Rewarding Laziness in Canada

[Mimas]

Well, we have a long tradition of rewarding laziness and punishing people for working in this country and the new conservative government continues with that tradition even though conservatives are typically the ones who constantly complain about it. Of course I am talking about Harper's daycare/baby bonus, which has more to do with buying votes than with child care. As one Conservative put it, it's bad policy but good politics. So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

[Wilber]

Well, we have a long tradition of rewarding laziness and punishing people for working in this country and the new conservative government continues with that tradition even though conservatives are typically the ones who constantly complain about it. Of course I am talking about Harper's daycare/baby bonus, which has more to do with buying votes than with child care. As one Conservative put it, it's bad policy but good politics. So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

My wife quit work to home to raise our kids until the last reached middle school. Then she went back. She chose to sacrifice a career working and the money she could have made over 15 years for the benefit of her kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face. My daughter and her husband dairy farm and are raising four kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face.

[BubberMiley]

What's lazy about having kids. They seem like a lot of work.

[Mimas]

Well, we have a long tradition of rewarding laziness and punishing people for working in this country and the new conservative government continues with that tradition even though conservatives are typically the ones who constantly complain about it. Of course I am talking about Harper's daycare/baby bonus, which has more to do with buying votes than with child care. As one Conservative put it, it's bad policy but good politics. So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

My wife quit work to home to raise our kids until the last reached middle school. Then she went back. She chose to sacrifice a career working and the money she could have made over 15 years for the benefit of her kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face. My daughter and her husband dairy farm and are raising four kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face.

Well, I don't see why a working parent should be punished once by paying taxes so that your wife could sit home and a second time by not staying home with his/her kids. Generally, I don't care what your wife or any other lazy parent thinks. Sitting on your butt at home is laziness any way you look at it. It does not produce goods or services or anything else, so it should not be rewarded at the expense of people who work for their money!

[sideshow]

LOL! Somebody has a lot of growing up to do before they understand the world. I have found that it is a lot more work to be home with children than going to work all day. Very tiring. If you think someone that stays home to raise children rather than working is lazy, you need to open your eyes.

[August1991]

I have read some dumb comments on this board, but this one is exceptional:

So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

Hey, where does the government get the money to pay for the day care spaces? Does it fall from the sky?

I'm willing to argue whether the government should give money directly to families with children, or give it to them indirectly by creating daycare spaces, but for heaven's sakes, can we at least agree that in either case, the money comes from taxpayers?

In addition, how is this in any way connected to "laziness"? Whether the government gives the money directly to families, or gives it to them indirectly through day care spaces, the money is not dependent on their laziness.

There is much to criticize in Stephen Harper's policies, and in the child care policy in particular. But this criticism is just dumb.

[Mimas]

LOL! Somebody has a lot of growing up to do before they understand the world. I have found that it is a lot more work to be home with children than going to work all day. Very tiring. If you think someone that stays home to raise children rather than working is lazy, you need to open your eyes.

If that's the case, parents should put their kids in daycare and go out and be productive instead of "working" so hard at home while being completely unproductive and living off other people's taxes. Moving piles of large stones pointlessly back and forth all day is hard work too, but it doesn't do anyone any good, so I don't see why working taxpayers should be paying for it. If you prefer to stay home instead of working, don't ask me to pay for it. If you are healthy and capable of working, don't expect others to pay for your whims, like choosing to stay home - it's nobody's fault (but your own) that you are staying home.

[Wilber]

Well, we have a long tradition of rewarding laziness and punishing people for working in this country and the new conservative government continues with that tradition even though conservatives are typically the ones who constantly complain about it. Of course I am talking about Harper's daycare/baby bonus, which has more to do with buying votes than with child care. As one Conservative put it, it's bad policy but good politics. So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

My wife quit work to home to raise our kids until the last reached middle school. Then she went back. She chose to sacrifice a career working and the money she could have made over 15 years for the benefit of her kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face. My daughter and her husband dairy farm and are raising four kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face.

Well, I don't see why a working parent should be punished once by paying taxes so that your wife could sit home and a second time by not staying home with his/her kids. Generally, I don't care what your wife or any other lazy parent thinks. Sitting on your butt at home is laziness any way you look at it. It does not produce goods or services or anything else, so it should not be rewarded at the expense of people who work for their money!

Come to think of it, if you said that to my face, I don't know whether I would laugh in yours or smack it. Take a little friendly advice, don't ever say that to anyone who has gone without what a second income could do for them materially in order to bring up their own kids rather than have a stranger do it for them.

Having kids doesn't mean just having kids, it means taking responsibility for bringing them up. If you aren't able, don't do it. I don't really think government should be providing assistance for daycare or a baby bonus for those who stay home.

[Mimas]

I have read some dumb comments on this board, but this one is exceptional:

So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

Hey, where does the government get the money to pay for the day care spaces? Does it fall from the sky?

I'm willing to argue whether the government should give money directly to families with children, or give it to them indirectly by creating daycare spaces, but for heaven's sakes, can we at least agree that in either case, the money comes from taxpayers?

In addition, how is this in any way connected to "laziness"? Whether the government gives the money directly to families, or gives it to them indirectly through day care spaces, the money is not dependent on their laziness.

There is much to criticize in Stephen Harper's policies, and in the child care policy in particular. But this criticism is just dumb.

Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk. There is no question that the money comes from taxpayers. My point was that it comes from working taxpayers and goes to those who are too lazy to work and use their kids as a convenient excuse for not doing so. There is a huge difference in how the money is spent. If it is given to people in the form of daycare spaces, then it makes it easier to put your kids in daycare and get a job (or at least you will not have an excuse for not getting one). In this case, you are both being productive (and paying for at least part of the daycare through your taxes) and are also creating other jobs (for daycare workers). If the money is given to you for staying (lazy-ing at) home, then you are not being productive, you are not paying for any of it (i.e. and are living off other people's efforts and effectively taxing the economy) and you aren't creating any jobs. In short, in the first case you are a productive member of society and in the second case you are a lazy bum who burdens the economy. Get it? Or are you arguing that sitting on your ass is an activity one deserves to be paid for?

[Wilber]

I have read some dumb comments on this board, but this one is exceptional:

So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

Hey, where does the government get the money to pay for the day care spaces? Does it fall from the sky?

I'm willing to argue whether the government should give money directly to families with children, or give it to them indirectly by creating daycare spaces, but for heaven's sakes, can we at least agree that in either case, the money comes from taxpayers?

In addition, how is this in any way connected to "laziness"? Whether the government gives the money directly to families, or gives it to them indirectly through day care spaces, the money is not dependent on their laziness.

There is much to criticize in Stephen Harper's policies, and in the child care policy in particular. But this criticism is just dumb.

Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk. There is no question that the money comes from taxpayers. My point was that it comes from working taxpayers and goes to those who are too lazy to work and use their kids as a convenient excuse for not doing so. There is a huge difference in how the money is spent. If it is given to people in the form of daycare spaces, then it makes it easier to put your kids in daycare and get a job (or at least you will not have an excuse for not getting one). In this case, you are both being productive (and paying for at least part of the daycare through your taxes) and are also creating other jobs (for daycare workers). If the money is given to you for staying (lazy-ing at) home, then you are not being productive, you are not paying for any of it (i.e. and are living off other people's efforts and effectively taxing the economy) and you aren't creating any jobs. In short, in the first case you are a productive member of society and in the second case you are a lazy bum who burdens the economy. Get it? Or are you arguing that sitting on your ass is an activity one deserves to be paid for?

[Mimas]

Come to think of it, if you said that to my face, I don't know whether I would laugh in yours or smack it. Take a little friendly advice, don't ever say that to anyone who has gone without what a second income could do for them materially in order to bring up their own kids rather than have a stranger do it for them.

Having kids doesn't mean just having kids, it means taking responsibility for bringing them up. If you aren't able, don't do it. I don't really think government should be providing assistance for daycare or a baby bonus for those who stay home.

I guess that when you don't have a good argument then you resort to violence. Not a smart choice!

When you choose to have kids and you choose to raise them at home instead of working, then that's your choice - not mine. So don't expect me to pay for it! Personally, if you CHOSE to give up a career, to deprive yourself and your kids of a second income, and you (or your wife) is not incredibly lazy, then I think that you are a real fool. I'm not being mean here, just honest. And just a little friendly advise, don't harp to your kids about it (You know what we gave up to raise you?), you don't want to make them feel bad about your dumb choices.

[sideshow]

Mimas, your ignorance is astounding. The benefit to the community, the economy, and to society of having a caregiver at home rearing children has been shown time and time again. It is not "living off of the working" when someone stays at home with children. Look at it more as an investment into the generation of tomorrow. Less latchkey kids, less children roaming the streets, more parental supervision equals more productive, moral citizens. Stay at home parents DO make sacrifices. The amount they receive in tax benefits, ctb, etc. is minimal compared to the lost income.

please try and see the big picture and dont by into the cnn view of things.

[Wilber]

I have read some dumb comments on this board, but this one is exceptional:

So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

Hey, where does the government get the money to pay for the day care spaces? Does it fall from the sky?

I'm willing to argue whether the government should give money directly to families with children, or give it to them indirectly by creating daycare spaces, but for heaven's sakes, can we at least agree that in either case, the money comes from taxpayers?

In addition, how is this in any way connected to "laziness"? Whether the government gives the money directly to families, or gives it to them indirectly through day care spaces, the money is not dependent on their laziness.

There is much to criticize in Stephen Harper's policies, and in the child care policy in particular. But this criticism is just dumb.

Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk. There is no question that the money comes from taxpayers. My point was that it comes from working taxpayers and goes to those who are too lazy to work and use their kids as a convenient excuse for not doing so. There is a huge difference in how the money is spent. If it is given to people in the form of daycare spaces, then it makes it easier to put your kids in daycare and get a job (or at least you will not have an excuse for not getting one). In this case, you are both being productive (and paying for at least part of the daycare through your taxes) and are also creating other jobs (for daycare workers). If the money is given to you for staying (lazy-ing at) home, then you are not being productive, you are not paying for any of it (i.e. and are living off other people's efforts and effectively taxing the economy) and you aren't creating any jobs. In short, in the first case you are a productive member of society and in the second case you are a lazy bum who burdens the economy. Get it? Or are you arguing that sitting on your ass is an activity one deserves to be paid for?

You don't get something for nothing. Someone has to pay to raise a child. A family that supports themselves on one income while they bring up their children is subsidizing two income families with their income taxes so those two income families can enjoy a higher standard of living than they are able to. Life is full of choices, don't expect society to subsidize your choice at the expense of someone else's.

[Renegade]

Mimas, aren't you the guy who said this?

taxpayers should foot the bill because bearing and raising children benefits taxpayers.

Now your arguing that the parent who stays home is lazy and shouldn't be paid by taxpayers for bearing and raising children? See any contradiction?

[August1991]

There is no question that the money comes from taxpayers. My point was that it comes from working taxpayers and goes to those who are too lazy to work and use their kids as a convenient excuse for not doing so. There is a huge difference in how the money is spent. If it is given to people in the form of daycare spaces, then it makes it easier to put your kids in daycare and get a job (or at least you will not have an excuse for not getting one). In this case, you are both being productive (and paying for at least part of the daycare through your taxes) and are also creating other jobs (for daycare workers).

Well, I'm happy that we can agree that the money comes from taxpayers in either case, so there's no difference there.

Now then, if the government creates day care spaces, what stops a "lazy" parent from putting their kid in day care and then going home to watch TV?

And if the government goves the money directly to the parent, what stops a "hard-working parent" from using the money as partial payment for day care costs?

In fact, I could just as easily reverse that situation, switching lazy for hard-working?

There are differences between the Tories proposal and the Liberal proposal but laziness has nothing to do with it.

If you prefer to stay home instead of working, don't ask me to pay for it. If you are healthy and capable of working, don't expect others to pay for your whims, like choosing to stay home - it's nobody's fault (but your own) that you are staying home.

Since when is staying at home taking care of children, the elderly or the ill not considered work? Why is it called "housework" anyway?

It is often women who perform these tasks but I guess "women's work" doesn't count for you, Mimas.

----

Oh, and BTW, I might be sarcastic in my remarks but that's just the nature of debate. You are certainly welcome to post your opinions here.

[Renegade]

A family that supports themselves on one income while they bring up their children is subsidizing two income families with their income taxes so those two income families can enjoy a higher standard of living than they are able to.

What does this mean? How is a family with one income subsidizing a two income family? I dont follow your logic.

[Wilber]

A family that supports themselves on one income while they bring up their children is subsidizing two income families with their income taxes so those two income families can enjoy a higher standard of living than they are able to.

What does this mean? How is a family with one income subsidizing a two income family? I dont follow your logic.

You think one income families don't pay taxes?

[Renegade]

A family that supports themselves on one income while they bring up their children is subsidizing two income families with their income taxes so those two income families can enjoy a higher standard of living than they are able to.

What does this mean? How is a family with one income subsidizing a two income family? I dont follow your logic.

You think one income families don't pay taxes?

Not at all. I think they do, but that doesn't mean they subsidize two income families, afterall two-income families pay taxes too.

[Mimas]

...don't ever say that to anyone who has gone without what a second income could do for them materially in order to bring up their own kids rather than have a stranger do it for them.

By the way, what's with Cons and such anti-social behaviour? Why are you so afraid of "strangers"? You meet "strangers" every day - at work, while grocery shopping, when going to the hospital, etc. Are you afraid of strangers because you think they hate you for some reason (like most Cons seem to hate everybody)? Really, are you afraid to see a specialist because she is a stranger and would rather treat yourself than see a doctor who is a "stranger"? Are you afraid of "strangers" because your mom raised you at home and never let you meet "strangers"? And 30 years later you are still afraid of "strangers". So instead of having your kids get used to "strangers" and to not be so afraid of them (yes, kids who went to daycare have better social skills than those raised at home), you want to keep them at home so that they are the same xenophobes that you are. I bet you are afraid that, god forbid, your kid may become friends with a black kid, or an immigrant kid, or even worse - the kid of gay parents and lo and behold, your kid won't hate/be afraid of such people. What happens to that argument when your kids are old enough to go to school? Do you want to home school them because you don't want them to be taught by some evil teacher "stranger"? I mean, what's with the "stranger" phobia? Really, most "strangers" are wonderful and very competent people and there is nothing scary about them. Why are you so afraid to have early childhood educators - who by the way have university degrees in raising kids and you don't - take care of your kids part day? Or does childbirth make you more competent to raise kids than university graduates in that area (who also have kids of their own)? Or does it all go back to finding bad excuses for not working and living off other people's taxes?

[Mimas]

Mimas, your ignorance is astounding. The benefit to the community, the economy, and to society of having a caregiver at home rearing children has been shown time and time again. It is not "living off of the working" when someone stays at home with children. Look at it more as an investment into the generation of tomorrow. Less latchkey kids, less children roaming the streets, more parental supervision equals more productive, moral citizens. Stay at home parents DO make sacrifices. The amount they receive in tax benefits, ctb, etc. is minimal compared to the lost income.

please try and see the big picture and dont by into the cnn view of things.

Actually, I am aware that quite a few studies have shown that kids who went to daycare have better social and linguistical skills than kids raised at home, do better in school and are more likely to go to college than their peers that are raised at home. This is true for the kids of families of all income backgrounds, even though attending daycare tends to be more beneficial to kids from lower and middle income families than to kids of rich families. Care to explain to me what makes you think that raising kids at home is better for the kids or anyone else? Or is it ignorance and hearsay that makes you believe that?

[geoffrey]

Mimas, your ignorance is astounding. The benefit to the community, the economy, and to society of having a caregiver at home rearing children has been shown time and time again. It is not "living off of the working" when someone stays at home with children. Look at it more as an investment into the generation of tomorrow. Less latchkey kids, less children roaming the streets, more parental supervision equals more productive, moral citizens. Stay at home parents DO make sacrifices. The amount they receive in tax benefits, ctb, etc. is minimal compared to the lost income.

please try and see the big picture and dont by into the cnn view of things.

Actually, I am aware that quite a few studies have shown that kids who went to daycare have better social and linguistical skills than kids raised at home, do better in school and are more likely to go to college than their peers that are raised at home. This is true for the kids of families of all income backgrounds, even though attending daycare tends to be more beneficial to kids from lower and middle income families than to kids of rich families. Care to explain to me what makes you think that raising kids at home is better for the kids or anyone else? Or is it ignorance and hearsay that makes you believe that?

Your claims are hearsay as well unless you have a source?

A parent is the best person to raise their child, not the cold hands of a government employee. The government can't love kids, its heartless.

[Mimas]

A family that supports themselves on one income while they bring up their children is subsidizing two income families with their income taxes so those two income families can enjoy a higher standard of living than they are able to.

What does this mean? How is a family with one income subsidizing a two income family? I dont follow your logic.

You think one income families don't pay taxes?

There we go again. As someone who's worked as an accountant and done thousands of tax returns, I can tell you that one-income couples with kids pay substantially less taxes than two-income couples with kids. This is because 1 - one-income families generally have less income (surprise surprise), so they pay less tax, and 2 - because the tax system transfers a lot of credits from the no-income parent to the working parent, so they pay less tax even for the same amount of total income than the two-income couple does. So effectively, discrimination against two-income couples is already built into the tax system. On top of that, I already mentioned the $6000 per child benefit that one-income couples are much more likely to receive than two-income couples. I don't mind too much paying benefits to parents (it's not their kids' fault that the parents made the bad choice to deprive them of income) but enough is enough. Even more benefits for stay-at-home parents will make more stay-at-home parents and who's going to pay for those benefits when we are all sitting at home? Getting benefits is fine but someone has to work and pay for them, no?

[Wilber]

A family that supports themselves on one income while they bring up their children is subsidizing two income families with their income taxes so those two income families can enjoy a higher standard of living than they are able to.

What does this mean? How is a family with one income subsidizing a two income family? I dont follow your logic.

You think one income families don't pay taxes?

There we go again. As someone who's worked as an accountant and done thousands of tax returns, I can tell you that one-income couples with kids pay substantially less taxes than two-income couples with kids. This is because 1 - one-income families generally have less income (surprise surprise), so they pay less tax, and 2 - because the tax system transfers a lot of credits from the no-income parent to the working parent, so they pay less tax even for the same amount of total income than the two-income couple does. So effectively, discrimination against two-income couples is already built into the tax system. On top of that, I already mentioned the $6000 per child benefit that one-income couples are much more likely to receive than two-income couples. I don't mind too much paying benefits to parents (it's not their kids' fault that the parents made the bad choice to deprive them of income) but enough is enough. Even more benefits for stay-at-home parents will make more stay-at-home parents and who's going to pay for those benefits when we are all sitting at home? Getting benefits is fine but someone has to work and pay for them, no?

Ah, that explains it, this isn't about kids, it's about money. In that case, lets not give anything to anyone. No deductions for dependents, Not subsidizing daycare. Works for me. Even better, a flat tax. Would hardly need accountants at all. Any idiot could manage their taxes.

[Mimas]

Mimas, your ignorance is astounding. The benefit to the community, the economy, and to society of having a caregiver at home rearing children has been shown time and time again. It is not "living off of the working" when someone stays at home with children. Look at it more as an investment into the generation of tomorrow. Less latchkey kids, less children roaming the streets, more parental supervision equals more productive, moral citizens. Stay at home parents DO make sacrifices. The amount they receive in tax benefits, ctb, etc. is minimal compared to the lost income.

please try and see the big picture and dont by into the cnn view of things.

Actually, I am aware that quite a few studies have shown that kids who went to daycare have better social and linguistical skills than kids raised at home, do better in school and are more likely to go to college than their peers that are raised at home. This is true for the kids of families of all income backgrounds, even though attending daycare tends to be more beneficial to kids from lower and middle income families than to kids of rich families. Care to explain to me what makes you think that raising kids at home is better for the kids or anyone else? Or is it ignorance and hearsay that makes you believe that?

Your claims are hearsay as well unless you have a source?

A parent is the best person to raise their child, not the cold hands of a government employee. The government can't love kids, its heartless.

You are just dumb. Loving has nothing to do with raising. I loved my fish when I was a kid but they kept dying on me because I wasn't competent enough to take proper care of them. My teachers didn't love me, but they gave me a good education. I have pediatricians in my family and you'll be terrified to hear how people who love their kids make them sick simply because of incompetence and ignorance. Again, giving birth doesn't make you a competent parent nor an expert in early-childhood education.

Cold hands of a government employee? The emergency room doctor is a government employee, so you can't trust him to treat you? Firefighers are government employees, so you can't trust them to get you out of a burning building because they don't love you? Maybe only your mom will do it because she loves you? Or your beloved military won't protect us because they don't love us? Blah, blah, use your brain once in a while. You probably have one.

[Wilber]

Mimas, your ignorance is astounding. The benefit to the community, the economy, and to society of having a caregiver at home rearing children has been shown time and time again. It is not "living off of the working" when someone stays at home with children. Look at it more as an investment into the generation of tomorrow. Less latchkey kids, less children roaming the streets, more parental supervision equals more productive, moral citizens. Stay at home parents DO make sacrifices. The amount they receive in tax benefits, ctb, etc. is minimal compared to the lost income.

please try and see the big picture and dont by into the cnn view of things.

Actually, I am aware that quite a few studies have shown that kids who went to daycare have better social and linguistical skills than kids raised at home, do better in school and are more likely to go to college than their peers that are raised at home. This is true for the kids of families of all income backgrounds, even though attending daycare tends to be more beneficial to kids from lower and middle income families than to kids of rich families. Care to explain to me what makes you think that raising kids at home is better for the kids or anyone else? Or is it ignorance and hearsay that makes you believe that?

Your claims are hearsay as well unless you have a source?

A parent is the best person to raise their child, not the cold hands of a government employee. The government can't love kids, its heartless.

You are just dumb. Loving has nothing to do with raising. I loved my fish when I was a kid but they kept dying on me because I wasn't competent enough to take proper care of them. My teachers didn't love me, but they gave me a good education. I have pediatricians in my family and you'll be terrified to hear how people who love their kids make them sick simply because of incompetence and ignorance. Again, giving birth doesn't make you a competent parent nor an expert in early-childhood education.

Cold hands of a government employee? The emergency room doctor is a government employee, so you can't trust him to treat you? Firefighers are government employees, so you can't trust them to get you out of a burning building because they don't love you? Maybe only your mom will do it because she loves you? Or your beloved military won't protect us because they don't love us? Blah, blah, use your brain once in a while. You probably have one.

Lets ship em all off to camps as soon as they're weened.