Child care options

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Well no kidding, but since when should gov't compensate a private individual for a choice freely taken. If I choose not to go to university, should I get the portion of costs covered by the gov't?

Holy brainless analogy, Batman!

The people of this country have evidently chosen that raising children WELL is a benefit to society. Similarly, we know that going to university (or virtually any post-secondary education) is a benefit to society, for the most part.

Parents who choose to stay home do so because they think that's the best way to raise children. They are actively benefiting the country, and should be entitled to the same benefits given to those who want daycare, IF there must be benefits at all.

I can't believe I took the time to explain that one. If the above was too complicated, try this:

Raising children well = GOOD
Living on high school education = BAD

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I agree with you - but what does getting $1200 per year do towards this goal? Does it make an existing stay at home parent any better? Will it improve the currently existing daycares? Really, in what way does money in your pocket improve your parenting. I might buy that parents would be slightly less stressed financially, but it seems weak that $100/month would improve enough parents lives that suddenly they will become better parents.

Would it make an existing stay at home parent any better? Never know.. they might choose to buy extra educational materials with that money, or might just use it for every day expenses. Never know.

One thing that it might do is allow more parents who want to stay home the ability to do so. As you said, $1200 isn't that much, but it can be the difference between being forced to work and being able to stay home. Why try and take that choice out of the parents hands by only subsidizing one of the choices?

[MarchHare]

For those that stay at home, how much of a dent is $1200 going to put into their expenses either?

Do you really think that the Liberals (or any government for that matter) could really come up with a viable, practical, accountable, and efficient system for the same amount of money?

No, I don't think $1200 per year is really going to make a huge different to anyone, which is yet another reason why I'm opposed to this scheme. It's a waste of tax dollars that isn't really going to benefit anyone. To a stay-at-home parent, an extra $100 per month really isn't going to allow a parent to not work if they weren't already able to subsist on a single income anyway, and to a family where both parents work, $100 per month will barely dent their daycare expenses.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I don't think this is a flaw at all. If the issue is daycare, stay at home parents do not have the issue. Daycare is supposed to allow mothers to return to the workforce, not compensate stay at home mothers.

I think this is where some people have the problem... If the government supports the daycare but doesn't do an equal support for stay at home parents, they are essentially saying they prefer people to work rather than take some time off to raise their children.

That's why I want the equality; not because of some amount of money I may or may not get or some sense of injustice, but because I don't support the idea of government encouraging daycares and discouraging stay at home parents.

Saying that, I wonder how many people would actually make that decision based on $$? I know I wouldn't put my son in full time daycare regardless of the incentives offered.

[MarchHare]

I think this is where some people have the problem... If the government supports the daycare but doesn't do an equal support for stay at home parents, they are essentially saying they prefer people to work rather than take some time off to raise their children.

Photon,

Do you also believe that parents who choose to homeschool their children should be paid a teacher's wage by the government?

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Holy brainless analogy, Batman!

The people of this country have evidently chosen that raising children WELL is a benefit to society. Similarly, we know that going to university (or virtually any post-secondary education) is a benefit to society, for the most part.

Parents who choose to stay home do so because they think that's the best way to raise children. They are actively benefiting the country, and should be entitled to the same benefits given to those who want daycare, IF there must be benefits at all.

I can't believe I took the time to explain that one. If the above was too complicated, try this:

Raising children well = GOOD
Living on high school education = BAD

All right, bring out the insults, moron. Is it your contention that every analogy needs to fit the situation in every respect? I'll take the time to lay out an analogy that fits your oh so exacting specifics, clown.

Suppose I spend my time volunteering at an upaid job. My opportunity cost is that I could have spent the time working - should the government compensate me for my altruism? Volunteering is a societal good, at least in my world, so I've covered that part of your moronic little spiel. People should be encouraged to volunteer, so we've got that. Volunteering, like stay at home moms, is currently unpaid so I think that is exactly parallel like you need.

Let me know if I need to come up with another example to meet your analogy requirements, or does this one seem to cover what should be a simple point, if you'd care to open your mind to it. I'm not even asking for you or anyone to agree, just come up with a rational argument rather than childish insults. A good discussion to this point, but I guess that it has a limited shelf-life like most.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It may not be a phoney program or scheme, but Harpers daycare plan certainly could lead be government ****ing away money. Is it a good idea but it honestly wastes money, instead of behind our backs?

Never what I said. And in fact I wouldn't say its a good idea at all.

I think its a better idea than the liberals based on my preferences, but truth is I'd rather have neither. There is absolutely no need for a national daycare program.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Never what I said. And in fact I wouldn't say its a good idea at all.

I think its a better idea than the liberals based on my preferences, but truth is I'd rather have neither. There is absolutely no need for a national daycare program.

I'm not saying you said that. I was just asking for clarification.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Photon,

Do you also believe that parents who choose to homeschool their children should be paid a teacher's wage by the government?

Maybe not a teachers wage, but I wouldn't object to a portion of the money normally allocated to the public school being given to some resource for home schooled kids. Again not necessarily a straight cheque to the parents but that money still follows the kid (just like public vs. seperate).

That's a bit different though because even home schooled kids still have to pass the same exams and such, so there's still public infrastructure that supports home schooled kids.

The government does all kinds of things to encourage public behaviour. I'd just like to see the government actually encouraging parents to raise their children or at least present it as an equal option to daycare.

[killer_carlson]

mark me down in support of giving people the $1200 and the ability to spend it how they see fit. I like the ability to make my own consumer choices and firmly believe that most individuals can make better decisions for their own lives than can the government 2500 km away.

$1200 isn't much, but I see some of the people in my office DYING to get to January to get that $400.00 from Ralph. I see young mother with 3 kids, you see her working her ass off just to pay for daycare expenses. This type of money might allow her to opportunity to stop working two jobs and spend more time with her kids or on a well earned break.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

$1200 isn't much, but I see some of the people in my office DYING to get to January to get that $400.00 from Ralph. I see young mother with 3 kids, you see her working her ass off just to pay for daycare expenses. This type of money might allow her to opportunity to stop working two jobs and spend more time with her kids or on a well earned break.

Using this mother as an example wouldn't the Liberal plab benefit her more? There seems to be some pretty strong concenses here that the CP plan benefits stay at home mothers, but from what you wrote, i gather she wants/needs to be working atleast 1 job and wants to keep her kids in daycares so she can do that. Considering that, wouldn't a system that puts much more money towards daycares and ensures that they are of a good standard benefit her family more then only $300 a month to send 3 kids to daycares which may be underfunded and of poor quality?

[Jagger]

Wow. Some of you are making me, as a so-called "Canadian Parent" feel just a little dirty for some reason.

Anyway, chalk me down for the Harper plan too. My wife has stayed at home with our two youngest and it was the best decision she has ever made. We are lucky however, in that she also has a home run photography business which made that decision possible. Without it, we could probably not have made that decision. Our eldest went to childcare and he did not have a good experience there, hence our decision to stay at home with our other two.
$1200 per child might not seem like much but you'd be surprised how that would help towards diapers, baby food, clothes etc. A national child care program on the other hand benefits us not one bit.

Rest assured for those mighterly concerned that I'm going to run out and squander these ill-gotten gains that we will be spending them appropriately for things like the previously mentioned diapers, baby food, clothes etc. Speaking of which I think that we contribute greatly to the Canadian economy and will continue to do so as our kids grow. We are not the burden that some of you seem to think.

Anyway, I don't have any more time for this as I've got to go change a stinky diaper. (There's a reality check for you!)

[transplant99]

There in no way anyone can convince me that any government know what's better for a child than that childs parents.

The PC plan is sound and workable. The Liberal plan looks like another boondoggle of which they are so famous for inventing.

Let the parents decide, and dont force anyone (via financial inequality), to send their kids to a government run daycare program.

Less government, more personal responsibility and accountability. Common sense.

Asking the Libs to fstart and und yet another program when they have shown repeatedly how ill-equipped and inadequate they are at doing such things just seems insane to me.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Using this mother as an example wouldn't the Liberal plab benefit her more?

Only if she can get into one of the spaces available.

For me, Martin's plan sounds like what Quebec has. They have provincially subsidized day care that costs, I think, $7 a day. It's absurdly low considering the going rate for daycare is more in the $30-35 a day rate, at least here in Ontario.

The problem is that there is only so many spots to go around. If you are lucky enough to be high on the list or know someone who can get you in, its great. But if not, you don't get any benefit. You pay the market rate and your tax dollars subsidize someone who gets the benefit by chance.

As well, the daycare workers are unionized provincially. They have taken job action in the past and it really screws the parents over.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Jagger

Wow. Some of you are making me, as a so-called "Canadian Parent" feel just a little dirty for some reason.

You should feel dirty. How dare you hold traditional values in this day and age!

Seriously though... That's one thing that's been troubling me over the past decade: the erosion of traditional family, religious and moral values in favour of a more liberal let-me-do-whatever-I-want society. I'm not against personal freedom by any stretch of the imagination but it's really irritating when your beliefs, based on traditional valudes, are dismissed out of hand because they aren't with the new liberalism.

Believe in staying at home to raise your kids? Believe in the traditional definition of marriage? Instanlty dismissed for being out of touch with modern values in today's society...

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Fotze's situation and the current policy debate insired this thread about the Liberals vs Conservatives reagarding a national child care policy.

Which approach do you prefer?

The Liberals who give money to the provinces to build a public child care system....

The Conservatives who want to give families $1200 per child per year plus $250M (over 5 years) in incentives to create new daycares....

Your thoughts?

I perfer the Conservative approach, personally I do not like the Public DayCares. They are way to big, to many kids my kids were always sick in those places. Small Day homes are much better and the funding per family can help allot of people.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Believe in staying at home to raise your kids? Believe in the traditional definition of marriage? Instanlty dismissed for being out of touch with modern values in today's society...

I see an important difference between your two examples....

Staying at home to raise your kids...is a choice that affects you and your family unit

Supporting 'traditional' marriage (by which I am inferring to mean active opposition to inclusion of same-sex marriages)....affects others and their families

It is like the whole agrument that "My right to extend my arm ends at your nose".
________
thai girl Cams

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by flambers

I perfer the Conservative approach, personally I do not like the Public DayCares. They are way to big, to many kids my kids were always sick in those places. Small Day homes are much better and the funding per family can help allot of people.

Just curious

Do small day homes have to meet any regulations? Or can anyone set one up?
________
Web Shows

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Lurch

All right, bring out the insults, moron. Is it your contention that every analogy needs to fit the situation in every respect? I'll take the time to lay out an analogy that fits your oh so exacting specifics, clown.

Suppose I spend my time volunteering at an upaid job. My opportunity cost is that I could have spent the time working - should the government compensate me for my altruism? Volunteering is a societal good, at least in my world, so I've covered that part of your moronic little spiel.

I didn't call YOU stupid...I called your analogy stupid, which it was. You compared the decision to be a stay-at-home parent with the decision to remain uneducated. Raising a child properly is apparently the kind of behaviour we want to motivate. Choosing to leave high school and work as as a Wal-Mart greeter is not.

Now, this time you've come up with a better one...but it still doesn't match. Governments offer no financial incentives to work at a regular job...they offer disincentives, by taxing the hell out of you. They'd probably prefer that you worked a regular job so you could contribute to the tax base, but obviously they don't need to motivate that behaviour since the private exchange of money is supposed to. So, in short, why would a government want to promote "volunteerism" by throwing money at volunteers? (...and as for the boldfaced statement above...look up the word "altruism" before you ask to be compensated for it)

Of course, this raises an interesting point--is the Liberals' daycare agenda motivated by the desire to ensure our children are raised well, or to do everything possible to increase the tax base? I think it's the latter, which can only lead to ever-increased spending, and a BIG government that's ever more difficult to shrink back down to a reasonable size.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Just curious

Do small day homes have to meet any regulations? Or can anyone set one up?

Not sure on the regulations, the big difference in my mind was 30 - 100 Kids at a Public Day Care vs 3 - 6 at a day home.