CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28724
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:12 pm
 


Title: Conservatives defend child-care benefits in wake of PBO report
Category: Political
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2015-03-31 17:11:18
Canadian


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:12 pm
 


Quote:
A new report by Canada's parliamentary budget officer shows more than half of the money Ottawa intends to put toward child care this year will go to families with little or no child-care expenses.



What a bunch of idiots.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14114
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:36 pm
 


Quote:
The PBO says the two programs combined cover roughly 67 per cent of what families with young children spend on childcare. Conversely, it finds families with older children stand to receive nearly eight times the amount they spend on caring for their offspring.


I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over six equate to receiving up to 8 times as much as they spend on caring for their offspring?

This is also the fun part of universal social programs.

But just as a comparison, the implementation of bilingualism has so far cost Canadians about $1.7 trillion dollars for what essentially amounts to zero benefit to Canada. But putting more money back into the pockets of people raising kids, now that's just a horrible thing. Who cares if they don't have to worry about actual child care anymore? I mean kids are super cheap to raise once you factor out the cost of child care. :roll:


You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't need it, but to families who will have little to no child care expenses. While it might seem like semantics to you, there is a distinct difference.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:56 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over six equate to receiving up to 8 times as much as they spend on caring for their offspring?

This is also the fun part of universal social programs.

But just as a comparison, the implementation of bilingualism has so far cost Canadians about $1.7 trillion dollars for what essentially amounts to zero benefit to Canada. But putting more money back into the pockets of people raising kids, now that's just a horrible thing. Who cares if they don't have to worry about actual child care anymore? I mean kids are super cheap to raise once you factor out the cost of child care. :roll:


You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't need it, but to families who will have little to no child care expenses. While it might seem like semantics to you, there is a distinct difference.


Zero benefit? I don't know about that. Considering how close the sovereignty vote was a few years back, you could easily argue that failure to institute official bilingualism would have resulted in the break-up of Canada.

Other than that, I agree with your post though. If this was a spin by the PBO, that's pretty poor. They are supposed to be independent.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:09 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over six equate to receiving up to 8 times as much as they spend on caring for their offspring?

This is also the fun part of universal social programs.

But just as a comparison, the implementation of bilingualism has so far cost Canadians about $1.7 trillion dollars for what essentially amounts to zero benefit to Canada. But putting more money back into the pockets of people raising kids, now that's just a horrible thing. Who cares if they don't have to worry about actual child care anymore? I mean kids are super cheap to raise once you factor out the cost of child care. :roll:


You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't need it, but to families who will have little to no child care expenses. While it might seem like semantics to you, there is a distinct difference.



Quote:
The PBO includes in the latter figure families with children over the age of 13 as well as families with a stay-at-home parent or some other form of unpaid childcare.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14114
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:48 am
 


andyt wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over six equate to receiving up to 8 times as much as they spend on caring for their offspring?

This is also the fun part of universal social programs.

But just as a comparison, the implementation of bilingualism has so far cost Canadians about $1.7 trillion dollars for what essentially amounts to zero benefit to Canada. But putting more money back into the pockets of people raising kids, now that's just a horrible thing. Who cares if they don't have to worry about actual child care anymore? I mean kids are super cheap to raise once you factor out the cost of child care. :roll:


You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't need it, but to families who will have little to no child care expenses. While it might seem like semantics to you, there is a distinct difference.



Quote:
The PBO includes in the latter figure families with children over the age of 13 as well as families with a stay-at-home parent or some other form of unpaid childcare.

Oh, well then. I guess once kids reach 13 they're cost-free.
Once again, I see no problem with putting more money back into the pockets of those who are still raising kids.

The fact you consider this to be an issue is hilarious considering your love affair with Norwegian socialism. Universality is socialism.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:53 am
 


Bring in a proper childcare program, like Norway's, I'm all for that. But with parents struggling to afford childcare, don't subsidized the ones that don't need it.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33137
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:40 am
 


I guess the irony that child care benefits have risen to 4 times the annual budget under a "Conservative" government is lost on many.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:41 am
 


4 x annual budget?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33137
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:50 am
 


From "The National" last night, the budget went from $680 million in 2004 to 7 billion in 2014. It went from $2 billion in 2009 to $7B today under Harper.

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11964
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:53 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.


And by "they" you mean the Liberals. 8)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:58 am
 


2Cdo wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.


And by "they" you mean the Liberals. 8)


Yep, the Reformacons can't be bothered with such trivial matters. Fuck the poor, as long as less taxes for the well off. Afflict the afflicted, comfort the comfortable.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11964
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:03 am
 


andyt wrote:
2Cdo wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.


And by "they" you mean the Liberals. 8)


Yep, the Reformacons can't be bothered with such trivial matters. Fuck the poor, as long as less taxes for the well off. Afflict the afflicted, comfort the comfortable.


:roll:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33137
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:16 am
 


2Cdo wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.


And by "they" you mean the Liberals. 8)


No, I mean the 'Government'. The motion in Parliament at the time was unanimous, so they can all be held accountable. ;)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10717
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:39 am
 


andyt wrote:

Yep, the Reformacons can't be bothered with such trivial matters. Fuck the poor, as long as less taxes for the well off. Afflict the afflicted, comfort the comfortable.


Fuckin' right.

Now get me that double-double.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.