Go ahead, Liberals. Make Canada's day

[scribblet]

Great article, would the liberals be so foolish as to bring down the gov't without a leader?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...59-9e1885e0b14e

Go ahead, Liberals. Make Canada's day

Brace yourself Canada. The Liberals are huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the Conservative house down when Parliament resumes in early April. The crime? Prime Minister Stephen Harper may not implement the former government's expensive, intrusive day-care plan -- a plan designed to gild the cradle part of Canada's cradle-to-grave left-wing ideal.

But Canadians never rallied to this issue in the first place. Nor did we re-elect its main proponent. In fact, we elected a government with a very different view about how to assist families with children. Rather than creating a bloated equivalent to the health-care system, Stephen Harper thinks the government should give some money back to us and let us decide how best to spend it.

What a radical idea, eh? A political leader giving us credit for being at least a half-wit.

This idea, you will recall, inspired Liberal attack dogs to ridicule voters on the basis that if Harper gave us some of our money back we wouldn't provide for our kids but rather blow it all on "beer and popcorn." Liberals apparently believe that we have no wit, and it is only they who can spend our money properly.

These are the same politicians who blew so many billions on ill-conceived and woefully mismanaged programs that it's hard even to keep track. And now they're making noises about bringing down the government we just elected and forcing another election.

Even if it's just huffing and puffing, one has to wonder whether the Liberals have learned anything from being dispatched to the opposition benches. It takes a certain arrogance to get thrown out of power in late January and then, not 60 days later, start talking about trying to seize it back.

With no leader, $4-million in party debt, no guiding political direction and lingering internal divisions left over from the Martin/Chretien wars, the Liberals would have to be utterly stupid to force an election.

snip

Many of us would like to finish the job and establish stability in our government by electing a Conservative majority. In the relatively short time since the federal election, Harper has done more to improve Canada's image on the world stage than Paul Martin did during his entire reign. The PM's support for our armed forces and show of solidarity by joining our boys and girls in Afghanistan has done more for national unity than anything in recent Liberal memory. In a workman-like manner, Harper is restoring the Canada we knew and loved to Canadians.

The David Emerson non-scandal aside, Canadians like what they've seen from the Conservatives. A majority government would allow the Prime Minister to implement his vision, which Canadians could clearly judge come the next election. Moreover, it would finalize the message to the Liberals that they must go away, refresh their leadership and ideas, and only then come back to seek our vote.

So go ahead, Bill Graham. Bring down the government. It would be the dawn of a new political reality in Canada.

Just not the one you want.

[scribblet]

Could this be so, would they really try to bring down the gov't over day care?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...d1-61fcc38667f0 (subscription required)

some exceprts from article

.......

Child care will be the showdown of the spring as the first Conservative budget kills off the $5-billion Liberal giveaway scheme to the provinces and substitutes a promised $1,200 direct parental subsidy for every under-six child.

A great divide is opening up on two fronts. Liberal leadership hopefuls are already jockeying for attention on the file, making ominous bluster about bringing down the government if they don't get their way. Fat chance, but they'll have the New Democrats as perturbed partners and the Bloc Quebecois all knicker-knotted about protecting Quebec's unique status as child-care central, so defeat is theoretically possible for a minority government.

.......

The YWCA belittles the Conservative plan with unbecoming vitriol, arguing it will be a setback for women's equality and keep moms stuck in the kitchen, presumably barefoot.

"The solution to this crisis does not lie in paying mothers to stay home or giving families money so that they can choose a child-care option, as the right wing has proposed," the reports argues. "Giving money to families does nothing to ensure the creation and sustainability of an adequate supply of quality affordable early childhood services."

They obviously think parents will just buy beer and popcorn with the handout, but the statistics don't back up their argument that the daycare market is unresponsive to parental demand without government intervention.

[fryingpan]

Seeing as how it was the taxpayers money to begin with, they should have the right to spend it as they please. If they choose to spend it on beer and popcorn while their kids starve, wouldn't they get charged with neglect? With rising health care costs and a massive debt, can this country really afford a 5 billion dollar daycare centre?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Seeing as how it was the taxpayers money to begin with, they should have the right to spend it as they please. If they choose to spend it on beer and popcorn while their kids starve, wouldn't they get charged with neglect? With rising health care costs and a massive debt, can this country really afford a 5 billion dollar daycare centre?

My daughter has infant twins. She is panting after her $200/mo she expects Harper to give her. She doesn't need the money. I'd rather the money go to someone who actually does need it.

[Hicksey]

Seeing as how it was the taxpayers money to begin with, they should have the right to spend it as they please. If they choose to spend it on beer and popcorn while their kids starve, wouldn't they get charged with neglect? With rising health care costs and a massive debt, can this country really afford a 5 billion dollar daycare centre?

My daughter has infant twins. She is panting after her $200/mo she expects Harper to give her. She doesn't need the money. I'd rather the money go to someone who actually does need it.

Considering the income ceiling proposed on subsidized daycare makes it available to only minimum wage earners and welfare moms and that regular priced daycare is affordable to only the upper middle class, I don't see the people that actually need it are the ones getting it anyway. If you're not going to solve the social problem you're aiming for, at least dole it out equally.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Considering the income ceiling proposed on subsidized daycare makes it available to only minimum wage earners and welfare moms and that regular priced daycare is affordable to only the upper middle class, I don't see the people that actually need it are the ones getting it anyway. If you're not going to solve the social problem you're aiming for, at least dole it out equally.

It's hubby with the moolah. Harper says the lower income person can claim it so my daughter pockets it tax free. The Harper Handout is as inequitable as it gets. It's just the old family allowance spiffied up.

[gerryhatrick]

David Asper threatening the Liberals, how original.

Harper faces a tough political battle on this.

If the government falls over it the next election will be on child care. Don't think for a minute the last one was.

Here's an interesting little soundbite from Harpers meeting with Premier Calvert:

Harper may not scrap Liberal child care plan: Calvert

canada.com

Published: Saturday, March 25, 2006

Saskatchewan's premier says the prime minister might be having some second thoughts about scrapping the former Liberal government's child-care agreements with the provinces.

Lorne Calvert and Stephen Harper met in Ottawa this week.

Calvert says Harper's decision to scuttle the deals has angered many of the provinces and child advocacy groups.

Harper's already seeing daycare protesters turn up at his public events, and groups are lining up against him. Not exactly just a Conservative vs. Liberal fight as Mr. Asper would like us to believe.

[fryingpan]

Considering the income ceiling proposed on subsidized daycare makes it available to only minimum wage earners and welfare moms and that regular priced daycare is affordable to only the upper middle class, I don't see the people that actually need it are the ones getting it anyway. If you're not going to solve the social problem you're aiming for, at least dole it out equally.

That's a pretty good point about subsidized health care. The lower middle class people don't get to benefit from this program, even though they are the ones who are crushed by the taxes to fund it.

[Guest Warwick Green]

David Asper threatening the Liberals, how original.

Harper faces a tough political battle on this.

If the government falls over it the next election will be on child care. Don't think for a minute the last one was.

Here's an interesting little soundbite from Harpers meeting with Premier Calvert:

Harper may not scrap Liberal child care plan: Calvert

canada.com

Published: Saturday, March 25, 2006

Saskatchewan's premier says the prime minister might be having some second thoughts about scrapping the former Liberal government's child-care agreements with the provinces.

Lorne Calvert and Stephen Harper met in Ottawa this week.

Calvert says Harper's decision to scuttle the deals has angered many of the provinces and child advocacy groups.

Harper's already seeing daycare protesters turn up at his public events, and groups are lining up against him. Not exactly just a Conservative vs. Liberal fight as Mr. Asper would like us to believe.

We will end up with a "blended" system. More money than he is now offering to the provinces for the establishment of centres (to appease the left) and some money for the stay at home moms.

BTW, is it my imagination but isn't the huge bulk of the people indifferent to this - that it is only a few activists pushing the issue?

[gerryhatrick]

BTW, is it my imagination but isn't the huge bulk of the people indifferent to this - that it is only a few activists pushing the issue?

I haven't noticed that. Maybe you're confusing the fact that it's been on the back-burner with indifference. It will move to the front when they start to move on it.

It was a big issue in the election and it will be a big issue soon enough again. You can see we're just starting to hear the Premiers speak up on it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Seeing as how it was the taxpayers money to begin with, they should have the right to spend it as they please. If they choose to spend it on beer and popcorn while their kids starve, wouldn't they get charged with neglect? With rising health care costs and a massive debt, can this country really afford a 5 billion dollar daycare centre?

My daughter has infant twins. She is panting after her $200/mo she expects Harper to give her. She doesn't need the money. I'd rather the money go to someone who actually does need it.

Like who? Chuck Guitee?

[gerryhatrick]

Like who? Chuck Guitee?

So what's your point? Because some of the sponsorship money was stolen, we should let the Conservatives spend money irresponsibly?

Get out of the past JS, your partisan one-liners are a waste of your time.

[betsy]

Seeing as how it was the taxpayers money to begin with, they should have the right to spend it as they please. If they choose to spend it on beer and popcorn while their kids starve, wouldn't they get charged with neglect? With rising health care costs and a massive debt, can this country really afford a 5 billion dollar daycare centre?

My daughter has infant twins. She is panting after her $200/mo she expects Harper to give her. She doesn't need the money. I'd rather the money go to someone who actually does need it.

If she's panting after the $200, obviously she needs it. Even if it is for a different reason.

I don't begrudge folks who get a bit back from the government. After all, these folks have been contributing to the pot to help those who rely on social programs.

No harm done to put a little smile on these folks faces. A little incentive helps lighten the load we carry.

[Hicksey]

Considering the income ceiling proposed on subsidized daycare makes it available to only minimum wage earners and welfare moms and that regular priced daycare is affordable to only the upper middle class, I don't see the people that actually need it are the ones getting it anyway. If you're not going to solve the social problem you're aiming for, at least dole it out equally.

It's hubby with the moolah. Harper says the lower income person can claim it so my daughter pockets it tax free. The Harper Handout is as inequitable as it gets. It's just the old family allowance spiffied up.

Please explain how every parent getting the same is inequitable? It seems to me that is the most equitable way to do things.

If someone came up with a system that would be a blend of public and private investment and it offered affordable child care to everyone, I might change my opinion on whether a national childcare system or a child care allowance was the best way to go. But until that happens, I'll hold my nose and take advantage of Harper's plan as at least I'll get some much needed help.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Considering the income ceiling proposed on subsidized daycare makes it available to only minimum wage earners and welfare moms and that regular priced daycare is affordable to only the upper middle class, I don't see the people that actually need it are the ones getting it anyway. If you're not going to solve the social problem you're aiming for, at least dole it out equally.

It's hubby with the moolah. Harper says the lower income person can claim it so my daughter pockets it tax free. The Harper Handout is as inequitable as it gets. It's just the old family allowance spiffied up.

Please explain how every parent getting the same is inequitable? It seems to me that is the most equitable way to do things.

If someone came up with a system that would be a blend of public and private investment and it offered affordable child care to everyone, I might change my opinion on whether a national childcare system or a child care allowance was the best way to go. But until that happens, I'll hold my nose and take advantage of Harper's plan as at least I'll get some much needed help.

Is it equitable to give the same amount of money to someone in poverty as to someone who is a millionaire? This is supposed to be a child care program. Lets direct the money to those who need it (the single parent bringing up a child) not to someone who already has the financial resources to send their children to day care. When my daughters were young we used to get a monthly "family allownce" from the feds. I always wished my money had gone to someone who needed it more than we did.

[Nocrap]

Considering the income ceiling proposed on subsidized daycare makes it available to only minimum wage earners and welfare moms and that regular priced daycare is affordable to only the upper middle class, I don't see the people that actually need it are the ones getting it anyway. If you're not going to solve the social problem you're aiming for, at least dole it out equally.

It's hubby with the moolah. Harper says the lower income person can claim it so my daughter pockets it tax free. The Harper Handout is as inequitable as it gets. It's just the old family allowance spiffied up.

Please explain how every parent getting the same is inequitable? It seems to me that is the most equitable way to do things.

If someone came up with a system that would be a blend of public and private investment and it offered affordable child care to everyone, I might change my opinion on whether a national childcare system or a child care allowance was the best way to go. But until that happens, I'll hold my nose and take advantage of Harper's plan as at least I'll get some much needed help.

Is it equitable to give the same amount of money to someone in poverty as to someone who is a millionaire? This is supposed to be a child care program. Lets direct the money to those who need it (the single parent bringing up a child) not to someone who already has the financial resources to send their children to day care. When my daughters were young we used to get a monthly "family allownce" from the feds. I always wished my money had gone to someone who needed it more than we did.

The $1200.00 per year makes absolutely no sense. The Child Tax Credit and GST rebates already provide money to those who need it, and replaced the old family allowance. Besides, it's just a lot of smoke and mirrors. The average Canadian will net about $ 653.00 per year after taxes, and even if the lower income earner gets to claim it as income, it still affects their combined incomes which is used to calculate tax credits.

A good daycare plan is a benefit to all Canadians who believe that Canada's youth are Canada's future leaders, and we all have a stake in that.

I don't think Harper will let his government fall over the issue. He may have won (?) over the Emerson deal but still has to be accountable for his campaign manager now heading public works aka government contracts; not to mention the fact that his Minister of Defense is a former lobbyist for military contracts at a time when he has promised ten more years in Afghanistan.

Canadians wanted change and all we got was more of the same. The NDP are looking better all the time.

[scribblet]

Seeing as how it was the taxpayers money to begin with, they should have the right to spend it as they please. If they choose to spend it on beer and popcorn while their kids starve, wouldn't they get charged with neglect? With rising health care costs and a massive debt, can this country really afford a 5 billion dollar daycare centre?

My daughter has infant twins. She is panting after her $200/mo she expects Harper to give her. She doesn't need the money. I'd rather the money go to someone who actually does need it.

If she's panting after the $200, obviously she needs it. Even if it is for a different reason.

I don't begrudge folks who get a bit back from the government. After all, these folks have been contributing to the pot to help those who rely on social programs.

No harm done to put a little smile on these folks faces. A little incentive helps lighten the load we carry.

In other words, its a method of reducing taxes for all of us.

I'm guessing Harper will come up with a modified program to molify the opposition, I sure hope its not more of the nanny state, socialism.

[Hicksey]

Seeing as how it was the taxpayers money to begin with, they should have the right to spend it as they please. If they choose to spend it on beer and popcorn while their kids starve, wouldn't they get charged with neglect? With rising health care costs and a massive debt, can this country really afford a 5 billion dollar daycare centre?

My daughter has infant twins. She is panting after her $200/mo she expects Harper to give her. She doesn't need the money. I'd rather the money go to someone who actually does need it.

If she's panting after the $200, obviously she needs it. Even if it is for a different reason.

I don't begrudge folks who get a bit back from the government. After all, these folks have been contributing to the pot to help those who rely on social programs.

No harm done to put a little smile on these folks faces. A little incentive helps lighten the load we carry.

In other words, its a method of reducing taxes for all of us.

I'm guessing Harper will come up with a modified program to molify the opposition, I sure hope its not more of the nanny state, socialism.

This is Canada, would you expect anything less?

[geoffrey]

Harper, being an economist from the most right-wing school in Canada, won't be implementing nanny state programs. He knows better.

I'm sure the government would fall before he had institutionalised daycare in this country.

[Montgomery Burns]

Warwick Green:

Is it equitable to give the same amount of money to someone in poverty as to someone who is a millionaire?

Of course it is equitable, silly.

Why don't you come right and say it? Even though the top 10% pays 54% of the taxes, versus the bottom 10% paying only 4.4%, you want to widen the gap. That's socialism and it doesn't work. Look at Europe's economic stagnation, then look at the USA's roaring economy. You should remember that the rich pay most of the taxes and if you gouge them too much, we have a close neighbor that offers low tax rates. Haven't you heard the Europeans complaining about their brain-drain to the USA?

[fryingpan]

Is it equitable to give the same amount of money to someone in poverty as to someone who is a millionaire? This is supposed to be a child care program. Lets direct the money to those who need it (the single parent bringing up a child) not to someone who already has the financial resources to send their children to day care. When my daughters were young we used to get a monthly "family allownce" from the feds. I always wished my money had gone to someone who needed it more than we did.

You could always have given that "allowance" money to someone who did really need it if you feel that strongly about it...

In any case, the millionaires pay far more in taxes than anyone else, simply because they earn more money. Is this equitable?