Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Also, I think Hinman wasn't totally wrong with his childcare diatribe... but was saying it for the wrong reasons. Children need to be in loving, caring environments wherever possible. Insititutional daycare is not ideal... but some people don't have that choice. Many people do though... and rather than asking the woman to be barefoot and pregnant with child in pure regressive style, the government should extend incentives to fathers, mothers, grandparents, relatives, older siblings and stay-at-home family friends to watch the children. That has the two-prong benefit of reducing daycare space for those who truly need it, and encouraging the family (in whatever way, shape or form people choose).
|
Thanks for the reply Thunderball. You bring up some good points. The whole childcare issue is one that could take a long time to debate. For me, it really narrows down to this. I think the consumer mindset and philosophy has overridden personal responsibility and choice. You see, people need to have 2000 sq feet house, 3 cars, boat, vacation property,etc. These have become financial needs rather than wants. What happens?? People who choose to have children now feel its the government and taxpayer's responsibility that they have all these "needs" and still have fiscal help for their children. If you choose to acquire these goods, then you have to make sacrifices. If you want children, fine. But its your social and fiscal responsibility to not burden the taxpayer by your decisions. This consumer society suddenly makes all these wants=needs. Therefore, I have to subsidize their lifestyle with my tax dollars. I hate that my financially and socially smart decisions allow others to make unwise decisions because they know that they have this social net supported by tax dollars. I'd rather this province wouldn't tax and spend to support people who do not think long term,responsibly and fairly. It just doesn't seem right.