Harper won Canada zero

The national child daycare program would be a great system.

It would create thousand of jobs and thousands of spaces for children to learn, play, develop and grow. It would free stay at home mothers and fathers to work instead of worrying about the children, contributing tax to cover the program.

Everyone wins, the children get to have an early learning place with qualified people and the parents are free to work.

If parents don't want to send their children to public daycare than they should just receive a tax cut or something.

The benefits to be gained are just so enormous, I don't know how anyone can say it is a bad idea.

 

And what great country do you live in?

 

IronGoth will argue in some indirect way, this hinders with business capitalization and the inherent right of humans to accumulate as much as legally possible.

Oh... I'm sorry IronGoth - are we answering for each other when we post our own views now?

Stop tearing up this thread as if you sit on a moral high ground and can accuse hard-working individuals of being "parasites" because you are too cowardly to come out and say that you think you have a strong work ethic, and you assume that you're the only one with a brain in their head because you work full-time in another country.

 

What would the business community lose? I see them gaining, less parents leaving the workforce to take care of children.

 

Au contraire she was happy with her gift.

What what? You said your granny stood on her own two feet and was quite capable.

How the hell else are they gonna pay for national childcare, a year off for the breeding machines to exploit, etc.? Where is the money going to come from? *jeopardy music* This is something socialists NEVER think of, or simply say "the rich".

Yeah, let's start indoctrinating the kids into Liberalism early. It's not enough to start with it at 6, let's do it at birth. Seen public housing and public health care? The moment this gets signed on, the bulk of the money will go to hiring Quebecers to do paperwork, and some puppy mill type operations become the legal norm.

*cackles with laughter* like the way projects are wonderful places for young families to nurture and prosper?

And what about those who want to nurture and raise their OWN kids? Their taxes just went up.

Dude, judging by the school system "qualified people" don't cut it.

You mean, the same way parents who want to send their kids to private school should get their school taxes back, or a voucher? HA HA HA the union will never let that happen. Nope, this will become yet another gigantic money sink.

You don't see how tossing your children into a factory to be nurtured from birth is worse than having a dedicated parent who loves said children at home?

The socialists have already won. Dear Lord.

 

What I had said, was that I thought I was lucky to be given the right of parental leave in Canada, and considered myself fortunate. You then went on to express your opinions - by saying that you felt such a right given to myself, entitles me to do a lot of sitting and breeding while someone else pays my bills.

Then you said "just like your granny, right?"

Then you had enough insolence to include: "the apple doesn't fall from the tree."

...

I think I'm entitled to a little job security if I ever decide to start a family with my partner - yes. I think the Canadian government has created a reasonably flexible program with which over 65% of new parents have been ably qualified to receive benefits. I could understand it if people weren't using the program, but they are - and still - the birth rates continue to drop in Canada. Other new parents receive parental leave benefits from their employers directly or from other contracts, or none at all. The fact remains that in Canada 2001, 65% of parents with newborns were dependents and entitled to receive some sort of payment. The consequences of pulling the carpet up from under them (scrapping the program entirely in the name of business) ultimately would prohibit women from engaging in nothing more than "pink collared jobs" where they are able to take the time needed off and leaves low-income families to fend for themselves against their employers' benefits policies, regardless of union representation.

The Canadian government has done the right thing by protecting the women, children and families above the interests of anything else.

And you know what? The businesses in Canada never made a big stink about the program. People with high paying jobs and middle-class jobs have yet to protest and rallied against it. Most criticism that exists over the program is directed towards low-income families who use the program. Sure, there's definitely a multitude of reasons why low-income families are/were in need of such a program to begin with - but let's not forget the program is only available to WORKING individuals anyway, and is geared towards their annual income.

...

I don't see a real problem with increasing taxes to fund a national childcare program. I bet you that half the population would be in favour of such a program. The demand for a national program is there, has been for a very long time in Canada and it would depend how many people plan on using the program before the cost estimates can be budgeted accordingly.

Where will the money come from? From anyone the government decides it ought to come from. The thing is, everyone can use a childcare program - poor, rich, middle class - and everyone still remains freely capable to accessible alternative care.

I think the money should come from my tax dollars personally speaking, as a woman.

 

And I am commenting on how ludicrous it is that a year off, paid, is a "right".

Well, yeah, it does.

The one who collected welfare while having four kids? Only difference is, I bet she was heartbroken to have to take such a handout, whereas you consider it a right.

Granny collected welfare and then became a champion of the parasites - heck, she even took people their cheques so they wouldn't miss All My Children. You are a champion of the "right" to sit there getting paid by other people for your lifestyle choices.

There's a difference between "a little job security" and "the right to extort a year's wages, benefits and seniority from your employer for doing f*ck all."

And coincidentally, many young Canadians are leaving the country cause they can't find work. But you're a big ole Conservative Bush crony meany for making that connection....

That's not the problem. Denigrating the family for four generations and rampant feminism has done that. If you want birth rates to go back up you have to start respecting women who decide to stay at home and have children, and make it possible for a guy to support a family on his own. To do that, you need less government intervention, less taxes and better and higher paying jobs and YOU DO NOT GET THAT BY LEGISLATING THEM.

Not true. As you say, this is LAW and ALL are REQUIRED to do this.

Gee, how it used to be is this. The parents with newborns were dependents of the father in question, should something happen to the aforesaid parents other members of the family took them in. Now, it's "society's" problem.

Whereas the way you have it now, strangely enough they will be finding reasons NOT to give women positions of responsibility, or outright relocating the jobs.

Oh whatever, this is simply a handout pure and simple, and a sexist one to boot.

WRONG.

And what would these be? Obviously, no fault of these people it must be George Bush's fault.

Yeah, the half (women) that get the money for it. The half (men) who pay into it might differ in opinion. Business sure as hell does.

You know, it astounds economists. "Canada has incredible natural resources, a young and well educated workforce, why isn't it kicking serious economic ass?" Then you show them laws like this, usurious business taxes, insane taxes on employment and they go "oh, I see."

Of course the demand is there. More handouts! More free stuff! Latchkey kids weren't bad enough? Let's introduce public daycare!

You can easily forsee some womyn deciding to get a job, working three months, taking the year off to have a baby. She does this by free IVF (health care is all free! Totally free! The money comes from out of nowhere!) cause she doesn't want to make the lifestyle decision to meet a guy let alone get married, plans her C-section (none of that messy and painful giving birth stuff, and besides, it's ALL FREE!!!! NOONE HAS TO PAY FOR IT!!!!) hands the kid over to the public daycare worker (isn't democracy great? If I don't want to spend my money on toilet paper, I'll make a law saying you have to bring it to me every week AND IT'S ALL FREE!!!!!) and suddenly has a paid year's vacation to do with what she wants.

While still paying for the public system, of course.

Why would your words hold any more weight cause of your plumbing?

 

it is almost sad what people believe is a 'right' today.

Christ, in America, we get called barbarians if we dont give our criminals access to a television, a telephon and conjugal visits....criminals!

I don't see how a handout is a 'right.' It is not an inalienable right. That doesn't mean that society cant grant such things...but i dont think we should consider them a RIGHT. Freedom of speech is a right. Free childcare should not be a 'right.'

how far our ideals have fallen...

 

Actually, in Canada there is no right to free speech. It isn't in the law that Canadians have the right to own property either. Every time the government decides something should be banned all property in question is to be handed in without compensation to the government, cause after all it was never yours in the first place.

You think Eminent Domain is bad, the omission from the Constitution of property rights by Pierre Elliott Turdeau was a deliberate one.

 

No.
My grandmother didn't receive money for parental leave. She was a welfare recipient after her husband died suddenly over the Christmas holidays without a life insurance plan. She had 4 children at the time, and none of them were old enough to attend elementary school full-time.

My grandmother actually supports our parental leave system.

Personally, I would rather not put financial pressures onto the shoulders of men to provide for their wife so she can have children and start a family.

If women want to be stay-at-home mothers and care for their children, that's fine. But they shouldn't expect to be provided for and dependent upon their husband's income alone.

...

My words hold more weight because when it comes to reproduction, I am the one that is going to have to take time off work - not men. It's like banning a man from taking sick days off work - or a day off for a funeral - or banning them from taking leave because someone burnt their house down.

 

But yeah, within a few years it'll be understood that when you're born, the government has the obligation to look after you from birth cause child care is a right. I'll bet they'll make housing a right too so you don't have to work they'll give you a house. Then it's the right to free money, the NDP came up with the idea of a minimum income scheme whereby every one gets $27,000 a year and anyone making more than that gives it to the government. They're also demanding free tuition as well as free health care.

So what exactly should you pay for?

 

Blah blah blah.

Back in those days your family took you in, unless you were the black sheep of the family or something.

Listen, your granny eventually got a job she was one of those for whom a safety net was needed and granted. Most these days aren't in that situation.

There's my only problem with her. She went from being a paid beneficiary of the parasite system to an employee of said system. Dear God if people can't be bothered to leave their own homes to get their cheques your Granny shouldn't have bothered going to them to drop em off.

The HELL? If a guy impregnates a girl he's responsible for the life created, just as much as she is. Why should ANYONE ELSE be on the hook for the little bastard?

They can save up the money and go to it.

No, they should get public handouts. Great. Just what we need.

Your words hold no more weight than mine. You are no authority on this subject.

Sick days are a benefit. When I was a contractor if I was sick I didn't get paid. And you have a certain number of em. Go over that and you're fired. And yeah, some employers do fire people over taking that kind of leave.

 

I wonder how all the neo-cons (Reform-a-Tories?) like seeing their poster boy Mikey squirming at the Ipperwash Inquiry . It may take time...but justice will prevail !

Looks like the Harrisites are passing the buck to each other. Hmmm.....and it's incredible how much the key Harrisites just can't remember. The body language says it all. "Liar,liar..pants on fire!" LoL

 

Actually Cabinet ministers (Conservatives) are pushing for free post secondary tuition costs.

 

The parental leave program is flexible enough to accomidate families that want to provide care for their children themselves or by other means for an entire year. If they prefer to go back to work earlier than a year, they are permitted to do so.

We have work-for-welfare systems in Canada. People can't just "sit around like parasites". At any rate this thread was originally about Stephen Harper - and I'm tired of discussing what IronGoth has to say about "parasites".

IronGoth - about property rights - Why did Trudeau omit property rights? - I assume he thought it unecessary. I never examined the issue too much but since it was always Conservatives mentioning it I assumed they just wanted to sanctify their wallets as some kind of human right the better to argue against taxes or nationalization (Alberta oil companies?).

I can't imagine a situation where I'd really think property rights needed constitutional enshrinement. The times when the government infringes on those are usually times when it's important, and I think it's bascially moneyed interests wanting power vis a vis the government. Screw em.

But that could be my whole DESTROY CAPITALISM thing.

I don't think it's a big deal, it isn't like the government is expropriation-crazy anyway, and if it were in the constitution it would still be balanced against necessity I would think. I think property rights would be too hard to codify since normally they are left up to municipalities anyway.

Why did Trudeau omit property rights??

That's just ideological nonsense to keep the right amused.

 

I for one prefer prison to be work camps instead of just locking up people. make them useful and productive.

Second explain to me how childcare is free and how it is a handout? Canada has a universal health care system but it is not free by any chance. America could have the same system and they are in bad need of one but people aren't willing to pay higher taxes. They are more willing to be overcharged.

 

The system could be implemented without any increase in taxes.

Wow you know the system before it even exists.

Without liberalism you wouldn't know what a computer is, without liberalism America wouldn't exist, without liberalism you wouldn't know what medicine is, without liberalism you wouldn't know what knowledge is, without liberalism you wouldn't know what language is, without liberalism we would still be in the stone age. Tell me why liberalism is bad? And don't tell me because liberalism tolerates gays and their rights, and the woman's right to choose.

The best in the world.

I wouldn't know, you seem to have some inside information.

What a dumb analogy, why not compare it to public schooling? Canada based on it is population has the highest university graduates and almost all of these folks went through the public school system. A bad system eh?

They get a tax break, how hard was that. If this program requires a tax increase it would be an optional thing. It is no different than parents paying to send their children to expensive private daycare. People now have a choice between a private and public system.

I know and I have seen them myself but in every system there are a lot of good apples and bad apples.

They already do. Second I am sure, they benefit elsewhere.

And how is this different from parents who send their children to private daycare? Oh I see when it is a public system it must be a factory.

Whatever people think is the best will win. Not what you or me think.

There is no point in arguing, you aren't going to change your view and I anti changing my. When it comes time to implement the program the people will speak. If the majority wants the program then it will be implemented, and if not then it won't be.

I believe if the program requires a tax increase then it should only apply to parents who have children and would like to participate.

 

Nothing, why is payment a requirement for living?

Consider the government a corporation, to be able to receive your services and goods you have to work. The government doesn't hand out things for no reason, those people on welfare you complain about are on it because the government believes they have a good reason. The people that receive public housing do so because they cannot afford market prices, it is not like government is handing out houses left and right like you believe.


How a government operates depends on the people, their actions and lack of actions.

 

Who said?

 

The typical conservative, feminism is what the civil right movement was for blacks.

I always ask myself how women could be conservative if they know the history of conservatism and who was fighting against their rights back in the days. It must be ignorance or forgiveness.

Second, I always ask myself how blacks could be Christians when the same book they believe in was used to justify slavery back in the day. It must be ignorance or forgiveness.