Liberals back-peddle from remarks about parents

[transplant99]

In response to the Tory plan of giving parents an allowance to go towards day care as they see fit to spend it, here is what one of the Prime Minister's top aides thought Canadians in general would do with it...

"Working families need care that's regulated, safe and secure," he said. "Don't give people 25 bucks (a week) to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child care spaces that work."

Whoops!!

Kind of funny actually.

What's really funny though is that the Grits actually believe they can run a NATIONAL day care program within ANY sort of budget.

When is the last time they did anything like this that didn't go into extra BILLIONS of tax payers dollars getting wasted?

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Election...49307-sun.html

[Mr. Ski]

I'll admidt that I like beer and popcorn as much as the next guy... but to suggest that I'd opt for that or something else stupid over the needs of my child is really pretty insulting.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ski

I'll admidt that I like beer and popcorn as much as the next guy... but to suggest that I'd opt for that or something else stupid over the needs of my child is really pretty insulting.

You might not, but I have no doubt that many people would. It's a pretty messed up world.

[Resolute 14]

As if the Liberals have any right to comment on the inability to properly spend money.

Talk about the height of hypocricy.

[Clarkey]

The reality is, for a lot of people that money would go straight into the smokes and liquor budget. Obviously it's not politically intelligent to say so though.

[Mr. Ski]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You might not, but I have no doubt that many people would. It's a pretty messed up world.

Flip your argument around then... how can we trust anyone to raise their own children. Trusting them to wisely spend an extra $100 on care options is the least of societies worries really. How about the really tough decisions. Why not just let the government make all the choices for us, lest we do something wrong.

Back to reality: I'm not saying a government run mega-care system would be a bad choice for everyone, it just shouldn't be the only tax-sponsored choice to the exclusion and belittlement of all other child care choices including, but not limited to -- small comunity based not-for-profit care, day homes, or heaven forbid... stay at home parents!

[Cowperson]

I would agree that giving people $100 a month would be spent on beer and popcorn . . . .

However, a national, federally funded, daycare program is probably a black hole for government mismanagement and excess.

It's probably cheaper for taxpayers, and just as effective, to hand out $100.

Cowperson

[underGRADFlame]

Well they did such a bang up job with Gun control, why not think that the liberals can duplicate that sucess with child care.

[Mike F]

All of you guys jumping on this might want to consider that the program doesn't propose that the Federal gov't set up and administer a national daycare program, but just commits to transferring the money to the provinces, who would then set up and administer the program.

From the Globe & Mail:

"His announcement Tuesday would give the provinces and territories $1.2 billion each year for another five years to 2015."

"He also said the money gives the provinces the stability to expand their programs and investments."

Of course you'll probably find a way to criticize this too.

[duncan]

Being a shift worker, government sponsored Childcare is utterly useless. The one and only Municipal Childcare Centre, opens at 8am, and closes at 4:30pm. I report for work at 6:30am, and finish at 7pm. There is no early drop-off option, so to use this centre, I would have to hire an early morning sitter, to come in at 6:15, and have them take them in when it opens. $10 plus driving expenses, and $30 daily fees each day. My wife and I both work shifts, so afternoons and nights, it is family or sitters.
Problem 2; 95% of all funding will go to larger urban centres. I live in a small rural town, so nothing will trickle down to us. $1200/year won't cover my childcare expenses, but it would help. Should some choose to spend it on something else, so be it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Mike F

All of you guys jumping on this might want to consider that the program doesn't propose that the Federal gov't set up and administer a national daycare program, but just commits to transferring the money to the provinces, who would then set up and administer the program.

From the Globe & Mail:

"His announcement Tuesday would give the provinces and territories $1.2 billion each year for another five years to 2015."

"He also said the money gives the provinces the stability to expand their programs and investments."

Of course you'll probably find a way to criticize this too.

Of course we will. Instead of one horribly inefficient program, the Liberals plan to fund twelve horribly inefficient programs?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Of course we will. Instead of one horribly inefficient program, the Liberals plan to fund twelve horribly inefficient programs?

Thirteen, actually.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Mike F

All of you guys jumping on this might want to consider that the program doesn't propose that the Federal gov't set up and administer a national daycare program, but just commits to transferring the money to the provinces, who would then set up and administer the program.

From the Globe & Mail:

"His announcement Tuesday would give the provinces and territories $1.2 billion each year for another five years to 2015."

"He also said the money gives the provinces the stability to expand their programs and investments."

Of course you'll probably find a way to criticize this too.

Of course I will. Try getting a daycare spot in Quebec. $5 and $7 a-day daycare has been 'available' there for years. There are more families on the waiting list then in the daycares and a lot of spots are taken up by families that could easily afford private daycare - why don't they opt for it you may ask, well two reasons - 1. my understanding is that private daycare is not available in QC (happy to be corrected on this) and 2. why pay when you are entitiled to get it for next to nothing.

There is not a Liberal policy that has not been tried here or abroad that has been a success (yes, there are plenty of flaws with the other parties as well - $1200 a year doesn't come close to the actual cost of daycare)

Public Daycare - a failure in QC
Public Health Care - Librals can't stop it in QC or BC
Ban Handguns - Austrailia can't make it work and they don't have the US right next door.
Tax Cuts & Shelters - you'd think Martin would have this one down since his family's company has been dodging Canadian taxes since it's inception - but once again he fumbles the ball.

I applied for subsidised ($40 a day) daycare in Toronto and qualified and was informed I got a spot - 18 months after I applied (the kid was still in the womb when I applied). A one size fits all solution will only help the beureaucrats.

[RougeUnderoos]

"I feel a sense of sadness when I hear these comments," Mr. Harper said. "We value parents. We think parents are the most critical part of raising kids."

Ha ha. He really hit that one out of the park.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

- $1200 a year doesn't come close to the actual cost of daycare

Thats the point, it's not the governments responsibility to raise your kid, so they should not pay the entire cost. As for this plan, it's a bit of a subsidy to lighten the load; And doesn't punish parents who don't use the service.

This is basically $1200, saying we support parents having kids, here is some help.

Who cares if it's for daycare, or diapers.

[duncan]

Originally Posted by fotze

Would you want your kid to be taken care of a couple unionized workers that are consistantly having their benefits eroded and could care less if your child stopped attending the daycare since they will get the same budget money anyway. Or would you want to have a company that is willing to give you good customer service in order to keep their business successful.

It should be the daycare allocation for all parents or no program at all. THe government should not favour one particular type of child rearing over another.

Does it make a big damn difference that they are unionized? I am a unionized employee, I take care of teenagers, and I am damn proud of the way I do my job. I know several non-unionized workers, that look for every possible way to avoid work, or just screw around. Have you ever had a non-unionized plumber/electrician/builder, not quite give you customer service? It does actually happen. Hell, the two daycare facilities that were found to be fronts for child molestation, were privately run. Customer service isn't the only method of success; expense, location, hours, etc, all play parts.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Ace

Thats the point, it's not the governments responsibility to raise your kid, so they should not pay the entire cost. As for this plan, it's a bit of a subsidy to lighten the load; And doesn't punish parents who don't use the service.

This is basically $1200, saying we support parents having kids, here is some help.

Who cares if it's for daycare, or diapers.

Read the whole post. I agree it is not the govm't's responsibility to raise my kid.
Want to put forth a real plan that encourages private daycare for those that need it - increase the tax break, currently a max of $4000 per year per kid as a child care deduction, and instead of creating a new "$1200 child care" cheque, increase the 'baby bonus' cheque (no new beaurocracy in that) to $1200 - which is tied to household income so those on the low end get more.

In other newa - Paul Martin is desperate - can't win the daycare debate, can't win the tax cut debate, can't win the health care debate, going to get burned on Integrity, senior's policy and Unity, so.........he is calling on Harper to clearify his stance on gay marriage.

will it ever end.

[duncan]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

In other newa - Paul Martin is desperate - can't win the daycare debate, can't win the tax cut debate, can't win the health care debate, going to get burned on Integrity, senior's policy and Unity, so.........he is calling on Harper to clearify his stance on gay marriage.

will it ever end.

The big issue the Liberals are pushing here is Harper's supposed lack of empathy for minorities. every other political comercial has a visible minority discussing the Liberals' stance on equality, in a backhand slam that the Conservatives are anti-women and anti-immigrant.
Harper does need to wear make-up in his commercials though, damn that man has "dead-man" eyes.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by transplant99

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Election...49307-sun.html

That's basically what Fozzie and the Fib-crowd were saying in the other thread IIRC isn't it? They'd rather have Martin pee away the billions than to give it to parents because they trust Martin more than the parents to pee away their tax dollars?

[MarchHare]

In other newa - Paul Martin is desperate - can't win the daycare debate, can't win the tax cut debate, can't win the health care debate, going to get burned on Integrity, senior's policy and Unity, so.........he is calling on Harper to clearify his stance on gay marriage.

And yet they're still up in the polls. Boy those damn Easterners sure are stupid.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...lDecision2006/

That being said, a trend may be emerging in Ontario.
Mr. Martin's Liberals now have the support of 40 per cent of the province's voters, compared with 24 per cent for Stephen Harper's Conservatives and nine per cent for Jack Layton's New Democrats.
That's the highest level of Liberal support since last May, marking a rise of 10 percentage points since the beginning of December.