Jump to Navigation

Caring Conservatives?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 Miss Vicky 

They're acting fast - the province has been informed that the funding for child care will be cancelled next year. Here's the story. The premiers are all in town for a summit on education and skills training. Will this be supper-table conversation at 24 Sussex this evening?

If you want to help make sure it's on the minds and lips of the diners at the PM's residence, you might want to join child care advocates, parents and families at a vigil this evening. Here is the notice I received:

Child Care Vigil

Friday February 24th 6:00 p.m.
24 Sussex Drive Ottawa

Prime Minister Harper will be hosting a dinner for
visiting Provincial Premiers this Friday evening February 24th at his official residence and we need you to let him and the Premiers know that the child care agreements must be protected and with them our national child care program.

We are counting on you to get parents, children and others out to this Vigil. We also need people to donate and bring sandwiches and juice for the children and parents attending the Vigil.

Some people were moved to reply

accidental altruist Feb 24, 2006 03:50 PM said:

Social Development Minister Diane Finley sez "There have been many studies that show that the best people to raise children are the parents.''

It's all about forcing us gals back into the kitchen where we 'belong'.

r.e.a.l. women my ass. Grrrrrrrrr!

amckay Feb 24, 2006 07:19 PM said:

Quite a leap of faith there "it's all about forcing us gals back into the kitchen". Jeesh, give me a freaking break.

There are in fact lots of studies which show kids are best off raised by their parents. Perhaps liss76 has the list of URLs I sent her a few weeks back - I seem to have misplaced it. And guess what - like it or not, women are the ones with the plumbing to feed infants. If one doesn't want what's best for one's kids, maybe one isn't fit to have them. Having kids changes one's entire life. If one isn't ready to have everything in one's life change from top to bottom, maybe kids aren't what one should consider.

I'd love to see day-care programs for single moms and low-income families - the people who really need it. But subsidizing spaces for families with dual, large incomes, who put a widescreen TV and SUV ahead of their very family? Come on - give me a break. A family can live on $50K a year. Sure, there will be sacrifices. You have to give up the multiple cars, the big house, and all the things the TV programs you to want. But you can do it. And if your family is important enough to you, you will do it.

"universal daycare" is insane. And it's an oxymoron. Ask someone from Quebec how their system works. If you have connections you can get a spot, but the majority of people are on waiting lists.

Universal daycare is driven by big-business to feed the machine. Gotta force both parents out into the workforce to be "productive" and work their asses off for peanuts so they can buy the bobbles the television tells them to buy, all to make some guy in a suit rich. Would you sooner stay home with your family, or be out there feeding the machine? Personally I find the thought of being forced out of one's home to feed the machine far more offensive. And that's what "universal daycare" does.

Now, I'd never heard of this group "Real Women" before, but reading their views I find it difficult to understand how someone could oppose them. In fact, where they say "None of us has a corner on the truth.", you seem to be saying that you do. Where they say "women should have career choices which include the financial option of remaining at home, if they choose." (emphasis mine), you seem to be saying that a woman should be out feeding the machine, and nothing more.

You seem to be calling for less choice for women. You seem to be saying your way is the only right way for women. While this group seems to be saying that letting each woman decide what's best, is what's best. I would tend to agree with that view. It seems to me that each person should know what's best for themself.

Women's lib was supposed to be about choice for women, but somewhere along the way it lost it's way. Too many of the most vocal women's libbers seem to look down on those women who choose to stay at home with their kids. It would almost seem that women's lib wasn't about choice for women, afterall.

If government is to get involved here at all - and that is a pretty big "if" - then it should be doing it's best to encourage a woman's choice, not to force upon women what it says is best. How can that possibly be about choice?

The Webgeek Feb 24, 2006 08:40 PM said:

AMKay, I *highly* suggest you just back away from this topic NOW. You're going to get chewed uip and spit out.

I'm just saying.

Miss Vicky Feb 24, 2006 08:46 PM said:

oh, goodness. where to start?

Miss Vicky Feb 25, 2006 07:26 AM said:

"women are the ones with the plumbing to feed the infants".

True to a point (I'll leave the breast pump issue aside) , but with Canada's maternity and parental leave provisions allow women who qualify for EI to stay home with their kids as much as the first year of life. Since most folks start weaning their kids off the breast sometime during this year, needing "plumbing" does not become an issue by the time many mothers need to make a decision about whether or not to return to work. Of course, the EI system is pretty screwed up and excludes those who are self-employed, work part-time or in a non-standard job. So many of those women don't have much in the way of choice , unless they are privileged enough to have a second income at home that would allow them to step away from their jobs for a time. Sole-support parents and those who feel they can't afford to stay at home have to scramble to find care, and if there are no subsidized spaces at quality public facilities, they do what they can. Since spaces are scarce, often it's babysitters, family members, neighbours instead of trained professional care workers.

It is about choice, and the ideal would be a system whereby policies and support systems would be in place no matter what kind of arrangements a family chooses to make. Like it or not, part of this system must include access to child care. Outside of Quebec, Canada's public child care system has not seen any major investment and expansion in over a decade. What we need is high-quality, publicly-funded, not-for-profit child care that is regulated to ensure adequate standards.

amckay Feb 25, 2006 09:18 AM said:

Back away? Me? Not likely.

On the one hand you say very clearly you agree with me :

the ideal would be a system whereby policies and support systems would be in place no matter what kind of arrangements a family chooses to make

But then you immediately follow that up by saying something contradictory to what you just said. I'm not sure there is much I can argue with someone who contradicts themself.

Anyway, you are right : breast pumps exist. And they work well, but it's still the mom with the plumbing ;-) But this would allow for dad to stay at home with the kids and mom to work. That would be a great way to do it, too, if that's what the family decided. I know several stay-at-home dads and am quite jealous of them. Right now liss76 is the stay-at-home parent because my salary was almost 3 times hers. And no, not because she's a woman and gets paid less. Because I've got a degree in Comp Sci and 15 years experience, and she has her high school.

In any case, it's usually easier for everyone if it's mom who stays home while the child is not yet weaned, but hey, if the family decides they want to go the other way that should be their choice. And while most people do wean in the first year, it is more a chicken-and-egg thing. What's best for the child is for it to get mom's milk until it decides it does not want it anymore, and this will usually go into the 2 and 3 year range. People force their child to wean in the first year because EI only covers a year of leave. What we need is longer EI leave, not public day-care. We need to do what's best for the kids, not what's best for the economy.

And really, what it boils down to is this : if people want someone else to look after their kids for them, maybe they shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 10:13 AM said:

And really, what it boils down to is this : if people want someone else to look after their kids for them, maybe they shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

Ah yes. the "it their fault for having kids in the first place" argument.

Also known as "blaming the victim" or "vilifying the weak". If they can't live up to a standard you expect them to, it must somehow be their fault.

Can't afford to have a parent stay home and raise your kids? -- must be because you're lazy and/or stupid.
Single mom? must be a slut.
Not raising your children the way *You* think they should -- they must be a bad parent.

Look, I'm very happy that you and Liss67 can manage to have one parent at home. But even you admit that that's because you happen to have a good enough job to do so. The plain fact is that many (perhaps even most) people can't. Kids are expensive; and getting more and more expensive all the time. There are loads of reasons why someone might be in dire financial straits with a child in toe. Maybe "the provider" got laid off and can't find a suitable replacement employment. (I've seen more than a few ex-Nortel employees working retail at Bayshore). Maybe a partner died or got unbelievably ill or is disabled. Maybe one or more children have a disability (like autism). Maybe their religious beliefs forbid them from using contraception. Blaming them for it, and essentially punishing them AND their kids for there fiscal situation is stupid and cruel.

Instead of judging these people, how about empathising with them? How about giving them tools and services that let them get out of their situation and try and do the best they can for their children. No, it's much better to pre-judge them and blame them for "letting themselves" get into their position. It's a lot easier to bitch and moan that no one is helping you, who can afford to have a parent stay home, so why should they, who can't, get any help either.

You and Liss67 made your choice. I'm sure it takes some sacrifice, and I applaud you for it -- but it's still your choice. Don't expect that choice to be the only viable one for rearing kids, and don't dismiss others who can't afford to make that choice as unfit for parenthood.

Miss Vicky Feb 27, 2006 10:26 AM said:

My mom was a SAHM at first. She was miserable. The best thing she did (for all of us) was go back to school, and I was never more proud of her than when she graduated from medical school. What's right for one family is not necessarily right for another - the whole point of having access to high-quality child care as well as other supports like extended parental leave is to provide families with the tools to make the choice that is right for them. When you take one of those tools away, you take choice away. And when high-quality, affordable, public child care is not available, the people who can't afford to stay at home end up finding whatever solutions they can, and that's often what leads to problems.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 11:08 AM said:

Webgeek - read my first response. I have already conceded from the very beginning that single parents and the working poor should have ready access to subsidized daycare. So don't give me your disingenuous strawman arguments putting words into my mouth like slut and so forth.

It is a given that any parent in dire financial straits needs this. Actually, now that I think of it, no they don't. They need support of some kind or another, but not necessarily this particular type of support. That's part of my problem is that nobody is discussing options here. We're having this extremely expensive option jammed down our throats without actually discussing what is the best way to spend that money to help those people.

And you are one to be talking about people who don't choose to live their life they way you think they should. This program helps only those people who choose to go back into the workforce. It fails the very test you have set forth. It fails your criteria, not mine. It helps only those people who choose to live their lives a certain way. I want just as much to help people in dire financial needs - but I want to help all of them - not just a select few who are being good little capitalists. Anyone who does not choose to live their life that way gets the shaft by this program. But you refuse to see that because you already have all the answers. Shoshin. The moment you are certain you have the answer is the very moment you close yourself from ever finding it. Open your eyes and look at this.

You are calling for a universal social program which is far, far, far from universal. You fail your own litmus test. Your universe has just collapsed in on itself in a puff of logic. Not only does this program completely fail to help those people in dire financial need who choose not to go back into the workforce but rather choose to stay at home with their kids, but it probably won't even help all those people in dire financial need who do choose to go back into the workforce. It fails miserably to meet it's very own criteria.

And to rephrase something I've already said - when we are talking about child care, maybe what we should be thinking about is what's best for the child, and not what's best for the parent. Isn't it ironic that the proposed solution actually cares more about the parent? And gives the shaft to those people who care more about the child?

child care, indeed.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 11:11 AM said:

the whole point of having access to high-quality child care as well as other supports like extended parental leave is to provide families with the tools to make the choice that is right for them

You keep saying this, but there are no other supports. WHere are they? Show me the money. Where is the option for the parent who wishes to stay at home with their child? I don't see it. It's not there. We have a partial solution which discludes a very significant portion of society. Fail.

[Edited By amckay Feb 27, 2006 11:12 AM]

Miss Vicky Feb 27, 2006 11:11 AM said:

Your assumption that parents who work do not care about their children is simply offensive, amckay.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 11:16 AM said:

I don't think any parent does not care about their children. But I do observe that some care more about themselves.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 11:43 AM said:

And for the record, I don't think we should be eligible for any program whatsoever. Yes, we still have difficulties, but we make too much money and should not get help. What really pisses me off here is that there are lots of people out there who would love more than anything to have the option that we have, and they are being completely shut out. The value of housework is equated to zero. It's shameful.

Miss Vicky Feb 27, 2006 11:43 AM said:

I would suggest that you make an assumption based on your personal experience, ideology and world view.

At any rate, the point is that a system that would promote greater choice and allow people to balance work and family would put in place a range of programs and services that would include recognition of and support for unpaid caregiving work (pension arrangements, disability coverage perhaps, or other tax benefits), promote family-friendly policies in the workplace (flex-time, job-sharing, reasonable working hours, telework and so on), provide access to a range of high-quality child care services (which can inclue not only standard care but drop-in and emergency services, which are particularly important for stay-at-home parents), affordable housing and other anti-poverty measures and so on. But taking away child care spaces and replacing them with a laughable cash amount is not a way of going about resolving the equally-important issue of unpaid work. It's what I would call throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 11:44 AM said:

Webgeek - read my first response.
I did. And this is what I got out of it: you believe that:
-women should stay at home and raise kids. That's what they do best.
-Universal Childcare is only used by selfish people that don't care about there kids.

Again, you keep talking about choice, but in reality you want to limit choices. You seem to have painted universal child care in your mind as evil, and stay at home moms as the only viable form of child rearing. You'll concede that a stay at home dad might work, but it's stupid, since "women have the plumbing". You claim to want to help single moms, and low income families, but offer no way of doing that. some other "magical" from of help is required. What, exactly is that going to be? You've decided that they can't be helped by universal childcare, since that will only push the "Evil" two-income "capitalist" family.

Universal childcare is NOT about forcing people into the workforce. It's about providing affordable childcare to those that *need* it.

[Edited By The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 11:53 AM]

amckay Feb 27, 2006 11:59 AM said:

Limit choice? WTF? You are a pretty good spin doctor. I'm calling for a solution that will help everyone. You're the guy who only want to help some people. And you're telling me I want to limit choice? Oh my!

No, I don't know exactly what that solution is. But you know what, if we don't sit down and discuss it, we're never going to find it. There are an awful lot of smart people in this country and I'm sure someone out there has a good idea, if only someone would ask them.

Stay at home dad certainly isn't the easiest choice to make in the first 2 or 3 years, but after that it's completely workable. Why not have the mom stay at home the first few years, then then dad?

Hmmm, options eh? Just off the top of my head right now. How about a cooperative neighbourhood based program where a parent can choose to work X days a week for a percentage of their normal salary, and volunteer in the coop daycare the rest of the week? You work 3 days, you get 60% pay. 4 days / 80%. And so on. Government passes a law requiring employers to allow for this. And speaking of employers, what about mandating on-site daycare so parents can spend time during the day with their kids? Or on-site cooperative day care as per above?

Just off the top of my head, and I'm not really a very smart guy. Let's have a discussion before we go blowing all that money. Let's get some input from people who are smarter than me.

And you still fail to see how your "universal" solution is very far from "universal". A system that does not help everyone cannot be "universal". Shoshin. Open your eyes. It's right there in front of you.

Isn't it horribly ironic that Stephen Harper's plan, which sux in it's own right, is at very least universal?

amckay Feb 27, 2006 12:09 PM said:

Based on Vicky's most recent post up there, it sounds like we agree a lot more than we disagree. My problem is that nobody is presenting this as "one piece of the puzzle". Rather, it's being lauded as the be-all-and-end-all. If the government were putting forth a clearly layed-out phased plan that had this as the first piece to be implemented, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now. But that's not what's happening.

And incidentally, it seems Vicky and I have cross-posted. No, I don't think cash-payments are a great idea. For one thing it's just blatant vote-buying. But as noted at very least it is universal.

The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 12:43 PM said:

My problem is that nobody is presenting this as "one piece of the puzzle". Rather, it's being lauded as the be-all-and-end-all.
Only by those, like you, who oppose it. Everyone else *I know* is calling it a step in the right direction. And removing it, so the government can replace it with "beer and popcorn" money is a step in the WRONG direction.

isn't it horribly ironic that Stephen Harper's plan, which sux in it's own right, is at very least universal?
No, no it's not. It's taxable, so single parents, who NEED to work, will not get the full benefit, and may even have to pay it back in income tax penalties, if it bumps them into another tax bracket by year end. All the while getting less access to affordable childcare, thanks to these new cuts. It only really benifits families where one person can stay home and claim this as their sole income. People like you, who -- even you admit -- don't really need it.

[Edited By The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 12:44 PM]

The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 12:59 PM said:

Hmmm, options eh? Just off the top of my head right now. How about a cooperative neighbourhood based program where a parent can choose to work X days a week for a percentage of their normal salary, and volunteer in the coop daycare the rest of the week? You work 3 days, you get 60% pay. 4 days / 80%.
My mom organized something like this when we lived in BC. She called it a Daycare program.

And so on. Government passes a law requiring employers to allow for this.
So, some sort of "universal daycare law" then?

And speaking of employers, what about mandating on-site daycare so parents can spend time during the day with their kids? Or on-site cooperative day care as per above?
Wow. Even more of the "day care" stuff...

Great ideas there Amkay. I see no reason why any or all of the above could not have been done with that extra money to the provinces for daycare.

Stphen Harper's "beer and popcorn money" -- not so much.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 01:13 PM said:

See, I think we agree more than we disagree. I didn't say we don't need government daycare. I said we need more than just that so that everyone can make the choice that suits them and get support for it.

And it's also worthy to note that the government solutions are not nearly as flexible as the above proposals. For one, you have to take 5 days a week. We know someone who would like to get a government spot for 2 days and have her mom take the other 3 days. You can't take just 2 days in a government spot. And you can't write off "nanny money" when it's a family member. Lose/lose.

The system in place is rigid and inflexible. Less options. Therefore I have every reason to believe that any additions to it will be equally rigid and inflexible. Less options.

And we still have nothing on the table for the 100% stay at home parent. Less options. Fail.

The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 01:42 PM said:

The system in place is rigid and inflexible. Less options. Therefore I have every reason to believe that any additions to it will be equally rigid and inflexible. Less options.

But as inflexible as the spots may be (and not letting you pawn your kids off on Granny and claiming it as a tax deduction isn't exactly "inflexible" in my books), cutting them produces even fewer options -- especially given what they're replacing it with. It would be a lot easier to tweak an exisiting program than to fight once more to get ANY federally funded daycare program back in.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 02:43 PM said:

So in addition to stay-at-home moms, you are saying granny's labour is worth nothing too, eh?

As long as we are putting words into each others mouths in this thread :-)

The person we know would like to be able to pay her mom. But apparantly you cannot do that.

Maybe it will get tweaked. We shall see. But I doubt it.

Miss Vicky Feb 27, 2006 02:47 PM said:

you two. go play in your rooms.


The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 03:06 PM said:

So in addition to stay-at-home moms, you are saying granny's labour is worth nothing too, eh?

Never said it was worthless, but using relatives as a tax write off isn't what most of us would consider a sound "daycare initiative". It's not a given that family members == qualified caregivers. Not all grandmothers are, well, motherly. I know one that's been known to throw shoes at her grand kids and tie them up to chairs. I'm not claiming that *all* grandmothers are like that, but some are.

you two. go play in your rooms.
Meh.
*slams door*
*turns radio up real loud*

accidental altruist Feb 27, 2006 04:36 PM said:


Fun stuff. Silly me to post such a thing and then go off for the weekend huh?

amckay I doubt there's any point in addressing our differences of opinion. If you " find it difficult to understand how someone (me) could oppose" R.E.A.L. Women then this conversation is a non-starter. You and I are from totally different worlds.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 04:47 PM said:

you may be surprised how many worlds i am from. as i said above, i only stumbled upon this group via your post and all i really know about them is from what i read in the link I gave. what i read sounds like they want everyone to make their own decisions, and i really find that difficult to argue with. sounds to me like they respect you and your choices, but you obviously don't respect them and theirs.

the more accepting and accomodating viewpoint is usually the better one for all concerned. i.e. less like to be a cause of conflict. and from my limited reading it sure sounds like they are a lot more accomodating than you.

accidental altruist Feb 27, 2006 05:21 PM said:

anti-same sex marriage....
anti-abortion....

hmmm. they're real accommodating!

[Edited By accidental altruist Feb 27, 2006 05:36 PM]

amckay Feb 27, 2006 06:54 PM said:

OK, I didn't see that on their website on my brief read. I do see their admonishment of abortion, but not of same-sex marriage.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 07:04 PM said:

p.s. in reading more on them, there are a number of things I strongly disagree with. On the other hand, there are also a number of things I agree very strongly with. Interesting bunch - I'd never heard of them before but something tells me I'll be hearing more from them.

Let's be thankful we live in a society where all views are valid and should be heard. They are just as entitled to their views as you are to yours. For my part I appreciate all views as they all represent different aspects of what it is to be human. If I can understand why different people can so strongly believe opposing views yet still each be just as human as the next, then I will very likely become a better human being myself.

I examine them all as thoroughly as I can and with as open mind as I can. If someone has not seriously and wholeheartedly examined a wide range of views, they are probably not very secure in the ones they find themselves to hold. In my view, at least :-)

accidental altruist Feb 27, 2006 07:07 PM said:

there's a link on the homepage. it reads:
HOMOSEXUAL EDITORIAL CONFIRMS EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR EFFORTS

[looks like we cross-posted]

[Edited By accidental altruist Feb 27, 2006 08:04 PM]

The Webgeek Feb 27, 2006 07:20 PM said:

Really?

Not even the big "E M E R G E N C Y !!! PASSING
ANTI-MARRIAGE BILL
" in regards to bill C-38 right there on the front friggen page?

Ya missed that did you?

How about this little tidbit (also linked off the main page)
HOMOSEXUAL EDITORIAL CONFIRMS EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR EFFORTS

The editorial in the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (July 14, 2005) Christian right sets up shop points out that even though the contemptible Bill C-38 was passed this week, our efforts working against it have been worthwhile


How about this (also directly linked off the main page):
Feminists do not now, and never have had the support of Canadian women. They are a special interest group representing their own ideology only. Moreover, feminist organizations continue to exist in Canada today only because they are funded by the federal Status of Women, without which funding they would collapse, since they have little or no grassroots support.

Yep, anti-abortion, anti-equal marriage AND anti-femenist.

But wait, there's more: how about this wonderful page (i had to click TWO links to get to it. It was really buried in there) that decries the Hiding the Homosexual Curriculum from Parents an Judicial Support for Teaching Homosexuality in Schools and the evils of the "Homosexual Agenda". It down under Education

Heck. Read the third paragraph:
It is no accident, however, that every totalitarian movement has tried to destroy this family unit. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wanted the family destroyed, as did Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. They believed this to be necessary because the family was seen as a dangerous threat to the power of the State, which was to assume the rights, responsibilities and authority of the family. The family alone, however, teaches the hard truths of moral values. In other words, it is the family which is the enemy of the State because it provides the formation of character which gives the young the ability to grow up to become independent, stable, functioning, and
compassionate individuals. Such people are more difficult to control and are therefore, a threat to the State.


These people are GRADE A certified wingnuts. you barely have to scratch the surface to see that. but of course,they do hide it well, I'm sure that why from your limited reading it sure sounds like they are a lot more accomodating than you.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 07:51 PM said:

Yup, I obviously missed that. Sorry, not perfect. Just human.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 07:53 PM said:

p.s. they are still entitled to their views. And each of them is still just as human as you and I.

accidental altruist Feb 27, 2006 07:57 PM said:

Last thing I'll say on this topic... Well, actually, I'll just quote you back to yourself since you seem to enjoy the attention:

"Now, I'd never heard of this group "Real Women" before, but reading their views I find it difficult to understand how someone could oppose them."

"If I can understand why different people can so strongly believe opposing views yet still each be just as human as the next, then I will very likely become a better human being myself."

Well can you understand or can't you?

.....yeah, that's a rhetorical question. This exchange has been a gem - right up there with having Lowell Green admonish me for spreading 'hate propaganda' one week and then honestly suggesting I run for P.M. the next! Wheeeeeee!

I'm off to comb my daughter's hair & then prepare for tomorrow's job interview at my fave sex shop.

Night all!

amckay Feb 27, 2006 08:12 PM said:

Yes, I do now at least understand why you can so strongly oppose their views. It's quite obvious. I'm not the least bit afraid to admit that you've shown me that I was wrong in my intial cursory view of this group. Nor am I the least bit afraid to admint that I do agree with a few things they say. It's quite rare for 2 people to agree on nothing. When someone has an open mind it's not difficult to show them when they are wrong because being wrong is in our nature as humans. It's the ones who are never wrong that you have to worry about, not the ones who often are. Don't worry, I fall into the latter category.

Why is this such a gem to you? It's been an educational experience for me.

amckay Feb 27, 2006 08:13 PM said:

p.s. Night! Youngest just fell asleep on my lap so I'm off too!

amckay Feb 27, 2006 08:31 PM said:

p.p.s. I get it now. With your question Well can you understand or can't you? you think you are pointing out some place where I contradicted myself.

Darn, because I thought you were being nice. (Not only am I not the smartest guy and am wrong alot, but I also unfortunately usually assume by default that everyone has the best of intents, which is likely why I initially saw nothing wrong with this group - i've been bitten quite often by this trait)

Clearly there was no contradiction. In the first case I said I did not understand. A statement of fact. The second statement began with if (which you conveniently did not highlight). If is used in logical expressions to denote an uncertainty, not a statement of fact. Neither A nor B, but rather an uncertainty as to which it might be. As my pop used to say (and I guess still does) whenever someone began a sentence with If "Wish in one hand and s[p]it in the other, and see which one fills up sooner". So I guess it denotes a wish in some ways, too. In any case, the intent of the sentence I thought was rather clear : that I seek very hard to understand each and every human being. And if only (any rubbadubbers fans out there?) I could understand ... (I think you get the rest).

Tying to understand everyone is a tough job at times, not the least of which reason being because so many people can hold such vehemently opposing views, and yet still be people! This very often makes my brain hurt. Though I suspect if I can just stop using my brain and start using compassion instead, I'll get a lot further. That's not easy for someone who used to think he was smart.

I began this thread not understanding your opposition. Now I understand it very clearly. Thank you for that. It's been very educational. I think I'm a wee bit better of a person as a result.

Anyway, this time my "night" is for real. I had to come back because this realisation struck me suddenly. I'm often slow, too.

[Edited By amckay Feb 27, 2006 08:37 PM]

accidental altruist Feb 27, 2006 09:59 PM said:



Ok Vicky, tell us your secret. How'd you score that invite?

;-)

Miss Vicky Feb 27, 2006 11:02 PM said:

Connections, aa.... connections!

amckay Feb 28, 2006 04:38 AM said:

It's not a given that family members == qualified caregivers. Not all grandmothers are, well, motherly.

So now who is accusing parents of being unfit, BTW? Only you are being very explicit, where I was being somewhat obtuse. More power to you, I guess. But who gets to decide which parents are fit and which aren't? You're not so different from me afterall, eh?

One question I have which I guess wasn't asked explicitly but certainly danced around a fair bit here is this : how transparant is this program? Where can I read up on the selection criteria on who will get spots and who will not?

[Edited By amckay Feb 28, 2006 05:01 AM]

Miss Vicky Feb 28, 2006 06:57 AM said:

Licenced care facilities need to meet criteria set by provincial regulations. Parenting is different from early childhood education; child care is not babysitting. But you don't really want to get that, do you?

[Edited By Miss Vicky Feb 28, 2006 06:59 AM]

amckay Feb 28, 2006 08:08 AM said:

You're telling me I don't get "early childhood education"? You're telling me parenting is different from that? Right. Thanks for that. I'm sure you've read lots of books about it, but I live it every single second of every single day. Parenting is not only every-bit about "early childhood education", it's also about "late adult education". It's about a whole world of things that you are never, ever, not once going to read in a book.

Guess what, grandmothers are mothers, too. Webgeek was not only judging a grandmother's ability to be a mother, but was also judging the mother's ability to know what is best for her own child. And you are both dancing around one thing : the government knows what's best for our children, and parents cannot be trusted with this responsibility.

amckay Feb 28, 2006 08:12 AM said:

Licenced care facilities need to meet criteria set by provincial regulations.

A quick search of the table of contents does not show an obvious answer to my question. Since you've obviously read this document, can you please point me to the section that will tell me what the selection critieria will be? I want to be sure that parents with dire financial straits are getting preferential access, as they should be getting.

[Edited By amckay Feb 28, 2006 08:13 AM]

Miss Vicky Feb 28, 2006 10:21 AM said:

Dude, there are plenty of places to learn about the child care system if you really want to. You can start with the city's pages, which among other things describe who qualifies for subsidized spaces. You could also visit Child and Family Canada, which not only has vast resources but also links to its partner groups, including associations of early childhood educators, links to research. There's also the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, which gives you a sense of what kind of social policy development people are pushing for right now. When all is said and done, unless the government commits to a national child care strategy that has consistent funding and sets certain standards, we are missing a huge part of what we need to support Canadian children and families.

[Edited By Miss Vicky Feb 28, 2006 10:22 AM]
[Edited By The Webgeek Feb 28, 2006 01:17 PM]

amckay Feb 28, 2006 10:36 AM said:

Anyway, at this point I'm just going to bow out of this thread as this is far from productive. I'm trying hard to listen to what other people are saying which should be clear given i've conceded several points already, but I get the distinct impression I'm the only one doing that. Some of the spin in this thread has just been unbelievable. You guys already have all the answers and aren't interested in hearing other views.

And then to have you pontificate about what is and is not parenting? Un.Schlecking.Believable.

The Webgeek Feb 28, 2006 10:37 AM said:

Issue 1:
No where did I accuse ALL grandparents of being incompetent. I did, however, point out the fact that some (note *SOME*) are a little less than perfect. I even cited an example. So get off your high horse there buddy. I'm not attacking the sanctity of the traditional family. I'm just pointing out a pretty obvious fact. Not all grandparents (or uncles or sisters-in-law, or any other family member available during the day) are *necessarily* the ideal people you want watching over a kid. Of course, if you actually READ my comments, you might have understood that, but that brings me to ...

Issue 2:
Since you've obviously read this document, can you please point me to the section that will tell me what the selection criteria will be?

AMkay, do you Really need to be spoon-fed every answer? Seriously? You can't take the time to read it yourself?

See, if you stopped doing cursory skimming and actually looked into things and, oh I don't know, educated yourself on things you don't know about, then MAYBE, you wouldn't need have people to point out the obvious for you. You keep saying you're open and try and see everyone's point of view, but really, you just want to be spoon fed the answer. And whoever makes those little airplane noises first seems to have the most sway.

[Edited By The Webgeek Feb 28, 2006 10:44 AM]

The Webgeek Feb 28, 2006 11:16 AM said:

And then to have you pontificate about what is and is not parenting?

Where did we do that?

Huh?

Because I don't see it. You seem to think we're "implying" it, but I KNOW, I certainly am not. No where did I ONCE say that the government should be raising our kids. Nowhere did I say that daycare programs are better than parenting. I did say that some grandparents suck -- but that's a different point altogether -- one you fail to see. In no way was I "judging the mother's ability to know what is best for her own child." I was simply tying to point out that,maytbe the mother's ability to know what's best might be in choosing a qualified daycare facility instead of her loony relatives (assuming the relatives where loony in the first place).

You just seem to think we are.

And you're right, we haven't conceded anything to you yet. But your the one that came in here claiming that Daycare was some big capitalist plot to force parents back into the workforce and that somehow Universal daycare meant the end of stay at home parent. It's not, and we're not saying that. That option is, and always will be, on the table.

You want a concession, here: Yes. In *most* cases, having a stay at home parent would be the ideal. In fact, when Vicky and I have a child, we will work VERY hard to ensure that one of us is home for *at least* their first year. Who will stay home is dependant on where our careers are at, but, yes, both of us think that the *ideal* would be for Vicky to do it. However, life is far from ideal. So we'll have to weigh all our options and try and do what's best for our child given the circumstances we find ourselves in at the time. And We'd really like to know that affordable, professional daycare is one of those options should WE NEED IT.

Do I think there should be some sort of tax benefit, or monetary help for stay at home parents? Yes. Definitely. No doubt about it. I'd support legislation to that effect. But that's not what this thread is about. Do I think that workplaces should provide flexible schedules for parents and/or in-office child-care (preferably *and*)? Yes. Definitely. No doubt about it. I'd support legislation to that effect. but, again, that's not what this thread is about. It's about the loss of funding for daycare. Something that, in this less than ideal world, many families NEED to get by. THAT has been what we've been talking about. You, once again, completely mistook our intentions and ASSUMED that we were somehow attacking you and your lifestyle.

Now, we all know what happens when we assume...

Miss Vicky Feb 28, 2006 10:08 PM said:

I heard that this morning, altruist. That just bites. Of course, there is precedent- they do that with the Child Tax Benefit as well.

spot Feb 28, 2006 11:30 PM said:

Streamline education across Canada.
Automate the process so learning may take place from anywhere at anytime across Canada.
Have teaching run off competitions recorded to see who can best convey specific learning information, then incorporate that into the automated educational system. Hurry up and modernize the education platform because other countries will use the best and brightest ideas to leapfrog ahead with blistering speed.
To do any less is to let Canadians down.
See the troubles in Alberta today, they need skilled workers NOW. You need to get on the ball!

accidental altruist Mar 3, 2006 01:40 PM said:

*sigh* it's too bad this discussion derailed. I've posted something for Liss on my blog because I heard she'd been offended by this thread. That's too bad. We parents can get a wee bit riled up when we feel that someone else is telling us how to raise our children!

accidental altruist Mar 3, 2006 06:03 PM said:

Dang. I'd made a comment to Liss' blog but I guess she's decided not to post it - because it's not there.

liss76 Mar 4, 2006 06:51 PM said:

Which blog? I don't screen comments so it should be there if blogger is working.

accidental altruist Mar 5, 2006 01:16 PM said:

Thanks for pointing that out! I've seen your post to my own blog and taken up the discussion there. :-)

ABC May 3, 2006 11:15 AM said:

If taking care of children by parents is a bad thing, then I don't want to be in the same world as the rest of you. If you consider a housewife or househusband is bad or regressive, you obviously put your own interests above your children (if you have any that is).

The Webgeek May 3, 2006 11:26 AM said:

If you consider a housewife or househusband is bad or regressive

We don't. in fact, we're all for it. I suggest you re-read my last comment. Specifically this bit:

Yes. In *most* cases, having a stay at home parent would be the ideal. In fact, when Vicky and I have a child, we will work VERY hard to ensure that one of us is home for *at least* their first year.

ABC May 5, 2006 10:46 AM said:

That is excellent Webgeek. I didn't elaborate on my comments either. I feel that daycare should be for those parents who are unable to afford to have one parent stay at home and not those who are just career-oriented and rich. It happens with the food bank too. Its sad.

I don't agree with the former government that this is a right, I think it should be a privilege.

This article quoted at the top of the topic isn't the be all end all here. The CPC are planning to have childcare spaces, I would just choose a wait and see attitude to decide if they are doing enough and I hope they regulate it so that those who are able to comfortbly afford daycare be denied it so that those families that have to have both parents working can have access. They are the ones that need this assistance. They are the priority, in my opinion.

[Edited By ABC May 05, 2006 11:00 AM]

Miss Vicky May 5, 2006 10:50 AM said:

70% of mothers work outside the home. There's a lot of grey between the "poor" and "rich". I think child care is an important service that should be available to everyone. The funding the CPC has alloted for child care "spaces" is a pittance compared to what the previous government had committed to - it is not going to address the lack of affordable quality childcare, nor the lack of subsidized spaces in existing child care facilities.

ABC May 5, 2006 11:01 AM said:

I think there should be a formula like when you apply for a mortgage to see what you can afford. I don't think that we should spend even more money on creating spaces for the rich.

I do like it that you've called this a service because it really is.

The funding to which you refer, is that from the recent budget?

Miss Vicky May 5, 2006 11:28 AM said:

yep. there is a good opinion piece on the conservative budget here

The Webgeek May 5, 2006 11:45 AM said:

I agree that priority should be made for the more "fiscally challenged", but the problem with having people needing to "prove they're poor enough to qualify" is that it is rather degrading, and tacking on a lengthy "suitability" check onto the already lengthy waiting lists will be frustrating. And where exactly do you draw a line at who's "wealthy" and who isn't. Drawing some artificial income line will only serve to harm those just beyond the cusp.

I really doubt that people who can afford Nannies will be clamouring to put their kids into public daycare anyway. I'm pretty sure that those people who need it the most will be the ones who seek out the spots first. Those who can afford to find (and/or prefer) "alternate" care, be it Nannies, private daycare co-ops, or stay at home parenting, will continue to use those options. I think giving those people some sort of tax rebate might be an acceptable compromise.

ABC May 5, 2006 11:56 AM said:

Is getting a mortgage degrading? I don't think that you're considering that such a process wouldn't be degrading. People have to write down their salaries when they do their income tax. Is this degrading? I think you're going for the emotional rather than the realistic here. You draw the line at the combined salaries of the parents, combined with expenses such as cars and a house. There obviously would be a cost to daycare, this would be factored in.

The reason why I would support such a thing is that when we have foodbanks, there has been abuse by those families who can afford to buy their own food but use them instead and therefore there isn't as much food to go around those who need it. I wish to avoid abuse and misuse of these services. I honestly believe that there would be similar types of abuse if we don't regulate childcare spaces. I don't believe that the harm that you're mentioning would be nothing more than just emotional rather than financial as this is what childcare spaces was created.

The Webgeek May 5, 2006 12:10 PM said:

Is getting a mortgage degrading?

You're comparing it to the wrong kind of proccess. To apply for a mortgage, you're trying to prove that you CAN afford a house. And they take into consideration the house as an asset. What you're talking about is trying to prove that you CAN'T afford something. It's more akin to applying for welfare.

Applying for welfare is very degrading. And you get all sort of fun rules there too. Things like having a car or your own house, or even living in "too nice" an apartment, are considered "amenities" when applying for welfare. amenities applicants are told to relieve themselves of in order to get by, because having them makes them "too well off" to get welfare. I've unfortunately been in situations where I've needed to apply for social assistance, and let me tell you, it was very degrading being informed that I couldn't get it because my "rent is too high. Move into a cheaper [read, crappier] apartment" -- especially when Ottawa was at a near zero vacancy rate. I'm sure that expectant parents would love to hear that they should just move to a shittier part of town, or sell their car, or house, instead of putting their kid into daycare.

[Edited By The Webgeek May 05, 2006 12:17 PM]

The Webgeek May 5, 2006 12:15 PM said:

there has been abuse by those families who can afford to buy their own food but use them instead and therefore there isn't as much food to go around those who need it.

Really? Where did you hear this? How was it determined that these people could "afford their own food"? I have NEVER heard of food bank abuse. Anyone I know whose had to use a food bank has only done so as a very, very last resort.

ABC May 5, 2006 12:57 PM said:

Yes, applying for welfare is degrading, do we then remove it altogether? No, because it is necessary for that person to receive a little cash. I still don't consider applying for childcare spaces the equal of welfare by any means. I know what you mean by moving out of expensive apartments, my wife had to do the same and moved into a crappy bachelor which was small even for a bachelor size and in a building that housed a lot of drunks. We had to move out of the centretown area when we got married because Minto upped the rent 25% in 3 years. My point being is that you do what is necessary and if you degrade yourself, you'll feel degraded.

If an expectant mother is paying rent and just getting by, she should be eligible for daycare spaces. If the rent isn't 2000/month type of thing, then yes, I would support moving to a lower rent housing. If however, they are in a place that the rent is low and they are just getting by, they shouldn't be refused daycare. You can make a formula that addresses all challenges, it just takes some effort.

ABC May 5, 2006 01:05 PM said:

I've heard this on the radio a few times in the past, here in Ottawa. CFRA as a matter of fact. I'm not making this up here bud. I have heard it.

ABC May 5, 2006 01:10 PM said:

I'm sorry, I'm feeling rather sick today and I'm going to sign off for the weekend, take care you 2.

Miss Vicky May 5, 2006 01:23 PM said:

Thing is, ABC, there aren't enough subsidized daycare spaces. And there isn't enough affordable housing, either. Even folks who meet the means test for such supports don't necessarily have access to them - the waiting lists are years long.

The Webgeek May 5, 2006 01:40 PM said:

I think Food bank abuse is very much the exception rather than the rule. Either way, lets not waste time on a tangental subject.

If an expectant mother is paying rent and just getting by, she should be eligible for daycare spaces. If the rent isn't 2000/month type of thing, then yes, I would support moving to a lower rent housing.

Look, welfare is for people that can't afford to live. Childcare isn't. Childcare should be about making sure the child is properly cared for. Forcing a single mom to move to a crappy bachelor which was small even for a bachelor size and in a building that housed a lot of drunks to pay for childcare instead of giving her access to a subsidized space is probably worse for the kid in the long run.

How about this senario:
Young couple have a child. They do the math and figure that they can just scrape by with one parent working, or they can just scrape by with both parents working AND paying for daycare. If they could get subsidies daycare, they'd be able to sock away some money and pay for the child to go to university too. Under a welfare-type system, they'd be denied because "scraping by" would be acceptable. That's not in the child's best interest.

There are ways of doing this that don't force people to go through a "you must be this poor to use this service" kind of scenario.

First, priority to those that are on social assistance. No questions there. They obviously need it more.

Second, you target new spaces and new daycare programs that are in and near or in low income, and mixed income neighbourhoods. Especially if these facilities also prioritize entry by proximity of applicant to the facility. This makes it easier for those not on social assistance, but still, most likely, in low income scenarios.

Third, for those who don't get subsidized spaces, give Tax rebates for certified child care. This will help cushion the gap between those who can afford non-subsidized spaces and those who can. they get to play math games to see if they can afford to get the money back come tax season or not.

Fourth, make it possible for duel parent, single income homes with children to spread the tax burden across both parents. This will lessen the burden on those that choose to stay home.

ABC May 8, 2006 02:16 PM said:

To start off, I'm not mentioning about moving to a bachelor, I'm not speaking of places like that apartment building on MacLaren near Hartmans. I'm speaking of places that are high priced, over and above what a family should be spending on housing. For example: A family lives on Island Park Dr., probably shouldn't have any discounts or first access to daycare. That type of thing.

Every point that you've mentioned includes some comment about income, especially, low-income. Now you're sounding like me. Yes, it should only be for low-income families in my opinion.

Point number 1 is a yes.

Point number 2 is a yes.

Point number 3 means giving money back to them.

Point number 4 means giving money back to them as well.

I'm not saying I disagree, because I don't. I am just saying that the priority should be for low-income families, period. Middle income and high incomes are on their own. I notice that you never mention a baby-bonus like strategy. I believe that this would work as well. But it really depends on the amount.

The Webgeek May 8, 2006 04:47 PM said:

I'm speaking of places that are high priced, over and above what a family should be spending on housing.

Based on what? A provincial, federal or city wide average? Rent in Toronto, Vancouver, and Ft. McMurray are insanely high compared to other places in Canada. How do you tell people that "you can't live in the really nice neigbourhoods, but don't move into the shit-holes either".

Point number 3 means giving money back to them.
Only if they choose to use it. And why, exactly, is a tax credit bad?

Point number 4 means giving money back to them as well.
Only if they use it. And, it actually does make it less of a burden on stay at home parents, which is what most of us seem to prefer here anyway. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

Middle income and high incomes are on their own.
Why? Where's the cut off? What about those that fall slightly above that magic line. Universal daycare is universal daycare. It's not "daycare for some, and screw you guys over there". By offering a choice of options -- tax breaks for those that can afford a stay home parent, or nannies or private care, and subsidized spaces for those that can't -- you set up a system that is most equitable.

I notice that you never mention a baby-bonus like strategy. I believe that this would work as well. But it really depends on the amount.

No, baby bonuses do not guarantee child care. there's no provision that the money won't simply be spent on "beer and popcorn". That's why they were removed in the first place. And the pittance that Harper is offering is useless.

ABC May 9, 2006 03:36 PM said:

The tax credit isn't bad at all, I like the idea. I think it is practical and doable. I'm just saying that you're once again targetting the poor families, which is what I have been saying all along.

Really, if you look at our posts, we are much in agreement here, except for having a salary limit which is my suggestion.

I believe that daycare should be for those who cannot afford to stay at home, period. It just seems very practical to me.

Your insinuation that parents would not spend the bonus on childcare is simply wrong to even suggest. Scott Reid got raked over the coals for the same thing. What parent wouldn't spend money earmarked for their children on their children? Certainly not a parent that I would want to have access to daycare.

The Webgeek May 9, 2006 04:37 PM said:

I believe that daycare should be for those who cannot afford to stay at home, period.

So you would then support forcing those who can afford it to stay home? Why is monitary well-being the only factor in determining who "can afford" to stay home? What about people who can't afford to put their careers on hold? It's all well and good to say that the child id the primary concern of the parent, but it's also a reality that the well-being of the entire family needs to be taken into consideration; and that includes a parent's work obligations and ability to remain gainfully employed in the long term. Life doesn't come to a complete halt when a child is born. It's a balancing act.

Your insinuation that parents would not spend the bonus on childcare is simply wrong to even suggest.
Bullshit. Please curb the faux disgust. Not all parents are created equal, and not every parent sees problems with spending money "earmarked" for their kids on "non-necessities". I can easily see Harpers $1200 going to pay down car loans, or going into RRSP contributions, or towards a new XBox 360, or car repair or to any one of a meriad of non-child related expenses simply because it instant cash in hand.

Or, to borrow from another blogger who said much more sarcastically than I:

FROM kidsnotbeer.com: No parent, not a single one, in this country would spend money designated for child care, and given to them for that reason, on beer or popcorn. It is disgraceful to suggest otherwise.
Yup. No parent. Not a single one!

This is something that those of us with children know, because having children connects us to a vast network of parents and makes us authorities on other Canadian parents.

As a parent, I'd like to report on some other interesting facts of which Paul Martin's staff may be unaware:

* no parent, not a single one, beats a child.
* no parent, not a single one, sexually abuses a child.
* no parent, not a single one, is verbally or emotionally abusive.
* no parent, not a single one, fails his or her children in any way.
* the sky is, in fact, a lovely shade of mauve.

It is disgraceful to suggest otherwise!

[Edited By The Webgeek May 09, 2006 04:39 PM]

amckay May 9, 2006 05:30 PM said:

Suggesting we need a universal program here is just ludicrous. That's a massive money sink you are talking about. How are we to afford it? That's just following socialist dogma for the sake of following socialist dogma.

Shortly after I bowed out of this the last time, I read a story about a couple in Quebec. Each with 6 figure incomes, and they managed to get a subsidized daycare spot. Un.Schlecking.Believable. I'm on record as saying that with my high 5 figure income, we should be ineligible for a daycare spot. Though it would be nice to have a drop-in center where my wife could leave the kids once or twice a week for an hour or two. But nobody is talking about that.

Someone who can afford daycare of course should not be forced to stay home. They have the option of paying for daycare themself.

And honestly, isn't someone who cares more about "putting their career on hold" than their children really in the same boat as the folks who are going to spend Steven Harper's windfall on beer and popcorn? Seems to me they are. Of course, most of the problems around "putting a career on hold" can be resolved via legislation, but nobody is talking about that either.

I don't like Steven Harper's plan at all, but at very least it put an end to the half-solution that the Liberals (and NDP) were trying to railroad, and might actually be a catalyst for some much-needed debate on this topic. If the LIberals had been allowed to continue, they'd have set up their one-size-fits-all half-solution, dusted off their hands, then the problem would be "solved". End of story, no more need for discussion. Meanwhile the significant number of people (> 50% by some counts) who don't want 5 day a week daycare but really want some kind of government help, would be left holding their pudsies. The problem with what webgeek said on May 5, 2006 01:40 PM (first, second, third, fourth) is that people were only ever talking about 1 and 2. 3 and 4 were never on the table, and it is disingenuous of webgeek to suggest otherwise with hopes to placate those like myself who see the reality of the situation. (Well, actually, 4 was discussed a lot by the Right, not the Left). And of course there is 5, 6 and 7 that nobody is considering. And likely 8, 9 and 10. Point is nobody is talking about options, ideas, alternatives and real solutions. Everyone is thinking inside the box. If the Liberals had been allowed to proceed, we'd have seen 1 and 2, and end of story. Next issue. Actually, they were only ever really talking about 2. Like liss76 said way up there, we don't need to patch the existing system. We need to tear it all down and build it up from scratch. Let's do it right the first time, or dammit don't do it at all.

Oh, and as an aside it's worth mention that the socialist mainstay Norway has opted for Steven Harper's plan, though to the tune of some $750 per month instead of the insulting $100. I wonder if beer and popcorn sales went up in Norway as a result :-) I still don't like the idea, in any case. Just an aside.

[Edited By amckay May 09, 2006 05:31 PM]

The Webgeek May 10, 2006 09:39 AM said:

Suggesting we need a universal program here is just ludicrous. ... That's just following socialist dogma for the sake of following socialist dogma.

Yes, because I know its all those rich kids that are using up the spaces in Public schooling and ruining it for the working class. And if it wasn't for all those rich folks clogging up the waiting rooms at hospitals, with their stupid gout and tennis elbow, that the universal health care system wouldn't be the shambles it is today.

Just because you "heard about" one extreme exception in Quebec does not make it the norm. You are, how do I say it, ah yes "making a mountain out of a mole hill".

I'm on record as saying that with my high 5 figure income, we should be ineligible for a daycare spot. Though it would be nice to have a drop-in center where my wife could leave the kids once or twice a week for an hour or two. But nobody is talking about that.

So what your saying here is that you don't really want universal daycare, unless of course it was tailored to your exact needs and desires. gotcha!

The problem with what webgeek said on May 5, 2006 01:40 PM (first, second, third, fourth) is that people were only ever talking about 1 and 2. 3 and 4 were never on the table, and it is disingenuous of webgeek to suggest otherwise with hopes to placate those like myself who see the reality of the situation. (Well, actually, 4 was discussed a lot by the Right, not the Left).

ah. Another "all or nothing" situation. Points 1 and 2 go a long way to solving the majority of the need in this country. And, ironically enough, would be focused on the low income people that you agree need it the most. It was a solution that was wanted by all provinces and it was good starting point. Steps 3 and 4 weren't on the table, your right. I never claimed they were. It' not like I have an insider view of the Liberal party. I suggested them as possible alternatives, or extensions. Nothing more. I think we can agree thet they're better ones than the Harperbucks program.

Like I said in the weedlocked thread, I'm not willing to wait around for the holy grail of perfectly balanced childcare legislation to fall magically out of the sky and garner instant acceptance from the general public and legislature. I'm willing to start with the main priorities (more health care for lower income folks) and work from there.

As an aside, yes, I did steal the 4th idea from "the right". (From the REAL women site to be exact) But I did it because its actually a good idea. It makes a lot of sense. I'm willing to admit that somethings a good idea when I see one. But it isn't an idea that the current "right" administration is willing to look at. Instead, they're giving tax cuts to parents with kids in hockey and a bit of spending money to "buy something pretty -- for the kids of course".

A further aside -- you may bring out the most sarcastic in me AMKay, but I am glad your back. My acerbic-ness only ever comes out when I'm really getting into a debate. Please try to remind yourself that a lot of what I'm saying, I'm saying with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

ABC May 10, 2006 09:44 AM said:

So you would then support forcing those who can afford it to stay home? Why is monitary well-being the only factor in determining who "can afford" to stay home?

Why is it a factor? Because that is the reason why both parents have to work, to make ends meet. But, if they already are making ends meet, then only 1 parent has to work. Its pretty simple logic.

What about people who can't afford to put their careers on hold? It's all well and good to say that the child id the primary concern of the parent, but it's also a reality that the well-being of the entire family needs to be taken into consideration; and that includes a parent's work obligations and ability to remain gainfully employed in the long term. Life doesn't come to a complete halt when a child is born. It's a balancing act.

I'll give you a good response here. If you're having children, your career would and SHOULD take a 2nd place to them. No career is worth more than a human life, not a single one as you are suggesting. Life is not just about a career. My sister for example, was a manager in a major corp., and would easily have moved up further. She got married, had children and quit her job as her husband was in the same level as she was and they could afford to have one parent home. Now, she quit her job as I have said and took care of her children as a parent should do. The kids saw her often and developed that ever important bond that would not have developed if she just put them into daycare. She is now working again and very happy. I just don't understand why you would insult parents by insinuating that life doesn't include taking care of your own children?

Your insinuation that parents would not spend the bonus on childcare is simply wrong to even suggest.
Bullshit. Please curb the faux disgust. Not all parents are created equal, and not every parent sees problems with spending money "earmarked" for their kids on "non-necessities". I can easily see Harpers $1200 going to pay down car loans, or going into RRSP contributions, or towards a new XBox 360, or car repair or to any one of a meriad of non-child related expenses simply because it instant cash in hand.


Forgive me for not quoting the ridiculous blog that you've posted. You've compared bad parents and lumped them altogether with those who do not abuse their children. If we go by your example, there shouldn't be any welfare, as people would abuse it too, and they are. But, the greater good that most children would be helped by a baby bonus outweighs those that would abuse it. That's why we still have welfare and that's why we should have this as well. And believe me, I was not faking disgust, I truly am disgusted that the majority would be lumped in to a minority of people who abuse.

The Webgeek May 10, 2006 11:42 AM said:

But, if they already are making ends meet, then only 1 parent has to work. Its pretty simple logic.

Overly simplistic, if you ask me. There's a big leap in saying that because they CAN afford to have a parent stay home, that they HAVE to stay home. Labelling them as bad parents if they don't if pretty judgemental. Parenting, and parenting styles are different for each person and each family. The choice is theirs and theirs alone.

Anyway, I find it funny that a professional male is writing to me from work to tell me that parents of sufficient means should have to suck it up an stay home to care for kids. Very nice of you to mandate from upon high that someone else needs to make sacrifices.

But, the greater good that most children would be helped by a baby bonus outweighs those that would abuse it.

The greater good the most children would be helped by a Universal daycare program outweighs those that would abuse it too. And the money spent (or tax credits handed out, depending on how you handle it) would be guaranteed on being spent on childcare, therefore greatly reducing the (temptation for) abuse.

Miss Vicky May 10, 2006 12:12 PM said:

Ok, boys, this is more than enough for a discussion that was supposed to have exhausted itself weeks ago. Let's move on, shall we?

Commenting has been closed for this entry.