 Conservatives defend child-care benefits in wake of PBO report 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.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
What a bunch of idiots.
I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over 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.
You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't 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.
I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over 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.
You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't 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.
I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over 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.
You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't 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.
I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over 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.
You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't 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.
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 socialism.
And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
And by "they" you mean the Liberals.
And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
And by "they" you mean the Liberals.
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.
And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
And by "they" you mean the Liberals.
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.
And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
And by "they" you mean the Liberals.
No, I mean the 'Government'. The motion in Parliament at the time was unanimous, so they can all be held accountable.
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.