A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be-the home or the workplace or wherever else...

The difference is, women who stay at home aren't askin ME to pay for their kids. If you don't wanna pay for them, don't have them.

Tac Cutter,

>> The difference is, women who stay at home aren't askin ME to pay for their kids. <<

Welcome to the responsibility a SOCIETY has for all. There is no libertarian utopia around the corner - we are all in this together.

You are paying for all sorts of societal issues already. You surely pay for the smoker who screws up his/her lungs and costs the medical system an arm and a leg, or the alcoholic who does the same. You are paying through the nose for courts and police and rehab and workmans comp and highway taxes whether or not you've ever been a victim of crime, been in an accident, or driven a car.

The reality is that some families need assistance with child care for whatever reason. If you want to judge these families that's just dandy, but be prepared to be judged yourself.

Our society moves forward when we ensure that all move forward, not just those who can afford to make progress.

How about more debate on what is actually better for children.

I support choice and one choice that should be available is for one parent (mom or dad) to stay home with the kids. I also believe that children with a stay-at-home parent are less likely to be involved in drugs or criminal activity, suffer less from mental disorders and are more productive citizens. I am not entirely sure where I get these conclusions from but perhaps we should start debating these sort of perceptions and decide what is more worthy of supporting with our tax dollars before we start arguing over how to deliver the results?

Tax Cutter 99 sez:

Oh but they are you poor sucker. Those women are precisely the ones who are asking you to pay them to stay home.

Who did you think the 1200 bribe/child was going to benefit TC99?

Where did you think those cheques were coming from? Some amorphous body like the government - I've got news for you dude, that money is coming out of your pocket - it is an expenditure of tax money and you are now in the position of doing exactly what you didn't want to do - you are paying women to stay home and look after their kids.

The other method, taking the money and using it to create actual daycare spaces for women who are working or want to but can't because of daycare shortages would have stimulated all kinds of economic activity in Canadian communities: it encourages more women to work outside the home and be productive; it encourages businesses to set up new day care spaces and employ more professional day care workers all of which are stimulative for communities all across the country and at several different levels.

Harper's gimmee to his base will do nothing but stimulate a tiny amount of retail spending - especially when the monthly cheques are discounted for their tax effects.

Working women lost as a result of Harper's boondoggle; children lost as a result of Harper's boondoggle and you lost as a result of Harper's boondoggle.

Your twisted selfish attitude, narrow minded in the extreme, doesn't even recognize the economic reality of the way the real world works. The net value of the $1200 bribe is meaningless as a contribution toward the real needs for more quality daycare in this country; it's is nothing more than a tax grab to help Harper's fundamentalist selfish followers a tax grab you're paying for: Welcome to the monkey house.

Yeh, how about it?
How about asking realtors and home builders to drop their fees and prices by 50% at a minimum? How about getting the oil companies and the banks and every other commercial enterprise in this country to drop their prices, reduce their profits and raise salary and compensation to the point where one average parent could actually earn enough money to support a family while the other parent stays home to care for the children. I expect Victoria will be raising the minimum wage to $14/hour tomorrow. And legislators and parliamentarians will give up half of their salaries and the banks will stop charging 18% interest on their Visa accounts. I could go on.

Yea, right!

What a great idea. Where do I sign?

In what bizarro world are you living? No doubt you're another clueless man who lives in a bell jar and hasn't got a clue how the real world works. Give us a break! I look forward to having some working women post to this site.

The argument in this article is totally and blatantly one-sided. The assuption underlying it is that the taxpayer should once again be on the hook for women's reproductive choices (the good choices and the bad). That's not what "Womyn's Lib" was all about, now was it grrrlz?

Having got that out of my system, some sort of regulated and monitored childcare support should be guaranteed to women AND MEN who need to participate in the capitalist rat-race while trying to raise their children in a responsible manner. I have know idea how young Dads and Moms can pull it off today. What form that support takes is debatable - this article takes it for granted that the proposed federal childcare program is the best way to go.

But I can see the frustration - it's taken literally decades to get this on the policy agenda, and now it's going to die on the vine due to nothing more than the unfortunate timing of the change in government.

Well said tedward:

I support choice and one choice that should be available is for one parent (mom or dad) to stay home with the kids. I also believe that children with a stay-at-home parent are less likely to be involved in drugs or criminal activity, suffer less from mental disorders and are more productive citizens.

How about revealing whom will be benefitting from the LIEberal daycare plan?

How about identifying from where this supposed demand for daycare spaces is coming from?

In simply comparing the plan $2 Billion (yes with a B children) from the LIEberals vs. $300 Million (with an M for those that missed it); the dollars make sense from a lower point of view.

The article writer, Patricia Robertson, put in:

and

The program in Quebec is sucking the treasury dry as there are no means testing for the program, it just is. This means that wealthy parents take advantage of the system (as it has no rules against this) and can be seen dropping off 'les enfants' in a lexus, then off shopping or to the hair salon. All for $7 a day.

The subsidization of this program takes 80% of the profits realized by Quebec Hydro.

Do a reality check here:

http://www.kidsfirstcanada.org/quebec-reality-check.htm

Moreover the debate about such care has never been fully completed, nor properly addressed.

Some thoughts about this can be found in KATE TENNIER piece that was picked up in the Globe:

http://www.kidsfirstcanada.org/globe-feb13-2006.pdf

I rejoiced when the federal LIEberals that brought us such stellar boondoggles like the Gun Registry and HRDC scandals had their pet project Childcare insanity scrapped.

If the desire is to have better wages and overall stability in the society then mollycoddling the parents with subsidized daycare is not a way to achieve it.

I do not see the $1200/year as coming from anyone else other than my own contributions made during the years that I did not have children; and then after they are too old for me to recieve it.

The daycare madness was going to balloon into a massive money eating monster that the 'motherhood' argument would make impossible to slay. Money poured into that monstrosity would have to come from everybody's pocketbook.

My working spouse says:

"I have no desire to place my children in the care of some state-approved worker, about whom I have no prior knowledge nor control over the daily activities that my children would be part of. Nor do I want to be forced to place them in the care of whomever the 'system' decides."

nightbloom
Clear headed, despite that you don't really make enough allowances for the simple biological fact that women, as a gender, don't really have free choice in the normal sense of the word about being the 'reproductive' part of the reproductive pair. In other words, males have a rather academic relationship to the whole physical side of the equation these days - if truth be told - while women are still, as it were carrying the male (and female) freight for the future of human kind. Last week, we were actively debating the legitimate role of traditions in modern society. Would it be unfair to say that all that (plus a certain decidedly physical, emotional and psychological set of factors) applies to the debate on this question too? In other words, it’s far more complicated than your casual put down.

But I’m sure you know that. I suspect there is a personal (perhaps quite emotional or even playful) reason behind your somewhat cavalier dismissal of a serious question in your initial paragraph.

As for the rest of you post, I can hardly disagree. I am curious that so few women do appear to have taken Harper's cavalier attitude toward what they have been about, as you put it, for decades, more seriously.

Perhaps I'm reading the wrong material.

Can't think of a better use for profits from a public company!

More dead fish!

Did she say it in BOLD too?

Someone just e-mailed this to me. I thought it fit in the general vein of this article:

They come in a wide variety of colours too, just like maple leaves.

murdock, think. The money was going to create daycare spaces. Not in some huge Soviet apartment building with Ayn Rand types patrolling the hallways. Just your average church or whatever hiring a licensed worker to run the thing in space that otherwise sits empty all week.

Don't try to create some weird image of collectivization of our kids. All the little tykes working State Farm 67.

The "system" is not telling you where to put your kid nor was it going to. it was simply going to try to create the spaces, you'd have the choice fo where to go.

When my youngest was in daycare I volunteered one day a week and spent it with the kids, another parent and the licensed daycare superviser. Every day different parents took their turn. There are lots of such daycares in BC but not enough by a long shot because that space and that trained person need to be paid for.

Without parental involvement 2 more workers would have been required. Many employers won't let their employees take 1 day off a week so both types of daycares are necessary. $100 a month before tax won't do it.

Gwest, I appreciate your response, but just to split hairs:

This aspect you mention - the biological equation - while a valid point, has already been dealt with through the Maternity Leave provisions. Post-natal childcare policy can't make assuptions about the parenthood arrangements after the first 21 months following conception (i.e. 9 months plus 12 months mat. leave, usually with some overlap...length of leave varies, of course, depending on the sector). So

Mom & Dad must be placed on an equal footing as "stakeholders" in whatever policy emerges from this for the provision of childcare after maternity leave is up.

And men are stakeholders in this debate, whether they bother to represent themselves or not. Unfortunately there's no goups out there really arguing this point - just nightbloom all by himself.

Murdock:"I have no desire to place my children in the care of some state-approved worker, about whom I have no prior knowledge nor control over the daily activities that my children would be part of. Nor do I want to be forced to place them in the care of whomever the 'system' decides."

Does that include Doctors? What about police officers? What about bus drivers? Teachers? Dentists? Nurses?

What about licenced daycare workers is so much more loathsome than these other aformentioned state-approved workers? In order for those other professions to practice they must receive state approval, and for very good reason given the history of abuse by people maquerading as professionals. Frankly, people who make such condemnatory statements about daycare workers are either utterly ignorant of the research and training that goes into creating a licensed daycare and early education professional, or they have an ideological axe to grind, or both.

What do you think happens at a daycare? If you don't know, why spend time inventing totalitarian fantasies instead of actually finding out?

You know Murdock, instead of reading ideological garbage like the crap pumped out by neo-conservative supported dorks like Kids First, you might want to take a look at what people, who take the time to research what is actually effective child care and early education, produce. Here are some locally grown BC links.

http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/

http://www.help.ubc.ca/hcbc/

http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/vocfc/00001084.htm

What happened to personal responsibility? I don’t have children. They are not part of the lifestyle I desire. I disagree with the 1200 dollar credit in principle, but if it were distributed to all families, not just those practicing irresponsible reproductive behavior i.e.: having kids they cannot afford, I would agree with it. Wrap it up, take a pill, get snipped, get tied. That’s the only subsidy you need. And If you can afford to have AND raise a child with discipline, values, morals and have the ability to spend the time required, have a child, or two or three or nine. As long as you can afford to provide these to them. It’s not fair to them to let them have inadequate child-rearing, with the holes in their upbringing filled by the nanny state.

JAMES BURNS-before you cite a "study" out of UBC, read this http://primetimecrime.com/contributing/2006/20060116Martin.htm

nightbloom
I absolutely agree. If there are two parents in the equation, which you'll have to admit these days is no longer a given both pre and post-conception, I'd certainly say this was an issue which ought to apply equally to men and women. However, it doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the situation - both for biological and cultural reasons - to say this is equally and practically a man's and a woman's problem at the current time. Until that changes (and some of the other attitudes of what I assume to be male writers on this site indicate it won’t be soon), I can't see how considering it mainly from a woman's point of view - as the writer admittedly and somewhat one-sidedly does, is beyond the pale.

nightbloom:
I'd further add, upon reflection, that I don't think your view of yourself as the only rational soul in this debate, is particularly accurate either.

And to add to Tax Cutter's rant, people in the suburbs shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidize their lifestyle. If they want to work in Vancouver but sleep in Delta they can pay for their own bridges, their own roads, clean up the environment behind them and not expect those of us who don't use a car and who disagree with paving farmland to pay taxes to support their bad decisions.

Way too much ideology in this debate.

Look at the reality. Most parents cannot afford to have a child stay home. There is no CHOICE. I really hate that word sometimes. $1200 of taxable income does not provide CHOICE. It definitely does not provide child care.

In a perfect world it would be great, in my opinion, for a parent or both to be able to attend to the needs of their children. But I, nor any politician should make policy based in la-la-land.

If a government wants children with stay-at-home parents then it will have to provide options for the majority. In the meantime, it may be unfortunate to have to leave children with 'day care professionals' but that is the only option that is viable for the majority of Canadian parents.

Its pretty clear that, ideology aside, Harper's plan is bunk. Its a few dollars in the pocket of those who can already afford to stay home or private care and a very insulting buy-out to the rest.

What happened to personal responsibility? I don’t have a car. Cars are not part of the lifestyle I desire. I disagree with the money going to build new roads and bridges in principle, but if it were distributed to all drivers, not just those practicing irresponsible driving behavior i.e.: having cars they cannot afford, I would agree with it. And If you can afford to have AND maintain a car with repairs, insurance, gas and have the ability to spend the time required, buy a car, or two or three or nine. As long as you can afford to maintain them. It’s not fair that my tax dollar should go to subsidize these irresponsible car owners.

What happened to collective responsibility?

Let's look at this argument.
Taken at the extreme on the childcare issue it basically reads: rich can have children; poor/middle-class cannot.

Not to mention, what happens to our personal lives when the economy is faced with either major chunks leaving or a drastic drop in children?

Let's compare apples to apples here. Nobody needs a car. Children are somewhat useful for, among other things, the survival of the race.

FRANK and Ubiquitous, you depend on roads and bridges to bring supplies to your community.

I wasn't trying to make a serious comparison apollyon. Instead, I was trying to point out to tax cutter (although, a useless endevour I'm sure) how this whole "personal rsonsibility" rhetoric plays out with something (that I can only assume) he values.

And most Canadians rely on new population whether by birth rate or immigration to buy goods, expand the economy, provide pensions etc. Without other people having kids you might not even have a job.

You can't decide "personal responsibility" is good only after your own basic needs are taken care of.

A single mom living within a block of her place of employment doesn't need someone who relies on her taxes for their infrastructure but who thinks providing daycare for her kid so she can work to pay those taxes is her problem.

The issue of childcare is an interesting one which clearly provokes a number of questions. According to Statistics Canada it appears has some 1.8 million children of age four and less.

If we were to adopt a 'universal' childcare program, and assuming in a worse case scenario, all would be placed in a child care facility, and using the mean current monthly cost of $600; taxpayers would be on the hook for at minimum of some $14,040,000,000 per annum. This of course does not include the costs to create the required spaces, training of caregivers, nor ongoing costs.

The question though is how many children would this universal system support. That figure seems to be an unknown.

Our society is rapidly changing. The issue at hand is affordability of the family unit, the rights of women, proper care of children and the continuum of the family/society.

After reading much literature on this subject, studies seem to indicate that little adverse effect on the child is evident as opposed to that of the true family unit, provided that stringent standards are maintained for facilities and care givers.

So in reality, the question boils down to affordability. Although I can find little information on real costs that might apply to a full national childcare system, there is no doubt that costs would escalate. The need for caregiver training and monitoring, the need for a vastly increased bureacracy to administer, the need for increased inspections of facilites/child care local programs, the ebb and flow of facility acquisition/manintenance costs and so forth all add to the financial model. The estimate in the worst case model could quickly escalate. Even the question of the cost of labour will certainly be a factor as unions demand wages of fair value. So the unknown factor is what is the realistic cost for this national program?

There is no doubt in my mind that the family unit is under attack economically. Parents for the most part do need combined employment income to survive. Our society also has great expectations relative to material needs, perhaps too rich. There is also, in my view, escalating public service costs at all levels of government which demand tax dollars.

The matter of equality between males and females is also an important issue; one that ought not to be denied.

But the question still remains:
Do we need a truly Universal Child Care System?
Are there other options?
Should those with a family income above a certain value be included?

I not certain that a truly 'universal childcare' system is the way to go. I think a variety of options need to be ferretted out, costed and presented. This might include:

In house nannies,
Allowances for Grandparents/other relatives;
Real tax benefits to support the family with children, and so forth.

At this stage in our society this subject is an important one to discuss.

mwatkins wrote:

You surely pay for the smoker who screws up his/her lungs and costs the medical system an arm and a leg, or the alcoholic who does the same.

No. Tobacco taxes cover the cost of treating lung cancer. Alcohol taxes cover part of the damage done by alcohol, but not all the damage.

The cost of dealing with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) victims alive in Canada today will be over $40 billion during their lifetimes. One of my neighbors drinks like a fish along with his wife. All three of their daughters have fetal alcohol syndrome. He makes $50 per hour at a union job. He can afford to pay more for the damage he's done. My neighbors when I lived in North Burnaby were also alcoholics. Both their kids had FAS. He was a government electrical inspector. He could easily afford to pay more toward lifetime support of the damaged children he created.

You are paying through the nose for courts and police and rehab and workmans comp

Workers comp and workers rehab are paid for by industries on the basis of their safety records, as it should be - not by innocent bystanders.

Rehab related to auto collisions is paid by auto insurance, not by the general public.

highway taxes

Highways are largely paid for by fuel taxes, as they should be. Local roads are paid for with property taxes, which is wrong. Local roads should also be paid for by fuel taxes.

tedward wrote:

children with a stay-at-home parent are less likely to be involved in drugs or criminal activity,

When our dad started working nightshift, my older brother (age 15 at the time) started staying out late, hanging around with a bad crowd, doing drugs and neglecting his homework. Our mother did everything she could to convince him to stay home, but he ignored her.

When our dad went back to dayshift and was at home in the evening, my older brother stayed home, did his homework, stopped doing drugs, and drifted-away from his burned-out druggie friends.

and TaxCutter, you rely on the children to make those products that are brought to you by bridges and cars (not just our sweatshop shirts and pants, but locally made pizzas)

Tedward:

I 'believe' I might get laid tonight. And I have as much proof as you do for your pet theory. Where's the facts?

As for the rest of you who would nickel and dime our children out of professional daycares, frankly you make me sick. Too bad your parents didn't have access to state-sponsored contraception. You're beneath contempt.

"Frankly, people who make such condemnatory statements about daycare workers are either utterly ignorant of the research and training that goes into creating a licensed daycare and early education professional, or they have an ideological axe to grind, or both."

Damn straight. It bears repeating. Man, this subject gets me worked up!

Nice burn on the teachers, doctors, dentists, nurses point to JB. But don't expect logic and a clear example of hypocrisy to change the minds of warped, selfish, fools whose real mother is that bitch Mammon.

...these are the same people who think that teachers are the bane of our existence.

There are far, far more single fathers now than there were even just ten years ago. I haven't looked at the numbers (and I'd likely question them right away if I did), but just based on empirical observation I'd say there's a lot of single dads out there who need to be acknowledged but who don't have an advocacy framework.

No, and that's not what I implied - but I do sometimes feel like the sole resident "men's rights" advocate on these threads sometimes.

Cycling Commuter: It would be nice if taxes on substances and actions actually paid for the cost of their damages, but they hardly do. The quickest example I could find was an article Chronic Disease in Canada (1997 Vol 18 No 1 by M.J. Kaiserman):

"In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes."

It is not realistic to think that real costs (and damages) are dealt with by current taxes and insurance schemes. $100 bucks a month will definitely not deal with the eventual costs of limiting access of the un-wealthy to affordable child care.

Under communism in Romania, parents were encouraged to produce lots of children and have them raised by the state. Parents who were mostly separated from their kids in this way lost interest in them. Many parents abandoned their children entirely. Some of these abandoned, state-raised kids were adopted by Canadians. The adoptive parents encountered all kinds of behavioural problems and IQ problems caused by the failure of state-raised children to receive adequate individual attention during their early years.

Last winter, someone abandoned a litter of newborn puppies in a park in South Delta. This was front page news in the local paper. The authorities managed to find the mother of the puppies. They reunited her with her offspring. Dog experts emphasized that puppies that are separated from their mothers too soon are inclined to grow up to be overly aggressive.

From: http://www.delta-optimist.com/issues05/123205/news/123205nn1.html

"When puppies are deprived of this critical phase of development, they have a much higher likelihood of behaving aggressively and developing other behaviour problems later on."

It's pretty sad when young puppies get more consideration than young humans.

Tax Nutter:

Kind of ironic that link: a right-wing prof who arrogantly lambastes left-wing profs for their arrogance. Not a thing about UBC or child care and early learning though. But I guess coherence isn't your strong suit is it?

Cycling Commuter, are you implying that properly funded daycare spaces in Canada will rpoduce a Romania?

If you don't want mothers to have to work and instead stay home with their children I assume you're an advocate of 5 years of paid maternity leave?

nightbloom
I don't think that's the case either. Some of the men on this thread seem pretty well centered on what's best for their own narrow self interest if that subsumes the nominal male point of view.

I don't happen to see you as part of that group; but, I certainly would agree that there don't seem to be too many women openly stepping forward to defend their side of the argument either. I actually see this, as I did in our other debate, as just another example of 'human' rights.

We even have someone above here suggesting, apparently seriously, that there was ever a contemplation of having the state carry all the freight for universal daycare...go figure. Most parents are more than willing to pay for decent daycare. The problem for both fathers and mothers is one of availability, so far almost no one is addressing that; they are discussing, instead, mostly their own prejudices rather than the actual problem. Pretty typical in my view.

James Burns wrote:

Doctors? Dentists? Nurses?

Parents of young children usually get to pick and choose individual doctors and dentists. They also tend to accompany their children on medical/dental visits.

bus drivers?

No responsible parent is going to allow their young child to be on a bus alone!

police officers?

Most parents are not Fagans raising little pickpockets. The parents of some future politicians and tax collectors may be exceptions.

Teachers?

Parents have less choice here. This could explain why so many teachers are turning out to be child molestors.

Cycling Commuter:

Yeah the children were literally abandoned when the Romanian state collapsed during the revoultion, many of them starved to death, and most had next to no adult contact whatsoever. Many white Canadians were appalled that white babies could suffer the plight that so many black African children go through, so a drive to adopt them formed.... Tell me by bringing up stuff like this are you suggesting that this is the kind of daycare and early education policy that Canadian universal child care advocates propose? Locking children in cages and spraying them with food like some factory farm? What kind of a nut are you anyway?

As for your bit on puppies... we're supposed to draw what kind of conclusions about human children from dog experts? Are you trying to suggest that daycare removes children from having any contact with their parents? Or are you suggesting that children should be strapped to their mothers 24 hours a day, as any separation might turn them into stark raving lunatics? Or are you just throughly ignorant of what constitutes daycare and early education?

Cyclying Commuter:

And they'd get to pick and choose their daycare. They'd be able to visit the daycare to determine if the environment is one they'd be comfortable with. What do you think would happen? Families would be dragged there in chains and the screaming tots would be locked away behind bars while the parents would be trotted off to labour camps?

Ah so that rules out the school bus then.

Is this the best you've got? Smear and fear tactics? Can you do anything other than tumble out crass fear laden generalizations to try and make a point?

On the broader question of who, and how, we should pay for quality daycare, as usual Marc Lee has it right in his CCPA commentary here:

http://tinyurl.com/o9h4k

"If you need a bridge, you do not give the money to drivers - you need to go out and build a bridge. After a couple decades of relative neglect, Canada needs to reinvest in its social infrastructure. But tax cuts cannot substitute for collective action."

guanolad

Problem is Marc Lee has provided zero solutions.

Mother of three here, soon to be four.

Daycare in BC in my area is approx 30-40 a day, for each child under 2.5 years old. Then, one has to find a space besides being able to afford it.
Childcare providers are also in a tight spot. To be affordable for families they must keep costs down, to keep costs down, they must pay staff less. Its not a glamourous job either. Reliable knowledgable people are hard to come by.
Childcare centers are not like reform schools, they usually have freindly, caring people, who should be teaching kids something if the parents decide to place their kids there.

Having children may be a choice, as are many things....But in this economy two working parents is more often a necessity.
Stay at home mums and dads pay because of the loss of income, and working parents pay through the nose for childcare.
We should be making it easier for both lifestyle choices. Our economy depends on ALL of us having the ability to contribute and spend money BACK into the economy. This closed minded view that early education and childcare doesnt affect society as a whole only holds us back.
We pay later because of the effects of substandard childcare, or latchkey kids left to their own devices when kids resort to crime or drugs.

It used to be that you needed lots of kids, because you needed someone to take care of you when you got old, now we rely on the state to do it. We used to have tight extended family that helped with child rearing, but with the break down of the family this is no longer the case.
Personal Responsibility is still the cure. Don't have kids you cannot afford. I don't wanna pay for your failure to pull out.

pale
Thanks for that. Nice to see a woman posting. Reading little else but the idle spoutings of a bunch of self-centred men (with some notable exceptions), was definitely getting pretty boring.

Then move to an island in the Pacific where "we" won't have to take care of you and build everything for you.

Don't be part of a community if you don't want to be. Go do your own thing.

Frank wrote:

are you implying that properly funded daycare spaces in Canada will rpoduce a Romania?

This has already happened to an extent.

I assume you're an advocate of 5 years of paid maternity leave?

No, I advocate a society that's run more productively, efficiently and equitably so BOTH parents can afford to work outside the home only part-time and spend more time at home raising their own kids. I'm also an advocate of rewriting zoning laws, union rules, etc. and providing infrastructure to allow more home-based, part-time employment opportunities for parents with young children.

I put my money where my mouth is. Instead of buying things from a retailer where a cashier is standing behind a till all day, I tend to purchase the exact same items for a lot less from people who sell merchandise from their home-based eBay sales businesses. Standing behand a till all day is not a healthy job anyway. Most people don't realize that retail prices are at leaste double wholesale prices. Retail clerks get very little of that profit. A home-based eBay retailer gets to keep more of the profit even with a much lower sale price.

The dental office I visit is owned and run by five young female dentists. Because they all work out of the same office, this gives them a lot more flexibility for part-time work and raising children than a one-dentist office. A fair amount of dental paperwork, phone work, website maintenance etc. can be done from at home. Dentists make good money. If they're not wasteful, they can survive financially just fine with a part-time job.

Some hairdressers work from home, but they often have to do it on the sneak because of stupid municipal zoning laws. Most of these zoning laws are a reaction to traffic noise issues. A smarter approach would be to allow such businesses to operate openly, but restrict them to clients that use quiet transportation such as walking, cycling, or driving plug-in hybrids. A hairdresser who does a good job of advertising can keep very busy serving clients who live within easy walking or biking distance - especially if lower overhead costs are reflected in lower prices.

As an aside, worker satisfaction surveys covering various job types have shown that hairdressers are the happiest with their jobs while government bureaucrats are the unhappiest. In general, those who have more flexibility and control over their workplace are happier.

Many telephone tech support, sales, and customer service jobs can be done from a home office with high-speed internet access to the employer's databases.

Digital diagnostic imaging machines allow doctors to view and analyze images through a home internet connection - and many are starting to do exactly that. A recent double-blind, peer-reviewed Swiss study found that specialists who viewed wounds by looking at pictures taken by phonecams produced practically identical diagnoses to their peers who examined the exact same wounds in person. This despite the very poor quality of phonecam images. A doctor in Langley, BC recently developed a system using higher-quality imaging equipment to transmit images wirelessly from home-visit nurses to doctors. The BC Liberal government rolled-out the new system very quickly, and it's now saving 40 percent of wound treatment costs while simultaneously producing improved outcomes.

A large mining company in Ontario has developed remotely-operated mining robots that are controlled by above-ground operators. This was done mostly for safety reasons. A side-effect is that mining robots can now be controlled from at home through a high-speed digital connection. More women are becoming interested in mining careers now that the danger component has been removed. One of the driving forces behind all this was the fact that women who worked at clean, safe, above-ground jobs were demanding pay equity with men who worked at dirty, dangerous underground jobs.

Continued in next comment....

PART-TIME, HOME-BASED WORK FOR PARENTS.... Continued

At the beginning of my career, when I worked in electronics production and was saving-up for a downpayment on a house, I worked in a factory weekdays and did contract work at home on weekends to bring-in more cash. I was doing exactly the same work at home as in the factory, but my productivity at home was much higher than in the factory. There were fewer distractions plus greater opportunities and rewards for innovation and productivity. We had to keep the home-based contract work secret from the union because they would have gone ballistic. I could have easily worked in the factory only one day per week and done everything else from home, but the union wouldn't allow it. Greedy, power-tripping unions are one of the biggest obstacles to greater productivity and efficiency.

Much electronic and electromechanical R&D work can be done from a small home workshop. While working in a $100 million dollar company's R&D lab, I often ducked home at lunchtime to grab specialized equipment and parts from my own home workshop that were not available in the company lab. B.C.'s most successful electronics innovator built a billion dollar company with 1,000 highly-paid employees. He does much of his R&D work in his home workshop. The $100 million company I worked for had 400 employees and it was built around another technical innovation that was developed by the aforementioned individual who does a lot of R&D work in his home lab/workshop. The first fuel cell was designed and built about 100 years ago by an English judge who tinkered with chemistry in his home workshop. Many electronics giants such as Hewlett-Packard were started in their founders' garages and basements.

Missile-equipped Predator drone aircraft flying patrol and combat missions in Afghanistan are remotely controlled by operators in North America. Technically, this could be done from at home, but it might be asking for trouble if Predator controls were located adjacent to kids' Nintendo game consoles.

Guess who's back .

Okay time for some licks, For the "Personal Responsibility crowd" The self righteous crowd do it on my own crowd . Please immediately refund all tuition payments, medical care etc back to the government and pay the true cost. I myself will pay for bridges I may never use, emergency rooms I never visit etc, but hey I don't mind because I'm sure others pay for things I use and they don't in short. GROW UP, Maybe we should have ambulance drivers refuse to help fat slobs "oh please fatty , get your own fat ass to the hospital"

This is the elitist budget being championed by the usual suspects. CanWest, Global and other media whores. Cutting the GST by 1%, who benefits, big time purchasers of real estate, luxury cars and boats
etc, not the average Joe.

Tax benefits for sports, does nothing to get more kids involved, just gives the suburban kids who's parents can afford sports a little break, Jimmy now has a $ 200 dollar hockey stick.

Oh and the child benefit , what a joke. 70% of families need 2 incomes in Canada. So the 1200 will be a tax credit, so it's more like 900 a yr. This still leaves families on the hook for expensive child care but suits the elitist budget, The large income earners who are one income families will benefit the most.

It comes down to the back room bigots in the party who really believe women need to stay home, the fundamentalist twits waiting for the 2nd coming, focus on the family and others who compare giving working families a reliable child care system to communism, vast dark camps teaching their kids liberal values.

"Personal Responsibility is still the cure. Don't have kids you cannot afford. I don't wanna pay for your failure to pull out."

That was an uncalled for crude remark. (and quite self centered.)

I am sure that you reap the benefits of society that I probably dont want to pay for.
Give and take.
The big picture is as I said though, we can all collaborate on childcare, or we can build more jails, lose more kids to poverty, or pay for the effects of more broken homes. These costs are far higher than a childcare program.

But, in the end Babies will continue to be born.
With the current Governments in power, that 1 in 5 BC child poverty rating will go up.
Its so sad to me that there are people out there who would make the kids pay for whatever happens.

SD Green makes the good point that, in his critical article about the latest Conservative budget, Marc Lee offers no solutions. However, his outfit, the CCPA, does offer a comprehensive "solution": the Alternative Federal Budget. The latest version:

http://tinyurl.com/m8at5

It outlines a balanced budget with no net tax increases system-wide, one that maintains funding under the Kelowna Aboriginal Accord, maintains the daycare funding agreement, adds a national Pharmacare program, etc.

Remember that the economists who put this together are not cranks - among other things they've had the best record of any group (including the bank economists) of predicting the federal surplus for the last few years.

Tax Cutter 99 says

I can see why your kids would not want to take care of you but maybe just a thought that many years of paying taxes and working hard entitles a small benefit when your old . I know this upsets your world, old folks getting help. Have you found your island yet, I'm sick of welfare cases like yourself.

And Cycling Commuter, your dreaming in techno colour if you think technology is going to save us, 60% of Canadians work in service related jobs not high teck, just a thought , women who work pay taxes that pay for child care. Women who sit at home produce nothing and get a free cheque, stop being a leech on the system.

Solution, fair income tax credits for stay at home moms, reliable government child care for the other 70 - 75 % that
live in the real world.

C C
As always, your ideas are interesting and challenging. Unfortunately, your tendency to extrapolate from the personal and anecdotal to the general makes them highly unsuitable as contributions to this kind of debate and of almost no use except as part of a crusade. Decent and affordable childcare is, or ought to be a human right for parents and children and society in general and it is a problem that needs attention now, not just the musings provided by your own little think tank.

The ideas, as I observed are worthy of comment but pardon me if I just ignore them for the moment.

By the way, I think there are only two references to potatoes in all of Shakespeare, neither of which would meet your requirements from the other day. I’ve written them both down so let me know if you’re still interested. For someone so fascinated by the exotic, I’m surprised you don’t love Shakespeare.

"giving working families a reliable child care system to communism, vast dark camps teaching their kids liberal values."

Thats a great line Stuart! it gave me a giggle, and I would have to agree with most of what you said. Cheers. :)

I think CC has some valid ideas, however, they mostly seem to involve massive amounts of money and time...
Part of being home with the kids is not to lock them in the closet so that you can concentrate on a job. Under 5's need constant attention. (I say that as my 1 yr old daughter is crawling through the house naked because she stripped off her clothes and diaper and is now considering the dogs kibbles for a snack) Must run....lol

TY Pale, that was a very interesting write up coming from U a person who is working hard as a mom & taxpayer.
To have a choice of family size is part of our democratic right but because of the "Consumer Driven by corporate greed" way of life today both parents have to work.
The ? is what is this minority government going to do with the 13+ billion surplus plus 1.3 billion given back to bush on softwood?
The Fiberals were finally, after years of promises going to make Childcare a reality.
Oh and the Corporate tax breaks = billions

The extreme slippery slope arguments here are laughable. Just because I don't wanna fund some things (CBC, Daycare) you assume I want to cut funding for every type of infrastructure project? All I want the government to provide is education, healthcare, transportation and public safety. Having kids is a choice. After that, we have the economic atmosphere to take care of ourselves (and each other).

G West wrote:

ought to apply equally to men and women. However, it doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the situation

The Verna Vaudreuil case in the early 1990s changed the equation. Before that disaster, men would seldom get custody even if the mother was a violent, irresponsible, substance-abusing prostitute, the father was 100% rational and responsible, and the child begged social workers to let the father have custody. It's no longer assumed in B.C. that the mother should have custody no matter what. Fathers often win custody battles these days.

Why are those your concerns? Whay should only your concerns be addressed? Why can't people take care of their own education, health care, roads, bridges, police, judiciary and fire?

How much education, health care, policing, road-building etc you want is a choice too.

This isn't rocket science, I have no idea why you're having such trouble with such a simple argument. Your own argument consists of a chant about personal responsibility after you get what you need from the public sphere. You don't seem to understand why someone with different priorities would want different things funded and why they would have just as much right to do so.

And thats the crux. what is important to you, is not to some. vice versa. I pay taxes and get very little in the way of transportion and healthcare funding where I live...I dont see anyone mentioning that. Should I pay less because of where I live? or is your next suggestion going to be that I CHOSE to live here?
Slippery slope. indeed.
In many instances people make lifestyle choices, get injured on the job etc, so healthcare is costly...those are choices as well....are they to be negated and decided upon by people like you?
Should we hold referendums to decide? with checklists? what a self centered and sad picture that paints.

Frank wrote:

people in the suburbs shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidize their lifestyle. If they want to work in Vancouver but sleep in Delta they can pay for their own bridges, their own roads

Yes, yes. Absolutely. You think it's bad for Vancouver? What about Burnaby? People who live in Surrey and work in Vancouver drive through Burnaby. Vancouver gets money from employers' taxes. Surrey gets residential taxes. Burnaby gets nothing out of this except air pollution, noise, congestion and potholes. Better to take local road taxes off land and transfer it to gas taxes. Downtown Vancouver residents who walk to work shouldn't have to pay road taxes out of their property taxes. Surrey residents have much smaller mortgage payments than Vancouver and Burnaby residents. They have more money left over to pay for the roads they use. The same applies to Delta (where I live).

Cycling Commuter wrote:

And these same unions are the ones whom would see children put into the state-funded, union staffed and controlled daycare spaces.

Preparing the 'kids' for their sentences, ahh years in the school system.

guanolad

I am aware of the CCPA Alternative Budget, however taken into context, I cannot agree that their proposal is sustainable. Their childcare allocations still will not provide a Universal Childcare plan of any significance, other to minimally enhance what we already have.

The point here is that one just cannot do childcare without establishing who it applies to. If one restricts, then those out in the cold, will soon pressure the system for inclusion. That is where the trick has to be carefully determined.

The current system is in adequate, I think almost all political parties agree. But how do we solve this. More taxation? Exclusion?

We are talking huge dollars here. What do we abolish to pay for this?

As I stated in my previous long post, I am not confident we have explored all the solutions yet. We seem to be either all or nothing else providing partial solutions.

In todays context, we cannot go back to the 1950's or 60's; the family economy has changed. Equality rights have changed. But at the same time, the cost of social programs has increased expotentially. How do we address this.

It is interesting to see that bridges, roads and other non-childcare discussions are included here. This would tend to open up the discussion on what elements need to be modified in order to address the high cost of childcare.

So what those modifications that we need to effect?

Remembering of course that we are talking about a 'Universal Childcare' program.

Tax Cutter 99 wrote:

you depend on roads and bridges to bring supplies to your community.

Rich people consume a lot more exotic, imported supplies than poor people who grow their own simple foods in their back yards and buy other stuff from their neighborhood second hand stores. Let the rich pay for their own extravagant lifestyles through transportation fuel taxes instead of getting a free ride on the backs of the poor.

This is one of many examples of how the poor are currently heavily subsidizing the rich. And some people want to make it worse by forcing struggling taxpayers to finance daycare instead of stepping-up collection action against rich, jetsetting playboys who can't be bothered to pay child support.

I'd like to see adbusters do a spoof that goes something like this:

Scene 1) Text: What kind of man reads Playboy? A classic smirking lounge lizard is pictured chatting-up a naive young woman at a bar.

Scene 2) A stern-looking female judge slams a hammer on a gavel and says "30 days for non-payment of child-support. Next time, it'll be 90 days!" The smirk is wiped-off lounge lizard's face.

sdgreen wrote:

taxpayers would be on the hook for at minimum of some $14,040,000,000 per annum.

If that $14 billion was applied to raising the minimum wage instead, how much would the minimum wage go up? Have you found any stats showing the number of Canadians who get minimum wage?

sdgreen wrote:

the family unit is under attack economically. Parents for the most part do need combined employment income to survive.

and

government which demand tax dollars.

And they piss-away this money on unnecessary megaprojects. Multibillion dollar bridges, roads and transit that wouldn't be needed if we had pay-as-you-drive auto insurance combined with issuence of cab licenses to all drivers with perfect driving records and no criminal records. Tens of billions to be spent on nuclear power stations and hydro dams that wouldn't be needed if we focussed on making buildings more energy efficient at a fraction of the cost. Fast ferry boondoggles. The gun registry boondoggle. The Olympics boondoggle. And now another megaproject: The daycare boondoggle.

That's because I hate looking at these things in isolation. Everyone does not use each part of the infrastructure equally. Some use things more than others but pay a piddling amount for them and others pay a lot and use little. I know I pay a lot in property taxes and I don't commute and very rarely use a car. If someone is paying taxes they have a right to point to what they think should be the priorities.

I don't like hearing we can't afford to provide bright, cheerful learning environments for kids while at the same time we have to pay athletes and their coaches a monthly salary just so they have time to train for a two week party we are also footing the bill for.

murdock,

You're jumping on tax-cuterr's slippery slope. We don't have a daycare system and you're already upset that the kids are going to be living in dark cells and let out for exercise 20 minutes a day by Ken Georgetti.

Certainly you guys must be able to envision a daycare that kids want to be at. I know my daughter loved it, we'd walk there and she loved just being able to make friends and play at different activities. It was a great environment.

I'd like to congratulate TaxCutter 99. Not many people that old still retain the ability to adapt to a new technology, as you have.

However, it seems your memory is starting to slip. In the last 99 years we have had many examples of why collective responsibility for government policies is essential. Every time we forget how much we owe each other, some fat cat starts cutting the stragglers out of the herd and rustling them.

Or do you think human nature has changed so much that people like you can be trusted now to govern yourselves?

Stump wrote:

nickel and dime our children out of professional daycares

Over $14 billion dollars per year is not nickels and dimes. As for the "professional" part, I'm not impressed. I once had a neighbor who was always screaming at her 3 year old daughter saying such things as "I wish you had never been born." It was a nice neighborhood. The mother came from an upper middle class home. Her husband was a unionized machinist earning about four times the average Canadian income. He spent a lot on marijuana, but he was super laid-back - not paranoid like some people who smoke the stuff. These neighbors were not boozers like my current neighbors.

The kid was fairly well behaved - not that the mother's attitude would have been justified if the kid was a brat. The mother eventually faced-up to the fact that she was a lousy parent. She decided to study child psychology to help make her a better parent. She wound up spending about 4 years or so in university getting a degree in child psychology. She definitely became a better parent. Instead of being in the bottom 5 percent of the population in terms of parenting skills, she's now in the bottom 25 percent. A 500 percent improvement. With her child psychology degree, she gets to boss-around and lord it over parents who are in the top 5 percent of the population in terms of parenting skills. That's how a lot of government bureaucracies work. They favour credentials over outcomes.

Apparently, some judges are more interested in outcomes than credentials. When this couple broke-up, the father got custody not the mother. The judge took note of the fact that the kids very much preferred to be with their father, even though he doesn't have a degree in child psychology.

Maybe we all should try to be as wise as the judge and listen to the children. Sometimes children know best. Ask each kid if they prefer daycare to parent care. Most children of competent parents will probably choose parent care. Most children of grossly incompetent parents will probably choose daycare.

Frank, I agree with you on the notion that we must look at all things in context. Indeed research does indicate that no harm to children occurs as a result of childcare. But how do we pay for Universality?

Leifsok wrote:

smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.

In that case, you should be pleased to know that Harper increased tobacco taxes.

$100 bucks a month will definitely not deal with the eventual costs of limiting access of the un-wealthy to affordable child care.

It's the other way around. Kids without proper parental supervision are much more inclined to become criminals. Criminals cost us a bundle.

Either way, I would prefer to invest $14 billion per year into a higher minimum wage and lower taxes on families instead of wasting it on yet another government megaproject boondoggle called daycare. You seem to be good at finding stats. Maybe you can tell us how many Canadian parents earn minimum wage.

Cycling Commuter

Ok, ask the child where S/He might want to be? Not too certain that a young one at age 1 to 4 might have an informed opinion, but hey.....

Then again, that still does not address how the parents pay for in home daycare or otherwise. So what are your options?

CC
You're getting anecdotal again. It dulls the edge of husbandry.

So kids don't like going to kindergarten because it means they have to leave their loving parent? No chance. Kids love kindergarten. Doesn't mean they don't like seeing their parent when its over. They want both, they want the safety and love from being around their mom or dad but they want to have fun too, and lots of it.

A parent cannot provide on a consistent basis the entertainment value of another group of 3 and 4 year olds.

sdGreen,

Tough decisions should be made. I've been pretty clear here over the years what my priorities are and I know where I'd cut. I'm open to those on the right guarding their social programs as much as I am to those on the left.

But I don't think everything should be publically funded. The Olympics of course should pay its own way or those that want it should pay for it. I'm willing to pay for someone else's bridge if they compromise and pay for what I want now and then too.

We'll never reach 100% agreement on what goes and what stays but child-care should have a higher priority than much of what is now being paid for. And I'm sure a referendum or even polling would back me up.

Rather than Quebec's $7 a day plan I'd prefer to see a sliding scale based on income. Those in the bottom bracket would have their child-care mostly covered and it would increase gradually from there.

Especially true these days when the average family is less than one child. Daycare and playschool exposure is absolutely essential for proper social and cultural growth and development and education.
It's much too easy to make a fetish of the 'value' of child/parent relationships - both public and the family relationships are necessary and valuable.

ummmm. I have a ???
Do you even have children CC? You seem to have an unusual take on all this....My experience with kids, is quite different.

James Burns wrote:

are you suggesting that children should be strapped to their mothers 24 hours a day

24-hour contact is not necessary. But if both parents become tax slaves to the state working full time and spending 4 hours per day on public transit, then the amount of time parents will have with their children will be inadequate. Daycare billions will not appear out of thin air. This money will have to be squeezed out of all taxpayers - including parents. Parents will have to work even longer hours to pay higher taxes, leaving even less time to be with their kids. It's a downward spiral.

Crushing tax burdens will not be a concern for daycare union bosses who no doubt are looking forward to pocketing $100,000 per year each like their brothers and sisters at the BCTF. Maybe they'll get $500 per year worth of free Viagra too.

what kind of conclusions about human children from dog experts?

Human child psychology experts who evaluated Quebec's daycare system have found that daycare children are more agressive than those who are raised by their parents - same deal as the puppies. Daycare kids are more inclined to bite! I'm not sure about peeing on the rug, but it wouldn't be much of a surprise if daycare kids were more inclined to pee in bed. There may be stats on that in a urology journal. The main point is that puppies seem to get more consideration than human babies.

If CUPE figured they could collect tens of millions of dollars a year in union dues from puppy daycare centre workers, they'd probably start claiming that it's in the best interest of puppies to separate them from their mothers as soon as possible.

CC:

I agree with a lot of your points (in other threads) but you're way off base on this one. For starters, your average four year old can't possibly make an informed rational choice between parents or daycare. Their answer would change by the minute.

Seriously my friend, either do some homework or bow out of this discussion.

Better to be silent and thought a fool.....

And whichever doofus was blabbing on about planning for children, maybe that's how they do it on your planet, but even the Pill fails on occasion here on Earth.

Grab a clue loser. You don't punish children for being born *******.

James Burns wrote:

They'd be able to visit the daycare to determine if the environment is one they'd be comfortable with.

Parents get to evaluate the daycare building, not individual daycare workers. There's a huge amount of worker turnover in factory-farm type daycare.

When parents are so busy working to pay taxes to finance CUPE's sprawling daycare empire, they'll have hardly any time to see their children at all. In this case, the kids wind up bonding to the daycare workers, seeing them as surrogate parents. When the inevitable daycare worker turnover occurs, the children are emotionally hurt as they're suddenly abandoned by daycare workers they have started to view as their surrogate parents. The better the daycare workers treat the kids, the more likely they are to become attached and the more hurt they'll be when separation occurs. Kids who bond are hurt not just once, but over and over again because of turnover.

that rules out the school bus then

Older kids take school buses, not 3-year-olds. Some responsible parents walk their younger kids to school every day. Both child and parent acquire a good exercise habit this way and it provides extra time together.

Cycling Commuter...

You have some ideological axe to grind, get of it man. paid vacations, safer work places, sick pay, maternity leave, the 8 hour day, living wage, which on of these things upsets you the most. Or is the collective power
unions use to have some say in the rules and how they work etc. If you hate unions just opt out of some of the benefits you enjoy today. BTW how is Sodexo doing cleaning the hospitals.

When the HEU contracts were broken, 12.5 million dollars a month was removed form the economy , money that got spent at your store. Wages that were taxed etc. What is it you have about high wages. Is more McJobs the answer.

Big business in Canada has had the corporate tax rate lowered now for the last 35 yrs, guess who makes up the short fall, we do dufus.

Oil exploration has had over 15 billion corp welfare in Alberta over the last 5 yrs

The top 5 % of income earners in Canada make 50% of all revenue . Does that seem fair to you, CC, get a life man, your taxes are high for a reason, its because you a dumbed down ignorant buffoon who gets spoon fed
his news everyday by your class elite hero's who will save him from big bad unions.

CC , says,

Oh man you have baggage, we need to start calling you airport.

Sorry dude , mommy sometimes has to work , your be okay. Your make friends, the CUPE workers won't hurt you. You must listen to am 650 or something or not have been socialized as a kid.

Kids are not as fragile as right wing nut jobs.

pale wrote:

Our economy depends on ALL of us having the ability to contribute and spend money BACK into the economy.

An economy that requires parents to abandon their kids in order to collect little pieces of paper that are used to buy useless trinkets is a very screwed-up economy. This didn't happen overnight. If took many years of brainwashing by TV ads.

The scam artists who created the twisted economy you describe are a whole lot like the scam artists who traded a few strings of beads for Manhattan. In some Southeast Asian countries, parents routinely sell their 10-year-old daughters to dirty old men in exchange for shiny new colour TV sets. The economy you describe is not quite that bad yet, but it's heading in the same direction. PT Barnum was right.

Stuart wrote:

your be okay. Your make friends

Try writing a little more coherently. If this is the best you can do, then your kids would be better off in daycare for sure even despite the worker turnover.

Tax Cutter 99 wrote:

Don't have kids you cannot afford. I don't wanna pay for your failure to pull out.

One of my older brothers has 5 kids. He wanted even more, but his wife said no. At one point my older brother complained to my younger brother about how expensive it is to raise kids. My younger brother said "Hey, don't look at me - I was out of town at the time."

We're talking about nieces and nephews here. We wouldn't hesitate to contribute to their genuine needs if our brother couldn't handle it. But if somebody has to work overtime to pay for a trip to Disneyland, it should be daddy first.

Our older brother found a good solution. He landed a government job that pays him for sleeping a lot of the time (He's a firefighter). He and his wife also started a home-based business which he helps to run on weekends. My younger brother and I helped with startup capital for the business. Both parents get to spend lots of time with their kids this way.

Since our brother is going to receive a fairly generous government pension when he retires, he put the house and business 100% in his wife's name so she has her own guaranteed security in the future. Seems like a fair deal all around.

"You can't always get what you want"
-The Rolling Stones

Let me turn the tables on you. Everyone nees to be hygenic for their own health, why don't we give out free toilet paper and soap? Make people line up for it like in the Soviet Union. Why dont we just give people free clothing while we're at it?

This notion that because I support the government unding SOME things, like the military, that I automatically must support ALL things being funded, like daycare.

By providing education (while allowing a private system as well) we empower people with the tools to build our nation. We need to push the sciences to develop our military technology for the future.
We ned to provide transportation so people's and goods can be transported in an efficient manner to support commerce and trade so we all prosper. And we need to provide Public safety as the most important thing to allow for all this to function peacefully.

We only have a finite amount of money. These must be our priorities in order to be economocially successful...these and other economic ball rollers like major events and promotion of tourism and trying to entice people to spend their money here.

If some lady works in a diner for ten bucks an hour, and gets knocked up by her boyfriend, why should I pay for her child's upbringing. I already paid for his birth, his health, his future education and his safety. Now its time for her to exercise the responsibility she DIDN'T exercise when she was getting knoeck up.

CYCLING COMMUTER-That's awesome...that is why it is important to have a strong family unit like yours. Your brother got married, had kids, and you guys helped him out. I still got to spend MY money on whatever I wanted and you helped out your brother.

CC
Cool it man, no one cares about your little anecdotes and family stories. They are very important to you but of little use in addressing the general case and boring in the extreme when taken to the extreme.

You should be smart enough to figure that out on your own; climb down from the soap box. And what is it with the way you say 'our' instead of 'my'? Are we dealing with royalty?

Stuart wrote:

I myself will pay for bridges I may never use, emergency rooms I never visit etc, but hey I don't mind because I'm sure others pay for things I use and they don't

Unexpected medical expenses can bankrupt anyone. A few extra cents on gas taxes to pay for a bridge won't bankrupt anyone. It'll make our medical system much more sustainable because people will be more inclined to walk or carpool, thereby reducing obesity, air pollution and associated healthcare costs.

Tax benefits for sports, does nothing to get more kids involved, just gives the suburban kids who's parents can afford sports a little break, Jimmy now has a $ 200 dollar hockey stick.

Agreed.

Stuart wrote:

60% of Canadians work in service related jobs not high teck

That's why I suggested selling stuff over eBay as a form of home-based employment for parents with young kids. If you have enough computer skills to participate in an online chat forum, you have enough skills to sell stuff on eBay. If you don't have enough skills to do that, your 4-year-old can probably teach you.

I also suggested a substantial increase in minimum wages and elimination of taxes on low income people. This would mostly affect service jobs. All late-night service workers should be protected by bulletproof glass booths and webcams that are linked to security companies and that can be instantly patched-through to display screens in police squad cars in the area. The cost to do this is trivial.

I've done service work. When I was a student, I worked at a full-service gas station after school and weekends for minimum wage. The owner of the gas station chain was a nice guy. His spoiled rich kid son was a jerk. Cleaning filthy gas station toilets and working late at night with a couple of heavily-armed, trigger-happy cops staking the place out in response to a telephone tip about an upcoming armed robbery was no thrill. This experience and similar experiences compelled me to acquire the skills necessary for a higher paying and more physically secure job.

Crosses my mind that I do know some stay at home parents.
I also know lots of working parents. I am not sure how many of them will choose to stay home now with that $100 a month.

Anyhow, here's one way to do it.
The money goes thru the province and the province encourages neighbourhood/community/workplace based parents to form something like child care coops. The parents are the directors, involved to the extent that they can be, hiring people with standard credentials, and pretty well in charge of their own kids' childcare/early ed facility and programmes. The feds and province fund.

Great start for the kids...also trains young parents in involvement with their kids right from the get go.

Present programme does two things: parents of some kids won't pass on the use of the money to their kids, so the kids who need the most support will get nothing.
(The 'beer and popcorn' comment might have been politically incorrect, but for too many of our kids it was accurate.)

Second thing it does is provide bucks to businesses to provide daycare spaces. I can think of several corporations that could make a mint out of a one-size-fits-all formula that would dwarf any of the fears expressed here about government run programmes.

Frank, G West, Pale, Stewart, to name a few... quite refreshing reading. CC, you really don't get out much, do you? Let me guess... no children. Never married.

Conservative ideology on daycare? Prestige. Money rules the world and if you don't have it, well, to bad. Sucks to be you.

Universal healthcare ideology? Equality. Equal opportunity. Actual places with workers and standards on the up and up that you can drop your kid off to, so you can go to work without wondering whether someone pediphiled them or not.

It was interesting to hear Jim Flaherty's words after announcing the budget. "We have done more in 90 days, than the previous government did in 13 years." Interesting statement, considering their healthcare proposal is a file about a half a page long, with a budget yet to pass the commons. I'm certain this boasting arrogance by Harpers latest fluffer will be a sign of things to come.

Apparently Ken Dryden, the architect of the Lib daycare plan, is running for leadership. Voters are going to have to ask themselves at some point, "do we want a tax collector who strokes a few cheques back to the masses and puts their feet up, calling it efficiency?" and the humiliating question noone wants to ask but should, "After running down the Liberals for the last 13 years, should we risk looking like hypocritical wishy washy fools now and vote for them again, or risk looking like complete and utter total idiots and vote for the Cons to watch them ruin our country once again? At some point, even the rich will have to ask, "do I want my extra money from Con slashed taxes grossly devalued by falling currency from a deficit running government again? As greedy as I am, am I really this stupid?"

I'm sure we've got plenty of egocentric white males who are blind to this latter ongoing scenerio with their fellow rich selfish bigots in their beloved USA.

Our economy depends on ALL of us having the ability to contribute and spend money BACK into the economy.

An economy that requires parents to abandon their kids in order to collect little pieces of paper that are used to buy useless trinkets is a very screwed-up economy. This didn't happen overnight. If took many years of brainwashing by TV ads.

The scam artists who created the twisted economy you describe are a whole lot like the scam artists who traded a few strings of beads for Manhattan. In some Southeast Asian countries, parents routinely sell their 10-year-old daughters to dirty old men in exchange for shiny new colour TV sets. The economy you describe is not quite that bad yet, but it's heading in the same direction. PT Barnum was right.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH boy.....talk about misinterpreting....on purpose? or just on a tangent....no one seems to be sure though.

Our economy depends on ALL of us having the ability to contribute and spend money BACK into the economy.

So that would mean....lol. to let families DECIDE what style is best by helping them.
As someone said, you sure have an axe to grind here...

CC:

You're presumptous and ill-informed. Your knowledge of children and what they need is stunning in its complete disconnect from the real world. If you don't have kids, I hope you do one day.. and I hope you remember your idiotic statement that pre-school children have the ability to choose between a parent and daycare. Seriously sir, (you must be a man, no woman would spout such folderol) stop thinking you know what you're talking about and actually listen to the parents on this thread telling you what the reality is.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Your examples are ludicrous and if I wasn't ready to tear your arm off and beat some sense into you with the wet end I'd be laughing at your stupidity.

Have a nice day.

Another thing numbnuts, free soap, free bumwipe, free clothes... I can tell you where to find those in a heartbeat. Notwithstanding the fact you're comparing children to commodities, your example is stupid.

G West wrote:

tendency to extrapolate from the personal and anecdotal to the general makes them highly unsuitable as contributions to this kind of debate

I make important decisions based on numerous credible, peer-reviewed studies that are backed up by personal experience. Studies on their own are not enough. Personal experience on its own is not as good as experience backed up by a study. But if I see union featherbedding with my own eyes on numerous occasions and an academic study says union featherbedding has never existed anywhere at any time, I'm going to believe my own eyes.

This brings up another issue. Does anyone believe for one minute that a centralized, CUPE-controlled daycare system won't be used as a weapon to blackmail the public the way public transit has been used as a blackmail weapon and municipal garbage collection was used as a blackmail weapon before it was privatized?

affordable childcare is, or ought to be a human right

The right to walk down the street without being attacked by gangs of thugs is a more important right. To the extent that daycare kids are more inclined to become criminals than home-raised kids, public safety rights trump the rights of CUPE to rake-in tens of millions of dollars per year in union dues from a centralized, coast-to-coast daycare empire.

BTW, my math might be wrong, but when I divide 14 billion by 25 million by 365, I come up with 1.50. A buck a half a day per person per year by your numbers for a national programme. Tell ya what, I'll cover your contribution ya cheap git.

Please cite your statistics that prove daycare kids are more inclined to become criminals and explain the connection. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Your only interest in this is becoming clear. It's not daycare you don't like, it's unions.

Stump wrote:

if I wasn't ready to tear your arm off and beat some sense into you with the wet end

Are you a daycare-raised kid? Your thuggish violent threats make me suspect so. I've never been one to start a fight, but I have on occasion defended myself from thugs who physically attacked me. I have also on several occasions physically intervened when I saw women being physically attacked by thugs in public places.

Your violent threats have completely discredited your opinions. You may have even stepped over the line from a criminal law point of view.

And where do you get the idea that a national daycare programme would be some monolithic entity? In all likelihood there'd be funding and standards set by the gov't but the centres themselves might vary from private to non-profit, much the way it works now. The only difference would be the workers might get a fair wage, which would probably address in no small measure your concerns about revolving door care-givers.

But what am I doing treating your arguments like they're founded in reality? Time to log off and crack a cold one.

It's not a threat stupid, it's hyperbole. Like the idiocy you're spouting about so many teachers being molesters and gangs of thugs being graduated from daycares.

Why won't you tell us how many kids you have smarty?

BTW, if you're serious about laying charges, the people who run this site know where to find me. Have at 'er Einstein.

Stump wrote:

your average four year old can't possibly make an informed rational choice between parents or daycare.

So you think judges who take kids' opinions into consideration in child custody cases are fools? Do you think judges who send kids back to parents who beat them are wise? Do you think the highly-trained government experts who sent Verna Vaudreuil's son back home to be beaten to death knew more than the kid and more than other ordinary untrained people like the kid's father who wanted her to lose custody?

CC
Are you and murdock related, by any chance?
You never did answer someone's question about why you refer to yourself as 'our'. It's actually quite fascinating to watch as you methodically spin out of control.....
Time, might I suggest, to take a wee break.

And, my final parting shot. I said I 'was ready to' not I 'was going to'. Technically, it's not even a threat, just a statement describing my mood. Don't troll and then act all hurt when somebody takes the bait. I may be impassioned on the subject, but I wouldn't risk my freedoms on something so irrelevant as your silly statements.

Please provide us with examples of judges deciding custody on the basis of testimony by pre-school children.

Here's an article you might find interesting. You might learn something.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2002/interaction/inter_sum.html

Frank wrote:

Kids love kindergarten. Doesn't mean they don't like seeing their parent when its over.

It's a matter of balance. Sure, lots of 3-4 year olds like daycare as long as they get 4 hours a day and weekends with their parents. But it's not right to have a constantly-rotating group of strangers raising 1-3 year olds. They need to be with their parents. When both parents work 7 days a week feeding the voracious tax machine and 4 hours a day on public transit, even 3-4 year olds won't get enough parental contact. We'll pay for it later with higher crime rates.

sez Cycling Computer
as he slaps down another order of pickled herring!

CC
You've also not answered the question about whether your deep and profound knowledge of childrearing and early childhood education is from personal experience or professional knowledge.

Somehow I find it hard to believe you've raised a family whilst cycling several times around the world to and from work, buying a house with your brother, solving the world's problems and promoting green and sustainable principles, tax policies and fomenting an anti-union campaign against greed and misfeasance generally. All the while being able to maintain a nearly constant presence on this website if your posting record is any indication.

Please enlighten!

CC

Don't blame parents for kids in daycare. I'd be all for moms or dads being able to stay at home full-time the first couple of years. It is in the first year especially that mothers need to be with their babies. That's a maternity leave issue. But by the 3rd birthday a kid is ready for social contact and certainly looks forward to it no matter how much love and attention they get from their parents.

macsasquatch,

That's the way our daycare ran. Parents did the hiring but in the setting of the school the trained worker ran the day and parents were assistants. I happen to think its the best model but I'm probably biased. Also, not every parent can put in the time like I was able to. Parents should be free to put in as much time as they can but not be held against them if they work for Ebenezer Scrooge (pre-ghosts).

Gov't funding for parent run daycares in charge of hiring would make me happy.

sdgreen wrote:

does not address how the parents pay for in home daycare or otherwise. So what are your options?

1) Higher minimum wage.
2) No taxes on low-income people except for harmful items like tobacco etc.
3) More home-based employment options for parents.
4) Job-swapping systems and other approaches to allow people who work outside the home to save $10,000 per year on automobile costs or 4 hours per day in public transit travel time by getting jobs closer to home.
5) Stabilize housing prices by levying steeply progressive annual land taxes on land barons and real estate flippers who are buying up land left right and centre using narcodollars. When a Donald Trump type purchases land for $5 million then sells it a while later for $15 million, he isn't creating $10 million out of thin air. Every nickel of that $10 million will come out of the hides of low-income parents and other people who actually work for a living in the form of much higher rents and much higher mortgage payments.

Housing prices have increased by 1,000 percent over the last few decades. To people who live in their homes, this means nothing other than higher taxes. But to land hoarders who have acquired large swaths of real estate, this means hundreds of billions of dollars into their pockets and out of the pockets of people who do actual useful work. Young people are being enslaved by obscene housing prices. I'm breaking-even on this personally since I bought a home at the very tail end of affordability. But anyone younger than me is basically a perpetual slave to the land barons.

Someone should rewrite "16 Tons" (I owe my soul to the company store) to reflect the new reality. And someone should update the board game "Monopoly" by showing hordes of homeless people sleeping on sidewalks after the winner of the game has used narcodollars to buy-up all the real estate.

tax-cutter,

If the need is there and they can't provide for themselves I totally support that.

Why have a military if you don't have kids? Who would you want to protect? Geezers?

Again, why? For the few in this day and age who have the will and the means to stay at home and support kids on their own without any community? A few generations of that and you'll be able to move the entire population of the country onto P.E.I. which I suppose will lower the cost of defence.

Why do the geezers need the money? Without kids there is no future so why bother?

The birth rate in this country is already low, you want it to go even lower? It will be fun computing when the last Cdn will be born.

First, if she was working she was contributing. So put down those sterilization tools for a minute.

Right now, not in some non-existent future, I have to pay for some kid to go to school, get a beemer delivered to the port of Vancouver, crack it up on a highway I paid for but didn't use, pay for the cleanup and his long-term care all because of a highway I didn't want.

Where do you get this "constantly rotating group of caregivers" stuff from? My daughter has been in two different daycares since age one. Out of the dozen or so people who've worked at those places maybe two or three left (usually for maternity leave). Of course, we've been lucky enough to have her in professionally-run daycares that pay well. Every time you make a statement about day cares it becomes more evident that you have a very distorted view of what goes on at one.

As for the rest of your great ideas for home-based business etc, perhaps you could cost out those initiatives for us and explain how you'll be getting the rest of the country to buy in?

Pie in the sky. This is the real world. I might as well say the answer to our transportation woes is as simple as inventing an anti-gravity hover train.

If you knew diddly-squat about kids you'd know a stranger is a stranger to a child for about fifteen minutes... five if they offer to read them a story or play with them.

I hope all the birth control is infallible types on this thread have checked out their family trees to make sure that none of their ancestors ever proved the old saying that goes something like: "a new bride can do in six months what takes a regular woman nine."

I know my Mom did! And I've yet to mug anyone, I pay my taxes, and just like C.C. do my part to get to and from work in a eco-friendly manner. Either she's a miracle worker, I'm an anomaly, or somebody's confused their own particular morality with reality.

And further, if these people are such bad parents, isn't getting them into a daycare the best possible thing? My head is spinning from the contradictions.

CC

You stole my idea! :-)

Stump,

Now wait a minute, I think you're onto something. Between this and G West's volcanos can cool the earth idea I think the future will be bright. Well, kinda dusty but still where'd I leave ol' Stockwell's (dinosaurs and men walked the earth together) phone number... he'll be right on this anti-grav hover thingy with Olympic size amounts of tax dollars I'm sure.

Jumping into the fray a bit late here, I'm afraid.

Affordable daycare options are certainly necessary for mothers who have to, or choose to work. However, in my experience, daycare has many of the same problems that public schools have.

I am a single mother, and when my son was a toddler, I felt exceedingly grateful to have a daycare close to the school I worked at...at first. The revolving door situation became intolerable, eventually. I could not believe the staff changes from month to month. The attachment difficulties were problematic, to say the least. I moved my three-year-old son to a home-based daycare, thinking that the "homey" atmosphere of our good neighbours would provide more consistency. Well, in some regards, there was improvement, but the damn TV was on way too much for my taste. So, I tried to have him enrolled in two other home-based daycares, but these had l-o-n-g waiting lists. We stayed with the neighbours.

Daycare institutions are like public schools: okay for some, awful for some. I met plenty of other single parents like myself who wished there were more options for our kids. Institutionalizing our kids at daycares, and schools is not, imo, the best way to socialize them. Macsasquatch's ideas concerning child care co-ops is good, but when you are a single parent working full-time, there isn't a lot of time for parental involvement. Still, if you can afford to work part-time, and be involved with your young'uns, I think that's the ideal situation.

Cycling Communter and Murdock actually make sense on the issue of attachment. Drs. Gordon Neufeld and Gabor Mate have a lot to say about our "culture of missing attachments," and the links between the economic treadmill and the disintegration of healthy parent-child attachments they point out is interesting. CC and Murdock are not out to lunch. They are simply trying to make the point that there are some problems with institutionalized daycare. I guess if you live in the city, you have more options. Out here in the boonies, it's often a different story.

Time to get the asbestos suit on...;-))

http://www.GordonNeufeld.com
http://www.drgabormate.com

kootowl, (I waited until you're in your cancer-causing fire-suit)

So you're claiming that the Conservative no-funding of their non-plan leading to no new daycare spaces and which means kids being left in front of a neighbour's tv set all day is not a great solution but is preferable to actual daycares with trained workers?

Or were you fence-sitting and I'm pushing you onto the side I wanted to attack for sport?

Nice attempt to nationalize daycare. Let's find a normal function and nationalize it.
Perhaps we could have people available to wipe our bum.
It' folly to attempt to quantify what this alternate proposal would cost.

If you're unable to do so yourself you'll be happy to know that we do have such people.

You mean let's ignore a problem caused as a consequence of our current economic system?

As a kindergarten teacher, I can tell you that it isn't whether the child has had a stay at home parent that is important. It is whether that child has had opportunities to socialize with his/her peers in an appropriate setting that allows the child to learn important skills in interacting with others. Many stay at home parents find these opportunities for the children. Some don't, and the kindergarten teacher deals with the results.

Working parents are different in that they have fewer choices in where the child will get these opportunities. Leaving your child at home with a reluctant grandparent is often the very worse thing you can do for your child, but the cheapest. If you can afford the $800 plus for a regulated daycare found in many municipal community centers, you might not even get in. The one close to my house has a ridiculous number of children on the "waitlist". The most likely scenerio is that you will comb the area looking for one of those elusive spots in someone's home-run daycare, and when you can't find one that is run legally, you'll settle for that neighbour who is looking after 6 or 7 children with no licence because she'd never be able to pass all the requirements. You hope that your daycare doesn't get shut down. If you are the working poor, it becomes even more difficult.

While no one forced you to have children, the child shouldn't be blamed for the circumstances he/she finds himself/herself. We need to provide good, healthy opportunities for all children. Providing affordable, regulated spaces is one important cornerstone of that. The $1200 will only provide support to families with the choice they have already made. It will not open new daycare centers or provide an incentive to get more people into the "business".

Good job to Frank for one of the reasonable solutions to "universal" daycare dilemma:
"Rather than Quebec's $7 a day plan I'd prefer to see a sliding scale based on income. Those in the bottom bracket would have their child-care mostly covered and it would increase gradually from there."

Frank,

No, I believe that there is a need for more daycare spaces, but I do not believe that these spaces need to be in daycare institutions. The home-based operators have to jump through all sorts of hoops,too, and are subject to regular checks. I'd like to see more small home-based operators get the "business." BTW, the kids were not left in front of the TV all day, but at the home-based operations with the long wait list, there was no TV.

Trained workers are like trained teachers. I'll take the heart-centered woman who gets the kids out collecting eggs and the dad who has the kids building snow-caves and tipis, any day, over the cinder-block fluourescent-lit rooms where kids are constantly reminded to "colour inside the lines" in preparation for kindergarten. I found some of the trained workers to be warm, caring people. I found others to be control freaks who insisted on the kids calling them "teachers."

I think the $1200 is a joke. I think there are lots of parents who want to work but can't find good daycare. I say "yes" to creating more spaces, but I suppose I am quibbling about what these spaces might look like, and what constitutes a "good daycare worker" or a "good child/worker ratio."

Stuart wrote:

60% of Canadians work in service related jobs not high teck

Since when is a home-based hairdressing job hi-tech?

There's a study just published in Quebec, which found that most kids, even if they thrive in daycare, ought to be with their mother or father from birth to around 8 - 12 months.

Many can do well in centres even during that period but they need constant interaction with one person for at least 4 hours each day for proper imprinting. After 1 year day care is probably good for kids (especially in small families or single-parent situations) but again there needs to be some limit to the time frame and, once again, kids do better if they have stability - both at home and in the centre.

I believe some Scandinavian countries have had comprehensive child care programs run or supported by the state for a couple of generations but they also have generous maternity leave for both parents. There's no reason a system couldn't be set up that provided both flexibility and stability and having parents involved is probably a good idea. The daycare centres attached to university student residences seem to do a relatively good job from what I've seen. I think smaller centres and towns are a difficult problem, but hardly intractable.

I spent a couple of years working at SFU's daycare complex, over 25 years ago. The centres usually required a couple of parent shifts during the week, so a real sense of community was engendered. Back then, most of the workers usually stayed at the centre for two to five years, too. When you walked in the door, you knew who was going to be there. The turnover I see now, at other centres, is not good news.

kootowl
What's sadly ironic to me is the realization that as a society we care so little about our future - our kids - that we should even be having this debate. Solutions for the obvious needs of the kind of society we've all played a part in creating shouldn't be harder, surely, than finding the money to build subways, highways, expositions and athletic competitions.
Sometimes, like now, it seems the people in control of the public purse would rather spend money on jails than they would on daycare centres and we, as a society, haven't got the jam to tell them we won't put up with it any longer.
In addition, what is it with some men...that they're the ones around here always saying 'no one forced you to have children'? As if all these supposedly accidental, unwanted or mistaken children being born are all virgin births. Sometimes I wonder about the male brain, even though that's what nestles between my own ears.
Best of luck.

Tedward:

I'm a kid from a nicely proportioned city of about 200K people and I find the exact opposite. I have seen many kids with stay-at home-parents (and working parents)that have partaken in much of the above, but I find that most children with stay-at-home parents develop poor social skills and/or rebel by experimenting through illegal activity.

Further, children who spend less time with their parents appreciate and respect them more than frequently seen parents. Some people tend to agree with me, namely child psychologists...

http://www.handbag.com/family/workingmums/workingp/

And aren't mental disorders generally caused by genetic disfuntions like a lack or excess of chromosomes?(ie Down Syndrome!)

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k2humancsomaldisorders.html
(Or the grade 12 Bio Text you missed out on when you were in your Christian Ethics class.)

First of all, i'm not going to slam daycare raised kids...I WILL slam the lazy parents who show up at MY door asking for me to pay for it.

1)Low birth rates are not caused by a lack of available child care. I have never heard anyone say "I would have kids, if only the government would raise them for me with taxpayer dollars." Low birth rates are due to birth control availability, more women working, people starting families at an older age (scraggy old chicken-necked women desperate for one designer baby at the age of 48), and people not valuing family life...as our culture glorifies the single hipster cafe lifestyle. Family men are potrayed as boring, and the women as opressed. The suburban areas made for families (with large yeards, multiple rooms, ample parking, low traffic and community centres) are seen as boring.

Oh and abortion...Feminism and abortion have destroyed the birth rates. Over 110,000 abortions are performed in Canada every year. That means 110,000 less 25 year olds in 2021 to pay taxes.

2)Government-subsidized daycare exists for low-income families already in Canada:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomer/welcome/wel-10e.html

3)Nationalized daycare requires more tax dollars, thus lowering the after tax disposable income of families, forcing even more Mothers and Fathers to work even longer to make up the funds to put food on the table.

4)Children are our future...do all of you Commis speak in soundbites? The future of our country depends on the strength of our families. If our family units were tighter, and this idea of the state providing what the family used to doesn't subside, only then will we not have a nation worth defending.

Seems this thread is starting to get nasty..(from a couple people, not all.)

So one more post from me and that will be it.

The typical users of daycare will be women who have median income jobs....In my part of the province that is 16,000 a year. avg. These pie in the sky plans of CC's are highly irrational at worst, unworkable at best. Education costs $$. Set up for a biz costs $$. Rent and food tend to come first. There are so many things at play here: higher education costs, housing...etc. It must be very nice for CC to have all these wonderful options. And when he has kids I hope that a dose of reality allows him to be more realistic when making these fantastic scenarios.

Families are not the same nowadays, and a lot of us are on our own. My family are mostly passed on, the rest live all over the country so I have never had the opportunity to rely on that as a daycare option. Thats not all that unusual I think.

Daycares are varied all over the place. I can only rate the ones where I live, and there is the bad, with the good. There are great group daycares, and great home based daycares. There are bad group settings, and I can name a couple home based ones where the owner basically throws cheerios at the kids in front of the TV.
But the shortages of the good ones are glaring.

In the end it decimates working families when they have to make these choices when there are none. Stay home, lose an income. Work, and pay out 200 a week on care that you may or may not find. Or that is substandard. If at least we can all agree that there needs to be a choice..that will be half the battle.

I wont even adress cutters last few comments, as he seems angry that anyone would DARE expect him to pay for early childhood education, and has resorted to slurs, and namecalling. With that very last post, the true colours showed through on his opinion about any choices women have. Apparently to him, women are chattel. (it makes it so much easier to understand his mindset when I understand that hes fundamentally opposed to rights for half the population)

Children are not a commodity, they are the future. (trite cliche yes, but with basis in fact) Early childhood education is an important step in all childrens development.

But, this whole debate is being decided in government by accountants, and career politicians. So. It will not be resolved to many peoples needs or satisfaction anyway.

Frank posted:

You're jumping on tax-cuterr's slippery slope. We don't have a daycare system and you're already upset that the kids are going to be living in dark cells and let out for exercise 20 minutes a day by Ken Georgetti.

Certainly you guys must be able to envision a daycare that kids want to be at. I know my daughter loved it, we'd walk there and she loved just being able to make friends and play at different activities. It was a great environment.

A guilded cage, isolated away from parents, and lacking the opportunity to watch what adults are doing and how they go about their lives?

Then you wonder why the children are rebellious, will not listen to you (the parent) or other adults, nor respect the wider society around them (usually for a few years out of high-school)?

They have been made prisoners in that society, they act just like prisoners while in the schools (bullying, acting out, or just quiet endurance of the pennance) and when they 'get out'.

With the daycare only model, as Ken Dryden wants us all to pay for, the children will face this sentence of isolation for longer and start earlier.

My apologies Pale. My feelings on this subject are very strong.

The misconceptions about 'instituionalized' daycares and the people who run them floating around this thread are mind-boggling. Colour inside the lines indeed. Another example of a complete dis-connect with the reality, which from my experience has been one of trained, professional, caring women taking care of my child with as much love as, and more teaching skills, than I possess.

I'll try one more time to provide an example that perhaps Cycling Commuter can understand.

Because some cyclists ride recklessly without a helmet and get hurt, there should be no public facilities to assist them and all cyclists should be on the hook for rehab costs they might incur in an accident. regardless of the fact that

Murdock:

"guilded cage" Your bias is showing too mate. Another union-buster tripped up by the Freudian slip. This is of course giving you credit for having a mind creative enough to substitute one for the other. Perhaps you're just a poor speller, which is no crime.

(regardless of the fact) in the previous post was just my too-hasty click of the submit button obviously, rather than a missing chunk of my purple prose. Wouldn't want anyone thinking they were missing something. :-)

stuart wrote:

nahh, just create another 'closed shop' and stick their hands in MY pockets to PAY for it.

then once they have porked out on that project, take the proceeds and use them to hammer another big tax grab into me.

Ah, while I surmise, Murdock confirms.

You're the one using children as pawns in the labour/boss game at this point, not CUPE. Beware you don't become that which you abhor.

Duncan, starting down the right road asks:

Keep all this in mind at the ballot box next time, vote Independant.

Tax Cutter 99
So the 99 does represent your age. Only someone that old would post the kind of crap you have above here. I wouldn't be too concerned about people coming to your door to demand anything...they'll all have left before you get there pushing your walker.

I can't imagine what kind of family you came from.

But I am glad you actually posted the words which disclose your real attitude and revealed yourself for the hateful and misogynistic relic you actually are. I hope everyone who posts here regularly will see you for what you actually are: A hateful, angry old man who couldn’t compete with the clever modern and forward looking young women who are rapidly replacing dinosaurs like you in every walk of business, academic and professional life.

Yeh, absolutely - vote independent, join murdock in a guilded cage in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Cycling Commuter:

they did!

http://graphix4change.com/portfolio_PA_game.html

cheers!

Alcibiades posted:

So you suggest what?

CPC: more insanity that we are seeing now, only no minority position to stop them?

LIB: back to the pork-barrel and back room feastings on your and my tax dollars?

NDP: insane policies like death taxes and real tax-and-spending plans?

BQ: only if you are in Quebec (so far - heard a rumor about BQ MP's running other than PQ), freedom from the re-distribution of wealth model as put forward by Ottawa?

INDE: this is at least one option we, in Canada, have not properly explored. Picture 200 INDE's in the Commons, with no axe to grind and no starting 'hidden' agendas. Not that some might not start, but then with that many INDE's the coalitions would be very fluid and keep any out of control spending in check very effectively.

Defintely, completely agree, we need a lot more political parties, spread out the few thinking people in this country a little more, get them arguing among themselves even more passionately about every little self interested issue and leave the real politics to the guys with the big wallets who really know how to manipulate the banks, the tax system and the continuing rip-off of the 'peoples' natural resources. Great Idea. Where do I sign up.

murdock
A few more independent parties sucking votes off to one side or the other in our first past the post system and Harper will stay in power for a decade with less than 35% of the total vote.
Give your head a good shake.

I know your game murdock, and so should everyone else. All you're interested in is busting up the country so you can declare yourself king of BC. It won't work. Even this little community here at the Tyee is completely familiar with your transparent bitter little scheme.

Go read Atlas Shrugged again.

You mean "governor" The real question is whether we'd be a state or just a territory. U-S-A, U-S-A!!!

Sorry to see U go Pale as one of the few sane ppl in here, it's gotten away from the reason it's here, there is a problem when both parents have to work just to get by.
The Feds and the Provinces have lots of cash to give out for bribes, backdoor handouts, hush money, the list is endless.
Where is all this money comming from for our war machine?
Our EI is under attack,our CPP is being robbed and we the people say "Oh Well"....shame

CC wroter: "Human child psychology experts who evaluated Quebec's daycare system have found that daycare children are more agressive than those who are raised by their parents - same deal as the puppies."

You know if you're going to make claims like that you really should provide a linked reference instead of making an ASS(out of)Umption.

There was a draft of a study released back in late January by the right-wing C.D. Howe Institute that tried to make the claims you incorrectly attribute to child psychologists. It was in fact written by economists, and the inital findings of the study were published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, an American think tank. That study received wide coverage in the mainstream media. Interestingly, the MSM didn't seem especially interested in getting much of a response to the study from actual child care experts.

Here is the rebuttal to that study from child care experts:
http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/documents/ResponsetoKevinMilligan.pdf

If you want to read some garbage... sorry the original study, go look it up yourself, since you're so enamoured with tech as the solution to life the universe and everything. It's available online, but it is a long read.

And CC, if this is the best you've got aside from your lengthy anecdotes that become your foundation for everyone's reality, you really have some work to do.

ALCIBIADES? You thnk i'm an old man because I pointed out the reasons for the birth rates declining? That's funny. Let's just say, i'm much younger than you. Let's just say, when Expo 86 was on...I was young enough to be terrified of Expo Ernie...and young enough (but not unfortunate enough) to be in nationalized daycare...

Not ONE part of my statement is misogynistic. Nor is it anti-abortion. I just stated the reasons for the declinging birth rate. I din't "blame" anyone or say that these were negative, they just are facts of life. When a woman works outside the home she is less likely to have a large number of children. Its a fact. Look at the rates in countries where women are a large part of the workforce (and rightfully so). Seventeen European nations are now at what demographers call "lowest-low" fertility - 1.3 births per woman. What country today has half of its population under the age of 15? Italy has 14 per cent, the UK 18 per cent, Australia 20 per cent - and Saudi Arabia has 39 per cent, Pakistan 40 per cent and Yemen 47 per cent.

And more abortions=less babies=less adults=less taxpayers.

Left wingers think marriage is obsolete except for those with homosexuals involved. Again, i point to the break down of the family structure and the leftist culture promoting people from my generation forcus less on "achievement" and "conforming" and more on "finding yourself." So people go to find themselves and trying to "escape" the suburban "nightmare" to some utopian notion of Bohemia they have in their heads...They wind up pregnant, worthless as a commodity to any employer, fathering children, HIV positive, on drugs, etc.

I think you might need to "forcus" yourself a bit, TC99.

"worthless as a commodity?" say what? pregnant? horrors!! fathering children? let's have none of that!!

You think self-destructive tendencies are a result of "leftist culture?"
Seems to me like the most destructive tendencies I see are the result of those who see resources, human and non-human, as exploitable and marketable...at any cost.

What do you think is responsible for the "breakdown of the family structure" my friend? Could it have anything to do with a culture that puts economic gain and contribution first...and everything else a distant second? Think about the young women working in Export Processing Zones who are forced to take birth control pills so that they won't end up "pregnant, worthless as a commodity to any employer." What makes that a reality?

TC 99
I could care less what your chronological age is. You are an ancient anachronism - full of bile and prejudice. I can't help it if the truth hurts. You do nothing but cheerlead for the kind of corporate capitalism that's created the world we live in. Suck it up. You want to hang on to all the worthless paper you can and you begrudge the taxes that provide services, education and the foundation of a decent life for your fellow human beings. You are a bitter old man no matter what birthday you’re celebrating next.

You are a misogynist and your point just above proves it. You think of women as objects and reduce their importance to their function as procreators. You know nothing about left wingers and less about homosexuals and, I'd wager, not much about family either and certainly nothing about cooperation and community.

That seems to be a key to the thinking of this elderly Taxman here. The comoditization of humans.

It's the same essential thinking that lay behind the Eugenics movement of the last century that led to the forced sterilization and extermination of many millions of people who were considered "worthless" in commercial terms back then.

It would also explain his foolish assumption that anyone who can't provide their own clothing or toilet paper must be maliciously trying to cheat him.

He really has no clue that the world contains other people, that somebody might actually be different from him, but still be a human with needs and rights of their own.

The really sad part is that he is such a small specimen in his own self. To have anyone, even himself hold him up as some kind of standard human is just frightening.

I hope he never finds himself the father of a child without commercial value. I would fear for a child like that.

[B]frank

The birth rate in this country is already low, you want it to go even lower? It will be fun computing when the last Cdn will be born.

Alberta was is the first province to see women leaving the workforce, with the participation rate for women between the ages of 25 and 44 down 2.9 percentage points since 1998, to 79.3%

Quebec is a big exception to this reversal. The province's participation rate for the key 25-to-45 age group of women has shot up by 5.4 percentage points since 1998, the year Alberta's rate began falling.

Quebec has switched positions with Alberta during the past decade. Among Canadian women, Albertans used to be more likely than average to seek work, Quebecers less likely. Now the female participation rate is below average in Alberta and above average in Quebec.

Quebec has Canada's highest percentage of children in child care: 63.4% in 2003-04. Alberta has the lowest percentage: 42.6%.

incomes are rising rapidly in Alberta, and income tax rates are low, so some women with young children decide to stop working to stay home with the kids. There is nothing surprising about that. They can afford it.

In Quebec, income taxes are the highest in Canada, so more families need two incomes to survive. Tack on taxpayer-subsidized daycare and higher taxes to pay for it and even more women are forced into the workforce.

Alberta, according to statscan has higher birth rates than any provnce with 12.7
Quebec is low with 9.9 birth rate per 1,000 population, below the national average.

So....it seems that the province WITHOUT child care provisions is holding up its end of the birth rate bargain. Quebec, even though its given child care, is bringing down that birth rate.

It seems that anyone who dares support and use the word "universality" these days is labelled a communist or socialist. So lets get to the brass tax of it. Does universality work better, or worse than good old fashioned capitalism?

State owned, state run, somehow means universality. Lets take a look at what we have in this country thats universal.

Healthcare (well, 70/30)

Police (besides the cities, we have the RCMP canada wide)

Courts

In western Canada, INSURANCE. Take a look at what drivers pay down east, with corporate greed and monopolies raking it in, and tell me it doesn't work. And our western crowns are profitable, at that, while allowing competition there without outright gouging us.

The wheatboard. You know, I never had bum cheque from them yet. I sure have selling hay to the ranchers down the way.

Government taxation and spending. (When politicians like Emerson and Campbell aren't stuffing their pockets with our tax dollars and gov. intel.

And who is against universality, regardless of its efficiency and price controls? The richest, most powerful shareholders, namely from the U.S., of course and they own the media that brainwashes the slowpokes, some of who post on this sight, that universality is communist and retarded, because these rich, white, self centered geezers and sons can't own the opportunity to get even richer.

U.S. healthcare is appalling in terms of eligability and affordability, leaving the wisest to look at universal systems like ours as the only hope to stave off a complete U.S. monetary collapse. The law suits spent on the lack of a universal patient information system alone with malpractice and misdiagnosis is staggering. Anyone who wishes to brag up the U.S. system thinks again when they travel south. You get sick without prior coverage down there, and your on your own. And healthcare prevention by capitalism? Who cares? Can't make a buck from it.

So, if you all think I'm against capitalism, wrong again. I'm no extremist. We need individual freedoms, identities and rights. We need the markets to trade and impove products (at least the ones that aren't killing us, like whats on our grocery shelves). We need individual incentives. But when it comes down to essential services that everyone needs inclusively... universality is the only way that guarantees it. Inclusivity to essential services is a human right, folks. And if anyone thinks the Con playbook is about inclusiveness for essential services, they can think again. The Cons have been trying to erode this to exploit these services in the markets since the get go. Its coming from the U.S., and its coming from Greed. Only fools won't acknowledge these truths. Only the Greedy try to destroy universal systems of essential services.

And war? Our role in Afganistan? Its not the universal minded person that put our sons and daughters in harms way. Its the capitalist smearing the truth with its claim of the spread of democracy for the sake of privatizing nationalized assets of any government, democratic or otherwise.

Think about this one for a moment. Our federal oil and gas royalties were 8 billion last year. 30 years ago, Trudeau came out with a plan to nationalize our oil and gas industry by 50% over 30 years. If he would have had his way, we could have added a zero to this number today. But, Reagan got on, and just like that, goodbye plan. Looking at the markets today, the U.S. owns 85% plus, of our oil and gas revenue and reserves.

And back to daycare. Universal daycare. For whatever reason, 55% divorce rates have yet to be mentioned in this thread. The majority of single parents looking after the kids are the moms. We have a current federal government who seems to think that single parents don't exist in this country. Apparently, the Con solution is stay home and look after your kids.

The fallout to this wacko scenerio of distorted "Christian values" is welfare moms. The next thing on the Con agenda is cuts to welfare, of course, along with tax increases to the poor so the Con can puff his (and his spouses) chest to proclaim that they are unfairly taxed, they are the only ones who work and so on, etc.

So we have a choice on election day. Vote for prestige and the beginning of the end to inclusiveness of essential services for exclusivity to the rich and its wake, a crumbling empire ruined by self-centred greed...

Or vote for universality. Equality. Fairness. Inclusivity of essential services, regardless of past individual mistakes and bad choices, because fairness has something that is ideologically impossible to understand for the Con. An entity that does not judge the past, but looks to ensure equal opportunity for those in the present and future, regardless of race, creed, color, sex and age.

And one final thought, Murdock. Your half right. But where you go wrong is with the plan. Most people fail when they plan to do something, especially so with marrages and children because the plan takes something to succeed that goes beyond individual effort. It takes group efforts, common will, common goals to succeed in virtually any walk of life. Independent MP's can only become effective if they form a group to take on the tasks that need to be dealt with in this country. Look at any platform and tell me that it could be written and implimented by just one person. it takes a group effort to get it done. Together we stand, divided we fall is as true today as it was 10,000 years ago. Why? Because UNIVERSALITY WORKS

And one final afterthought. Independents won't keep Harper in power. They will keep the balance of power, however, if there is enough of them. I'm not against independents, here. We had our Chuck Cadmans and King Arthurs to remind us of the importance of their role. But in the end, its a yea or a nay to a proposal that no independent will ever have the chance to propose, and thats why group efforts ultimately work in politics.

And where do groups (parties) fail in democracies? Accepting bad proposals as concessions for the good ones. Ultimately, no one in their right minds will ever be fully pleased by any party due to accepting a multitude of proposals from one entity. In the end, however, this "entity" has ideologies that will be functional and sustainable for the long term... or it won't. The smart voter looks for this. The dumb voter does not, just looks at their own wants and needs and fug anyone elses. This disconnection to the needs (and wants) of the rest leads to the base support of what I believe is the Con/Rep parties in North America today.

Tax Cutter states that incomes are rising rapidly in Alberta, without once wondering why or alluding to the reason.

A petro-fueled economy has raised incomes, not anything magical Uncle Ralph did with taxes.

Or did you miss the significance of oil moving from the low teens to 70$ over the span of time being discussed?

Alberta will be just fine, thank you, while oil remains the principle energy source in the world, or until the oil sands are depleted (or we fry ourselves globally), and sure, there'll be more moms there who can afford to stay at home.

Look at other urban centres and the same is not the case. Come on out to Vancouver-Kingsway where the average family income is 60k$ yet the average family home sells for 400k$ plus, and that's a fixer-upper, and you'll quickly understand why there are more working mothers than not out here.

MWATKINS-You missed the point. Oil isn't allowing them to stay home. They don't spend their oil money on child care. The logic stated by some posters above would mean that this would mean lower birth rates for them. You can't say oil revenue lets moms not work. Most of their husbands aren't in the industry. 5/6 Albertans aren't directly nor indirectly in the Energy Sector, maam.

Instead of Alberta spending their revenue on child care programs, they give it back to the people who then can choose to spend it themselves. That's why it works.

You think energy revenues make up 50 or 60 percent of Alberta's income? You think the streets are paved with oil?
The fact is that revenue from oil and gas in Alberta makes up less than 29 percent of provincial revenues. Comparatively, BC's forestry sector makes up over 20% of ours (with ten percent coming from tourism).

What they found in Alta, even BEFORE prices soared, was tax revenues kept going up as tax rates were going down. In an expanding economy, the province's low taxes created amazing new revenues, far more than what Alberta gets from oil and gas today.

Anyways, this is nothing new. Historically, Canada depended on its resource base. From iron-ore to natural gas, from wheat to lumber, Canada has grown rich supplying raw materials to the world.

A recent poll conducted in Alberta has concluded that there is mutiny in Harper's own backyard. Albertans favour keeping existing federal-provincial child care plans. 50% of Albertans oppose Harper's plan to cancel the funding agreements reached by the previous liberal government with the provinces and territories and create a taxable allowance of $100./month for kids under 6. Only 37% support Harper's scheme.

Where do you get your ideas, TC?

I get my ideas from stats.

It's not really a "Mutiny" (a term you took directly from the CUPE press release about it). A Mutiny would be his supporters in Alberta turning on him....
Polls go up and down all the time. And 50% are opposed...when you consider 35% of Albertans didn't vote for Harper...so about 500,000 Albertans voted otherwise...and only 70% voted...maybe 12%-15% of Harper's base is disagreeing with him, so 88%-85% are with him, hardly a Mutiny!

Anyway that poll was interesting. It was conducted by PIA, Public interest Alberta, a socialist think tank.

The PIA board is comprised of labor unions such as theUnited Nurses of Alberta as well as the Commercial, Energyand Paperworkers, and the Alberta Teachers’ Association.Their chair is Lynn Odynski, an Alberta NDP party girl. She speaks at their meetings and has worked with NDP MLA Roy Martin.

Larry Booi and Gil McGowan are Directors, and they are both former teachers union head honchos.

All the Directors are unionists and Gerald Wheatley, who writes enviro songs is on there too. He is from the Arusha Centre, an extremist left wing organization that promotes its own currency. It is named after the Arusha Declaration, Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere's Socialst decree.

Clearly this organization is biased, agenda-based and clearly slanted to the left. Now I would like to see their question wording.

The poll was conducted by Viewpoints research whose clients include:
ACTRA
Alberta Teachers’ Association
BC College Educator’s Association
BC Federation of Labour
BC Government Employees Union
BC Teachers Federation
Canadian Pharmacists Association
Communication, Energy and Paperworkers
CUPE
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario
Energy & Chemical Workers
Health Sciences Association, Alberta
IWA Canada
Manitoba Government Employees’ Union
Manitoba Nurses’ Union
Manitoba Teachers Society
Media Guild
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union
United Nurses of Alberta
University of Manitoba Faculty Association

Yeah, No BIAS AT ALL!!!!!

TC99
About such a source of ideas, which is pretty much what I would have expected from someone versed in the dark arts of actuary, I’ll quote a great British Politician from the 19th century, Benjamin Disraeli: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Or, if you prefer, and in this case the following may be even more apt, from Andrew Lang: “He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts – for support rather than for illumination.”

At least with polls, tax cutter, we are dealing with actual opinions and answers to specific questions - not just your spinning and interpretation of same - of which your post above is clear evidence of nothing else. The fact that many people disagree with Prime Minister Harper’s prejudice in favour of his fundamentalist base and his dispassion for the actual daily lives of women in his ‘home’ province is, of course, hardly evidence of a mutiny. It is merely the first sign – of which more will undoubtedly follow – that a decent country like Canada, when it puts its trust in a purblind ideologue like Stephen Harper, will gradually awaken to the error of such a course of action and come to its senses again. For an example of an analogous occurrence in other jurisdictions you might want to check the ‘statistics’ which track the popularity (now that’s an oxymoron) of Harper’s current best friend in the United States.

Your bias and prejudice, seemingly planted in the very neurons of your brain, is still showing. Why do you hate women so much? I would suggest your ideas are ‘generated’ at the level of your cerebral cortex.

I understand that Imperial Oil sells gasoline to anyone – does the company become progressive because a socialist like me happens to fill my car there from time to time? When you have an actual idea that makes any sense – I’ll let you know. In the meantime, consider yourself ignored. I wouldn’t talk to a bigot on the street, why should I acknowledge your existence on these pages?

Goodbye.

Duncan wrote:

As many should have understood from the crossings of the floor recently, most notably Mr. Emerson, legally we in Canada do not elect a party, but a person. The party-machines have taken over this basic tenet of our democracy and perverted it with money and the power to direct others lives.

By electing 200+ Independant MP's to the commons, a group whom would then have the ability to form a coalition larger than any other 'party'. What it takes to hold this sort of thing together is a real vision, leadership and the ability to compromise and cooperate that has not been seen in Canada since the turn of the century.

Even if one of the old line parties were the only other elected group in the commons at 108 seats they could not command a majority with 200 Inde's facing them with 110 willing to call themselves the 'governing party'.

Sadly I recognize that this will not take place, instead we will have a run-off for the LIEberals, without a policy convention nor any sort of view from the membership (top-down works so much better than bottom-up in manipulation of the masses, something that the LIEberals have be taught so well by Darth Cretinous). Then the NDP will go back into obscurity when the 'big red machine' returns to power.

More of the same-old same-old and the insanity of a nationalized anything will come back to suck the coffers dry and make sure that it is bankruptcy that ends the canada.

The spirit of 'group-efforts' as you put it is dead in the commons, it is run by OIC and the PMO is supreme. The only thing missing is 'star-chamber' justice.

The only way to encourage the cooperation to come back is to reject what is being sold by the old line parties and elect more John Nunziatas and Chuck Cadmans to really watch over the peoples business and not line their own pockets with gold.

murdock
I trust you have these little diatribes saved in a text document from which you can copy and then drop them like steaming turds into the middle of any discussion. I'd hate to think you actually memorized this stuff - it would be such a waste of valuable time you could be spending with your beloved family – for which, as you have often told us – no sacrifice on your part could possibly be too great.

For all the encomiums heaped on both John Nunziata and Chuck Cadman, it might be wise to recall that there was a certain single-minded fixity about their actions as MPs. Most individual independents are concerned about a pet project, occasionally they do something beyond that, but not very often and often not very effectively.

ALCIBIADES-It's ok...you got owned when I exposed your biased extreme socialist group's poll as being fraudulent.

Tax Nutter: "I get my ideas from stats."

That about says it all.

You know taxcutter, I've been following this little dustup and I'd say exactly the opposite. Not that I'd expect someone like you to admit it. The truth hurts, after all.

1) How specific were this Communist group's questions?

2) I didn't spin anything. Use those official Statscan (A government agency you should like that) stats and prove they tell a different story. And by the way, poll results ARE a statistic! How do you think Statscan gets some of its info?

G West, You couldn't quite back up anything with opinion either in terms of this dust up. Of course you'd side with a Commi. Hell you'd side with one if your country went to war with one.

Murdock, G West

As you both know, ideology and practice are two separate things. Party and independent ideology both work in their own right. In practice, however... and as you say, Murdock, our PM is supreme, having more power than any other citizen in this country with a majority gov. Even minority governments are more powerful than we give them credit for. This one is leading us to a full scale war without debate.

What we have now in this country, for anyone who has ever paid attention to politics, is a western separatist leading this country with Quebec separatists backing him up. If people like their country beyond silly arguements about wether or not essential services should be universally provided, and I'm sure that daycare is an essential service in these modern times, then voters are going to have to take a good long hard look at what its going to take to stop the breakup up of this country. This present scenario is quite scary, with the Bloc backing up our U.S. puppet plant Steven Harper, and if anyone looks at Harper like he's an actual Canadian citizen of this country, I'd say they are at this point, naive, ignorant, or monumentally stupid.

I've got a buzy day in the fields. Later...

Sorry. That's exactly the kind of reaction I'd expect from someone who can't follow an argument through to a logical conclusion without resorting to the kinds of attacks you've just posted above. I pity you, such bitterness can't be good for your health.

Have a good day in the fields - we're working on a bit of rain here today which we'll try and send your way as soon as seeding's finished.

I could hardly agree more with your comment above - hope to hear from you later. Finding a way to get ourselves and this fine country out of its current mess ought to be a concern that brings us together rather than forces us apart.

Cheers.

DUncan, I'm sure you realize the immediately above comment - with your quote - was meant for you alone and that, the one above it - unaddressed - was meant for Tax cutter 99. I should have specified. Their relative postion in the thread might give some the wrong impression.

lol. I hear you brother. :-) In for a bite, but I'm quickly back to blowing doughnuts out there. Later. Here's some food for thought.

"The universal truth is inclusive to anyone who wishes to seek it. The lie is exclusive to anyone who wishes to speak it." - Steven Gnash

Have a nice day, G, Murdock, and the rest who believe essential services should be universal and inclusive!

G West...Everytime i've brought hard facts, evidence and numbers here, all you left-wingers who feel you are entitled to everything simply dismiss me as a woman hating neo con without even discussing the number. I learned early on if you wanted to shut Leftists up, you'd use logic, numbers, reason, and values. No one has even ONCE mentioned the cost of these programs!

An i'm glad FARMER DUNCAN brought up divorce rates.

Exactly. I don't blame the women for this entirely, but I blame us...MEN. There was a time when men took their reponsibilities seriously. Then around the late 1960's, a new generation of men started taking on different values. They didn't want to be "men" like their fathers were. They weren't willing to fight for their country or to work for a living (until they realized they had no choice. As one US Governor would say, they were "girly men." Mix that with feminism...and KABOOM, the feminization of society...the 80's...men in makeup...Oprah...political corectness...Affirmative action...Fedmale hiring quotas...Divorce laws favoring women...vaginamony..er alimony...etc, etc, etc.

My generation is the first generation of single moms. Growing up, many of my friends weren't around on the weekends ("I have to go to my dad's," etc...). Now, so many of these guys were raised by single moms, that they don't know what it is to be a man. So now when ingle women vote, they vote for these leftists parties who tell them they are entitled to having their kids taken care of for free. As Newt Gingrich said, these single parents don't want leaders...they want a surrogate husband!

That's why Martin and Layton were up there saying "I will defend you, I will give you childcare, a roof over your head and anything you want." They promised these women to be the providers that these ladies no longer have. Harper does it too...IE the $1200 a year giveaway. And look at Bush...that whole secuirty mom thing? Don't tell me it wasn't smart politics...

Tax Cutter 99

Obviously, I disagree. Read back through these posts and you'll find no lack of acknowledgment of the fact that proper child care is going to cost money, lots of money. It clearly will. That those costs are high is true. But the cost of doing nothing - which is essentially what has been happening during the long and dismal last quarter century while families have been disintegrating and youth has increasingly become pessimistic and deracinated - has been immeasurably greater. That other societies, notably in Europe, have done much better - and borne the higher cost in taxes to create a more egalitarian society is also not difficult to demonstrate, for anyone who cares to take the blinkers off and look.

Even in your post just above, where you plead not be seen as a misogynist, you are still guilty of succumbing to exactly the same tendency exhibited by Newt Gingrich. According to you and Mr. Gingrich, it's all the 'women's' fault - the 'correction' of the situation requires - as you quote Gingrich - the discipline of a 'surrogate' husband. How utterly bizarre; I can see why someone thought you were 99 years old.

Can you not step back from yourself long enough to see how incredibly biased that kind of statement is? How lacking in any sense of fairness and how infected by a complete failure to recognize that women are clever, thoughtful, independent creatures as capable of making their own case - and making their own way in the world as any man. But they ‘have’ the children and without them fulfilling that role our society is sunk. Chicken necked or otherwise, they are the fountainhead of our future. You seem so compromised by your bias that you are no longer capable of the kind of self-examination necessary to see your attitude for what it actually is. This has nothing to do with either facts or logic. This has only to do with a failure to acknowledge the human in your fellow man; a blindness to accept everyone’s role as a member of the human family; an acknowledgement that community life is a collective exercise. This has nothing to do with left and right wing; it is all about self-knowledge and honesty, in my opinion.

You may be surprised that few women are making this case in the press. I can assure you it is not because they don't think it, but because there are so few female voices in that same press, owned and run as it is, by avatars of a different point of view. As someone in the insurance business, I would have thought the idea of spreading risks and costs among a wide range of stakeholders, for the mutual and several benefit of all, would not be such a difficult thing for you to grasp.

Unfortunately, you are inclined to believe in conspiracies and imaginings about your fellow men and women that are as illogical and impractical as the things you criticize other ‘true believers’ for accepting about the genesis of the collapsing towers of the World Trade Centre.

All collective public works have costs. Many things need to be done that could never be afforded by individuals or trusted to the profit motive. What TaxCutter is failing to admit is that failure to live up to these public costs is even more expensive.

For every homeless person that could be housed and cared for for forty thousand dollars a year, we spend a hundred thousand in medical and policing costs. The cost of compassion is much lower than the cost of cruelty.

For every child left alone because we want our houses to cost five years wages instead of the traditional 14 months, Mr Harper is now proposing to build a nice new prison cell.

Do we think this is foolishness or knavery?

G West:
Thank you for that link on the other thread. I enjoyed catching up on what I missed - I'm an ex-Winnipeger myself and shoulda known or read him!
Tax Cutter 99 sure is a piece of work, isn't he? I left this topic after listening to Cycling Commuter's obvious distaste for women, only to come back to Tax Cutter! No wonder good female posters like Pale left in a hurry!

Glad you enjoyed the piece. There are some other interesting things in that Ryerson Journal from time to time too.

Really would love to see more female posters. Nothing like a good woman to straighten out a bunch of men, eh!

taxcutter, I'm back and I see you continue to ignore anything you don't want to hear.

You consider yourself entitled to your entitlements and everyone else has no right to demand that you contribute to what they deem important just as they contribute to what you deem important.

You consider spending money on a military as more important than spending money on the kids that military is supposed to protect. You disagree with anyone who doesn't want their taxes going to things they don't want, such as a military because they think the money would be better spent on kids. Yet at the end of the day you expect the military to be funded and kids to be ignored.

The concept of if you want a military, if you want a Port Mann bridge, if you want policing, if you want the Olympics you should pay for it yourself is lost on you. When it comes to what you think is important you are a red-flag waving socialist, damn happy that everyone's taxes go into programs you want.

Then you don't get out much. People do make decisions about how many children to have based partly on the financial cost and the opportunity cost. Anecdotally I have heard people talk about the "affordability" of having more children.

Yes, and why is that? Why do people put off starting families later and later? Because they can't afford it when they're younger and because when you're trying to climb the economic ladder its difficult to step out for a few years to have a baby and keep climbing. As I just said, opportunity costs involved with having a baby is a real impediment to one's financial health.

No they aren't. Besides, those suburban areas are also the result of mass subsidies at almost every level of our system. But of course you aren't against subsidies which help you.

And yet one of the driving forces behind abortion is being unable to afford the child. There would be less abortions if the country didn't consign those kids to poverty. If you don't like the number of abortions then you should demand better gov't supports for those that would prefer to have the child.

With very long waiting lists because of a lack of spaces and huge impediments such as if you're worth more than $5,000. That's why we're having this conversation. If it was already there we wouldn't have had the Liberals promising to do something for 12 years. They simply would have said look at taxcutter's link and check off a promise from their red book.

Much like suburbs. Building a spanking new bridge and thousands of miles of blacktopped highway for every guy who wants a big yard in the suburbs reduces the after-tax income of everyone whether they live in the suburbs or not. Meaning, it also reduces the after-tax income of single women struggling to both work and raise kids.

1)Frank, military funding is #1, Period. Full Stop. Don't even consider anything else. Because if you don't have secure borders, what's the point of building up infrastructure, private eneterprise, government or anything? The most important thing is to protect your borders.

2)If the cause of abortions, as you say, is the cost of raising a child...then how can you call ME selfish for not wanting to pay for childcare? THESE WOMEN don't want to pay for childcare so badly that they even get abortions for that reason! A U.S. survey of women by the Guttmacher Institute, the research organ of the US abortion lobby, showed that only 3% cited health risks or reasons of fetal health as the reason for abortion. They didn't want to pay. If they don't want to pay, why should I? They and their man friends are the ones who had a few too many to drink and had unprotected sex in the first place.

3)I'm glad the Liberals didn't implement national daycare. Without it we were able to cut taxes and improve the economy. They turned the public finances around, so much so that Canada is now the only big industrialised country to notch up consistent surpluses both in its federal budgets and in its trade and current accounts. For years it has had the G8's fastest growth, driving unemployment to its lowest levels for three decades and producing big gains in incomes, profits and tax revenues.

4)As for "funding" the suburbs. There's a wonderful paper called Transportation as an Economic Growth Engineby UBC Professor, Dr. Michael Goldberg. I suggest you read it. He explains how we can expand key segments of east-west and north-south highways to four lanes in order to "shrink the distance" between major centres and strengthen market connectivity. MARKET. This isn't about people who come downtown for a stroll, these are people who travel to spend money. That's why spending money on highways is important to downtown businesses and residents.

5)As for childcare being good for our economy, that's only if you're ina union. The unions have a special interest in a childcare program that would significantly increase their membership, funding and political clout should it go forward. In Quebec, unionized childcare workers saw a 40% increase in their salaries after putting pressure on families through labour actions.

6) In this daycare program, shiftworkers get the shaft. I gre up, as I have mentioned, in a low income family for the most part. Both my parents worked. But I was NEVER in daycare. My mom had to quit her day job as an administrator of a private care home to take up nightly shift work to stay home with us. She worked as a janitor for a family friend's cleaning company. My dad would pack all of us into the car and we'd drop her off at 7 and she got dropped off just before we went to school. Atleast with family allowance back then, my parents had the money all other families got...some used it on daycare...we used it on what we needed. By the way, i'm glad to say that my mom is no longer a janitor, she actually went back to school when we grew old enough. She's now back at a hospital and because of the values she instilled in us (not relying on the state) she's going to get some awesome privately funded mother's day gifts next week!

KAZI STASTNA, The Gazette
Published: Thursday, February 02, 2006

Quebec's much-heralded universal child-care program might be good for the economy, but not for the kids enrolled in it, a study by a Toronto-based think tank says.

The study found that while $5-a-day child care had positive economic impacts by increasing the proportion of working mothers in Quebec by 21 per cent - more than twice the rate in the rest of Canada - it had negative effects on the well-being of children and parents.

Comparing children age 4 or under in Quebec with those in the rest of Canada from 1994 to 2003, the researchers noted the increase in everything from aggressive behaviour to throat infections was much greater in Quebec - suggesting that children were worse off after the $1-billion-a-year program was introduced in 1997.

The study was done by economists Michael Baker of the University of Toronto, Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Kevin Milligan of the University of British Columbia.

They analyzed data on 33,000 children of two-parent families, collected by Statistics Canada for its bi-annual National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. In that study, parents answer questions on their children's behaviour, such as how often they fight with other kids, are fearful or nervous, or are hyperactive.

The researchers found that in the post-universal daycare period, aggression among 2- to 4-year-olds increased by 24 per cent in Quebec, compared with one per cent in the rest of Canada.

The relative increase in hyperactivity and anxiety was also substantial, while certain social and motor skills declined.

The proportion of parents reporting nose or throat infections in newborns to 2-year-olds rose by about 20 per cent in Quebec, but stayed constant in the rest of Canada.

"For almost every measure, we find an increased use of child care was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children," the authors write.
The well-being of parents also declined, with more mothers reporting depression. There was also a greater incidence of hostile parenting and dissatisfaction with spouses

taxgutter
You're shameless shilling for neo-con "trickle-down" economics makes me think you are a disciple of the nefarious micheal campbell, brother of gordo the wife-cheater.
Speaking of which, how is your little demonic nephew anyhow?

Rather than trying to educate TC99, you'd be better off reading to a child. At least they listen. At least they know they don't already have all the answers.

I wonder however, why he/she blames the left for disillusioned, angry children? It's the supposed dream world of suburbs, globalization, and consumer satisfaction that's creating them. It's isolation from the larger community that's making them insular and fearful.

I wonder why he thinks parents are better at socializing their children than trained professionals? It's not a question of love. It's understanding how children learn and what they need that puts them on the right path. That's why we used to leave the job of watching little ones to grandparents, they had the life experience to do the job. Now we train younger people to do it, in large part because few of us have the ability to stay where we grew up because all the jobs are now in cities. Things change -- we must adapt or change it back. TC99 wants a dreamworld that never existed.

The Capitalists and free-market-above-all-else idolizers wanted this world, now they have it, and they won't pay the price required to make it work. More of the same old, same old.

What good are strong borders to a country that screws its own citizens? TC99 apparently wants to live in the charming town of Airstrip One as near as I can tell. Woohoo, chocolate rations have been increased to two grams from five. Doubleplusgood.

Damn boy you aren't mighty swift are you? I referred to this garbage posing as a study earlier in the thread.

As I wrote earlier:

Now I know reading isn't the same thing as picking out stats to suit your worldview, but just so you don't get lost looking for the link, I'll provide the rebuttal to the study from actual child care experts again here:
http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/documents/ResponsetoKevinMilligan.pdf

Oh and here is one quote from the rebuttal for that cud you call a brain to chew on.

My goodness Tax Cutter 99, you are one determined little beaver. Have you actually looked at the study you're citing?

Its actual title is:
Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply and Family Well-Being. It is an economic study which didn't actually look at children and their behavior directly.
Some excerpts from a response to the study by the Human Early Learning Partnership at UBC are pretty interesting.

"...it [the study] doesn’t actually study children who are enrolled in child care programs. A careful reading of the report reveals that they examined the possible effects of child care on children who were “eligible” for Quebec’s child care program but who were not necessarily enrolled in any child care programs at all. In fact, the “findings” of increased aggression in children could just as easily be attributed to the children who were NOT enrolled in a child care program."

"They did not follow individual children over time, examining their development before, during, and after they were enrolled in child care. In other words, they have no direct way of knowing what influence child care had on any given child."

"... it is the quality of the child care arrangement that is the most powerful predictor of child development. Yet the NBER report does not include any data on the quality of the child care environments in which the children participate. In short, then, this report does not study children in child care, nor does it consider any data at all about the quality of child care. These two factors alone mean that this research cannot be taken seriously in the continuing discussion on child care in Canada."

- anyone who wants more of this can find it here:

http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/documents/ResponsetoKevinMilligan.pdf

The paper itself, which you can access here:

http://www.econ.ubc.ca/kevinmil/research/childcare.oct2005.final.pdf

contains the following quotation:
"There are, however, interpretations of these findings which are more benign. While some of these explanations appear inconsistent with the data, we cannot rule out the possibility that our findings represent a short term adjustment to childcare, and not a long-run negative impact."

Need one say more?

James Burns
Geez - does this mean great minds think alike?

I know I stated I wasnt going to post on this thread again....But just a prop. G West, Stump, James Burns and anyone else using sense that I missed....Good job. keep up the hard fight.

No it isn't. The most important thing is to have a population. If you don't have a population there is no point in having a military. Therefore, children are just as important as a military.

Because those same men and women are paying to support your chosen lifestyle with their taxes. And if kids were more affordable to raise we'd have more of them and that would increase the GDP in this country, which you are so concerned about, more than any Olympics boondoggle.

And we'd do even better if we had a growing population that didn't rely heavily on immigration. And we'd do even better if those children were provided with better learning opportunities than they get now in some cases.

Business needs highways. Yes, I have been saying this to you over and over. Finally you say it back. That means its a support for business. Highway construction is a subsidy to business. If you want highways to support business you are in favour of business subsidies while at the same time being against child subsidies even though there is a long-term gain for business in child subsidies too. This is a simple point.

You should be in favour of it then because it means those people have higher wages which is good for supporting local businesses. Unless you think child care workers are socking the money away in Swiss bank accounts. You cannot possibly be claiming that the only people who benefit from available child care is the few workers in that sector that are unionized. Please cite me a study that says the best way to grow an economy is to reduce childhood education, erect impediments to labour force participation or having as few children in a country as possible.

There is no need why shift workers should get the shaft. If there are enough people in a community requiring childcare in the evening there is no reason why a trained worker couldn't be found for evening duties.

As others have pointed out the study you cite has serious method issues and is about as useful as a tobacoo industry "scientist" claiming smoking is good for you.

But as the study pointed out, the Quebec economy was a benefactor of available, affordable chilcare. Therefore since its good for the economy, at least as good as road construction and certainly better than military spending, then you should support it.

"They and their man friends are the ones who had a few too many to drink and had unprotected sex in the first place."

Not only do you know little about how to raise children TC99, you apparently have little knowledge of how they get made!

Examine the following link for a look at failure rates for birth control methods. It doesn't take stupidity to get pregnant, sometimes procreation 'just happens'.

http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html

It's an American study by the FDA, so hopefully that's got the USA-cachet that appeals to you.

Out of curiousity do you pay half for whatever type of b.c. you use? (assuming you're a hetero-male with a partner) I should hope so.

Frank You've never been more wrong in your life. Let's look at the facts:

WRONG

Secure borders = The ability of families to prosper and have kids. Countries who are at war have higher rates of infanticide and lower rates of life expectancy. Children are important, I agree. But I think parents should be responsible for them.

1)And if you cut taxes, kids become more affordable, so do tools, movies, cellphones, donuts, etc.

2)Affordable, government childcare does not mean we'd have more kids. Case in point:

Quebec has Canada's highest percentage of children in child care: 63.4% in 2003-04. Alberta has the lowest percentage: 42.6%. Alberta, according to stats can has higher birth rates than any province with 12.7. Quebec is low with 9.9 birth rate per 1,000 population, below the national average.
Quebec's fertility rate is now among the lowest in Canada. At 1.48, it is well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. This contrasts with its fertility rate before 1960 which was among the highest of the industrialized countries.

Sweden has Nationalized Daycare. GDP per capita = $ 28,400

Norway, their neighbour has 40% of their daycare privatized, others provided by municipal agencies. Their GDP per capita = $ 37,700 (3rd highest in the world).

USA-No natioanlized daycare= GDP per capita is $ 37,800.

Canada-No natioanlized daycare =GDP per capita is $31,500

Now let's look at the Canadian economic example. The author here says the only option is to move to QUEBEC?

Quebec has the 2nd highest population of any province, free daycare and the 8th ranking GDP in CANADA!!!!!!!!!

Alberta GDP= 66 279
BC's GDP = 39 490
Quebec's GDP = 36 175

And Better Educated with Early DAYCARE PROGRAMS???? Quebec has a high-school dropout rate of 16%, the second highest such percentage in all of Canada!!!

Business does not need highways, the ECONOMY does! Business is PART of an economy we all depend on. Highways are essential to moving goods and people. This helps the economy which creates jobs, pays for all services and helps set the economic atmosphere for growth and free markets which benefit us all. Building a daycare (as I have cited above) does not have the same economic value.

WRONG AGAIN SIR. Put down the Kurt Vonnegut novel and pick up an economics textbook. Higher wages do not directly mean more spending on businesses. It is an increase in disposable income after taxes that results in more spending. So if we cut income taxes, this results in more spending. Increasing wages for PUBLIC sector employees would mean INCREASING taxes.

PS those GDP numbers aree all per capita adjusted for populations

TC 99
I take it you know about apples and oranges? Apparently not much else when it comes to making a logical argument though.

Most of what you've posted above is such nonsense I won't waste any time even responding to it. Just make a couple of small points. Quebec's daycare program dates from 1997. Fertility rates in the province are given below:
1956-1961 4.95
1961-1966 4.34
1966-1971 2.87
1971-1976 2.12
1976-1981 1.76
1981-1986 1.60
1986-1991 1.56

Even you, Taxcutter, should be able to see that the major change in birthrate long predated the beginning of the province's daycare program.

As some one else pointed out about one of your postings yesterday - there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

One other little item you might be interested in, this comes from the Globe and Mail of Monday May 1 of 2006 - an article by Ingrid Peretz:

I admire your patience and perserverance G West. I fear your efforts are wasted however.

Thanks Stump, I know tc is hopeless - I trust other people who actually do think might just possibly pass by and find some of this interesting.
;-D

Not true :)

:) Okay...

WRONG

This part of the argument is fun but has reached the ridiculous. Can you name me one country that had a military before it had a population? No. You might as well try and argue a military is more important than water because without a military someone will take your water. The fact is you need a population to protect and to serve as your military. I served when I was a young lad, they don't want geezers.

Sometimes, if you're making $10,000 a year, a general tax cut will have no effect on your life. So your example while correct in many cases is not correct in all cases. But the gist of your argument is the same as mine, kids become more affordable if parents have more money in their pockets whether it be from a tax cut that affects them or from a social program.

GWest has already pointed out the problems with your comparisons. I assume you've never studied stats? The birth rate of Quebec did not fall because of child care. Since you love to google and you're new here I will help you with your argument. What you want to do is not try to find an apple stat and an orange stat. These types of stats look good on a first year paper for your prof but they're too easily rebutted. You want to google and find evidence that backs up your assertion that child care is a drain on an economy.

For example, saying the USA has a higher per capita income than Sweden is a good argument but the problem with it is its a good argument for lots of other arguments. There's nothing about it that applies specifically to this discussion because I could come back with a hundred other factors that could and would just as easily explain the difference.

Now, back to your quoted argument above, yes, daycare does not mean we'd have more kids. There are other factors. What it does do, in my opinion, is make it easier financially to have kids.

Again, what you want to do here is show that Quebec's situation actually worsened as a result of affordable daycare. The rise in the price of oil or other commodities does not mean a thing in this discussion. But its a good starting point. Now if you had shown a year by year comparison of the same provinces highlighting how when Quebec moved to providing daycare their economy worsened you'd have a good argument.

Here you want to do the math yourself before you hit send because I certainly can. Are the kids dropping out graduates of Quebec's daycare plan? What year was their dropout rate 16%? Recent? Well the thing with math is that the plan only started in 1997 so unless you have evidence that grade 6's and 7's are dropping out in incresing numbers your stat is again useless.

Are you being paid by the word? Why bother to argue this? Business is part of the economy and there are very few businesses in Canada that would survive without transportation systems. Just call it a business subsidy. Pretending that somehow it isn't one is not going to help your argument.

Why not? Claiming that businesses aren't subsidized by public tax money building highways is a pretty weak argument but then asserting that daycare has no economic impact is ridiculous. It allows more people to enter the workforce. These people pay taxes. It employs people, they pay taxes. It means more children will be born into the country because the cost of raising a child will be reduced. Those kids will also pay taxes and they will also generate economic activity simply by growing up. One could argue that daycares are in fact a subsidy to business just like highways.

Agreed

Not true. Because many people rely on services provided by tax revenue. Therefore just as higher wages do not directly mean an increase in disposable income (your argument) lower taxes also do not necessarily mean a direct increase in spending.

Yes. And if those public sector employees produce value we are better off. Since you told me to pick up an economics text I will pull one off my shelf. I refer you to the Economics text by Blomqvist, Wonnacott and Wonnacott (1983) page 150 to 155. It talks about the "multiplier effect" and how if you spend 10 billion dollars then that money is spent in the economy and creates more jobs etc as those first people buy products and services.

"One could argue that daycares are in fact a subsidy to business just like highways."

And one would be pretty correct, right? If there were a shortage of skilled people (because they had to stay home and watch the kids) conceivably the cost of labour would rise as demand outstripped supply.

TC and CC want the women to stay home, forgetting it was women in the workforce that grew the economy in the first place if I understand my history and economics correctly.

Frank and G West...

You guys are the stuff great teachers are made of...and your debate with tc99 an entertaining read to boot.... in a Clarence Darrow versus Stockwell Day sort of way.

Just to be clear, tc99... you're not the one playing the Darrow role.

First of all G West has trouble comprehending arguments. I never once claimed that childcare programs were the cause of lower birth rates. i simply used the numbers to show you that your point that socialized daycare means a higher birthrate. If it did, why hasn't Quebec's birthrate increased as a result? Why did Quebecers not say "hey the government is willing to take care of the kids let's spit out more!"??

Exactly...we need to end this reliance, dependance and entitlement by motivating kids to actually WANT to make money. SO much of our education has been run by these leftists who enocurage young people to look at things from a non-financial perspective.

If you read my quote CORRECTLY I DID NOT say higher wages don't increase spending! I said higher PUBLIC SECTOR wages won't..because you have to take the tax dollars from Paul to pay the union wages in the public sector to Peter. Increasing EVERYONE's take home pay by cutting taxes means everyone gets to keep more...

As well, if having childcare positively effects GDP as you stated, where are those numbers from either Quebec, or Europe?

The Multiplier effect? Where did you go to grad school, because if you didn't have a milion econ profs disprove this theory then you probably didn't spend enough time in class. I suggest you study a more recent text and look up "divider effect" that cancels out the "multiplier effect": when a dollar is spent by government, GDP is increased by a multiple of the original dollar, it is true, but when a dollar is taken in taxes, GDP is reduced by a multiple of that original dollar in the same way. Whoever the cash was taxed away from was also going to spend it on something. The multiplier effect is criticized in the economic world as a short run effect and a joke.

Child care is a necessity, just like roads and bridges, I agree. But a nationalized daycare system is not. I was raised without one, so were you.

By the way i'm not sure about your background Frank, but i'm from the business world. We make decisions based on Numbers, Facts, and Statistics. Not on platitudes and philosophical statements like "children are our future" or "people before profits." We deal with numbers and reality. Now if you'll excuse me, booze and basketball await.

Hey Business Guy:

If you think the 'business world' is reality it explains why you have such a disconnect with reality. The business world is an artifice layered on top of reality. What do you think of Fiat Lux's contentions regarding economics?

Can you disprove them? I doubt it. I'll bet you won't even try.

If you were raised without a national childcare system what did your parents do with you from age five to age eighteen?

And G. West:
While it's commendable to put things right, and correct the taxcutter's of the world, unfortunately in the long run, because they simply natter away no matter how many times they're proven wrong, at some point you have to simply ignore the fools and not respond, simply because for those people that do come here for an informative dialogue, wading thru the neo-conservative hyperbole that accompanies the last gasps of their dehumanizing regime becomes too onerous, and they stop coming here to be informed.

Now I'll take my own advice (for a change!)

peace (before profits)

Stump

TC99
Dummy!
This is what you said:

Quebec has Canada's highest percentage of children in child care: 63.4% in 2003-04. Alberta has the lowest percentage: 42.6%. Alberta, according to stats can has higher birth rates than any province with 12.7. Quebec is low with 9.9 birth rate per 1,000 population, below the national average.
Quebec's fertility rate is now among the lowest in Canada. At 1.48, it is well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. This contrasts with its fertility rate before 1960 which was among the highest of the industrialized countries.

All I did was point out how ridiculous your suggestion was.

Where did you go to high school?

Stump, Alcibiades, Fiat Lux and Frank and others too numerous to mention are absolutely right - you're a hopeless case.

Be careful you don't fall and strike your head, the destruction of one more brain cell might be fatal.

Lynn:

It's more like de-evolution. The Big Guns are making a monkey out of TC99!

Right on stump , with people like Tax Cutter 99 and others, one old saying rings true.
Don't feed bread to the dogs. Their are not here to learn or see things in a new light, they are here to stifle debate and meaningful action. They win if they can muddy a simple black and white issue.

Ask ourselves these basic questions. 1) Is the current Globalization model making people
around the world richer or poorer. The fact is the last 10 yrs has seen the creation of the 4th world the fasting growth in poverty the world has ever seen .

Has Globalization made the world cleaner.
Has it created more wars , more democracy etc.

The fact is folks like Tax cutter can't even rely on history, Reagan, Thatcher, Mike Harris, Bush Sr and Baby Bush and many other right wing nut jobs have left nothing behind but misery, corruption and massive debt,

66 billion last month alone in the US, money for Iraq and Halliburton, money for its own NOPE,

Don't waste energy , get busy , folks like tax cutter will always watch their Fox news and CanWest and be yahoo's for their idols , Bootlicks to the US empire, they can vote against their own economic interest if they like, I'm not going to ,

Otro Mundo es posible, check out the south. TTFN

Not that I'm putting myself in the same league as my far more cogent fellow posters. I'm just a B-B gun content to fire off the occasional little pellet of sarcasm in the direction of the deluded.

By the way guys, this uh..'divider effect'..our little tc genius here is talking about is a wrinkle he got from the Fraser Institute, not from any standard Economics Course. If he'd actually gone to university he'd realize that Frank's reference was radically simplified and that establishing the actual contribution of the 'multiplier' requires a sophisticated calculation that applies the effects of the marginal propensity to consume and also the marginal propensity to save.

But he's in business, after all. God help us!

"Be careful you don't fall and strike your ASS, the destruction of one more brain cell might be fatal.

Fixed it for ya G!

Can you disprove them? I doubt it. I'll bet you won't even try.

I'd love to try. I 've never seen his theory in detail but i'd love to take a look.

And the business world is disconnected? Just because you couldn't succeed in it doesn't make it a bad thing...

Sacrificed. Worked shifts. Made it work. Put their kids first. I detailed this in an earler post.

No, what I did for the last 3 days is talk about how things OTHER than available childcare programs affect birthrate. Frank came back with "more social daycare=morekids=more gdp." I used those numbers to show that it has not positively affected the birth rates nor the GDP in Sweden or Quebec. If you look at world GDP's per capita, it seems lower taxes acutally help GDP.

How? No one can dispute my numbers. No one can dispute these facts without making vague statements about love, peace, children and rainbows. I have stated more numbers than anyone on this post, most of which have been intentionally ignored because the truth hurts when it means you can't suck on the public teat anymore. Just like the Stones said "You can't always get what you want."

"Sacrificed. Worked shifts. Made it work. Put their kids first. I detailed this in an earler post."

Really TC? Seems to me you mentioned something about going to school. Then again if you were playing truant it would explain a lot.

Although I have been a member of the Fraser Institute in the past, that's not where the Divider Effect comes from. It has been studied mostly by Economist Ray Keating who has an MA in economics from New York University, an MBA in banking and finance from Hofstra University, and a BS in business administration and economics from St. Joseph`s College. But you're right. I failed to point out to thim that The marginal propensity to consume is only equal to the change in consumption divided by the change in disposable income that produced the consumption change. So if ten million dollars of taxpayers money funds a ferry. And the guys who use that ferry building salary buy a TV. It doesn't give more money to the TV shop owner cuz his taxes paid for the salary to pay the shipbuilders unions who wnet and bought tvs...

Stump, for your inability to scroll up, i'll re post it...

I come here because I like talking to people who think differently than I do. I am intrigued by how some people have no sense of personal achievement. No desire to make it on their own.

TC99
The point is that you actually haven't read very many of the comments that are posted here. I'll wager you don't even know what fiat lux even means. You certainly haven't taken the time to read the things he's posted here - which is sad actually.

As for your claim that you know anything about economics - other than the prejudices you and other 'buisiness' types get from your enablers at the Fraser Institute - you should have known that this whole rigamarole about the divider is nothing more than elaboration of an old critique by Hazlitt's of Keynesian theory

You obviously have some serious personal problems that you should definitely seek help to resolve, not least of which is the agressive misogyny that Alcibiades pointed out on the weekend. The other thing being that you see yourself as a rational being whose ideas are based on logic and facts. I'm sorry, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

You need help.

TC99
The point is, instead of being proud of your mother for the sacrifices she made, you denigrate all other women for not choosing to do what she did - in spite of a system which was stacked very seriously against her - and avoid the logical conclusion which should follow from your personal experience. Given a more cooperative and public spirited system your mother might not have had to make the sacrifices she did. That she might have kept her position (or been encouraged to work part-time for example) and also raised the family I'm sure she's very proud of if the society were not so dedicated to squeeze every last nickel out each business transaction.

If you don't find some balance in your life, you're going to end up with a huge pile of stuff some day and not a single friend - it won't have been worth it.

Actually I have read most of the postings here. As for Fiat Lux's theory, I wouldn't mind seeing his theory in its entirety. Just because I dsiagree with the communist thinking on the board does not mean that I haven;t considered it. Hell we were all Leftys once, back in University days. Then we got jobs and saw our taxes being taken...

Keynsian theory is far from perfect. Actually I do know a thing or two about econ. and I'd wager I have studied it far more than you have. They don't give you a business degree without it, and my economic success would not have been possible without my sound economic knowledge.

As for misogyny, what was once considered masculin is now considered misogyny. I guarantee I have employed more women than you ever have. I suggest that you take this sad sense of anger, this unfortunate reliance to live off the fat of the land and hardworking citizens like myself, and the lack of desire for personal achievment along with your sense of entitlement to a professional psychiatrist. I'm sure your union has it covered in you CBA.

I suggest if you don't find balance in your life G West, you're going to end up the most popular bankrupt communist, trying to have the state take care of him, this side of Beijing!

It's more like de-evolution. The Big Guns are making a monkey out of TC99!

lol, Stump. :-)

I was thinking more in terms of Frank's and G's ability to dissect tc99's argument point by point like a great trial lawyer would...but your interpretation works just as well for me...perhaps even better. :-)

My point TC was that you have benefited from a national child-care program, every day you went to school. Sorry for being so subtle.

Now the question is, why from five to 18, but not before? Do children lack the ability to learn before then? Not in my experience.

If you want your children to understand personal responsibility, their obligation to a community, self-respect, and self-restraint you'll get them in a quality daycare asap, because that's exactly the kind of things they teach. So, to summarize... the very problems you rail against would not be exacerbated by a national daycare initiative, they would be addressed.

If you didn't know this before, that's fine, but if you contend otherwise as of this point... in my opinion, you're either a dissembler of the worst kind, sacrificing the welfare of children to your personal erroneous beliefs or just plain thick and obstinate. I guess there's option three, I'm a liar, but I know that's not the case, so choose from column A or column B but stop trying to convince those of us who know better that good daycares are bad for children.

Masculine is now mysogynistic. Indeed. What nonsense. The strongest men I know are gentle at the core, they practice compassion, not vengeance. They certainly don't deny a child a chance to overcome a poor home situation to save a buck.

How revolting.

No we don't. There are lots of countries in the world with lower taxes and where people don't have a government to help them with schooling or health care etc. I can google too and provide a long list of countries I wouldn't want to live in but are closer to your ideal world than Canada is.

I don't think we as a group look at the world and each other often enough from a non-financial perspective.

You're doing it again. Everyone does not get to keep more. Some people are net beneficiaries, they lose when there's tax cuts.

Are you telling me you don't believe in a multiplier effect? Then what is your view of gov't spending on infrastructure and public services? A waste of time? What about corporations spending money? Is there a private side multiplier but not a public one?

Perhaps where you hang out but certainly not in the university I attended. Of course my profs were Keynesians. Until monetarists have had as much success as Keynesians I doubt I have much to learn unless its how to drive countries into the arms of the IMF.

I believe you've taken a huge step in the right direction.

Great so we'll have no child care program where kids aren't actually taken care of, I'm sure that'll work.

Does this increase the value of your argument? What if I said I was in business and worked with numbers, facts and stats more than you? Would you stop believing in what you believe in? Of course not. Doesn't matter what you do outside this place. For the record, I am in business and do work with numbers, facts and stats and especially logic, something that is lacking in most businesses and which I note you didn't include.

And yet you chant catch phrases more than most. I think I've heard every one of your "don't ask me for money" variations of the anti-tax theme a thousand times. Don't accuse others of rhetoric when you're going for gold on that front.

Like it or not we don't live in a machine world, we live in a human one and therefore philosophy, the arts, human history etc are going to play a large role.

Perhaps monetarism will work when there are no humans left, just robots. Until then don't expect too much from forcing human history and creativity into a formula on a spreadsheet.

Thank you Lynn :-)

TC99
You really do need to work on that anger. As for the union connection et moi; I really think the personal stuff is meaningless in this context but, for your information, the only time I was ever a union member was during summer jobs when I pulled on the green chain for Crown Zellerbach at Fraser Mills. If you know anything about the local area, you'll know that was quite a while ago, and I haven't been a union member since.

Fiat lux, by the way, means 'let there be light' - you could use a little.

Thanks Lynn always glad to see you.

Is Edmonton ever going to score Frank? Jeez, they just did!

Lynn, we're alking numbers here honey, maybe you can get your husband to explain it to you, sweetheart.

That, for those of you scoring at home, was a joke.

Stump

I have a hard time believing that kids who don't go to daycare have no future. What's amazing is your attack on mothers. Mothers can do more for children than some union new age hippie chick out of college working with them.

Now if you call schools national daycare, you're dead wrong pal. Schools aren't babysitting services, they are educational institutions (atleast they should be). Children go there to learn reading, writing, numbers, motor skills, social skills, and other things that will make them great contributing members of society. Kids who haven't reached that age are fine with their parents. The suggestion that you can't teach personal responsibility, their obligation to a community, self-respect, and self-restraint without national daycare programs would mean 99% of the human beings on this planet haven't been taught these values. Are you saying 100% of Norwegian kids don't possess these values?

G, do I lose my Cdn citizenship if I admit my hockey pool is full of Sharks and that I missed both games tonight?

Daycares aren't babysitting services either. That's exactly the point I was making. Children learn things there.

And I'm not saying parents can't teach those things. I AM saying that for someone who rails against the sub-standard child-rearing of the accidental parent, one would think you'd be happy they (the children) are out of the clutches of their dumbass progenitors who can't even use birth control properly (your characterization) and into some kind of relatively structured learning environment.

I'm sure the wide range of women who work at my daughter's daycare would be just delighted to hear themselves characterized as hippie chicks. Since we're throwing around inaccurate stereotypes mind if I call you a fascist?

But again you've simply demonstrated you won't let any amount of facts, personal testimony, and common sense change your way of thinking. For starters, why would people get on waiting lists and pay more for daycares when they could easily park their child at an unlicenced daycare if there were no benefit? If DEMAND for an expensive product outstrips supply, doesn't that by extension mean people want the product more than they want the cheaper, readily accessible alternative? You might check the classifieds and compare how many private childcare facilities have openings compared to ones run by organizations like the YMCA and so forth.

For someone who claims to understand economics, some of the more basic principles of the marketplace appear to escape you.

One final question. How does it feel to thing you're smart and yet have all these intelligent people laughing at you for your inability to incorporate and process new information that contradicts your erroneous viewpoint?

It's become obvious that you simply won't admit you're wrong. The sin of pride. How droll. How apropos. How pathetic.

"think you're smart" Haha joke's on me too.

Taxcutter
Man, you're slow. Cutting taxes (specifically to the rich like the Reps/Cons do) stimulate the economy in the short term... and run deficits. Ultimately, the government coffers get less and what happens when the Rep/Cons cut taxes as has happened any other time in history past and present? Deficits. Cut taxes for the rich to spend, great, economy gets a boost in the short, fine... until the red ink makes currency holders nervous and sell creating a drop in currency.

Do you know what happens to your money when it becomes devalued internationally, slowpoke? It devalues, period. The world is getting smaller, numskull. It means you'll be getting poorer trying to do anything beyond your sacred borders. So the government jacks up interest rates to prop up falling currency which is whats happening in the states. (interest that has to be honored at some point towards all that foreign investment, by the way, so taxcuts that devalue currency from deficits simply tax the future generations to come in more ways than one and if it isn't honored, well, say hello to your new prison with its walls at, you know it, the border.

And what happens with high rates? A slowing economy, thats what. As it continues, big ticket items stop selling. Real estate begins to devalue. As real estate devalues or as your bum buddies call it, a "correction", what happens next? A recession. Most caught highly leveraged with the devaluation of real estate generally goes tits up. I believe your fluffers call it bankrupcy and when the fish end up floating, even the whales (banks) begin to die off from the poison in the food chain and it continues to unravel. If it happens on a large scale from everything hitting at once:

falling currency.
inflation.
high interest rates.
devaluation of real estate.
shrunken manufacturing sectors.

What happens next? People go broke. Companies lay off. Those so called ecomomy stimulating Corporate tax cuts mean nothing now, as they aren't making money. Instead, they defer their losses on previous good years as it is in the U.S. and deficits ballon from there, increasing the spinning vortex down, down, down... I believe your asswipe friends call it a "recession".

You'd better get used to that word "recession" cause its coming within 3 years and it won't be kind to the rich or poor alike. Dummy yes men like you who support tax cuts to the rich in favor of deficits like Bush and Harper, are the reasons why banks win and lose in the high stakes game of real estate and currency exposure. If it wasn't for asian demand and U.S. war driving oil and metals, trust me, we'd be there now and within 3 years, mark my words, once Bush is gone and reality sets in, the R word will hit and whats next for the Con/Reps or any government that follows to pick up the pieces of braindead fiscal mismanagement?

Spending cuts. Namely social programs. Things like national daycare programs get mothballed. And when it gets to this point, marrages break up, people blow their brains out and guys like you blame it all on the government to follow. It happened in Canada in the late 70's, the late 80's and early 90's, and it'll happen again if this country foolishly listens to idiots like yourself and empowers Rep/Con govs who are so "good for business". And they are good for business... for a little while till the tab comes due. But like any good business man, who cares about the next generations chances, as long as you fully exploited your own at everyone elses expense. Right?

I believe my friends call it "just another pig at the trough. And if you think I'm being a little hard on you, well... needless preventable recessions supported by idiots like yourself are hard on everyone and on that note, I stopped caring about you're "feelings" some time ago.

Bad example TC, Norwegian municipalities are required to provide before and after school daycare to kids in the 6-9 age range.

The municipality decides how much of that cost to pass on to parents right up to 100%.

For kids not in school yet there are lots of daycare choices. Gov't provides funding even for privately run spaces.

It is a gov't aim to ensure there will be enough spaces for everyone who wants that option.

Just to add, Norway also provides a Harper-esque cash payment for kids between 1 and 3 not enrolled in daycare which 2 years ago was roughly $600 Cdn a month. If you check your calculators that's about 6 times more than Harper's plan. Plus of course you have real daycare options. Oh and a year of paid maternity leave and an optional 2nd year of non-paid maternity leave (your job remains safe).

No worries, Frank, your citizenship is safe. Edmonton only managed one goal - the Sharks got 2; Ottawa outplayed Buffalo everywhere but on the scoreboard - I'm gonna have to look at my prediction again. I was right about Carolina v Jersey though.

Frank you cut and pasted that right from the government of Norway's website. Doesn't take a lot of skill (believe me I know ;) The fact is, they don't have a Swedish style national program. And only 40% of their kids are in Daycare. That means 60% aren't.

Duncan, you're a farmer, and I like farmers. Hang out with lots of them. But i'm afraid you're wrong, son.

This only happens when the government decides to continue spending astronomical amounts. If we cut program spending while cutting taxes, we can still balance the budget. But another reason why is because of the failure of governments to pay off debts. If we did that, like Alberta did, we could save off the interest payments. Robert Mudell, who was not a farmer, but an economist said "Fiscal discipline is a learned behavior." In other words, eventually the unfavorable effects of running persistent budget deficits will force governments to reduce spending in line with their levels of revenue.

Do you know what happens to your money when it becomes devalued internationally, slowpoke? It devalues, period.

Red ink=devaluing currency? There are many more economic factors to this. For example, the huge current account defecits in the US that caused an insatiable need for cash and the lowering of the Canadian dollar against it while we had huge surpluses. About 4 years ago there was a great article about it in the Ivey Business Journal. If we have huge tax cuts, investors will buy up enough bonds to keep the interest rates low.

There are many examples of tax rates being good for the Economy. The 1980s in the US is not one of them. I have never been a fan of Ronald Reagan's economic policies. He cut too many taxes without cutting spending enough. What Paul Martin did in Canada was amazing. He cut program spending first, and then balanced the budget within two years. We're still riding that wave of surpluses. Most tax cuts throughout history have been good:

Across-the-board tax rate reductions introduced by Kennedy reduced the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. These lower rates, along with substantially lower taxes on savings and investment, are associated with the longest economic expansion in American history.

The Johnson surtax, enacted in 1968 during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, combined with the inflation-induced bracket creep of the 1970s (subjecting taxpayers to higher rates even though their real incomes had not changed), resulted in a decade of stagflation.

The tax rate increases imposed under George Bush (Senior) are associated with the slowest growing economy in 50 years and a decline of more than $2,000 in the average family's income.

According to the Heritage Organization, these US examples show that you are wrong:

Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of virtually no inflation).

The Kennedy tax cuts
Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The Reagan tax cuts
Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Now go milk a cow.

Stumpy, i'm not sure of your gender, but your nagging rantings sound like the fairer sex...Yet I have a hard time taking you seriously.

And I'm not saying parents can't teach those things.

Then let the parents teach them.

I am happy if they make that choice. And i'mhappy they decided to pay for it and do it for their kids. What's that? I have to pay for it? Cuz of their mistake? Miss Stumpy, is that your hand in my pocket?

As or these accidentals...The Ortho-Evra patch, if used leaves a 0.1% chance of pregnancy. Oral contraceptives have a 5% chance. I think a childcare subsidy hould cover 0.1% or 5%. The other 95% were planned and the parents should, therefore, have a plan. Now if people use less proven methods, hey, Russian roulette was never my game....

By the way abstinence is 100% effective. That's why god invented heavy petting, manual, oral and "other" stimulation, and flamesgirls.com.

TC99
you really are a piece of work. You can't manage to write (I should say cut and paste) anything without finding some way to insult women. I suggest you practice a little abstinence yourself, reproduction for some folks just wouldn't be a good idea.

TC99
Now I remember what I thought when I first read your stuff on one of these threads. You're a ditto head. One of those characters that believes the right wing effluvia of that motormouth drug addict undischarged felon Rush Limbaugh. You pull your stuff, which you clearly don't understand, off the website of one of the most right wing organizations in the US outside of the John Birch Society.

Alcibiades was right, you're not worth wasting anyone's time - you couldn't think for yourself if your life depended on it.

The Heritage foundation are the brilliant thinkers who decided the best way to profit from Hurricane Katrina was to throw out minimum wage and working condition guidelines and bring in cheap labour from out of state, among other things - the parasites. People who label inheritance duty the 'death tax' - who care more about the value of their investments than the lives of people who can't afford health care. I could go on but this crap makes me sick.

You, and they, are pathetic.

It did seem like the place to go to look for information on Norway do you not agree?

The point being Norway does indeed fund daycare. You'e used Norway as part of your argument but the fact is Norway funds daycare like I advocate here. I do not advocate a "national" system whatever it is you mean by that. I have advocated that gov't fund the creation of spaces and subsidize the cost. Norway does those things and therefore the country is more an example of what I want than it is an example of what you want.

Your point? Are you trying to create a straw man by hoping I want to create a Murdock-inspired State Farm 67 scenario where all kids are forcibly removed from their parents and sent to large dark buildings to be daycared? I could see why you'd like to argue against such a position but the sad fact is its not mine. I don't care how many kids are in daycare, I simply believe that it should be an option for parents who need it.

What he did was not that amazing. Anyone can balance their neighbours books by inflicting "pain" on their family. Martin didn't suffer from any of the cuts, other people did.

Quoting the Heritage foundation would be like me quoting the Communist Manifesto. What's next? The Cato Institute? You've been googling.

You keep missing the point that you are not paying for it. They are through their taxes. Just as you enjoy your life built on other people's taxes that created the infrastructure.

To be expected from the Heritage people. What about that little tussle called World War 1? I suppose its no coincidence that the economies of America's competitors were on the ropes that led to massive investments to supply Euro-demand (and other demand previously supplied by Europe)?

Add to that increased productivity from technology and new methods and increased amounts of money in the pockets of the little guys and you get economic expansion.

And we haven't even mentioned that little thing called the car which had a much bigger effect on the 1920's American economy than Coolidge's tax cuts. Only the Heritage people would claim otherwise.

In fact, its an easier argument to make which blames Coolidge and Hoover for the depression that soon followed.

Again, other factors are conveniently ignored such as the huge spending of the Vietnam War and the Cold War in general including the space race. Plus demographers might point to the baby boom generation reaching adulthood. That seems like a hell of a lot of "demand" to me. Just details that the Heritage guys want to ignore.

As for Reagan, here's a view from the other side, Paul Krugman write the following:

"Ronald Reagan put supply-side theory into practice with his 1981 tax cut. The tax cuts were modest for middle-class families but very large for the well-off. Between 1979 and 1983, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the average federal tax rate on the top 1 percent of families fell from 37 to 27.7 percent.

So did the tax cuts promote economic growth? You might think that all we have to do is look at how the economy performed. But it's not that simple, because different observers read different things from Reagan's economic record.

Here's how tax-cut advocates look at it: after a deep slump between 1979 and 1982, the U.S. economy began growing rapidly. Between 1982 and 1989 (the first year of the first George Bush's presidency), the economy grew at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent. That's a lot better than the growth rate of the economy in the late 1970's, and supply-siders claim that these ''Seven Fat Years'' prove the success of Reagan's 1981 tax cut.

But skeptics say that rapid growth after 1982 proves nothing: a severe recession is usually followed by a period of fast growth, as unemployed workers and factories are brought back on line. The test of tax cuts as a spur to economic growth is whether they produced more than an ordinary business cycle recovery. Once the economy was back to full employment, was it bigger than you would otherwise have expected? And there Reagan fails the test: between 1979, when the big slump began, and 1989, when the economy finally achieved more or less full employment again, the growth rate was 3 percent, the same as the growth rate between the two previous business cycle peaks in 1973 and 1979. Or to put it another way, by the late 1980's the U.S. economy was about where you would have expected it to be, given the trend in the 1970's. Nothing in the data suggests a supply-side revolution.

Does this mean that the Reagan tax cuts had no effect? Of course not. Those tax cuts, combined with increased military spending, provided a good old-fashioned Keynesian boost to demand. And this boost was one factor in the rapid recovery from recession that developed at the end of 1982, though probably not as important as the rapid expansion of the money supply that began in the summer of that year. But the supposed supply-side effects are invisible in the data.

While the Reagan tax cuts didn't produce any visible supply-side gains, they did lead to large budget deficits. From the point of view of most economists, this was a bad thing.

In response to these deficits, George Bush the elder went back on his ''read my lips'' pledge and raised taxes. Bill Clinton raised them further. And thereby hangs a tale.

For Clinton did exactly the opposite of what supply-side economics said you should do: he raised the marginal rate on high-income taxpayers. In 1989, the top 1 percent of families paid, on average, only 28.9 percent of their income in federal taxes; by 1995, that share was up to 36.1 percent.

Conservatives confidently awaited a disaster -- but it failed to materialize. In fact, the economy grew at a reasonable pace through Clinton's first term, while the deficit and the unemployment rate went steadily down. And then the news got even better: unemployment fell to its lowest level in decades without causing inflation, while productivity growth accelerated to rates not seen since the 1960's. And the budget deficit turned into an impressive surplus.

Tax-cut advocates had claimed the Reagan years as proof of their doctrine's correctness; as we have seen, those claims wilt under close examination. But the Clinton years posed a much greater challenge: here was a president who sharply raised the marginal tax rate on high-income taxpayers, the very rate that the tax-cut movement cares most about. And instead of presiding over an economic disaster, he presided over an economic miracle."

and

"Let's be clear: very few economists think that Clinton's policies were primarily responsible for that miracle. For the most part, the Clinton-era surge probably reflected the maturing of information technology: businesses finally figured out how to make effective use of computers, and the resulting surge in productivity drove the economy forward. But the fact that America's best growth in a generation took place after the government did exactly the opposite of what tax-cutters advocate was a body blow to their doctrine.

They tried to make the best of the situation. The good economy of the late 1990's, ardent tax-cutters insisted, was caused by the 1981 tax cut. Early in 2000, Lawrence Kudlow and Stephen Moore, prominent supply-siders, published an article titled ''It's the Reagan Economy, Stupid.''

But anyone who thought about the lags involved found this implausible -- indeed, hilarious. If the tax-cut movement attributed the booming economy of 1999 to a tax cut Reagan pushed through 18 years earlier, why didn't they attribute the economic boom of 1983 and 1984 -- Reagan's ''morning in America'' -- to whatever Lyndon Johnson was doing in 1965 and 1966?

By the end of the 1990's, in other words, supply-side economics had become something of a laughingstock, and the whole case for tax cuts as a route to economic growth was looking pretty shaky."

Frankly, my back's a little too hairy for me to be mistaken for a woman out in the real world. The place some of us live and work and seek solutions. I'm not sure where you live, although Disney World springs to mind with your ill-thought-out remedies for Fantasy Land.

If I were, what difference would it make? My ideas worth less? Lemme guess, about 60% of a man's opinion, that's about the current exchange rate for "womens' work" isn't it.

Haha, I'm LAUGHING at you, again. Because you're smart, but lack wisdom. Because you aren't "man" enough to admit your mistakes. Because you're laughable

Ta ra little man. It's been a slice to be part of the team exposing you as an idealogue without critical thinking skills, but I think I'll go spend my time on something more productive. Like doing the dishes.

Wow! My head is spinning!
TC99 speaks of abstinence - my guess is he practices! Either that or he found a woman who's deaf and doesn't read lips because I can't imagine any self-respecting woman ever even getting through a first date if he opened his mouth at all. In fact, maybe that's the root of all his "unhappiness" with the world.
Sorry...I couldn't help myself...my fingers just moved across the keyboard of their own accord!
G West, Frank, Stump - it seems as though you have some experience with early childhood care and education (ECCE) because you have described, many times, what actually happens here. Thanks YOU!! The continued reference to licenced ECCE programs as "institutionalized daycares" almost makes me stutter. The term, in it's negative connotation, is used as nothing more than an attempt to denigrate and demoralize the sector and the good people making a career in it.
I have some more thoughts to add but will return when I have a few more minutes. Right now the brats are screaming and rattling the bars on their cages. I guess it's time to shove some stale bread through the bars and refill their water buckets. I won't even type in an "lol" here because the fact that some want to imply that what I do comes anywhere near to the above description, whether they believe it or just want to condescend and demoralize, sickens me and believe me, folks, it is nothing to laugh at!

G West, your left wing humourlessness is awful. You're an angry old communist.

Frank, I mentioned i'm not a huge Reagan policy fan compared to the Martin, Kennedy and 1920s tax cuts. Sure there were other factors. But the tax cuts ended up stimulating the economy. Paul Krugman is an ivory tower economist. No real world implementation...typical leftist academic. As his fellow ivy leaguer Jim Cramer said once on Mad Money (I suggest you watch it, it'll help with your portfolio, the guy knows his stuff) Kramer is a Bubble Head.

This is from an article in the Economist: "Livingponds.com, a website that tracks partisanship among American political columnists, rates Mr Krugman second in the overall partisan slant of his columns, behind only Ann Coulter, a fiercely (and often incoherently) conservative polemicist. As the site documents exhaustively, the vast majority of Mr Krugman's columns feature attacks on Republicans; almost none criticise Democrats. Unsurprisingly, this has made him a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left—a thinking person's Michael Moore."
Obviously Paul Martin never suffered from the cuts...no Canadians did. Look at the increase in productivity! We ran surpluses and paid down the debt.

I find it funny when Canadians who support the NDP point to Clinton and the Democratic party as being in line with their beliefs. Under the taxpayer relief act signed by Clinton, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. In Canada, Jack Layton wants it to be 55%! The act exempted from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. Plus, it was to increase gradually to $1 million this year.

Clinton's best move was cutting the federal bureaucracy by more than 200,000 positions, its lowest level since the Kennedy Administration. And, he reduced the White House staff by 25 percent. He also cut federal spending by $255 billion. And don't forget about welfare reform! If we did that in B.C. (actually we kinda did) you guys would shed tears!

And don't forget the Defense of marriage ACT. When Clinton does it, he's a hero! If Harper did that, he'd be a zealot!

Stump said

Have you seen leftist, hippy, bra burning, lack of armpit shaving women? I bet you'd fit right in...

Bray away TC99. Bray away.

TC,

Krugman is a mainstream economist writing for the NY Times. He's certainly a better and more authoritive link than LivingPonds or the people you quoted, Heritage. 'nuff said.

No Canadians did? You're kidding right? Cuts to transfers and health care, provinces screaming and running deficits or passing on the cuts and yet no one was hurt? You're so ideological TC that you will even argue that black is white.

Another example of a straw-man? Don't want to try to defend your previous statements so you erect a new argument out of some clay?

I'll give you some time to google up a defence of your previous positions you seem to want to run away from.

Krugman is mainstream, and so is Bill O'Reilly. Krugman is one of the most criticized and is so left wing he makes Joy Macphail look like Maggie Thatcher.

Provinces ran defecits because of Marrtin? Not Ontario and Alberta...BC did and it didn't have to...

I don't run away from anything. And as for googling, you seem to be a master.

Why don't you declare a loss, go to your socialist haven, and let us taxpayers get back to paying for your entitlements.

Sure you don't want to go on about Norway again? Or have a run at motherhood? Or the tax cuts of Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan? It was fun watching you jump from one thing to the next as your previous positions became untenable.

Or would you prefer to just wrap yourself in your cloak of ideological purity, chant the usual phrases over and over and call it a day?

Go ahead, thanks for your time.

I would like to thank Gwest, Frank, Stump and others for posting coherent thoughts on this matter. The sad fact is that there is a shortage of daycare spaces not only in this province, but in all of Canada. Even if we follow the logic of TC, that only the rich should procreate, this leads us down a slippery slope. To continue follow the logic of TC, seems to translate into that the only people that matter are the ones who have money, we are basing a whole society/world on an intangible concept (Money- in case it was not obvious). To continue this logic, then only few percentage of the whole entire human race matter. This while convenient for the rich- it allows them to continue their practice of collecting more of an intangible object without a nasty little ethical voice bothering them about the conditions of their fellow humans. This attitude seems to forget that we are all in this together. The earth in reality is not that big and there are a finite number of resources that this planet has to offer humans. It is also very short sighted. Hmmmm, no national daycare system for the last 30 years, but there seems to be an increase call for more prisons. Could there be a connection between a lack of national daycare and the increase in crime? Let’s see, supporting parent’s help raise future tax payers costs taxpayers too much money, so we can just wait 20 years and build more prisons, to put the little buggers there, and to boot the taxpayers will be begging us to do so.
But that is neither here nor now. The fact is that Harpers $1200 cheque will be useless. 7 years ago daycare for me was $350 a month. Not taking in consideration inflation, that $1200 cheque would not get me 4 months of daycare. Now this was a good daycare, by no means as expensive as it would have been for me in a much larger urban centre, but still, $1200 measly daycare dollars is not going to buy a damn thing.
My problem with no set national daycare is that Daycares, unlike the rest of society has no mandate to accommodate disabled children. Fine and dandy for those who have full provincial funding and now the measly support from the federal government, but how can one access daycare when they have the right to deny your child access due to disability? Without a national daycare system in place, this will continue to happen. A national daycare program would ensure that ALL had access to use daycare if they chose to. It is not a question of can we afford to have a national daycare program, but can we afford not too?
And to answer TC’s question of birth control yes I use it, but as others have pointed out, no birth control method is 100 percent effective. No, according to TC’s standards, I did not have the “money” to have my child. Does this make my child less valuable? No, it does not. My child and his generation will one day running this country, and how we raise them now, will determine how this country turns out.

You don't respond to many of the examples and arguments put forth for you to provide refutations of. Instead, you devolve into name-calling and stereotypical, inaccurate descriptions of your better-informed critics.

I'll provide one example from previous post of mine and let's see if you run away for good this time, or if you can actually debate an issue.(we should be so lucky in either instance)

60% of Norwegians don't have childcare and they don't have a national communist daycare program

???

You simply acknowledged that I was right, but attributed the economic impacts to other factors, without showing theat impact trumping tax cuts. As for Reagan, I did criticize him, apparently you don't seem to retain much of what you read. And you criticized him by using workds from an Economist who is considered literally insane by top business people and scholars of Economics and people who have actually APPLIED theories for economic success.

Actually the crime rate has gone down over the last 25 years! The reason we need more prisons is because the Conservatives are going to end house arrest and make the existing prisoners and criminals in the future (within the context of this crime rate) PAY for their crimes in a cage.

This is typical leftist excuse-making. Criminals, rapists, robbers, muggers, murderers aren't bad people. They just weren't in socialized daycare...that's all.

Heehaw, heehaw. Keep it up Eeyore.

Stump, the men are talking sweetheart. Now go make me a sandwich

Let me guess, baloney? Lord know you're already full of it.

Run away little man, run away. There are questions here you don't want to answer.

But they do have a national plan to provide both income supports at home, extended maternity leave and support for daycare from both the private and public sectors. Your own example clearly backs my case. I like the Norwegian plan, you'd set your hair on fire if Harper adopted it for Canada.

As for your Coolidge tax cuts. You raised them as an example yet provided no facts to support your assertion. This is a problem with you guys on the right that fail to understand stats. You want to trumpet tax cuts as being responsible for the roaring 20's yet you ignore the fact that the boom times were underway before the tax cuts were implemented. The reasons are obvious as I outlined. The introduction of the car and the decimation of European economies due to WW1 and the rise of US industry because of the same war had already provided the impetus for economic expansion before the tax cuts were even dreamed up.

In the case of the Kennedy tax cuts you actually ignored the baby boomers reaching adulthood and the huge demands that made on the economy at the same as the Vietnam War, Cold War and space race were underway. In other words the Heritage people are so desperate to find historical support for their theories that they ignore more plausible factors.

WW I ended in 1918. The 1920s had started with very high tax rates and an economic recession. Tax rates were massively increased in 1917 at all income levels. Rates were increased again in 1918. Real GNP fell in 1919, 1920, and 1921 with a total three-year fall of 16 percent.

As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut. Andrew Mellon also provided business leaders with a list of tax loopholes which the IRS had drawn up at Mellon's request.

As for the Boomers, they had an impact, but the tax cuts were important. If you knew anything about business, you'd know that the boomers were not entering peak spending years.
In the mid 60's they were teenagers and children. They were more of a burden then a source of demand.

from treasury.gov

and

In other words the economy had already turned around and this allowed taxes to be cut.

More about Coolidge from americanpresident.org

You can jump back to freemarketproject.org now if you like.

The first boomers were entering the workforce and university by the end of the Kennedy administration. You may think 1000 couples with a few kids each moving into Nanaimo would be a drag on the economy but if you were in business you'd know that's garbage. I have yet to ever see a municipality say it doesn't want families because the kids are a drag on the economy. Geez that's funny.

You also forgot the Vietnam War, the Cold War etc. No economic expansion there either I suppose?

Also, I miss Norway. You used to bring it up and talk about their high per capita income and now that we know the Norwegian plan would be welcomed with open arms in Canada by those of us on the left you seem to want to forget Norway. Why is that?

"If you knew anything about business, you'd know that the boomers were not entering peak spending years. In the mid 60's they were teenagers and children. They were more of a burden then a source of demand."

Would that be the teenagers and children who are healthy and are rarely in need on expensive medical care, pension cheques, etc, or the teenagers and children who had more disposable income than ever before and became the favoured target of advertisers?

For a guy who blows hard about his expertise in economics....

Norway this, Norway that. Give it a rest Frank. You know the Norway stuff blew up in his face. It now officially doesn't exist. Didn't you get the memo from the Ministry of Truth? Henceforth it will be called Wrongway. A doubleplusgood change if ever there were one.

BTW, time to rejoice, chocolate rations have been increased to one gram from two!

Sorry Stump, I hate to go on about it but Narvik in the winter is just such a beautiful place. And don't get me started on those Trondheim sunsets.

That's great news on the chocolate ration though!

Now where's ClubOfRome? I just read last night that dolphins call each other by name and he was gonna get me a Dolphin Party t-shirt.

"Taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who labors because they are a burden on production and are paid through production. If those taxes are excessive, they are reflected in idle factories, in tax-sold farms, and in hordes of hungry people, tramping the streets and seeking jobs in vain."

-FDR

"greed is good"
-Gordon Gecko in Wallstreet

Here is what Arthur Shchlesinger, a historian said about Coolidge's legacy: "The federal budget shrank. The national debt was cut almost in half. Unemployment stood at 3.6 percent. Consumer prices rose at just 0.4 percent. During his term, there was a remarkable 17.5 percent increase in the nation's wealth. Total education spending in the United States rose fourfold. In the 1920s, illiteracy fell nearly in half. This was a golden age, by any standard."

an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
-JFK

If you're blaming the Depression on tax cuts, you clearly haven't read anything about it. The Depression had a multitude of causes, and tax cuts were not one of them. Your source says that people blamed Coolidge's tax cuts for the depression. Well, average people don't know wnything about economics, or they wouldn't be average now, would they? This is a rather simplistic argument on your part, obviously that of a layman. Economists have written about the causes of the depression for decades and you think you can some it up in one statement about taxes?

As for the boomers, they DID NOT reach their peak spending age. They did not reach their peak investment stage. Believe me, our agency looks for folks in this demo.

You aren't even intelligent enough to recognize that you bragged about the Clinton tax raise on the wealthy a few posts up, yet this is precisely when the boomers entered their peak stage! All 80 milllion of them! If they helped Kennedy when they weren't spending (and most of them weren't born yet) you can imagine what they did for Clinton?!

He died in 1963. The oldest Boomers were turning 17. Only 3,411,000 boomers were turning 17 that year. The rest were younger.

As for Norway, I already showed that they do not have a national daycare program. End of story.

You mean Wrongway.

Still wondering why you won't explain why the daycare system you hate has waiting lists, while private and unlicenced care has to advertise their availability? Haven't they issued the talking points for that yet?

Oh well, like me old Mum used to say... "wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." I'm guessing I'll have a handful of saliva before you tackle that 'stumper'.

Stump...the CBC doesn't have to advertise because it'll always have money from our pockets. Your public daycares are the same, and they have referrals from people in welfare,etc. Private daycares advertise because that is how you attract clients. By offering features that would benefit them. That's how a business works. As for what parents want, the Vanier Institute recently surveyed Canadians on this question, asking them to rank seven child-care choices by their preference on a scale of one to five. On average, parents picked institutional day care dead last, the study finding that 90% of mothers and 84% of fathers who were working full time would prefer to work part time and care for their children at home if they could afford it.

Significantly, public opinion on this issue crosses party lines. In a 2003 Compass survey of Ontario voters, 67% of confirmed Conservative voters, 64 % of NDP supporters, and 58% of Liberal supporters preferred care by a relative as a second choice to parents staying at home for an infant or pre-school child.

Twice as many Ontario voters preferred government helping parents to pay for whatever care THEY deemed best, as preferred governments giving money directly to day care programs. And in a 2004 Ekos poll, conducted while the federal government’s 2005 budget was being prepared, nearly twice as many Canadians favored parent –centered financial assistance for child care over more government assistance to child care programs.

"the study finding that 90% of mothers and 84% of fathers who were working full time would prefer to work part time and care for their children at home if they could afford it."

Thanx TC99 Now watch what happens when you engage in a real debate. You get treated like an intelligent person.

Not a surprising statistic is it though, when you look at the wording? I'm a big fan of daycares and even I'd agree with that statement. A bit like asking me if I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. Of course out here in the real world, most parents don't have the financial wherewithal to follow through with such a plan.

The rest will have to wait till later though I'm afraid.

BTW, the CBC does have to advertise. A poor example.

Really? You actually used the phrase "multitude of causes"? Funny how you never use that phrase in regards to tax cuts.

My source? Its a right-wing website and since you don't like economists who disagree with you I thought you might like it. But yes, the source does say that.

Yes, the 1920's were a boom time. Probably why they call them the roaring 20s. Unfortunately you've been completely unable to prove that it had anything to do with Coolidge's tax cuts which was the assertion you pulled out of thin air awhile back because you decided it was something you wanted to discuss.

Yes, from a right-wing website, treasury.gov Not that the US treasury would know anything about taxes and economics in the US. Also, it was a quote. I can see why you're confused by it. I didn't realize you began reading only today.

I did? Or are you not intelligent enough to understand you're arguing with Krugman's discussion of the Reagan tax cut. Or are you calling me Krugman?

Here's a thought for you, perhaps the baby boomers helped the entire economy during many presidents. I know this thought might be hard to grasp.

Also, you ignore the fact that families require products and services and therefore communities are happy to have them. 1000 families moving to Nanaimo is a bigger boost to the local economy than 1000 individuals.

Only 3.4 million 18 year olds in 1964? I'm sure that had no effect on the economy... Just as the products and services demanded by 3.4 million 17 year olds in 1963 would have had no effect on the economy...

And yet they do. Guess the story isn't over after all. The Norwegian gov't provides support for both public and private daycare systems in Norway. Its a gov't objective that everyone who needs a daycare space has one. As well as stay-at-home supports and extended maternity leave. Gotta love Oslo in the summertime.

I am very curious about a number of issues that stem from this topic. One being the standard no questions asked attitude that daycare has to be provided by an institutional setting. Many of us boomers were the results of loving caring private caregivers. And with some exeptions we managed to live happy and grow up with no huge problems. At the same time there is a need for other kinds of care as well., Surely the choice should be with the parent on this issue. The next seemingly potlically correct thing is to go directly into attack mode when the word Private company enters the debate. Where is it written that only non profit or parent run daycare is preferable. We see the image of the nasty coperation painted and it seems to me that again this is an unfair critique. No doubt the harper program is a huge departure from what the LIberals had planned and from the position taken by Women's groups. And for the purpose of this debate I will assume it is greatly lacking. But what is needed is for a rational debate on the issue with a variety of options open for discussion and not the fear mongering that happens on this issue.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.

Tom, if gov't run daycares, private daycares and parent run daycares don't pretty much cover all the bases I don't know what else to add. I don't think you read all the posts and really, why would you bother?

The problem is we don't have enough of any type and not everyone who needs them can afford them if we did.

The Harper plan won't help the situation.

Just got back from Denmark where I saw my 4yo nephew in his state funded daycare. We should be so lucky in this country. Music, theatre, dancing, reading rooms etc. I defy any SAHM to provide the same intellectual stimulation he recieves. Quite amazing. I see things here haven't changed. A new story on child care and another debate. It's patently obvious the neocons are not open to discussion and intelligent debate. Same old tired facts and statistics. Same old insults to women. The tiny, greedy, hate filled, closed minds of the 'survival of the fittest' crowd will remain just that. This country is done like dinner. I should have stayed in Europe.

Tom Lal: Your reference to the "institutional setting" and it's negative connotations, in my opinion, is just another "fear mongering" tactic. The word institution or institutional implies so many negative things, at least in my mind - maybe I'm all alone here..? You're right - many boomers are the result of loving caring private caregivers. I also wouldn't dispute that there are still a great many people caring for other people's children in their homes and that they are, in many cases, loving, caring individuals - I know this for a fact. There are also; however, a great many who just want a few extra bucks in their pockets, accept and "care" for far more children than should be acceptable. I've known of people having up to 18 children in their home from the ages of 6 months to 8 years - this is absolutely ridiculous and is, indeed, against the law! That is why, at least in New Brunswick (and most other provinces/territories, as far as I'm aware) the Family Services Act requires people to licence. Why should one's child care centre, all of a sudden become an "institutional setting" once one has done the "legal and right thing" and earned a certificate on the wall saying it is "licenced". Becoming licenced/regulated under provincial departments of Family & Community Services (F&CS) provides a "guarantee" (if you will) for parents/families that a centre - at the bare minimum has been inspected by a coordinator/licensing inspector from F&CS, has been inspected and approved by a Fire Marshal and a Health Inspector - this is the BARE minimum. In fact, inspectors from F&CS drop in on "surprise visits" at least 4-5 times per year (and more if they have had concerns or complaints on previous visits). Regulated centres are also far more likely to have staff trained/educated in early childhood development, developmentally appropriate practice and on and on...
I won't dispute, either, that every parent should make the choice of where they choose for their child's early childhood care - whether that's at Grammie's house, Aunt Alison's house (when she has chosen to be a SAHM with her two children, for instance), to have one parent stay at home or a licenced, regulated early childhood development centre/child care centre/daycare/"institutional setting". The basic fact remains, however, that a great many parents do choose the licenced ECDC/daycare, and research (a great number of studies over the past decade and a half, at least) does indicate that the most significant factor in "child outcomes" (if you will) is the level of quality being delivered - many of those studies have been sited in the above postings. If anyone's interested, I'll be back to provide further info. on the indicators of quality which is directly related to the reasons behind the development of a National Child Care Agenda to begin with...right now, however, I have a group of children waiting to go to the public library for our bi-weekly visit.

aalborg:
Though I, by no means, am suggesting that you were implying the following point, when you defied any SAHM to provide the same intellectual stimulation as your nephew receives, you DID raise an important point - this whole debate is not a competition of who is better equipped/able to "raise" Canada's children as some critics of supporting regulated child care keep on implying. Critics keep trying to force words down our throats; implying we believe that all Canadian parents are incompetent and therefore should just let us "professionals" "raise" the children. Baloney! Hogwash! Again, a bunch of people trying to muddy the waters by putting parents on the defense and pitting them against providers of the abhorrent "institutionalized daycares". Critics of gov. regulated child care jumped on the whole "beer and popcorn" comment; saying how the self-serving early childhood educators think that parents are stupid and don't know what's best for their own children and on and on.... In fact, the beer and popcorn foolishness was merely a "dig" at the pitiously small amount of money that parents would get and the lack of accountability the whole arrangement provides. Then, the whole fiasco arose with the comment about the greater investments in prisons as "that's where all the poor children raised without a National System will go"... Again - foolishness - all blown out of proportion. Admittedly, the phrasing of the statement could have been better thought out but the bottom line is that research does support the theory that money invested in QUALITY early childhood care and education saves a bundle "down the road" - "for every $1 spent on child care there is a $2 economic benefit" (The Benefits and Costs of Good Child Care, Gordon Cleveland & Michael Krasminsky, 1998). There is a tremendous amount of research and information available on the Canadian Child Care Federation website: cfc-efc.ca
Take a look...now I have to go pick the pre-school children back up from the public library. Be back soon

Adding my piece....I got started on the child care issue in the last go-round here before I went away. My daughther is a single mom who recieves a subsidy from the BC govt. to help her with the costs of daycare as her salary is not enough to cover the full cost. My grandson is in a licensed home daycare with a wonderful woman who truly loves what she does. My grandson is very happy there and the activities and other children he is exposed to has been very positive. I can see no differences in what my nephew and my grandson recieve in those different settings. All I know is they are two very happy toddlers who seem bright beyond their years. I was a SAHM 25 years ago and didn't believe in daycare at that time. My girls were in sports, ballet, piano, swimming etc. but I kept my mind open and time and circumstance has taught me that daycare, can be just as good as, if not better than what I provided my kids. I am truly horrified at what harper is going to do to those who need help via subsidies. The above article's suggestion that this is pitting SAHM against those who work has found merit with me. I've encountered the attitude IRL and like harper there is no changing the narrow minds of that group of women. The super mommy group who look down on single mothers and daycare. They are aided and abetted in that attitude by the harper government. I've been writing all government officials at every level and doing what I can but I think it is a losing battle and Canada is in for a lot of pain on so many levels if this government continues in power. Unfortunately, I think it will. The crowd that worships at the altar of the dollar bill and cares nothing for society is growing. Those of us who want a civil society and don't begrudge helping or giving a hand up to those who need it are becoming the minority. I never thought I would see that day in this country but it's here.

How about Business Ed?

Again, your failure to understand business demography doesn't surprise me. People are not equal in the economic sphere...some people are worth more in terms of their peak spending years! They helped more in certain years than in others. Such as, when they were all in adulthood and in their peak spending years!

Business ed for a 4yo? Your obsession with business is bordering on weird. You are an example of one who should have had more exposure to the arts. Use your whole brain instead of the one small part you currently utilize. You would be more of a well-balanced individual today. Culture is inbred so you lose out there. From what I've read here, your understanding of business leaves a lot to be desired. Then again, your approach to life leaves a lot open for discussion. We've heard the term 'ugly American' and I am rapidly coming to realize we've our own fair share of 'ugly Canadians' emerging since the installation of the harpo government.

Dude, it was a joke. The only thing inbred here is you

Hmm, they teach them not to lie, cheat, and steal. Clearly the kids DO need some business education to counter that kind of feel-good nonsense.

Neo-Con preschool curriculum

Ethics: That's Mine! 101
Sports: The Art of the Dive
Science: Seven Days to Bipeds (bring your own clay)

History: A short History of the Almighty Dollar
English: Saying One Thing Meaning Another. Introductory Dissembling
Math: Beginning Statistics and Probability - Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.

aalborg:
I was reading the previous discussions (just not participating) and remember reading your explanation of your daughter's situation - I agree! Actually, it's worth noting that I wasn't aware of any intended changes to the subsidized child care program. Of course, I don't live in B.C.; however, I do know that in N.B. the loss of the agreement will not have any impact on the "child care assistance program" which would be the program you're refering to in B.C. Just a thought...have you contacted the professional association for early childhood care & education in B.C. for info on what may happen with the loss of the agreement. I know that there is more than one association in B.C. - unfortunately I've been unable to put my hands on the contact info for the B.C. associations' representatives; however, you could e-mail the Canadian Child Care Federation at the following e-mail address:

and ask who to contact in B.C. regarding your concerns. Most, if not all,of the provincial/territorial associations across Canada are affiliated with the CCCF. (I think the name of the assoc. is "Western Canada Family Child Care Association"???). You might have a better chance of getting some straight answers.
As for the ECCE setting your grandson is in vs. the setting your nephew is in - you're right - I hope you didn't think I was implying that an ECE operating in a home setting may be providing a less quality environment than one operating on a larger scale (you know - in an "institutionalized daycare" - sarcasm dripping off these words). That was not my intent - my goal was to point out the benefits of finding a "licenced" setting - whether that be a licenced home child care centre or a larger scale licenced day care setting - both are regulated under Family & Community Services. I hope you find some answers from the B.C. assoc. for ECCE. Good luck

Stump:
Didn't forget some other vital courses:

Accounting 101 - creative approaches to the bottom line taught by Bernie Ebbers;
Marketing 200 - convincing people to buy their energy from thieves - Text written by Kenneth Lay; and of course
Management 500 - a graduate seminar led by George W Bush

Socialist preschool curriculum

Josef Stalin Memorial Dayschool
Why raise your kids when we'll do it with taxpayers' money?

Daily Schedule
8:00 am Spelling: Any kid that does well on the spelling test weill be berated for doing better than those "less fortunate spellers."

8:30 am Sports: The art of non-competition. The winning team must give its excess points to the losing team. If a team loses, they didn't fail, we as a society failed them.

9:00 am Snack time. Free Heroin will be provided.

9:30 am Science: There is no point to learning science, or anything else, because by the time you kids are 8, climate change and global warming, or global cooling, or perhaps globalization, or Canwest global, will have killed us all. Special Guest teacher: David Suzuki.

10:00 am History: Your guide to the Bolshevik Revolution and how to make it happen in Canada.

11:00 am Art: How to make Tie-Dyed Che Gueverra T-shirts.

11:30 am Law: Criminals are our friends. Kids get to sit on uncle Clifford Olson's lap and hear about how he is unfairly treated in a prison.

12:00 pm Free Lunches. Since the staff is unionized this (paid) lunch will be two hours long. More free heroin.

2:00 pm English: Book Report on Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent."

2:30 pm Snacktime. All the kids whose moms packed cupcakes for them will be forced to give their cupcakes to poorer kids.

3:00 pm Storytime: Today's feature: Danny's Dad the Tranny and

3:30 pm Math: We study the value of Defecits, with special textbooks written by Glen Clark and Joy Macphail.

4:00 pm Time to go home! Public Transit only! If you don't have enough fare, kust beat up the driver! The justice system won't care!

aalborg
Nice to have you back again, my friend, you've been missed.

TC99:

Good try. Want to know why my post is marginally funny and yours is just stupid?

I based the satire on a semblance of reality, not misperception. That way I didn't have to spell it out for people. Nothing is less funny than a supposed comedian announcing the punchline.

Take the Seven days to Bipeds. See, that's pretty witty, cuz a lot of Neo-cons believe in intelligent design. Good luck trying to find a 'socialist' who's a fan of Stalin.

In fact, it's the best one of the lot by my reckoning. Even more so with the parenthetical statement added, cuz you know a neo-con pre-school wouldn't be doling out free supplies. The subtle twist of the knife makes all the difference... and the humour is right there in the course title, so I don't have to explain the joke.

Maybe you should stick to something you know, like economics and the Norwegian daycare system. Oh wait. Oh well, I'm sure you're good at something. From what I've seen you're pretty handy with a shovel and manure. You'll fit right in with the Reeks and Wrecks. That's a subtle pop-culture literary reference. Culture, you know, the stuff in yoghurt.

See, I'm even funny when I take the piss out you. It's a gift, what can I say?

p.s. use the tags on both ends of what you wish to make [B]bold[/B}. Thanks for playing.

let's try again

bold

I suck. Where did he mention Stalin?

If only my Mom had put me in daycare instead of leaving me with my aunt while she worked.

Ah, there it is, right at the top. Josef Stalin.

At least you spelt his name right. But, you're probably right up to speed on dictators. Kind of a how-to thing, right?

TC99:
There's an expression -
"There's a difference between scratching your ass and tearing it all to hell"
Your ass has got to be bleeding!
Where do you get the idea that anyone from the ECCE sector is proposing to be "raising" other people's children? You are the only one who wants to suggest it - perhaps your offspring would be better off being raised in an "institution" but I've been involved in ECCE, in a wide range of capacities, for over fifteen years and I've never encountered an ECE suggesting that we are "taking over" for parents. Our role is a support to families, not a replacement - that's called foster care - not daycare!
Just curious - what's your issue with people getting paid a fair wage for doing an important job? You make cracks about 2 hour lunches breaking up a 6 hour work day - I think you've gotten school teachers confused with early childhood educators! The main differences are that ECEs work full 8-9 hour shifts with, generally, an unpaid lunch hour. We work all year round without paid storm days, spring breaks and 12 weeks off in the summer. We clean our own classrooms, empty our own garbage cans, sweep and mop our own floors and much much more for a hell of a lot less pay. About a third, in NB, in fact. The highest T4 I generated (out of 13 employees) last year was a measly 17, 000. So while you're digging at your butt - you can shove that up it.

Stump: Yes, I must say, I do get a chuckle out of your posts

Thanx ADP! Music to my ears.

One more comment and I'll drop it for now.

TC99:

BTW, you should check out the childhood experiences of Stalin, and of Saddam while you're at it. Might give you an idea why some of us think punishing the child for the short-comings of the parent is a losing proposition with a long-term downside.

Stump, you're not funny. Leftists are not funny ie Janeane Garofolo. You guys are too politically correct to be funny.

Wow, you're right that's hilarious. I could imagine you sitting around with a bunch of hippies. "Hey what do they teach at a right wing school? The history of the dollar!! HAHAH" These might sound funny when you guys smoke pot.

Funny, Alan Keyes used the exame same argument to oppose Abortion. Why should the kid suffer cuz the mother couldn;t keep her legs closed?

You're a real a$$hole tc99!