOND time while on taxpayer-funded welfare. Does that demonstrate her level of responsibility?

You are so right -- we were terribly disappointed (as were her parents) when she got pregnant with the 2nd one. But what can you do? Abortion was not an option for her.

No sense being angry with her -- what's done is done.

Now, 7 years later, she has the older boy in hockey and the younger one in soccer. She never parties, she never has "strange" men over (that I've ever seen), she's quiet, she pays the rent. What more could a landlord want?

My niece had a kid at age 17. She is now almost 20 and lives with her parents. She parties like there's no tomorrow because she knows gramma and granpa will look after her child. (They really have no choice when she simply leaves the house after the baby is asleep -- even when my sister and her husband say no -- she talks her 16 year old sister into looking after the baby -- for free) She doesn't have a job and she refuses to go on welfare. IMO, I would rather see her go on welfare and learn what looking after a baby is really like, instead of being a "free and wild teenager", collecting the child tax credit and living off her parents (all the glory of being a mom without the responsibility).

Our tenant at least has to raise the children herself. The neice simply believes her parents "owe" her. I have much more respect for our tenant than this spoiled brat.

Well despite your tenant second mistake, at least she seems to have got her life together. For that she shoudl be proud, and you of her. I apologize if I seemed judgmental, but it is borne out of frustration. I sometimes feel as a taxpayer to support some of these programs and have people not learn from their mistakes, that we are enablers for this behaviour.

Your neice's behaviour demonstrates the kind of attitude which dismays me the most. Not only is she not living up to her responsibilites as a mother, she has no sense of self-reliance, and has a sense of entitlement from her parents. No doubt that sense of entitlement will transfer in her attitude toward society as well. Her parents are in a difficult situation and I sympatize for them. Unfortunately to move her from her parents support system to a public support system would only transfer the mechanism of support and would nothing to address her attitude.

Was there a specific event or moment of truth which caused your tenant to turn her life around? Maybe your neice should be forced to spend some time with other single mothers who are making it on their own so she can learn some of life's lessons.

[Renegade]

Sam, please calm down. Do not let some over-the-top posters taunt you into retaliating in kind.

I have a question for you, since you seem to believe that the level of taxes you pay entitles you to $100 a month back. Do you not agree then that other childless income earners and those who's children are over 6 are also entitled to $100 a month back if they pay the same level of taxes as you do?

Thats a good point, and I never really thought of that. I suppose it is a little unfair for people to pay taxes and not use a service, but what about the NDP? They want more money for services for the poor (afordable housing, ect.) that doesnt help me, yet I have to pay into that. Its a lose-lose situation when it comes to taxes. I think more things should be privatized so we only pay for the services we use, and we dont have high taxes.

Yes, my sentiments as well. I understand and sympatize with what you are feeling. If I can paraphrase, you pay lots of money in taxes for benefits and services which end up benefiting others and not yourself. You are finally feeling a sense of relief that a program is introduced for which you too can benefit (even if only in a small way).

Personally I agree with the sentiment you have expressed above. Except for those on welfare, I'd like to see that most services funded on a "pay-by-use" system and the level of income taxes reduced correspondingly.

[mcqueen625]

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.

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.